how to choose a circumciser. The sources emphasize that expertise, rather than
social obligation, was paramount.^51 They also discuss whether it was permissi-
ble for a circumciser in mourning to participate in the ritual.^52
Recent research has indicated an interesting development concerning the
circumciser’s gender in medieval Ashkenaz. Sources from Antiquity that dis-
cuss circumcision often refer to women as mohalot (female circumcisers). The
Mishna and Talmud discuss the case of a woman who circumcised her sons,
who then died one after the other following the circumcision ceremony. The
law states that if she has lost her first sons after circumcision, she need not cir-
cumcise her third or fourth sons (depending on the opinion accepted).^53 Two
passages in First and Second Maccabbees also refer to women who circum-
cised their sons,^54 while the history of medicine provides ample evidence of
the very active role played by women in all the medical professions in antiq-
uity.^55 Furthermore, the Talmud discusses the permissibility of women acting
as circumcisers (as opposed to non-Jews who are not allowed to perform the
act) and rules that women may act as circumcisers, basing this ruling on the
biblical precedent of Z·ipporah (figure 2).^56
During the Gaonic period, we find little mention of women serving as cir-
cumcisers, although the Talmudic ruling is upheld in different contexts. Yaa-
cov S. Spiegel has shown that the attitude toward women’s ability to serve as
circumcisers changed in Ashkenaz, especially during the thirteenth century.
Spiegel described three different approaches to the issue of women acting as
circumcisers prior to this change. One opinion, prevalent among the rabbis
in Germany and northern France, permitted women to circumcise, without
reservation; a second opinion, which prevailed among some of the rabbis in
Spain and Provence and a small number of Ashkenazic rabbis, was that
women could circumcise only when no man could do the job; a third opin-
ion, which can be found in sources from the thirteenth century onward, stated
that women could not perform the act of circumcision.^57 The latter two opin-
ions became more common during the thirteenth century, and, as Spiegel has
demonstrated, by the end of the thirteenth century, the third opinion pre-
vailed.^58 It is possible that this change in legal opinion was of little conse-
quence, as women were rarely called upon to circumcise babies.^59 However,
as I will argue later in this chapter, this change is a significant indicator of a
wider trend.
ba’alei habritBa’al haBrit. In the description from Mah·zor Vitrycited earlier in this chap-
ter, a figure called the ba’al brit appears.^60 The description assigns him a num-
ber of different functions. He passes the baby to the father and holds him dur-
ing circumcision. According to another manuscript of Mah·zor Vitry, the ba’al
brit also carried the infant from his home to the synagogue and brought him
into the sanctuary. The Mah·zorreports an additional custom: