us to examine women’s participation in ritual more extensively. We find that
the case before us is not a unique one. In the eleventh, and especially in the
twelfth, centuries, there is evidence that some women took upon themselves
obligations that were traditionally male, such as time-bound commandments
(Miz·vot aseh shehazman grama) that only men are commanded to observe—
among them, the donning of tefillin (phylacteries) andz·iz·it(the ritual fringed
garment). This practice was not supported by all in Ashkenaz, but was gener-
ally approval by figures such as R. Tam. During the course of the thirteenth
century, the Hebrew sources begin to express discomfort with women’s adop-
tion of such practices, and the objections become more prevalent.^141 R. Meir
of Rothenburg was one of the main figures objecting to women taking upon
themselves some of these obligations.^142 The objections to women perform-
ing a variety of ritual activities—ba’alot brit, tefillin, and z·iz·it—as well as the
question of the kind of blessing they were allowed to make when performing
the rituals, were all widely discussed during the twelfth and thirteenth cen-
turies. While R. Tam allowed women to make the ritual blessing men made
when performing these activities, fifty years later the permission he had given
was being questioned.^143 During the second half of the thirteenth century and
the fourteenth century, these objections became more forceful.^144
Another example of an objection to women’s performance of ritual func-
tions was discussed above—the objection to women acting as circumcisers,
which became accepted in the fourteenth century. This change seems to fit
the development I am describing. In addition, as we discussed above, a more
stringent approach toward impurity after birth was adopted at this time. These
separate instances of objections to women’s ritual participation, specifically in
areas that are not traditionally female, seem to point to a broader social phe-
nomenon. Even if each issue has its own inner logic and halakhic reasoning,
the ensemble seems to be connected to a more general attitude toward women
and ritual participation.
The restrictions on women’s participation in public ritual as well as in their
private devotion are evidence of a gender struggle within medieval Jewish so-
ciety. These restrictions also accord with the struggle between the bride’s and
the groom’s families, as well as changes that seem to have been part and par-
cel of the marriage economy of the time. The reality in Jewish society fits in
with the European context as well. A similar development is evident in Chris-
tian society, where, following a period of relative religious freedom for women,
as is evident in the growth of lay piety and female orders in the twelfth century,
church authorities of the thirteenth century were determined to curb women’s
opportunities and especially their religious functions. Thus, for example,
women who tried to preach were gravely reproached. Many of their religious
practices, including fasting and other devotions, were criticized.^145 Women
did continue to act as co-mothers, but as women had always played a more sig-
nificant role in the baptism rite, this fact is not related to the restriction of re-
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1