This DIY program provides a sample source sheet for a text study which would examine the line in Deuteronomy which calls cross-dressing a to’evah (usually translated as “abomination.”) These texts trace the surprising evolution of this topic from Deteronomy to Talmud, to Rashi, to Maimonides, to Isserles, all the way to present day Rabbi Lisa Edwards. Text studies are traditionally in hevruta (or study pairs) but this structure may be modified as needed for the target group.
By JP Payne
Short Summary of Event:
A beit midrash (literally “house of study”) is a place for people to come together and engage with Jewish texts, from Torah, to Talmud, to the medieval sages, and up through modern voices. This event provides a sample source sheet for a text study which would examine the line in Deuteronomy which calls cross-dressing a to’evah (usually translated as “abomination.”) These texts trace the surprising evolution of this topic from Deteronomy to Talmud, to Rashi, to Maimonides, to Isserles, all the way to present day Rabbi Lisa Edwards. Text studies are traditionally in hevruta (or study pairs) but this structure may be modified as needed for the target group.
Materials Needed:
Two source sheets are provided: one is for the group leader (if there is one) which gives background information on the sources and suggests time intervals, and the other is for the participants.
Number of Participants: 10 – 25 participants
Goals for the Event:
Outline of Event:
1.) Introductions
Introduce the topic. It may be helpful for the group to explore the various nuances of the term cross-dressing at this time. Also please note that the sources themselves do not define the term.
Allow people to find a hevruta (usually a pair of learners.) In some groups, it may be helpful to pair according to preferred language of reading.
2.) Key Terms
cross-dressing — one definition may be, “wearing the clothes of a gender other than the one you identify most closely with”
to’evah — often translated as “abomination.” Another translation may be “taboo.”
minhag hamakom — Hebrew for “the custom of the place”
d’oraita — a Torah law; see leader’s source sheet for more information
d’rabbanan — a rabbinic law; see leader’s source sheet for more information
3.) Text study
Allow time for both hevruta (pairs) and group discussion.
4.) Conclusion
Allow participants to voice closing thoughts. Examples may include what significance they see for their community in the text, or what insight may have been gained from studying the evolution of the texts.
THE TORAH SAYS
לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְיָ אֱלֹהֶיךָ כׇּל עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה
The items of a man should not be upon a woman; nor should a man wear the dress of a woman—for it is a to’evah [a thing completely off limits] to YHVH your God, everyone who does these things.
Questions for discussion:
10 minutes for hevruta, 20 minutes for group discussion.
THE RABBIS EXPLAIN
Babylonian Talmud Nazir 59a (2nd-4th century CE)
The Talmud, also called the Oral Torah, is the founding text of Jewish law. Originally transmitted orally, it is the collection of rabbinic conversations that occurred in two or three centuries following the turn of the millennium. The conversations covered a wide range of topics from Torah commentary, to legal intricacies, ethics, philosophy, customs, anecdotes, and history. It was redacted (written down) around the years 500-700 (500 for the Mishnah, 700 for the Gemara).
תַּלְמוּד בַּבְלִי מַסֶּכֶת נָזִיר דַּף נט עַמּוּד א
רָבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בָּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בִּכְלִי זַיִן לַמִּלְחָמָה? ת”ל לֹא יְהִי כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה – שֶׁלֹּא יְתַקֵּן אִישׁ בְּתִקּוּנֵי אִשָּׁה
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: “From where do we learn that a woman may not go out bearingweapons of war? We learn it from the verse: ‘A woman should not put on the apparel of a man’ [And the rest of the verse? How should we understand it?] ‘Nor should a man wear the clothing of a woman,’ [means that] a man should not adorn himself with women’s accessories.”
תַלְמוּד בַּבְלִי מַסֶּכֶת נָזִיר דַּף נט עַמּוּד א
לֹא יְהִי כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה – מַאי תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אִם שֶׁלֹּא יִלְבַּשׁ אִישׁ שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה שִׂמְלַת אִישׁ, הָרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמָר תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא, וְאֵין כָּאן תּוֹעֵבָה! אֶלָּא, שֶׁלֹּא יִלְבַּשׁ אִישׁ שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה וְיָשַׁב בֵּין הַנָּשִׁים, וְאִשָּׁה שִׂמְלַת אִישׁ וְתֵשֵׁב בֵּין הָאֲנָשִׁים
“A woman should not put on the apparel of a man.” What does the Torah mean by this verse? You might think that it simply means that a man may not wear a woman’s garment and a woman may not wear a man’s garment. And behold, it has already been said [by previous commentators in reference to this verse] that it is to’evah, completely off-limits! But there is no to’evah here! [Therefore], the verse must mean that a man may not wear women’s clothes in order to sit amongst women, and a woman must not wear men’s clothes and sit amongst men.
Rashi(c. 11th century)
Rashi was a French rabbi and author of extensive commentaries on the Torah and Talmud. We owe much of our understanding of these texts to Rashi’s commentary.
רָשִׁ”י דְּבָרִים פֶּרֶק כב פָּסוּק ה
לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה – שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹמֶה לְאִישׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּלֵךְ בֵּין הָאֲנָשִׁים, שֶׁאֵין זוֹ אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם נִאוּף, וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה – לֵילֵךְ וְלִֵיְשַׁב בֵּין הַנָּשִׁים…כִּי תּוֹעֲבַת – לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לְבוּשׁ הַמֵּבִיא לִידֵי תּוֹעֵבָה
“A woman should not put on the apparel of a man. . .” that she will resemble a man and go out amongst men for the purpose of adultery. “Nor should a man wear the clothing of a woman…” in order to sit amongst the women. As we learned [in Nazir 59a]. “It is completely off-limits behavior…” [Therefore] the Torah is not forbidding it except when garments lead to such off- limits behavior.
Question for Discussion:
1o minutes for hevruta, 20 minutes for group discussion
None of the classical commentators understand this verse literally as a Torah based ban on wearing the clothes of another gender. How do they understand this verse? Why do you think they reject a literal reading? What are each of the commentators concerned about? What kind of boundary(s) is each of them trying to protect?
MINHAG HA’MAKOM: HOW DO WE DEFINE CROSS-DRESSING?
Rambam, Sefer Hamitzvot, Lo Ta’aseh 40 (12th century)
סֶפֶר הַמִּצְווֹת לָרַמְבָּ”ם מִצְוֹת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה לט
וְהַמִצְוָה הל”ט הִיא שֶׁהִזְהִירָנוּ גַּם כֵּן מֵהֶמְשֵׁךְ אַחַר חֻקּוֹת הַכּוֹפְרִים שֶׁתִּהְיֶינָה הַנָּשִׁים לוֹבְשׁוֹת בִּגְדֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וְתִתְקַשֵּׁטְנָה בְּתַכְשִׁיטֵיהֶם וְהוּא אָמְרוּ יִתְעַלֶּה (תֵּצֵא כב) לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה. וְכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּתְקַשֵּׁט בְּאֶחָד מִתַּכְשִׁיטֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הַמְּפֻרְסָמִים בָּעִיר הַהִיא שֶׁזֶּה הוּא תַּכְשִׁיט מְיֻחָד לַאֲנָשִׁים לוֹקֶה
This commandment also forbids us to follow the customs of the heretics, in regard to women wearing the clothing of men, or their adornments. As [God] said [in the Torah]: “A woman should not put on the apparel of a man.” Any woman, who adorns herself in a way that is publicly known to be men’s accessories in the city where she lives, becomes liable to whipping.
סֶפֶר הַמִּצְווֹת לָרַמְבָּ”ם מִצְוֹת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה מ
וְהַמִצְוָה הָאַרְבָּעִים הִיא שֶׁהִזְהִיר הָאֲנָשִׁים גַּם כֵּן מֵהִתְקַשֵּׁט בְּתַכְשִׁיטֵי הַנָּשִׁים וְהוּא אָמַר וּיִתְעַלֶּה (שם) וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה. וְכָל אָדָם שֶׁהִתְקַשֵּׁט גַּם כֵּן אוֹ לָבַשׁ מָה שֶׁהוּא מְפורסם בַּמָּקוֹם הַהוּא שֶׁהוּא תַּכְשִׁיט הַמְּיֻחָד לַנָּשִׁים לוֹקֶה. וְדַע שֶׁזֹּאת הַפְּעֻלָּה, כְּלוֹמַר הֱיוֹת הַנָּשִׁים מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת בְּתַכְשִׁיטֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים אוֹ הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּתַכְשִׁיטֵי הַנָּשִׁים, פְּעָמִים תֵּעָשֶׂה לְעוֹרֵר הַטֶּבַע לְזִמָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְפֻרְסָם אֵצֶל הַזּוֹנִים וּפְעָמִים יֵעָשֶׂה לַמִּינִים מֵעֲבוֹדַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְבֹאָר בַּסְּפָרִים הַמְּחֻבָּרִים לְזֶה. וְהַרְבֵּה מַה שֶׁיֻּשַּׂם בִּתְנַאי בַּעֲשִׂיַּת קְצָת הַטּלאסם וְיֵאָמֵר אִם הָיָה הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בּוֹ אָדָם יִלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי נָשִׂים וְיִתְקַשֵּׁט בְּזָהָב וּפְנִינִים וְהַדּוֹמִים לָהֶם וְאִם הָיְתָה אִשָּׁה תִּלְבַּשׁ הַשִּׁרְיֹן וְתִזְדַּיֵּן בְּחֲרַבוֹת. וְזֶה מְפֻרְסָם מְאֹד אֵצֶל בַּעֲלֵי דַּעַת זֹאת
This commandment also forbids men to adorn themselves with women’s accessories. As God said [in the Torah]: “Nor should a man wear the clothing of a woman. . .” Any man who adorns himself in a way that is publicly known to be women’s accessories in the place where he lives becomes liable to whipping.
Questions for Discussion:
10 minutes for hevruta, 20 minutes for group discussion.
Moses Isserles, commentary to the Shulchan Aruch (16th century), Orach Chayim 696:8
Moses Isserles, born in Poland in the 1500s, was a rabbi, Talmudist, and posek, renowned for his writings on halacha, entitled ha- Mapah (lit., “the tablecloth”), an inline commentary on the Shulkhan Aruch.
The Shulchan Aruch (literally the “set table”) is the most authoritative legal code of Judaism. It was authored by Yosef Karo, also in the 1500s. Together with its commentary ha-Mapah, it is the most widely accepted compilation of Jewish law ever written.
שֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ אוֹרֵחַ חַיִּים סִימָן תִּרְצוּ סְעִיף ח
מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה בְּפוּרִים. הָגָה וּמַה שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִלְבֹּשׁ פַּרְצוּפִים בְּפוּרִים, וְגֶבֶר לוֹבֵשׁ שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה כְּלִי גֶּבֶר, אֵין אִסּוּר בַּדָּבָר מְאַחַר שֶׁאֵין מְכַוְנִין אֶלָּא לְשִׂמְחָה בְּעַלְמִא וְכֵן בִּלְבִישַׁת כּלאים דְּרַבָּנָן
In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayyim 696:8) we read: “It is permitted [for a man] to dress as a woman on Purim.”
Rabbi Isserles comments on this text: “. . .so too the practice of dressing up in masks on Purim, a man wearing the attire of a woman, and a woman wearing the accessories of a man—there is no prohibition of this, since what they are intending is merely joy, and furthermore the [prohibition of] wearing adornments is d’rabanan (1) (a rabbinic prohibition) [and is therefore of a lesser level of concern here].”
Rabbi Lisa Edwards, sermon (21st century)
Rabbi Lisa Edwards was ordained in 1994 by Hebrew Union College. She currently serves at Beth Chayim Chadashim, one of the world’s first LGBT outreach synagogues, in Los Angeles.
. . .I want to draw our attention not only to this verse, but also to the seemingly unrelated verses that immediately precede it … The translation of these verses that we are most used to say: “If you see your fellow’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow.” A bit later it says about returning any lost thing to your fellow: “you must not remain indifferent.” And finally it says “if you see your fellow’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it; you must help him lift it up.” [Deuteronomy 22:1-4]
The Hebrew actually says hitalamtah and l’hitaleim—not “ignore” or “be indifferent,” but rather a literal translation is, “do not hide yourself.”
“Ignore” and “be indifferent” are nice interpretations, but they are not translations. Hiding yourself is different from ignoring something or being indifferent to someone else’s plight, don’t you think? Hiding yourself is not only about shirking responsibility—it’s about closeting yourself. It’s about hoping no one will notice you, maybe it’s about hoping you won’t notice yourself— won’t notice who you really are. . . Perhaps this verse [when read in its fullest context] is about: not hiding yourself behind clothes that do not belong to you that do not show who you are, that do not allow you to feel like yourself when you are wearing them.
D’rabbanan refers to decrees issued by the rabbis after the Torah was given. It is considered to be as equally binding as Torah law (d’oraita). When considering the difference between d’oraita and d’rabbanan, it is important to note that d’oraita, or Torah law, refers to laws found explicitly in the Torah or laws derived from Torah by halakhically- sound exegetical methods. For example, the commandment to do no work on the Sabbath is d’oraita, as are the 39 categories of work forbidden. (The former is stated explicitly in the text, while the latter is derived from the text.) A very common subcategory of d’rabbanan is known as “gezeirah”, which refers to the category of law which “draws a fence around the Torah.” A gezeirah is a law issued by the rabbis to help people observe a Torah law. For example, the law not to write on Shabbat is d’oraita. However, the law not to touch a writing implement is d’rabbanan.Although both categories of law are considered by halacha (Jewish law) to be equally binding, there are some very important differences between the two when it comes to special cases, such as instances of doubt, extenuating circumstances, or conflicting laws. A Torah law is not considered changeable. A rabbinic law, in rare cases, may be subject to modification or revocation.
Questions for Discussion:
10 minutes for hevruta, 20 minutes for group discussion.
THE TORAH SAYS
Deuteronomy 22:5
לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְיָ אֱלֹהֶיךָ כׇּל עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה.
The items of a man should not be upon a woman; nor should a man wear the dress of a woman—for it is a to’evah [a thing completely off limits] to YHVH your God, everyone who does these things.
Questions for discussion:
Babylonian Talmud Nazir 59a (2nd—4th century CE)
תַּלְמוּד בַּבְלִי מַסֶּכֶת נָזִיר דַּף נט עַמּוּד א
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בָּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בִּכְלִי זַיִן לַמִּלְחָמָה? ת”ל: לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה – שֶׁלֹּא יְתַקֵּן אִישׁ בְּתִקּוּנֵי אִשָּׁה
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: “From where do we learn that a woman may not go out bearing weapons of war? We learn it from the verse: ‘A woman should not put on the apparel of a man’ [And the rest of the verse? How should we understand it?] ‘Nor should a man wear the clothing of a woman,’ [means that] a man should not adorn himself with women’s accessories.”
תַּלְמוּד בַּבְלִי מַסֶּכֶת נָזִיר דַּף נט עַמּוּד א
לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה – מַאי תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אִם שֶׁלֹּא יִלְבַּשׁ אִישׁ שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה שִׂמְלַת אִישׁ, הָרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמָר תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא, וְאֵין כָּאן תּוֹעֵבָה! אֶלָּא, שֶׁלֹּא יִלְבַּשׁ אִישׁ שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה וְיָשַׁב בֵּין הַנָּשִׁים, וְאִשָּׁה שִׂמְלַת אִישׁ וְתֵשֵׁב בֵּין הָאֲנָשִׁים
“A woman should not put on the apparel of a man.” What does the Torah mean by this verse? You might think that it simply means that a man may not wear a woman’s garment and a woman may not wear a man’s garment. And behold, it has already been said [by previous commentators in reference to this verse] that it is to’evah, completely off-limits! But there is no to’evah here! [Therefore], the verse must mean that a man may not wear women’s clothes in order to sit amongst women, and a woman must not wear men’s clothes and sit amongst men.
Rashi (c. 11th century)
רָשִׁ”י דְּבָרִים פֶּרֶק כב פָּסוּק ה
לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה – שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹמֶה לְאִישׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּלֵךְ בֵּין הָאֲנָשִׁים, שֶׁאֵין זוֹ אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם נִאוּף: וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה – לֵילֵךְ וְלִישַׁב בֵּין הַנָּשִׁים…כִּי תּוֹעֲבַת – לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לִלְבֹּשׁ לְבוּשׁ הַמֵּבִיא לִידֵי תּוֹעֵבָה
“A woman should not put on the apparel of a man. . .” that she will resemble a man and go out amongst men for the purpose of adultery. “Nor should a man wear the clothing of a woman…” in order to sit amongst the women. As we learned [in Nazir 59a]. “It is completely off-limits behavior…” [Therefore] the Torah is not forbidding it except when garments lead to such off- limits behavior.
None of the classical commentators understand this verse literally as a Torah based ban on wearing the clothes of another gender. How do they understand this verse? Why do you think they reject a literal reading? What are each of the commentators concerned about? What kind of boundary(s) is each of them trying to protect?
MINHAG HA’MAKOM: HOW DO WE DEFINE CROSS-DRESSING?
Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Ta’aseh 40 (12th century)
This commandment also forbids us to follow the customs of the heretics, in regard to women wearing the clothing of men, or their adornments. As [God] said [in the Torah]: “A woman should not put on the apparel of a man.” Any woman, who adorns herself in a way that is publicly known to be men’s accessories in the city where she lives, becomes liable to whipping.
סֶפֶר הַמִּצְווֹת לָרַמְבָּ”ם מִצְוֹת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה לט
וְהַמִצְוָה הל”ט הִיא שֶׁהִזְהִירָנוּ גַּם כֵּן מֵהֶמְשֵׁךְ אַחַר חֻקּוֹת הַכּוֹפְרִים שֶׁתִּהְיֶינָה הַנָּשִׁים לוֹבְשׁוֹת בִּגְדֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וְתִתְקַשֵּׁטְנָה בְּתַכְשִׁיטֵיהֶם וְהוּא אָמְרוּ יִתְעַלֶּה (תצא כב) לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה. וְכָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁתִּתְקַשֵּׁט בְּאֶחָד מִתַּכְשִׁיטֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הַמְּפֻרְסָמִים בָּעִיר הַהִיא שֶׁזֶּה הוּא תַּכְשִׁיט מְיֻחָד לַאֲנָשִׁים לוֹקָה
This commandment also forbids men to adorn themselves with women’s accessories. As God said [in the Torah]: “Nor should a man wear the clothing of a woman. . .” Any man who adorns himself in a way that is publicly known to be women’s accessories in the place where he lives becomes liable to whipping. …
סֶפֶר הַמִּצְווֹת לָרַמְבָּ”ם מִצְוֹת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה מ
הַמִצְוָה הָאַרְבָּעִים הִיא שֶׁהִזְהִיר הָאֲנָשִׁים גַּם כֵּן מֵהִתְקַשֵּׁט בְּתַכְשִׁיטֵי הַנָּשִׁים וְהוּא אָמְרוּ יִתְעַלֶּה (שָׂם) וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה. וְכָל אָדָם שֶׁיִּתְקַשֵּׁט גַּם כֵּן אוֹ לָבַשׁ מָה שֶׁהוּא מְפֻרְסָם בַּמָּקוֹם הַהוּא שֶׁהוּא תַּכְשִׁיט הַמְּיֻחָד לַנָּשִׁים לוֹקֶה. וְדַע שֶׁזֹּאת הַפְּעֻלָּה, כְּלוֹמַר הֱיוֹת הַנָּשִׁים מִתְקַשְּׁטוֹת בְּתַכְשִׁיטֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים אוֹ הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּתַכְשִׁיטֵי הַנָּשִׁים, פְּעָמִים תֵּעָשֶׂה לְעוֹרֵר הַטֶּבַע לְזִמָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְפֻרְסָם אֵצֶל הַזּוֹנִים וּפְעָמִים יֵעָשֶׂה לַמִּינִים בַּעֲבוֹדַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְבֹאָר בַּסְּפָרִים הַמְּחֻבָּרִים לְזֶה. וְהַרְבֵּה מַה שֶׁיֻּשַּׂם בִּתְנַאי בַּעֲשִׂיַּת קְצָת הַטִּלָּאסָם וְיאמר אִם הָיָה הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בּוֹ אָדָם יִלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי נָשִׂים וְיִתְקַשֵּׁט בְּזָהָב וּפְנִינִים וְהַדּוֹמִים לָהֶם וְאִם הָיְתָה אִשָּׁה תִּלְבַּשׁ הַשִּׁרְיֹן וְתִזְדַּיֵּן בַּחֲרֵבוֹת. וְזֶה מְפֻרְסָם מְאֹד אֵצֶל בַּעֲלֵי דֵּעָה זֹאת:
Questions for Discussion:
Moses Isserles, commentary to the Shulchan Aruch (16th century), Orach Chayim 696:8
שֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ אוֹרחַ חַיִּים סִימָן תרצו סְעִיף ח
מֻתָּר לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה בְּפוּרִים הגה: וּמַה שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִלְבֹּשׁ פַּרְצוּפִים בְּפוּרִים, וְגֶבֶר לוֹבֵשׁ שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה כְּלִי גֶּבֶר, אֵין אִסּוּר בַּדָּבָר מְאַחַר שֶׁאֵין מְכַוְנִין אֶלָּא לְשִׂמְחָה בְּעָלְמָא: וְכֵן בִּלְבִישַׁת כּלאים דְּרַבָּנָן.
In the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayyim 696:8) we read: “It is permitted [for a man] to dress as a woman on Purim.”
Rabbi Isserles comments on this text: “. . .so too the practice of dressing up in masks on Purim, a man wearing the attire of a woman, and a woman wearing the accessories of a man—there is no prohibition of this, since what they are intending is merely joy, and furthermore the [prohibition of] wearing adornments is d’rabanan (a rabbinic prohibition) [and is therefore of a lesser level of concern].”
Rabbi Lisa Edwards, sermon (21st century)
. . .I want to draw our attention not only to this verse, but also to the seemingly unrelated verses that immediately precede it … The translation of these verses that we are most used to say: “If you see your fellow’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow.” A bit later it says about returning any lost thing to your fellow: “you must not remain indifferent.” And finally it says “if you see your fellow’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it; you must help him lift it up.” [Deuteronomy 22:1-4]
The Hebrew actually says hitalamtah and l’hitaleim—not “ignore” or “be indifferent,” but rather a literal translation is, “do not hide yourself.”
“Ignore” and “be indifferent” are nice interpretations, but they are not translations. Hiding yourself is different from ignoring something or being indifferent to someone else’s plight, don’t you think? Hiding yourself is not only about shirking responsibility—it’s about closeting yourself. It’s about hoping no one will notice you, maybe it’s about hoping you won’t notice yourself— won’t notice who you really are. . . Perhaps this verse [when read in its fullest context] is about: not hiding yourself behind clothes that do not belong to you that do not show who you are, that do not allow you to feel like yourself when you are wearing them.
National Office - Boston
1860 Washington St.
Newton, MA 02466
Phone: 617.524.9227
New York / Bay Area / Chicago / Florida / Texas
