More on Skirts

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, I already dealt with this. I pointed out why the use of geber.

So we are going on probably? That means it is likely to be what they think? It is like guessing? Let's see, Gill is using a Rabbi? Would you like me to use some Rabbis of the Talmud? Would you accept what they have to say? I personally wouldn't but if you want to use Rambam I could bring up others who will agree with me. Deuteronomy 22:5 is using words to describe masculinity. Geber actually means strong man. You know, one who has a 30 inch neck size?

http://www.beki.org/dvartorah/crossdressing/

"In another attempt to identify the quintessential “men’s items,” Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited c. 800 C.E.), says, “What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?” He then cites our verse, which he reads this way: “A warrior’s gear may not be put on a woman” (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a “warrior’s gear.”

This same understanding is followed by Midrash Mishlei (Proverbs) which contends that the Biblical character Yael in the Book of Judges kills General Sisera with a tent pin instead of a sword in order to comply with this law. It would have been “unlady-like” for her to use a sword — worse, a violation of the law — because a sword is a man’s tool and so the righteous woman of valor finds an alternate weapon.

While this interpretation does not prevail in later halakhic discussion, it does appear, and so it must be regarded as a viable albeit minority view as to the intent of the first clause. This interpretation has even been cited in the debate over exemption for women from military conscription in modern Israel.

A common understanding of our verse in exegetical and halakhic literature is stated by Rashi, one of the most highly-regarded Talmudists and Biblical commentators of all time (c. 1040-1105 C.E.): “Kli gever, a man’s item should not be on a woman: That she should not appear as a man so she can go out among men, for this is only for the purpose of adultery.”

Likewise, Rashi says, “Simlat Isha, a man shall not wear a women’s garment: So he can go and be among the women.”

Rashi explains the moral force of this: “To`eva, abhorrence: The Torah forbids only garments that may lead to to`eva, abhorrence.” This comment appears in Rashi‘s Torah commentary, so it is not clear whether Rashi is defining the reason for the law or, alternatively, its scope.

Only a few sources spell out what is meant by “women’s clothing” and “men’s clothing.” Women normally wear colorful clothes; men wear white. Most sources leave the particulars undefined, because they realized that while gender distinction in dress is almost universal, the particulars are a matter of local fashion trends. As the Tur (c. 1300 C.E.), the predecessor code of the Shulhan Arukh, puts it: “A woman should not dress in clothes specifically for men lefi minhag hamaqom according to the local fashion” (YD 182).

The intent of the law, in this view, is to prevent men and women from associating with what would normally be a single-sex group of the other gender under false pretenses for purposes of, or in circumstances that are liable to lead to, heterosexual adultery. Rashi seems to limit the prohibition to this case. Thus men and women cross-dressing in other circumstances might not be prohibited, at least if it can be assured that the “abhorrence” will not result.

This is the analysis followed by the Shulhan Arukh, the 16th century law code that has become a standard law text for most of the traditionally observant Jewish people. In its discussion of the laws of the festival of Purim (OH 696:8), the Code says men and women may cross dress on Purim because it is for the purpose of gaity (simha), not for adultery. Given the context, there is no danger that such cross-dressing will lead to heterosexual adultery.

The danger of “cross-dressing,” according to the analysis followed here by Rashi and the Shulhan Arukh, is that it might allow men to enter women’s groups and women to enter men’s groups. In societies in which gender segregation was widely observed, this subterfuge was seen as a real danger. This was even before the production of “Yentl.”

It is stated this way in Sefer HaHinukh: “The root of this mitzva (commandment) is to keep us from sexual sin…and there is no doubt that if men and women’s clothing were the same, they would mix and the earth would be filled with impropriety” ( 564).

Today the concern would be that men or women would sneak into the other gender’s locker rooms or bath rooms. Given that men and women in our society mix freely in other settings, it is hard to see how heterosexual adultery is a particular danger of what is called “cross dressing.”

Some commentators have noted, however, that this understanding as explained by Rashi and the Shulhan Arukh does not seem to be based on the language of the verse. If the Torah had wanted to prohibit men from going out among women in women’s dress it could have said that. This context of social mixing of men and women is imposed on the verse.

A second interpretation of the verse has gained the widest acceptance among the sages as reflected in mainstream legal codes. The Shulhan Arukh (Yore De`a) says that the prohibition of a man wearing simlat isha “women’s dress” or “women’s fashion” refers to wearing a women’s hairstyle, which, depending on local custom, means specifically to shave one’s underarm or pubic hair. Men may not shave their armpits and genital regions as women do unless it is customary locally for men to do that. Men may however shave arm and leg hair in any case.

Other commentators likewise relate the simlat isha clause only to removing underarm and pubic hair."

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I want a Scripture specifically condemning pants on women. Just one.

Deu. 22:5

BTW still waiting for ONE scripture that demonstrates godly women wore pants.

According to you smoking is okay because it is not specifically mentioned in scripture. Also, marijuana must be okay because it is not specifically mentioned. Slavery is not specifically condemned either. Apparently you would not contend for the abolition of slavery because it is not specifically condemned. Then, there is heroin and a million other things not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

God gave the Bible with timeless principles to live by. Principles encompass many things not specifically stated.

Now give ONE scripture that specifically states it is okay for women to wear pants.
Perhaps you can show where a godly woman wore pants (in the Bible of course. I don't want you going off on a tangent about Native American Indians or Muslims again).

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

An excellent reference:

PANTS ON WOMEN
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...7YPB1jPCXX916Q

Here is a fascinating reference:
It is actually biblical and not opinion.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Daniel 3:21 and 3:27 are fascinating.
(Dan 3:21 KJV) Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

According to JFB, Babylonian clothing consisted of long "pantaloons", observe:

JFB
Daniel 3:21
coats ... hosen ... hats — Herodotus [1.195] says that the Babylonian costume consisted of three parts: (1) wide, long pantaloons; (2) a woollen shirt; (3) an outer mantle with a girdle round it. So these are specified [Gesenius], “their pantaloons, inner tunics (hosen, or stockings, are not commonly worn in the East), and outer mantles.” Their being cast in so hurriedly, with all their garments on, enhanced the miracle in that not even the smell of fire passed on their clothes, though of delicate, inflammable material.

JFB insists these men were wearing pants.

Albert Barnes cites Gesenius in describing the "coats" as pants, observe:
[Barnes] The word rendered “coats,” is in the margin rendered “mantles.” The Chaldee word (סרבלין sarbâlı̂yn) means, according to Gesenius, the long and wide pantaloons which are worn by the Orientals, from סרבל sarbēl, to cover.

Thus, two commentators agree that they were wearing pants. Some translators even chose to use pants in their translations.

The translators of the ABP and ERV chose to use pants or pantaloons in their translations.
Dan 3:21 (ABP) Then those men were shackled with their pantaloons,G4552.1 G1473 and tiaras, and leggings, and their garments. And they were thrown into the midst of the [2furnace 3of fire 1burning],

(Dan 3:21 ERV) So Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were tied up and thrown into the hot furnace. They were wearing their robes, pants, cloth caps, and other clothes.


Then, there are the scholars that translated the Hebrew into Greek in the LXX.
Daniel 3:21 (LXX) Then those men were bound with their coats, and caps, and hose, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace

LXX+
Dan 3:21 τοτεG5119 ADV οιG3588 T-NPM ανδρεςG435 N-NPM εκεινοιG1565 D-NPM επεδηθησανV-API-3P συνG4862 PREP τοιςG3588 T-DPN σαραβαροιςN-DPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ τιαραιςN-DPF καιG2532 CONJ περικνημισιN-DPF καιG2532 CONJ ενδυμασινG1742 N-DPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ εβληθησανG906 V-API-3P ειςG1519 PREP μεσονG3319 A-ASM τηςG3588 T-GSF καμινουG2575 N-GSF τουG3588 T-GSN πυροςG4442 N-GSN τηςG3588 T-GSF καιομενηςG2545 V-PMPGS

H5622
סרבּל (Aramaic) (LXX – σαραβαροις)
sarbal
Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, Marcus Jastrow, 1022a – Pers. Trousers.

Dan 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats (σαραβαρα LXX) changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

LXX+
Dan 3:27 [3:94] καιG2532 CONJ συναγονταιG4863 V-PMI-3P οιG3588 T-NPM σατραπαιN-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM στρατηγοιG4755 N-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM τοπαρχαιN-NPM καιG2532 CONJ οιG3588 T-NPM δυνασταιG1413 N-NPM τουG3588 T-GSM βασιλεωςG935 N-GSM καιG2532 CONJ εθεωρουνG2334 V-IAI-3P τουςG3588 T-APM ανδραςG435 N-APM οτιG3754 CONJ ουκG3364 ADV εκυριευσενG2961 V-AAI-3S τοG3588 T-NSN πυρG4442 N-NSN τουG3588 T-GSN σωματοςG4983 N-GSN αυτωνG846 D-GPM καιG2532 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF θριξG2359 N-NSF τηςG3588 T-GSF κεφαληςG2776 N-GSF αυτωνG846 D-GPM ουκG3364 ADV εφλογισθηG5394 V-API-3S καιG2532 CONJ ταG3588 T-NPN σαραβαραN-NPN αυτωνG846 D-GPM ουκG3364 ADV ηλλοιωθηV-API-3S καιG2532 CONJ οσμηG3744 N-NSF πυροςG4442 N-GSN ουκG3364 ADV ηνG1510 V-IAI-3S ενG1722 PREP αυτοιςG846 D-DPM

Ancient Greek to English Dictionary
σαραβαρα
A loose trousers worn by Scythians, Antiph.201; also = Aramaic sarbālîn, LXX, Thd.Da.3.27 (cf. 21). (Prob. Persian shalvâr or shulvâr (braccae).)


There can be no doubt that a multiplicity of scholars agree, the three Hebrew boys thrown into the fiery furnace were indeed wearing pants.

Now, once again, I ask for someone to demonstrate where a single godly woman wore pants.
The silence has been deafening...

Try reading the Bible.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The point is that trousers and hosiery were worn by both men and women throughout history. Only Europe and the Middle East had an aversion to trousers or hosiery being worn by women as an outer garment. But they were worn by women under their dress in colder regions or seasons. What truly differed most were outer garments. A woman can maintain modesty today by wearing a longer shirt or blouse if her trousers are too form fitting.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wome...hQmJNP-3fyzMM:

Now yo admit that in the Middle East women did not wear pants... Sooo you base your opinion about what God wants on cultures other than the Bible.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Now yo admit that in the Middle East women did not wear pants... Sooo you base your opinion about what God wants on cultures other than the Bible.

The Bible doesn't say anything specifically about pants on women. The difference is cultural, not biblical.

[Aquila]

Why do holiness groups allow women to wear T-shirts, they were originally made for men?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Bible doesn't say anything specifically about pants on women. The difference is cultural, not biblical.

Then give me ONE instance where a godly woman wore pants. The conspicuous absence of ANY Biblical evidence speaks loud and clear.

You base your opinion on other cultures rather than what the Bible aptly demonstrates.

Go ahead, stick with Native American culture rather than the Bible.
Go ahead and smoke peyote to get in-tune with the "great spirit". After all, the bible does not specifically say anything against it.

[Pliny]

This is for Aquila. After he partakes of peyote because here is no specific prohibition against it:

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Thank you for this reference, You are doing a good job properly interpreting what Deut 22:5 really referred to.

Congratulations.

Yeah right. So, far it's been nothing short of confusion on how Deuteronomy 22:5 is only applicable if the person is homosexualy? In short, Aquila believes that heterosexuals can be transvestites and God doesn't view it as an abomination. Good job fellows, the blind is still actively leading the blind into the proverbial ditch in 2017.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why do holiness groups allow women to wear T-shirts, they were originally made for men?

Because they are smoking too much Eskimo pie while they're bating in their kilts. So, you done with the Bible for now? You are opting out for just bringing up poor examples?

Here is Willie Wonka showing Aquila Deuteronomy 22:5