R. Jacob Mulin spoke of the custom of women pestering men who came to
pick the baby up for a circumcision. We also saw an element of resistance in
the story of the men who became upset as they waited for women who did not
show up for a circumcision ceremony.^94 The women were busy celebrating
with the mother of the infant and neglected to come to the synagogue on time.
Certain authors seem to hint at the idea that the postpartum period was one
in which women saw themselves in a position different than their usual one,
and took advantage of this atypical status. For example, R. Joseph Juspa Hahn
Neurlingen of Frankfurt (d. 1637), author of the compilation Sefer Yosef Omez·,
comments on the practices observed during the lying-in period—such as the
amulets that surrounded the Kindbetterin’s room and the knife she held in her
hand to ward off Lilith at all times. He says that these practices were observed
until the women went to the synagogue. But he also reprimands the women,
reminding them that although they are not following their routine, they are
still obligated by some aspects of it. He reminds them that they are to wash their
hands and recite their prayers, even though they are at home.^95 It seems that
some women argued actively or believed that they could not perform mundane
religious observances until they were ritually pure, and this was indeed an issue
in question in the early modern period. Other books, such as Sifrei H·annah, a
genre of instructional manuals for women, also scold women for not praying
during this period.^96 R. Juspa Hahn Kashman suggests the opposite, that some
of these women ignore these restrictions and try to perform certain com-
mandments too early.^97 It would seem that some women, as well as some legal
authorities, saw this period as beyond the normal restrictions of society.
We have demonstrated that the lying-in period was a unique time for
women, and that the institutional rite terminating it was a forum for women’s
self expression, as well as a symbolic return to the social order. The explana-
tion in social terms that we have advanced for both the Jewish and the Chris-
tian ritual facilitates a better understanding of both societies. Without the com-
parison with Christian ritual, making sense of the usually terse references to
the ritual, as they appear in the varied Jewish sources, would be a difficult task
indeed. This comparison, however, not only provides us with a better under-
standing of the parallel rituals, it also raises central questions as to the place of
theology and religious institutions in ritual development and practice.
In the context of churching and the Sabbath ritual, one can see clear con-
nections between practices, and Jewish and Christian religious ideologies.
One possible reading could lead us to conclude that the Jewish ritual was
adapted from surrounding Christian society. In the spirit of what Ivan Marcus
has called “inward acculturation,”^98 I suggest that Jews adapted these postpar-
tum customs and birth rituals to fit their social and ritual needs, and that even-
tually, they became an integral part of Jewish practice. In the case of the
Hollekreisch and the Wachtnacht, the rite provided protection against a
demon that was neither part of mainstream Judaism nor of officially approved
rick simeone
(Rick Simeone)
#1