:שאלה
What is the proper way to welcome a female-sexed child into the covenant of the Jewish people?
:תשובה
This paper is meant to serve as a guide to parents and other concerned parties who live their Jewish lives in an egalitarian context, and who are faced with the challenge of lacking a clear Halakhic, traditional, or Jewish ritually normative directive at the moment of a female child’s birth. While the laws and procedures of ברית מילה are clear and standardized, we lack a collective ritual language for welcoming female babies into the covenantal community of the Jewish people. While we might debate the potential problems that arise when contemplating ברית מילה alongside other liberal values of egalitarianism and bodily consent, I will not enter into a conversation about the merit of ברית מילה itself, and this paper assumes that male babies ought to be ritually circumcised according to our ancient laws and customs. In our maintenance of ברית מילה as expected and common practice, we must grapple with its complicated place within a context of a covenantal Judaism that strives to transcend social convention of gender while acknowledging biological difference in bodies. As Rabbi Pamela Barmash writes in her teshuva, Women and Mitzvot:
"It must be stated clearly that while we rule that men and women are equally responsible for the mitzvot because women are no longer subordinate to men, there are anatomical differences between men and women. Gender differences are socially constituted, but the sexual organs of human beings do determine certain behavior. The mitzvah of ברית מילה (circumcision) applies only to males. The mitzvah of niddah (menstrual separation) is primarily observed by women, although it does affect their sexual partners."
This teshuva is written from a perspective that assumes Rabbi Barmash’s conclusions to be true, that men and women, and indeed all Jewish adult people, are equally obligated in mitzvot asei shehazman grama. In a Jewish context, and indeed in a secular world, where we raise children to be equal members of covenant and community, how might our birth rituals best reflect this conviction, especially if they are to remain somewhat distinct based on the sex of the child at birth?
Defining Terms
It must be stated that this paper assumes an absolute distinction between sex and gender. That being said, my primary subject matter is newborn children, who are yet incapable of determining their gender identity and expressing it independently. Alongside many other challenges, I understand that for the contemporary parent who is concerned with gender justice, raising a child without gendering them presents a myriad of questions. The goal of this paper is to begin to address one of these questions for the Jewish parent, that is: how might our texts, traditions, and lived experiences help us build a covenantal ceremony for a female child that feels authentic, holy, and sufficient for the life cycle moment? In attempting to do so, I’ll be using specific terminology that must be defined, explained, and contextualized.
Sex: Biological identity of the child, determined by the sexual organs one is born with (male, female, intersex are all examples). Might or might not align with a person’s gender identity.
Gender identity: One’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One's gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.
Female-sexed child: A child born with a vagina.
Male-sexed child: A child born with a penis.
The female-sexed child is the primary subject of this paper, though a parent whose child is born intersex will ideally find the recommendations found here helpful.
A final note on terms concerns the use of pronouns in this paper. Pronouns are what people use to refer to themselves, and are a tool for gender expression. One of the main challenges of this paper is carrying out the precarious act of putting meaningful ritual in place for new Jewish parents, giving tools rooted in ancient wisdom to accompany them at this most precious moment of their newborn’s life, alongside acknowledging that children will, God willing, grow into whoever they may be in the world. Determining the appropriate ritual for a particular sex is complicated when we also holdfast to the belief that the child will grow into whoever they wish to be. For this reason, I feel it is essential for us to offer a compelling model for rooting a child’s first moments in Jewish ritual. That all being said, given the reality that newborn children are not independent thinkers, I will use she/her pronouns to refer to female-sexed children, he/him pronouns to refer to male-sexed children, and they/them pronouns to refer to subjects whose sex or gender need not be defined.
What is ברית, What is מילה?
Perhaps the most important term to explore is the concept of “covenant.” When a male-sexed child is born, we start counting and ask “so when is the bris?” Bris is the Ashkenazic pronunciation of brit, and has become common shorthand for ברית מילה. Thus, colloquially, we have come to understand the act of מילה itself as equivalent to covenant. In order to determine the appropriate path forward for female-sexed children as they enter “the covenant,” we must investigate what we mean, exactly, when we say “the covenant.” The first mention of ברית comes on the heels of the flood:
וַאֲנִ֕י הִנְנִ֥י מֵקִ֛ים אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י אִתְּכֶ֑ם וְאֶֽת־זַרְעֲכֶ֖ם אַֽחֲרֵיכֶֽם׃ וְאֵ֨ת כָּל־נֶ֤פֶשׁ הַֽחַיָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתְּכֶ֔ם בָּע֧וֹף בַּבְּהֵמָ֛ה וּֽבְכָל־חַיַּ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ אִתְּכֶ֑ם מִכֹּל֙ יֹצְאֵ֣י הַתֵּבָ֔ה לְכֹ֖ל חַיַּ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וַהֲקִמֹתִ֤י אֶת־בְּרִיתִי֙ אִתְּכֶ֔ם וְלֹֽא־יִכָּרֵ֧ת כָּל־בָּשָׂ֛ר ע֖וֹד מִמֵּ֣י הַמַּבּ֑וּל וְלֹֽא־יִהְיֶ֥ה ע֛וֹד מַבּ֖וּל לְשַׁחֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים זֹ֤את אֽוֹת־הַבְּרִית֙ אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֣י נֹתֵ֗ן בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֛ין כָּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתְּכֶ֑ם לְדֹרֹ֖ת עוֹלָֽם׃ אֶת־קַשְׁתִּ֕י נָתַ֖תִּי בֶּֽעָנָ֑ן וְהָֽיְתָה֙ לְא֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית בֵּינִ֖י וּבֵ֥ין הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וְהָיָ֕ה בְּעַֽנְנִ֥י עָנָ֖ן עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְנִרְאֲתָ֥ה הַקֶּ֖שֶׁת בֶּעָנָֽן׃ וְזָכַרְתִּ֣י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֗י אֲשֶׁ֤ר בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֛ין כָּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּ֖ה בְּכָל־בָּשָׂ֑ר וְלֹֽא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה ע֤וֹד הַמַּ֙יִם֙ לְמַבּ֔וּל לְשַׁחֵ֖ת כָּל־בָּשָֽׂר׃ וְהָיְתָ֥ה הַקֶּ֖שֶׁת בֶּֽעָנָ֑ן וּרְאִיתִ֗יהָ לִזְכֹּר֙ בְּרִ֣ית עוֹלָ֔ם בֵּ֣ין אֱלֹהִ֔ים וּבֵין֙ כָּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֔ה בְּכָל־בָּשָׂ֖ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־נֹ֑חַ זֹ֤את אֽוֹת־הַבְּרִית֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֲקִמֹ֔תִי בֵּינִ֕י וּבֵ֥ין כָּל־בָּשָׂ֖ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
After establishing the terms of the ברית, that God will never again destroy the Earth with a flood, God introduces an אות ברית, a sign of this covenant. Thereby we have the promise itself, and the thing that will come to commemorate the promise (in this case the rainbow). This model of ברית and אות ברית is a pattern which repeats itself throughout the tanakh, and is essential in understanding the essence of ברית מילה as distinct from its development in the Jewish cultural consciousness. When circumcision is introduced into the relationship between God and the Jewish people, it too is introduced as an אות ברית; that is, it is not the ברית itself, but an indelible bodily reminder of that ברית.
אֲנִ֕י הִנֵּ֥ה בְרִיתִ֖י אִתָּ֑ךְ וְהָיִ֕יתָ לְאַ֖ב הֲמ֥וֹן גּוֹיִֽם׃ וְלֹא־יִקָּרֵ֥א ע֛וֹד אֶת־שִׁמְךָ֖ אַבְרָ֑ם וְהָיָ֤ה שִׁמְךָ֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם כִּ֛י אַב־הֲמ֥וֹן גּוֹיִ֖ם נְתַתִּֽיךָ׃ וְהִפְרֵתִ֤י אֹֽתְךָ֙ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֔ד וּנְתַתִּ֖יךָ לְגוֹיִ֑ם וּמְלָכִ֖ים מִמְּךָ֥ יֵצֵֽאוּ׃ וַהֲקִמֹתִ֨י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֜י בֵּינִ֣י וּבֵינֶ֗ךָ וּבֵ֨ין זַרְעֲךָ֧ אַחֲרֶ֛יךָ לְדֹרֹתָ֖ם לִבְרִ֣ית עוֹלָ֑ם לִהְי֤וֹת לְךָ֙ לֵֽאלֹהִ֔ים וּֽלְזַרְעֲךָ֖ אַחֲרֶֽיךָ׃ וְנָתַתִּ֣י לְ֠ךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ֨ אַחֲרֶ֜יךָ אֵ֣ת ׀ אֶ֣רֶץ מְגֻרֶ֗יךָ אֵ֚ת כָּל־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן לַאֲחֻזַּ֖ת עוֹלָ֑ם וְהָיִ֥יתִי לָהֶ֖ם לֵאלֹהִֽים׃וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם וְאַתָּ֖ה אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֣י תִשְׁמֹ֑ר אַתָּ֛ה וְזַרְעֲךָ֥ אַֽחֲרֶ֖יךָ לְדֹרֹתָֽם׃ זֹ֣את בְּרִיתִ֞י אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּשְׁמְר֗וּ בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֥ין זַרְעֲךָ֖ אַחֲרֶ֑יךָ הִמּ֥וֹל לָכֶ֖ם כָּל־זָכָֽר׃ וּנְמַלְתֶּ֕ם אֵ֖ת בְּשַׂ֣ר עָרְלַתְכֶ֑ם וְהָיָה֙ לְא֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית בֵּינִ֖י וּבֵינֵיכֶֽם׃ וּבֶן־שְׁמֹנַ֣ת יָמִ֗ים יִמּ֥וֹל לָכֶ֛ם כָּל־זָכָ֖ר לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶ֑ם יְלִ֣יד בָּ֔יִת וּמִקְנַת־כֶּ֙סֶף֙ מִכֹּ֣ל בֶּן־נֵכָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֛ר לֹ֥א מִֽזַּרְעֲךָ֖ הֽוּא׃ הִמּ֧וֹל ׀ יִמּ֛וֹל יְלִ֥יד בֵּֽיתְךָ֖ וּמִקְנַ֣ת כַּסְפֶּ֑ךָ וְהָיְתָ֧ה בְרִיתִ֛י בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֖ם לִבְרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם׃ וְעָרֵ֣ל ׀ זָכָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־יִמּוֹל֙ אֶת־בְּשַׂ֣ר עָרְלָת֔וֹ וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מֵעַמֶּ֑יהָ אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י הֵפַֽר׃
The covenant being established here is the relationship between God and Avraham’s offspring, that Avraham will be the father of nations and that God will be the God of all those that are born of Avraham’s line. Just as the rainbow was an appropriate marker of a covenant involving rain, circumcision becomes an appropriate marker of a covenant concerning the reproduction of generations of Jews. Samson Raphael Hirsch comments:
"In a striking manner the milah itself is first called “berit” [i.e., covenant, in verse 10, above], so that the performance of it itself seems to be fulfilling the covenant, and then, in the following verse [verse 11] it is declared to be “ot berit,” the sign of the covenant, as a symbol to represent the Brit, so that the fulfillment of the covenant itself must be something transcending the mere act of the circumcision [...] Performing the act only then achieves its full purpose when it does become an “ot”, a symbol, if it is taken to heart as such and the idea it expresses becomes a reality for us"
I’d like to underline Hirsch’s use of the word ‘transcending’ here to describe the act of fulfilling the covenant. Circumcision is an obligatory tool we employ to remind the male body of his place in the Jewish people, the initiation and invitation into a life that we hope will be filled with mitzvot, acts of lovingkindness, and merit; these are the things that fulfill the ברית with God, not the circumcision itself. Commenting on the laws applying to the woman’s body post childbirth, the Midrash Aggadah describes the essence of the law of circumcision as distinct from the tendency to inflate the ritual of circumcision:
וביום השמיני ימול וגו'. הקב"ה לא צוה אלא לימול, לא שיעשה סעודות ויוציא הוצאות רבות, וישראל מחבבים את המצות שהם מוציאים הוצאות ושמחים, אמר להם הקב"ה אתם שמחים במצותי, אף אני אוסיף לכם שמחה, שנאמר ויספו ענוים בה' שמחה (ישעי' כט יט):
On the eighth day you shall circumcise etc - God only commanded circumcision, not that there should be festive meals and that one should spend many expenses. And the people of Israel make dear the mitzvot such that they spend money and are joyful. God said to them: You are joyful in my mitzvot, I will increase your joy too, as it is written “the humble shall have increasing joy through God.”
There is no Torah-level commandment to have a סעודת מצוה following a ברית מילה, though it is a strong custom meant to symbolize the eating of the korban. Just as the parent offers their child to God in some form, the korban is offered to God and then eaten communally. While I’m not suggesting that parents should not offer a סעודת מצוה in honor of the birth of their child, I want to highlight, just as the Midrash Aggadah does, that the social significance of circumcision has increased to what feels like a Torah-level obligation in many Jewish communities. Let us keep in mind that Avraham’s circumcision was presumably done in private, with only God present! My goal here is to level the playing field of sexed ritual such that a recognizable female-sexed birth ritual might enter into our consciousness on the level of the minhagim that surround ברית מילה, and to clarify some of the mythos that exists around the ritual of ברית מילה.
I once attended a ברית מילה ceremony of a liberal Jewish couple’s first child. The mohel himself was a cantor in a progressive Jewish community, and before the act of circumcision, he proclaimed that you could take all 612 mitzvot and put them on a scale opposite ברית מילה, and that the scale would be balanced! In 2018, in an egalitarian Jewish context, inside the home of a politically radical Jewish couple, the mohel could make such a claim without further commentary! I would argue that this mohel was speaking irresponsibly, but the emphasis he put on ברית מילה is not totally uncommon. For any number of reasons - deep pride in and connection to his work, a fear that young Jews are abandoning the mitzvah, squeamishness and fear - he felt the need to raise ברית מילה to the level of all other mitzvot combined. That being said, if we are to take ourselves seriously as practitioners of a serious egalitarian Torah Judaism, we must begin to level the proverbial scale, which requires us to take care in the language we use and the messages we communicate when we take on attitudes akin to this mohel’s.
Another important note is clarifying what we really mean when we say covenant. As we contemplate welcoming children into the covenant of the Jewish people, we have to understand what, exactly, we are welcoming them into. It seems to me that when we refer to ‘covenant,’ we are invoking the transcendent relationship between God and the Jewish people, enacted first between God and Avraham and later fortified at Sinai with the giving of the Torah. When Israel is gifted with the Torah, God writes the terms of the ברית onto the לוחות, and presents them to the people Israel via Moshe:
וַיִּקַּח֙ סֵ֣פֶר הַבְּרִ֔ית וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּאָזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר ה׳ נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע׃
Then he took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the people. And they said, “All that God has spoken we will faithfully do!”
It is the conscious decisions we make in our lives to be Jewish, to live our lives through the lense of Torah and mitzvot that fulfills our covenantal relationship with God. And it is this commitment we hope to instill in our newborn children when we fulfill the mitzvah of ברית מילה or hold a simhat bat, brit bat, zeved habat or brit banot. The birth ritual that serves as a launching pad into a covenantal existence must reflect this intention for both male and female children. That being said, the ritual of circumcision is one that invokes transcendence; it is ancient, visceral, and powerful. In crafting a parallel ritual for children who cannot be circumcised, it is important to strive for this same intensity, this same potential for ritual and communal magic.
Avraham and Sarah, the Original Model
In Bereshit 17, after God has noted the terms of the ברית and commanded Avraham to circumcise himself and for all those who come after him to do the same to their male-sexed children, God then turns attention to Sarai, Avraham’s wife. While God does not address her directly, God notes that she, too, will receive a name-change, and her role in enacting the covenant is laid out in clear, significant terms:
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם שָׂרַ֣י אִשְׁתְּךָ֔ לֹא־תִקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמָ֖הּ שָׂרָ֑י כִּ֥י שָׂרָ֖ה שְׁמָֽהּ׃ (טז) וּבֵרַכְתִּ֣י אֹתָ֔הּ וְגַ֨ם נָתַ֧תִּי מִמֶּ֛נָּה לְךָ֖ בֵּ֑ן וּבֵֽרַכְתִּ֙יהָ֙ וְהָֽיְתָ֣ה לְגוֹיִ֔ם מַלְכֵ֥י עַמִּ֖ים מִמֶּ֥נָּה יִהְיֽוּ:
Sarah’s female body becomes an essential player in the transcendent covenant between God and the Jewish people. Given the fact that the terms of the covenant concern reproduction and Sarah’s role as cofounder of a Jewish line, it follows that female bodies are included and in fact necessary for the covenant to be fulfilled. One might argue that women need not undergo a physical change, that the biological gift of reproduction itself is the אות ברית on the female body, parallel to the circumcised foreskin on the male. This argument is not a cogent one, considering that men need not undergo circumcision in order to be fruitful and multiply. Additionally, female reproduction is not specific to Jewish women, even if giving birth to Jewish people is (aside, of course, from parents of Jews by choice). That being said, these pesukim might offer a clue into our exploration. Both Avraham and Sarah are initiated here into relationship with God using a basic formula: a name-change and a bodily impact. For male-sexed children, this initiation is replicated through ברית מילה and the announcement of a Jewish name. For female-sexed children, a non-formulaic public naming ceremony has become common practice in most Jewish communities, which often takes place beside the Torah on public reading days, and has come to replicate Sarah’s own initiation into the Jewish people, sans a bodily element or reference to Sarah’s original bodily transformation: God’s establishment of Sarah as the eventual mother of Jewish offspring. In constructing a ceremony for female children, it seems we should draw on the basic formula laid out in Genesis. But is it possible to honor the biological reality of the female body that God invokes in God’s renaming of Sarah through a contemporary Jewish ritual without reducing the female body to a container of Jewish continuity?
While the question is important, it can just as easily be applied to the male body. Just as Sarah’s transition into covenantal existence is marked by her reproductive capabilities, so too is Avraham’s! The אות ברית of מילה is meant to mark the male location of reproduction as well. When we welcome our newborn children, we express our hopes and dreams for many aspects of their future, not merely on our hope that they will one day bring children into the covenant as well. Our recitation of ‘’כשם שנכנס לברית כן יכנס לתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים’’ (just as this child has entered into the covenant, so too shall they enter into Torah, the wedding canopy, and acts of goodness) at the end of a ברית מילה and many simhat bat ceremonies summarizes our blessings for a life of learning and Jewish meaning, loving partnership, and righteousness. In other words, it is an affirmation that the child will find eternal ways of reminding themself of their covenantal relationship with God. The location of מילה doesn’t reduce the child’s potential to his reproductive capabilities but rather invokes the original Avrahamic moment of covenant with God. So too, an invocation of a female child’s bodily reality might bring us back to Sarah.
If we use Avraham and Sarah as our models, we might build a culture of greater sex and gender neutrality. Taking into consideration the earlier suggestion that an egalitarian ethos might require us to somewhat deflate the public nature of the ברית מילה ceremony, parents might choose to carry out the rites of מילה in a private ceremony on the eighth day, as is tradition, with a more public naming ceremony held either later that same day or perhaps even at the earliest convenient date, allowing the parents recuperation time, family and friends travel time, and more privacy. This public ceremony in which a child receives their name and their entrance into the covenant is formalized and celebrated within the context of community, and becomes entirely gender and sex neutral. For female babies, it is worth considering a private rite that involves the baby’s body as well. The permanence of מילה is difficult to replicate, but Mary Gendler and Sharon R. Siegel both explore bloodletting of some kind, which is worthy of consideration and research, but I will not be recommending it as common practice at this time.
Basing Our Ritual on Ancient Traditions
Instead of creating ritual to replicate מילה on the female body, I instead recommend that we draw on our textual tradition and our rich history of feminist folk tradition to generate a normative female-sex birth ritual.
Niddah
A possible way of replicating the name change and bodily impact model for female-sexed children through ritual would be to highlight menstruation in the life of the female Jewish body. There are several rabbinic texts that set up the rites of niddah as a parallel to ברית מילה, starting with the Babylonian Talmud:
ת"ר, גר שמל ולא טבל ר"א אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באבותינו שמלו ולא טבלו, טבל ולא מל ר׳ יהושע אומר, הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באמהות שטבלו ולא מלו, וחכמים אומרים, טבל ולא מל מל ולא טבל אין גר עד שימול ויטבול. ה
Our Rabbis taught: 'If a convert was circumcised but had not immersed [in the mikvah], Rabbi Eliezer said, 'Behold he is a [proper] convert; for so we find that the forefathers were circumcised and had not immersed'. If he immersed [in the mikvah] but had not been circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua said, 'Behold he is a [proper] convert; for so we find that the foremothers had performed immersion but had not been circumcised.' And the sages say: Whether he immersed but was not circumcised or whether he was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses.
In a moment of recognition that covenant transcends circumcision itself, through inference, R. Yehoshua deduces that conversion happens in the מקווה, not via ברית מילה. The Bekhor Shor, a medieval commentator, expounds upon this idea in his commentary on Genesis 17, where our story begins. He sets up a more direct parallel between ברית מילה and niddah, recognizing then that the way the covenant becomes enacted between God and Avraham had the potential to exclude any uncircumcised people from the covenant:
והיה לאות ברית ביני וביניכם. סימן ואות שאני אדון ואתם עבדי.. ודם נדות שהנשים משמרות ומגידות פתחיהן לבעליהן הוא להם דם ברית
"[You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin,] and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you." A sign and symbol that I am your Lord and you are my servants....The menstrual blood that women must monitor, and the way in which they inform their husbands of their sexual availability, functions for them as covenantal blood.
Even without these rabbinic voices, it stands to reason that menstruation is the female blood parallel to the blood of circumcision. As explained earlier, the mark of the covenant lives in the body’s potential to reproduce covenantal beings, and thereby uphold the covenant in eternity. For male bodies, this happens in the penis. For female bodies, in the uterus. There is a visceral power in bodily blood, and there is something enticing about putting niddah into the context of covenantal initiation. It would allow us to take the rabbinic voices here seriously and set it up as directly parallel to ברית מילה, and it would also work to destigmatize menstruation.
The challenges, of course, are many: We cannot wait until a child begins menstruating to publicly bring her into the covenant, not all female bodies menstruate normatively or menstruate at all, and we run the risk of essentializing the female body as a menstruating body and violating the privacy of a young adult at a sensitive time of development. A possible solution to some of these challenges might be holding a public naming ceremony at the time of the child’s birth, highlighting her name as a covenantal marker, and later holding a private niddah ritual when she begins menstruating. This would follow the public/private model explored earlier.
While I think there is potential to positively ritualize menstruation, especially for adolescents, I don’t see it as a viable path specifically for a female-sexed birth ritual.
מקווה
In our texts and in our practice, water plays an important role for women and for female bodies. The well was the biblical gathering place for women, the source of feminine power in a patriarchal society; the place of Rivka, Rachel, and Tziporah. On the banks of the Nile, Miriam watches over as her brother floats to safety among the Egyptians, and on the shore of the Red Sea, she sings our song of freedom. There is an ancient connection between women and water, and water becomes the locus for one of the primary mitzvot of a religious adult female’s life. In recent decades, there has been a religious, scholarly, and cultural movement to reclaim the מקווה as a space for expansive ritual, giving way for progressive מקווה programming facilitated by organizations like Mayyim Hayyim of Boston and Immerse NYC.
With this movement in mind, and considering the connection מקווה makes between the newborn child and her future potential to menstruate and reproduce, which connects us back to the primal covenantal moment between Sarah and God, I feel that מקווה holds great potential to be the locus of a normative physical birth ritual for female-sexed babies. It connects the child to niddah without relying on actual menstruation, and it draws both on the folk feminine space of water and on our midrashic tradition, which teaches us that Sarah herself immersed at the time of Avraham’s circumcision. Rabbi Menahem ben Solomon ha-Meiri of Provence cites this midrash, commenting on Yevamot 46a, the sugya brought earlier that is concerned with determining the moment at which a convert becomes a Jew. The Meiri comments on the phrase: “for so we find that the foremothers had performed immersion but had not been circumcised,” claiming that R. Yehoshua is referencing Sarah imeinu:
ויש מפרשים ארבע אימהות. והוא כשנכנס אברהם לברית שהטביל את שרה וכן בארבע אימהות. ומכל מקום משנכנסו לברית האמונה והתורה ונתקבלה עלינו לדורות לא הוצרכנו לטבילה כללית לכניסת דת ואמונה.
And some explain that this refers to our four mothers. And this was when Avraham entered the covenant, he brought Sara to the mikvah, and so too with the four mothers. And none the less once they entered the covenant of faith and the Torah and they accepted it upon us for generations, there was no longer an ongoing need for general immersion to enter the religion and the faith.
Rashi believes the mothers referenced here are of another generation of women who immersed as their male peers were simultaneously circumcised: those women who left Egypt:
באבותינו שמלו - בימי משה כשיצאו ממצרים ויצאו מכלל בני נח לקבל התורה ולקבל פני השכינה. באמהות - נשותיהם שטבלו…
Forefathers [became Jewish] through circumcision - in the time of Moses when we left Egypt. They left the category of children of Noah to receive the Torah and to receive the face of the shekhinah.
Foremothers - their wives, who immersed...
The mahloket between Rashi and the Meiri is very relevant for us. While the Meiri asserts that no women after the generations of our matriarchs needed to immerse in order to be a part of the “covenant of faith,” that it was automatic for female bodies, Rashi claims that the women of the generation of yitziyat mitzrayim did, indeed, immerse in order to receive the Torah and receive the Shekhinah. Even if the Meiri’s interpretation of R. Yehoshua’s statement is correct, that women stopped immersing for covenantal purposes, we nevertheless have an ancient tradition which gives us a tool for female-sexed physical covenantal entrance.
Given the fact that male bodies have seemingly had an ongoing need of physical entrance into the covenant of faith, for our egalitarian communities it makes sense to revive this practice for female bodies, either on the eighth day to parallel ברית מילה (in which case the מקווה would likely be the child’s first bathing experience, which would be powerful) or on the fifteenth day as an allusion to seder leidah, the ritual directives for a woman after she gives birth, found in Leviticus 12. It is written there in verses 1-5:
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר: דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אִשָּׁה֙ כִּ֣י תַזְרִ֔יעַ וְיָלְדָ֖ה זָכָ֑ר וְטָֽמְאָה֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים כִּימֵ֛י נִדַּ֥ת דְּוֺתָ֖הּ תִּטְמָֽא׃ וּבַיּ֖וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֑י יִמּ֖וֹל בְּשַׂ֥ר עָרְלָתֽוֹ׃ וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים יוֹם֙ וּשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים תֵּשֵׁ֖ב בִּדְמֵ֣י טָהֳרָ֑ה בְּכָל־קֹ֣דֶשׁ לֹֽא־תִגָּ֗ע וְאֶל־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ֙ לֹ֣א תָבֹ֔א עַד־מְלֹ֖את יְמֵ֥י טָהֳרָֽהּ׃וְאִם־נְקֵבָ֣ה תֵלֵ֔ד וְטָמְאָ֥ה שְׁבֻעַ֖יִם כְּנִדָּתָ֑הּ וְשִׁשִּׁ֥ים יוֹם֙ וְשֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֔ים תֵּשֵׁ֖ב עַל־דְּמֵ֥י טָהֳרָֽה׃
God spoke to Moses, saying; Speak to the Israelite people thus: When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be ritually unfit for seven days; she shall be ritually unfit as at the time of her menstruation. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days [...] If she bears a female, she shall be ritually unfit for two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixty-six days.
Just as the male child is circumcised on the eighth day, the day following the mother’s period of ritual unfitness, so too the female child would be immersed on the fifteenth day, following the period of ritual unfitness for a female birth.
Medically speaking, according to my own research there are not inherent serious medical concerns with fully immersing newborns soon after birth. Historically, American maternity units sponge bathed infants; it was believed that immersion made infections in the umbilical cord stub more likely. This has been debunked, and it has become clear that newborns maintain temperature better with immersion bathing than sponge bathing. These days the standard practice is to delay bathing until around the second or third day of the newborn’s life, then immerse for a bath. From my discussions with people who have witnessed infant conversions, I have also learned that it is often the practice to blow on the face of the baby, causing their eyes and mouth to close in order to minimize water intake before immersing them. Given this standard practice for conversion and the hospital standard for immersion bathing, and as long as every measure is taken to ensure cleanliness and safety of the מקווה, there seems to me to be no serious medical concern, especially considering that the parent/s would enter the מקווה with their baby. Of course, there will be cases where there is a need to delay the immersion, just as for male-sexed babies there are cases when the ברית מילה needs to be delayed longer than eight days after the birth.
I understand that some may be tentative about the idea of immersing their child in water for religious purposes, given the parallels to baptism. While I understand the potential discomfort, I feel that the sources I’ve laid out here ground the ritual in distinctive Jewishness. מקווה is a Jewish space, and in any case, our traditions, rituals, and practices have always been in conversation with and reaction to contemporary religious movements. It is also important to remember that this is proposed as a private ceremony, distinct from the more public nature of baptisms.
For those parents sitting in their discomfort, there is also the option of washing the baby’s feet in lieu of a full immersion, which is already a folk ritual for welcoming female-sexed babies. This is also a good alternative in the case of a newborn child who, for medical reasons, should not be immersed in water. This practice replicates the biblical act of welcoming, which also has origins in the story of Avraham and Sarah. In Genesis 18:4, Avraham welcomes three strangers into his home, and he proclaims:
יֻקַּֽח־נָ֣א מְעַט־מַ֔יִם וְרַחֲצ֖וּ רַגְלֵיכֶ֑ם וְהִֽשָּׁעֲנ֖וּ תַּ֥חַת הָעֵֽץ׃
Let a little water be brought; bathe your feet and recline under the tree.
This event of footwashing lies almost exactly between the moment of Avraham’s circumcision and the announcement that Sarah will give birth to a son, linking us back to both Avraham and Sarah’s embodied covenantal moments.
Finally, I think that immersion best parallels the drama of the ברית מילה. As I have mentioned, there are no serious medical risks involved (at least no more so than circumcision), yet the idea of fully immersing a newborn baby, of letting her go into the waters if only for a moment, of course should instill anxiety, fear, and visceral emotion in the parent/s. I’ve witnessed these emotions play out in my peers as they’ve let their children go on the day of ברית מילה; just as we might trust the steady hands of the mohel, so too might we trust the ancient wisdom and purifying power of water.
Recommendations
It is important to note that folk ritual has power. Though the absence of a clear Jewish directive at the birth of female-sexed children is a challenge to us as egalitarian and feminist Jews, the exclusion of women from the public sphere, both within and beyond the Jewish community, has always led to precious folk custom that can and should be preserved alongside a desire to balance the scales of history. Just because we have no “official” ברית מילה parallel, it does not make the centuries of holy practice carried out in the privacy of homes any less real. Additionally, the lack of a timeline for female babies with regards to bringing them into the covenant allows more time for the mother or the person who gave birth time and space to recover before welcoming the community, and gives all parents involved privacy and recovery time. With both of these realities in mind, alongside the exploration of this paper, I humbly offer my recommendations:
The more public and celebratory aspects of a covenantal ritual should highlight the name of the child, not the bodily change that takes place. Parents are encouraged to conduct the bodily aspects of ברית מילה and any possible female-sexed bodily ritual in a more private setting.
In a public naming ceremony for any child, one should draw on the liturgy of the ברית מילה ceremony. The ceremony would begin with ברוך הבאה/ברוכה הבאה, it would then skip the specific liturgy for מילה and of course the מילה itself, both of which would have been performed earlier in the case of a male-sexed baby, and then pick up again with the brakha recited by the parents which establishes the entrance of the child into the covenant of Avraham. The brakha of koret habrit follows, and then the announcement of the name.
Immersion in the מקווה seems, to me, a most profound, ancient, and dramatic parallel to ברית מילה for female-sexed babies. It appropriately honors the covenantal bond between Sarah and God, highlights the powerful relationship between women and water, connects the child to her potential reproductive power, and seems to revive an ancient tradition that our foremothers took part in. This would be a private מקווה, for the child, the parents, and other close relatives (paralleling a private ברית מילה ceremony). Barring medical concerns, the child would be fully immersed. Alternatively, parents might choose to immerse just her feet. It seems fitting to call the ceremony a ברית מקווה, which, like ברית מילה, highlights the physical change taking place which is the ot brit, rather than referring to the sex or presumed gender of the child.
The ritual of ברית מילה should continue to be performed on the eighth day. There are two possible proposals for the ברית מקווה
To parallel ברית מילה, it would take place on the eighth day or
Inspired by Leviticus 12, it would take place on the fifteenth day.
The more public covenantal celebrations, in which the child receives its name, could be held on the same day as the ברית מילה or ברית מקווה, or delayed until the earliest convenient day for the parent/s.