Standards

[n david]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

If you have male children and they decide to wear dresses then I suppose that would be fine if they were tailored to fit them. Deuteronomy wouldn't apply there either I suppose.

If you read into Deuteronomy 22:5, it's not about pants vs dresses/skirts. The Hebrew word, "Keliy," is the word for "that which pertaineth," and is commonly translated for weapon, armor, instrument. The Hebrew word for man in this verse is "Geber" and is commonly translated for warrior or strong man. It's important to note the use of "Geber" and not the use of "Iysh," (such as in verse 13) which means "man/male."

This goes much deeper than the debate over pants vs dresses/skirts. This is, IMO, about authority and the role of men and women. Many scholars say this is a prohibition against Jewish women dressing in battle armor like the pagan women did; and also a prohibition against men cross-dressing like a women as was much the custom of pagan temple men.

The verse, according to the Hebrew translation is:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Many scholars agree with this translation. Adam Clark, commenting on Deuteronomy, states,

“As the word...geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”

John Gill in his Exposition of the Entire Bible sees a similar meaning in 22:5:

“...and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, 'take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman...'”

Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes in an excerpt from an article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5,”

“In another attempt to identify the quintessential 'men's items,' Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior's gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior's gear’.”

Rabbi Tilsen further states,

“This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been 'unlady-like' for her to use a sword -- worse, a violation of the law -- because a sword is a man's tool...”

Again, I believe this is more about the authority/role of men and women than it is about some silly pants/dress debate.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I took the comment you made as having sexual content, but if it that was not what you meant then I am sorry also.

You are correct, it did, which is why I tried to post as little as possible and include no details.