Q&A: A Man Shall Not Wear
A Man Shall Not Wear
Question
According to the Sages, a man who plucks out or dyes whitening hairs violates the prohibition of “a man shall not wear”; likewise, a man who shaves pubic hair or underarm hair.
The prohibition of “a man shall not wear” depends on time and place, as written in the Tur.
Can one say that nowadays there is no prohibition?
And can one say that if the local practice is to dye, then it is also permitted to pluck out hairs as well (even though there is no local practice of plucking)?
Answer
One can,
but how did you jump from dyeing to plucking? Maybe it would also be permitted to eat pork or to observe the Sabbath on Thursday?
Discussion on Answer
What was prohibited is whatever constitutes women’s practice. What is all this hair-splitting for?
The question is whether the prohibition relates to the result, concealing the white hair, or whether the prohibition relates to the act of removal.
If it relates to the result, then once it was permitted to conceal it by dyeing, it would also be permitted by plucking.
If it relates to the act, then it’s possible that dyeing was permitted but removal was not.
No?
There’s nothing to hair-split about here. What they prohibited is what women do. If women pluck, then it’s forbidden.
Very simple.
In the time of the Sages, the only ones who cared about white hairs were women; men didn’t make an issue of it. Therefore dyeing or plucking was considered feminine behavior.
Nowadays men also care about it, and the proof is that they dye their hair. If white hairs also bother men, then plucking should be permitted too.
What’s more: today plucking is not customary among either women or men, because there are better options; there are effective and inexpensive ways to dye hair. The few who do pluck are not specifically women, but are divided between both sexes. So plucking is not a feminine matter.
What do you think?