One of those curious ‘coincidences’ of our calendar is that Purim, the festival where vesture plays such a prominent role, is usually enwrapped by two sidrot devoted to descriptions of apparel. In Tetsave the sacred Kohanic garments were conceived; in Pekudei they are made.

Only the kohanim (and especially the kohen gadol) are assigned special garments of splendour. Indeed, that is why they are called bigdei kodesh. Normally translated as “holiness”, kodesh actually means “separateness”. A Kohen in the mishkan and later in the Temple is marked out by his specially assigned uniform. With the exception of tsitsit and tefilin neither of which is an actual garment (although tsitsit require to be attached to a garment) the Torah does not assign to the rest of Am Yisrael any particular clothing to honour G‑D. The Leviim are not allocated any uniform.

Even Moses, leader supreme, had no authorised robes of office. A Gerer Chasid might imagine Moshe Rabenu in a spodick and bekishe, a Chabadnik will picture him in a kapoteh, a yeshivishe Jew will perceive him in a fashionable suit and a fedora, a Sephardi will depict him in a turban and flowing robe and a Modern Orthodox Jew may conceive him in a kipa seruga and open-necked white shirt. What does this say about the Torah’s eclectic approach to dress?

A non-negotiable sine qua non is that clothes ought to be modest (an ideal which appears to have flown out of the window in the bare-it-all Bondi culture of today). This applies for both women and men. Few realise that the Torah principle of modesty in dress has its source in the very opening chapters of Genesis. After Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit “they sewed together a fig leaf and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7). But, as Rabenu Bachya comments, they were not spiritually comfortable with these scanty aprons and G‑D “made them garments of skin and (properly) clothed them” (3:21).

What were these “garments of skin”? Rashi cites two Midrashim one of which explains they were “garments smooth like a fingernail attached to the (entire) skin” and the other that they were made “of something which comes from animal skin such as rabbit-wool which is soft and induces warmth”. Either way it is clear a pattern is being set for human society that clothes are intended to cover the body, not leave sizeable parts of the body exposed.

However, this does not set down parameters of formality or informality, smart-wear or casual wear, elegance or simplicity. In short, is the Jewish ideal to dress up to the nines when the occasion demands it, or is it to dress down? Or something in between? Or doesn’t it matter?

A fascinating passage in the Talmud (Shabbat 10a) discusses the dress habits of a few of the Amoraic Sages when praying. “Rava bar Rav Huna would don fine footwear and pray, citing the verse ‘Prepare to meet your G‑D, O Israel’ (Amos 4:12). Rava (on the other hand) would cast off his cloak, clasp his hands and pray. He said: one must appear ‘like a servant before his master’. Rav Ashi said: ‘I observed that when there was suffering in the world Rav Kahana would cast off his cloak … and pray … but when there was peace he would dress, cover and wrap elegantly and pray” (citing both of the above explanations).

We have here two diametrically opposed perspectives. The first is that by dressing elegantly one honours G‑D. After all, if a humble citizen of the realm is invited to meet the ruler, he would hardly appear in a sweatshirt and jeans. The second is that by dressing too elegantly one exhibits unacceptable pride. If a servant of the King tries to match or even upstage the king in his manner of dress, he is demonstrating insolence and contempt. Rav Kahana melds the two approaches by saying: there is a time and a place for each. A period of global unrest or recession is not the best time to flaunt affluence. However at a time or in a location where peace and prosperity reign, elegance of attire may reasonably be seen as acknowledging the bounty of one’s Creator.

In today’s society where a combination of material prosperity and existential angst holds sway, whether one dresses up or down may depend on one’s disposition or on the way one looks at the world!

The practice, now moribund, of shuls imposing a formal dress code on its members (in the Anglo-Jewry of yore a man without a jacket and tie would be barred from receiving an aliya!) is spurious. A Rava bar Rav Huna may deem sartorial elegance before G‑D indispensable; but for his more famous namesake it smacks of arrogance.

It would seem that whether hipster or hippy, the important thing in matters vestiary is to direct one’s heart to heaven

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)