in it, as early as the late eleventh century. This description emphasizes the
beautiful cloths and clothes that adorned the newborn and the chairs on which
the ceremony took place. Other sources mention that many of the participants
wore holiday clothes and that the circumciser, as well as the father of the new-
born and the ba’al brit, immersed themselves in the mikve before the ritual.^41
The text also contains many references to other participants—some men-
tioned by name and others who took part in the preparations, but are not men-
tioned in any source.
the newbornThe first and most important participant was, of course, the newborn. As he
had no recollection of the ceremony, however, it is difficult to speak of him as
a subject. He was prepared with great festivity and splendor. The ritual turned
him into a full-fledged member of the Jewish community, from an uncircum-
cised infant to a Jew who could now theoretically eat from the Paschal sacri-
fice.^42 This change in the infant’s status is apparent in the comments made
by R. Jacob the Circumciser in his thirteenth-century circumciser’s manual.
R. Jacob says:
Why did they instruct us to call the boy by a name immediately after circumci-
sion? Because until the moment of circumcision, a name of impurity and shame
was his, an uncircumcised name. And now that he is circumcised and the com-
mandment of circumcision has been performed, his name must be changed to
praise him, a pure and holy name like the names of his fathers Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob.^43The circumcision ceremony represented more than just the ushering of a
new Jewish member into society. It was also the first formal recognition of the
baby by his father, the moment at which he was officially named as the son of
his father. Rashi comments that at the circumcision ceremony, the baby leaves
his mother’s realm for the first time and is acknowledged by his father. He ex-
plains the circumcision benediction “Kol shiv’a” (seven days) as follows: “Since
until then, his father does not yet acknowledge him [during these days], be-
cause he has not left his mother’s hands and entered into the covenant. Hence-
forth his father is obligated to recognize him.”^44 This idea is also mentioned
in the fifteenth-century book of customs written by R. Jacob Mulin (often
called Mohar, Segal, or Maharil) (d. 1427). He discusses a case in which an
unmarried woman gave birth:
An unmarried woman gave birth to a son and she gave him to someone [ploni]
and said that he was his father. And he said “this is not my son.” And they wanted
to call him the son of ploni, to say ploni b. ploni. And R. Jacob [Mahar”i Segal]
warned them not to embarrass him with this, as he would not admit [his
paternity].^45