lap. And even if her husband is the mohel[circumciser] or her father or her son,
it is not the way [of the world] that such an honored woman should enter among
men and in the presence of the Shekhinah... especially since she is not com-
manded to circumcise, not even her own son, as it says “which God commanded
him” (Gen. 17:23);^83 “him” and not “her.” And if this is the case, why should they
circumcise in her lap? Thus, they [the women] snatch this commandment from
the men. And whoever can object should object, and whoever acts stringently in
this case may he be blessed. Meir son of Barukh... About this that my teacher
has written. And though I have cried out for many days, no one pays any atten-
tion. For it seems very ugly.^84 And even though they are occupied [with the com-
mandment], their thoughts wander.... Is it for no reason that the women’s sec-
tion was separated off? Hence, this seems to be a commandment performed in
sin... and every man who fears the Lord should leave the synagogue, lest it look
like he is an accomplice to sinners. Shalom. Meir son of Barukh.^85While R. Meir does not use the term ba’alat brit, it is clear that the woman he
refers to is performing the ba’al brit’s task as she holds the baby on her lap. This
source also explains the honor the grandmothers were fighting over. The
ba’alat brit was not necessarily the wife of a male participant; she was an inde-
pendent figure. The source points to possible relationships of the ba’alat brit
with the circumciser, who might be her father, husband, or son, but no male
figure is mentioned as assisting her. Some manuscripts change the wording of
the decision and suggest that perhaps her husband, father, or son was in the
audience. Yet, even so, the presence of the woman’s husband in the congre-
gation, does not tie the ba’alat brit to a male participant in the ritual.
R. Samson’s words reflect the period prior to the end of the thirteenth cen-
tury. Sefer H·asidim, R. Jacob the Circumciser’s manual, and the manuscript of
Mah·zor Vitry are all from the thirteenth century. The question concerning the
two grandmothers is in a fourteenth-century manuscript, but probably repre-
sents an earlier period, as other sources from the fourteenth century follow
R. Meir of Rothenburg’s lead.^86 In these sources, the ba’alat brit appears only
as the ba’al brit’s wife. Later sources from the fifteenth century emphasize that
R. Meir b. Barukh’s ruling won the day and that, despite a struggle against those
rulings, his instructions became standard procedure. The Maharil, R. Jacob
Mulin, for example, stresses the importance of his ruling.
A picture in the early fourteenth-century Regensburg Pentateuch, repre-
senting Isaac’s circumcision (Gen. 18:4), illustrates the changed procedure
(figure 3). The first part of the picture shows women bringing the infant to the
synagogue but stopping at the door of the men’s section. The women, dressed
in their finest clothing and jewelry, pass the baby into the male realm. The sec-
ond part of the illustration shows the circumcision ceremony and the infant
being circumcised by a male circumciser. This illustration attests to a custom
similar to the one R. Meir was advocating. In contrast, an earlier illustration of