between members of the community. Unlike the co-parents, however, and like the ba’alei brit,
there were no female shushvins. This becomes evident in a comment of Rashi’s when he explains
the Talmud term shushvinteh—a female shushvin—as “the ba’alat brit” (BT Kiddushin 61 a s.v.
“Shushvintae”). Had there been female shushvinim, Rashi would undoubtedly not have explained
the word as he did.
- For a description of this process and change, see Yuval, “HaHesderim haKaspiyim,” 193–
96, 199–205. - Ibid., 201–206.
- For a more thorough, though still preliminary treatment of the subject, see the pioneering
comparative study of Cohen and Horowitz, “In Search of the Sacred.” - Paige and Paige, Reproductive Rituals, 53–67; 46: “Legitimate rights to a child in prein-
dustrial societies are established by informal agreements and social consensus, but agreements
may be broken and social consensus may vanish. The birth of a child tests agreements and threat-
ens consensus because it immediately transfers the questions of legitimate rights from the hypo-
thetical to the actual.” - These two topics—marriage and the place of women in society—are certainly deeply re-
lated. The different theoretical issues behind them will not be properly addressed here but will be
the subject of future research. - See pp. 68, 70–71.
- Paige and Paige, Reproductive Ritual, 54–67.
- Bourdieu, “Rites of Institution,” 187–88.
- Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo
(London, 1989), 159–79, esp. 167–68. See also Goody, “Against Ritual,” 34. - For recent research on purity and the synagogue, see the discussion above, p. 78.
- See pp. 71–72.
- The phrase appears in BT Menah·ot 30a, in which the Talmud discusses taking a Torah
scroll from the market. The issue in this case is how honorable the deed of taking the Torah scroll
is. However, the phrase “Lah·tof miz·vah” does not have a negative meaning. The phrase also ap-
pears in Leviticus Rabbah, 2:34:2. See also R. Meir (of Rothenburg) b. Barukh, Shut Maharam
(Prague), no. 925. - For a detailed description of this process, see Talya Fishman, “A Kabbalistic Perspective
on Gender-Specific Commandments: On the Interplay of symbols and Society,” AJS Review
17(1992): 199–245. - For research on this topic, see Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Ma’amad hanashim hamitnadvot,” Rit-
ual, Custom and Reality, 262–79. - For example: Sefer Or Zaru’a, 2: no. 166.
- For example: R. Samson b. Z·adok, Sefer Tashbez·, no. 270; R. Jacob Mulin, Shut Maharil
haH·adashot, ed. Yitzchok Satz (Jerusalem, 1977), no. 7; R. Jacob Barukh b. Judah Landa, Sefer
heAgur haShalem, ed. Moses Hershler (Jerusalem, 1960), Hilkhot Z·Iz·it, no. 27. - See for example: Brenda Bolton, “Mulieres Sanctae,” in Sanctity and Secularity: The
Church and the World. ed. Derek Baker (Studies in Church History, 10), (Oxford, 1973), 77–95;
Nichols and Shank (eds.), Distant Echoes; Medieval Religious Women, vol. 1 (Kalamazoo, 1984);
Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast, 21–23. - Marcus, Rituals of Childhood, 83–101; Kanarfogel, Jewish Education, 40–41; Goldin, and
Ta-Shma’s objections to Marcus, “The Earliest Literary Sources,” 591–96. - Tosafot, BT Eruvin, 96b, s.v. “La salka da’atakh”; Rashi, BT Brakhot 20b, s.v. “UMin
hatefillin.” - R. Samson b. Tzadok, Sefer Tashbez·, no. 273.
- R. Jacob Mulin, Sefer maharil, Hilkhot Tefillin, no. 10.
- R. Meir b. Barukh, Shut Maharam(Prague), no. 529.
- Taglia, “The Cultural Construction of Childhood,” 258–65.