11

First let me note once again that I am not Jewish, but when encountering certain things I often like to explore how Judaism considers those things. Either way, today I was reading Devarim I came across the following verse (22:5):

לֹא-יִהְיֶה כְלִי-גֶבֶר עַל-אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא-יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה: כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, כָּל-עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה ‏

A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Now, when I looked it up on the internet I found out that you call this prohibition beged isha and to my surprise I encountered the following exception

Further, it would be permitted for a man to wear one item of women's clothing for some functional reason -- e.g. he is stuck in the pouring rain and only has a woman's raincoat.

In this primer on the prohibition on Aish.com. Now, to be very clear here, what I am trying to understand is how this exception came to be. It's not the topic itself that interests me as much as the fact such exception exists. How I understand it is that Rabbi's often interpret the Torah in a certain and that's the way it is for the rest of time, sometimes prohibitions get added, but this is the first time I have consciously seen that an exception like that is created.

Community
  • 1
David Mulder
  • 547
  • 2
  • 13
  • 2
    PS. As always I fear I need some help with tagging and will very much appreciate any necessary edits. – David Mulder Mar 25 '15 at 17:20
  • 2
    related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/50795/759 – Double AA Mar 25 '15 at 18:11
  • David - There are numerous situations where there are exceptions to Judaic law for various reasons. For clarification, are you seeking an answer to this specific situation of "begged isha" or a more general answer that applies to the theory and rules of how exceptions are made? Your last paragraph seems to indicate the latter, so you may want to edit the question title and / or content, for clarity. – DanF Mar 25 '15 at 18:12
  • AFAIK, a raincoat is a unisex garment. I can't access your aish link, so I can't determine what makes this specifically a "woman's" raincoat that would qualify this as "begged isha". – DanF Mar 25 '15 at 18:26
  • @DanF Why are you looking at any answers in trying to decide if a question is a dupe? – Double AA Mar 25 '15 at 18:40
  • 1
    @DanF, it seems pretty clear to me that this question is asking for the source for the cited exception, as a case study of how there can be such exceptions to apparently clear-cut rules in the Torah. It's not a dupe of the question linked by DoubleAA, which is asking for the content of a rule, not for its source. – Isaac Moses Mar 25 '15 at 18:43
  • @IsaacMoses Exactly that indeed. Was trying to word that myself at the exact same moment you just wrote that comment. Either way, the related link has to be honest actually confused me even more on the actual content of this rule as the second highest voted answer there seems to outline very different interpretation than the "functional reason" exception seems to assume. – David Mulder Mar 25 '15 at 18:47
  • 3
    And btw, thanks a lot for the edits everyone! I will do by best to write it more like this next time :) . – David Mulder Mar 25 '15 at 18:48
  • 1
    @DavidMulder, you're doing fine, and your interest in learning from the community will ensure that you'll continue to do so. – Isaac Moses Mar 25 '15 at 19:17
  • Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/22765 – msh210 Mar 25 '15 at 22:31

2 Answers2

1

Talmud Nazir 59a states. That there would be no reason for the Torah to state this verse for the purpose of telling us that a man shouldn't wear women's clothes just for the purpose of wearing it, per se, because it already stated that this is an abomination, and simply wearing clothes on its own is not an abomination. Therefore, it is stating this for the purpose of telling us that he shouldn't wear the clothes in order to sit among other women.

Thus, since the man is wearing the coat to keep warm, this is not an abomination, and is therefore permitted. In short, this is not an "exception". It is based on the Talmudic interpretation of the verse.

DanF
  • 70,416
  • 8
  • 59
  • 244
  • 1
    "Explicitly"? Is this purpose of "lo yilbash" laid out in the Torah? If not, where is it explicit? Who says that the observance of this law is restricted to cases consistent with that purpose? That's not always how we implement laws in the Torah, even when we know a reason for them. – Isaac Moses Mar 25 '15 at 19:24
  • @IsaacMoses - I'm not completely following your concern. I never said "explicit". I believe that Rashi's interpretation is supported by Talmud Niddah (I think its 38a?) Isn't Torah Sheb'al Peh (Oral law) as valid as Torah Shebichtav? (written law) – DanF Mar 25 '15 at 20:21
  • 1
    DanF, see your answer's 19th word. As the only source cited here so far other than Rashi/S"Ch is the Torah, I assume you're referring to the Torah, and that therefore you're claiming that that the source for this reasoning is explicitly in the Torah. If so, your answer to this request for a source ought to cite the relevant verses. Alternatively, are you saying that the source is the Talmud? If so, the answer should say so, and should cite accordingly. – Isaac Moses Mar 25 '15 at 20:29
  • @IsaacMoses - I edited the answer to include Talmud source from Nazir. But see Rashi's use of the term Elah in the Torah commentary. That's how I inferred the word "explicit". – DanF Mar 25 '15 at 20:46
  • 2
    Please edit the answer to say, as clearly as you can, such that the answer is readable without looking up or translating any sources, what the source[s] are for 1) the stated purpose for this prohibition and 2) the prohibition being limited to transgressions of this purpose, specifically. Once you've done that, I agree that you can get to the "functional use" exception through reasoning. – Isaac Moses Mar 25 '15 at 20:56
1

This issue is discussed and there is a controversy. See Shulchan Aruch Yore Dea 182, paragraph 5, and the comment called Baer Heytev. Baer Heytev reports a controversy between the Bet Chadash and the Ture Zahav. The Bet Chadash on Arbaa Turim, expresses surprise that the Tur doesn't distinguish between cases, he gives a lengthy explanation that the sin regards only clothing with aesthetic purposes and that can generate to confusion, to appeal and lust.

The BC gives two heterim:

  1. Even aesthetic clothes, to wear them clothes with the intent to protect himself from heat in summer or from rain in winter is not prohibited. The proof is from the Gemara in Nazir 58b-59a, according to the perush of Rabenu Tam. This Gemara said that shaving underarms even with a rasor blad may be allowed if the reason is not aesthetic.

  2. The second heter: To wear clothes specific to the other sex, but which are not made for beauty is allowed. He learned this from the Sifre. For a woman the prohibition is to wear clothes that glorify a man and for a man, clothes that embellish a woman.

The BC reported a discussion between Sefer Yereim and Mahari Mintz regarding making people laugh with a disguise for Simchat Mitsva as Purim or wedding. He advised to be stringent.

The way in which the Baer Heytev reported the BC is not clear for me.

kouty
  • 22,732
  • 3
  • 29
  • 58