Cross-dressing TB Nazir 59

Today’s daf TB Nazir 59 discusses an issue that has attracted national attention as red states have begun to prohibit drag shows and drag queen story hours. Time magazine reports:

 “Tennessee became the first state to explicitly ban drag shows in public spaces on Thursday after Gov. Bill Lee signed the provision into law hours after the measure passed in the state Senate.

“Drag shows have become the latest target of conservative criticism, as a slew of other anti-drag bills have been introduced in at least fourteen other states—including Arizona, Kentucky, Oklahoma and others. Language across the numerous bills is similar to the Tennessee bill, which prohibits ‘adult cabaret performances’ in public places where minors could watch. In Tennessee’s bill, ‘adult cabaret’ is defined as ‘adult-oriented performances’ that include ‘male or female impersonators.’”(For a breakdown state-by-state legislation continued to read the article here: https://time.com/6260421/tennessee-limiting-drag-shows-status-of-anti-drag-bills-u-s/)

The Gemara discusses what constitutes masculine behavior and feminine behavior which should never be erased. Rav permits removing the hair from armpits and the pubic area with the scissors while Rabbi Yoḥanan forbids it. From this we learn that women have removed hair to beautify themselves from the earliest times while men haven’t. There are those who hold that just cross-dressing is forbidden while there are others who hold that cross-dressing in itself is not forbidden, but rather lewd behavior associated with it.

“The Gemara asks: And what does the first tanna, who holds that the prohibition is by rabbinic law, learn from this verse: “A man shall not put on a woman’s garment”? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in the baraita, where it states: “A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5). What is the meaning when the verse states this? If it teaches only that a man may not put on a woman’s garment, and a woman may not wear a man’s garment, it is already stated in explanation of this prohibition that “it is an abomination to the Lord your God,” and there is no abomination here in the mere act of wearing a garment.

Rather, it means that a man may not wear a woman’s garment and thereby go and sit among the women; and a woman may not wear a man’s garment and sit among the men. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: From where is it derived that a woman may not go out with weapons to war? The verse states: “A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man shall not put on a woman’s garment,” which indicates that a man may not adorn himself with the cosmetics and ornaments of a woman, and similarly a woman may not go out with weapons to war, as those are for the use of males. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling follows this opinion.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara cites different conflicting opinions with no halakhic conclusion reached in the Gemara. The conversation continues in the codes which generally takes the stringent position in this matter. For us Conservative Jews Rabbi Gordon Tucker continues the evolution of our understanding of this issue in the book The Observant Life:

“Whatever the reason for the prohibition, however, the clarifiers make it clear that the definition of gender-specific apparel is relative to the society in which one lives. Clearly, a man wearing a skirt is a very different act in traditional parts of Scotland from what it would be in Westchester County, New York! Moreover, the Talmud itself (at BT N’darim 49b) recognizes that there are such things as ‘unisex’ garments, for it describes how Rabbi Judah’s wife made a woolen garment that served them both: she wore it to the marketplace and he wore it to the synagogue. Thus it is clear that, to the extent that it is common and accepted for women to wear pants or for men to carry handbags, there can be no objection raised by the Torah’s decree, and this is the case regardless of whether the apparel or accessory in question is or is not clearly made (i.e., in style or in color) for the gender of the person using it, or if the item of apparel or the accessory rate in question is truly ‘unisex’ in nature.

“Again, as strict a decisor as Ovadiah Yosef not only reports this argument, but accepted it as halakha (Yabbi’a Omer, part six, Yoreh De’ah, 14, ed. Jerusalem, 1986, pp. 189-194). And he also rules there that no violation occurs even when a garment associated with the opposite sex is worn, as long as it is being worn specifically for the purpose of greater comfort-for example, to cope with extremely warm or cold temperatures.)” (pp. 382-383)

As our understanding continues to grow about the multiplicity of sexual identities, so too will Jewish law evolve and take those factors into consideration when discussing how to apply the verse “A woman must not put on man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to your God”. (Deuteronomy 22:5)