Woman Serving as Sandeket

Question:

A couple in my community just had a baby boy. They asked me if one of the grandmothers may serve as the sandeket (the person on whose lap the baby is laid when the brit is being performed). Is this halakhically acceptable? I should add that this would be something that would be totally in line with the norms and sensibilities of our community, and many would welcome this opportunity.

Answer:

A woman may serve as a sandeket at a brit milah in communities where this is consistent with their religious sensibilities. 

A Common Practice for Many Centuries

From various historical and halakhic writings we know that the practice of ba’alei brit—people given the honor of bringing in the baby and having the baby on their lap when the circumcision was performed—began in Ashkenazi communities in the 10th century. (It was only later that the role of bringing in the baby and the role of having the baby on one’s lap were decoupled and called, respectively, kvater and sandak).[1] All the early sources attest to the fact that  both men and women could serve in the capacity of ba’al (or baalat) ha’brit.[2] A woman could even serve as sole ba’al brit, without a man also serving in that capacity, and it seems that it was not uncommon for a grandmother to play this role. In one responsum, we even read of a dispute between the two grandmothers as to whom would be giving the honor to serve as the ba’alat ha’brit:

מעשה באחד שנולד לו בן וצותה לו אמו לעשותה בעל ברית, וחמותו אמרה אני אזכה, ונראה הואיל שהאב מצווה למולו ועליו לק’יים מצות אמו

There was a case with a man to whom a son was born, and his mother instructed him that he should make her the ba’al brit. His mother-in-law, however, said, “I will have this honor.” It seems that since the father is commanded to have his son circumcised, he must abide by his mother’s wishes.[3]

There is thus already good precedent for having one of the grandmothers serve as the sandeket!

Maharam’s Opposition and Efforts to Change this Practice

This practice changed, however, in the second half of the 13th century with the ruling from  Maharam Mi’Rutenburg (R. Meir of Rothenburg (c. 1215 – 1293, Germany), the pre-eminent Ashkenazic authority at the time. Maharam wrote in a responsum that a woman should not serve as a ba’al brit due to concerns of propriety:

אינו נראה לי כלל מנהג כשר שנוהגין ברוב מקומות שהאשה יושבת בבית הכנסת עם האנשים ומלין התינוק בחיקה ואפילו אם בעלה מוהל או אביה או בנה דלאו אורחא ליכנס אשה מקושטת בין האנשים ובפני השכינה. 

It appears to me to be not at all acceptable that which is practiced in the majority of places, that a woman sits in the synagogue together with the men and the infant is circumcised while being held against her chest. Even if her husband or father or son is serving as the mohel, it is not proper (orchah) for an adorned woman to enter in among men and in the presence of the Shekhina.[4]

The first thing to note from this passage is that until this point, it was widely practiced to have a woman serve as the ba’al(at) brit. In fact, the continuation of this text makes clear that even with all of his substantial authority, Maharam did not initially succeed in changing this well-entrenched practice: צעקתי ימים רבים ולית דאשגח , “I inveighed against this practice for many years,”  he writes, “and no one heeded me.”[5] Despite this lack of initial success, Maharam’s position was cited by later generations of rabbis, and over the course of time the practice of having a woman serve as a ba’al ha’brit generally came to an end. Thus, we read in Rema in Shulkhan Arukh, writing nearly three centuries later, that:

 ואין לאשה להיות סנדק לתינוק במקום שאפשר באיש, משום דהוי כפריצות 

A woman should not be the sandak for the infant when it is possible to have a man serve in this capacity, because to have her do so would be wantonlike (ki’pritzut).

It is significant to note, however, even while recording his disapproval for this practice, Rema—like Maharam before him—does not use technical halakhic language to state that it is forbidden for a woman to serve in this capacity, but rather writes ואין לאשה, “a woman should not.” Moreover, he recognizes that it would be acceptable for a woman to be the sandak when a proper male candidate is not available. Thus, even for Rema, there is no categorical—and certainly no technical—rejection of this practice.

What Was Seen as Problematic About the Practice?

Why did Maharam object to this practice? For two reasons. The first is that this practice has the mohel standing very close to the sandeket—a woman who is not his wife or immediate relative—and performing the circumcision and moving his hands near the woman’s chest or lap—a sensitive part of the body from a sexual perspective. While raising this concern, in the end Maharam recognizes that this is not a real halakhic problem, as there is a Talmudic principle that we are not concerned that a person will have such thoughts when they are operating in a professional context.[6]

Maharam’s primary objection is his second one: not the proximity of the mohel to the sandeket, but the very presence of the woman in the male space of the synagogue. At some level, it seems that he is concerned that this will lead to the men having improper sexual thoughts (and thus he notes that the woman is “adorned,” that is, attractively dressed). The bigger issue, however, is that it is just—in his judgment—improper for a woman to be in a space that is designated for men. He states that to do so is lav oracha, a phrase that literally means that “it is not the way that things are done,” which is ironic, given that this very much was the way that things were done until this point. What Maharam is rather saying is that it is “not the way that things should be done.”[7]

To argue that this behavior is improper, he states that the existence of the Ezrat Nashim, the Women’s Section, in the Beit HaMikdash—a space separate from where the sacrificial worship is being done—is evidence that women do not belong in the synagogue proper, which is to be a male space. He also cites Talmudic passages that instruct men to not walk behind women in the marketplace, proof—he believes—that men should generally keep their distance from women, and that certainly a woman should not be present among men in the synagogue.[8] However, as is already noted by Rabbi Moshe Betzalel Luria (1834-1914, Lithuania) in his commentary on Sefer Tashbetz, none of these sources is really germane to his point, and some can actually be read quite differently.[9]

R. Yaakov Moelin (Maharil), a student of Maharam, took his teacher’s idea to its logical conclusion and ruled that, just as a woman should not be in the male space of the synagogue, a man should not enter into the house where the baby is being cared for by women—a female space—in order to bring the baby to the brit:

מדהקפיד מהר”ם שלא תכנס האשה בעזרה בין האנשים, מסתמא ג”כ לא יכנס איש בין הנשים 

From the fact that Maharam was opposed to a woman entering into the synagogue among the men, we can assume that it is also the case that a man should not enter into the house and be present among the women.[10]

We see here a strong push to keep men and women segregated and in their own zone—the synagogue for the men, and the home for the women. Earlier, Maharil described this behavior as pritzuta. The use of this word is very telling. While normally translated as “wantonness,” it comes from poreitz which means to break through. A woman in the synagogue is seen, for Maharam and his students, as an act of breaking through barriers to enter into a space where one does not belong.

So Where Does that Leave Us? 

What does all this mean to us as a practical matter? While Maharam’s ethos of men and women mostly keeping to segregated spaces is embraced by some segments of the Orthodox—and certainly Chasidish—community, it is most decidedly not the ethos of the Modern Orthodox community. Much has been written on why this is so, but suffice it to say here that for many of us this is decidedly a lichatchilah and not a bi’dieved position. Rav Soloveitchik z”l’s decision to make the Maimonides School coeducational in both the secular and religious studies speaks volumes in this regard.[11]

That being said, it remains the case that even in many Modern Orthodox communities which have no problem with mixed-gendered spaces, they do very much preserve separate male and female spaces in the context of the synagogue, not only for davening but even for, say, weddings or lectures that take place in the sanctuary. In those communities it would indeed be jarring for a woman to enter the male space and serve as a sandeket and it would make sense to give this role only to men. 

However, there are many communities in which men and women do sit together in the sanctuary for wedding ceremonies or the like. In such communities, there is no reason that a woman should not be able to serve as a sandeket when a brit takes place in that space. It should be underscored that this is only when the brit is being done outside of the davening context. In many shuls, the brit takes place at the end of davening before Aleinu, while the men are still wearing tallit and tefillin. Obviously, when such is the case, gender separation must be maintained.

When a brit is being done in the sanctuary outside of the davening context, and a woman will be serving as sandeket, one should make a point of telling the guests that they are welcome to sit on either side of the mechitza. It would not—in my mind—make sense to maintain the gender separation during the ceremony, have the bris take place on the men’s side and only among men, and then have a woman enter that space as a sandeket. Either we treat this like, say, a non-separate seated wedding ceremony, and don’t maintain gender separation, or we treat it like davening, and then fully keep men and women separate. 

It should be obvious that when a brit ceremony takes place not in the sanctuary, but rather, say, in the social hall or a person’s private home, and the men and women are seated together, it would be fully acceptable for a woman to serve as a sandeket. 

My colleague, R. Ysoscher Katz, in his teshuva on this same topic, comes to a different conclusion. He writes that “Most mohalim would likely be extremely cautious while maneuvering their hands in such close proximity to a woman. The desire on the part of the mohel to adhere to modesty standards at this time might impede his ability to do a proper job. He might be distracted by modesty considerations at the very moment that he requires optimal concentration on the baby.“[12] He thus concludes that we should maintain the practice of not having a woman serve in this role.

I respectfully disagree with this position. As we saw above, this concern was already raised by Maharam and by and large rejected. The mohel is a professional who will act in a professional manner and the setup can be arranged so that these concerns are not present. Of course, if having a woman serve as sandeket will make the mohel uncomfortable when he is performing the circumcision, the family should work with him to find the solution that makes sense to them, whether it be having a man serve in the role of sandak, or using a different mohel, or any other solution that would work. This is not a matter for a halakhic ruling. It is a matter for attending to everyone’s sensitivities, to which we should always be paying attention.

In conclusion, it is totally permissible for a woman to serve as a sandeket, and this was the practice in Ashkenaz for many centuries. And, as noted above, there is even precedent for the grandmother to serve in this role!

[1] An excellent study overviewing the early historical development of these roles of honor at the brit ceremony, and parallels with similar roles that developed in Christian baptism ceremonies, can be found in Elisheva Baumgarten, “Circumcision and Baptism: The Development of a Jewish Ritual in Christian Europe,” in Elizabeth Mark, ed., The Covenant of Circumcision: New Perspectives on an Ancient Jewish Rite (Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2003), 114-127. See also, Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael vol.1, P. 65ff.

[2] See, for example, Sefer Hasidim, ed. Reuven Margolis, no. 407.

[3] Teshuvot u’Pdsakim Me’eit Hakhmei Ashkenaz u’Tzarfat, ed. Ephraim Kopfer, no. 71

[4] As cited in Tashbetz (R. Samson ben Tzadok, a student of Maharam Mi’Rutenberg, d. 1312, Germany,), no. 397. This text also appears in Sefer Minhagim di’Bei Maharam, Seder Milah; Shut Maharam Mi’Ruttenberg, Mekhon Yerushalayim edition, 3: 535; and Teshuvot Psakim u’Minhagim, Mossad Harava Kook, edition, 2:155-156.

[5] Based on the best editions and manuscripts of this text, it is relatively clear that this passage was written by Maharam (not a student as the text in some earlier editions indicated). This passage also shows—assuming that Maharam is the author—that in objecting to this practice, Maharam was following the lead of a teacher of his, a Rav Tuvya ben Yekutiel, possibly R. Tuviah of Vienne, early 13th century, who was in Paris when Maharam was a student there.

[6] He writes: אף על גב דעבי[ד]תייהו טרידי ולא מהרהרו מ”מ הרואי’ חושדי’ אות’ ואפי’ אדם (א)[ע]ם אשתו.  As to the concern that the attendees will nevertheless suspect the mohel of improper thoughts, this is a hard position to maintain. Given that this practice was so widely accepted, it is fair to assume that none of the actual participants thought that the mohel was doing anything wrong. It is presumably due to the weakness of this argument that it is mostly not cited later sources (including Rema’s ruling, above), who focus rather on the second concern – the very presence of a woman in the men’s section. 

[7] The Talmudic phrase לאו אורח אראע, with the addition of the word “ארעא,”more captures what Maharam was intending to say. This phrase translates as “it is not derekh eretz / proper behavior,” without reference to societal norms or practice (see, e.g., Brakhot 7a and 45b).

[8] He writes: וכי בחינם היית’ עזרת נשים לבד, and also cites the Talmud passage (Kiddushin 52b) that states, “What would a woman be doing in the Temple courtyard,” which he takes to be an indication that women were not allowed in the Temple courtyard – the section more interior than the Ezrat Nashim (but see Tosafot there, s.v. vi’ki who demonstrates that there was not a general restriction against women being in the Temple courtyard). The reason he offers for this is that her presence would be a distraction for the young kohanim – פן יתגרו בה פרחי כהונה.

[9] He writes: והנה פן יתגרו כו’ הוא דרך פירוש שלו. ובתוס’ שם כתבו דאין רגילות שתכנס לשם כדי להתקדש שהרי בזיון הוא ע”ש. ולפי זה אולי אפשר לומר דבזה אינו בזיון כבהא דלהתקדש. ויותר נדמה זה למש”ש התוס’ דיכולה ליכנס לעזרה לשחיטה דכשרה בנשים.  גם אם הוא משום בזיון אין לדמוח כ”כ ביהכנ”ס לעזרה. והרי בברכות דף ס”ב ע”ב ושם איתא דרקיקה ומנעל אף דאסור בהר הבית שרי בבהכנ”ס וכ”ש דאין ללמוד לענין כניסת האשה ביהכנ”ס מעזרה. וביור”ד םי’ רס”ה ס”ט שכחב טעם דפריצות ע”ש זה שייך גם כשאינו בביהכנ”ס.

[10] Sefer Maharil, ad. loc.

[11] For historical background on Rav Soloveitchik’s decision, see “Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Coeducational Jewish Education,” Shaul Farber, Convesations, vol. 7, Spring 2010, 103-112.

[12] “May a Woman be a Sandak,” Rabbi Ysoscher Katz, published on the Lindenbaum Center website, https://library.yctorah.org/lindenbaum/can-a-woman-be-a-sandak/.