reflects tensions between families. However, it reflects additional tensions in
society as well. The presence of women in the male section of the synagogue,
an unusual occurrence in medieval Ashkenaz, must be further explained.
One reason for the active participation of women in the circumcision cere-
mony could be the nature of this specific ceremony. While it is a male cere-
mony, it is one that takes place while the infant is completely in his mother’s
care. In this aspect, the ritual differs from other rituals in which the initiate
does not return to the same social space he left. In Ashkenaz, for example, Jew-
ish boys who underwent the Torah initiation ceremony became part of a new
social space, that of the male community. In the case of an infant, he was under
the supervision of his mother both before and after the circumcision ritual.
This factor, though it may account for female involvement in the ritual, does
not explain the objections to women’s participation or the changes in the rit-
ual through time.
It seems that the best way to assess the change in the role of women in the
ceremony is by examining R. Meir of Rothenburg’s objections to this role. He
mentions two main reasons: First, he says that it is inappropriate for women
who are dressed and adorned with jewels to enter the men’s section. Once
again, we must ask what made this particularly inappropriate at this time, as
we can assume that previously, female ba’alot brit entered the men’s section
adorned with jewels. In general, immodesty is an argument often marshaled
to restrict women’s activities in patriarchal societies. One has only to look at re-
ligious societies today to see living examples of this use of immodesty. It is im-
portant, however, to note the limits of this struggle. The objection is not to
women’s wearing of jewelry per se, but to their doing so in the men’s section,
where they could unintentionally cause men’s thoughts to wander.
Second, he explains that the commandment of circumcision is the father’s
obligation and not that of women, and that women should not “snatch” the
commandment from the men. The expression he uses “lah·tof miz·vah” (to
snatch the commandment) is one that is not common in the medieval sources.
It appears in the Talmud as well as in the Midrash in a completely different
context, one far more positive than the context here.^140 The idea that a man,
rather than a woman, should hold the baby makes sense if we think of the rit-
ual as a male ceremony, a ceremony in which the baby becomes part of male
society, even if only for a few short minutes. This would explain the importance
of a man’s holding of the infant. But this kind of explanation only increases our
difficulties in understanding why women were allowed to be such active par-
ticipants for a limited period of time.
I suggest that the context of R. Meir of Rothenburg’s comment is far wider
than that of the role of the ba’alat brit. What does R. Meir of Rothenburg mean
when he accuses women of “snatching the commandment”? Clearly, one
meaning of his comment is that women are taking over an area that is not
meant for them. The barring of women from the circumcision ceremony alerts
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1