11

I've been wondering about garments like the frilly pink/purple yarmulkas and talleisim used in liberal Judaism. Since yarmulkas and talleisim are probably normally beged ish, and pink/purple frilly clothes are generally beged isha, are these garments both beged ish and beged isha, and thus assur for everyone to wear? Similarly, are there other articles of clothing that one might encounter that are both beged ish and beged isha and assur for everyone to wear?

I'm not referring to unisex clothing which is permitted for everyone; rather, I'm referring to clothing which bears conflicting aspects which each explicitly mark it as being for a single gender. That is to say, something like black reading glasses might be allowed for everyone because there is nothing "masculine" or "feminine" about them, but what about a frilly pink yarmulka which has both "masculine" and "feminine" aspects?

(I would have liked to dub such clothing beged androginus, but I realized that the mishnah in bikurim says that androginusim wear male clothing.)

  • 1
    I don't know any men or women who wear frilly pink yarmulkas. Sounds like neither a beged ish nor a beged isha. – Double AA Nov 06 '13 at 06:16
  • 2
    Well, I've seen them being worn. –  Nov 06 '13 at 13:50
  • 2
    I strongly suspect that this concept of "aspects" is not part of these Halachat. Look at this garment: Is it worn [nearly] exclusively by people of a particular gender? Iff so, it may be beged-that-gender. Generally speaking, you'll never find a man in a frilly pink kippa, therefore I can't see how it could possibly be beged ish. But I'm just guessing; I don't know the sources for this. – Isaac Moses Nov 06 '13 at 20:49
  • At least regarding the yarmulkas and talleisim, they seem to be worn exclusively by women. Would that mean that women might have a heter to wear yarmulkas and perhaps talleisim as long as they are pink or otherwise "feminine" looking? –  Nov 06 '13 at 20:52
  • @Malper, I'm pretty sure this issue has been covered in the responsa literature, probably in Igeros Moshe. I think there are issues in play other than beged ish. – Isaac Moses Nov 06 '13 at 20:57
  • Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/31459/can-a-woman-ever-wear-a-prayer-shawl http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/29417/why-do-men-or-boys-have-to-cover-their-hair-but-not-unmarried-women – Isaac Moses Nov 06 '13 at 20:59
  • Right, I believe R' Moshe says that it depends on the kavannah behind wearing them, so if it's for anti-Torah motives then it's assur. But I think he also states that the other issue with tallis is beged ish. Therefore it would be an interesting nafka minna if a women with totally pure intentions who wanted to do so could actually wear a tallis, but only as long as it was pink. –  Nov 06 '13 at 21:01
  • @IsaacMoses Targum Yerushalmi on Devarim 22:5 translates "לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה" "A woman may not wear the garment of a man" as "לָא יִהְיֶה גּוּלְיַין דְּצִיצִית וּתְפִילִין דְּהִינוּן תִּקּוּנֵי גְבַר עַל אִיתָּא" "A woman may not wear tzitzis or tefillin, for they are established for men." According to the Targum, it sounds like tzitzis are intrinsically beged ish, so it would be surprising if a pink tallis was only beged isha. –  Nov 07 '13 at 19:56
  • 1
    @Malper What does that have to do with actual halacha? That Targum is full of innovations which are rarely found in the rest of Jewish literature and more often than not contradict explicit Talmudic rulings. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 00:55
  • @DoubleAA That's a controversial topic. See section 2 of this article, which states that some poskim cite the Targum (e.g. Rav Moshe with this particular pasuk), while others do not as a matter of principle. –  Dec 04 '13 at 03:57
  • 1
    @Malper I'm aware of that Rav Moshe. (As am I aware of that back and forth in Daf Kesher.) He's more than welcome to use it as polemic if he wants. But he's got to be kidding to use it as halacha. – Double AA Dec 04 '13 at 04:04
  • Is it obvious that the Targum should not be used for halacha when it doesn't contradict other rulings? (It seems less questionable than, say, using the Zohar for halachic rulings...) –  Dec 04 '13 at 05:45
  • @Malper If I gave you 10 psakim of a random Jew, and you noticed 7 are contradicted by gemaras and 3 seem to have no justification at all, are you going to still give the 3 much weight? The Zohar is different because it's not trying to give psak. It's working in its own semi-autonomous system of thought. Applying the Zohar to Halacha is a methodological error in application, not in recognition of source quality. – Double AA Dec 04 '13 at 06:42
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I don't think that chilluk is obvious -- do you have a source for it? (For that matter, not everyone would agree that applying the Zohar to halacha is an error at all.) –  Dec 04 '13 at 20:30
  • 1
    @Malper We need to be very careful about our terms here, but the way I was using Halacha, I don't think nearly anyone would argue. – Double AA Dec 04 '13 at 22:02
  • The logic is for women only<=> Assur for men For men only <=> Assur for women. Assur for women and men <=> only for men and only for women IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!! Hashash only for one of them but we don't know if for women or man. Surely not the case!!! – kouty Mar 01 '16 at 15:26

1 Answers1

2

no b/c that is a contradiction of terms. something which is a man's garment is not a women's garment and something which is a woman's garment is not a man's garment. Your example of a pink yarmulke isn't a contradiction because wearing a certain color isn't necessarily masculine or feminine and a yarmulke and tallis are specifically worn by men. Rashi on the pasuk of lo silbash (Devarim 22,5) says that a woman cannot carry a weapon because it's a man's job to go to warfare. If he carried a pink gun it still would be considered a weapon it's the essence that counts not the color.

There are garments however like a coat which are neutral and not designated specifically for man or woman and therefore can be worn by both, as demonstrated in gemoro nedorim (40b) that rabbi Yehuda bar Iloi shared his coat with his wife and therefore could not go out at the same time.

user15464
  • 11,447
  • 26
  • 103
Laser123
  • 1,259
  • 6
  • 20