Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My impression was religious Jewish women wear skirts and dresses - and not pants - because pants are a man's garment and there is a prohibition against cross-dressing. However, when skiing, everyone wears pants, and wearing a dress is obviously impractical and even dangerous.

My question is: Does Halachah allow Jewish women to wear baggy ski pants while skiing?

share|improve this question
    
1.bp.blogspot.com/-lpuewV4k3wY/UNCFiZHZF4I/AAAAAAAAAic/… just saying... – Danno Mar 19 '13 at 19:22
    
Dupe? judaism.stackexchange.com/q/14275/5 – Seth J Mar 19 '13 at 19:39
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Rav Yitzchak Weiss forbids ski pants on women in Minchas Yitzchak 2:108, though as noted by yitznewton in this question R' Yehuda Henkin permitted baggy pants on women, and presumably would have been okay with ski pants in particular.

R' Weiss sums up his opinion with the laconic rhyme "לא תגלוש ולא תלבוש," which I still remember years after encountering it for the first time.

share|improve this answer
    
R'Weiss doesn't answer the question. "לא תגלוש ולא תלבוש," is cute, but some parts of the word skiing may be the only way to get around. then what? – Danny Schoemann Jan 27 at 12:47

As far as I know, the reason for women not wearing pants doesn't have to do with their being male garments. Especially today, nobody thinks twice upon seeing a woman wearing pants.

I believe that the main reason for wearing skirts over pants is due to tzniut (modesty); however, a large number of modern poskim rule that there is no problem at all with women wearing loose pants. As yitznewton points out in this answer to a question, Rabbi Yehuda Henkin rules as such.

Undoubtedly, some people will disagree.

share|improve this answer

I remember hearing Rabbi Bertram Left (former O-U Synagogues director and before that a shul rav) answer this question raised by his teenage daughter (now a Judaic studies teacher at Stern College). He instructed her to wear a loose skirt over her ski pants.

share|improve this answer

MEN’S CLOTHING ISSUE

The first issue is that pants, by their very nature, may possibly be considered men’s clothing. If so, it may be a violation of the verse in Dvarim (22:5) not to wear clothing of the opposite gender. There are two explanations for the prohibition. The first is that found in the Sefer haChinuch (Mitzvah 542) that the reason for the prohibition is to prevent inappropriate mixing between genders that can lead to inappropriate activity. The second reason is found in the Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim. Essentially, he states that the Torah concerned with the inappropriate thoughts that cross-dressing can engender.

Perhaps we can suggest that the debate cited in the Acharonim regarding Purim as to whether or not one may dress up with some clothing of the opposite gender but not all clothing may revolve around this point: According to the Rambam, even one article of clothing of the opposite gender could engender inappropriate thoughts. According to the Sefer HaChinuch’s reason it would not apply. The Mishna Brurah recommends being stringent.

There are also Poskim who cite proofs from psukim that indicate that pants are a uniquely male article of clothing, by definition.

TZNIUS (MODESTY) ISSUE

The second issue is the issue of Tznius – modesty. The Meiri in Kesuvos (72a) explains that there is a general prohibition in appearing in immodest attire. The sages explain that the honor of a Bas Melech is pnimah – inward. The Queens of England has a certain dress protocol, that at least in some form or another, was once generally kept by the first ladies in this country as well. An inherent aspect of pants is that by nature it is form revealing, and thus not in line with the parameters of the ideal form of modesty. The Radbaz (Responsa #770),and the Shach (YD 340:22) both write that it is forbidden to dress in a manner where one would be able to detect the shape of the limb through the clothing. Indeed, although we do not pasken like this opinion, the Bach (Yoreh Deah 340:10) goes so far as to write that it is equivalent to the bare skin. Other Poskim who forbid seeing the shape of the lower limbs are the Chochmas Adam (Klal 152:6), the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (195:3),the Be’er Heitev (340:13), and the Maharsham (Daas Torah 75:1).

WAYS OF THE GENTILE ISSUE

The third issue, discussed by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe YD I #81), is a violation of ubechukosaihem lo sailechu, “do not walk in their ways.” It is a violation of walking in the ways of the gentiles if one adopts a practice that originated and is practiced by gentiles that involves either idol-worship or immodesty.

LIFNEI IVER ISSUE

A fourth possible issue, discussed by Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef (Yechaveh Daas III #67) zt”l, is the prohibition of v’lifnei Iver lo sitain michshol – do not place a stumbling block in front of a blind man.” Some of the ski pants or snow suits, it seems, would fall under this category.

And now onto the rulings of the Poskim.

It seems that there are three opinions on the matter.

It is clear from a responsa of Dayan Yitzchok Weiss zatzal (Minchas Yitzchok Vol. II #108) that he is of the opinion that skiing is not permitted for women because they may never wear ski pants, even if it is covered over with a skirt.

Rav Ovadiah Yoseph wrote in a responsa (YO YD VI #14) that when dealing with certain (baggy) pants that are clearly designed for women and are so loose that they are not shape revealing, they do not violate either of the two issues, although he clearly expresses a preference for the fully modest skirt over this type of pants. It would seem from the responsa that he would hold that thicker ski clothing may not necessarily reveal the shape of the lower limbs. However, someone once mentioned to me that he had subsequently changed his mind on the matter of baggy pants. I have not found this in print, though.

Rav Elyashiv zatzal, however, held otherwise. He held (as cited in the Yashiv Moshe page 170) that women may wear ski pants if they are covered by a skirt. The next question is whether the length of the skirt that goes over the ski pants would cause a danger either to her or to others on the ski slope. Clearly the skirt must be wide enough so that it not pose a danger to herself or to others.

It seems that most observant female (Ashkenazik) skiers in Eretz Yisroel follow the view of Rav Elyashiv. Working with this, although one should ask one’s own Rav or Posaik, it would seem that it would be forbidden for a woman wearing an appropriate length skirt to ski on anything but a beginner’s level slope., on account of the danger. Later, when she is certain that she can manage and she has a wide enough skirt, then she can go down the more advanced ones.

Source

share|improve this answer
    
Is this from Rabbi Yair Hoffman,looks familiar ? – sam Jan 27 at 3:37
    
This is a really poor presentation of the Radvaz, and a laughably ridiculous and clearly false presentation of the Shakh, Bach, Beir Heitev, Chokhmat Adam, Kitzur Shulchan Arukh. I'm not bothering to look up the Maharsham because it's not easily available right now, but there is no Chezkas Kashrus that it says what he says it says. – Double AA Jan 27 at 4:04
    
Just as an example, the line from the Chayei Adam is אשה כשקורעה על אביה ואמה ואם תקרע תחילה העליון עד הכתונת העומדים שם יבואו לידי הרהור לכן קורעת תחילה בגד התחתון ומחזירה הקרע לצדדין ואחר כך קורעת העליון which says nothing about the lower limbs at all, let alone anything to do with the "form" or shape of anything! No -1 because you are just quoting, but anyone who upvotes clearly hasn't looked up the sources. – Double AA Jan 27 at 4:06
    
Also worth noting that ROY's ruling about skirts and pants is cited by his son in Yalkut Yosef. Rumors about his retracting that position sadly sound like they were started in order to discredit the position, and mentioning them seriously in an article like this is giving such 'rumors' even more fuel to discredit the opinion. – Double AA Jan 27 at 4:15

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.