Dress IV: Keli Gever

A man’s article shall not be on a woman, neither shall a man wear a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things, it is an abomination to the Lord your God.

Any woman who decorates herself in one of the known male ornaments in that city, where this ornament is unique to men, receives a punishment of lashes [for violating a Torah-level prohibition].

A woman should not wear garments unique to a man in accordance with local custom…

For Rav Sherira and his son Rav Hai…There is a distinction among women’s ornaments, between times and places. There is also a distinction among different garments. For thus they practiced here, that clothes of linen and clothes of cotton, men don’t wear them dyed. But clothes of silk and clothes of fine wool, men wear them dyed, in all kinds of colors. Therefore, it is permissible for them to wear these, in accordance with the custom of time and place. And if there were a time or a place where they are not accustomed to these either, these would be prohibited to them. And thus, for here there is a custom of women’s clothing and of men’s clothing, and in other places a different custom, its whole prohibition is in accordance with its custom, and the permission is in accordance with its custom. For what is a man’s or a woman’s garment is only defined for us in accordance with the customs regarding [the garments], in those years…In Arabia there are those who are descended from Ishmael and Yaktan whose custom is thus: that the man who removes his armpit and pubic hair, they see him as weak as women. And [Jewish] men of these places now, it is prohibited for them to remove their armpit and pubic hair…

…For the Torah did not say, you shall not remove armpit or pubic hair, but rather in general cautioned us against everything that is the manner of women. And that is what is written in a general way: A man shall not wear a woman’s garment. And if so, these matters are divided by lands and times. Every time and every place that it is the manner of women to do thus, men are prohibited there. And every place where it is the manner of both men and women, it is permissible. For it isn’t exclusive to women in that place or time, and I don’t call it a woman’s garment. And this matter is not clear in my eyes, because of that young Torah scholar (Nazir 59a):…The entire people except for the [pious] individuals would remove their armpit hair, and even so, Torah scholars [exemplified by a young scholar] had the custom to treat it as a prohibition. And for what reason? For behold, it was not a woman’s garment in their generation, and hadn’t it returned to being a man’s garment? Rather, any matter that is fitting for women and not for men, and the women do thus, it is prohibited to men because of “a woman’s garment.” And one who has become accustomed to a prohibited matter, and is drawn into it, and the masses are drawn into it, the prohibition does not become permissible. For if so, a person would persist in sinning, and [pious] individuals are more careful with this.

It seems that he [Tur] wanted to say that non-Jewish men, since it has become practiced, it has become practiced, and we learn from the custom of non-Jews. One can also [alternatively] say that he [Tur] was speaking of Israelites, for where all of them together have taken on the practice, we do not protest them.

The prohibition of dressing in the clothes of non-Jews does not apply [to modern-day Western dress] for almost all Jews wear these clothes. And if so, who says they are the clothes of non-Jews and Jews are wearing their clothes? And why should we not say that from the outset [they are] also clothes of Jews, for they were not designated at all from the beginning for the non-Jews and afterwards also for Jews, for from the beginning they were also made for Jews…

Really they [women’s trousers] are fully keli gever, for they are still called “trousers,” even though they are a little different…

Since the matter of women wearing trousers has spread nowadays to many places, there is no issue of keli gever, since in any case it is not designated specifically for men. Even more so since there is a recognizable distinction between women’s and men’s trousers.

An androgynos has some ways that are equivalent to men, and has some ways that are equivalent to women, and has some ways that are equivalent to men and women, and has some ways that are equivalent to neither men nor women. Ways that are equivalent to men:…he does not wrap [his head, as women do] and cuts his hair [rather than growing it long], like men…

A tumtum and androgynos are prohibited to wrap [their heads] like a woman [does].

The wife of Rabbi Yehuda went out, she took wool and made an embroidered cloak, when she went out to the market she’d cover herself with it, and when Rabbi Yehuda went out to pray, he’d cover himself with it and pray…

It seems to me that this cloak was made like a sort of outer robe and it teaches is that even though his wife went out in it to the marketplace, it does not entail a prohibition of “a man shall not wear a woman’s garment,” which is specifically a garment made specially for a woman, but the garment of a jacket is special to both of them [genders]. With respect to women it is said “for so the daughters of kings wore jackets” and regarding a male you will find many [mentions] in Scripture and it doesn’t entail “a man shall not wear.”

Even to distinguish between his garment and his wife’s garments—Their way was for them to be equivalent.

Ya’avetz in his glosses to Shabbat 12a proved from the Tosafot there that even when they are equivalent there is no prohibition of “a man shall not wear” and he proved it from Nedarim 49b, but he wrote that in any case certainly there must be another recognizable [marker of gender] to distinguish between male and female when they are children, at least until he grows a beard for a male and until breasts develop for a female.

When we look closely at the words of the halachic authorities, one knows clearly that a woman is only prohibited in an item where the form of that garment is exclusive for men, and a man is only prohibited in an item where the form of that garment is exclusive to women. But a garment whose form is the same for men and women is permitted to all, and we are not at all concerned about for whom it was made …And this is the language of Rambam…He said “a woman should not adorn herself in men’s adornments and a man should not adorn himself in women’s adornments” and to imply that we follow whose it is. He also made the matter contingent on the region, which implies that we are not concerned for whom the item was made, and it is permitted to a man and to a woman even if it was made for one of them…

A man’s article shall not be on a woman, neither shall a man wear a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things, it is an abomination to the Lord your God.

There shall not be a cloak of tzitzit and tefillin, which are men’s articles, on a woman.

A man’s adorning weapon shall not be upon a woman, and a man shall not adorn himself with a woman’s adornments…

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Whence do we know that a woman should not wear a weapon and go out to war? The verse teaches “a man’s article shall not be upon a woman.” And [that] the man should not decorate himself with women’s ornaments? The verse teaches “and neither shall a man wear a woman’s garment.”

As we learn [in a Baraita]: “A man’s article shall not be upon a woman,” what does it come to teach us? If it were that a man should not wear a woman’s garment and a woman a man’s garment, behold, it is already said “It is an abomination,” and there is no abomination here. Rather, that a man should not wear a woman’s garment and sit [alt. dwell] among the women, or a woman a man’s garment and sit [alt. dwell] among the men. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Whence do we know that a woman should not go out [garbed] in weapons for war? The verse teaches “a man’s article shall not be upon a woman and neither shall a man wear a woman’s garment” – that a man not adorn himself with women’s adornments…

A woman should not adorn herself in men’s adornments, such as putting a turban or a hat on her head, or wearing armor and the like.

…Nevertheless these words regard switching one of the discernible items that distinguish between a woman and a man…For even if she did not change a thing out of all of her clothing but she placed a weapon upon herself, and so too a man even if he did not change a thing but adorned himself with a woman’s adornment, it is prohibited because these are among the things that lead to abomination as I have explained. And how much more so where they switched their garments [in full], which leads more to an abomination, that it is prohibited, even if he does not sit among the women.

Gloss: And even with one item of clothing it is prohibited, even though it is discernible from the rest of their clothing that it is a man or a woman.

“A man’s article should not be and neither shall a man wear…” [These are] the opposite of God’s work…

The woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man” (Deut. 22:5). You find it in the [idolator’s] book Tomtom, that a male person should wear colored woman’s dress when he stands before Venus, and a female, when standing before Mars, should wear a buckler and other armor.

Know that this action, that is to say women being adorned with men’s adornments or men with women’s adornments, is sometimes done to arouse the nature to licentiousness as is well known among those who are promiscuous, and sometimes it is done for heretics as idolatrous service…

…For Tanna Kama raised the difficulty “And is it not already said that it is an abomination and there is no abomination here.” For one cannot say that [Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov] does not consider this a difficulty because he thinks that a man wearing a woman’s garment or the opposite is an abomination in itself, for if that were so, why would he specify weaponry and women’s adornments…

A man’s article shall not be upon a woman – That she resemble a man in order to go amongst the men, for this is only for the sake of illicit sexual behavior. And a man shall not wear a woman’s garment – to go and sit among the women…For it is an abomination – The Torah only prohibited clothing that leads to an abomination…

…Among the roots of the mitzva is to distance from our sacred people matters of immodesty and every matter and aspect in which a stumbling block in that matter will be found, like that which they [our sages] would say by way of a parable that God hates licentiousness, which is to say that out of love for us He distanced us from licentiousness, which is an exceedingly ugly matter and takes a man’s heart and sways him from the good way and desirable thought to a bad way and thought of folly. And there is no doubt that if the clothing of men and women were to be equivalent, they would mix with each other constantly and the land would be full of licentiousness. And they further said regarding the rationale of this mitzva that it is to distance any matter of avoda zara, for thus was the way of those who serve idols.

The verse warns about… changing nature, that a male article, i.e., a weapon, which in the nature of a woman she should not gird herself with a sword, if she does not train herself in it for some stretch of days, and if so it is a preparation so that later she can change her clothing and go among the men, and naturally so too is the opposite, that a man is warned not to become accustomed to the nature of women to beautify themselves and the like, in order that he easily be able to change into women’s clothing.

That a man not wear a woman’s garment, as it is said, a man should not wear a woman’s garment. The explanation is in order to have illicit sexual relations.

The general rule is that this [person] should not make use of the thing that is customary for this [person of another gender] in a plotting way and as preparation for illicit sexual relations.

…A man should be careful not to adorn himself with women’s adornments. And it is all according to local custom, with the adornments and clothing with which the local women are accustomed to adorn themselves, and for their clothing to be distinct from men’s clothing. He should be careful with all of them so as not to adorn himself. And a woman with men’s clothing when there is no equivalent in women’s dress…And it is prohibited to wear it even on an occasional basis and for fun, for the verse did not distinguish between a fixed [act] and an occasional one, and since I saw men dressing in women’s clothing temporarily for fun [Bach’s version of the text includes: And also a woman in men’s clothing on an occasional basis, at parties for a groom and bride] and the matter was difficult in my eyes, I wrote it here.

Or [one might think] he [should not] do this out of concern for [threatening] non-Jews and for bandits? The verse teaches us ” for whoever does these things, it is an abomination to the Lord your God.”

It is a time for act to God, they have violated your Torah (Tehillim 119:126). Even though the Torah said “a man’s article shall not be on a woman, neither shall a man wear a woman’s garment,” if enemies capture a city or if they are traveling on the way and if they [the enemy] were to know that they are women they would rape them, [then] they [the women] should go in men’s clothing and even with a sword in order that they [the enemy] think that they are men. And if there are only ten men and there are some women, they should gird themselves with a sword so that they [the enemy] will think that they are men and not harm them.

…Do Torah prohibitions depend on one specifically intending to violate the prohibition? The matter depends on intending to perform the [prohibited] act.

…It sounds as though the fact that it is prohibited on a weekday [for a man] to look in the mirror…is only prohibited when it is to beautify himself, that he transgresses “lo yilbash” but in order to cut his hair and to shave and to look in the mirror that he not injure himself, or [to treat] an eye malady, it is certainly permitted and He who examines the heart, He knows [the intention]…

…It may be permitted in two ways. One is that there is no prohibition even of an item that is for beautification and decoration unless the woman wears men’s clothing to resemble a man…but if they wear [it] in order to protect against the sun in the sunny season and rain in the rainy season, there is no prohibition in that case…The second, that even to resemble [men] is prohibited only for items that are made for beautification and decoration…And thus wrote Rambam, “A woman should not adorn herself in male adornments”…But Rav Eliezer of Metz in Yere’im 96 (385/6)…implies that it is prohibited for all clothing that is distinct between man and woman – and this is certainly impossible…Rather, the Rav [Yereim] relied on that which he wrote at first [absent from our versions of Yere’im], that [specifically] matters that are adornments and beautification and beauty for the woman, such as removing hair from the underarm and pubic area, that is what is prohibited, and about this he said: “therefore a man should be careful that he not groom himself with feminine grooming…”

She should not adorn herself…And his [Bach’s] words are not necessarily correct, and in any case it seems that is specifically regarding a woman’s adornments. But if a man really wears a woman’s clothing until it is unrecognizable that he is a man, and vice versa, it is prohibited in any case [regardless of intent]. And so wrote Rav Eliezer of Metz in Yere’im…

On the matter of wearing costumes that young men and also young women, the elderly and the youth, are accustomed to on Purim. I saw that Rav Elyakim Segal, my beloved colleague, already ruled to permit it and published his ruling with its reasoning and his proofs establish its soundness…and if there were, Heaven forfend, a drop of transgression, Heaven forfend that they [the rabbis who permit it] would be quiet and not protest, and how much more so regarding a prohibition [from the Torah]; rather, it is certain that they had a proof and grounds to rely on that it is totally permissible…And it seems to me a proof in the matter [from the Tosafot]…it is only prohibited when it is to beautify himself, that he transgresses “he shall not wear”; but in order to cut his hair and to shave and to look in the mirror that he not injure himself, or [to treat] an eye malady, it is certainly permitted, and “He who evaluates the heart, He is the one who knows [the intention]”…And since Tosafot hang it on…”He who evaluates the heart is the One who knows,” and that it is only prohibited for beautifying himself…therefore in another fashion it is permissible…For Semag also thought that one only violates “he should not wear” when his intention is for illicit sexual activity…Further is found in a responsum written by Rabbeinu Tuvya in the name of Riva that any food that the young men snatch…at the time because of the joy of Purim is not called theft since he does not do it to steal and profit but rather out of Purim rejoicing; here too, our case is no different. Since he does not intend for sexual misconduct but rather for the joy of Purim…

One should take notice of what they are accustomed to do on Purim, to change clothes from man to woman and from woman to man, and no one protests. And according to what I wrote regarding things done for beauty and adornment, it is prohibited according to all to intend to resemble [another gender]. And Mahari Mintz already responded on this as explained in his responsum, and he said that since he only does this out of rejoicing for Purim, it is not prohibited…And it seems in my humble opinion that his words regarding this are refuted from what Yere’im wrote explicitly, that even in parties for a groom and bride there is a prohibition; therefore, even what he does out of rejoicing for a mitzva is not similar to doing it in order to spare himself discomfort, and so it is logically, for to spare himself discomfort cannot be done in another way, but for rejoicing of a groom and bride and rejoicing on Purim, many types of rejoicing are possible without transgressing the prohibition of “he should not wear.” And there is no doubt that were the words of Yere’im not hidden from Mahari Mintz, he would not have written so.

Gloss…That they are accustomed to wear costumes on Purim, a man wears a woman’s garment and a woman a male article, there is no prohibition in the matter since they intend only for mere rejoicing…And there are those who say that it is prohibited, but the custom is in accordance with the first rationale. And similarly, people who snatch from each other by way of rejoicing, this does not entail “don’t steal”…

It appears that when all the garments are a man’s, and only one garment is of a woman, and they are discernible, also according to many opinions in Yoreh De’a 182, there is no Torah prohibition in this case, and one should not protest on Purim.

From the text of Eiruvin 96a: Michal the daughter of Shaul laid tefillin and the sages did not protest her. And this is difficult, why did they not protest her? Behold, it is prohibited to wear tefillin because of ” a man’s article shall not be on a woman “; according to Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel, “There should not be fringes of tzitzit and tefillin, for these are male articles, on a woman.” It must be that since she intends for the sake of a mitzva, there is no prohibition of ‘do not wear’ here.

Yael: for she didn’t kill Sisera with a weapon, rather with a tent peg and her strength of hand. And why did she not kill him with a weapon? In order to fulfill what is said that a keli gever not be upon a woman.

In our case, where the intention of the teachers in bearing arms is not to resemble men, but rather to defend their lives and the lives of their students under their charge and supervision, it appears that the matter is clear that it does not entail violation of “there should not be keli gever on a woman”…It is permissible for the teachers and nursery school teachers in the border settlements to train and to carry weapons at their times of watching over the schools, as long as they are very careful regarding the rules of tzeniut when they train, as is suitable for proper daughters of Israel…

…Rather Rambam, and along with him all the early halachic authorities, did not explain it thus, and think that it is not specifically going out to war, but rather ornamentation in men’s clothing in general is prohibited. And in any case for those early authorities who think that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov prohibited wearing clothing exclusive to men on a Torah level, military weaponry is prohibited to women on a Torah level, even If they do not go out to war, if they only wear army uniforms it is prohibited.

…For the rifles are no longer in the category of an article exclusive to men…In the Land of Israel today, thousands of girls are drafted or volunteer to serve in the army…It is impossible to say that they are in a country where the M-16 rifle is exclusive to men. And it makes no difference if most women in the IDF aren’t religiously observant, for even if they were all non-Jews; in any case, their practice establishes the matter of [defining] a man’s or woman’s garment…Therefore, one should not consider female soldiers to be violating a Torah-level prohibition of a man’s garment, at any rate after the fact…In Sifri Devarim, the language is “Whence that a woman not wear a weapon and go to war”…According to this, the prohibition is regarding wearing, and it seems correct to explain the Baraita [the parallel Talmudic passage] thus, and so is the meaning of the verse…and this is the source of Rambam’s close reading…We did not find in his works that Rambam mentions a prohibition of bearing a weapon, as distinct from clothing…we have taught favorably about women who bear or take weapons in the [Israeli] army.

In Hebrew the word for clothing “beged” is the same root as the word for traitor “boged.” Clothing conceals and reveals, and therefore it involves a lot of decisions about how we present ourselves to the world.