The Tanakh seems to draw our attention to clothing in many stories. It is highlighted in the stories of Adam and Eve’s banishment from Gan Eden, of Joseph and his ketonet passim (coat of many colors), and of Esther who donned queenly robes, to name a few. How did the parshanim (biblical interpreters) reconcile this prominence of clothing, such a material thing, with Torah values? In the following sources, which just skim the surface on these issues, one can trace a consistent approach among the parshanim.
In Tanakh, the first depiction of people being dressed occurs as a reaction to sin. After eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve suddenly become aware of their nakedness and immediately cover themselves with a fig leaf. But the first real act of clothing Adam and Eve is carried out by God. God makes them kotnot or, garments of skin, before banishing them from Gan Eden. According to the peshat (the simple text) here, to be naked is a sign of weakness and vulnerability, and Adam and Eve were for the most part helpless to do anything to alleviate the situation. Whereas the peshat implies that Adam and Eve were physically helpless, Rashi understands this verse differently. The verse states, “And the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked” (Genesis, 3:7). Rashi asks, “Even a blind person knows that he is naked. What did the Torah mean when it says “and they knew they were naked?” They had one mitzvah to keep and they failed to keep it.” Thus Rashi transforms the literal meaning of this verse. Adam and Eve’s nakedness, according to Rashi, was a deeper, spiritual deficiency. When they ate from the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked. Figuratively, their actions were laid bare. They had reached awareness that they had disobeyed God’s command, their innocence was lost, and they became aware of their deficiency. According to Rashi, in the Torah, nakedness or being clothed is representative of a deeper state of being.
A similar idea is expressed by a midrash in Shemot Rabbah (parashah 1). The midrash comments on Ezekiel 16, which is understood to be a reference to God’s taking Israel out of Egypt. Ezekiel 16 describes Israel as an abandoned baby who grows up to be a beautiful girl under God’s care. However, when God finds her she is “naked and bare.” God covers up her nakedness, just as He does with Adam and Eve. The midrash comments,
ואת עדום ועריה, בלא מעשים טובים, לכך נאמר וירא אלוקים שאין בידם מעשים ליגאל בהן.
And you were naked and bare: Without good deeds. Hence it states,“And God saw that they had no deeds in their hands through which they could be redeemed.”
In this narrative as well, nakedness is interpreted as a spiritual deficiency, an emptiness of ma’asim tovim (good deeds). In Ezekiel we are no longer talking about one mitzvah, but rather about the nation’s failure to keep mitzvot, both those between the people and God and those between the people themselves, bein adam lahaveiro. Again, biblical interpreters take the reference to nakedness to mean something beyond the physical realm. The nation was spiritually empty; its people had treated each other badly and disregarded the Torah. In God’s eyes they were spiritually naked. When God then clothes the girl of Ezekiel 16 and makes her beautiful, the prophet is telling us that the Jewish nation had reached such a low in their commitment to the Torah that they exhibited no goodness that God could look to and say that these people were worth saving.
In both of these contexts, a lack of clothing represents to the interpreters a failure to keep mitzvot, a religious emptiness; covering up symbolizes God’s saving or protecting them, regardless of their failings.
If nakedness represents vulnerability and a deficiency of mitzvot or goodness according to the commentators, then correspondingly, specific clothing in the Torah must have significant meaning. One story in which clothing plays a prominent role is the Joseph narrative. One can see how the various names of attire that Joseph wears at different points correlate to his identity and experiences. 1 When Joseph is young, his father Jacob makes him a ketonet passim, literally a striped coat. This coat foreshadows both the ups and the downs in Joseph’s future. On the one hand the ketonet is one of the sources of the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph, which leads to their throwing him into a pit. When the brothers return to tell their father that Joseph seems to have been killed, they hold up the torn, bloody ketonet as evidence. On the other hand, it is significant that the ketonet passim is referred to later in the Tanakh as the attire worn by King David’s daughter, Tamar, “which was worn by the virgin daughters of the king” (II Samuel 13:18). This suggests that the coat described in Genesis is also associated with royalty and kingship, a hint of what Joseph’s future holds, as he is to become the viceroy of Pharaoh.
Rashi expresses the idea that Joseph’s clothing reflects a deeper aspect of his personality or foretells his future. 2 Based on a midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 84:8), Rashi defines the word passim as either a reference to royal clothes or as an acronym (PSYM) for the different groups or individuals to whom Joseph would be enslaved: P=Potiphar, S=Soharim (merchants), Y=Yishm’elim (Ishmaelites), and M=Midyanim (Midianites). In both cases, Rashi interprets the word passim as an allusion to Joseph’s future experiences.
Moreover, when Joseph finds himself in the house of Potiphar and Potiphar’s wife attempts to seduce him, a keyword which repeats itself often is the word beged, clothes. There is debate among the commentaries about whether or not Joseph wavered in his resistance to Potiphar’s wife. In the verse, “She caught him (bevigdo) by his cloth and said, ‘Lie with me,’” the phrase “by his cloth” also means “in his treachery.” The double meaning of this word here leaves Joseph’s innocence and blamelessness open to question. 3 Here again Joseph’s clothes give us a specific window into his soul and reflect his deeper emotions.
Another biblical character whose clothes must not be taken at face value is Esther. When Megillat Esther states, “And it came to pass on the third day Esther wore (malkhut) queenliness,” the Talmud asks, why does it say she wore “queenliness” and not queenly robes?
ויהי ביום השלישי ותלבש אסתר מךכות, בגדי מלכות מבעי ליה: שלבשתה רוח הקדש. כתיב הכא ותלבש וכתיב התם (דברי הימים א׳ י״ב) ורוח לבשה את עמשי וגי׳.
“And it came to pass on the third day and Esther wore queenliness.” It should have stated “queenly clothing.” Rather – the holy spirit clothed her. It is written here “and she wore” and it is written there, (I Chronicles 12) “Then the spirit clothed Amasai.”
Once again, clothing in the Tanakh is viewed by the commentaries as reflecting something deeper and more spiritual. The unusual phrasing of the verse, combined with the idea that mention of clothing in the Bible is always symbolic of a biblical character’s spiritual state, led to the interpretation that the specific description of her clothes meant that Divine prophecy was bestowed upon Esther to guide her in her role as savior of the Jews of Persia.
One final example of this phenomenon is found in the description of the clothing of the Kohanim. Most strikingly, the Torah devotes three entire chapters to discussion of the priestly garb (Exodus 28 and 29 and Leviticus 8). Moreover, it is also noteworthy that the Torah prescribes such elaborate dress for the Kohanim and particularly for the Kohen Gadol, who arguably holds the holiest position in Judaism, as it states, “And you should make holy clothing for your brother Aaron for honor and beauty” (Exodus 28). Here, as well, the commentators give the emphasis on material things in the Torah a spiritual dimension. The Midrash explains that the eight different articles of clothing that the High Priest wore atone for the sins of Israel, as do the sacrifices:
ואת הבגדים (ויקרא ח, ב). אמ׳ ר׳ סימון כשם שהקרבנות מכפרין כך הבגדים מכפרין.
Rabbi Simon says, just as the sacrifices atone so too does the clothing atone. 5
The elaborate dress, according to Rabbi Simon, should remind the Kohanim of their important and lofty role as representing all of Israel. For example, the Gemara says that the pants worn by the Kohen atone for the sin of illicit relationships. Here, we see the complete antithesis of the nakedness of Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve’s nakedness is understood as an absence of mitzvot, the Kohen and his many articles of clothing represent layers of spiritual holiness. The Kohen may have dressed magnificently, but that is only because his clothing was reflective of his magnificent soul.
The recurrent emphasis on clothing, in particular rich majestic clothing, in several significant sections of Tanakh, suggests that it is not meant to be taken at face value. Hence, one can trace a recurring theme in the commentaries regarding the view of clothing in Tanakh. Clothing is never viewed only as a description of a character’s outward appearance. One’s state of dress or undress is repeatedly interpreted as a mirror into his/her religious soul and is a further reflection of one’s character. Mark Twain said: “The clothes make the man.” But according to the Torah, it is the man or woman who makes the clothes.