Laws of Tattooing

Greetings,

Although it is absolutely forbidden to make a tattoo on one’s flesh (see Leviticus 19:28 and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, siman 180), nevertheless, one who already made a tattoo is not required to remove it from his flesh. Even so, it is good and proper for one who is able to remove the tattoo from his flesh, so that it should not remain upon him as a reminder of sin.

Sources: See Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 32, in Miluim to the laws of erasing, letter 4), who wrote that having a tattoo on one’s flesh is not proper for a Jew. See there. It follows that there is no prohibition at every moment that the tattoo is on one’s flesh, and that nevertheless it is proper to remove it. Likewise, see Responsa LeHoreh Natan, part 8 (siman 72), which concluded that if one already made a tattoo, there is no prohibition in keeping it and no obligation to erase it. Even so, if one wishes to remove it from his flesh, he may do so, and there is no concern of wounding himself if he does not feel pain in the flesh. And if he does it in a manner of pain in order to atone for the sin of making a tattoo, that too is permitted. See further in Responsa Rivvot Ephraim, part 8 (siman 306), who also wrote that it seems the prohibition of tattooing is only the prohibition to make a tattoo, but if it has already been made there is no prohibition in keeping it. However, it is better that he remove it, because it looks ridiculous, and they will say that he committed a transgression and was put under anesthesia and removed it and did not feel the pain and was not wounding himself. He then raised the possibility that perhaps there is a rabbinic prohibition if it is on his body, though he did not bring any support for this.

Also, the Gaon Rabbi Yitzchak Zilberstein, may he live long, in the book Chashukei Chemed (Pesachim, page 427), was asked about a Jew who returned in repentance and was unsure whether he must remove the tattoo and whether he must undergo surgery for this purpose, since even if he undergoes surgery he will not thereby retroactively uproot the prohibition, and what has been done cannot be undone. Therefore, there is room to doubt whether it is permitted for a person to wound his body in order to remove the tattoo when in any case he will not correct the prohibition, and we do not find that this is an ongoing transgression. He raised this question before Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, of blessed memory, and he answered him: Removing the tattoo is a proper thing, to reduce profanity, and it is permitted to wound the body for this, because the prohibition against wounding applies when one disgraces the body, which is a gift from Hashem and does not belong to us, but when one wounds in order to remove an abomination, it is permitted. He then brought from his brother-in-law, Rabbi Ovadia Auerbach, may he live long, who said that proof for this ruling can be brought from the words of the Minchat Chinuch cited above.

Similarly, in Responsa Shevet HaKehaati, part 5 (siman 154), it was written that, where possible, it seems one should remove a tattoo from his body because of marit ayin. It was brought there that Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, of blessed memory, was asked about this two weeks before his passing, and he answered that he had not found among the poskim that one is transgressing at every moment, and if so, there is no obligation to remove it by law. See further there (siman 276, letter 2), where he cited the words of the Minchat Chinuch mentioned above.

See further in the book Maayan Omer, part 7 (chapter 3, siman 4), where it is written that on several occasions baalei teshuvah asked Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, of blessed memory, whether they are required to remove the tattoos on their bodies, and the rabbi of blessed memory said that they are not required to remove them. He added that he said this because the matter involves very strong pain. It emerges clearly that in his view as well, it is highly proper to remove the tattoo from one’s body. The reason he did not require this is that he did not consider it a concern of wounding one’s body, according to what he wrote in Responsa Yabia Omer, part 8, Choshen Mishpat, siman 12, letter 1, that a person is forbidden to wound his body only in a manner of degradation. Otherwise, it is permitted. Only because this involves pain did he hold to the strict law that there is no obligation to remove it.

Likewise, see the book Maalot Rivkah on the Torah (page 252), where he asked Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, may he live long, about a baal teshuvah who in the past had tattooed on his body a cross, may the Merciful One spare us, whether he should make an effort to remove it (and he noted that this would involve considerable expense and pain), and whether there is any difference according to the location of the tattoo, for example if it is in a visible place, such as the hand, or if it was done in a concealed place. He answered: He is not required, and nevertheless if he has a reason, he may do so, and it is not considered wounding himself. This is in keeping with his approach, as he wrote in order to prove in the pamphlet Patshegen HaKhetav (siman 3, printed within the book Sichat HaSadeh) that the Torah does not desire that a tattoo be engraved on the flesh; rather, the Torah’s will is to prohibit the act itself, not the result.

Regarding the erasure of tattoos that the Nazis, may their name be erased, made on the arms of Jews (and in this case, of course, the concern of a reminder of sin does not apply, since it was done under complete coercion), in Responsa Mimamakim, part 4 (question 22), he answered a woman whose body had been marked by the Nazis, may the Merciful One protect us, with a number, that she should not erase that number, because in that she is giving a hand to the accursed Nazi criminals and helping them cause the horrific and dreadful acts they committed against the Jewish people to be forgotten. This also strengthens those enemies who brazenly deny everything, as if we Jews are merely making false accusations against them and seeking an excuse, but rather, on the contrary, she should bear this mark with pride and dignity. However, in the journal HaMaor (Adar I 5725, pages 3-5), he responded to those remarks. See there. And see Responsa Shevet HaKehaati, part 5 (siman 154), where he wrote that he heard that, intentionally, Holocaust survivors do not remove the signs that were tattooed on their flesh in order to show the Heavenly Court what the Germans, may their name be erased, did, and it will serve as a merit for them on the Day of Judgment.

See further in Responsa Nzer Kohen, part 2 (siman 23), which discusses all of the above at length.

With blessings,

Hillel Meirs