Nazir 59A

איכא דאמרי: אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: המעביר בית השחי ובית הערוה לוקה משום ״לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה״. מיתיבי: העברת שיער אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים. הוא דאמר כי האי תנא, דתניא: המעביר בית השחי ובית הערוה הרי זה עובר משום ״לא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה״.

Some say a different version of this statement: R' Ḥiyya bar Abba said that R' Yoḥanan said: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair is flogged, due to the prohibition: “A man should not put on a woman’s garment” (Deuteronomy 22:5). The Talmud raises an objection from a baraita: The removal of hair is not prohibited by Torah law but by rabbinic law. How then does R' Yoḥanan say that he is flogged, which by definition is a punishment for individuals who have transgressed a Torah law? The Talmud answers: It was he who said this halakha in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: A man who removes the hair of the armpit or the pubic hair violates the prohibition of: “A man should not put on a woman’s garment.”

ותנא קמא, האי ״לא ילבש גבר״, מאי דריש ביה? מיבעי ליה לכדתניא: ״לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה״. מאי תלמוד לומר? אם שלא ילבש איש שמלת אשה ואשה שמלת איש, הרי כבר נאמר ״תועבה היא״, ואין כאן תועבה.

The Talmud asks: And what does the first tanna, who holds that the prohibition is by rabbinic law, learn from this verse: “A man should not put on a woman’s garment”? The Talmud answers: He requires it for that which is taught in the baraita, where it states: “A woman should not wear that which pertains to a man, and a man should not put on a woman’s garment, for whoever does these things is an abomination to YHWH your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5). What is the meaning when the verse states this? If it teaches only that a man may not put on a woman’s garment, and a woman may not wear a man’s garment, it is already stated in explanation of this prohibition that “it is an abomination to YHWH your God,” and there is no abomination here in the mere act of wearing a garment.