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

I've been wondering about garments like the frilly pink/purple yarmulkas and talleisim used in liberal Judaism. Since yarmulkas and talleisim are probably normally beged ish, and pink/purple frilly clothes are generally beged isha, are these garments both beged ish and beged isha, and thus assur for everyone to wear? Similarly, are there other articles of clothing that one might encounter that are both beged ish and beged isha and assur for everyone to wear?

I'm not referring to unisex clothing which is permitted for everyone; rather, I'm referring to clothing which bears conflicting aspects which each explicitly mark it as being for a single gender. That is to say, something like black reading glasses might be allowed for everyone because there is nothing "masculine" or "feminine" about them, but what about a frilly pink yarmulka which has both "masculine" and "feminine" aspects?

(I would have liked to dub such clothing beged androginus, but I realized that the mishnah in bikurim says that androginusim wear male clothing.)

share|improve this question
I don't know any men or women who wear frilly pink yarmulkas. Sounds like neither a beged ish nor a beged isha. – Double AA Nov 6 '13 at 6:16
Well, I've seen them being worn. – Malper Nov 6 '13 at 13:50
I strongly suspect that this concept of "aspects" is not part of these Halachat. Look at this garment: Is it worn [nearly] exclusively by people of a particular gender? Iff so, it may be beged-that-gender. Generally speaking, you'll never find a man in a frilly pink kippa, therefore I can't see how it could possibly be beged ish. But I'm just guessing; I don't know the sources for this. – Isaac Moses Nov 6 '13 at 20:49
@DoubleAA I don't think that chilluk is obvious -- do you have a source for it? (For that matter, not everyone would agree that applying the Zohar to halacha is an error at all.) – Malper Dec 4 '13 at 20:30
@Malper We need to be very careful about our terms here, but the way I was using Halacha, I don't think nearly anyone would argue. – Double AA Dec 4 '13 at 22:02

Your Answer


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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.