EN ES
HomeThe Laws › Man May Not Wear Woman's Clothing
Commandment #602 · Negative #446

Man May Not Wear Woman's Clothing

לֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה
Deuteronomy 22:5 · Social & Ethical Laws
לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה
“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak.”

The Prohibition and Its Stated Ground

Deuteronomy 22:5: “A woman shall not wear a man's garment (kli gever), nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak (simlat isha); for all who do these things are an abomination (to'evah) to the LORD your God.” The verse contains two distinct prohibitions: one for a woman wearing men's items (the broader term kli gever, “man's gear/weapons/items”), and one for a man wearing a woman's garment. The word “to'evah” (abomination) used here is the same term applied to other sexual boundary violations in the Torah, signaling that the prohibition touches on identity, not merely clothing convention.

The Talmud (Nazir 59a) explains the prohibition's core concern: cross-dressing creates the conditions for sexual misconduct. A man dressed as a woman could enter women's spaces; a woman dressed as a man could enter male contexts where she would be vulnerable. The primary concern in the Talmudic analysis is the prevention of sexual transgression through the dissolution of the visible markers that maintain the separation between men's and women's domains in ancient society.

The Scope of Kli Gever — Beyond Clothing

The Hebrew “kli gever” (man's gear) is deliberately broader than “clothing” — kli means vessel, implement, weapon, or instrument. This has led halakhic authorities to discuss whether the prohibition extends beyond garments to accessories, weapons, or other gender-specific items. Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Idolatry 11:7) connects the prohibition to ancient pagan practices where cross-dressing was used in specific idolatrous rituals. On this view, the prohibition targets not gender confusion per se but the specific practices of pagan worship that used cross-dressing as a ritual element.

This connection to idolatry appears in Deuteronomy 12:31: “you shall not do so to the LORD your God; for every abomination to the LORD, which he hates, have they done to their gods.” The to'evah (abomination) language links the cross-dressing prohibition to the broader category of practices that define what Israel must not import from Canaanite and pagan religious practice.

Purim and the Permitted Exception

The Talmud (Megillah) records that on Purim, wearing costumes — including cross-dressing costumes — is permitted as part of the festive celebration. This exception reveals the principle underlying the prohibition: the concern is with deliberate deception (using clothing to misrepresent identity for illicit purposes) or ritual adoption of another gender's role in a pagan context. Festive costuming that is obviously not a genuine misrepresentation falls outside the prohibition's concern. The Rema (R. Moshe Isserles) codifies this leniency in Orach Chayyim 696:8.

The Purim exception clarifies what the prohibition is actually targeting: it is not an absolute rule about fabric allocation between sexes but a prohibition on the specific misuse of cross-dressing for deception, sexual misconduct, or pagan ritual adoption. Context and intent shape the application.

For reflection and group study
Deuteronomy 22:5 uses “to'evah” (abomination) — a strong term shared with other sexual prohibitions. Maimonides connects the cross-dressing prohibition to idolatrous practices. The Talmud connects it to preventing sexual misconduct through deception. These are different rationales. Which best explains the prohibition, and does the rationale affect how we apply it?
The Purim exception shows that festive costuming is permitted even when it involves cross-dressing. What principle distinguishes permitted from prohibited cross-dressing? Is the prohibition about the act itself, the intent, or the social context?

Read the source passage in the reader.

Open in Reader — Deuteronomy 22:5