Women wearing pants

Sam2 – 2 problems: 1. If the Rashba is assuming something then that doesn’t mean we have to run with it if we know that this assumption is incorrect (especially as the Rashba is not addressing the issue we are talking about and it has been ‘retcon’ed into his words). 2. If these things were defined with chasimas hatalmud, what do we do about things that were only invented afterwards?

” these contemporary Rabbonim assumed that pants were solely a man’s clothing Mimei Kedem”

Obviously they were misinformed. You don’t follow a psak when it is based on wrong information. (If you know that a restaurant is serving chazir, you won’t eat there even if the gadol hador is the kashrut supervisor. Of course you’d probably call the gadol hador to let him know!)

rabbiofberlin, so is it ok now for men to dye their hair and beard?

Lo tilbash there is no issue with women wearing pants. It’s an issue of daas yehudis. I personally heard this from a posek.

Daniel Rosen: Pashtus is that Lo Silbash has nothing to do with Arayos. Lo Silbash is one of the incredibly rare instances where for some reason we are sometimes Doresh Ta’ama Dikra (based on Rashi Al HaTorah) as a Snif L’hakel.

And who gets to determine what constitutes “wanting to be like a man” and “not understanding the special role of a woman”. I would be willing to wager that most women who want to wear pants want to do so out of comfort, not because they want to be like men.

Yitay: What does the Gemara say? (Obviously; Rashi Al Hatorah is almost always based on Gemaros or Midrashim, but when I see it quoted they quote Rashi, not the Gemara.) And that doesn’t change the fact that in the vast majority of instances, we don’t care whether or not it leadsto/is for Arayos as Begged Ish/Ishah remain Assur anyway. The Sod Hadavar might be related to Arayos, but for Halachic purposes it really isn’t.

Sam, several teshuvos seen to assume that it is related to arayos.

Good Shabbos, everyone, I may have little time to check in for the next few days.

DaasYochid –

I looked over the Tur / Shulchan Aruch again over Shabbos, and I honestly do not see a basis to prohibit pants for women in a society in which it is the norm.

The consensus clearly is that male clothing is defined by society. Moreover, I think that normative halacha follows the note of R’ Akiva Eiger on the final s’if that in societies where it is the norm for men to look in mirrors, that is permitted as well. As such it is clear to me that normative halacha has accepted subjective standards not just for clothing, but for the final s’if as well. Therefore in a society where it is the norm for men to dye or pluck their white hairs, pashtus is it would be mutar too.

I can understand the rationale of saying a docheik lekula – one wants to make things more bearable for the tzibur. But saying a docheik lechumra is a lot harder to rationalize, unless it is clear that there is a pirtza. With all due respect to those who disagree, I think to say pants for women constitutes such a pirtza or that is inherently pritzusdig is to not be aware of the current metzius. Therefore I am quite convinced that we should follow the pashtus and not squeeze out issurim.

Sam2: “The Sod Hadavar might be related to Arayos, but for Halachic purposes it really isn’t.”

That is not true Sam. That’s why lehalacha on Purim it is mutar for a man to wear woman’s clothes. It is obvious that he is not really a woman.

Daniel: That is one of the cases I referenced above where we seem to be Doresh Ta’ama Dikra here, which is strange. And it’s not so Pashut that it’s Muttar to dress as a woman on Purim. Many Achronim say that we cannot rely on the Rama on this because why should Simchas Purim be Mattir an Issur D’Oraisa? And even those that rely on it try and take it down a peg by saying that it should only be one item of clothing.

DaasYochid –

It’s not at all dochuk to say that some parts are not era subjective.

My point is less – albeit somewhat – about what is dochuk in pshat in the Gemara than about what is dochuk as a psak halacha l’hachmir. Meaning, if the trend in the Tur, Beis Yosef, Rema, R’ Akiva Eiger etc. is that all Lo Silbashes are created equal, then how can someone come along and demand the tzibur follow an alternative pshat, lechumra? I don’t think the SA has the status of the Gemara and of course I agree that in many instances we will pasken differently than the Mechaber / Rema. If they are meikil and someone wants to suggest an alternative pshat l’hachmir, go ahead. If someone wants to shlug them up, also go ahead. But to take an alternative pshat without conclusively shlugging up the Rema’s and then to say that people don’t have the right to follow the Rema? That is squeezing out issurim, or as Sam sometimes likes to term a ziyuf hatorah. I have no problem if you want to be machmir yourself or suggest a chumra to others based on what you think is pshat. But you can’t just go around saying that something which the Rema pashtus matirs is assur, if you can’t claim to conclusively shlug him up, even if there are rishonim who might agree with you. At the very least, end off your psak with the statement “umikol makom hanohagim heter yesh lahem al mi lismoch.”

Why dont bais yaakov girls wear pants? Why dont their mothers, frum Jewish women, waer pants? Virtually none. Why? Because theyre not allowed to, not because they dont want to. EVEN amongst the modern orthodox their women dont wear pants, except the borderline religious who barely keep Shabbos.

Whats considered “common” is what is common in frum Jewish society, NOT whats considered common in gentile or irreligious society.

DaasYochid: Thank you for pointing me to the Rashbo. I read (and re-read) it carefully and also looked at the gemoro in Nazir to whioc he alludes. In truth, the teshuvo raises more questions than it gives answers . Firstly- the person asks the Rashbo the question whether the custom of people “shaving under their chin and the throat” (obviously to avoid “hashchoso beta-ar in “Pe-as zekeinecho”) is allowed, as the people do it all the time. So, does the Rashbo prohibit this? In other words, according to the Rashbo, can we -today!- shave anywhere? According to your intimation that the Rashbo holds that,once it is a “malbush isha” it remains Ossur forever- dos that mean that we- today- do not hold like the Rahsbo??

Secondly-if you look at the actual gemoro- it ends up allowing to scrape hair from under the armpits ,asl ong as it is with a “beged’ a cloth. Why should that be so, if any shaving like women is ossur?

Lastly, although the Rashbo does indees intimate that any shaving would be ossur- from the gemoro “Nazir” (59a) it seesm that only “chaveirim” followed that precept. Maybe it is only a middus cahssidus, and nto the halacha? More questions tob elucidate this.

Daniel Rosen: “Lo tilbash is not wearing clothing of the opposite gender because of arayos”.

Sam2: “Pashtus is that Lo Silbash has nothing to do with Arayos.”

Sam2 is wrong. Let’s just end it there please. You made a mistake. That is fine. Let’s just move on. You spend all your time here challenging people instead of listening to people.