Male vs Female distinctions

[Mark]

Does this simply apply to dress or are there specific roles that are male or female?

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
(Deuteronomy 22:5)


The word translated "wear" prohibited from the woman is actually the word "haw-law" which means to become.

[adam7gur]

Does it really mean to become?Strong's dictionary translates haw law as to be removed , cast far off !There is clearly something more than a dress code here but we have to be carefull.

[vegangirl]

Maybe its both., a dresscode and something more.

Women should dress NOT in mens clothes, so women can not be carpenters...
So what if a women went to school for this every thing,..

Like me 2years of hard work and working for free just to get OJT hours.. But now a christian and I would not even think of wearing pants where men can see me..
and when I was working in hard labor work, I was kind of acking like a man I would spit and not sit very lady like.. Always jeans and a T-shirt...
I don't think construction is a place for a women because we can become like a man it some ways..

Even with me being a divorced parent .. I play both roles in my home.

[Mark]

You're right Adam. My mistake. I lalled when I should yalled. The word is ha-yaw. Ha-yaw means that which is or has become and is the word translated "wear", not haw-lal.

[adam7gur]

Now it does make sence!Are women allowed to wear pants?In most of the Christian assemblies the answear would be ''NO'',but follow my thoughts here...At the time that Yeshoua walked among the people of Israel what did men wear?What did He wear?It was definately NOT a pair of pants.Well, what was it then?To me it was something that looked like what we in our time would not see a man wear.Men and women at that time were wearing both long outfits and there were some differences to seperate the outfit of a man from the outfit of a woman.In our days there are pants for men and pants for women.If a man wears woman's pants that is a disgrase and if a woman wears man's pants that is also a disgrase.Clearly it is not right interpretation of the Law if we say that women should not wear pants at all.One other thing is that we have to remember that this rule was given to the people of Israel when they were in the desert.Imagine being a woman and wearing that which is or has become man's like a wife wearing her husband's outfit . That outfit would be a source of bacteria due to the man's sweat or blood or many more .. God is also Health!

[adam7gur]

One more thing .In Greek ha-yaw is translated in the Scriptures as ''to anekon'' which means that which belongs to.

[vegangirl]

MArk?

So what does it mean? Should a women wear pants or not? I don't really know but when someone tells you , your going to hell if you do.. its made me kind of scared.. I mean I do at work but theres no men around.
Training in a skirt is hard..

Its hard not to play a mans role, for divorced parents, because a man roles is to take care of his family and work... I am all for women starying home and taking care of the home and the husband, kid'os ..

Ok thats it!

[Eliora]

The first part of the verse is, "Lo yih'yeh cl'ei gever al ishah, v'lo y'lavesh gever simlat ishah"

So literally, "There won't (shouldn't) be the tools of a man on a woman, and a man won't (shouldn't) wear the dress of a woman."

There is no "become" in this... but it's interesting... what are the tools of a man? Weapons of war, maybe?

I don't think this verse is about pants at all. And anyway, I'd say the man would be cross-dressing if he wore a lot of womens' pants. How can the woman also be cross-dressing if she wears the same pants?

This verse is about a woman not taking on the tools of a man, whatever that may be.

[Eliora]

Actually I should add that the word for man in this verse is gever, which is more like a mighty/valiant man, not simply a man (which would be "ish") or a male (zecher). So maybe it really is speaking about tools of war?

[Velvela]

This is a guess, not scholarship, but Eliora, my personal guess is that you are on the right lines. What would be so different, back then, if a man wore 'women's clothes'?

Answer: the veil.

A veil over his face would hide the fact that he was male. And therefore he would not be counted among the military men/called up for war.

[adam7gur]

All I could add to the above is that in the Greek translation ''to anekon'' could be everything that belongs to a man , from an outfit to tools of war and many more.To my understanding , this Scripture simply means that a woman should be a woman and a man should a man.
For divorced parents there is one word that could fill in the blanks ...GRACE !
In other words , the law is the law but Yeshoua added Grace to the law.
For example.. A woman was brought in front of Yeshoua , and those who arrested her said that she was caught on action ( as the Greek text says) commiting sexual violation.My first question is , if she was caught on action , where is the man???
Of course Yeshoua saw what was going on and said to them '' he who has no sins , let him throw the first stone''.Clearly the law says that this is the punishment but here comes that which was not understood at that time ....Grace!
And after all her accusers just went away , He released her !!!
Grace!

[Mark]

I have to interject that Yeshua added NOTHING to the Law. His application was within the boundaries of . In fact, capital punishment was not to be executed by an angry mob. Rabbinically, it would take a counsel of 23 elders with a majority of 13 to declare the verdict. If the case were so obvious that all 23 were unanimous regarding the guilt, the person must be aquitted- it would presume that the case were not fair because some innocense is evident in any case. Messiah's response was . It was the mob that was acting against the Law.

We need to also recognize that nowhere in is a woman prohibited from engaging in commerce. In fact, Proverbs 31 heralds the ideal as one who is very good at it. This idea that women are not to be engaged in the world outside the kitchen and bedroom is not of Jewish origins at all.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Actually I should add that the word for man in this verse is gever, which is more like a mighty/valiant man, not simply a man (which would be "ish") or a male (zecher). So maybe it really is speaking about tools of war?

The Hebrew word "gever" seldom is used to specificially describe a "mighty/valiant" man or men. The word is only used once in all the scriptures to describe men that are "mighty". Although, the scriptures use the word sixty-four times to describe "men" in general with no direct connection to being in the military. We have to be careful not to take an exception and use it as a rule. For that is often how false doctrines are developed.

I don't think this verse is about pants at all. And anyway, I'd say the man would be cross-dressing if he wore a lot of womens' pants. How can the woman also be cross-dressing if she wears the same pants?

This verse is about a woman not taking on the tools of a man, whatever that may be.

On this forum we have to be careful not to promote the blurring of the sexes, especially when it comes to clothing. The following passage in Devarim (Deut.) 22:5 states,

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to HaShem your Elohim."

This passage makes it clear that those of the male sex are prohibited from wearing women's clothing. But, when it comes to the women it goes even further, and goes to greater lengths to be specific...The passage prohibits anything that is specific apparel of a man, and this at a minimum includes clothing specific to a male, but could also be applied to other things. The passage uses a word for clothing to also identify that amongst things pertaining to men...the garment is within the context and scope of the entire passage. And, for the synagogue environment this would also include tallits, and kippas, and anything else that had traditionally pertained to the men.

At our synagogue we don't permit women to wear tallits. Instead, women wear headcoverings, a garment specific to women within the commonwealth of Yisrael. And, the men wear tallits, a specific garment that has from the beginning been associated as a male garment. Even if a woman wears a different colored tallit, such as purple or pink, the color is not what is prohibited...it is the particular type of garment that is prohibited.

I don't believe that Adonai has so much of a problem with a woman picking up a hammer, wearing work gloves, or even bearing a sword when need be...But, I do believe He sees boys wearing girls clothing and girls wearing boys clothing as perverted and as an abomination.

Shalom aleychem,

Rav Reuel

[Eliora]

Well, I've been taught in my Hebrew class that "gever" is a mighty man, or a warrior. My concordance agrees with that definition. I'll look into this a bit more later, though... thanks for mentioning it.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Well, I've been taught in my Hebrew class that "gever" is a mighty man, or a warrior. My concordance agrees with that definition.

Shalom sister,

We should be mindful that when dealing with the scriptures the scriptures should be our source of knowledge in regards to how a particular Hebrew word is used. Also, keep in mind that a concordance will list a translation for a word even if the rendering is only used once, but the translations are usually listed in the order of their frequency. But again, the Hebrew word "gever" seldom is used to specifically describe a "mighty/valiant" man or men. The word is only used once in all the scriptures to describe men that are being described as "mighty".

Although, “gever” does has it’s connections to being strong, this generally goes hand in hand with the idea of being a man, or the “strong ones” (understood to be men). "Ish" means more like person (in a masculine sense), and “Gever” is more like man as in "manly" or "male-like". Gever is looked upon simply as a man as opposed to a woman. For example, the question, "a man or a woman?" would be rendered into Hebrew as, "gever o isha?". "Ish" is generally used for "man", but without the emphasis so much on the gender, as in the statement, "someone told me...", if the "someone" was a man, it could be rendered into Hebrew as, "ish echad amar li...".

Therefore, it makes sense that the passage in question uses this term when trying to set bounderies between what a man is supposed to look like and what a woman is supposed to look like. But, as I mentioned before, the scriptures do use the word sixty-four times to describe "men" in general with no direct connection to being in the military.

I hope that is helpful.

Shalom aleychem,

Rav Reuel