לֹא־יִהְיֶ֤ה כְלִי־גֶ֙בֶר֙ עַל־אִשָּׁ֔ה וְלֹא־יִלְבַּ֥שׁ גֶּ֖בֶר שִׂמְלַ֣ת אִשָּׁ֑ה כִּ֧י תוֹעֲבַ֛ת ה' אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ כׇּל־עֹ֥שֵׂה אֵֽלֶּה׃
There shall not be a garment of a man (כלי גבר) on a woman and a man shall not garb in a dress (שמלת אשה) of a woman, for abominable to God are all those who do so.
לָא יְהֵי תִקּוּן זֵין דִּגְבַר עַל אִתְּתָא וְלָא יְתַקֵּן גְּבַר בְּתִקּוּנֵי אִתְּתָא אֲרֵי מְרָחָק קֳדָם ה' אֱלָקָךְ כָּל עָבֵד אִלֵּין:
There shall not be battle gear (תקון זין דגבר) of a man on a woman and a man shall not equip adornments (תקוני אתתא) of a woman, for all who do so are distancing from before God.
לָא יִהְיֶה גּוּלְיַין דְּצִיצִית וּתְפִילִין דְּהִינוּן תִּקּוּנֵי גְבַר עַל אִיתָּא וְלָא יְסַפֵּר גְּבַר בֵּי שֵׁיחַיַא וְעִרְיְיתֵיהּ וּבֵי אַנְפּוֹי לְאִיתְחֲמָאָה הֵיךְ נְשָׁא אֲרוּם מְרַחֵק קֳדָם ה' אֱלָהָכוֹן הוּא כָּל דְּעָבִיד אִלֵּין
There shall not be a wrapper/cloak with fringes (dare I say a modern day tallit equivalent?) and t'filin, representative vestment of a man (תקוני גבר), on a woman, nor shall a man shave armpits, pubic hair and wherever בי אנפוי is (presumably on the body) [with the intention] to be seen as a woman, because distanced from God is whoever does so.
In the pasuk seen in the Torah, we are told three things. In simple terms, i) a woman should not equip garment of a man, ii) a man shall not wear a dress of a woman and that iii) whoever does this does not get Hashem's seal of approval.
When looking at the Aramaic translations of this pasuk, an argument could be put forward that there was not enough clarity what a garment of a man or a dress of a woman constitute. The language used by Onkelos might evoke a much more battle-themed attire of a man whereas Jonathan is focussed exclusively on religious ritual paraphernalia. Moreover, Jonathan expands the list by actual examples, such as t'fillin, whilst also slightly reinterpreting the prohibition of the men. In Jonathan's translation, the prohibition of a man has nothing to do with dressing, but much more with shaving, which is an appropriate segue into masechet Nazir.
Not within the scope of this talk, but worth drawing the attention to, is the language shift in both Aramaic translations of the pasuk. The often problematic term תועבה is translated as distancing oneself from the Divine, rather than something abominable or abhorrent.
The Latin translation, at the time of writing absent on Sefaria, does the following:
Non induetur mulier veste virili nec vir utetur veste feminea abominabilis enim apud Deum est qui facit hæc
A woman shall not put on (3p.sg. future passive indicative of induo) a masculine garment, nor shall a man make use of (3p.sg. future active indicative of utor) a feminine garment, for abominable to God is who acts thusly.
The Latin translation, despite using what we would in Hebrew refer to as two verbs with different shorashim, uses the same noun for describing the garments (or vest(e)ments, if you excuse the pun) of either gender. In Hebrew or Aramaic, the language is much less clear cut. The Hebrew original uses כלי גבר and שמלת אשה, Onkelos uses תקון זין דגבר and תקוני אתתא whilst Targum Jonatan uses תקון גבר דהינון גוליין דציצית ותפילין and לא יספר as prohibitions for women and men respectively.
Now that we know what's bothering me, let's have a look at how Rashi sees the pasuk. He splits his comments into three chunks, much like I did above. Rashi comments:
לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה. שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹמָה לְאִישׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּלֵךְ בֵּין הָאֲנָשִׁים, שֶׁאֵין זוֹ אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם נִאוּף:
ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה. לֵילֵךְ לֵישֵׁב בֵּין הַנָּשִׁים. דָּ"אַ — שֶׁלֹּא יַשִּׁיר שְׂעַר הָעֶרְוָה וְשֵׂעָר שֶׁל בֵּית הַשֶּׁחִי:
כי תועבת. לֹא אָסְרָה תוֹרָה אֶלָּא לְבוּשׁ הַמֵּבִיא לִידֵי תוֹעֵבָה:
There shall not be a garment of a man on a woman — so that she would not appear like a man in order to hang out among men, for this can only lead to adultery.
and a man shall not garb in a dress of a woman — to go and remain among women, alternatively, not to shave armpits nor pubic hair
for abominable — the Torah only forbade dressing which would bring about unchastity
לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה. ונכנס למקום אנשים לנות:
וכן לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה. והוא יכנס במקום הנשים לזנות: ד"א. שלא יעביר בגית השחי ובית הערוה בתער כדרך שהנשים עושים:
There shall not be a garment of a man on a woman — [so that she would not] enter to a place where men sleep.
and a man shall not garb in a dress of a woman — [so that he would not] enter to a place where women prostitute, alternatively, so that [he] would not shave armpits not pubic hair with a razor, like the way the women do
The masechet Nazir discusses shaving a fair bit, since the prohibitions of someone who declares a Nazarite vow include a prohibition against shaving. In mishnaic times, nazarite vows were also declared by women and the tractate spends a long time discussing various conditions and formulations affecting the validity of nazarite vows.
The prohibitions of a nazir are taken from the Torah:
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ דַּבֵּר֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֲלֵהֶ֑ם אִ֣ישׁ אֽוֹ־אִשָּׁ֗ה כִּ֤י יַפְלִא֙ לִנְדֹּר֙ נֶ֣דֶר נָזִ֔יר לְהַזִּ֖יר לַֽה'׃ מִיַּ֤יִן וְשֵׁכָר֙ יַזִּ֔יר (חֹ֥מֶץ יַ֛יִן וְחֹ֥מֶץ שֵׁכָ֖ר לֹ֣א יִשְׁתֶּ֑ה וְכׇל־מִשְׁרַ֤ת עֲנָבִים֙ לֹ֣א יִשְׁתֶּ֔ה וַעֲנָבִ֛ים לַחִ֥ים וִיבֵשִׁ֖ים לֹ֥א יֹאכֵֽל׃ כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֣י נִזְר֑וֹ מִכֹּל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יֵעָשֶׂ֜ה מִגֶּ֣פֶן הַיַּ֗יִן מֵחַרְצַנִּ֛ים וְעַד־זָ֖ג לֹ֥א יֹאכֵֽל׃) כׇּל־יְמֵי֙ נֶ֣דֶר נִזְר֔וֹ תַּ֖עַר לֹא־יַעֲבֹ֣ר עַל־רֹאשׁ֑וֹ (עַד־מְלֹ֨את הַיָּמִ֜ם אֲשֶׁר־יַזִּ֤יר לַה' קָדֹ֣שׁ יִהְיֶ֔ה גַּדֵּ֥ל פֶּ֖רַע שְׂעַ֥ר רֹאשֽׁוֹ׃ כׇּל־יְמֵ֥י הַזִּיר֖וֹ לַה') עַל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ מֵ֖ת לֹ֥א יָבֹֽא׃
Hashem spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelites and say to them: If a man or a woman explicitly utters a nazirite vow, to set themselves apart for Hashem, they shall abstain from wine and any other liquid intoxicant ... During the days of their nazirut, no razor shall touch their head ... they shall not go in where there is a dead person.
The mishna summarises the pasuk above to render the three main prohibition related to nazirut as follows:
שְׁלשָׁה מִינִין אֲסוּרִין בַּנָּזִיר, הַטֻּמְאָה וְהַתִּגְלַחַת וְהַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַגָּפֶן. (וְכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַגֶּפֶן מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל מִן הָעֲנָבִים כַּזָּיִת. מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁתֶּה רְבִיעִית יַיִן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ שָׁרָה פִתּוֹ בְיַיִן וְיֶשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לְצָרֵף כַּזַּיִת, חַיָּב:)
Three types of prohibition [apply] in a nazir: ritual impurity [from a corpse], shaving and everything that issues from a vine...
Holiness and ritual impurity are hard to reconcile and thus the subject of many discussion in chapter 8 of the Gemara. This is where the passage I would like to discuss appears. It will quote Deuteronomy 22:5, the pasuk on top of this source sheet.
אָמַר רַב: מֵיקֵל אָדָם כׇּל גּוּפוֹ בְּתַעַר. מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּעֲבִיר בֵּית הַשֶּׁחִי וּבֵית הָעֶרְוָה — הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה!
Rav said: A person may lighten his whole body with a razor. [The Gemara raises an] Objection: Anyone who removes armpit or pubic hair is subject to lashes.
[The Gemara clumsily tries to dismiss the objection] This (problematic objection is a case where shaving happens) with a razor, this (Rav's permission to lighten the whole body is) with scissors.
[This did not satisfy the Gemara, because] The (permission) of Rav (is) with a razor! [The Gemara comes to Rav's rescue, claiming it is not with a razor, but] similar to a razor.
Said Rabbi Chiya the son of Abba that Rabbi Yochanan said: [a person who] removes armpit or pubic hair is subject to lashes. [The Gemara raises an] Objection: hair removal is not [prohibited by the] Torah law, only by the rabbinic law. What does [Rabbi Yochanan] mean by (when he says the person is subject to) lashes? That the person is lashed on the basis of rabbinical law.
What does [Rabbi Yochanan] mean by (when he says the person is subject to) lashes — to say [that these are] rebellious lashes [which are] rabbinic in origin
Some say [that there is a different version of the statement above]: Said Rabbi Chiya the son of Abba that Rabbi Yochanan said: [a person who] removes armpit or pubic hair is subject to lashes, because of [a Biblical transgression of] "a man shall not garb in a dress of a woman". [The Gemara raises an] Objection: hair removal is not [prohibited by the] Torah law, only by the rabbinic law. He (Rabbi Yochanan) said (his teaching) in accordance with this Tanna (an earlier authoritative source), who taught that: [a person who] removes armpit or pubic hair is subject to lashes, because of [a Biblical transgression of] "a man shall not garb in a dress of a woman".
[The Gemara wonders] and this first Tanna (who wolds that the prohibition is rabbinic), this "a man shall not garb", what does he learn from this [verse]? He needs it for that which is taught: "there shall not be a garment of a man on a woman". What is the Torah teaching? If [it only teaches] that a man shall not garb in a dress of a woman and a woman in a dress of a man, this is already said in "abominable to God", but here (in the mere act of wearing a garment of the opposite sex), there is no abomination!
אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יִלְבַּשׁ אִישׁ שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה וְיֵשֵׁב בֵּין הַנָּשִׁים, וְאִשָּׁה שִׂמְלַת אִישׁ וְתֵשֵׁב בֵּין הָאֲנָשִׁים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא תֵּצֵא אִשָּׁה בִּכְלֵי זַיִין לְמִלְחָמָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה״, שֶׁלֹּא יִתַּקֵּן אִישׁ בְּתִיקּוּנֵי אִשָּׁה.
Rather, [the Torah is teaching] that a man shall not garb in a dress of a woman and sit among the women and [that] a woman shall not [garb] in a dress of a man and sit among the men. Rabbi Eliezer son of Ya'akov says: From where [do we know] that a woman shall not go out with battle gear into war? The Torah says: "There shall not be a garment of a man on a woman and a man shall not garb in a dress of a woman", [to teach that] a man shall not equip adornments of a woman.
- Rav taught that a person may indeed shave all of his body hair with a razor, but the Gemara brings a contradickting baraita, which teaches that shaving armpit and pubic hair is not allowed.
- An attempt at resolving this issue is to limit the teaching of the baraita to only include a prohibition on shaving with a razor, as to say that Rav is actually proposing shaving with scissors (and if, like me, you're completely unconvinced about this attempt to reconcile the two sources, buckle up, because Gemara is sensitive to you registering the attempt to convince you that Rav isn't actually referring to a razor when Rava explicitly mentioned a razor in his teaching, but this is the talmudic rodeo we'll ride together). Now the Gemara realises that Rav actually specifically mentioned the razor, so it clarifies that when Rav taught about shaving with a razor, the meant shaving with scissors which are like a razor but not a razor.
- The Gemara brings Rabbi Chiya the son of Abba who conveyed a teaching of Rabbi Yochanan who taught that a person who removes armpit or pubic hair is subject to lashes. The message of Rabbi Yochanan's teaching is synonymous with the baraita brought to contradickt Rav. The Gemara brings a baraita to challenge the teaching of Rabbi Yochanan, which claims that the hair removal (prohibition) is merely rabbinical, not from the Torah. This raises a question why would lashes be the punishment of choice for the transgression. The Gemara helps Rabbi Yochanan and explains that when Rabbi Yochanan teaches that the person who removes armpit or pubic hair is subject to lashes, he refers to rebellious lashes, which is a rabbinical punishment (presumably to deter such behaviour in the future).
- The Gemara brings an alternative version of Rabbi Yochanan's teaching, which claims that Rabbi Yochanan's prohibition of removing armpit or pubic hair is subject to lashes, because of a biblical transgression of "a man shall not garb in a dress of a woman". As the lashes are a punishment for transgressing Torah law, the Gemara challenges Rabbi Yochanan with a baraita, which teaches that hair removal is only prohibited by rabbinic law, in direct conflict of the implication of the penalty suggested by Rabbi Yochanan. The Gemara extends a helping hand to Rabbi Yochanan again and explains that there was a tannaitic (earlier) disagreement and that one party held like the alternative version of Rabbi Yochanan's teaching and that the other party held like the baraita which teaches that hair removal is only prohibited by rabbinic law.
- The Gemara wonders again. If the alternative version of Rabbi Yochanan's teaching claiming that the prohibitions is due to a biblical prohibition of "a man shall not garb", what does the baraita consistent with opinion of the dissenting Tanna does with this pasuk? We learn that it is indeed not redundant, as the Tanna uses "there shall not be a garment of a man on a woman" to derive the prohibition of crossdressing, but the pasuk also used a very strong language of an abomination, so there must be something else to be learned from the pasuk other than the mere prohibition against wearing a garment.
- The Gemara clarifies that the inclusion of the strong language of תועבה in the pasuk teaches that the prohibition cannot be just wearing a dress of the opposite sex. Gemara clarifies that the prohibition is on wearing those garments with the intention of intermingling with the opposite sex.
- Rabbi Eliezer son of Ya'akov chimes in and asks where do we learn that a woman shall not go out into war with battle gear (כלי זיין)? The answer is our pasuk (Deuteronomy 22:5) and Rashi connects it to the story of Yael (Judges 4).
Rabbi Eliezer son of Ya'akov is fascinating for a different reason, namely for bringing the language of כלי זיין back into the discussion. Rashi links the expression and the message to Yael, but זיין itself is an interesting word to scrutinise. We have previously seen תקון זין דגבר in Onkelos, but the word itself (and the letter זי"ן) might be more explaining to do.
תלמוד לומר לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה - וזה שמצינו ביעל אשת חבר הקיני שלא הרגתו לסיסרא בכלי זיין אלא כמו שנאמר ידה ליתד תשלחנה (שופטים ה׳:כ״ו):
The Torah says: "There shall not be a garment of a man on a woman" — this is what we find in [the case of] Yael, the wife of Chever the Kenite, that she did not murder Sis'ra with battle gear, rather as it says "her hand reached for the [tent] pin".
זַיִין, זַיִן m. (זוּן) armament, armor, weapon (collect.), steel; כלי ז׳ implements of war. Tosef. Ab. Zar. II, 4 אין … לא ז׳ ולא כלי ז׳ you must not sell them either armor (steel) or implements &c.; Yeb. 115ᵃ אשה כלי זַיְינָהּ עליה a woman has her armor with her, i.e. her physical weakness is her protection from murderous attacks.
וְסִֽיסְרָא֙ נָ֣ס בְּרַגְלָ֔יו אֶל־אֹ֣הֶל יָעֵ֔ל אֵ֖שֶׁת חֶ֣בֶר הַקֵּינִ֑י כִּ֣י שָׁל֗וֹם בֵּ֚ין יָבִ֣ין מֶלֶךְ־חָצ֔וֹר וּבֵ֕ין בֵּ֖ית חֶ֥בֶר הַקֵּינִֽי׃ וַתֵּצֵ֣א יָעֵל֮ לִקְרַ֣את סִֽיסְרָא֒ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֗יו סוּרָ֧ה אֲדֹנִ֛י סוּרָ֥ה אֵלַ֖י אַל־תִּירָ֑א וַיָּ֤סַר אֵלֶ֙יהָ֙ הָאֹ֔הֱלָה וַתְּכַסֵּ֖הוּ בַּשְּׂמִיכָֽה׃ וַיֹּ֧אמֶר אֵלֶ֛יהָ הַשְׁקִינִי־נָ֥א מְעַט־מַ֖יִם כִּ֣י צָמֵ֑אתִי וַתִּפְתַּ֞ח אֶת־נֹ֧אוד הֶחָלָ֛ב וַתַּשְׁקֵ֖הוּ וַתְּכַסֵּֽהוּ׃ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלֶ֔יהָ עֲמֹ֖ד פֶּ֣תַח הָאֹ֑הֶל וְהָיָה֩ אִם־אִ֨ישׁ יָבֹ֜א וּשְׁאֵלֵ֗ךְ וְאָמַ֛ר הֲיֵֽשׁ־פֹּ֥ה אִ֖ישׁ וְאָמַ֥רְתְּ אָֽיִן׃ וַתִּקַּ֣ח יָעֵ֣ל אֵֽשֶׁת־חֶ֠בֶר אֶת־יְתַ֨ד הָאֹ֜הֶל וַתָּ֧שֶׂם אֶת־הַמַּקֶּ֣בֶת בְּיָדָ֗הּ וַתָּב֤וֹא אֵלָיו֙ בַּלָּ֔אט וַתִּתְקַ֤ע אֶת־הַיָּתֵד֙ בְּרַקָּת֔וֹ וַתִּצְנַ֖ח בָּאָ֑רֶץ וְהֽוּא־נִרְדָּ֥ם וַיָּ֖עַף וַיָּמֹֽת׃ וְהִנֵּ֣ה בָרָק֮ רֹדֵ֣ף אֶת־סִֽיסְרָא֒ וַתֵּצֵ֤א יָעֵל֙ לִקְרָאת֔וֹ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר ל֔וֹ לֵ֣ךְ וְאַרְאֶ֔ךָּ אֶת־הָאִ֖ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֣ה מְבַקֵּ֑שׁ וַיָּבֹ֣א אֵלֶ֔יהָ וְהִנֵּ֤ה סִֽיסְרָא֙ נֹפֵ֣ל מֵ֔ת וְהַיָּתֵ֖ד בְּרַקָּתֽוֹ׃
Sis'ra fled on his feet to the tent of Yael, the wife of Chever the Kenite, for [there was] peace between Yaviv the King of Chatsor and between the House of Chever the Kenite. Yael went out to greet Sis'ra and said onto him: "Turn to me my Lord, do not fear" and [Sis'ra] turned into her tent and she covered him with a blanket. He said to her: "Please water me a little for I am thirsty" and she opened a skin-bottle of milk, gave him to drink and covered him. He said to her: "Stand in the tent opening and should anyone come and asks you: "is anyone here?" say no". Yael the wife of Chever took a tent pin and a hammer into her hand, approached him softly and thrust the tent pin into the temple [of his head], which went into the ground and in his sleep he died. Hereby [materialised] Barak in pursuit of Sis'ra and Yael went out to meet him saying to him: "Go and see for yourself the man whom you seek", he came towards her and behold, Sis'ra [was] fallen dead and [a] tent peg in his temple.
זַיִ"ין the letter Zayin.—Pl. זַיְי"נִין.
David Asaf & Israel Bartel on Zayin/Zanav/Tail
Shoshana Kordova on Zayin as Number 7/Shabbat
שלא תלבש אשה עדי איש. שלא ילבשו הנשים מלבושי האנשים ולא יזדינו בזינם, ועל זה נאמר לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה. ותרגם אונקלוס לא יהא תקון זין דגבר על אתתא. ומן הדומה כי מפני כן פירש הכתוב בכלי זין, לפי שהם הכלים המיחדים לגמרי לאנשים, שאין דרך אשה בעולם לצאת בכלי זין, (אבל הוא הדין שאסור להם מדאוריתא לצאת במלבושים שדרך האנשים באותו המקום להשתמש בהם, כגון שתשים בראשה מצנפת או שאר כלים המיחדים לאיש).
משרשי המצוה. להרחיק מאמתנו הקדושה דבר ערוה (וכל ענין וכל צד שיהיה הכשלון באותו דבר מצוי מתוכו, וכענין שאמרו זכרונם לברכה על דרך משל שאלקינו שונא זמה,) כלומר, שלאהבתנו הרחיקנו מן הזמה, שהוא דבר מכוער ביותר, ויקח לב האדם, ומדיחו מדרך טובה ומחשבה רצויה לדרך רעה ומחשבה של שטות, ואין ספק כי אם יהיו מלבושי האנשים והנשים שוים יתערבו אלו עם אלו תמיד ומלאה הארץ זמה.
That a woman should not wear the adornments (עדי) of a man — so that the woman would not dress in the clothing of men and not arm themselves with their weapons. On this [the Torah] says: "There shall not be a garment of a man on a woman". Onkelos translated [the pasuk as]: "There shall not be battle gear of a man on a woman". And so also with similar items, explained the Torah regarding weapons, since they are utensil completely specific to men, that it is not the way of a woman in the world to go out with weapons...
The source of the commandment — to distance our holy people from an abominable thing... as if to say, that the Hashem's love distances us from sexual misconduct as it is an excessively condemnable thing [which can] take the heart of a man and push it from the path of goodness and thoughts of desirable [quality] to a path of evil and primitive thought; there is no doubt that if men and women dressed the same, they would intermingle and fill the world with promiscuity.
שלא ילבש איש מלבושי אשה. שלא ילבשו האנשים מלבושי הנשים, ועל זה נאמר ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה.
משרשי המצוה. מה שכתוב במצוה הקודמת.
That a man should not wear the clothes (עדי) of a woman — so that the men would not dress the the clothing of women. On this [the Torah] says: "a man shall not garb in a dress of a woman".
The source of the commandment — that which was written in the preceding commandment.
והנה בארנו בחיבורנו הגדול שהקפת ׳פאת ראש ופאת זקן׳ אסור מפני שהוא תיקון ׳כמרי עבודה זרה׳...
And in our magnum opus, we explained that rounding the corners of the hair and the corners of the beard is forbidden, because it is a habit of the masters of idol worship...
[There was] Someone obligated to [receive] lashing before Rabbi Ami. [When they] uncovered his armpits, he saw that they were not shaved. Rabbi Ami said [to those about to administer the lashes]: Let him be, he is one of the learned ones!
he is one of the learned ones — for knowing that it is prohibited to shave armpits.