Can a Woman Carry a Weapon?

In recent weeks, many news and social media outlets have been reporting on the high increase in women learning how to train to use a firearm. The photographs of women in skirts and headcovers learning how to shoot a gun tell the tale of our times; The story of women worried for their safety and the safety of their families and communities in the wake of the horrific October 7 attacks and subsequent war, many now home alone as their husbands serve in the reserves. But the picture raises an interesting halachic question: can a woman carry a firearm or weapon? 

Our knee jerk reaction might be, of course! It’s pikuach nefesh. And anyway, what would be the problem with it? But the halachic literature on the subject is wide and intriguing, showing us that indeed, there is an issue here to be discussed. Let us look at some of the different approaches to the question to understand its source, see what the final halachic conclusion is, and note how it ties in to many other related areas to women and gender relations in halacha today.

The halachic dilemma in a woman carrying a firearm stems from the issur of ‘Lo tilbosh’, with the idea that a weapon is considered ‘man’s apparel’ or kli gever. The pasuk states:

A woman must not put on man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD your God.¹

While the pasuk doesn’t tell us which apparel, a number of types of clothing, jewelry, as well as beautification customs, are mentioned in the commentators as being specific to men or women, including weapons. In Masechet Nazir², Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov explains that a woman should not put on a weapon and go out to war. Onkolos explains the prohibition saying: “A man’s adorning weapon shall not be upon a woman…”. The Sifrei Devarim also uses this verse to explain that women should not wear weapons and go out to war, and the Rambam mentions in Avoda Zara³ that a woman may not wear armor. From these mefarshim, as well as others, we see that weapons seem to be considered kli gever, a man’s apparel, and therefore, should be forbidden to a woman⁴, and indeed this is how the Shulchan Aruch rules⁵.

In answering our question, however, it is important to examine the rationale of this mitzva, as well as the intent of the woman who wants to carry that weapon.

A vast array of commentators explain that the prohibition of ‘lo tilbosh’ exists in order to prevent men and women from mingling and leading to improper behavior between them⁶. Many commentators agree that the prohibition applies only when it will result in or lead to acts that are abhorrent (such as illicit sexual relations). Some say in order to be a prohibition, it requires intent toward illicit behavior⁷.

Going back to our women who are training to use firearms, what is their motivation to use a gun? Is it likely that they are adorning themselves with them, or intend to mingle with men? When deciding on the halachic course in this matter, do the questions of intent and context make a difference to the bottom line halacha? The halacha does take these considerations into account and based on these, bring four cases in which a woman is permitted to carry a weapon.

Another aspect of the prohibition on weapons takes the approach of the Ibn Ezra and the Chizkuni, that is only carrying a weapon for the purposes of war that is forbidden. Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch explains the reasoning: the Torah, he says, places restrictions on each gender so that we will protect the unique nature we have⁸.

Going back to our women who are training to use firearms, what is their motivation to use a gun? Is it likely that they are adorning themselves with them, or intend to mingle with men? When deciding on the halachic course in this matter, do the questions of intent and context make a difference to the bottom line halacha? The halacha does take these considerations into account and based on these, bring four cases in which a woman is permitted to carry a weapon as explained below:

Based on the Taz and the Bach⁹, the prohibitions here only exist when the apparel is worn for decoration, and not for a specific purpose¹⁰. If it is clear that she is wearing something for protection such as a raincoat from the rain, it is not considered kli gever, a man’s apparel. Today, we don’t tend to walk around in our coats of armor with decorative swords hanging from our waists. If today you see someone wearing a weapon, you know it has a purpose.

The second reason to allow for it is that unless the woman is using the gun for the purposes of war, it is not a problem. This is based on the halachic stance mentioned above, that a woman is prohibited from going to war. Rav Moshe Feinstein suggests that a woman bearing a pistol would be different than a woman using a rifle, as the latter is more associated with war.¹¹

The third place for leniency is when it is for self-defense. Here, based on the pasuk ‘Eit La’asot l’Hashem, hefru Toratecha’ from Tehillim¹², the Sefer Chassidim brings the example of a women disguising herself as a man with a weapon to prevent conquerers from raping her. Rav Ovadia Yoseph rules that female teachers in border towns in Israel were allowed to train and use weapons in their schools for the protection of their students and themselves.¹³

Finally, the fourth opinion is based on the Rama, which holds that the prohibition applies only when the item is specifically made for the opposite sex. Rav Henkin z”l¹⁴ explains that today, many women use guns, such that they are no longer considered ‘men’s apparel’, as many, many women use and bear weapons, such as police women around the world, or female soldiers in the Israeli army. 

As we see, us women can be assured that using a weapon for our protection today has a sound halachic basis. But the question lends itself to the more general questions of halacha and gender, as well as the role of context and intent in the halachic discourse. Just in this one question we saw approaches that touched on halachic positions regarding the place of cultural norms, gender roles and intergender relationships. 

The knee jerk reaction may have turned out to be accurate, but the discussion, spanning thousands of years, from the Torah to the Achronim is still going on. BH there will come a day when we will go back to debating the adornment of that sword as just an adornment. But in the meantime, this question serves as one of thousands of halachic questions that show the development of the halachic system and its contextual, yet timeless, formula. 

¹ _{Devarim 22, 5}

² _{Masechet Nazir 59A}

³ _{Avoda Zara 12:10}

⁴ _{See this sourcesheet from Derechecha for these and other sources on the issue of ‘kli gever’ in general: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/328114.27?lang=bi} 

⁵  _{Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 182:5}

⁶ _{See for example, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, the Malbim, Sefer Hachinuch on Devarim 22:5}

⁷ _{Sefer Mitzvit Katan, 33, Meiri on Nazir 58B}

⁸ _{Devarim 22, 5}

⁹ _{Bach, Yoreh Deah 182:5}

¹⁰ _{Note also the above mentioned Onkulus, where he adds in the word “adornment” weapons}

¹¹ _{Igrot Moshe, Orech Chaim 4}

¹² _{Tehillim 119, 126}

¹³ _{Responsa Yechaveh Da’at 5:55}

¹⁴ _{Rav Yehuda H. Henkin, ‘Bearing Weapons by Women and their Service in the Army,’ Techumin 28, p. 271-3}