11

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.)

  • 1
    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
  • 2
    Well, I've seen them being worn. – Malper Nov 6 '13 at 13:50
  • 2
    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
  • 1
    @Malper What does that have to do with actual halacha? That Targum is full of innovations which are rarely found in the rest of Jewish literature and more often than not contradict explicit Talmudic rulings. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 0:55
  • 1
    @Malper I'm aware of that Rav Moshe. (As am I aware of that back and forth in Daf Kesher.) He's more than welcome to use it as polemic if he wants. But he's got to be kidding to use it as halacha. – Double AA Dec 4 '13 at 4:04
1

no b/c that is a contradiction of terms. something which is a man's garment is not a women's garment and something which is a woman's garment is not a man's garment. Your example of a pink yarmulke isn't a contradiction because wearing a certain color isn't necessarily masculine or feminine and a yarmulke and tallis are specifically worn by men. Rashi on the pasuk of lo silbash (Devarim 22,5) says that a woman cannot carry a weapon because it's a man's job to go to warfare. If he carried a pink gun it still would be considered a weapon it's the essence that counts not the color.

There are garments however like a coat which are neutral and not designated specifically for man or woman and therefore can be worn by both, as demonstrated in gemoro nedorim (40b) that rabbi Yehuda bar Iloi shared his coat with his wife and therefore could not go out at the same time.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .