Staying Clean: Bathing Elderly Parents

The greatest challenge of tending to an elderly parent who can no longer live independently can be managing the activities of daily living (ADLs). Bathing is particularly difficult due to the nature of the task as well as the danger of slipping or falling. Families will often employ a caregiver to tend to the parent’s needs, however, this is not always feasible due to either financial constraints or the parent’s desire to be tended to by their children. This raises an important Halachic issue.

The Gemara states (Pesachim 51a):

A person may bathe with anyone except his father. R’ Yehuda permits [a person to bathe] with his father due to his father’s honor (Rashi: For he tends to his needs in the bathhouse). It was taught: A Talmid should not bathe with his Rebbi unless his Rebbi needs his assistance.

Rashi explains that this Issur is due to a concern of forbidden thoughts: “Upon seeing his [father’s private parts] he is reminded that he came from there – he thus allows his heart to think inappropriate thoughts”. However, the Meiri offers a different reason: Bathing with one’s father may lead to disrespecting him. He adds: “Nevertheless, if his father requires his assistance, it is permissible.”

Presumably, in this situation where his father requires his assistance, there is no concern that he will come to disrespect him. On the contrary, he is involved in the Mitzva of Kibud Av. According to Rashi, it would seem that there would be no difference whether the father requires his assistance or not as the concern of Hirhur is present in both cases.

The Gemara seems to refer to a straightforward case in which the father does not require his son’s assistance. Though R’ Yehuda argues with the Tana Kama and permits the son to bathe with his father since the father feels honored by his son’s assistance, that does not indicate that we are discussing a case when his assistance is necessary.

However, Maseches Semachos (12:12) records R’ Yehuda’s words differently: “R’ Yehuda says if his father was elderly or sick he may enter and bathe him – for this is his honor”. According to this formulation, the Tana Kama would forbid a son to bathe with his father even when his father is elderly or sick. Moreover, R’ Yehuda permits him to do so only in such a case; if he does not require his son’s assistance, it would be forbidden.

In light of the above, the Minchas Yitzchak^[1] (4:62) explains that the Tana Kama and R’ Yehuda argue over the fundamental basis of the Issur. According to the Tana Kama, the Issur is due to Hirhur;thus a son may not bathe with his father even if he requires his assistance. According to R’ Yehuda, the Issur is due to the concern that the son would come to disrespect his father, thus, if the father requires his son’s assistance, it is permissible.

This may also explain why Rashi refrains from explaining the Tana Kama’s view like the Meiri (even though Rashi does explain the Issur of bathing with a Rebbi as due to the Rebbi’s honor). If the Meiri was correct, why would the Tana Kama not permit it in a case when the father requires assistance?

At any rate, R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:147) explains that the concern of Hirhur is minor. For if the concern were great, R’ Yehuda would not have permitted a son to bathe with his father merely on account of his father’s honor. After all, the Mitzva of Kibud Av would not override the Issur of Hirhur, which is derived from the Posuk of “v’Nishmarta miKol Davar Ra” (Devarim 23:10) and may lead to violation of the stringent Issur of Hotza’as Zera l’Vatala. The Machlokes between R’ Yehuda and the Tana Kama is whether Kibud Av overrides the concern of Hirhur.

The Rif and Rosh rule that a person may not bathe with his father. They do not distinguish between the various scenarios discussed above. The Rambam concurs(Issurei Bi’ah 21:15): “One may not enter a bathhouse with his father, sister’s husband, or Talmid. But if he requires his Talmid’s assistance it is permissible.” He implies that the Heter of assistance only applies to a Rebbi but not to a father.

The Tur and Shulchan Aruch do not codify this Halacha. However, the Rema rules (Even haEzer 23:6): “The Gemara further forbids bathing with one’s father, brother, mother’s husband, and sister’s husband. Nowadays the custom is to be lenient since people cover their private parts in the bathhouse. There is thus no concern of Hirhur (Aguda).”

As noted by the Pischei Teshuva (ibid. 5), there would be no Heter in a bathhouse in which people do not cover their private parts.

Many Poskim are perplexed as to why people do not observe this Halacha and take their children with them to the Mikva. It is clearly forbidden.^[2]

Returning to the matter at hand, it is important to note that hygiene is crucial for elderly people. There is also a grave concern for pressure sores and infections; inadequate hygiene standards may lead to Sakana. It is therefore permissible for a son to bathe his father if there is no alternative.^[3] However, if possible, a daughter should bathe him since the Issur of Hirhur is less stringent for a woman. At any rate, his private parts should be covered, both to negate concerns of Hirhur and to retain the father’s dignity. We learn the importance of Kibud Av and preserving a father’s dignity in front of his children by covering his body from Noach and his sons (Bereishis 9:23).

However, regarding the Halacha when there is no concern for Sakana from inadequate hygiene, the matter is less clear. Assisting a Choleh in bathing is no simple matter. It demands great concentration and physical effort to ensure that no harm befalls the patient. Would this be a sufficient reason to permit a son to bathe his father?^[4]

If it is indeed sufficient, we would need to explain R’ Yehuda’s description of the father as “elderly or sick” to be a lower level of disability. In other words, R’ Yehuda is lenient regarding the concern of Hirhur since the father requires minor assistance, as explained by the Igros Moshe above. However, in the setting of greater disability, even the Tana Kama would agree that there is no concern of Hirhur, due to the high level of concentration that is required.

The Gemara (Shabbos 33b) famously relates that R’ Shimon bar Yochai lived in a cave for many years. As a result, he incurred significant health problems:

His father-in-law, R’ Pinchas ben Yair, heard [that R’ Shimon had returned] and went to meet him. He took him to the bathhouse and tended to his skin. He saw that his skin was cracked. He cried and his tears fell [on R’ Shimon’s skin] and caused him pain.

As we saw earlier, there is also an Issur to enter a bathhouse with one’s father-in-law. How then was R’ Pinchas ben Yair allowed to enter with R’ Shimon? Perhaps we may answer that it was necessary for R’ Shimon’s health.

However, even if this is correct, we cannot adduce proof from this Gemara. First, the Issur rests upon the son-in-law, not the father-in-law, and, in this case, the son-in-law was the one who required care. We will explain this point further, below. Moreover, we are not told that R’ Pinchas also bathed, thus it is possible that he was clothed or at least his private parts were covered.

In medical practice, there is a Halachic principle called “b’Avidtaihu T’ridi” (involved in one’s work). This allows for a man to tend to a female patient since we assume that he is focused on his professional tasks and will not have inappropriate thoughts. It is also not an issue for the patient since Hirhur is less stringent for a woman. However, a woman may not tend to a male patient since we are concerned that he will come to Hirhur because he is a passive participant and not focused on delivering medical care.

The source for this principle is the Halacha of a shepherd who is involved in causing his cattle to mate. Unlike ordinary people who may not watch animals cohabiting lest it induce Hirhur, a shepherd may do so since he is involved in his work. Here too, the Heter only exists for him because he is involved.

Although we cannot use this principle to explain the Gemara’s Heter (since R’ Shimon was the “patient”), it may still be relevant in our case if we assume that bathing a father who requires assistance is a more involved task than merely assisting an elderly father.

We should also mention a further principle known as “Bi’asusa”. The Gemara (Nida 13a) relates:

R’ Yehuda and Shmuel were standing on the roof of the shul “d’Shaf v’Yasiv” in Nehardea. R’ Yehuda said to Shmuel, “I must urinate”. He replied, “Sharp one, grab hold of your member and urinate outward [away from the shul]”. [The Gemara asks:] How could he do this? Is it not taught: R’ Eliezer says, anyone who holds his member and urinates is considered as if he brings a flood to the world! [The Gemara answers:] Abaye said: They considered this case like that of a marauding troop [of Nachrim]. For it was taught: Regarding a marauding troop that enters the city: at a time of peace; open barrels [of wine] are Asur, closed barrels are Mutar. At a time of war; both barrels are Mutar since they have no opportunity to use it as a libation. We thus see that since they are afraid, they will not come to use it as a libation. Here too, since one is afraid, he will not come to Hirhur.

But what fear existed in this case? Perhaps he was afraid that it was dark and he would fall off the roof [since Shmuel instructed him to urinate off the edge]. Perhaps he was afraid of his Rabbi [Shmuel]. Perhaps he was afraid of the Shechina [that resides in the shul]. Perhaps [R’ Yehuda is different since] fear of Heaven is upon him, for Shmuel said about him: “This one is not born of a woman”.

This Gemara is referenced by the Tzafnas Pane’ach (in his comments to the Rambam ruling forbidding bathing with one’s father) though he does not explain his intent. It seems clear from this Gemara that there is no concern for Hirhur when one is in a state of fear. The Rif (Shabbos 108b) and Smak (292) codify this ruling though other Poskim do not. The Beis Yosef (O.C. 3) explains that, in the view of the other Poskim, we cannot determine the amount of fear necessary to negate the concern of Hirhur. Moreover, the Gemara offered several answers (more than those cited above); we cannot know which of them are l’Halacha.

Presumably, bathing a father in need of assistance may often be a situation of Bi’asusa. The son is greatly preoccupied with ensuring that his father does not slip or faint and extends every effort to avoid such a danger. According to the Rif and Smak, it would be permissible. However, the Beis Yosef did not rule this way. Nevertheless, this case also carries the Heter of b’Avidtaihu T’ridi, unlike the Gemara’s case in which R’ Yehuda was merely urinating. Perhaps, then, the two Heterim can be combined.

R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe 2:147) discusses whether a person may wash his father after his death. He concludes that one should not deviate from the custom that forbids it. However, regarding the concern of Hirhur, he contends that it may not apply to a Meis since the concern of Hirhur is always a minor concern (as explained above). This is especially true in this case when the son is preoccupied with the pain of his father’s passing.

We see that R’ Moshe was not willing to permit the case only due to b’Avidtaihu T’ridi (bathing the dead body). He was only inclined to permit it due to the additional argument that Hirhur is in any case a minor concern.

Perhaps one could argue that there is likewise no concern for Hirhur when a person bathes his father who needs assistance, especially as he is preoccupied with the fear lest his father come to harm.

In conclusion, despite our arguments, we cannot permit a person to bathe his father where there is no concern of danger. However, where concern exists that a lack of hygiene will cause Sakana, it is absolutely permissible.

---

[1] R’ Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss zt”l (1902-1989), Av Beis Din of Grosswardein, Romania before World War II, and Dayan and Av Beis Din of Manchester from 1949-1970. After retiring as head of the Manchester Beis Din, he joined the Edah haChareidis in Yerushalayim and succeeded the Satmar Rov upon his Petira in 1979. R’ Weiss is known as the Minchas Yitzchak after his 10-volumes of Shu”t Minchas Yitzchak.

[2] [Editor’s Note: Many Mikvaos today have policies forbidding children to enter the Mikvah without a parent for safety reasons. Perhaps this concern trumps the Chashash Hirhur.]

[3] Hirhur is not subject to “Yehareg v’Al Ya’avor”; it is thus overridden by Pikuach Nefesh. (See Igros Moshe E.H. 1:56 for an example.)

[4] In other words, does the need for intense concentration and attention to the task mitigate the concern for Hirhur (as we will discuss below).