An interesting commandment from the Torah (which oddly also persists in some Christian sects today) is Deuteronomy 22:5. The KJV has contributed to the conventional understanding of this verse by rendering it as follows:
"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."
When seeking to understand this passage through the lens of the Torah instead of common interpretation, I found the command to be an odd one, at least in the traditional English translation of it. I am not aware of any commands in the Torah that are potentially so reliant upon current tradition and culture. For this reason it would seem to be unusual, since in theory a person could be wearing something that would be considered an appropriate garment in one culture, but simply in moving into another culture they could be wearing something deemed inappropriate. This idea did not seem to be a reasonable fit with my understanding of the rest of the Torah, not to mention that historically, Semitic men apparently wore skirts/kilts, as compared to more modern requirements of pants. These aspects led to further investigation.
Leading into the study of this command, there were primarily three interpretations I was aware of. The first and most popular I have already mentioned, which refers to crossdressing, or in some cases as far as women always wearing dresses, etc. Another interpretation would be that the identification of a woman's garment or man's garment relates to ownership thereof, rather than a particular style or design. The other interpretation related to the donning of soldier's gear, which is asserted in some rabbinic works.
Looking at the Hebrew, there are some very interesting things to note. First, a somewhat obscure word is used for "man" in both instances (which appears less than 10 times total in the Torah, as such). Second, the phrasing is not mirrored in the second clause (that is, the commands are NOT identical with the man/woman portion switched). Third, "garment" is only used in the second clause, whereas a different word is used in the first.
When literally translating, we arrive at something like this:
"Article of [geber] shall not be on woman, and [geber] shall not wrap (i.e., wear/put on) garment of woman..."
The use of the word "article" (k'li) in some sense does match the conventional translation of "that which pertaineth", though the existance of that distinction is important to note. K'li is used very broadly and generally, such as in Ex 22:7 as "stuff", in Ex 25:9 as "instruments [of tabernacle]". in Lev 6:28 as "vessel", and in Lev 13:53 as "thing [of skin]". Therefore, translating it as "article" would seem to be reasonable and vague enough.
As indicated in regard to the lack of mirrored phrasing, we notice that the verbs differ and are not simply "wear" in both cases. While "wear" (yilbash) is arguably an appropriate translation in the second clause, in the first clause we simply have a "be" verb (yihyeh) with the preposition ('al) applied to woman (ishah). This is also a distinction to recognize. Thus, these "article[s]" shall not "be on" a "woman", instead of strictly being a matter of wearing.
At this point, defining geber is what needs to be addressed:
In looking at its root verb, gabar, we see it used as "prevail" in Gen 7:18-24, Gen 49:26, Ex 17:11, 1 Sam 2:9, 2 Sam 11:23, 1 Chr 5:2, etc, and as "stronger/strengthened" in 2 Sam 1:23, Job 15:25, etc, and as "are mighty" in Job 21:7, etc. A translation that has been more generally applied by others is "to master" or "has mastery". Though not exclusively, it is often used in a military context.
The word gibor is also used repeatedly throughout the TNK in military contexts. The phrase gibore hachaiyil frequently appears in Joshua and onward referring to "mighty men of valor". Gibor is also used applied to God in Dt 10:17. While this is not technically the same word by the standard of the Masoretic vowel-pointing, we must take into consideration that it is consonantally the same word (g-b-r), and the distinction between these words may be a more recent invention.
Another relevant word, g'bir, is used twice in the text. Genesis 27:29,37 refer to the blessing of Isaac upon Jacob, wherein he is told to be g'bir to his brethren, and they shall bow to him. G'bir is rendered as "master" in these instances. It should be noted that this word also appears in feminine form later in the TNK, and is commonly translated as "queen".
When addressing the actual noun in question, geber, it is generally translated as "man" conventionally. However, as previously mentioned, it is not one of the more common words used as "man" (with zakar being applied to males of all species and ish being applied somewhat generally to humans, aside from the even more general enush and adam). In Ex 10:11, after Moses tells Pharaoh that the women and children, young and old, and flocks and herds will go with them to celebrate to YHWH, Pharaoh refuses and says only the g'barim (plural of geber) will go. Ex 12:37 refers to footman (rag'li) of Israel, then distinguishes them as the g'barim aside from little ones (taph). Num 24:3,15 refers to Balaam as the geber. When going outside of the Pentateuch, geber/g'barim is applied in regard to people pillaging in Jdg 5:30, to David in 2 Sam 23:1, and to the numbering of the Levites in 1 Chr 23:3. Job uses the word frequently, translated as "man" conventionally, as well as Psalms, though Psalm 127:4-5 clearly references a military context. It is also used occasionally as an adjective applied to things other than men, which is commonly translated as "mighty".
It would seem significant that the word geber was used instead of ish or zakar (compare Lev 18:22), though for the exact reason it might be difficult to specify. While the words are often simply translated as "man" or "men" in the TNK, a repeated connotation applied to geber and its related forms relates to might and mastery. Our most significant examples for this are in the Torah itself, such as with Pharaoh distinguishing the "men" (g'barim) from the young, the old, and the women (Ex 10:9-11), the connection between g'barim and "footman" (rag'li) in Ex 12:37, as well as the application of the root verb to the fight with Amalek, wherein Moses raised his hand so that Israel "prevailed" (gabar) in battle.
By the contexts offered in the Torah (as well as the TNK), a military connotation is certainly present, such that "man" in the passage in question should not necessarily be considered as "males" in general. In theory, it could be translated as:
"Article of [master/soldier] shall not be on woman, and [master/soldier] shall not wrap (i.e., wear/put on) garment of woman..."
Such a new interpretation would offer very different implications than the conventional understanding. Articles of a soldier could include military gear in general, such as weapons and armor and uniforms, rather than something like a modern man's business suit. This would be consistent with the lack of any implication of women being included in the Israelite military, and would also offer some interesting applications in regard to women using weapons of war (I know I initially had a conflict between this interpretation and my previous personal/cultural beliefs on women and self-defense). In regard to what the masters/soldiers would not be allowed to wear, this could imply not disguising oneself as a woman, or it could also refer to men of the army wearing women's dress in general.
Ultimately, the purpose of this command may not so much be to keep women out of the military (though that might be a practical result of it), etc, but it might be for the purpose of forbidding pagan observance. I am aware of the assertion that a Canaanite custom (later employed by the Greeks) in worship of a particular deity involved the women donning soldier's gear. This may or may not be relevant, but it seems to be a strong possibility, considering there are other commandments instated seemingly for such a purpose.
While the exact implications of the commandment may not be fully elucidated, the awareness of other uses and their contexts certainly can help to bring understanding to words, and thus the commands that use those words. Rather than being a prohibition on crossdressing, we arrive at a more refined understanding of what is likely being discussed.
I encourage looking into passages like this one using similar methods of exegesis, rather than relying upon Strong's guess of the definitions and rather than relying on convention.
(From prior posting on Gr. 7/9/14)
