Women wearing pants
Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Women wearing pants
- This topic has 78 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by yitayningwut.
May 9, 2013 4:34 pm at 4:34 pm #952688
If something is feminine because it’s based on normal feminine tendencies (I think preening in front of a mirror is an example, see Igros Moshe we mentioned earlier), or masculine because it’s immodest for a woman (trousers), we can say it’s objectively feminine or masculine, and I think that’s what happening in these cases.May 9, 2013 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #952689just my hapenceParticipant
Sam2 – 2 problems: 1. If the Rashba is assuming something then that doesn’t mean we have to run with it if we know that this assumption is incorrect (especially as the Rashba is not addressing the issue we are talking about and it has been ‘retcon’ed into his words). 2. If these things were defined with chasimas hatalmud, what do we do about things that were only invented afterwards?May 10, 2013 7:09 pm at 7:09 pm #952690mewhoParticipant
women can wear thick tights and/or leggings in the winter. no need for the pantsMay 10, 2013 7:21 pm at 7:21 pm #952691charliehallParticipant
” these contemporary Rabbonim assumed that pants were solely a man’s clothing Mimei Kedem”
Obviously they were misinformed. You don’t follow a psak when it is based on wrong information. (If you know that a restaurant is serving chazir, you won’t eat there even if the gadol hador is the kashrut supervisor. Of course you’d probably call the gadol hador to let him know!)May 10, 2013 7:56 pm at 7:56 pm #952692
mewho: have you ever worn leggings or thick tights? Why do you assume that it is ‘enough”? The Bach clearly thought differently.
To Sam2 and DaasYochid: I have followed your back and forth but as I do not have access to the Teshvas Horashbo-I cannot comment. However, I doubt that there is anything that is “inherently’ masculine or feminine. Clearly, viewing into mirrrors, wearing robes or pants (my thanks Sam2 for the gemoro Niddah), shaving itself are all things that have changed over the years. I would include tinting one’s hair in this. Many men tint their hair today- why should that be ossur? Customs change and so does anything based on “what is normal” (see covering a woman’s hair and kiras shema in the Aruch Hashulchan and other Poskim)May 10, 2013 8:11 pm at 8:11 pm #952693mewhoParticipant
rabbiofberlin, so is it ok now for men to dye their hair and beard?May 10, 2013 8:45 pm at 8:45 pm #952694
I apologize for not being able to respond that often or get more in to detail; I am very busy lately.
I have not looked over the entire thread to see your exchange with Sam, but for now let me just say that any pshat that says beged isha is not purely defined by the time and place is a big dochek. This is very clear when you learn the sugya in Nedarim and the Tur / Beis Yosef / Mechaber / Rema etc.
More later, hopefully.May 10, 2013 9:08 pm at 9:08 pm #952695
Lo tilbash there is no issue with women wearing pants. It’s an issue of daas yehudis. I personally heard this from a posek.May 10, 2013 9:15 pm at 9:15 pm #952696
You guys are mixing up two different issues. Lo tilbash is not wearing clothing of the opposite gender because of arayos, it has nothing to do with a women not understanding the special role of a woman and wanting to be like a man.May 10, 2013 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm #952697
Daniel Rosen: Pashtus is that Lo Silbash has nothing to do with Arayos. Lo Silbash is one of the incredibly rare instances where for some reason we are sometimes Doresh Ta’ama Dikra (based on Rashi Al HaTorah) as a Snif L’hakel.
And who gets to determine what constitutes “wanting to be like a man” and “not understanding the special role of a woman”. I would be willing to wager that most women who want to wear pants want to do so out of comfort, not because they want to be like men.May 10, 2013 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm #952698
Sam2: “Pashtus is that Lo Silbash has nothing to do with Arayos.”
That tells me you have no fundamental understanding of halacha. I am sure you have the potential to be a talmid chacham, but for now I do not want to get into long debaates with you again. Your above statement just confirmed you have a long way to go before you are ready to start having these debates.
And who gets to determine what constitutes “wanting to be like a man”
I don’t know, that’s my point, it has nothing to do with lo tilbash.May 10, 2013 10:51 pm at 10:51 pm #952700
Yitay: What does the Gemara say? (Obviously; Rashi Al Hatorah is almost always based on Gemaros or Midrashim, but when I see it quoted they quote Rashi, not the Gemara.) And that doesn’t change the fact that in the vast majority of instances, we don’t care whether or not it leadsto/is for Arayos as Begged Ish/Ishah remain Assur anyway. The Sod Hadavar might be related to Arayos, but for Halachic purposes it really isn’t.May 10, 2013 11:24 pm at 11:24 pm #952701
Rabbiofberlin,May 10, 2013 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm #952702
Sam, several teshuvos seen to assume that it is related to arayos.
Good Shabbos, everyone, I may have little time to check in for the next few days.May 10, 2013 11:35 pm at 11:35 pm #952703
It’s a pretty fair way of interpreting the trend of the Gemara which remarks
????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????
I need to chazer though, and iy”h I’ll have a more comprehensive comment after Shabbos.May 12, 2013 2:31 am at 2:31 am #952704
I looked over the Tur / Shulchan Aruch again over Shabbos, and I honestly do not see a basis to prohibit pants for women in a society in which it is the norm.
The consensus clearly is that male clothing is defined by society. Moreover, I think that normative halacha follows the note of R’ Akiva Eiger on the final s’if that in societies where it is the norm for men to look in mirrors, that is permitted as well. As such it is clear to me that normative halacha has accepted subjective standards not just for clothing, but for the final s’if as well. Therefore in a society where it is the norm for men to dye or pluck their white hairs, pashtus is it would be mutar too.
I can understand the rationale of saying a docheik lekula – one wants to make things more bearable for the tzibur. But saying a docheik lechumra is a lot harder to rationalize, unless it is clear that there is a pirtza. With all due respect to those who disagree, I think to say pants for women constitutes such a pirtza or that is inherently pritzusdig is to not be aware of the current metzius. Therefore I am quite convinced that we should follow the pashtus and not squeeze out issurim.May 12, 2013 4:00 am at 4:00 am #952705
yitayningwut: “and I honestly do not see a basis to prohibit pants for women in a society in which it is the norm.”
That is exactly my point. The only issue is arayos. If the woman is obviously a female (i.e. in a society that would recognize her as such because females wear pants) there is no issue even though she is a feminist and wants to be just like a man. As long as she is recognizable as a female there is no lo tilbash issue. There is perhaps daas yehudis issue. But to confuse the two shows a lack of understanding.May 12, 2013 4:20 am at 4:20 am #952706
Sam2: “The Sod Hadavar might be related to Arayos, but for Halachic purposes it really isn’t.”
That is not true Sam. That’s why lehalacha on Purim it is mutar for a man to wear woman’s clothes. It is obvious that he is not really a woman.May 12, 2013 5:09 am at 5:09 am #952707
It’s not at all dochuk to say that some parts are not era subjective. That seems to be the opinion of the Rashb’a and Ramba’m l’gabay sa’ar beis hashechi, and although the R’ma didn’t pasken that way, and even if we go with R’ A.E. l’gabay mirrors, that doesn’t mean the yesod is wrong. Why broaden the machlokes to make it so yesodosdik? I think my diyuk in R’Moshe is a good one, that dying hair is b’etzem.May 12, 2013 5:31 am at 5:31 am #952708
Daniel: That is one of the cases I referenced above where we seem to be Doresh Ta’ama Dikra here, which is strange. And it’s not so Pashut that it’s Muttar to dress as a woman on Purim. Many Achronim say that we cannot rely on the Rama on this because why should Simchas Purim be Mattir an Issur D’Oraisa? And even those that rely on it try and take it down a peg by saying that it should only be one item of clothing.May 12, 2013 5:45 am at 5:45 am #952709
That’s why lehalacha on Purim it is mutar for a man to wear woman’s clothes.
Ba’ch is very opposed.May 12, 2013 1:06 pm at 1:06 pm #952710
It’s not at all dochuk to say that some parts are not era subjective.
My point is less – albeit somewhat – about what is dochuk in pshat in the Gemara than about what is dochuk as a psak halacha l’hachmir. Meaning, if the trend in the Tur, Beis Yosef, Rema, R’ Akiva Eiger etc. is that all Lo Silbashes are created equal, then how can someone come along and demand the tzibur follow an alternative pshat, lechumra? I don’t think the SA has the status of the Gemara and of course I agree that in many instances we will pasken differently than the Mechaber / Rema. If they are meikil and someone wants to suggest an alternative pshat l’hachmir, go ahead. If someone wants to shlug them up, also go ahead. But to take an alternative pshat without conclusively shlugging up the Rema’s and then to say that people don’t have the right to follow the Rema? That is squeezing out issurim, or as Sam sometimes likes to term a ziyuf hatorah. I have no problem if you want to be machmir yourself or suggest a chumra to others based on what you think is pshat. But you can’t just go around saying that something which the Rema pashtus matirs is assur, if you can’t claim to conclusively shlug him up, even if there are rishonim who might agree with you. At the very least, end off your psak with the statement “umikol makom hanohagim heter yesh lahem al mi lismoch.”May 12, 2013 1:40 pm at 1:40 pm #952711
I don’t think they ever said all Lo Silbashes are created equal.
I also don’t think we should be telling major poskim what kind of mehalech they should have in psak. It’s one thing to talk in learning, but that’s above our pay grade.May 12, 2013 2:52 pm at 2:52 pm #952712dochaMember
Why dont bais yaakov girls wear pants? Why dont their mothers, frum Jewish women, waer pants? Virtually none. Why? Because theyre not allowed to, not because they dont want to. EVEN amongst the modern orthodox their women dont wear pants, except the borderline religious who barely keep Shabbos.
Whats considered “common” is what is common in frum Jewish society, NOT whats considered common in gentile or irreligious society.May 12, 2013 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #952713
“Simchas Purim be Mattir an Issur D’Oraisa?”
Because its derech tzchok.May 12, 2013 3:50 pm at 3:50 pm #952714
DaasYochid: Thank you for pointing me to the Rashbo. I read (and re-read) it carefully and also looked at the gemoro in Nazir to whioc he alludes. In truth, the teshuvo raises more questions than it gives answers . Firstly- the person asks the Rashbo the question whether the custom of people “shaving under their chin and the throat” (obviously to avoid “hashchoso beta-ar in “Pe-as zekeinecho”) is allowed, as the people do it all the time. So, does the Rashbo prohibit this? In other words, according to the Rashbo, can we -today!- shave anywhere? According to your intimation that the Rashbo holds that,once it is a “malbush isha” it remains Ossur forever- dos that mean that we- today- do not hold like the Rahsbo??
Secondly-if you look at the actual gemoro- it ends up allowing to scrape hair from under the armpits ,asl ong as it is with a “beged’ a cloth. Why should that be so, if any shaving like women is ossur?
Lastly, although the Rashbo does indees intimate that any shaving would be ossur- from the gemoro “Nazir” (59a) it seesm that only “chaveirim” followed that precept. Maybe it is only a middus cahssidus, and nto the halacha? More questions tob elucidate this.May 12, 2013 3:52 pm at 3:52 pm #952715
mewho: dyeing one’s hair or beard is a question that has been asked by many. I think that R”moshe zz’l has a teshuvo but I’ll investigate further. My point was that if today many men do it ,why does it remain an issur of “lo Tilbash’? See the rest of the discussion on this thread!May 12, 2013 4:51 pm at 4:51 pm #952716
Daniel Rosen: “Lo tilbash is not wearing clothing of the opposite gender because of arayos”.
Sam2: “Pashtus is that Lo Silbash has nothing to do with Arayos.”
Sam2 is wrong. Let’s just end it there please. You made a mistake. That is fine. Let’s just move on. You spend all your time here challenging people instead of listening to people.May 12, 2013 9:13 pm at 9:13 pm #952717
I don’t think they ever said all Lo Silbashes are created equal.
Yet that is the idea I get from reading through the Tur, Beis Yosef, Rema, and R’ Akiva Eger on the siman.
I also don’t think we should be telling major poskim what kind of mehalech they should have in psak. It’s one thing to talk in learning, but that’s above our pay grade.
I don’t agree.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.