Man Makes The Clothes

                                                                                                                                                    

“Who told you you were naked?”ⁱ

No one needed clothes in the Garden of Eden. But Adam and Eve had eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, they had lost their innocence, and had recognized and were embarrassed by their lack of any covering. So when G-d asked him where he was, Adam admitted to hiding and to being afraid “because I am naked.”ⁱⁱ

Adam and Eve were, of course, punished for their sin, but G-d, mercifully, addressed their newly discovered modesty. He “made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and He clothed them.”ⁱⁱⁱ G-d was the first tailor and clothier.

In reading about history over the past few years I have seen, and been greatly troubled by, photographs from the Holocaust showing naked men, women, and children. They were dead or about to be killed. Naked came they into the world, and naked they would leave it.^iv And their lack of clothing was dehumanizing, as it was meant to be. They lost their clothes and they lost their dignity, even before their lives.

And I have heard, recently, of clothing drives to benefit the victims of “Superstorm” Sandy. Perhaps their need was different from that of the original man and woman because they had whatever clothes they were wearing, so modesty wasn't the primary issue. But while the weather had been ideal in the Garden, and no clothes were needed, there was a great need for warm, dry, clothing for those who had been attacked by the cold, wind, and rain, and garments were also sought to give the victims some sense of dignity. In the Jewish tradition^v we thank G-d every day for clothing the naked, but we recognize our duty to follow His lead. Indeed, it is through us that the needy are aided. Certainly the same injunction applies to food and shelter, but events have led me to give a good deal of thought to clothes

The needs I have raised, modesty and protection, were the earliest justifications for the use of clothing, but a third, identification of something about the wearer, joined them very soon, indeed, it may have been there from the beginning. That is because of a great deal of overlap in these three categories. For example, what we think of in terms of modesty^vi may be overturned and viewed as “style,” and those who are interested in such distinctions may consider nudity and an outfit marked by a high neck, long sleeves, and a long skirt as two ends of a fashion spectrum, and they not be embarrassed by adhering to what to whatever is in “style.” As long as they are viewed as members of the “in” group they don't care what they are wearing.^vii The different outfits have different purposes and send different messages. A Victoria's Secret shopping bag is a green light; a chastity belt tends toward the red.^viii

The use of clothing for some kind of identification is usually more specific however. Royal garb and Indian ("Native American" – although however genteel that may sound it is clearly wrong since  they are certainly not limited to our country) headdresses are easily recognized.  A police or military uniform is unlikely to be misunderstood by anyone, nor is a school uniform or a tee shirt with a written message. Hijab and abaya, habit, collar, kippa, and turban, are dependable guides to religion, as is traditional clothing an indication of ethnicity.^ix And the outfits of a ninja warrior, clown, nurse, and Batman will make their identities immediately apparent. Their outfits provide a message. As do a scarlet A and a yellow star and other stigmas imposed by society on those to be shunned or eliminated.

Less specific, but similarly parts of a uniform, are the conservative gray flannel suit and the casual Friday togs donned every day by the Silicon Valley programmer. Simultaneously we seek to be unique members of society while we are recognizable members of our own group. We want to be different, but also to blend in. And sometimes we don't want to be noticed at all. Then we must be out of uniform – incognito, in mufti, in “civvies” – so as not to be noticed. We may view it as a necessity, but it's really a matter of choice.

But for the needy, those considerations are irrelevant. If they choose a leather jacket,^x it is not a matter of fashion. And if they select modest clothing over what is revealing, we should not think that it indicates a style decision – it is usually because the former is warmer. Those in need are in need. Those who aren't, can only be grateful for the means to survive without help. And we should be thankful for the dignity which our clothing provides. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Perhaps some day we'll all return to an Eden in which all our needs are addressed, but until then we're all our brothers' and sisters' keepers. G-d made the first clothing for mankind, but it now is up to man to make the clothes, and to try to support the poor in other ways as well. We must clothe the naked and feed the hungry. If they have needs, we must help to fill them. The way has been shown us, and we are obligated to follow.

Next episode: “Morons And Oxymorons” -- The talk of the town.

i      Bereishit (Genesis) 3:9

ii     ibid. 3:10

iii    ibid. 3:21

iv     There are many variants of this idea. See especially Job 1:21, Ecclesiastes 5:15, and Timothy 6:7. The original version was “Naked came I from my mother's womb ... ” but in more modern usage the terminology “into the world” is more common.

v      And I assume in most other traditions as well.

vi     And for most societies this is an important issue, even if the definitions are different.

vii    Or not wearing. A Rudi Gernreich monokini was, in its time, very stylish.

viii   In some societies. The taboos observed by some may seem absurd to others.

ix     For example, the outfits of the Amish, Chassidim, African nations, the saffron robes of Buddhists, and similar attire.

x      Assuming they have a choice.