Women in the Millitary?

Does anyone have information, as to whether women, in the OT, were allowed to be in the millitary? Also, are they allowed to be in the millitary, in Israel, now?

Comments appreciated!

MEE

 

This sounds interesting.

What I'm wanting to see is if anyone knows what Deut. 22:5 really means.

5) The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

The part where is says "pertaineth unto a man" is what I've found through research means that:

Quote from research:

Torah forbids the wearing of apparel customary for the opposite sex. From this rule, tradition concluded that "man's apparel" included implements of war, and a midrash explained that this was the reason for Jael killing Sisera with tent pin and mallet (Judges 4:17-21),because as a woman she was not supposed to wield a man's weapon. This also meant that women were precluded from joining the Army.

The above is only a small portion of what I found.

This is a far cry from what I was taught Deut. 22:5 to mean. I don't want to offend anyone, if you don't agree, but I just wondered if anyone else agrees with what I found.

Waiting for more comments.

MEE

 

Mee -

I have also heard before that Deuteronomy 22:5 refers to "armor" though I am unable at present to find the initial source of this scholarship.

I would be interested in the source and date of the information you provided from your research.


**Clint, the information is rather lengthy. I will post it and after reading it, you can remove the post if you think it's too long.

This information was sent to me by one of the College Professors, that taught at ABI, in St. Paul, Minn. He belonged to the same organization that I sat under for over thirty years. We were taught that a woman can't wear pants because of Deut. 22:5. This is what he sent! There are other teachers that believe the same, but aren't allowed to teach what they see to be the truth. It would be against the "Articles of Faith."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

V. Deuteronomy 22:5, what does it really say?

Two statements are made which are not symmetrical, although it would have been easy to make them so.

How it reads in the KJV.

Deut. 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

How it would read if it were symmetrical.

The woman shall not put on a man's garment, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.

What do the words actual say in the Hebrew language according to the scholars.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man.

That which pertaineth - Actually, the statement above which is translated that which pertaineth in the Hebrew is the word keli, and it means a manufactured article. It is most often translated as some sort of weapon or armor.

Strongs: 3627 kee-lee" something prepared, i.e. any apparatus (as an implement, utensil, dress, vessel or weapon): --armour [bearer], artillery, bag, carriage + furnish, furniture, instrument, jewel, that is made of one from another, that which pertaineth, pot, psaltery, sack, stuff, thing, tool, vessel, ware, weapon (emphasis Strong's) whatsoever.

Gesenius (Hebrew words and most references deleted) properly whatever is made, completed, or prepared...(1) any utensil, vessel. Gen 31:37; 45:20. vessels of gold, of silver, the vessels of the temple, vessels of wandering, outfit for exile. (2)clothing, ornaments of a bride, also for yokes for oxen. (3) a vessel for sailing. (4.) an implement, a tool, musical instruments, instruments of the indignation of Jehovah (5) arms, weapons Ben. 27:3 ; Jud 18:11,16. more fully, deadly weapons Psalm 7:14. , an armour-bearer 1 Sam.14:1, 6, 7, 31:4,5,6 an armoury Isa 39:2.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 982g vessel, utensil, The basic idea of this root is "to bring a process to completion." The root occurs in all its forms 237 times. Of these 206 are verbal....The idea of being consumed is most commonly applied to violent destruction, often by war...

3627 Wigrams, The New Englishman's Hebrew/Aramaic Concordance: k'lee Translated 45 times as armour, or weapons. Most other times as instrument, jewel, furniture, vessels, etc., but never, not even in Deut 22:5 is it translated clothing.

Unto a man.

Strong's, 1368 gibbor, ghib-bore; from 1397 geber gheh'ber, a valiant man or warrior, powerful: by implication warrior, tyrant: --champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one) strong (man), valiant man.

Gesenius 1368 references and Hebrew omitted (1) strong, mighty, impetuous, used of a hunger, commonly of an impetuous soldier, a hero, a mighty king (Alexander the Great), a mighty hero. [The mighty God: Christ is spoken of] these are the heroes, those who were famous of old; the lion is a hero among the beasts; also used of a soldier generally, a mighty warrior, Used of God, Jehovah (is) strong and mighty, Jehovah (is) mighty in battle....(2) a chief, a military leader, the commander of soldiers and the soldier. Used generally of a chief. (3) in a bad sense, proud, a tyrant, like the Arab.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: 310 condensed (ga bar) prevail, be mighty, have strength, be great. Derivatives, man, mighty man. might. lady, queen. .... The Hebrew root is commonly associated with warfare and has to do with the strength and vitality of the successful warrior....(RSV often translates "warrior") The heroes or champions among the armed forces.

Wigrams, p. 289, 290, translated mighty men, mighty one, mighty hunter, mighty, mighty man, mighty men, strong, valiant men, mightiest, mighty of valour, strong man, giant, as a strong man, the Mighty God, the mighty. The only instance it is translated as man is in Du 22:5. Not so translated in any other place.

VI. How do the Jewish scholars understand this scripture?

Moses Maimonides on Deuteronomy 22:5 - There is also the reason for its dictum: A woman shall not wear man's armor, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment. You will find in the book of Tumtum the commandment that a man should put on a woman's dyed garment when standing before [the planet] Venus and that a woman should put on a cuirass and arms when standing before Mars. In my opinion there is also another reason for this, namely, that such a practice arouses desires and necessarily brings about various kinds of debauchery. Vol 2 p. 544, 545.

The Torah, a Modern Commentary - Deuteronomy 22:5 Man's apparel. The Hebrew is more general and says "man's gear." (See further in Gleanings.) Abhorrent (they way they translate "abomination"). The Hebrew terms suggests that transvestitism was considered not so much a sexual deviation as an idolatrous practice. From the "Gleanings", p. 1490 Transvestitism (Deut. 22:5) The Torah forbids the wearing of apparel customary for the opposite sex. From this rule, tradition concluded that "man's apparel" included implements of war, and a midrash explained that this was the reason for Jael killing Sisera with tent pin and mallet (Judg. 4:17-21), because as a woman she was not supposed to wield a man's weapon[25]. This also meant that women were precluded from joining the army [26]; note the present-day controversy in Israel over women's exemption from the military. According to Targum Jonathan the rule implied further that women were forbidden the wearing of talit and tefillen (prayer shawl and phylacteries); but the Talmud disagreed and said that women, while exempt from the duty, were not prohibited from using them [27]. On the island of Cos, says Plutarch, priests of Hercules dressed as women; while, in Rome, men who participated in the vernal mysteries of that god did likewise. So too in the cult of Dionysus, males often adopted feminine costume, just as at the annual festival of Oschophoria boys were attired as girls and, at the Skirophoria, men were garbed like women. The same practice is attested also in connection with the cult of Leukippos in Crete....The origin of the custom is disputed. According to some scholars, it is a method of assimilating the worshiper to the person of the deity (though it is difficult then to explain why the devotees of the male Hercules affected feminine attire). According to others, it is a form of disguise, designed to foil demons and similar noxious spirits. Probably, as Frazer has observed, there is no single origin for all the examples of this practice; in some, the former idea comes into play ; in others, the latter. It has also been suggested that, in cases where men wear women's clothes in the performance of magical rites, this reflects the widespread belief that magic (especially when it aims at promoting fertility) is primarily the province of the female sex, and that--at least in some instances-- the usage may go back to a time when priesthood was in the hands of women. Also,....transvestitism is a well-known symptom of sexual abnormality....frequently associated with religious psychosis. T. GASTER [28] Operations to correct the problem of transvestitism and bisexuality are the subject of various halachic opinions. Generally speaking, elective surgery is frowned upon because of the danger attendant upon it, but there may be cases where exceptions could apply [29].

Pentateuch and Haftorahs 5 An interchange of attire between man and woman would promote immodesty and in consequence, immorality. This law is probably directed against rites in Syrian heathenism, which included exchange of garments by the sexes and led to gross impurities. p. 843.

What do the commentaries understand this verse to say?

Adam Clarke, Vol. I, p. 704 Notes on Genesis Chapter XXII, Verse 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man] keili geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or a man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies paraticularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and female. The close-shaved gentlemen may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male's attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated.

**There is more, but I will leave it here.

MEE