Thank you. And from one similar matter to another: it seems that an overwhelming majority of halakhic decisors in the last generation prohibited women’s pants quite sweepinglly, aside from two whom I saw permitted it (Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein and Rabbi Yosef Henkin, of blessed memory). Does the Rabbi have an explanation for why it’s important to decisors to prohibit something that isn’t really prohibited (as I understand it)? After all, there really is no source for the prohibition. Or maybe I’m mistaken. I’d be glad to hear what the Rabbi has to say on the subject. Thanks.

Just plain conservatism.

There really is no source for the prohibition???? Just plain conservatism????

“A woman shall not wear a man’s gear, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Parashat Ki Tetzei). And see tractate Nazir 59b — to prevent concern for adultery. And see Maimonides regarding the practice of idol worshippers.
There is also natural modesty, and there is no doubt that there is a difference between wide pants and a narrow, tight cut whose purpose is to highlight the private parts, just as it is forbidden on grounds of modesty to walk around in a tight shirt.

It is obvious to anyone with half a clue that the moment you permit it, things keep sliding downward. For some reason women (and men too) have a desire to trim down their clothing and expose their bodies to everyone’s eyes. And just as skirts and dresses have already been cut up to (well) above the knee, that is what will happen with pants. Until the day is not far off when we’ll see women walking around in shorts and a head covering, and nobody will peep or chirp, and some will tell the protesters that it’s only “conservatism.”

Today all over the world (at least the Western world), women mostly wear pants. To define “man’s gear” by what is accepted among Jews is circular reasoning (religious women don’t really wear pants [modest ones] because it’s considered men’s gear). If there’s concern about a slippery slope, then say that (a decree of our own making), and not “man’s gear” (a Torah-level prohibition).

Honorable Eritrea,
The prohibition of “a woman shall not wear a man’s gear” existed before most of the Western world wore pants.
So to begin with, it’s funny to say there is no source for the prohibition.

Even if nowadays things have changed, there is still the slippery slope (very, very, very much so), and that is the point.

The whole discussion on this matter is infected with “innocence” (supposedly), and innocence is the last thing I would suspect in you.

So your claim is that men’s gear and women’s gear are determined by two thousand years of Torah, and not by the situation in our time?
The slippery slope argument has its place, but I’ll hold your hand to cross the bridge when we get to it. If this site had a throat, then just from repeatedly going over the analytical distinction between what is correct and what is slippery, it would be hoarse twice a week.

Are you Eritrea or Eritrean?
Take another look at my reply, in plain Hebrew!!

A. It’s funny to say there is no source for the prohibition, because originally there was a source. (Does your honor understand what “originally” means???)
B. If in our times the situation has changed — then there is a slippery slope. Therefore it is funny to say that this is “just” conservatism.
C. My friend, if you don’t have children and aren’t involved in education, then you don’t know the bridge. I am deep inside it from every possible direction.
Believe me, don’t play with this fire!!! It has felled many casualties!
That’s all for now, though the matter is not exhausted…

I didn’t understand what you think the force of the prohibition is today. Not what the prohibition once was, and not “if in our times.” Is this a Torah-level prohibition, or a decree that the sages of the generation impose because of concern for a slippery slope? Your answer, please.

The topic is a bit long. But I’ll give you, for example, the view of the author of Minchat Yitzchak (2:108):
Pants are defined as men’s clothing, and therefore even if many women become accustomed to wearing pants, and even if there are noticeable differences between men’s pants and women’s pants, pants will still be considered a distinctly male garment, and women will be forbidden to wear them.
According to this view, since from the outset it was forbidden for women to wear pants, we consequently do not take into account the fact that today many women wear them, because their practice is founded on error and transgression. (And non-Jewish women certainly do not determine what constitutes a woman’s modesty.)
That means that according to him, and many others as well (as a practical halakhic ruling), we still prohibit this under the Torah-level law of “man’s gear.”

B. Even if we assume that today there is no Torah prohibition, certainly on account of the slippery slope / slick slope / icy slope — it should be prohibited. And as I said, those who permit are astonishing. Because from an educational standpoint this is playing with fire. (And experience proves it.)

C. I admit that from the standpoint of modesty it seems to me personally (and this is not a halakhic opinion at all) that it is preferable for women to go with long, wide pants (in some style of modesty) rather than with a miniskirt above the knee. (But that is another issue, and I hesitated whether to write it at all.)

Sabbath peace and have a good week.

By the way, there are those nowadays who permit wearing pants in places designated for women only. For example, a woman exercising in a women’s gym. Or pajama pants at home (and in a pressing case, some even permit streetwear pants under a skirt).

But — “just” conservatism? (I’m asking you — does that sound relevant to you?)

A. Thanks. I really don’t have the energy to get into the whole topic, but I hear you. All topics are interesting, but there are three subjects that are boring in a very unique way: measurements, times, and modesty. In my limited experience with these topics, there are no pearls to be extracted from beneath the shards, and it takes effort not to fall asleep.
B. There are differences between a Torah-level prohibition and a rabbinic decree. First, in terms of the authority to decree today (as opposed to a line of reasoning that every woman can think through on her own, or that society can institute some norm — that’s not a halakhic matter but a social one). Second, in terms of severity and implications. Third, with decrees like these I have a few more ideas that for some reason were never decreed. Fourth, on the substance of the matter, I personally don’t think pants affect modesty in either direction, but so be it. Maybe when I have a daughter I’ll take more interest in these arid topics.
As for the rest, I don’t know.

I’ll respond and add a little joke to the fourth part of your reply.

As you know, the historical Shimshon and Yovav are the pair Balak and Balaam. And Balaam’s famous advice for causing the Jewish people to sin was: “The God of these hates lewdness” (tractate Sanhedrin 106a).
People like to say that the deeds of Balak and Balaam are hinted at in the acronyms of their names.
Balak — Girls, go short.
Balaam — Girls, go with mini.
(Food for thought for when you take an interest in these arid topics.)

Gematrias and acronyms are “not even arid”… And I heard from behind the curtain that all the above repented in the World of Truth, and from now on say:
Balak — Young men, go answer difficulties.
Balaam — Young men, go understand the depth of conceptual moves.
Sihon — A sign: a Jew writes novel insights and wonderful conceptual definitions.
Amalek — An ignoramus smears difficulties on himself.
Canaanite — Every analytical point, Jews enjoy.

Not bad. Not bad.
You forgot an acronym for Eritrea (curious to know the source of the nickname).

[When the fork came up. I imagined an African man walking around in a jalabiya. And where exactly we have heard in the sources that pants are anyone’s outer garment, I do not know; there, robes are the outer garment for everyone, and the daughters of Zion distinguished themselves only by jewelry and various wrappings. In any case, as for an acronym, one could say: I Want Great Torah Knowledge, Amen, Hopefully 🙂 ]