‫הצובעו‬

‫‪DYEING‬‬
‫אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת הזורע‪,‬‬
‫והחורש‪ ,‬והקוצר‪ ,‬והמעמר‪ ,‬והדש‪ ,‬והזורה‪,‬‬
‫הבורר‪ ,‬הטוחן‪ ,‬והמרקד‪ ,‬והלש‪ ,‬והאופה‪,‬‬
‫הגוזז את הצמר‪ ,‬המלבנו‪ ,‬והמנפצו‪,‬‬
‫והצובעו‪ ,‬והטווה‪ ,‬והמיסך‪ ,‬והעושה שתי בתי‬
‫נירין‪ ,‬והאורג שני חוטין‪ ,‬והפוצע שני חוטין‪,‬‬
‫הקושר‪ ,‬והמתיר‪ ,‬והתופר שתי תפירות‪,‬‬
‫הקורע על מנת לתפור [שתי תפירות]‪ ,‬הצד‬
‫צבי‪ ,‬השוחטו‪ ,‬והמפשיטו‪ ,‬המולחו‪ ,‬והמעבד‬
‫את עורו‪ ,‬והממחקו‪ ,‬והמחתכו‪ ,‬הכותב‬
‫שתי אותיות‪ ,‬והמוחק על מנת לכתוב שתי‬
‫אותיות‪ ,‬הבונה‪ ,‬והסותר‪ ,‬המכבה‪ ,‬והמבעיר‪,‬‬
‫המכה בפטיש‪ ,‬המוציא מרשות לרשות‪ ,‬הרי‬
‫אלו אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
 ‫הצובעו‬

‫הצובעו‬

Dyeing in the Mishkan

Once dye had been produced by cooking herbs, and wool had been cleaned and combed, the
wool was ready for dyeing. This wool would then be used to make the curtains of the Mishkan.

2
THE AV MELACHAH

‫ משנה‬,‫ (רמב"ם‬.‫ּצֹוב ַע חּוט ֶש ָׁא ְרּכֹו ַא ְר ָּב ָעה ְט ָפ ִחים אֹו ָ ּד ָבר ֶש ֶׁא ְפ ָשׁר לִ ְטוֹות ִמ ּ ֶמּנּו חּוט ָּכזֶ ה ַח ָ ּיב‬
ֵ ‫ַה‬
)‫ י"ג‬,'‫ הלכות שבת ט‬,‫תורה‬
One who dyes a thread four handbreadths in length, or something from which it is possible to spin such a thread, is
liable. (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Shabbos 9:13)

THE TOLADAH

‫ ְּכגֹון ֶש ָּׁנ ַתן ַקנְ ַקנְ ּתֹום לְ תֹוְך ֵמי ַע ּ ְפ ָצא‬.‫יצד‬ ַ ‫ ֵּכ‬.‫צֹוב ַע וְ ַח ָ ּיב‬
ֵ ‫עֹושׂה ֵעין ַה ֶ ּצ ַבע ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה ּתֹולֶ ֶדת‬
ֶ ‫ָה‬
‫ּיֹוצא‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵכן ָּכל ַּכ‬.‫יס ִטיס לְ תֹוְך ֵמי ַּכ ְר ֹּכם ֶש ַּׁנ ֲע ָשׂה ַהּכל יָ רֹק‬ ְ ‫ אֹו ֶש ָּׁנ ַתן ִא‬.‫ֶש ַּׁנ ֲע ָשׂה ַהּכל ָשׁחֹור‬
)‫ הלכה י"ד‬,‫ (שם‬.‫ וְ ַכ ּ ָמה ִשׁעּורֹו ְּכ ֵדי לִ ְצ ֹּב ַע ּבֹו חּוט ֶש ָׁא ְרּכֹו ַא ְר ָּב ָעה ְט ָפ ִחים‬.‫ָּבזֶ ה‬
One who creates a dye — this is a derivative of dyeing, and he is liable. How [does one transgress this
prohibition]? For example, if one mixed gallnut juice into vitriol until the entire mixture turned black,
or mixed isatis into saffron water until the entire mixture turned green, or anything similar. And what
is the minimum measure [for which one is liable]? [An amount of dye large] enough to dye a thread four
handbreadths long. (Ibid. 9:14)

THE ISSURIM D’RABBANAN

‫ ֲא ָבל ֶצ ַבע ֶש ֵׁאינֹו ִמ ְת ַק ֵ ּים ְּכלָ ל‬.‫ּצֹוב ַע ַח ָ ּיב ַעד ֶש ְ ּׁי ֵהא ֶצ ַבע ַה ּ ִמ ְת ַק ֵ ּים‬
ֵ ‫וְ ֵאין ַה‬
‫ ֶש ֲׁה ֵרי‬.‫ּוצ ָבעֹו ּ ָפטּור‬ ְ ‫חשׁת‬ֶ ְ‫ְּכגֹון ֶש ֶׁה ֱע ִביר ָס ָרק אֹו ָש ַׁשׁר ַעל ַ ּג ֵּבי ַּב ְרזֶ ל אֹו נ‬
‫אכּתֹו ִמ ְת ַק ֶ ּי ֶמת‬
ְ ַ‫ וְ ָכל ֶש ֵׁאין ְמל‬.‫צֹוב ַע ְּכלּום‬ ֵ ‫ַא ָּתה ַמ ֲע ִבירֹו לִ ְש ָׁעתֹו וְ ֵאינֹו‬
)‫ הלכה י"ג‬,‫ (שם‬.‫ְּב ַש ָּׁבת ּ ָפטּור‬
A person is not liable unless the dye is permanent. But a dye which is not permanent at
all — such as if one applied red clay or vermilion to iron or brass and colored it — he is
not liable. For it can be removed immediately and it does not dye at all. And whenever
a person performs a melachah that does not have a permanent effect on Shabbos, he
is not liable. (Ibid. 9:13)

‫יה ִמ ּ ְפנֵ י‬
ָ ֶ‫יכְך ָאסּור לְ ִא ּ ָשׁה לְ ַה ֲע ִביר ְס ָרק ַעל ּ ָפנ‬
ָ ‫ּצֹוב ַע ֵמ ֲאבֹות ְמלָ אכֹות לְ ִפ‬
ֵ ‫ַה‬
)‫ כ"ג‬,‫ כ"ב‬,‫ (שם‬.‫צֹוב ַעת‬ ַ ‫ֶש ִׁהיא ְּכ‬
Dyeing is a primary melachah; therefore, it is forbidden for a woman to apply rouge to
her face because it resembles dyeing. (Ibid. 22:23)

3

The melachah of dyeing was needed to colour the
curtains of the Mishkan. Indeed, all of the first
eleven melachos (sowing to cooking) were all part
of the process of producing the dyes.The Gemara
(Shabbos 74b) explains why the eleventh melachah is
called baking when it actually refers to cooking the
herbs to produce dye. (See the melachah of cooking.)
SOURCE 1.1
The Gemara (Shabbos 95a) says:
‫גמרא‬
‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫וְ ֵכן ָהיָ ה ַר ִּבי ִש ְׁמעֹון ֶּבן ֶאלְ ָעזָ ר‬
‫ ִא ּ ָשׁה ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ִביר‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ִ‫ִמּׁשּום ַר ִּבי ֱאל‬
.‫ּׁצֹוב ַעת‬
ַ ‫יה ִמ ּ ְפנֵ י ֶש‬ָ ֶ‫ְס ָרק ַעל ּ ָפנ‬
And so would Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar say in
the name of Rabbi Eliezer: a woman shall not
apply rouge to her face because [by doing so,]
she is dyeing.
SOURCE 1.2
The Rambam (22:23) rules:
‫רמב"ם‬
‫יכְך ָאסּור‬ ָ ‫ּצֹוב ַע ֵמ ֲאבֹות ְמ ָלאכֹות לְ ִפ‬ֵ ‫ַה‬
‫יה ִמ ּ ְפנֵ י‬
ָ ֶ‫לְ ִא ּ ָשׁה לְ ַה ֲע ִביר ְס ָרק ַעל ּ ָפנ‬
.‫צֹוב ַעת‬
ַ ‫ֶש ִׁהיא ְּכ‬
Dyeing is a primary melachah; therefore, it is
forbidden for a woman to apply rouge to her
face because it resembles dyeing.
From this statement of the Rambam, we see that it is
forbidden on a Rabbinic level for a woman to apply
rouge on Shabbos and not a Torah prohibition. The
Chayei Adam (klal 24, Nishmas Adam) explains that
this is because the dye in this case lacks permanency.
4
‫הצובעו‬
SOURCE 1.3
As the Rambam (9:13) rules:
‫רמב"ם‬
‫ ֲא ָבל‬.‫ּצֹוב ַע ַח ָ ּיב ַעד ֶש ְ ּׁי ֵהא ֶצ ַבע ַה ּ ִמ ְת ַק ֵ ּים‬
ֵ ‫וְ ֵאין ַה‬
‫ֶצ ַבע ֶש ֵׁאינֹו ִמ ְת ַק ֵ ּים ְּכלָ ל ְּכגֹון ֶש ֶׁה ֱע ִביר ָס ָרק אֹו‬
‫ ֶש ֲׁה ֵרי‬.‫ּוצ ָבעֹו ּ ָפטּור‬ְ ‫חשׁת‬ֶ ְ‫ָש ַׁשׁר ַעל ַ ּג ֵּבי ַּב ְרזֶ ל אֹו נ‬
.‫צֹוב ַע ְּכלּום‬ֵ ‫ַא ָּתה ַמ ֲע ִבירֹו לִ ְש ָׁעתֹו וְ ֵאינֹו‬
‫הצובעו‬
A person is not liable unless the dye is permanent. But a dye
which is not permanent at all — such as if one applied red
clay or vermilion to iron or brass and colored it — he is not
liable. For it can be removed immediately and it does not dye
at all.
The Chayei Adam (ibid.) questions this ruling, based on the
following Gemara (Shabbos 75a-b).
SOURCE 1.4
‫גמרא‬
‫ׁשֹוחט ִמּׁשּום ַמאי ַח ָ ּייב ַרב ָא ַמר ִמּׁשּום‬ ֵ .‫ּׁשֹוחטֹו‬
ֲ ‫וְ ַה‬
‫ׁמּואל ָא ַמר ִמּׁשּום נְ ִטילַ ת נְ ָש ָׁמה ִמּׁשּום‬ ֵ ‫ּוש‬ ְ ‫צֹוב ַע‬ ֵ
‫ימא ַאף‬ ָ ‫צֹוב ַע ִאין ִמּׁשּום נְ ִטילַ ת נְ ָש ָׁמה לָ א ֵא‬ ֵ
‫ימא ַּבּה‬ ָ ‫יל ָתא ַ ּד ֲא ַמ ִרי ֵא‬ ְּ ‫צֹוב ַע ָא ַמר ַרב ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ִמּׁשּום‬
‫צֹוב ַע‬
ֵ ‫יחכּו ֲעלַ י‬ ֲ ִ‫יל ָתא ְ ּדלָ א לֵ יתּו ָ ּד ֵרי ָּב ְת ָר ֵאי וְ ל‬ ְּ ‫ִמ‬
‫יטה‬ָ ‫ית ַוּוס ֵּבית ַה ּ ְש ִׁח‬ ַּ ִ‫יחא ְ ּדל‬ ָ ִ‫יחא לֵ יּה נ‬ ָ ִ‫ְּב ַמאי נ‬
.‫יחזּוּה ִאינָ ֵשׁי וְ לֵ יתּו לִ יזְ ְּבנּו ִמ ֵּיניּה‬ ְ ִ‫יכי ְ ּדל‬
ִ ‫ְ ּד ָמא ִּכי ֵה‬
And one who slaughters it. One who slaughters [an
animal on Shabbos], on account of what is he liable? Rav
said: on account of dyeing. And Shmuel said: on account
of taking a life. [Could it be, according to the first opinion,
that] for dyeing [he] is liable, [while] for taking a life [he]
isn’t? [Rather, amend this to] say also on account of dyeing.
Rav said: Regarding my statement, I will say something [in
explanation] so that future generations will not mock me.
Why is it desirable for him for [the slaughtering process] to
leave dye? He desires for the slaughtering place to be covered
in blood, so that people see and come to buy from him.
Rav and Shmuel argue as to which melachah one
is liable for when slaughtering an animal. Shmuel
holds it is the melachah of netilas neshamah, taking
a life, and Rav says it is also the melachah of dyeing.
Rav explains that butchers are happy when the neck
area of the animal has a reddish color, as the meat
looks more fresh and people are attracted to buy it.
The Chayei Adam asks that based on the opinion
of Rav — that one is liable for dyeing the neck area
of the animal — we see that one can be liable even
for a dye that is not permanent. The Chayei Adam
is compelled to answer that the Rambam rules like
Shmuel that one is not liable for dyeing, but only for
killing the animal.
SOURCE 1.5
The Smag (Negative Mitzvah 65) discusses the
melachah of dyeing.
‫ספר מצוות גדול‬
‫ּצֹוב ַע ַמ ּ ְס ִקינַ ן ְּב ֶפ ֶרק ְּכלָ ל ָ ּגדֹול‬
ֵ ‫ַה‬
ּ
‫ׁשֹוחט ַח ָיב‬ֵ ‫(ש ָּׁבת ַ ּדף ע"ה) לְ ַרב ְ ּד‬
‫צֹוב ַע‬
ֵ ‫ּומּׁשּום‬ ִ ‫ילת נְ ָש ָׁמה‬ ַ ‫ִמּׁשּום נְ ִט‬
‫ִּכ ְד ָא ְמ ִרי' ָה ָתם ֶש ְׁרצֹונֹו ֶש ְ ּׁי ֵהא נִ ְצ ַּבע‬
‫יטה … וְ גָ ְר ִסינַ ן נָ ֵמי ְּב ֶפ ֶרק‬ ָ ‫ֵּבית ַה ּ ְש ִׁח‬
‫יע ִא ּ ָשׁה ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ִביר ְס ָרק ַעל‬ ַ ִ‫ַה ּ ַמ ְצנ‬
‫ּׁצֹוב ַעת ְּבכֹל ֵא ֶּלה ל ֹא‬ ַ ‫יה ִמ ּ ְפנֵ י ֶש‬ ָ ֶ‫ּ ָפנ‬
ָ ‫ָמ ִצינּו ִחּיּוב ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֶש ָׁא ָדם ָח ֵפץ ְּב‬
‫אֹותּה‬
.‫יעה‬ ָ ‫ְצ ִב‬
With regard to [the melachah of] dyeing, we
conclude, in perek Klal Gadol (Shabbos 75)
that in Rav’s opinion, one who slaughters
[an animal] is liable on account of [the
melachah of] taking a life and on account
of [the melachah of] dyeing, as we say there
that it is [the butcher’s] wish that the area
of slaughter be dyed … and we also learn in
perek HaMatznia that a woman shall not
apply rouge to her face because [by doing so,]
she is dyeing — in all of these [cases], we have
only found liability when a person desires the
dyeing.
The Beis Yosef (siman 303) understands that
according to the Smag, one is liable for a dyeing
that is not permanent. He deduces this from his
concluding words that ‫ְ ּבכֹל ֵא ֶּלה ל ֹא ָמ ִצינּו ִחּיּוב ֶא ָּלא‬
‫יעה‬ ָ ‫ ְּכ ֶש ָׁא ָדם ָח ֵפץ ְּב‬, “In all of these [cases], we
ָ ‫אֹותּה ְצ ִב‬
have only found liability when a person desires
the dyeing”, which indicate that if someone wants the dyeing
process to take place, they will be liable.
The Chayei Adam explains that this is based on the opinion of Rav
that when slaughtering an animal, one is liable for dyeing its neck
area.
What is not clear from the Rambam is how long a dye must last in
order to be considered permanent.
The Mishnah Berurah (Shaar HaTziyun 303:68) writes that as long
as the dye lasts for longer than a Shabbos, one is liable, as this is
considered permanent.
SOURCE 2
The Minchas Chinuch (Dyeing, number 3) holds that as long as the
dye lasts a significant amount of time one is liable. He therefore
questions why a woman who applies rouge is not liable, and he
has difficulty with the explanation of the Chayei Adam that the
reason is because it lacks permanency.
‫מנחת חינוך‬
ַ ‫ּומ ָּכל ָמקֹום ַט ְע ָמא ָּב ֵעי ַא ּ ַמאי ֵאינֹו ַח ָ ּיב ִמּׁשּום‬ ִ
‫לֹומר ְ ּד ָהוֵ י לֵ יּה ֶצ ַבע ֶש ֵׁאינֹו ְמ ַק ֵ ּים ַעל ֵּכן‬ ַ ְ‫ ו‬,‫צֹוב ַע‬
ֵ
,‫ ָהא ְּבוַ ַ ּדאי ִמ ְת ַק ֵ ּים זְ ַמן ָמה ְ ּד ִמ ְת ַק ּ ֶש ֶׁטת ּבֹו‬,‫ּ ָפטּור‬
.‫וְ ִכי ָצ ִריְך ְּב ַש ָּׁבת ֶש ְ ּׁי ֵהא ִמ ְת ַק ֵ ּים לְ עֹולָ ם‬
And in any case, the reason we ask why [she is] not liable
on account of [the melachah of] dyeing, if we say that it is
a dye which does not last and therefore [she is] exempt — it
certainly lasts for a while, as she adorns herself with it, and
do we require with regards to Shabbos that it last forever?!
Rabbi M. M. Karp (Hilchos Shabbos B’Shabbos, note 1) has a novel
interpretation. He suggests that this is not dependent on time but
on the result. He explains that on the level of Torah prohibition,
the definition of dyeing requires that there is a permanent result.
If the color can be removed, leaving no trace, even if it will only be
removed in a very long time, the dye lacks permanency, and there
is no Torah prohibition. When a woman removes rouge, no trace
remains. Therefore, the prohibition is Rabbinic.
SOURCE 3.1
The Beis Yosef (siman 320) cites the opinion of the Shibbolei
HaLeket (siman 86).
5

‫בית יוסף‬
‫ָּכ ַתב ְּב ִש ֳּׁב ֵלי ַה ֶּל ֶקט ָצ ִריְך ִעּיּון ַעל‬
‫ַה ַּכ ְר ֹּכם ִאם יֵ ׁש ָלחּוׁש ָע ָליו ִמּׁשּום‬
‫צֹוב ַע ּולְ ִפי ִ ּד ְב ֵרי ַּב ַעל ַה ְ ּי ֵר ִאים ְ ּד ָא ַמר‬ ֵ
‫אֹוכלִ ים ֻמ ָּתר וְ זֶ ה‬ ְ ‫יעה ְּב‬ ָ ‫ֵאין ֶ ּד ֶרְך ְצ ִב‬
‫לְ ׁשֹון ַּב ַעל ַה ְ ּי ֵר ִאים ָראּוי לְ ָכל ַּבר‬
‫ּתּותים אֹו ְש ָׁאר ּ ֵפרֹות‬ ִ ‫ׁאֹוכל‬ֵ ‫יִ ְש ָׂר ֵאל ֶש‬
ׁ ֶ ‫ּצֹוב ִעים ֶש ִ ּׁיזָ ֵּהר‬
‫ש ּל ֹא יִ ַ ּגע ְּביָ ָדיו‬ ְ ‫ַה‬
‫ְצבּועֹות ִּב ְבגָ ָדיו אֹו ְּב ַמ ּ ָפה ְ ּד ָהוֵ י ֵליּה‬
‫צֹוב ַע וְ ִאם ֵּכן יָ ָצא ָ ּדם ִמן‬ ֵ ‫ּתֹול ֶדת‬
ֶ
‫ַה ּ ַמ ָּכה ָאסּור ָל ֵתת ָע ָליו ֶּבגֶ ד ֲא ָבל ִאם‬
‫צֹוב ַע ּ ִפּתֹו ְּב ַמ ְש ֶׁקה ֵּפרֹות לֵ ית ַלן ַּבּה‬
.‫אֹוכלִ ין‬ְ ‫יעה ְּב‬ ָ ‫ְ ּד ֵאין זֶ ה ְצ ִב‬
The Shibbolei HaLeket wrote that further
consideration is required regarding saffron
— whether one must be concerned that it dyes.
And according to the words of the author of the
Yerei’im, who said that it is not the [common]
way to dye with foods, it is permitted. And this
is the phrasing of the author of the Yerei’im: It
is fitting for every Jew who eats strawberries
or other fruits which dye to be careful not to
touch, with his colored hands, his clothes or a
cloth, as it is a derivative of [the melachah of]
dyeing. And if so, if blood came out of a wound,
it is forbidden to cover it with a garment. But if
one colors his bread with fruit juice, we are not
concerned about it, because this is not dyeing
— with food.
The Shibbolei HaLeket discusses whether adding
a spice to a food may be forbidden on account of
dyeing, as it colors the food. He permits it, based
on the opinion of the Yerei’im that the melacha
of dyeing does not apply to foods. In quoting the
Yerei’im, he mentions the latter’s caution not to wipe
one’s hands or mouth, when they are colored (from
colorful food or blood, for example), on a garment,
as this colors the garment.
SOURCE 3.2
Based on this, the Shulchan Aruch (320:19) rules:
‫שלחן ערוך‬
‫לִ ֵּתן ַּכ ְר ֹּכם ְּב ַת ְב ִשׁיל ֻמ ָּתר וְ ֵאין ָלחּוׁש‬
.‫אֹוכלִ ים‬
ְ ‫יעה ְּב‬ ָ ‫צֹוב ַע ְ ּד ֵאין ְצ ִב‬
ֵ ‫לֹו ִמּׁשּום‬
‫הצובעו‬
adding saffron to a dish is permitted, and one does not have
to be concerned regarding dyeing, as dyeing does not apply
to foods.
SOURCE 3.3
The Mishnah Berurah (56) comments:
‫משנה ברורה‬ ‫הצובעו‬
ֵ ‫וְ ֵכן ֻמ ָּתר לִ ֵּתן יַ יִ ן ָאדֹם ְּבתֹוְך יַ יִ ן לָ ָבן וְ ַאף ַעל‬
‫ּ ִפי ֶש ּ ִׁמ ְת ַא ֵ ּדם (וַ ֲא ִפּלּו ִאם ְמ ַכ ֵוּן לְ ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה לַ ֲעׂשֹות‬
‫ַמ ְר ֶאה ְּב ַה ּ ַמ ֲא ָכל אֹו ְּב ַה ּ ַמ ְש ֶׁקה ַ ּגם ֵּכן ִמ ְס ַּת ְּב ָרא‬
‫ְ ּד ֵאין לְ ַה ְח ִמיר ֵּכן נִ ְר ֶאה ֵמ ַה ּ ְפ ִרי ְמגָ ִדים ּולְ ִפי ָמה‬
‫ּומ ָּכל ָמקֹום ֵאין‬ ִ )‫ֶש ָּׁכ ַתב בנ"א נָ כֹון לִ ְמנ ַֹע ִמזֶ ּה‬
ּ
‫ַר ּ ַשׁאי לַ ֲעׂשֹות ַמ ְר ֶאה ְּביַ יִ ן ָש ָׂרף ְּוד ַבׁש ֶש ִׁי ְקנּו ִמ ּ ֶמּנּו‬
.[‫]פ ִרי ְמגָ ִדים‬ ְּ
And so too, it is permitted to add red wine to white wine,
even though [the white wine] reddens. (And even if he
deliberately intends to create a [certain] appearance in the
food or the drink, it appears that nonetheless he does not
have to be stringent. So it appears from the [words of the]
Pri Megadim. [But] according to what he wrote in 51, it is
correct to refrain from this.) In any case, he is not permitted
to create a [certain] appearance with brandy and honey so
that others buy from him [Pri Megadim].
SOURCE 4.1
Based on the Yerei’im (quoted in Shibbolei HaLeket, source 3.1), the
Shulchan Aruch (320:20) writes:
‫שלחן ערוך‬
‫ּתּותים אֹו ְש ָׁאר ּ ֵפרֹות‬ ִ ‫אֹוכל‬ֵ ‫ׁאֹומר ֶש ָׁה‬ֵ ‫יֵ ׁש ִמי ֶש‬
‫ש ּל ֹא יִ ַ ּגע ְּביָ ָדיו ְצבּועֹות‬
ׁ ֶ ‫בּועי' ָצ ִריְך לִ זָ ֵּהר‬
ִ ‫ַה ְ ּצ‬
‫צֹוב ַע ּ ִפּתֹו‬
ֵ ‫צֹוב ַע ֲא ָבל ִאם‬ ֵ ‫ִּב ְבגָ ָדיו אֹו ְּב ַמ ּ ָפה ִמּׁשּום‬
.‫אֹוכלִ ין‬
ְ ‫יעה ְּב‬ ָ ‫ְּב ַמ ְש ֶׁקה ַה ּ ֵפרֹות לֵ ית לַ ן ַּבּה ְ ּד ֵאין ְצ ִב‬
There are those who say that one who eats strawberries or
other colorful fruits must be careful not to touch, with his
colored hands, his clothing or a cloth, on account of dyeing.
But if he colors his bread with the juice of the fruit, we are
not concerned about this, as dyeing does not apply to foods.
6
SOURCE 4.2
However, the Darchei Moshe (ibid.) cites the
opinion of the Sefer HaAgur (86) that one does not
need to be concerned about this, as we view it as
an act of dirtying a cloth, not dyeing it.
‫דרכי משה‬
‫ּוב ָאגּור ָּכ ַתב ְ ּד ֵאין ָלחּוׁש לִ ְד ָב ִרים ֵאּלּו‬
‫ְ ּד ָכל זֶ ה ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ֶ ּד ֶרְך לִ ְכלּוְך וְ ָש ֵׁרי‬
.‫צֹוב ַע‬
ֵ ‫וְ ָלא ֲהוָ ה ֵּבּה ִמּׁשּום‬
And in the Agur he wrote that one does not
need to be concerned about these things, as all
this is a way [i.e., an act] of dirtying, and it is
permitted, and it does not involve dyeing.
SOURCE 4.3
Based on the Darchei Moshe, the Mishnah Berurah
(59) writes:
‫משנה ברורה‬
‫וְ יֵ ׁש ְמ ִק ִּלין ְּב ָכל זֶ ה ֵּכיוָ ן ֶשׁהּוא ֶ ּד ֶרְך‬
‫יכא ְ ּד ִאי‬ָ ‫יהם ֵה‬ ֶ ‫לִ ְכלּוְך וְ יֵ ׁש לִ ְסמְֹך ֲע ֵל‬
.‫ֶא ְפ ָשׁר לֹו לִ זָ ֵּהר ָּבזֶ ה‬
And there are those who are lenient with all
this, since it is a manner of dirtying, and one
can rely upon them [in situations] where it is
not possible to be careful regarding this.
It is important to point out that the Shulchan Aruch
HaRav (siman 303, kuntres acharon) says that this
only applies to materials that one would usually dye
— for example, a towel or a cloth. Therefore, using a
paper napkin or a tissue to clean one’s mouth would
be permitted according to all opinions.
PRACTICAL QUESTION
Is one permitted to sunbathe on Shabbos?
Is one permitted to wear photochromic glasses
on Shabbos? These are designed to darken
when they are exposed to sunlight, and return
to being clear when in low light conditions.
How does skin tan?
Melanin is a natural pigment produced by cells
called melanocytes in a process called melanogenesis.
Melanocytes produce two types of melanin: pheomelanin
(red) and eumelanin (very dark brown). Melanin protects
the body by absorbing ultraviolet radiation. Excessive
UV radiation causes sunburn along with other direct and
indirect DNA damage to the skin, and the body naturally
ָ combats and seeks to repair the damage and protect the
skin by creating and releasing further melanin into the
skin’s cells. With the production of the melanin, the skin
color darkens. (Wikipedia)
How do photochromic lenses work?
In one sort of technology, molecules of silver chloride or
another silver halide are embedded in photochromatic
lenses. They are transparent to visible light without a
significant ultraviolet component, which is normal for
artificial lighting. In another sort of technology, organic
photochromic molecules, when exposed to ultraviolet (UV)
rays as in direct sunlight, undergo a chemical process
that causes them to change shape and absorb a significant
percentage of the visible light, i.e., they darken. These
processes are reversible; once the lens is removed from
strong sources of UV rays the photochromic compounds
return to their transparent state. (Wikipedia)
ESSENCE OF THE MELACHAH
What is the essence of the melachah of dyeing? In the Mishkan,
the classic dyeing process involved using a dye (produced from
herbs) and the wool or hair that had been shorn from an animal.
Which components are integral? Does the melachah require that a
dye be used, does something have to be dyed, or do we need both?
The Rambam (9:14) rules that making a dye is a derivative of the
melachah.
‫רמב"ם‬
.‫צֹוב ַע וְ ַח ָ ּיב‬
ֵ ‫עֹושׂה ֵעין ַה ֶ ּצ ַבע ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה ּתֹולֶ ֶדת‬
ֶ ‫ָה‬
One who creates a dye — this is a derivative of dyeing, and
he is liable.
7
 ‫הצובעו‬

The Ra’avad (in his glosses to the Rambam) using an external colorant is integral to the melachah of Dyeing
objects to this. or whether causing something to change color by any means is
forbidden.

‫ראב"ד‬
‫מחזה אליהו‬
‫ָא ַמר ַא ְב ָר ָהם ַק ְשׁיָ א לִ י ִּבּׁשּול ַס ּ ָמנִ ים‬
)‫(ש ָּׁבת ע"ד ע"ב‬ ַ ‫ְ ּדגָ ְמ ִרינַ ן ִמ ֵּנּה ְמ ַב ּ ֵשׁל‬ ‫ ִאם‬,‫צֹוב ַע‬
ֵ ‫אכת‬ ֶ ֶ‫יב ָרא ְ ּדלָ א ִא ְת ָּב ֵרר ְּב ֶה ְדיָ א ִּב ְמל‬ ְ ‫ִא‬
‫ וַ ֲאנִ י‬,‫צֹוב ַע ַה ּ ַמיִ ם‬
ֵ ‫ִּתּפֹוק לִ י נָ ֵמי ִמּׁשּום‬ ‫ וְ ַרק ְּבא ֶֹפן‬,‫ַ ּגם ְּבלִ י נְ ִתינַ ת ֶצ ַבע לְ ַה ָ ּד ָבר ַה ִּנ ְצ ָּבע‬
ֵ ‫יתי ָסבּור ֶש ִ ּׁי ְת ַח ֵ ּיב ִמּׁשּום‬
‫צֹוב ַע‬ ִ ִ‫ל ֹא ָהי‬ ‫ ִאם ַ ּגם זֶ ה‬,‫בּוע‬
ַ ‫ימי נִ ְש ַּׁת ָּנה ַה ָ ּד ָבר וְ נַ ֲע ָשׂה ָצ‬ ִ ‫ִּכ‬
‫אכת‬ ֶ ‫ַעד ֶש ִ ּׁי ְצ ַּבע ָ ּד ָבר ֶש ִּׁנגְ ְמ ָרה ּבֹו ְמ ֶל‬ .‫יעה אֹו ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫אכת ְצ ִב‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ּ ְמ ֶל‬
‫יעת ַמיִ ם ֶש ֵׁאינָ ּה לְ צ ֶֹרְך‬ ַ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְצ ִב‬,‫ַה ֶ ּצ ַבע‬ ‫הצובעו‬
‫ּוש ִׁר ַ ּית ְ ּדיֹו וְ ַס ּ ָמנִ ין ִמּׁשּום‬
ְ ,‫ַע ְצ ָמן ל ֹא‬ In truth, it is not perfectly clear [with regards] to the
,‫לָ ׁש ָּבאּו ָלּה וְ ל ֹא ִמּׁשּום ֶצ ַבע ַה ּ ַמיִ ם‬ melachah of dyeing whether even without adding dye to
‫ּוכ ֵעין ַמיִ ם וְ ֶק ַמח‬ ְ ‫ְּכמֹו ְש ִׁר ַ ּית ַה ַּכ ְר ִשׁינִ ין‬ the dyed item, when merely through a chemical process the
.‫אֹו ַמיִ ם וְ ָע ָפר‬ item changes and becomes colored — whether this is also
included in the melachah of dyeing or not.
Avraham [i.e., the Ra’avad] said: I have a
difficulty — from cooking herbs, from which
we learn [the melachah of] cooking (Shabbos
74b), we should also derive [the melachah of] The Mishnah Berurah (327:12) writes:
dyeing the water. And I was of the opinion that
one should not be liable on account of [the
melachah of] dyeing unless he dyes that which
he wants dyed, but [for dyeing] water, which is
‫משנה ברורה‬
not [done] for its own sake, [one should] not [be
liable]. And soaking ink and herbs is prohibited ‫ׁיחת ַה ּ ֶש ֶׁמן ְּכ ֵדי ֶש ִ ּׁי ְהיֶ ה‬
ַ ‫וְ ָכל ֶש ֵּׁכן ִאם ַּכ ָוּנָ תֹו ִּב ְמ ִש‬
on account of [the melachah of] kneading, not ‫ַה ּ ִמנְ ָעל ָשׁחֹר נִ ְר ֶאה ְ ּדיֵ ׁש ֶל ֱאסֹר לְ ֻכ ֵּלי ָעלְ ָמא ִמּׁשּום‬
on account of dyeing the water, like [the case .‫יעה‬
ָ ‫ֲח ַשׁׁש ְצ ִב‬
of] soaking lupines [a type of animal fodder],
and like water and flour or water and earth.
And all the more so if his intention in applying the oil is
that the shoe should be blackened, it seems this should be
forbidden according to all opinions because of a concern of
[the melachah of] dyeing.
The Chayei Adam (24) explains that the Rambam
and the Ra’avad in fact agree that when one makes
a dye to color a garment, he is not liable for dyeing,
as the purpose of the dye is to color the garment.
However, if one intended to merely color water, then
by making the dye one is already liable for dyeing. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach deduces from this statement of
the Mishnah Berurah that the melachah of Dyeing applies both
We see that the melachah of dyeing is not limited to applying a color to a shoe (e.g., black shoe polish) or applying a
to applying a dye to an external surface. Rather, shine to a shoe, something that merely enhances its latent color.
any manner of changing the color of something is
forbidden. Based on this, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (14:63) rules that
it is forbidden to apply clear nail polish or lipstick on Shabbos.
However, the melachah may still require the use Even though no new color is being added, one still enhances the
of an external colorant. In our questions, the items natural color.
(one’s skin or the lenses) change color as a result of
their exposure to the sun. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach also brings a proof from the
Shulchan Aruch (303:25) that even if no color is applied but a
This very question was asked by Rabbi Falk latent color is enhanced, it is still forbidden.
(Machazeh Eliyahu 65:24) when discussing
sunbathing and photochromic glasses — whether

8

‫שלחן ערוך‬
‫ָאסּור לְ ִא ּ ָשׁה ֶש ַּׁת ֲע ִביר ְּב ַש ָּׁבת ְס ָרק ַעל‬
‫סּורה‬
ָ ‫ּומ ַּט ַעם זֶ ה ֲא‬ִ ‫צֹוב ַע‬ ֵ ‫יה ִמּׁשּום‬
‫טּוח‬
ַ ‫סּורה ָל‬ָ ‫ּומ ַּט ַעם זֶ ה ֲא‬ ִ ‫לִ ְכחֹל ְּב ַש ָּׁבת‬
‫ּוכ ֶש ְּׁנ ַטלְ ּתֹו ַמ ֲא ִדים‬
ְ ‫יה ָּב ֵצק‬ ָ ֶ‫ַעל ּ ָפנ‬
.‫ַה ָּב ָשׂר‬
It is forbidden for a woman to apply rouge
to her face on Shabbos on account of [the
melachah of] dyeing. And for this reason she
is forbidden to paint her eyes on Shabbos; and
for this reason she is forbidden to plaster her
face with dough, and when she removes it the
flesh reddens.
What needs to be understood is why these actions
are considered dyeing. Is it because they cause a
change in the color of the item, or is it because, since
the clear polish or dough enhance the existing color,
they are considered an external colorant? If it is the
former, using photochromic lenses and sunbathing
may be forbidden.
The Shemiras Shabbos K’Hilchasah (18:8 ) permits
wearing photochromic glasses. In note 70, he
explains:
The Shemiras Shabbos K’Hilchasah seems to hold that for dyeing
to be applicable, no external colorant need actually be used.
However, since sitting or walking in the sun is not considered
actively doing a melachah, it is permitted. Furthermore, since
the coloring of the glasses lacks all permanency, wearing these
ָ ֶ‫ּ ָפנ‬
glasses is not forbidden.
The Orchos Shabbos (chap. 15, n. 96) questions why this is
considered as though no act of melachah is done. He therefore
explains the permissibility of such glasses differently.
‫ארחות שבת‬
‫וְ אּולַ י ִע ַּקר ַה ּ ְס ָב ָרא ְּבזֶ ה ִהיא ְ ּד ֵכיוָ ן ֶש ֶּׁט ַבע ַה ָ ּד ָבר‬
‫הּוא ֶשׁח ֶֹמר ְמ ֻס ָ ּים ְמ ַק ֵּבל ֶצ ַבע ׁשֹונֶ ה לְ ִפי ִשּׁנּויֵ י‬
‫ַה ּ ְמקֹומֹות לָ ֵכן ֵאין לִ ְראֹות ֶאת ִשּׁנּוי ַה ֶ ּצ ַבע ַהזֶ ּה‬
‫אכה ְּכלָ ל ֶא ָּלא זֶ ה הּוא ִס ְדרֹו וְ ִט ְבעֹו ֶשׁל‬ ָ ָ‫ִּכ ְמל‬
‫ּוב ָמקֹום‬ ְ ‫ַהח ֶֹמר ַהזֶ ּה ֶש ְּׁב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד הּוא ָשׁקּוף‬
‫ֶא ָחד הּוא ֵּכ ֶהה וְ לָ ֵכן ֹּכל ֶש ּ ְׁמ ַה ֵּלְך ְּכ ֶשׁהּוא לָ בּוׁש‬
‫אכה ְּכלָ ל‬ ָ ָ‫ַּב ּ ִמ ְש ָׁק ַפיִ ם ָה ֵא ֶּלה ֵאין זֶ ה ְּבגֶ ֶדר ְמל‬
...‫ַּכ ֲא ֶשׁר ִצ ְב ָעם ִמ ְש ַּׁת ֶּנה‬
And perhaps the heart of the explanation is that since nature
dictates that a certain substance acquires a different color
based on its changing location, therefore, we should not
view this change of color as a melachah at all. Rather, this is
the order and nature of this substance — that in one place it
is transparent and in another place it is dark. And therefore,
anyone who walks while wearing these glasses — it is not in
the category of a melachah at all when their color changes …

‫שמירת שבת כהלכתה‬

‫יעה ִמ ֵּכיוָ ן‬ָ ‫ֵאין ְּבזֶ ה ִמּׁשּום ִאּסּור ְצ ִב‬ The Orchos Shabbos is also of the opinion that no external colorant
‫צֹוב ַע וַ ֲהוָ ה ֻ ּד ְמיָ א‬
ֵ ‫ֶש ָׁה ָא ָדם ַע ְצמֹו ֵאינֹו‬ needs to be used in order to commit the melachah of dyeing. The
‫ּומ ְש ַּׁתזֵ ּף‬
ִ ‫ּׁיֹושׁב ְּב ֶש ֶׁמׁש ַה ּ ָש ָׁעה‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּד ָא ָדם ֶש‬ Orchos Shabbos nonetheless permits these glasses based on the
‫… וְ גַ ם ֵאין ַל ֶ ּצ ַבע ַהזֶ ּה ֹּכל ִקּיּום ִמ ֵּכיוָ ן‬ understanding that the sun does not add a new color to the glasses;
‫ֶש ּ ִׁמ ָ ּיד ְּכ ֶש ִּׁנ ְכנַ ס ָה ָא ָדם לְ ֵצל ַה ֶ ּצ ַבע חֹוזֵ ר‬ rather, they has been designed to have a dark color in the sun and
‫לִ ְכמֹו ֶש ָׁהיָ ה ַּב ְּת ִח ָּלה וַ ֲהוָ ה ְּכ ָעׂשּוי לִ נְ עֹל‬ a light color in the shade, so moving from one place to another
...‫ת ַח ָּת ִמיד‬
ֹ ּ ‫וְ לִ ְפ‬ is not considered dyeing. This seems to apply to the first type of
glasses mentioned above.

This does not involve the prohibition of dyeing,

However, the Davar Meshulam holds that the melachah of dyeing
since the person himself does not [actively] dye
only applies if a color is added, not if something happens to the
[the glasses], and it is similar to one who sits
material that causes it to change color.
in the sun for a while and tans … and also, this
color has no permanency, since as soon as the
The sefer Davar Meshulam (by Rabbi Meshulami) states (328:5):
person goes into the shade, the color returns to
its original state, and it is like [a door,] which
is made to be closed and opened constantly ‫דבר משולם‬
[and therefore is not subject to the melachah
of building, since it is not permanent like a
wall]. ‫יעה ַרק ַעל‬
ָ ‫נִ ְר ֶאה ְ ּד ֵאין ִאּסּור ְּב ִשּׁזּוף … ְ ּד ֵאין ְצ ִב‬
.‫ּׁצֹוב ַע ּבֹו‬
ֵ ‫יְ ֵדי ָ ּד ָבר ַא ֵחר ֶש‬

9
 ‫הצובעו‬

It seems that there is no prohibition [involved]

in sunbathing … for dyeing only applies when
another item is used as a dye.

PRACTICAL CONCLUSION
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, O.C. 3:45)
writes that he sees no reason for photochromic ‫הצובעו‬
lenses to be forbidden, as they continuously
change color and this cannot be considered
dyeing.

The Shemiras Shabbos K’Hilchasah (above)

cites Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s ruling
permitting them.

Regarding sunbathing, the Minchas Yitzchak

(5.32.2) rules stringently on account of dyeing.
However, the Shemiras Shabbos K’Hilchasah
(14:44) writes that one is permitted to sit in the
sun even if his skin will tan.

Rabbi Harfenas (Nishmas HaShabbos 5:215)

brings many reasons for why it is permitted,
including that it is natural coloring, it doesn’t
change the existing color but merely adds
a brown tinge, it is not a physical dye, the
coloring fades after a few days, it happens
while the person is passive, and a number of
other reasons.

10