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. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Is it permissible to wear women clothes in total privacy without anyone watching it. Not for sexual purpose but to release pressure?

share|improve this question
related judaism.stackexchange.com/q/14479 – Fred May 28 '13 at 0:22
why the downvote? – Charles Koppelman May 28 '13 at 2:15
Mordechai, welcome to Mi Yodeya, and thanks very much for bringing your question here! I hope you'll look around the site and find other material that suits you, perhaps including our 133 other questions about clothing. Please consider registering your account, which will give you access to more of the site's features. – Isaac Moses May 28 '13 at 4:56
I understood that crossdressing may lead to promiscuity and prohibited sexual act. I meant crossdressing in front of nobody. For people who have hormonal diseases and have feminine character, being Frum is quite challenging. Being dressed as a woman, alone, in secret, can be just relaxing. Does Halacha take into account diseases with mental complication? Do I have a Chiuv to take the hormones that my endocrinologist prescribed to be more manly? Thank you very much for your answer. – user2842 May 28 '13 at 16:26

The Chinuch says in Mitzvah #443 in reference to the prohibition of men wearing women's clothing: "ונוהג איסור זה בכל מקום ובכל זמן-This prohibition applies in all places, and at all times."

So, it seems pretty clear that it's not allowed in any sort of setting.

In general, you should know, that the mitzvot apply equally in public and private. For example, no one would suggest that pig is permitted to be eaten when in private. This can be seen from what are Rabbis stated countless times: That a decree ("גזרה") that was put into force by the Sages is also prohibited "בחדרי חדרים-In the innermost rooms," even though it may seem that the decree was only enacted to ensure that people watching wouldn't become confused. This would apply all the more so for Torah prohibitions.

share|improve this answer
Do you have a source for that? For example, certain prohibitions related to speech apply in public, so wouldn't apply if one is speaking privately to (e.g.) his spouse -- or rabbi for that matter. – Monica Cellio May 28 '13 at 1:45
That's an exception to the general rule. Otherwise, it wouldn't be necessary to state it. According to that logic, it would be permitted to eat pig in private! – WhatHathGodWrought May 28 '13 at 1:47
Who says that's an exception but there isn't one for cross-dressing? I'm not arguing that position, to be clear; I'm arguing that you haven't made your case in this one-sentence answer. We're looking for answers that are supported with sources, logic, or (where relevant) personal experience. Can you edit this answer to improve it? Otherwise it is likely to be downvoted and possibly removed. – Monica Cellio May 28 '13 at 1:51
@MonicaCellio, it is a prohibition which is unqualified, on what basis do we demand a specific statements of cases included in the general prohibition? – Yirmeyahu May 28 '13 at 2:33
Yet many permit it on Purim so it's not so simple. – Double AA May 28 '13 at 2:53

this forum is probably not the place to get into detailed halakhik dicussions, and I am certainly not qualified to engage in such discussion, but the tur in yoreh deah on the siman about crossdressing cites the gemara in nazir and both tanaic opinions are brought down by the tur and bet yosef. I do not have access to the sefarim right now, but it is easy to locate. one of the tanaim in masekhet nazir clearly says that crossdressing per se is not what the pasuk intended to prohibit because crossdressing itself is not a toavah, and rashi on chumash in ki tezeh brings this lenient opinion to explain the posuk and accordingly the prohibition is only if it is in a situation that can lead to a toevah which is a prohibited sexual intercourse. while the other tanna disagrees and prohibits a broader range of cross gender acts even if apparently there is no intent to commit any prohibited sexual act, in dire circumstances one can rely on a single tanna especially since it is 2 individual tannaim as opposed to a yachid and rabim. I discussed this with a major posek that agreed but only in dire circumstances. I am not, however, saying that anyone should rely on this, rather, look for an intelligent posek who knows about the realities of what crossdressers are really about. the classic poskim on this siman do not discuss the situation of shaat hadkhak - or psychological anxiety which can be significant for a crossdresser.

share|improve this answer
Hi, this forum is definitely the place to get into detailed halachik discussions, and if you can cite and are aware of useful sources, please do so. Substantial posts with concrete support from authoritative texts are definitely more useful than tentative, unsure posts. On another note, there are numerous resources that you can use to find texts online should you wish to do so. The Hebrew wikisource and hebrewbooks are two such resources. – Yehuda May 12 '14 at 3:27

It is an absolute prohibition as stated in Deuteronomy 22:5. It is explicitly stated. It does not matter whether it is in public or private. The prohibition is not a fence to protect from possible sin, it is in itself a deoraita prohibition.

share|improve this answer
Well rashi does explain the reasoning which doesn't seem to apply in private. – JediPythonClone Jul 27 '15 at 21:39
"It is an absolute prohibition as stated in Deuteronomy 22:5. It is explicitly stated." I don't know what that has to do with anything. "It does not matter whether it is in public or private." That answers the question, but it is just your assertion AFAICT. "The prohibition is not a fence to protect from possible sin, it is in itself a deoraita prohibition." Again, not sure what that has to do with anything. – Double AA Jul 27 '15 at 22:51

there is a heter in private - one tanna explicitely says cd per say is not the issur because it can't be considered toeva, only cd that is toeve, i e in the context of a prohibited sexula encounter is assur. this opinion may be relied on beshaas hadechak, but ask a smart rov.

share|improve this answer
Can you cite where in Tannaitic literature such an opinion may be found? Doing so will greatly improve the value of your answer, because after all we can't rely just on your word, not even knowing who you are. – Double AA Oct 6 '13 at 4:31
Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly states a deoraita prohibition! – alice fine Jul 27 '15 at 19:03

Your Answer


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.