Commento su Deuteronomio 22:5

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה THE APPAREL OF A MAN SHALL NOT BE ON A WOMAN — so that she look like a man, in order to consort with men, for this can only be for the purpose of adultery (unchastity) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 226:1; Nazir 59a).

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, in order to walk among males and seduce them.

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, “male apparel shall not be on a woman.” The principal concern of our verse is to deny the woman the right to bear arms (Sifri 227, Nazir 59). She is not to go to war and become a cause for immorality rampant during war. Similar considerations, i.e. the prevention of creating opportunities for sexual promiscuity- are the reason males are forbidden to wear women’s garments. Both of these apparent role reversals of the sexes are an abomination to the Lord.
Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 6,1 understand this wording to mean that “garments which will result in, or lead to abominations being perpetrated are forbidden” (compare Yoreh Deyah 156,2). Jewelry which is associated specifically with women is forbidden to be worn by men, as are mannerisms practiced especially by women, such as looking in the mirror. Seeing that they were one of three things which the rabbis had to give a special dispensation to for the household of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, it is clear that generally speaking male Jews are not supposed to admire themselves in a mirror. If a barber, in order to trim the client’s hair, needs to look into the mirror to better see the hairs he is looking for, this is in order. If a person was sick and he wishes to reassure himself that he is on the way to recovery by consulting a mirror and confirming that he looks healthier, this too is in order. The last mentioned examples are not uses for the enhancement of one’s exterior, for “dolling oneself up.” Our sages in Shabbat 94 also stated that if one picks a single white hair out of the black hairs in one’s beard one is guilty of violating the basic prohibition not to wear women’s clothing. A further illustration of this subject is found in Yalkut Shimoni on Judges item 56, that the reason Yael slew Siserah with a nail instead of with a knife was that she did not want to violate the commandment of using implements reserved for males.

He may not shave the pubic hairs, etc. I.e. [because] women customarily do this, meaning that he should not ornament himself with women’s adornments. You might ask: Why does Rashi give an alternative explanation [only] to the end of the verse? He should also have given an alternative interpretation to the beginning of the verse as well! For the Gemora (Nazir 59a) explains: R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says: From where [do we know that] a woman may not put on weapons and go out to war, because the verse teaches, “A man’s attire may not be on a woman.” Re”m writes: The same applies too, that a woman may not go out with weapons to war. Another answer why [Rashi offers] the alternative explanation [is because that] answers the question: Why in the beginning of the verse is it written, “A man’s attire may not to be on a woman,” while at the end [of the verse] it writes, “nor may a man wear a woman’s garment”? It should have written, “A woman’s attire should not be on a man”! Since Scripture alters [the wording], the verse is obviously talking about another matter [i.e., shaving the pubic hairs, etc.]. But according to the alternative explanation too, one has to answer why the verse uses a term of “wearing.” It should have said, “He should not adorn with women’s adornments.” Therefore the first explanation is also needed.

V. 5. לא יהיה וגו׳. Nasir 59 a werden diese Verbote verschieden aufgefasst. Nach der einen Auffassung, wäre hier ein Kleiderwechsel der Geschlechter nur zu unzüchtigen Zwecken verboten. Nach der als Halacha rezipierten Lehre des ר׳ אליעזר בן יעקב untersagt aber שלא תצא אשה בכלי זיין למלחמה :לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, dass eine Frau nicht mit Waffen gerüstet in den Krieg ziehe, und לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה: שלא יתקן איש בתקוני אשה, dass ein Mann sich nicht nach Weiberart schmücke und ziere. Offenbar ist, wie uns scheint, nach dieser Auffassung nicht sowohl ein Verbergen des Geschlechts durch Kleiderwechsel der Gegenstand des Verbotes, als dass jedem Geschlechte dasjenige untersagt wird, was mehr spezifisch der Natur des andern eignet. Es soll das männliche ebenso wenig sich eine der Natur des Weibes gemäße Pflege des äußeren leiblichen Erscheinens gestatten, wie das Weib nicht in einem der männlichen Natur angehörenden Beruf auftreten soll (es heißt ja nicht: שלא תצא אשה בכלי זיין, sondern: בכלי זיין למלחמה). In der Tat ist auch jede mehr als zum männlichen Anstand gehörige Haut- und Haarpflege, Schminken, Haarfärben, zu große Freundschaft des Spiegels etc. ebenso wie weibliche und weibische Kleidung und Putz dem Manne משום לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה untersagt (Nasir 59 a daselbst; Mackoth 20 b und Aboda Sara 29 a ׳תוספו daselbst).

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, “a woman must not wear men’s clothing;” it is an act of disgrace and sexual provocation;”Having taken note of this law, Yael, the Kenite woman who killed Sisera, the general who had commanded the army of the Canaanite King Jabin of Chatzor, did not use weapons used by male soldiers, such as arrows or a sword when doing so, but took a tent pin. (Judges, 4,21) This paragraph has been written immediately after those dealing with women and warfare, in order to remind us that warfare is something reserved for men, not women. When men go out to war they are likely to encounter situations making promiscuity a great temptation. They are therefore warned not to add to such temptation by dressing up as women. (Ibn Ezra)

ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה NEITHER SHALL A MAN PUT ON A WOMAN’S GARMENT in order to go and stay unnoticed amongst women. Another explanation of the second part of the text is: it implies that a man should not remove the hair of the genitals and the hair beneath the arm-pit (Nazir 59a).

The Torah prohibited only, etc. Rashi wants to explain what he said earlier, “So that she resembles a man, in order to mingle with men,” and also afterwards, “In order to take a place among women,” so that you do not ask, how does he know to explain this way. Perhaps it is forbidden to wear [such clothes] in all circumstances because it is a Scriptural decree? He answers that [it is not a Scriptural decree] as the verse gives a reason [for it], “For the abomination of Adonoy, etc.” This indicates that “the Torah prohibited only, etc.”

כי תועבת FOR [ALL THAT DO SO ARE] AN ABOMINATION [UNTO THE LORD THY GOD] — This implies that the Torah forbids only the wearing of a garb that leads to abomination (unchastity) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 226:1).