More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

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.

The point is, Deuteronomy 22:5 can't be about pants, they weren't worn in ancient Israel by men or women. In actuality, it can't be about style either, because dress was relatively the same, the main difference being the length of a woman's outer garment.

The breeches worn by the high priest were like boxers worn under a robe. The trousers on the three Hebrews were a Babylonian style of dress.

In Israel, men and women wore basically the same attire, only longer outer garments for women. So Deuteronomy 22:5 is clearly about something other than style of dress.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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

Only men wore pants in the Bible.

Got any trouser wearing women? How about just one pair breeches? Boxer shorts? I bet you wear your's on your head.

Anyway, I did my job, now be a good chap and show us trousers on women in the Bible. Just one scripture.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Only men wore pants in the Bible.

Got any trouser wearing women? How about just one pair breeches? Boxer shorts? I bet you wear your's on your head.

Anyway, I did my job, now be a good chap and show us trousers on women in the Bible. Just one scripture.

You only proved that the priests wore boxers under their robes and that the three Hebrews wore Babylonian attire while in captivity a thousand years later. No male or female wore pants in the culture of ancient Israel. In fact, dress was relatively the same among men and women. The only real difference was the outer garment. It was longer on women.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The point is, Deuteronomy 22:5 can't be about pants, they weren't worn in ancient Israel by men or women.

Yes trousers were worn my Israelite men, but not women.

Originally Posted by Aquila

In actuality, it can't be about style either, because dress was relatively the same, the main difference being the length of one's outer garment.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You only proved that the priests wore boxers under their robes and that the three Hebrews wore Babylonian attire while in captivity a thousand years later.

They weren't boxers, but you have any Biblical evidence showing women wearing breeches? Babylonian garments? Bible is against the wearing of Babylonian garments. Even their currency (hence money changers of the first century A.D.) Joshua 7:21. So, no, the friends of Daniel rejected food of the king's table because it was tainted, and they would of acknowledged the pagan clothing. Especially since you gave the Canaanite prohibition excuse for Deuteronomy 22:5. Bro, you are a tad bit confused.

Originally Posted by Aquila

No male or female wore pants in the culture of ancient Israel. In fact, dress was relatively the same among men and women.

More confusion? It was relatively the SAME but different? Deuteronomy 22:5 is now meaningless. Aquila can you hear that? That's the laughter of a thousand atheists.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The only real difference was the outer garment. It was longer on women.

The Bible says that? Good show me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The point is, Deuteronomy 22:5 can't be about pants, they weren't worn in ancient Israel by men or women.

Who says? Do you have some more artists rendition of what they THINK how the Israelite looked?

Originally Posted by Aquila

In actuality, it can't be about style either, because dress was relatively the same, the main difference being the length of a woman's outer garment.

So, it is an abomination to wear long clothes for a man, and short clothes for a woman? Wow, you sure go to any length to disprove the Bible.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The breeches worn by the high priest were like boxers worn under a robe. The trousers on the three Hebrews were a Babylonian style of dress.

I love how some posters refute their own posts when they fervently try to discredit other poster's evidence. Aquila? I thought Deut 22:5 was written against PAGAN attire? Candidates to be exact? Hey, Babylonians are related to the Canaanites?

Originally Posted by Aquila

In Israel, men and women wore basically the same attire, only longer outer garments for women. So Deuteronomy 22:5 is clearly about something other than style of dress.

So, what do you believe Deuteronomy is about? If Israelites looked like people in Motel robes. But length was the only difference then why isn't Deuteronomy or the Greek, Hebrew, or Latin interpretations prove that out? You shot yourself in the foot. You been complaining post after post that deuteronomy doesn't mention pants in detail. Now, you flip flop and contradict yourself by rejecting the idea concerning particular clothing and now argue it is about length. Bro, just admit that you are doing all this on the fly, and drinking a big cup of Google.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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."

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.

He still hasn't shown me the ancient eskimos of the Old Testament.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yes trousers were worn my Israelite men, but not women.

Bible chapter and verse please. The three Hebrews in Daniel were captives and were wearing Babylonian trousers which were common in Babylon. They were captives. Captives were often castrated and assimilated.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

Archeology. Pants were imported from other cultures.

[Aquila]

I challenge the readers to look up the attire of ancient Israel. There wasn't much difference between male and female articles of clothing. What few differences they had were in relation to length, softer fabrics for women, and women wore more colorful attire. Israelite women also wore traditional jewelry and veils.

Those who would argue that Israelite men wore trousers are often the same preachers who argue that Jesus never wore a beard.

Look it up, yourself. Don't believe either of us, verify it yourself.