Daf Ditty Yoma 18: Martha bas Boethus

Mariamne, Wife of King Herod, and Her Children

Going to Their Execution, Edward Hopley,

The Hasmonean princess Mariamme is best known today for her tempestuous
and doomed marriage to Herod the Great. During her lifetime, however,
Mariamme was a Jewish celebrity in her own right. As a descendant of the
Hasmonean family on both her maternal and paternal sides, Mariamme was
the closest thing that Jews had to royalty.

1
2
MISHNA: The Sages provided the High Priest with Elders selected from the Elders of the
court, and they would read before him the order of the service of the day of Yom Kippur. And
they would say to him: My Master, High Priest. Read the order of the service with your own
mouth, as perhaps you forgot this reading or perhaps you did not learn to read.

On Yom Kippur eve in the morning, the Elders stand him at the eastern gate of the courtyard
and pass before him bulls and rams and sheep so that he will be familiar with the animals and
grow accustomed to the service, as these were the animals sacrificed on Yom Kippur.

Throughout all the seven days that the High Priest was in the Parhedrin chamber, they would
not withhold from him any food or drink that he desired. However, on Yom Kippur eve at
nightfall, they would not allow him to eat a great deal because food induces sleep and they did
not allow him to sleep, as will be explained.

GEMARA: The Gemara wonders about the depiction in the mishna of the Elders questioning the
High Priest as to whether he forgot this reading or perhaps did not learn to read. Granted, perhaps
he forgot, that is fine, as it is conceivable that he is not accustomed to reading the Torah and might
have forgotten this portion. However, is it conceivable that perhaps the High Priest did not learn
to read? Do we appoint a High Priest of that sort who never learned the Bible?

3
But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is stated:

-‫יוַּצק ַﬠל‬-‫י ְוַהֹכֵּהן ַהָגּדוֹל ֵמֶאָחיו ֲאֶשׁר‬
,‫ָידוֹ‬-‫ וִּמֵלּא ֶאת‬,‫ר ֹאשׁוֹ ֶשֶׁמן ַהִמְּשָׁחה‬
‫ר ֹאשׁוֹ ל ֹא‬-‫ֶאת‬--‫ַהְבָּגִדים‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ִלְלֹבּשׁ‬
.‫ וְּבָגָדיו ל ֹא ִיְפֹרם‬,‫ִיְפָרע‬
10 And the priest that is highest among his brethren, upon
whose head the anointing oil is poured, and that is
consecrated to put on the garments, shall not let the hair of
his head go loose, nor rend his clothes;
Lev 21:10

“And the priest who is greater than his brethren” this teaches that he must be greater than his
priestly brethren in strength, in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth.

Aḥerim say: Wealth is not a prerequisite for selecting a High Priest, but from where is it derived
that if he does not have property of his own that his brethren the priests elevate him and render
him wealthy from their own property? The verse states: “And the priest who is greater
[haggadol] than his brethren”; elevate him [gaddelehu] from the property of his brethren. In
any event, there is a consensus that wisdom is a prerequisite for his selection.

4
Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. There, the baraita that lists wisdom among the attributes
of the High Priest is referring to the First Temple, where this halakha was observed and the High
Priests possessed those attributes listed. Here, the mishna is referring to the Second Temple,
where this halakha was not observed, so a situation where the High Priest was not well-versed in
the Bible was conceivable. As Rav Asi said: The wealthy Marta, daughter of Baitos, brought
a half-se’a of dinars in to King Yannai for the fact that he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla
as High Priest. This is an example of the appointment of High Priests by means of bribery and
gifts. Since that was the practice, a totally ignorant High Priest could have been appointed.

RASHI

Steinzaltz

5
Jastrow

Tosafos explains that this was not Yanai ha'Melech who killed the Chachamim.

‫ת וס פ ות ד " ה עיילא לי ה מ ר ת א ב ת ביית וס לינאי מ ל כא‬

‫( שהרג חכמי ישראל‬.‫ אין זה ינאי המלך )שבריש פ'( האומר )קדושין דף סו‬-
This is not Yanai ha'Melech (Kidushin 66a) who killed the Chachamim;

.‫דההוא דהתם כהן גדול הוה דקאמר הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך ולא היה ממנה אחר במקומו‬
That Yanai was Kohen Gadol. [His advisor told him] "put the Tzitz between your eyes!" He would not
have appointed someone else to be Kohen Gadol in place of himself.

6
The Gemara asks: If so, a bull should not be passed before him, as it too comes to atone for sin.
The Gemara answers that there is a difference in the case of a bull, since it is to atone for his sins
and for the sins of his brethren the priests that it comes; among his brethren the priests, if
there is a person who has a sinful matter, the High Priest would know about it and lead him
back to the path of righteousness through repentance. Therefore, passing a bull before the High
Priest will not render him distraught, as it will merely remind him of his responsibility toward his
priestly brethren. On the other hand, with regard to the entire Jewish people, he does not know
of their sinful matters and is unable to facilitate their repentance. Passing goats before the High
Priest will evoke their sins as well as his inability to correct the situation, leaving him distraught.

Apropos the High Priest being privy to the sinful behavior of his fellow priests, Ravina said that
this explains the folk saying that people say: If the beloved son of your beloved sister becomes
a policeman [dayyala], see to it that in the marketplace you do not pass before him. Be wary
of him because he knows your sins.

RASHI

Steinzaltz

7
§ We learned in the mishna: Throughout all the seven days that the High Priest was in the
Parhedrin chamber, they would not withhold from him any food or drink that he desired. It was
taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa says: On Yom Kippur eve they feed him fine
flour and eggs in order to loosen his bowels, so that he will not need to relieve himself on Yom
Kippur. They said to Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa: In feeding him those foods, all the more so that
you bring him to a state of arousal. Feeding him those foods is antithetical to the efforts to
prevent the High Priest from becoming impure, as they are liable to cause him to experience a
seminal emission.

It was taught in a baraita that Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: One does not feed
him foods represented by the acrostic: Alef, beit, yod; and some say that one does not feed him
foods represented by the acrostic: Alef, beit, beit, yod; and some say neither does one feed him
white wine. The Gemara elaborates: Not alef, beit, yod means neither etrog, nor eggs [beitzim],
nor old wine [yayin]. And some say: Not alef, beit, beit, yod means neither etrog, nor eggs
[beitzim], nor fatty meat [basar], nor old wine [yayin]. And some say neither does one feed
him white wine because white wine brings a man to the impurity of a seminal emission.

Summary
Sages from the court would be provided for the Kohen Gadol, who read before him (from the
Torah) the order of the day. They would say to him, “My master, Kohen Gadol, read with your
own mouth, for perhaps you forgot them (the halachos), or never even learned them. On Erev Yom
Kippur they would stand him at the Eastern Gate (of the Courtyard), and pass before him the oxen,
rams and sheep in order that he should recognize them and be familiar with the sacrifices of Yom

8
Kippur. While he was sequestered (the seven days beforehand), they did not withhold from him
any food or drink. Toward nightfall on Erev Yom Kippur, they would not let the Kohen Gadol eat
much, for excessive eating causes a person to fall asleep.

The Mishna had stated that the Sages would tell the Kohen Gadol to read with his own mouth the
order of the Yom Kippur service in case he forgot or if he never learned it. The Gemora asks: It is
understandable that he forgot, but how is it possible that the Kohen Gadol was appointed if he
never even learned the laws? The Gemora cites a braisa which explicitly states that the Kohen
Gadol had to be greater than all the other Kohanim in strength, beauty, wisdom and wealth. Rav
Yosef answers that in the time of the second Temple, bribes were offered to the king to secure the
position of Kohen Gadol. Therefore, these people were not necessarily learned. This is proven
from that which Rav Assi said: Marta the daughter of Baitos gave golden dinarim to King Yannai
in order that Yehoshua ben Gamla should be appointed the Kohen Gadol (although he wasn’t the
most deserving from all the Kohanim).

The Gemora cites a braisa which states that he-goats as well would be passed before the Kohen
Gadol. The Gemora asks: Whydid the Tanna of our Mishna omit them? The Gemora answers: If
the Kohen Gadol were to see goats on Erev Yom Kippur it would remind him of the sins of Israel
and this would cause him much distress. The Gemora asks: Wouldn’t this apply to the bull as well,
for it too was offered to provide atonement? The Gemora answers: Since the bull was brought to
atone for the Kohen Gadol’s sins and for the sins of the Kohanim his brothers, he would be well
aware of anything that might need to be corrected and would encourage them to repent. [Knowing
that they repented, the Kohen Gadol was not distressed when he remembered their sins.] He would
not be able to know, however, who amongst all of Israel committed a sin. Ravina said: This
explains that which people say, “If your sister’s son is a policeman, make sure that you do not pass
before him in the street” (for he knows you well, and can easily find an excuse to confiscate your
money and give it to the government).

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Yehudah ben Nekosa said: They (on the morning of Erev Yom
Kippur) fed him (food) of fine flour and eggs in order to produce (quick) elimination (so he would
not need to relieve himself on Yom Kippur). They answered him: If you do this, you will induce
more excitement (which can cause a seminal emission; this will render him tamei and disqualify
him from performing the Yom Kippur services). The Gemora cites a braisa: Sumchus said in the
name of Rabbi Meir: One does not feed him (the Kohen Gadol) either A'B'Y, and some say, neither
A'B'V'Y, and some say that he is not fed white wine as well. The Gemora explains (the
mnemonics): Neither A'B'Y, i.e., neither Esrog (citron), nor Beitzim (eggs), nor Yayin yashan
(aged wine). And, according to others, no A'B'V'Y, i.e., neither Esrog, nor Beitzim, nor Bassar
shamein (fatty meat), nor Yayin yashan. And some say that he is not fed white wine as well, for it
brings about contamination to a person (through a seminal emission).

The Gemora cites a braisa: To one who is a zav (a man who has an emission similar but not
identical to a seminal discharge), one attributes food or too any kinds of food as the cause of a
discharge. [That benefit of the doubt will have this advantage for him: If it were an ordinary
discharge, he would be required to count seven days from the day it happened before he would be
pure again, but now he can continue his original count.]

9
Elozar ban Pinchas said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah: One does not feed him either
Ch'G'V'Y or G'V'M, or anything which brings about contamination to a person. The Gemora
explains (the mnemonics): Neither Ch'G'V'Y, i.e., neither Chalav (milk), nor Gevinah (cheese),
nor Beitzah (egg), nor Yayin (wine): nor G'V'M, i.e., neither mei Grisen shel pul (juice of pounded
beans) , nor Bassar shamein,, nor Muryas (fish fats). ‘Nor anything which brings about
contamination to a person’ is meant to include that which our Rabbis taught in a braisa: Five things
brings about contamination to a person, and they are as follows: garlic, cress, purslane, eggs, and
rocket.

Marta bas Baitus bribed King Yannai to appoint Yehoshua ben Gamla to be the Kohen Gadol.1

This statement suggests that Yehoshua ben Gamla was not qualified to be Kohen Gadol, and he
was only introduced into the position due to a corrupt and underhanded effort on the part of his
fiancée, Marta bas Baitus. Tosafos Yeshanim and Ritva point out, though, that Yehoshua ben
Gamla was a great and exceptionally worthy person, featured in the Mishnah later (37a) to be
praised, and in the Gemara (Bava Basra 21a) as an innovator and hero in Jewish education. He was
not unqualified to serve as Kohen Gadol.

Why did Marta have to bribe the king?

Many answers are given to resolve this question. Some say that there were two people named
Yehoshua ben Gamla. One of them was indeed worthy, and he would have been an excellent
candidate to be Kohen Gadol without a bribe being offered. Our Gemara, however, is dealing with
the other Yehoshua ben Gamla who was not fit for the position. Another answer is that we are
talking about the same righteous person, but there were others who were more worthy than he. He
would not have been chosen had it not been for the bribe.

Others say that at the time he was appointed he was not worthy, but after assuming the position
via the bribe, he improved and became an outstanding person, as we find described in the other
sources. Maharsha and Sfas Emes answer that Yehoshua ben Gamla was indeed worthy and
qualified, but the Gemara is simply showing that the position was often bought for financial
considerations. While in this case Yehoshua was a fine candidate, there were no guarantees that
others who gained control were as fitting for the position.
1
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20018.pdf

10
 The High Priest's Diet

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

The Mishna on our daf teaches about the Kohen Gadol's final preparations before the Yom Kippur
service. Aside from reviewing the text of the commandments as described in the Torah (Vayikra
16), the Sages would also bring him the various types of animals that were going to be sacrificed
so that he would be able to practice.

They also monitored his diet on erev Yom Kippur, limiting the amount of food that he ate so that
he would not become tired. The Gemara quotes a series of baraitot that describe other limitations
that were placed on his diet. Among the items that are mentioned - milk products, eggs, and wine
- are things that the sages feared might bring about a seminal emission, which would make him
tameh (ritually defiled) and unable to perform the avodah - the Temple service.

The Jerusalem Talmud asks why this is a concern, since the Talmud lists ten miracles that took
place in the Temple during its years of operation (see Yoma 21a), and one of them was that the
High Priest never became a ba'al keri (someone who experiences a seminal emission). The first
answer given simply explains that, in general, we cannot rely on miracles and need to do our utmost
to avoid potentially dangerous situations.

The second answer given distinguishes between the first Temple, when the priests were on a high
level, and the Second Temple, when they were not deserving of such miracles.

Arugula leaves (gargir)

2
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

11
Another food that was restricted was the gargir. Eruca sativa, is an annual grass that grows to a
height of 15-60 centimeters. During the Second Temple period the seeds of this plant were used
in place of mustard. It grew both as a domesticated plant and in the wild throughout Israel. In
several places in the Talmud it is mentioned as being a particularly good medicine for the eyes.

JOSHUA BEN GAMLA (d. 69/70 C.E.), a high priest in the last years of the Second Temple.
Joshua was married to one of the wealthiest women of Jerusalem, Martha, daughter of Boethus.3
He is apparently to be identified with the Joshua b. Gamaliel referred to by Josephus (Ant., 20:213)
as a high priest appointed by Agrippa II.4

In common with the high priests at the end of the Second Temple period Joshua, too, was
appointed to office because of his wealth. Although most of the others were deprecated in rabbinic
literature, Joshua was singled out for praise for his establishing a universal system of education
after all previous attempts failed.

He evolved a system whereby "teachers of young children be appointed in each district and each
town," whereas previously they were to be found only in Jerusalem. In addition he laid down sound
pedagogical principles. Because of this, it was said of him: "Truly, the name of that man is
blessed… since but for him the Torah would have been forgotten in Israel" (BB 21a).

Some scholars deny the historicity of this story, maintaining that the establishment of the schools
was wrongly attributed to Joshua by later writers. However, Klausner affirms its historical
accuracy. The Mishnah also mentions an improvement made by Joshua in the Temple
appurtenances. He substituted for the boxwood casket from which the lots were drawn for the
scapegoat on the Day of Atonement one of gold, "and his memory was therefore kept in honor"
(Yoma 3:9).

Josephus, who describes Joshua as his intimate friend (Life, 204), says he was one of the most
vehement opponents of the extremist Zealots at the time of the Roman War (Wars, 4:160). He cites
the speech made by Joshua (apparently son of Gamla), the high priest, to the Idumeans who had
been invited by the Zealots to assist them against their enemies. He tried unsuccessfully to
influence them to desist from this step (ibid., 238ff.). After the Idumeans entered Jerusalem, they
put him to death, together with other opponents of the Zealots (ibid., 316). Josephus praises him
greatly, saying of him that "he stood far above the rest" (ibid., 322).5

The Legacy of Yehoshua ben Gamla

3
Yev. 6:4; ibid., 61a; Yoma 18a and Tos. ibid.; Git. 56a
4
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joshua-ben-gamla
5
Graetz, Hist, 2 (1893), 249, 277–8, 294–6; Schuerer, Gesch, 1 (19014), 584, 618; 2 (19074), 273, 494; Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 3
(19502), 176–7; 5 (19512), 22–24; N. Morris, The Jewish School… (1937), index.

12
Rav Tzvi Sinensky writes:6

Having spent the past three shiurim discussing various aspects of the mitzva of teaching Torah, it
is worth dedicating a shiur to exploring the legacy of an individual who is credited by the rabbis
with having implemented mandatory universal Jewish education.

Bava Batra (21a) credits Yehoshua ben Gamla, who was concerned for orphans who had no parent
to teach them Torah, with precisely this achievement. For this, he is lauded for having ensured that
Torah would not be forgotten from the Jewish people. It is worth citing the Gemara and sketching
Ben Gamla’s biographical background:

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: However, remember this man for good, namely
Yehoshua ben Gamla, for if not for him, Torah would have been forgotten from Israel.

For originally, whoever had a father, [the father] would teach him Torah; whoever had no father
would not learn Torah. What was expounded? "And you shall teach them" - and you yourselves
shall teach.

They decreed that teachers of children should be set up in Jerusalem. What was expounded? "For
out of Zion shall go forth the law."

But still, whoever had a father, [the father] would bring him up [to Jerusalem] and teach him;
whoever didn't have a father would not go up and learn. They decreed that [teachers] should be set
up in each and every district. And they would bring them in at around age 16 or 17, and anyone
whose teacher was angry at him, he would kick him out.

Until Yehoshua ben Gamla came and decreed that teachers of children should be set up in each
and every province and in each and every city, and [that] they are brought in at around age 6 or 7.

The questions suggest themselves immediately. First, Yehoshua Ben Gamla is not exactly a
household name. Who is he? And how might his biography be relevant to a fuller understanding
of his legacy?

6
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-27-legacy-yehoshua-ben-gamla

13
Second, the choice to situate the yeshivot in Yerushalayim is noteworthy. Why was this city
chosen, and what is the significance of the move to establish centers of learning in other locations?

Third, the Gemara's emphasis on creating a learning space for those lacking parents seems to be
superfluous. If the Gemara's goal is to establish Ben Gamla's long-term contribution of universal
Torah education, why not simply state that Ben Gamla mandated universal Torah education? Why
the backstory?

Finally, our sugya is not the only context in which Yehoshua Ben Gamla is remembered for good.
The Mishna (Yoma 3:9) records that he is also remembered positively for having crafted golden
boxes to hold the lots of the two goats on Yom Kippur (the original boxes had been made of wood).
Interestingly, the Mishna uses similar phraseology to that of the Gemara in Bava Batra: "he is
remembered for good." This is unusual. What are we to make of the fact that the rabbis twice
recognized Ben Gamla for good?

A quick biographical sketch sheds new light on our protagonist. According to the
Gemara (Yevamot 61a), he was married to the widow Marta bat Baytus, who was active in the time
immediately following the churban (Gittin 56a). According to the Gemara, his wife purchased the
high priesthood on his behalf from the king for two coins; the Gemara thus seems to indicate that
he was unworthy of the position. In fact, elsewhere the Talmud (Yoma 18a) cites the case of Ban
Gamla as evidence that the criteria for serving as high priest during the First Temple period
(strength, attractiveness, wisdom and wealth) were dropped during the Second. According to
Josephus (Wars 4:5:2), Ben Gamla served as Kohen Gadol within the last five to six years of the
Second Temple. He went on to be killed in a bloody battle for control of the high priesthood and
Temple roughly two years before the churban in 68 C.E.

All this background raises additional questions. If he was unworthy for the position, why do two
Talmudic sources emphasize that Yehoshua was remembered for good? The sugyot seem to
contradict one another regarding the quality of his character. Moreover, given the chaos swirling
around the Temple in the years prior to the churban, Ben Gamla's decision to purchase a gold box
for the Yom Kippur lottery seems a bit strange. As the Romans increasingly controlled the Temple
and priesthood, was it really the right time to invest in enhancing the Temple service? What kind
of long-term impact could it possibly have?

14
These difficulties led a group of rishonim and later commentaries (Tosafot
Yeshanim Yevamot 61a, Ritva Bava Batra 21a s.v. Vihoshua, Aharon Hyman in Toldot Tanaim
Va-Amoraim) to propose that in fact the sugyot are discussing two different personalities by the
name of Yehoshua Ben Gamla, one who lived approximately 150 years before the churban, and
another who lived immediately prior. This fits nicely with the Gemara Yevamot, which records
that Marta purchased the high priesthood from King Yanai, the second Hasmonean king, who ruled
from 103-76 B.C.E.

This conjecture, however, is beset by significant difficulties. What is the likelihood that there were
two individuals by the name of Yehoshua ben Gamla who were married to different women by the
name of Marta bat Baytus? Moreover, as Dikdukei Sofrim notes, not all recensions of the Gemara
have Alexander Yanai listed as the king who sold the priesthood.

This leads to another possibility, adopted by Tosafot in Bava Batra (21a s.v. Zakhur) among
others, which maintains that there was only one Yehoshua Ben Gamla. If so, how do we account
for the discrepancies regarding his character? Tosafot opines that he was not a bad guy; there were
simply other more qualified candidates around. Alternatively, Ritva (Bava Batra s.v. Vihoshua)
suggests that although Ben Gamla was originally unqualified, he became righteous over the course
of his tenure as Kohen Gadol.

We might suggest a third possibility. Despite having occupied the role of Kohen Gadol, Yehoshua
ben Gamla - note that he never receives the appellation rabbi in the Gemara - was an unlikely
candidate to be recalled positively. In many respects, his corrupt appointment exemplified the
degradation of the high priesthood and the sacrificial service toward the end of the Second Temple
period. Yet the Gemara goes out of its way to suggest that he was nonetheless remembered for
good. Refusing to bow to the pressures of the age, he chose to enhance the boxes used for the Yom
Kippur service. And instead of sitting by idly watching the Roman carnage, Ben Gamla developed
a sprawling educational network, enabling the Jewish people to survive the traumatic period that
was sure to follow.

We can now understand the significance of Yerushalayim no longer serving as the sole Torah
center. It wasn't merely a question of increasing the scope of places where children might learn.
Due to the impending chaos, Ben Gamla understood that for practical purposes Yerushalayim
could no longer serve as the primary Torah center. It was simply too dangerous. More than that,

15
the Jewish community needed to transition to a model in which Torah study and Torah values did
not emanate from a single, primary locus of Jewish life. Refusing to allow the rabbis' skepticism
dissuade him from his sacred work, Ben Gamla proved resilient and made a transformative
contribution to Jewish continuity.

Coming full circle, this message characterizes not just the life of Yehoshua ben Gamla but also the
fatherless children he helped to educate. Ben Gamla's mission was not just to provide Jewish
education in every local community but, most important, for every single child. It is our mandate
to create Torah learning opportunities for everyone, he insisted, including the underprivileged who
might otherwise be excluded.

The legacies of Ben Gamla and the schools he founded are one and the same: everyone has the
ability to make a lasting contribution to the Jewish learning and continuity. It is for good reason
that the rabbis remembered Yehoshua ben Gamla, an unlikely hero, for good.

Look Who Saved Torah From Oblivion

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:7

Sometimes the choices we make turn out to be better than we could have imagined in our wildest
dreams. The baseball player drafted in the 11th round who becomes a superstar; the shul rabbi who
is the fourth choice of the board, yet is an inspiration for so many; the unassuming summer student
who so impresses and eventually becomes CEO.
The Mishnah, in describing the preparations of the kohen gadol to ensure his readiness for the
Yom Kippur service, teaches: “They delivered to him elders from the elders of the court, and they
read before him the order of the day. And they would say to him, ‘Kohen Gadol, read it yourself
with your mouth; perhaps you forgot, or perhaps you did not learn’” (Yoma 18a). While it is easy
to understand that the kohen gadol may have forgotten some—or many—of the intricate details of
the special service, how could it be, the Gemara wonders, that he could never have learned them
in the first place? The Gemara explains that the teaching above is referring to the second Temple
period, where many of the high priests were unworthy of the position and acquired such by paying
large sums of money, i.e., bribery.
The Gemara then records how Martha, the daughter of Boethus, gave King Janai—one of the
corrupt Herodian kings—buckets full of gold to appoint Yehoshua ben Gamla as the high priest[1].

7
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/yoma-18-look-who-saved-torah-from-oblivion

16
As her name indicates, Martha was most likely a descendant of the Beothus family, one of the
heretical sects that abounded in the second Temple period.
There was every reason to think that Yehoshua ben Gamla’s tenure as high priest would be a
disastrous one. His only “qualification”? He had a wealthy wife. Yet he turned out to be the most
important and greatest kohen gadol of the second Temple period, and—with the exception of (the
Biblical) Aaron—perhaps the greatest kohen gadol in all of Jewish history. His legacy is
enormous, and cries out for us to replicate it today.
For starters, he put his (wife’s) wealth to good use. “And ben Gamla made them of gold, and they
would mention him for praise” (Yoma 37a). The Mishnah describes how the kohen gadol would
draw lots from a wooden box to determine which of the two Yom Kippur goats would be brought
as a sacrifice, its blood sprinkled in the Holy of Holies—and which would be sent tumbling over
a mountain as atonement for the sins of the Jewish people. It was Yehoshua ben Gamla who
donated the money to replace the wooden boxes with golden ones.
As nice a gesture as that was—to which the Mishnah (38a) applies the verse, “The mention of a
righteous person is for a blessing[2]” (Mishlei 10:17)—that pales in comparison to his educational
initiatives.
“Remember that man for good, and Yehoshua ben Gamla is his name; for if not for him, Torah
would have been forgotten from the people of Israel” (Bava Batra 21a). It was only through his
efforts that Torah has been able to continue[3]. And what exactly did he do? It was he, in the
waning days of the second Temple period, who established the Jewish public school system, where
all children, upon reaching the age of 5 or 6, would receive a free Jewish education.
What was true 2,000 years ago is even more true today. Sadly, we—the richest Jewish community
in history, whose ancestors pioneered free education for the masses—have allowed the cost of
Jewish education to rise to the point where, as in the time of Yehoshua ben Gamla, only very few
can afford it. Tragically, for many, Torah is being forgotten—or not even learned in the first place.
Let us pray that our generation be able to produce a Yehoshua ben Gamla, and soon.[4]

[1] Her first husband died, and after her betrothal to Yehoshua ben Gamla, she sought his appointment. The Mishnah (Yevamot
61a) derives from this story the law that a kohen who betroths a widow and is then appointed kohen gadol may still accept the
position, despite the prohibition against a high priest marrying a widow.
[2] This phrase is usually translated as, “May his memory be for a blessing”, and is used in describing the righteous after they pass
away. While such is true, in Biblical Hebrew the word zachor (also) means “to mention”—hence, zachor et yom haShabbat is the
source for the recital of Kiddush on Friday night (Pesachim 106a).
[3] The commentaries struggle to understand this Gemara in light of G-d’s promise that Torah will never be forgotten amongst the
people of Israel. However they may answer that question, the Gemara’s language is unmistakable in asserting ben Gamla’s
historical role in the preservation of Torah.
[4] As those who receive the Canadian Jewish News know, I have written extensively on how we may solve the tuition crisis (see
here for my most recent article). I will be emailing a number of articles over the next few weeks in the hope that you may be able
to help put some of these ideas into practice.

17
Mark Kerzner writes:

In the seven days before Yom Kippur the Sages would read the Torah portion of Yom Kippur in
front of the High Priest. Then they would say, "Master High Priest, please read it back to us, for
perhaps you forgot or never learned." How could be it that he never learned? - In the times of the
Second Temple the position was bought for money. On the last day they would show him all the
animals to be used for sacrifices, except for the goat brought as a sin offering for all Jews - lest he
becomes despondent thinking of it.

On the last day they also did not give him much food, for food leads to sleep, and too much of it
might cause him to become ritually impure through seminal emission. They also did not feed such
foods as etrog, eggs, fat mean and wine - for the same reason.

In general, a guest on should take precautions not to soil the linen that he sleeps on, or the host's
garments, if we wear them - lest they see it and think lower of him. The Sages were very careful
to maintain this sort of purity, and for this they would announce, "Who will be a wife for a day for
me?" when they were visiting a remote location.

This, however, leads to several questions. How could they marry wives in many places - what if
their children, not knowing each other, will intermarry? - Those Sages were famous, and their
progeny would know where they came from. Another problem: a prospective wife needs to go to
a mikveh, how can they choose anybody on the spot? –

The answer is that they would send a messenger to announce their intent, a week in advance.
Alternatively, we can say that they only went into seclusion with the woman of their choice, but
did not have relations, thus obviating all of the above questions. But if that is so, how did it help?
- One who potentially has a wife ("a bread in his basket") cannot be compared to one who does
not.

18
Mariamne II was the third wife of Herod the Great. She was the daughter of Simon
Boethus the High Priest. Josephus recounts their wedding thus:

19
20
Chana Safrai writes:8

Martha, daughter of Boethus, was a widow from the respected Boethus family of Jerusalem who
remarried a future High Priest of Israel. According to tradition, she paid a large sum of money to
buy the position for her betrothed, Joshua ben Gamla, from King Yannai (BT Yevamot 61a). In
the Tannaitic (mishnaic) tradition, the marriage of Martha daughter of Boethus and the High Priest
Joshua ben Gamla (first century c.e.) is tied to a change in the laws of marital status pertaining to
the High Priest.

“[A priest who] betrothed a widow, and was subsequently appointed High Priest, may
consummate the marriage. It once happened with Joshua b. Gamla that he betrothed Martha the
daughter of Boethus, and the King appointed him High Priest, and he consummated the marriage.”

Mishnah Yevamot 6:4; Sifra, Emor 2:6

A High Priest may not marry a widow, but Joshua ben Gamla and Martha are an example of a
High Priest married to a widow, although he betrothed her prior to becoming a High Priest. It can
be assumed that Martha saw to it that her future husband achieved a high position, and perhaps
even used her wealth to bring about the change in the halakhah.

Her most outstanding characteristic was her great wealth. She is cited as an example of a wealthy
woman in the context of the laws of mezonot (alimony) (BT Ketubbot 104a, JT Ketubbot 5:11,
30b); monetary payments to a widow (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 281). In a similar vein it is said of her
sons that “one of them could carry two sides of a huge ox which cost one thousand zuz and walk
with them, heel to toe [up the altar ramp to the altar] …” (BT Sukkah 52b).

Martha daughter of Boethus is among the mothers of High Priests—women of wealth and standing
from prestigious families of the high priesthood who marry High Priests. Their status is a direct
result of their family ties and affluence, which afford them the resources to be active and involved
in the politics of the Holy Temple (Safrai 2002), comparable to monied women with high standing
throughout the Roman Empire of the time (Halett 1984).

Finally, she is a classic example of the fall of the daughters of Jerusalem from great riches to
destitution (BT Gittin 56a; Eikhah Rabbah 1:86). While the emphasis in these accounts is on
stories of great wealth, they also join the corpus of disaster narratives in which women serve to
symbolize the enormity of a given catastrophe (Hasan 1996). In this case, they reflect the downfall
of the Temple through the respected women of the Temple. The stories of Martha and her dismal

8
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/martha-daughter-of-boethus

21
end may also represent a criticism of over-indulgence and excessive wealth and perhaps even of
religious conduct in the Temple (Cohen 1976).

Bibliography

Cohen, Naomi. “The Theological Stratum of the Martha b. Boethus Tradition.” HTR 69 (1976): 187–195;

Halett, J. Daughters and Fathers. London: 1984. 60–61;

Hasan-Rokem, Galit. Web of Life (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: 1996. English edition: Web of Life: Folklore and Midrash in Rabbinic
Literature. Stanford CA: 2000;

Safrai, Chana. “Mothers of High Priests” (Hebrew). In Ishah be-Yerushalayim, edited by T. Cohen and Y. Schwartz, 11–32.
Ramat Gan: 2002.

Marta bat Boethus – Let Them Eat Cake

Rabbanit Rebecca Linzer writes:9

In Massechet Gittin we find a series of “Aggadot HaChurban”- stories about Jerusalem in the
period leading up to the destruction of the Temple. These stories describe the hunger and difficult
conditions in Jerusalem during the siege, but more than that, they are meant to be a moral lesson
as to the actions which brought about the destruction. Among the characters described in these
stories we find one woman, Marta bat Boethus:

Marta, the daughter of Boethus, was among the wealthy of Jerusalem. She sent her agent out and
told him, “Go and buy for me fine flour.” When he went out, it had all been sold; he came and
said to her, “Fine flour there is none; but white flour there is.”

She told him, “Go and buy some for me.” When he went out, it had all been sold; he came in and
said to her, “White flour there is none; but dark flour there is.”

9
https://eng.beithillel.org.il/tisha-bav-marta-bat-boethus-let-eat-cake/

22
She told him, “Go and buy some for me.” When he went out, it had all been sold; he came in and
said to her, “White flour there is none; but barley flour there is.”

She told him, “Go and buy some for me.” When he went out, it had all been sold.

She had taken off her shoes, but she said, “I will go out and seek something to eat.” A piece of
dung adhered to her foot and she died. About her did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai quote [from
Devarim 28]: “The tender and delicate woman among you, who would not adventure to set the
sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness…”

There are those who say that she ate a fig of R’ Tzadok’s, and she became sick and died. For R’
Tzadok would regularly fast over a period of forty years so that Jerusalem would not be laid waste,
so that when he did eat something the food could be seen. When he needed to restore himself, they
would bring him a fig; he would suck out the juice and discard the rest.

As [Marta’s] soul was going to depart, she threw all her gold and silver into the market. She said,
“What is this to me?” Which is what is written [in Ezek. 7]: “Their silver they shall cast into the
streets.” (Gitin 56a)

To understand this story, we must first know who Marta bat Boethus was. From her name we see
that she was from the illustrious Boethus family, a family of high priests known for their wealth
and strength. Her name is used in the Talmud to symbolize the prototypical rich woman.

She was, as well, the wife of the Kohen Gadol R. Yehoshua ben Gamla, one of the few high priests
from the Second Temple who is remembered positively by the Rabbis. In fact, the Talmud tells us
that she used her wealth to buy him the high priesthood after she became engaged to him.

In short, she was a woman who was used to getting what she wanted!

23
While reading the story brought in our source, we see the almost comic effect of the servant who
is running back and forth to the market to find food to feed his starving mistress. Clearly, she is
completely disconnected from the reality of life in Jerusalem. She requests the finest of flours, not
willing to adjust her ways to the current situation.

Why doesn’t she just ask him to bring whatever he can find?! Her attitude reminds us of the famous
misquote attributed to Marie Antoinette, “Let them eat cake!”. Note how many trips the servant
must make until she realizes that she cannot stay locked in her house assuming that the world
outside will provide her needs.

In contrast, the story which precedes this one in the series is also a story about three wealthy people
in Jerusalem (Nakdimon b. Gurion, Ben Kalba Savua and Ben Zizith Hakeset), who used their
wealth to provide for the people during the siege.

Eicha Rabba brings us another story about a barefoot Marta which reinforces this view:

They laid out carpets for her from the entrance of her house to the gateway of the Temple so that
her feet not be exposed (to the ground), even so, her feet were exposed…

24
We see Marta’s excessive sensitivity, her wastefulness. She is one who can walk into the street
and be sure that someone will be there to make sure she does not have to interact with reality. We
have seen that Marta can be a leader. She has already changed the nation’s path by determining
who will be Kohen Gadol, but now she shirks her responsibility. She has not learned that in the
current situation she must learn to compromise. In this she embodies the verse which R Yochanan
chose as the opening to this series of stories: “Happy is the man that fears always, but he that
hardens his heart shall fall into evil”. By being inflexible, and not accepting the reality around her,
Marta avoided dealing with the difficult situation in Jerusalem and potentially saving the situation.
In the first ending brought by the Talmud we see that her final brutal exposure to reality is too
much for her to handle and brings on her death.

A Different Ending
In the second possible ending to the story we are introduced to R Tzadok. R Tzadok is the antithesis
of Marta. For forty years he has seen the political and spiritual situation, the destruction
approaching, and has held it off with his extreme behavior. The Talmud tells us that when he ate,
the food could be seen, symbolic of the fact that he is transparent in his behavior – all that he does
is good inside and out. What has Marta done during this time? She has not even stepped out of her
house. She is the one who is enclosed, kept under wraps which prevent her from interacting with
the world around her. It is at the point when the servant returns for the last time that she takes
drastic action, removes her wraps and is ready to expose herself to what is happening outside, but
it is too late. She tries to extract the contents of the fig as R Tzadok does but she is left with only
the empty shell. It is too late for her to help the nation. The shock is too much for her and she dies.
Her inflexibility has brought about her death.

The second ending adds the story of Marta’s throwing away her money. In this ending, death is
not instant, but she has the time to take action before she dies. She throws away her money in the
street. The money which was the basis for her power is no longer of any use. Perhaps she has
finally understood that her wealth is what caused her to become so far estranged from society that
she could allow the destruction to occur.

In these days of contemplation, we too must be sensitive to the world in which we live. We must
not ensconce ourselves in our own protected environment but venture out into society and do our
best to improve the world around us and be involved in bringing the nation to complete redemption.

25
Dr. Malka Z. Simkovich writes:
The story about the rise of the Hasmoneans is well known. A family of priests (kohanim) from the
city of Modiʿin lead the Jews in a rebellion against the oppressive Seleucid regime of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes. According to 1 Maccabees, the rebellion is started by the elderly patriarch of the
family, Mattathias, in 167 B.C.E., but soon after, his son Judah, known as Maccabi (perhaps
meaning “the Sledgehammer”), took the lead, and led the Jews in battle, with the Seleucid-Greeks
suffering defeat after defeat.

After his success in the Battle of Beth-Zur in 164 B.C.E., Judah recaptured the Temple and
cleansed it, an event celebrated as Chanukah (25th of Kislev–2nd of Tevet). Three years later
(161 B.C.E.), the Battle of Adassa led to the defeat of General Nicanor, who had threatened to
destroy the Temple. Judah’s success here was celebrated as Nicanor Day (13th of Adar) and
commemorated in the Second Book of Maccabees.[1] Hasmonean history didn’t end there,
however.

The very next year, Judah’s army lost the Battle of Alassa, and Judah himself was killed
(160 B.C.E.). After this, Jonathan, the youngest of the brothers, took over as leader, and fought the
Seleucids. In 143 B.C.E. Diodotus Tryphon, then king of the Seleucid Empire, invited Jonathan to
negotiate a peace arrangement, treacherously captured him, and soon had him killed.

Simon’s Dynasty

Upon his capture, Jonathan’s (older) brother, Simon, took over as leader. Simon sided with
Tryphon’s rival for the throne, Demetrius II, who in turn granted Judea independence, with Simon
recognized as the official ruler by the Seleucids, the Judeans, and even the Romans.

Simon’s dynasty lasted for several generations. Upon his death, his son John Hyrcanus took over
as high priest and ruler (134–104 B.C.E.); he was succeeded by his son Aristobulus I, who declared
himself king, but ruled only one year (104–103 B.C.E), followed by his brother Alexander

26
Jannaeus (103–76 B.C.E.), husband of the famous Salome Alexandra, who ruled as queen after his
death (76–67 B.C.E.).[2]

After her death, Salome Alexandra’s two sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, fought over the
throne, and turned to the Roman general Pompey to choose between them. Pompey sided against
the militant Aristobulus, supporting the weaker Hyrcanus, and took the opportunity to invade
Judea, conquering Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E., and making it a Roman province.[3]

Introducing the Herodian Family

Hyrcanus II had an advisor named Antipater, whose father, Antipas, was an Idumean convert to
Judaism,[4] who served as general of Idumea under Alexander Jannaeus. Antipater was a shrewd
politician, and during the fight between Julius Caesar and Pompey, he backed Caesar, who
defeated Pompey, and Caesar rewarded Antipater by appointing him regent (epitropos)[5] of Judea
in 47 B.C.E. As a result, the family of Antipater became more powerful than that of the
Hasmoneans. Antipater appointed his son Phasael governor of Judea and his son Herod governor
of the Galilee.

Herod and Mariamme: The Families Merge

Herod was a particularly gifted military leader and politician, and his power quickly grew. In
42 B.C.E., to solidify his position, Herod, whose Idumean heritage was viewed with suspicion by
many Jews, decided to garner more local legitimacy by marrying into the Hasmonean family.[6] He
was already married to a Jewish woman named Doris, but as a second wife, he chose Mariamme
(the Greek form of the Hebrew name Miriam/‫ִמ ְרָים‬, sometimes spelled Mariamne), who was the
daughter of Alexander, eldest son of Aristobulus II,[7] and Alexandra, daughter of Hyrcanus.[8] In
other words, Mariamme could claim Hasmonean lineage on both her mother and her father’s
side.[9] The betrothal took place when Mariamme was around twelve; Herod was around thirty-
two.

27
In 40 B.C.E., Judea was briefly retaken from the Romans by Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus II,
with the backing of the Parthians who ruled Persia at the time. Herod, who had taken his father’s
place as regent, and who was declared by Rome to be Judea’s rightful king (rex),[10] reconquered
Judea on behalf of Rome, retaking Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E.; he then handed Antigonus over to the
Romans for execution.

In the middle of the siege of Jerusalem, Herod took a break to marry his betrothed bride,
Mariamme, now seventeen years old.[11] Their marriage produced five children,[12] some of whom
would survive to become the founding members of the Hasmonean-Herodian family who ruled
Judea as client kings of Rome until 70 C.E.[13]

The Murder of Mariamme’s Brother Aristobulus

Herod’s relationship with Mariamme’s family was never friendly, to say the least. Whether he was
paranoid, or calculating, or both, Herod set about eliminating the members of the Hasmonean
family, whom he considered to be direct threats to his uncontested rule.[14]

The first member of her family to fall victim to Herod was Mariamme’s brother Aristobulus—
referred to in scholarship as Aristobulus III—who was widely known for his beauty; so much so
that Herod refused a request of Marc Antony’s to meet him, since he feared that Antony would use
the boy for sexual purposes. Their mother, Alexandra, had asked Marc Antony and Cleopatra to
pressure Herod to make Aristobulus high priest. Mariamme also implored her husband to appoint
her brother to this position, and eventually, Herod complied.[15]

Shortly after his installation, however, Aristobulus drowned at a post-Sukkot party at Alexandra’s
house outside of Jericho, at the age of seventeen.[16] According to Josephus, Herod had ordered
some young men to pretend to be friendly with him and then drown him while they were swimming
together; certainly, Alexandra (and Mariamme) believed Herod to have been responsible.

28
Herod’s Trial and Back-up Plan

Angry and despondent over her son’s death, Alexandra wrote to Cleopatra, begging her to
intervene by bringing Herod to justice for the murder of her son.[17] Cleopatra informed Antony of
Alexandra’s request, and Antony summoned Herod to him to defend himself against Alexandra’s
accusations. Knowing that his meeting with Antony could end in his own execution, Herod left
Mariamme in the care of his uncle Joseph, and instructed Joseph to have Mariamme killed, should
he be killed by Antony. As described by Josephus:

Now Joseph, while administering the affairs of the kingdom and for that reason repeatedly meeting
with Mariamme about public business or because of the respect which he was bound to show her
as the queen, repeatedly fell into talks about Herod’s affection and great love for her. And when
in women’s fashion she and even more so Alexandra, affected not to believe his statements, Joseph
in an excess of zeal to reveal the king’s feelings let himself go so far as to speak of the instructions
given him, offering them as proof of the fact that Herod could not live without her, nor, if he should
suffer a malign fate, would he even be separated from her by death (Ant. 15:67–72).[18]
Mariamme did not see Herod’s instructions to Joseph as complimentary, but as proof that her
husband was wicked and deranged.

Mariamme Accused of Adultery

Soon thereafter, a false rumor circulated in Judea that Herod had been killed by Marc Antony,
prompting Alexandra and Mariamme to prepare to flee to the commander of the Roman legion
that was camped in Judea. When Herod returned, closer to Antony than ever, he learned from his
sister Salome of Mariamme’s plans to escape. Salome was her uncle Joseph’s wife, and, hating
them both, accused the two of having carried on an affair in Herod’s absence:

She said these things because, for a long time, she had hated Mariamme, who had shown a proud
spirit in their disputes and had reproached Salome’s family with their low birth (Ant. 15:81).

29
Josephus continues by describing Herod’s reaction:

Herod, who had always felt a burning love for Mariamme, was at once violently disturbed and was
scarcely able to bear his jealousy, but he had enough control of himself all this time not to do
anything rash because of his love. But goaded by his intense emotion and jealousy, he privately
questioned Mariamme about her relations with Joseph. As she denied everything on oath and in
her defence said everything that could be said by a woman who had done no wrong, the king
gradually let himself be persuaded and got over his anger, and being overcome by his fondness for
his wife, he actually apologized for seeming to believe what he had heard…. Finally, as is usual
with lovers, they fell into and to embracing one another with great intensity (Ant. 15:82–84).
While we cannot be certain whether Herod and Mariamme did indeed share, at least at times, a
loving relationship, Josephus suggests that Mariamme tried to resist Herod’s violent nature by
confronting him about his crimes.[19] And thus, having just survived her husband’s wrath,
Mariamme ignited his anger again, by rebuking him for the plan he made with Joseph, saying:

It was not the act of a lover to command that if anything serious should happen to him at the hands
of Antony, I should be put to death too, though not guilty of anything (Ant. 15:85).
This comment set Herod off again, with dire consequences:

When these words came out, the king became violently indignant and at once released her from
his arms, crying and tearing his hair and saying that he now had clear and damning proof of
Joseph’s sexual intimacy with her, for he would not have disclosed what he had been privately
told if there had not been full confidence between them (Ant. 15:86–87).

Herod did not have Mariamme executed at this point, but had his uncle Joseph executed and his
mother-in-law Alexandra placed in prison.

30
Herod Called by Octavian: The Second Big Fight

Soon afterward, Herod went to meet with Octavian Caesar (later known as Augustus), following
his defeat of Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C.E. Again, Herod decided to place Mariamme
under the watchful eye of his brother Pheroras. Knowing that Mariamme and his sister Salome
were at odds with one another, Herod had his mother and sister stay at Masada, while Mariamme
and her mother were kept in his fortress in Alexandrium. Herod further told two guards at the
Alexandrium fortress, Joseph and Soemus, to watch the women and, as he had commanded his
uncle Joseph previously, to kill them if Herod was killed.[20]

Correctly suspecting that Herod again left the same orders, Mariamme and her mother cozied up
to Soemus, and he eventually told them the plan. Josephus suggests that Soemus was partly
motivated by the fact that most people—including Herod[21]—believed Octavian would kill him
for supporting Antony rather than him, and that the Hasmoneans would return to power, but it was
not to be.[22]

Herod returned home in a jubilant mood following his successful trip, but Mariamme, who had
hoped he would not survive the trip, made her disappointment clear:

[I]t was also impossible for her to conceal her feelings. Instead, because of her disesteem [of him]
and the superiority of her birth, she groaned aloud at his embrace, and she made it plain that she
was more displeased than pleased by his reports, so that it was not merely suspicion but the
obvious fact (of her dislike) that greatly disturbed Herod (Ant. 15:210–211).
This encounter put Herod into a whirlwind of hate and passion towards his wife. As Josephus
describes it:

[T]he more he believed himself to be increasingly successful in external affairs, so much the more
did he fail in domestic affairs, especially in his marriage, in which he had formerly seemed so

31
fortunate. For the love which he felt for Mariamme was no less intense than those justly celebrated
in story (Ant. 15:218).

Josephus, at this point, turns to blaming Mariamme:

As for her, she was in most respects prudent and faithful to him but she had in her nature something
that was at once womanly and cruel, and she took full advantage of his enslavement to passion.
Since she did not take into account that she was subject to the king and that he was her master, as
would have been proper under the circumstances, she frequently treated him with arrogance. He
for his part pretended to take this lightly and bore it with self restraint and patience (Ant. 15:219).
Apparently, Josephus’ patriarchal and somewhat misogynistic attitude blinded him to the
understandable reality that Mariamme may not have felt loving toward someone who threatened
to have her killed every time he left Jerusalem and who had murdered her brother and grandfather.

The Love Potion

Eventually, after another trip, Herod and Mariamme fought again, and this was when “the storm
burst”:

One noon the king lay down to rest and out of the great fondness which he always had for her
called for Mariamme. And so she came but she did not lie down (with him) in spite of his urging,
Instead, she expressed contempt for him and bitterly reproached him for having killed both her
[grand]father (Hyrcanus) and her brother (Ant. 15:222).
Seeing the internal battle raging within him, Herod’s sister Salome instructed the royal cupbearer
to tell Herod that Mariamme attempted to have him prepare a love potion for Herod. Salome meant
for Herod to conclude that Mariamme was really trying to poison him.

Herod then tortured Mariamme’s eunuch, who claimed that, while he knew nothing of
Mariamme’s fidelity to Herod, he knew that Mariamme was aware that Soemus was instructed to

32
kill her, should Herod be killed. Herod then executed Soemus, and brought Mariamme to trial,
ostensibly for the attempted poisoning, where she was found guilty and sentenced to be executed
at the age of around twenty-eight.[23]

Betrayed by Her Mother

Fearing that her fate would be the same as Mariamme’s, Mariamme’s mother Alexandra took
Herod’s side, publicly announcing that her daughter had wronged her husband, that she was
wicked, and deserved her punishment. She even grabbed Mariamme by the hair as part of this
playacting, earning her the reproach of the audience.[24] This contrasted greatly with Mariamme’s
own behavior:

[F]or she spoke not a single word nor did she show confusion as she watched her mother’s
disgusting behavior, but in her greatness of spirit she did make it plain that she was indeed greatly
distressed by her offence in behaving in this conspicuously disgraceful manner. Mariamme herself,
at least, went to her death with a wholly calm demeanor and without change of colour, and so even
in her last moments she made her nobility of descent very clear to those who were looking on (Ant.
15:234–236).
Josephus’ final reflections on her death are mixed, reflecting his less than flattering view of
women:

Thus died Mariamme, a woman unexcelled in continence and in greatness of soul, though lacking
in reasonableness and of too quarrelsome a nature. But in beauty of body and in dignity of bearing
in the presence of others she surpassed her contemporaries more greatly than one can say (Ant.
15:237).[25]
Josephus even seems to hold Mariamme partly responsible for her own downfall:

And this was the chief source of her failure to please the king and to live with him agreeably. For
being constantly courted by him because of his love and expecting no harsh treatment from him,

33
she maintained an excessive freedom of speech. And since she was also distressed by what had
happened to her relatives, she saw fit to speak to Herod of all her feelings, and finally succeeded
in incurring the enmity of the king’s mother and sister and his own as well, though he was the one
person from who she had mistakenly expected not to suffer any harm (Ant. 15:238–239).[26]
Even so, it is fair to say that both of Josephus’s retellings of Mariamme’s life present her as a
beautiful and determined woman who falls victim to Herod’s jealous paranoia.

Herod’s Emotional Collapse

The execution of Mariamme did not end Herod’s obsession with her. As Josephus narrates:

[O]nce she had been disposed of, the king’s desire for her burned still more strongly… For his
love for her was not passionless nor such as arises from familiarity but in its very earliest
beginnings had been a divine madness, and even with freedom of cohabitation it was not restrained
from growing greater. But now more than ever he seemed to be a prey to it as if by a kind of divine
punishment… And he would frequently call out for her and frequently utter unseemly laments (Ant.
15:240–241).
Josephus goes on to describe how Herod attempted to distract himself by throwing parties, but
these did not help, and he couldn’t function. Instead he “was so far overcome by passion that he
would actually order his servants to summon Mariamme as if she were still alive and able to heed
them” (Ant. 15:242). Soon thereafter, Judea was hit by pestilence, and people whispered it was a
divine punishment for the execution of Mariamme, which only made Herod more upset.[27]

Herod then went on a trip to the desert, where he became dangerously ill and almost
died.[28] Alexandra attempted to retake the government, and this apparently helped shake Herod
out of his despondency. He had Alexandra executed, along with other plotters, and moved on with
his life.[29] A few years later, he married the daughter of the high priest named Simon; her name
was also Mariamme.[30]

34
Mariamme in the Babylonian Talmud

The one memory of Mariamme that survives in rabbinic literature is the frightening nature of
Herod’s obsession with her, which lasted past her death (b. Baba Batra 3b):

‫ כל עבדא דמריד‬:‫ יומא חד שמע ההוא גברא בת קלא דאמר‬.‫ נתן עיניו באותה תינוקת‬,‫הורדוס עבדא דבית חשמונאי הוה‬
.‫ קם קטלינהו לכולהו מרותיה ושיירה לההיא ינוקתא‬,‫השתא מצלח‬

Herod was the slave of the Hasmonean house, and had set his eyes on a certain maiden [of that
house]. One day he heard a Bath Kol say, ‘Every slave that rebels now will succeed.’ So he rose
and killed all the members of his master's household, but spared that maiden.

‫ כל מאן דאתי ואמר מבית חשמונאי קאתינא‬:‫ אמרה‬,‫ סליקא לאיגרא ורמא קלא‬,‫כי חזת ההיא ינוקתא דקא בעי למינסבה‬
.‫ וההיא ינוקתא נפלה מאיגרא לארעא‬,‫ דלא אישתיירא מינייהו אלא ההיא ינוקתא‬,‫ עבדא הוא‬-

When she saw that he wanted to marry her, she went up on to a roof and cried out, “Whoever
comes and says, I am from the Hasmonean house, is a slave, since I along am left of it, and I am
throwing myself down from this roof.”

‫ ליתוביה‬- ‫ הא דטמנה‬,‫ דאמרי לה בא עליה‬.‫ לא בא עליה‬:‫ איכא דאמרי‬,‫ בא עליה‬:‫ איכא דאמרי‬.‫טמנה שבע שנין בדובשא‬
.‫ בת מלך נסב‬:‫ כי היכי דנאמרו‬- ‫ האי דטמנה‬,‫ליצריה; ודאמרי לה לא בא עליה‬

He preserved her body in honey for seven years. Some say that he had intercourse with her, others
that he did not. According to those who say that he had intercourse with her, his reason for
embalming her was to gratify his desires. According to those who say that he did not have
intercourse with her, his reason was that people might say that he had married a king’s daughter.[31]
Mariamme’s name is never mentioned here; this places the story’s focus on Herod and his outsider
status. The rabbis further preserve Mariamme’s holiness unsullied by having her commit suicide
in order to avoid marrying this “slave,”[32] suggesting that Herod never joined the Hasmonean
family.

35
This Talmudic story is inspired by accounts of Herod’s passion for Mariamme the Hasmonean,
though embellished with suicide and necrophilia.[33] The claim that Herod preserved Mariamme’s
body in honey, perhaps for sexual purposes, suggests this passage relies on what Ilan calls a
“folklore motif [which was] employed as a standard rumor with which to denigrate
kings.”[34] Herod is governed by his mad lust for Mariamme, which clouds any sense of moral
propriety.

Mariamme’s Life: A Reflection

In Josephus as well as in rabbinic literature, Mariamme’s life is overshadowed by her husband

Herod. Moreover, as the last Hasmonean princess before the merger with the family of Herod, her
tragic fate represents the fate of that once great priestly family and to some extent Judea itself.

What can be easily forgotten, however, is who Mariamme was as a person. Both Josephus and the
Talmud present Mariamme as a courageous and determined woman whose pride in her heritage
propelled her to stand up to one of the most violent and paranoid leaders in Jewish history, and
who paid the ultimate price.

NOTES

1. See Zev Farber, "The Ancient Judean Holiday: Yom Nicanor—13th of Adar," TheTorah (2014).
2. See Mika Ahuvia, "Jewish Queens: From the Story of Esther to the History of Shelamzion," TheTorah (2015).
3. See Nadav Sharon, "An Ancient Precedent for the Yom Kippur War," TheTorah (2017). Aristobulus was sent to Rome
as a prisoner. He was eventually freed by Julius Caesar, but was poisoned on his way back to Judea, and his son,
Alexander, beheaded.
4. Many Idumeans—the Greek term for Edomites—were forced to convert by the nascent Hasmonean monarchy when it
expanded its kingdom to include their territory.
5. This Greek term entered Rabbinic Hebrew as ‫אפיטרופוס‬/‫אפוטרופוס‬, with the meaning of “legal guardian” or “court
appointed administrator.”
6. For more on Herod and his complex relationship to Judaism, see Evie Gassner, “How Jewish Was
Herod?” TheTorah (2019).
7. Alexander was the older brother of Herod’s now deceased rival, Antigonus, making Mariamme the deceased rebel-
king’s niece.
8. In what was likely an effort to consolidate and strengthen the power of the Hasmonean family, Hyrcanus and
Aristobulus married their children off to one another.
9. War 1.241.
10. Phasael was killed during the rebellion.
11. War 1:344.
12. War 1:435.
13. For more on one of these offspring, Mariamme’s great-granddaughter Berenice, see Malka Z. Simkovich, “Queen
Berenice: A Woman of Contrasts,” TheTorah (2016).

36
14. Herod would take this paranoia to a terrifying extreme in 7 B.C.E., when he had his own sons, Alexander and
Aristobulus IV, both of whom were born to Mariamme, strangled to death.
15. Ant. 15.23-41.
16. Ant. 15.50-56.
17. Ant. 15:57–63; War 1:437.
18. English translations are taken from the Loeb Classics Library edition.
19. According to Tal Ilan, Josephus learned this from a source that was essentially fabricated by a historian named Nicolas
of Damascus. Tal Ilan, Integrating Jewish Women into Second Temple History (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 105–
115.
20. Ant. 15:183–186.
21. Ant. 15:161–163.
22. Ant. 15:202–208.
23. Ant. 15.226–231.
24. Ant. 15:232–234.
25. Josephus has a similar summary in Jewish War, when explaining why Herod gave his sons such a strong education:

But a still stronger influence in the favour was Herod’s passion for Mariamme, the consuming ardour of which

increased from day to day, so that he was insensible to the troubles of which his beloved one was the cause; for

Mariamme’s hatred of him was as great as was his love for her. As the events of the past gave her just reason for

aversion, and her husband’s love enabled her to speak plainly, she openly upbraided him with the fate of her

grandfather Hyrcanus and her brother Jonathan [Aristobolus] (War 1:436–437).

Josephus’ mix of praise and accusation here and in Antiquities echoes his description of Mariamme’s great-
grandmother Salome Alexandra, whom he greatly extols while at the same time expressing that she, in unwomanly
fashion, took on too much power or become too ambitious (Ant. 13:430–432). His portrayal of Salome Alexandra
in Jewish War, which paints her as a victim to the Pharisees’ manipulative tactics, is more sympathetic in this regard
(War, 1:107–110).

26. There are a number of inconsistencies between Josephus’s accounts of Mariamme’s marriage and execution
in Antiquities and in the Jewish War. In the Jewish War, Mariamme is executed in 35 B.C.E., shortly after Herod
returned from meeting with Marc Antony, whereas in Antiquities, Herod kills Mariamme in 29 B.C.E., after Herod’s
visit to Rhodes, soon after the Battle of Actium. Since we know that Mariamme and Herod were married in 38 B.C.E.
and had five children together, it is very unlikely that she was killed in 35 B.C.E., and so the Antiquities timeline is to
be preferred.
27. Ant. 15:243.
28. Ant. 15:244–246.
29. Ant. 15:247–252.
30. Ant. 15:319–322, 18:136; Jewish War 1:562.
31. For a detailed analysis of this story, see Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, “Herod's Renovation of the Temple: The Talmudic
Version,” TheGemara (2017); idem, “Herod’s Renovation of the Temple—Uncovering the Talmud’s Persian
Influences,” TheGemara (2017).
32. Mariamme’s declaring Herod a slave is probably an allusion to the fact that Herod’s Idumean ancestors were vassals of
the Hasmonean monarchy. The suicide here is presented positively, as a way of avoiding a worse fate. For a discussion
of positive images of suicide among Jews and Christians in this period, see Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor, A
Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom Among Christians and Jews in Antiquity (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992).
33. Elements of the story were likely borrowed from common folktales, versions of which survive in earlier Greek
literature. In one such version, Herodotus, the great Greek historian who lived in the fifth century B.C.E. and wrote
about the Greco-Persian wars, recalls a tale about King Periander of Corinth. Periander murdered his wife Melissa,
estranged his two sons, and later had sex with Melissa’s dead body. Herodotus, Histories, 3.50, 5.92. Tal Ilan, Mine
and Yours are Hers: Retrieving Women's History from Rabbinic Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 152–154. As Ilan
notes, Melissa means honeybee in Greek, and derives from the Greek word for honey, meli. The connections between
Periander’s murder of Melissa in Herodotus and what we are told about Mariamme’s death by Josephus and the
Talmud are striking.
34. Ilan adds that preserving bodies in honey was a known practice in antiquity. Ilan, Mine and Yours are Hers, 154. Cf.
Josephus, Antiquities 14.124; Herodotus 1.198.

37
 THE THEOLOGICAL STRATUM OF THE MARTHA b. BOETHUS TRADITION

Naomi Cohen writes:10

10
The Harvard Theological Review , Jan. - Apr., 1976, Vol. 69

38
39
40
41
Notes

42
43
44