Q&A: A Woman in the Redemption of Her Son
A Woman in the Redemption of Her Son
Question
Hello Rabbi
Is there anything you’ve written on the subject of a woman in the redemption of her son? I’d be glad to see it.
And another question
I don’t see anyone saying that the baraita only says that circumcision and redemption are not obligations of the mother, but if she wants to, she may. After all, the baraita doesn’t say that she is forbidden to. What am I missing??
Answer
See Maharach Or Zarua, section 11, who wrote that if the father did not circumcise him, the obligation falls on the mother to circumcise. I think he derived this from Zipporah, Moses’ wife. However, the simple explanation is that she is obligated by virtue of the religious court’s duty, like every Jew, and not as a full obligation like the father’s. In any case, it is clear that according to his view a woman may circumcise, though she is not obligated to do so. And indeed, in the plain sense of the Talmudic passage in Kiddushin it says only that she is not obligated.
But in Avodah Zarah 27a it appears that this is a dispute between Amoraim (Rav and Rabbi Yohanan), and it says there that she is considered as one who is circumcised. And in Tosafot, s.v. “Woman,” there, they wrote that the Jewish law follows Rav, that a woman is not fit to circumcise, and they brought that Behag ruled like Rabbi Yohanan, that she is fit. See there, where they explain the Kiddushin passage according to both views.
However, one must discuss here the issue of agency, based on the principle that someone who is not included in the category of a matter cannot serve as an agent with respect to it. In the Talmud there in Avodah Zarah, they seek a source for disqualifying a gentile from circumcision, which implies that it is not enough merely that he is not included in the category of the matter. If so, the same would apply to a woman. One has to check the commentators there, but this is not the place to elaborate. Simply speaking, with regard to agency all of these are indeed disqualified, and the discussion is only when they circumcise on their own behalf. This is especially so according to the medieval authorities who do not require agency at all for circumcision (Rid and Maharach Or Zarua, among others). And perhaps if a woman is considered circumcised, then she is included in the category of the matter after all—at least if the commandment is to be circumcised. If the commandment is the act of circumcision, then apparently not. And the medieval authorities disagreed about this—Maimonides and the Tur regarding cosmetic shreds of flesh that do not invalidate the circumcision, according to Beit HaLevi and Rabbi Velvel Soloveitchik.
Discussion on Answer
Why call it exclusion? No Jew is connected to all the commandments. Everyone has his own roles. An Israelite is not permitted to offer sacrifices, and an ordinary priest is not permitted to serve as the High Priest, and so on. The halakhic rule is that one who is not included in the category of a matter does not engage in it. And before you ask me about circumcision, ask me about Torah study. Someone will take care of circumcising the son—but who will study in place of the woman?
It seems to me that at the root of the passage about a father’s commandments toward his son lies the idea that the father must prepare his son for life, and that includes redemption, circumcision, a trade, Torah study, and teaching him to swim. You can see that circumcision is not merely a ritual commandment, but part of preparing the son for life—bringing him into the covenant of Israel.
And another question [third email]: how do you understand the exclusion of women from these commandments?
I see that there is a dispute between the Shach and the Taz as to whether a religious court can redeem or not. And according to the Taz, not, because there is also an aspect of loss here, since when he grows up he will be able to fulfill it with his own money and by himself. Why don’t we say that about circumcision too? There too, when he grows up he could do it himself, although there isn’t necessarily a monetary element there.