ing this period, the paternal family, in fact, lost some of its previous power with
respect to marriage agreements. I would suggest that we see here a symbolic
reaction to this loss of power. While the maternal family demanded more for
their daughters, some areas in which women had enjoyed relative freedom,
such as the ritual front, were becoming more restricted. The tensions around
the circumcision ceremony and the honor of ba’al brit reflect some of the
strains that existed between the paternal and maternal families. The ritual hon-
ors granted to the paternal family compensated somewhat for the loss of their
previous position.
The change in women’s ritual experience connects in an additional way to
“reproductive politics.” Paige and Paige have argued that in patriarchal soci-
eties, rituals convey not only the communities’ commitment to the infant, but
also serve to display the place of women in society and the rights granted her.^135
If the function of the ba’al brit was to assert hierarchy, then the changes in
women’s roles reflect the struggles in this hierarchy. These struggles not only
define the place of women (and their offspring) but also provide us with a prism
of the society as a whole. As circumcision is an institutional practice, the social
statement made by the performance of the ritual serves to reinforce its social
message.^136
Mary Douglas has also discussed rituals and change in similar contexts, plac-
ing special emphasis on the role of women. She suggested that conceptions of
purity and impurity often underlie gender relationships and attitudes toward
women within society.^137 While the participation of women in the circumci-
sion ritual in the synagogue is not directly related to purity, their presence or
lack of presence in the synagogue reflects prevalent gender interactions.^138
It is in the ba’alat brit’s function that the clearest change can be seen. While
in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (and perhaps even earlier), she is espe-
cially active—washing the baby, bringing him to the synagogue, holding him
on her lap in the synagogue—after the thirteenth century, she was absent from
the men’s section during the ceremony. One must ask which part of this de-
scription represents the norm? Was it unusual for women to participate so ac-
tively in a ceremony at the synagogue or was the exclusion of women the ex-
ception to the rule?
When discussing the ba’alat brit earlier in the chapter, a central source dealt
with R. Meir of Rothenburg’s attempt to bar women from serving as ba’alot
brit.^139 It is not surprising that this source, which tells us much about women’s
roles, is the source in which the practice was eliminated. By contrast, other ref-
erences to the ba’alat brit, from the period after the practice was abolished, sim-
ply mention the ba’alat brit as the wife of the ba’al brit and provide few details.
This is not extraordinary, since the role was no longer of great import. If the
husband was chosen to be the ba’al brit, his wife automatically became the
ba’alat brit.
I have argued that this change in women’s role in the circumcision ceremony
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1