bly in ree een: examplesof WOMEN Whose husbera ee © ‘ undergo the trial. Yet in ail the to prove, and since the trial of the sotah lost its credi- the end of the Second Temple period, the sources ing the adulterous wife with divorce. n, believed that a wicked wife had to be divorced contain a whole list of reasons, such as spinning or wersy between R. Agibaand R. Ishmaci, see S.¥. Hur- ws of Matrimony in Israel,” Hashahar 12 (1885), 383-4 why Herod did not subject his wife Mariamme to the trial pdecaiare M. Rabello, “Hausgericht in the House of in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial U, Rappaport and M. Stern (Jerusalem 1980), 121-3 [He- irrelevant as | will show presently.142 Crises in Married Life and the Breakcown of Marricge ie 's wife and even withhold, ic, which Se sachinloe of R. Judah the Pane Ketubbah as a fine. To this we shoul aan the womn-within is ee “Te was tnaghe: When's pedinr IA ust,eaid Rabbi. go. If spitie is fou her petticoat, since the thing is a since the thing is ugly, she mus, 2 an a since the thing is ugly, she must, said pay” preine on 2ab-25a) As opposed to instances we have previously Sxamined, in which divoree perforce followed proven ea, et chaste, and there! TVOTCE on aa sd etme ei ree iieeaslc of having betrayed her husband, This ruling by Rabbi does not have the force of halakhah but is a Fecommiendation, bets sere seater 80 far — in which divorce has been either ob}; igatory . least highly recommended ~ have represented the necessary con, orce, what were the sufficient conditions? This question lay at the controversy between the Schools of Shammai and Hite). 5 i say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has for itis written, ‘Because he has found in her indecency ything (727 m7)" (Deut. 24.1)” (mGitt. 9.10); by this view, dition is; just as we have already seen, sexual licentiousness, according 10 Matthew, the view of Jesus (5.31; 19.9),'8 chool of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled is , ‘Because he has found in her indecency in any- (mGitt. 9.10); by this view, any pretext is-sufficient cause giba outdid them both: “Even if he found another fairer itten, “And it shall be if she find-tio favor in his eyes ...’ 10; cf. Sifre Deut. 269, p. 288 ed. Finkelstein); that is, a i fault at all in his wife in order to divorce her." A parable n that a woman may be divorced even for something which d:“Itis like the king who became angry with his wife. He come and write her a bill of divorce. Before the scribe ar ed analysis but rather unconvincing interpretation of this pas by. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Testament: fe . 19:13-22 and Cor, 11:3~16 = Seminarii Nectes- IV (Lund 1965), 152-66. tai oot ‘of Aqiba’s can be found in modem i ce to his own marriage: J. Goldin, “Toward a Profile of s Journal of the American Oriental Society 96 (1976), 38-56, Eat love for his wife made loveless cohabitacion abominable it n Women and Judaism: Myth, History and Stragele this law because he was i"és Life and the Brealiown of Marriage 144 ‘or bad smell, but we should note that there, ing in the list about physical or emotion®| © wives: tions three men who di Herod, Poth, 1.241; AJ 14.300), but after the end, Herod di Hey (451;AJ 16.85). In s livorced md ae me im the plot by her son against jy." ce again mst ip, 1.590; AJ 17.68). i (On the same occasion he a =e wife, Mar the high priest Shimeon b- Boethus, oc complicity in the Same me el sonal . Herod's son Archelaus is sid (0 pee ares bivwit coader to imarry his brothes"s widow (BJ 2.115; 350). Josephus ay mse that he divorced his second wife (Vita 426). Pheroras, Herod's tyoy, is also said by Josephus to have divorced his wife, but he did so agains, his en and afterwards took her back (AJ 16.198-9)- Pherelibinic s also contain but sparse references to actual cases ofa. vorce. In fact, R. Yose the Galilean is the only one we know by name (yx, lta 34b; Gen. R. 17.3, pp- 152-5 ed. Theodor-Albeck), and there are in addition eS bills of divorce brought before rabbinical courts, one before R, nGitt. 1-5; sGitt, 1.4) and the other before R. Ishmael (iGirr. 3)25 bis were quite critical of the biblical law permitting a man who é 10 take her back if she had not married someone else in 4, .2-4). The following passage, formulated in the style of the Kiterature, will illustrate: “Four are they whom the ming er, above chapter 3, n. 44. Tannaitic literature mentions other bills of s of husbands intending to divorce their wives, but these are not nce. We have already encountered the case, from the days of who wanted to divorce his wife without a ketwbbah. One of the the Destruction tells of a man who, on the advice of 2 friend, di- she had apparently betrayed him, whereupon the same friend (6Gitt. 58a); the obvious aggadic nature of the story renders it ur- We have also already examined the story of Rabbis son,I: El tears for hit Spee Period gave halakhic Status to this : . : et divorces his wife and marri a Seainst her” (Mark 10.14: Luke 16.18), This may also rave been ‘or the Dead Sea but Pinions are divided on this ques- divorce was alwa; i Tesponsibili- of the husband to initiate. Jewish taw was siemacdenamae = op- posed to Roman law, which grants the wife the Fight to divorce her husband. As Josephus notes in passing, in the middle Of Nicolaus’ account of the divorce bill sem by Salome to Costobarus: “It is only the man who is permitted by us to [ini- i ‘woman may not marry again on her own husband consents” {AJ 15.259). This ‘observation, y whereas the man divorces her only at his will” even the rabbis were aware of the need in some band to divorce his wife: “And it should also bills of divorce, they compel the man. until he ); cf. Sif. Dibura Dehoba 3.15, p- 31 ed. Finkel- contains an interesting list of the exceptional in fact forced to grant his wife a bill of divorce: that has a polypus, or that collects [dog’s ex- th or a tanner” (mKet. 7.10). These are men who ‘Vermes, “Sectarian Matrimonial Halakhah in the ies 25 (1974), 197-202; Isaksson (above, n. 18), the sages forbid it" (mGin. 9.1). 4 ‘to any man, ex- 7.145 fp, Shimeon took back and remarried after having divorced her, was discovered in the Judaenn Desert” Rabbinic literature preserves the case of-a man from Snidan. who divorced his wife as a result of an oath but the sages permitted him sotake her back (mGitt. 4.7). We also hear of a girl married as «minor whom er husband later divorced but then remarried (¢¥eb. 13.5). Josephus’ source informed him that Herod Antipas. promised Herodias, whom he dearly loved, that he would divorce his wife, the daughter of the Naba- tsean king Aretas, but before he could do so his wife left him and fled to her fa- (AJ 18.110-12). The wife's flight violated Jewish law, but we in the daughter of @ foreign king connected to the Herodian ge to adhere to Jewish law. Yet Josephus found. in his Ses of women who abandoned their husbands and went or example, it is reported that Berenice, daughter of ad Polemo king of Cilicia (A/ 20.146); that her sister, fizus king of Emesa to marry the Roman governor of 20.143); and that Berenice’s second sister, Ma- ulius Archelaus to marry Demetrius, the alabarch of Josephus relates another case outside the Herodian st wife was a Jewish captive whom he married, he Vespasian, but she left him (Vita 415).*8 In rab- case of R. Eliezer b. R. Shimeon, who was aban- showed a preference for going to the study-house ee things the earth trembles, and under four it cannot bear dR. de Vaux, Les Grottesde Muraba‘at = Discoveries in 961), 243-54, r , Chapter 3, n. 44, daughters all leaving their hasbands bears the stamp of dants; the information should not be taken at face sre, see D. R. Schwartz, “KATA TOYTON TON B Agrippe Ul,” Jewish Quarterly Review 72 (1981-2), Hebrew translation of Vica) that Josephus’ first wifes a get discovered in a cave in, Wadt alities of daily Hife.!® We rai : adi Muraba’, i pis wife in oe apparently in the year 72 (-p.1 je aman wrote for only actual get from the Second Temple period, in Aramaic and is the Insum the number of actual documented cases of divorce durii i isrclatively small, and in many of them th ee ee E the marriage of the tw in . ‘0 partners was re~ ‘The main reasons for the Paucity of actual cases seems ei be ecomontiic: divorce WAS VeTy Expensive for the man, who had i = 3 id fo pay his fe i sens ahs ay ey was accountable. | penetra aaa ways ion of marryii i io eee treunccnts yt Ro second wife, although only those who eS hack ong tines wien could do this. Divorce, like polygamy, was a privilege 4 a fairly high income could enjoy. Thus we find in a number of marriage contracts a clause in which husbands commit ihem- a 0 po g to i oO hi b By contrast, it is interesting to note the rela- who are said to have abandoned their husbands, ples of this took place in the Herodian house. Widowhood liable to end, if not by divorce, then by the death of siblical period, widows and orphans were treated as ety, despite the fact that both divorce and widow- ration for a woman, making her a [egal entity unto it, “A woman acquires her freedom (lit. acquires a bill of divorce and by the death of her husband” ‘of Job relates that Job used to give charity to wid- onishes the Pharisees, in the best prophetic tra t the same time “swallowing widows’ houses’ eh on this. See in particular, Wegner (above, n. 13), i “The Marriage Contract and Bill of Divorce in Ancient 4 (1981), 77-8: Biale (above, n. 3), 70-81; Swidier 04-9. : i and also the story of the divorce of R. sepals aisle story, see Y. Fraenkel, “Par- Hebrew Narrative Art = Scripta Hiero- (Jerusalem 1978), 28-35.Fe ine Breakdown of Marriage crises in Maries Life oe 3 aie at home (08M ee aoe ilustay peat palakhat left their Is Without finer thy fares ~ ‘ ENCES are NOt diseye 2, even er me patakhic consed cg — ing her husband ix case of sane bn sband Cttobarus eg not only left ‘We can assume that Salome, a figs i 260). Josephus also relates thai Heroin, Hz, on epee to Herod son of Herod (A 18,119, eg him, sent him a ger (following Sus iti i him. J.T. Milik claimed” 10 possess 4 eet iven by a woman, Salome t ins in Nab) “ee This spthtatcd Soe, venie = ere evidence a - bel ief that in the = te Temple women jvorce their husbands by giving them aj at re University, who now controls He ota. pe eon ik’s reading is mistaken and the get was in fact sve ment, contends that ae until the document becomes publicly avait is cin ca be made. This whole problem, it should be note, = e eat often in the study of women, namely, that scholars fon ‘on documents whose contents seem strange or cone ously a reading cannot be rejected simply because it oes ge ah or the individual scholar’s understanding of the stays ormed by giving the ger, called “bill of divorcement’ Bible (Deut. 24.1). There are quite detailed provisions in Jp. “Divorce of Jews in the Roman Empire,” The Jewish Law Ay wail d’édition des manuscrits du Désert de Juda,” Volume ducon- = Supplements 10 Vetus Testamentum IV (Leiden 1956), 2!. ‘whether women in Judaca of the Second Temple period, even fat were legally permitted to divorce their husbands, is raging in recext ouncement, E. Bammel, “Markus 10 11f, und das jidische ‘New Testamentliche Wissenschaft 61 (1979), 95-101 argued tt ‘piece of evidence for such a phenomenon, Ten years later, his Tepeated by Bernadette J. Brooten, “Konnten Fraven itt Frau,” ibid. (1983), 466-78. jidischen Public lecture in 1989,. . . Tal Han Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine An Inquiry into Image and Status992-93 Guest Professor at Harvard: 1995 a1 Yale. on 1991 PhD. on Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine 4, Jerusalem: ,. New York: 1998 at Frankfurt University; since ann, Seminary. 20h, 16-149168-8 | 978-3-16-1491 198-9 11-8753 (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism) Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbi led bibliographic data is available in the Internet at hétp://dnb.d-nb.de. Edition 2006. ) Mobr Siebeck, Tebingea, Germany. ‘not he reproduced, in whoic or in part, in any form {beyond that permicted Jaw) without the publisher's written permission. This applics particularly to translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic syste™s. & typeset by Computersatz Staiger in Pfaffingen, printed by Galde-Druch i Paper and bound by Buchbinderei Heid in Rottenburg.