110 Richard Rosenthal
especially when we remember that it is part of a tradition that is characterized by equalizing many of the distinctions between men and women.
If we bring all these interpretations together we can say that we have a commandment that may have a cultic origin but seeks, by focusing on clothing, to regulate the behavior of men and women. It is a demand for morality. Weinfeld, by placing Deuter onomy in the Wisdom tradition, makes it part of a tradition that is distinguished by moralizing about human behavior. It is important for our purposes to add to our investigation information from another direction.
It is useful to listen to feminists critics. Alice Latey writes:
“Distinction between the sexes—not only biological distinction but social distinction—is to be express by a strict regulation of what clothing is appropriate for whom.”'” There is always a social dimension to rules. The social meaning is implicit not only in the public spoken law but more importantly in the unspoken assumptions that are hidden from sight and that govern all relationship in a given society.
Some conclusions about our verse. Its Sitz im Leben can be guessed at but never clearly determined. The rule stands alone, nowhere in the Tanakh are we told of someone cross dressing. What can we make of the rule makers mind? Clothing is social, civilizing. A human takes“the nakedness into which he is born, and which is‘given’ to him” and is no longer satisfied. He “makes for himself clothes,” the apron serving both as a protection and an indication of genital potency.”"’ Men and women are separated by apparel. This seems to be a universal human experience. Unisex is an invention of our time. The clothing we use can be described as modest or provocative, it is designed to hide or to reveal. That is, it plays a sexual role.“It is not sexuality which haunts society, but society which haunts sexuality. Sexrelated differences between bodies are continually summoned as testimony to social relations and phenomena that have nothing to do with sexuality.”!?
No wonder that commentators mention aspects of sexuality in relation to the practices of Israel 's neighbors. We must qualify
that by noting human sexuality was the central metaphor of the fertility cult that so shocked the prophets. If this material is, as
| |