Accelerat ing t he world's research.

1995 “The Attraction of Aristocratic

Women to Pharisaism During the
Second Temple Period,” Harvard
Theological R...
Tal Ilan

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Albert I. Baumgart en, “Rivkin and Neusner on t he Pharisees,” in Pet er Richardson and St ephen…
Albert I. Baumgart en

Albert I. Baumgart en, “T he Name of t he Pharisees,” Journal of Biblical Lit erat ure 102:3 (Sept ember 19…
Albert I. Baumgart en

Shaye J.D. Cohen, “T he Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and t he End of Jewish Sect arianis…
Shaye J.D. Cohen
Harvard Divinity School

The Attraction of Aristocratic Women to Pharisaism during the Second Temple Period
Author(s): Tal Ilan
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 1-33
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509816
Accessed: 31/01/2010 09:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
The Attractionof AristocraticWomento
PharisaismDuringthe SecondTemple
Period*

Tal Ilan
The Hebrew Universityof Jerusalem

U nlike Christianity, which regards the word "Pharisee" as synonymous

with "hypocrite,"1 "legalist,"2 and "petty-bourgeois,"3 Jews have al-
ways understood Pharisaism as the correct and trustworthy side of Juda-
ism.4 Since the eighteenth century, all disputants who participated in the
great controversies and schisms within Judaism have claimed to represent
the true heirs of the Pharisees. For example, adherents of the strong anti-
Hasidic movement initiated by R. Eliyahu of Vilna in the second half of
the eighteenth century, who are usually referred to in literature by the
negative appellation "opposers" (Mr,"rnn),5referred to themselves by the
*I thank Daniel R. Schwartz for reading the manuscript and discussing its contents with
me. I have learned much from his comments; I alone, however, am responsible for the thesis
presented here and all that it implies.
'Adolf von Harnack, What is Christianity? (1900; reprinted New York: Harper & Row,
1957) 48.
2For example, Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
(175 BC-AD 135) (eds. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black; 3 vols.; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1973-87) 2. 388.
3Max Weber, Ancient Judaism (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1952) 388.
40n disputes between Jews and Christians on the essence of Pharisaism, see Daniel R.
Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 60; Tubingen: Mohr/
Siebeck, 1992) 66-70.
5See "Mitnaggedim," EncJud 12 (1971) 161.

HTR 88:1 (1995) 1-33

2 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

positive title "Pharisees"(D1'na).6 When the Reform movement was founded

in Germany in the first half of the nineteenth century, with the goal of
reforming the Jewish religion to make it more "modern" and acceptable to
its neighbors, the reformers perceived themselves as the true heirs of the
Pharisees.7 In his important study of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Abraham
Geiger, one of the founders of Wissenschaft des Judentums and an impor-
tant spokesman for the radical wing of the Reform movement,8 formulated
the view of the flexible open-minded Pharisees, who reformed Judaism to
the point of contradicting the laws set out in the Pentateuch, in order to
accommodate them to their changing needs.9 Geiger's opponents easily
produced evidence that negated his findings and proved beyond doubt that
they, in their conservative strain, were the real heirs of Pharisaism. To his
opponents, Geiger was a representative of the detestable Sadducees or their
later counterparts, the Karaites.10
Despite their academic tone, more recent scholarly debates about the
Pharisees can also be perceived as a dispute over who are the Pharisees'
rightful heirs. Gedalyahu Alon, an Israeli scholar who harbored strong
nationalistic feelings during the formative years of the state of Israel, ar-
gued in a highly polemical article that the Pharisees did not resign their
political power with Herod's rise to power, but were politically active in
opposition to his rule. Like Alon himself, the Pharisees must have opposed
the Jews' subjugation to a foreign ruler or to Jewish collaborators and
upheld a policy of resistance in a struggle for national independence.11
Jacob Neusner, a Jewish scholar living in the Diaspora, argued that the
ideological bent of these claims distorted Alon's methodology. He convinc-
ingly showed that where Alon found opposition to Herod there is no men-
tion of Pharisees, and where Pharisees appear, opposition does not. Neusner
maintained, therefore, that after the Hasmonean period the Pharisees with-

6Yaaqov Hisdai, "The Origins of the Conflict Between Hasidim and Mitnagdim," in Bezalel
Safran, ed., Hasidism: Continuity or Innovation? (Harvard Judaic Texts and Monographs 5;
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) 27-45, esp. 39-44.
7David Philipson (The Reform Movement in Judaism [Cincinnati: Ktav, 1907] 5) says, "In
a word, Reform Judaism. .. considers itself too a link in the chain of Jewish tradition, the
product of this modern age, as Talmudism was of its age."
80n Geiger, see Max Wiener, Abraham Geiger and Liberal Judaism: The Challenge of the
Nineteenth Century (trans. Ernst J. Schlochauer; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1962).
9Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Ubersetzung der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der
inneren Entwicklung des Judenthums (Breslau: Hainauer, 1857) esp. 101-58. For further
bibliography on the identification of the reformers with the Pharisees, see Schwartz, Jewish
Background, 74-79.
l?Solomon Eiger's letter, in Solomon A. Tiktin, ed., Darstellung des Sachverhaltnisses in
seiner hiesigen Rabbinatsangelegenheit (Breslau: Richter, 1842) 25.
'Gedalyahu Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977) 18-
47.
 TAL ILAN 3

drew from politics and became a religious sect.12 Neusner strongly cri-
tiqued Alon's method as untenable; it is interesting, however, that Neusner's
historical conclusions fit ideologically with his own agenda-the Pharisees,
like present day Jews living in the Diaspora, were content with religious
freedom, and left politics to the foreign ruling power. Neusner has recently
been criticized for his conclusions. It is striking that Daniel Schwartz, an
Israeli scholar, concedes all of Neusner's criticism of Alon but opposes his
ideological conclusions, arguing for an active political role for the Phari-
sees during the entire Second Temple period, even down to the war against
Rome in 66-70 CE.13
Close to the issue of the Pharisees is the identification of the tannaitic
rabbis as the heirs of the Pharisees. The assertion that the Pharisees were
not one of many sects, but embodied the vast majority of the Jews, comes
from the circles of orthodox and traditional Jewish scholarship.14The rab-
bis, the true heirs of the Pharisees, effectively overcame all opposition to
their political and religious system after the destruction of the Temple in
70 CE. Scholars describe this process as a move from pluralistic to mono-
lithic Judaism.15These scholars maintain that even in present times, Jewish
orthodoxy, the only true heir to the Pharisees, should assert itself over its
insignificant and hardly Jewish opponents. This description has been op-
posed recently by the more liberal Shaye Cohen, also a Jewish scholar
living in the Diaspora; he maintains that rabbinic Judaism after 70 CE,
whose representatives were indeed former Pharisees, did not become mono-
lithic but resigned its claim to exclusivity in the interest of a religious and
social tolerance, which is the most common feature of rabbinic Judaism.16
In Cohen's opinion, therefore, today's true heirs of the Pharisees should
'2A recent revised edition of Neusner's old theory is his "Josephus' Pharisees-A Complete
Repetoire," in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism and Christianity
(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987) 274-92.
'3Daniel R. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees," JSJ 14 (1983) 157-71.
'4See for example, Ellis Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution: The Pharisees' Search for the
Kingdom Within (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978).
15Thisidea certainly is found in early Christian works; see Schurer, History of the Jewish
People, 402-3; Robert H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times (New York: Harper, 1949)
44; George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (3 vols.; Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1964) 1. 83-7. The idea also is voiced by many Jewish histo-
rians such as Cecil Roth, A Short History of the Jewish People (London: East & West, 1969)
112; Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Engelwood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1973) 143-54; Shmuel Safrai, "The Era of the Mishnah and Talmud
(70-640)," in Haim H. Ben-Sasson, ed., A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1976) 325-26; Solomon Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judaean
State (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962-78) 3. 155-58;
Moshe David Herr, A History of Eretz Israel: The Roman Period (10 vols.; Jerusalem: Keter,
1984) 4. 290 [Hebrew].
16Shaye J. D. Cohen, "The Significance of Yavneh-Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of
Jewish Sectarianism," HUCA 55 (1984) 27-53.
4 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

support a multifaceted interpretation of Judaism, including Conservative

and Reform Judaism.
A variation on this attitude has prevailed in recent years, probably due
to the greater interaction between Jewish and Christian scholarship. Current
scholars commonly assert that Second Temple Judaism can hardly be de-
scribed as predominantlyPharisaic; scholars now talk of "many Judaisms."17
The Pharisees, therefore, who previously had been viewed as normative in
Second Temple times, and their heirs-the rabbis-who were viewed like-
wise in the following period, are relegated to equal footing with their one-
time inferiors, the other groups previously viewed as dissident or schis-
matic.18 Scholars also apply this idea to the period after the destruction of
the Temple, claiming that even in Palestine rabbinic Judaism was one minor
group within the Jewish people at the time.19 Interestingly this view is also
propagated by Reform, Conservative, and secular Jews, who all claim a
share in modern-day Judaism.
The Jewish feminist movement, a product of the 1970s, can also be
situated in this "we the Pharisees" map. Judith Hauptman, a Conservative
Jew, wrote in 1972 (much like Reform Jews over a hundred years earlier)
that since the rabbis of the Talmud, the historical heirs of the Pharisees,
had bettered the condition of women in their day demonstrably, Judaism
today should do likewise.20 Hauptman adopted the attitude that the true
heirs of the Pharisees can be feminists, much like the Pharisees themselves
probably had been. Since 1972, however, much has been written to dem-
onstrate that the Pharisees and their heirs were hardly feminists or even
slightly well-disposed toward women.21 It is here that the proponents of the
"many Judaisms" approach enter the debate. The chief representative of
this attitude is undoubtedly Ross Kraemer. Kraemer is convinced that rab-
binic texts are misogynistic, and, what is more, fictional, representing at-
titudes of a small minority of Jews and certainly not describing the reality
of the majority of Jewish women.22 Kraemer, herself a Jew living in the
17See for example the titles of Alan F. Segal, The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (BJS
127; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987); Gerson D. Cohen, Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic
Cultures (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1991).
I8See recently, Antony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1989).
19Forexample, Israel L. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity
(Jerusalem: Yad ben Zvi, 1985).
20JudithHauptman, "Women's Liberation in the Talmudic Period: An Assessment," Con-
servative Judaism 26 (1972) 24-28. And see more recently, and in a more sophisticated style,
but by no means with a new message, Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic
Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 227-45.
21See Judith R. Wegner, Chattel or Person: The Status of Women in the Mishnah (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1988).
22Ross S. Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews
and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) 93-105.
 TAL ILAN 5

Diaspora, devotes her studies to women in the Hellenistic-Roman Diaspora;23

she maintains that while Pharisaic and rabbinic Judaism had little to offer
women, Diaspora Judaism held them in great esteem and was, therefore,
very attractive, even to non-Jewish women. This view obviously supports
the legitimacy of present-day nonreligious, assimilated Diaspora Judaism.
The present article is clearly and consciously another brick in the Phari-
see construction. It is a historical article, written with the traditional his-
torical methodology of presenting and evaluating the evidence and drawing
historical conclusions. I certainly do not view feminism as the true heir of
Pharisaism, although I hope to demonstrate that Pharisaism held great at-
traction for women. This claim greatly modifies the argument that the
Pharisaic tradition was irrelevant historically to most Jewish women, as the
"many Judaisms" party claims. Nevertheless, I am certain that I too can be
placed on the Pharisee research chart by someone standing further away
from the present discussion and in command of a better view of the disci-
pline.

* The Evidence
In two highly controversial and unrelated sources, a claim is made that
Jewish women are ruled by the Pharisees, or in any case follow their dicta.
One source is Josephus, the other is rabbinic literature.
Josephus: In Josephus's description of the plot hatched against Herod by
his son Antipater in alliance with Herod's brother Pheroras and the women
of these two men's households, Josephus makes the following claim:
There was also a group of Jews priding itself on its adherenceto
ancestralcustom and claimingto observethe laws of which the deity
approves,and by these men, called Pharisees,the women were ruled.
These men were able to help the king greatly because of their fore-
sight, and yet they were obviouslyintentuponcombattingand injuring
him. At least when the whole Jewishpeople affirmedby an oath thatit
would be loyal to Caesar and to the king's government,these men,
over six thousandin number,refusedto take this oath, and when the
king punishedthem with a fine, Pheroras'wife paid the fine for them.
In returnfor her friendlinessthey foretold-for they were believed to
have foreknowledgeof things throughGod's appearancesto them-
that by God's decree Herod'sthronewould be taken from him, both

23Ross S. Kraemer, "A New Inscription from Malta and the Question of Women Elders in
Diaspora Jewish Communities," HTR 78 (1985) 431-38; idem, "Hellenistic Jewish Women:
The Epigraphic Evidence," SBLASP 24 (1986) 183-200; idem, "Non Literary Evidence for
Jewish Women in Rome and Egypt," Helios 13 (1987) 85-101; idem, "Monastic Jewish Women
in Greco-Roman Egypt: Philo on the Therapeutrides," Signs 14 (1989) 342-70; and idem,
"Jewish Women in the Diaspora World of Late Antiquity," in Judith R. Baskin, ed., Jewish
Women in Historical Perspective (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991) 43-67.
6 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

from himself and his descendants, and the royal power would fall to
her and to Pheroras and to any children they might have.24
This text is one of the many highly involved descriptions of the Herodian
court found in Josephus's writings, and usually assigned to Herod's court
historian, Nicolaus of Damascus. I hope to show elsewhere25 that Nicolaus
was much more interestedthan Josephus in the role women played in politics,
and was usually quick to blame them for most calamities, political or oth-
erwise, that befell Herod's court. Women's association with the Pharisees is
not meant here as a compliment. The question we are addressing, however,
is not whether Nicolaus liked the association women had with the Phari-
sees, but whether he is telling the truth.
In this text, one general claim and one particular claim are made about
women and the Pharisees. In general, the Pharisees have a special appeal
to women-they rule over them. The particularclaim is contained in a case
that proves this claim. When the Pharisees were fined by Herod, the fine
was paid by a woman, in this case the wealthy wife of the king's brother.
I will discuss the implication of the support rendered to the Pharisees by
Pheroras's wife presently. Here I am interested in the general claim voiced
by Josephus that women were ruled by the Pharisees. I begin by inquiring
whether this charge is fabricated.
Obviously the claim that the Pharisees ruled women is not intended as
a compliment. Real rulers rule over both men and women; rule over women
alone is a sign of weakness and softness. Furthermore, it is the husband's
prerogative to rule over his wife (and Pheroras is here reprimandedfor not
ruling over his) and the intrusion of the Pharisees obviously is intended to
convey an encroachment on the natural rights of husbands. All this together
raises doubts concerning the historical significance of this passage. Else-
where, however, Nicolaus similarly claims that the Pharisees had the sup-
port of the masses.26 It has been shown that this claim also is not intended
as a positive epithet.27 Both Nicolaus and Josephus see the masses as an
unruly, disruptive element in society, which should be contained rather
than allowed to acquire power by rendering political support. Nevertheless,
the question of the historical truth behind the claim that the Pharisees

24JosephusAnt. 17.41-43 (LCL; ed. and trans. Ralph Marcus; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1963) 8. 391-93, adapted.
251have written on Nicolaus's treatment of royal women in "Josephus and Nicolaus on
Women," in H. Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Peter Schafer, eds., Geschichte-Tradi-
tion-Reflexion (forthcoming).
26JosephusAnt. 13.288, 401-2; and 18.5, apparently not based on Nicolaus.
27See Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus," 158-62; and recently Steven Mason, Flavius
Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Leiden: Brill, 1991) 222-29; 250-
51; 300-306.
 TAL ILAN 7

enjoyed popular support and were actually in a position to influence the

political and particularly the religious practices of their day is hotly de-
bated. Sanders believes that there is no truth in this claim-that it is mere
propaganda.28Schwartz claims that it is a Nicolean slur.29Although Mason
maintains that Josephus does not consider following the Pharisees as com-
plimentary, he believes that historically they did exert significant power.30
I assume that it is methodologically incorrect to dismiss the claim that the
Pharisees ruled women while maintaining the view that they indeed exerted
influence on the masses. If one is correct, the other is probably also true
and vice versa.
Assuming, therefore, that the statement is derogatory but true, I would
inquire whether scholars have understood it correctly. Is this passage tell-
ing us that Pheroras's wife was a follower of the Pharisees like most Jewish
women at the time but one of few supporters in Herod's court? If that were
true, it is possible that Pheroras's wife's background made her susceptible
to subversive Pharisaic ideas. Nicolaus never names this woman but she is
described often in great detail and is labeled a slave.31 Whether she had
been a slave, or whether the designation is a derogatory epithet against a
woman of humbler origin is unclear from the text, but perhaps her attrac-
tion to Pharisaism stemmed from this background. In Ralph Marcus's trans-
lation of Josephus, however, the words "of the court" are inserted in
parentheses after the words "the women."32This suggests that Marcus did
not understand this statement to refer to a general following of the Phari-
sees by women but to a specific following by women within the court of
Herod. Marcus's interpretation assumes that the words "the women," which
appearelsewhere in Josephus'sdescription of the events leading to Antipater's
plot against Herod and to the close death of the two, refer to a group of
women at court. These women included Pheroras's wife, her mother and
sister, and Antipater's mother, Doris. If Marcus's interpretation is correct,
Josephus's Ant. 17.41-43 can serve as evidence that women were attracted
to Pharisaism only in the royal court. While making Nicolaus's assertion on
women and the Pharisees less sweeping, Marcus's interpretation suggests a
more interesting, and as I shall show, plausible pattern.
Rabbinic Literature: Rabbinic literature cannot be considered the sectar-
ian writing of the Pharisees (equivalent, for example, to the Dead Sea

28E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM and Philadel-
phia: Trinity, 1992) 458-90.
29Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus," 158-59; Schwartz does not refer specifically to the
women.
30Mason, Flavius Josephus, 375.
31Josephus Ant. 16.194 (ET 8. 391).
32Ibid.
8 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Scrolls), particularly because of its late date. To a great extent, however,

the rabbis were the heirs of the Pharisees and retain traditions which origi-
nally were held by the Pharisees.33 As Neusner has aptly demonstrated, it
is difficult to differentiate between the original Pharisaic stratum within
rabbinic literature and the many embellishments added to it in the genera-
tions between its formulation and final redaction.34
Like Josephus, rabbinic literature claims that the Pharisees exerted influ-
ence on the officials of the Temple, who despite sadducean leanings per-
formed the cultic functions according to Pharisaic dicta because the Pharisees
had a large public following. For example, on the Day of Atonement the
high priest followed Pharisaic rulings when he entered the Holy of Ho-
lies.35 R. Yohanan b. Zakkai reportedly supervised the immersion of the
high priest before burning the red heifer36 and ceased the ordeal of the
bitter water.37 Whether any of this is historically true is a controversial
question.38 It is striking, however, that the claim of Pharisaic influence on
the Temple corresponds, in theme if not in detail, to Josephus's description
of the Pharisaic influence, particularly over the Sadducees.39If Josephus in
his Antiquities was the mouthpiece of the group who composed tannaitic
literature in Yavneh, as was suggested by Smith,40 this correspondence
would make sense. If, however, as Schwartz has argued, most of these
claims go back to Nicolaus,41 the similarities become more significant.
It is therefore striking that rabbinic literature retains a tradition, like
Nicolaus, that women who belonged to the Sadducee sect followed Pharisaic
laws. The rabbinic tradition refers specifically to the laws of menstruation
and devotes much space to them. Specialists within the rabbinic class could
tell unclean menstrual blood from clean blood of another source. The rab-
bis claimed that any woman who did not consult these specialists was
theoretically unclean all the time. Samaritan women fell into this category.
Sadducean women, however, were a different question: "Said R. Yose, 'We
[that is, the rabbis, or the sages] are more knowledgeable about sadducean
women than about any other, since they are all examined by sages except
for one who was among them and died."'42 Rabbinic literature tends to
33Even Cohen ("Significance of Yavneh," 50) concedes this.
34Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden:
Brill, 1971) 1. 6-7.
35t. Yoma 5.8.
36t. Para 3.8.
37m.Sota 9.9.
38See Sanders, Judaism, 399-402.
39JosephusAnt. 18.17.
40Morton Smith, "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century," in Moshe Davis, ed., Israel:
Its Role in Civilization (New York: Harper, 1956) 71-78.
41Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus," 158-62.
42t. Nid. 5.2.
 TAL ILAN 9

identify the Sadducees as opponents of the sages (which is its name for the
Pharisees).
An anecdote appended to this text tells of a high priest's wife who
confessed to her husband that she follows the rabbis' dicta with regard to
the laws of menstruation: "There was a case of a sadducean woman [nlp'n,]
who was conversing with a high priest and some spittle fell from her mouth
on the clothes of the high priest and the face of the high priest turned
green. And they went and asked his wife and she said: 'My husband is a
priest. Although we are sadducean wives, we are all examined by a [Phari-
see] sage."'43This story specifically refers to the time of the Second Temple,
when a high priest had to be pure at all times in order to perform his
priestly functions. A sadducean woman was always a likely source of con-
tamination. This text reassures the priest and its readers that this is not the
case.
It seems, therefore, that rabbinic literaturemakes virtually the same claim
as Josephus, although in a more positive vein: the rabbis or sages (that is,
the Pharisees) had the support of the masses, and through them exerted
influence on the political and religious institutions of their day. Texts making
this claim are numerous and discussed elsewhere.44 Furthermore,the Phari-
sees also had a great influence on women not of their own sect, as is
claimed in the text under discussion here. While the historical reliability of
this claim may be highly suspect both in the case of the general claim and
in the specific claim about women's support, the fact that it is repeated
independently by two sources does enhance its credibility to a certain ex-
tent.
In light of these conclusions, another source that has been virtually ig-
nored or discarded may be rehabilitated in the reconstruction of women's
attraction to Pharisaism. At one point the Mishnah puts forth a very nega-
tive view of a prushi woman (n~mo n?tq).The text I refer to is very com-
plex, and it is worthwhile to discuss its context first. The third chapter of
tractate Sota in the Mishnah discusses the desirability of teaching one's
daughter Torah: "R. Eliezer says: 'Whoever teaches his daughter Torah, it
is as though he taught her nnlBn."45 It is not clear what the last word
means, but on the basis of the next sentence, it is usually interpreted as

43t. Nid. 5.3; it has been suggested by Cohen ("Significance of Yavneh," 32-33) that this
second excerpt refers to Temple times, demonstrating the unique case of the specific woman,
while the former refers to sadducean women of the time of the tannaitic sages. Jacob Neusner
has demonstrated (Reading and Believing: Ancient Judaism and Contemporary Gullibility
[BJS 113; Atlanta: Scholars Press, [1986] 83-85), however, that it is not methodologically
sound to accept this evidence at face value and identify chronological strata on the basis of
such source material.
44Sanders, Judaism, 399-402.
45m. Sota 3.4.
10 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

sexual licentiousness: "R. Joshua says: 'A woman prefers one portion with
sex (mnen) rather than nine portions with abstinence (n"lw'i)."'46 The word
I am interested in here is nimus. In this context it means sexual abstinence,
but its root Wui is also the root of the word 'tinB, Hebrew for Pharisee. In
this text R. Joshua asserts that women's sexual drives are paramount in
their lives; the text's position in the Mishnah suggests that in order to avoid
sexual misconduct, women should be married and ruled by their husbands.
The text then proceeds as follows: "R. Joshua would say: 'A foolish Hasid,
a sly villain (cnr snu'), a,nltm woman, and the injuries (nlrn) of the cr,na,
these wear out the world."'47
Is R. Joshua still referring to an abstinent woman? This is not clear since
he mentions injuries of the ,uwnI,which probably refers to the Pharisees,
after mentioning the woman. His reference to a 'vne woman may be a play
on the two aspects of the word unm. The woman follows the Pharisees,
disobeys her husband, and is thus driven to sexual abstinence. Correct
sexual conduct can only be maintained if women are not nmwu according
to both meanings of the word; they must be ruled by their husbands rather
than niul' (Pharisaism; sexual abstinence). The sage therefore, acknowl-
edges the phenomenon of Pharisee women, that is women who adhered to
the Pharisee ways. If these women had been the wives of Pharisees, they
would not have been worth mentioning. It is logical to assume that women
apart from men or with no relationship to men, had followed the Pharisees;
it is this that is strongly criticized.
R. Joshua's statement is negative in its assessment of both the prushi
woman and the injuries of the prushim. If the second should be identified
with the Pharisees, so should the first. Scholars seem to have difficulty
interpreting this text as referring to the Pharisees because of its provenance
within the rabbinic corpus, which is assumed to be of Pharisaic origin.48
Why would the Pharisees denigrate themselves in such a way? This nega-
tive statement, however, is presented as an opinion of a sage after the
Temple's destruction; it may be a personal reflection of certain social phe-
nomena associated with Pharisaism, of which the sage disapproved, without
actually discrediting Pharisaism. Perhaps when Pharisaism gained universal
recognition after the destruction of the Temple, its members scoffed at
some of the behavior of their forebears and the following they had relied
upon before attaining prominence. Once the following of women was no
longer necessary to bolster up the lines of the Pharisees, the women's loy-
alty was viewed as a burden rather than an asset. Regardless, this statement

46Ibid.
47Ibid.
48See for example, Ellis Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources," HUCA
40-41 (1970) 240-41.
 TAL ILAN 11

is further evidence for the existence of a body of women who followed the
Pharisaic ways.
The evidence amassed thus far may not amount to much but it certainly
indicates that both within Pharisee circles and outside them, the phenom-
enon of women who supported the movement apart from men was noticed
and commented upon, mostly negatively. In order to investigate the histori-
cal truth behind these statements we must approach the issue from the
angle of individual women and their political leanings.

* The Women
Queen Shelamzion Alexandra: It is a well-known historical fact that
only during the nine short years of Queen Shelamzion's rule did the Phari-
sees gain the upper hand in Palestinian politics and were in a position to
dictate their ideas of how to govern the Jewish people. Obviously based on
Nicolaus of Damascus, Josephus explicitly states that they came to power
because of the new regime headed by queen Shelamzion Alexandra, the
widow of King Yannai. Shelamzion's nine year reign is the only period in
Second Temple history when the land was ruled by the Pharisees, and it is
also the only period in which the land was ruled by a woman. While these
facts are recognized universally in Second Temple scholarship, no one has
ever suggested that the Pharisees were favored for any reason other than
Shelamzion's personal leanings. One should consider seriously the possibil-
ity that these leanings were influenced strongly by the queen's gender,
however. The appeal of Pharisaism to women seems to have paid off in the
case of Shelamzion.
According to Josephus's Jewish War, Queen Shelamzion was responsible
for investing supreme power with the Pharisees because "being herself
intensely religious she listened [to them] with too great deference."49The
queen followed the Pharisees for religious reasons, and in opposition to her
husband's political leanings. The actions of Shelamzion were not governed
by familial considerations; on the contrary, her choice was made over and
against her family. While the text, undoubtedly based on Nicolaus, views
Pharisee influence on the woman negatively, there is little doubt that the
good relations between the Pharisees and the queen in the text reflect his-
torical reality.
In the version of this story in Antiquities, however, the wife follows her
husband's advice in instating the Pharisees; this modifies the blatant claim
that the queen made an independent choice. On his deathbed Yannai is said
to have made the recommendation that "on her return to Jerusalem. . . she
should yield a certain amount of power to the Pharisees, for if they praised
49JosephusBell. 1.111 (LCL; trans. H. St. J. Thackaray; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1927) 2. 53.
12 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

her in return for this sign of regard, they would dispose the nation favor-
ably toward her."50In my opinion this source is of a secondary nature, and
should not be considered reliable. It is one of the texts available in the
Antiquities and absent in the Jewish War that have parallels in the Babylonian
Talmud, possibly suggesting that Josephus used a written Jewish source for
this information. This now lost source was also available in some form or
another to the redactors of the Babylonian Talmud.
The Hebrew version of this story is instructive; it indicates that a scene
(legendary or real) between the king and future queen was recorded in this
source, and included reference to the Pharisees. The nature of the advice,
however, is very different in the rabbinic text. The Talmud's discussion of
the mishnah, which denigrates the "injuries of the Drn9-" mentioned above,
relates the following anecdote: "King Yannai said to his wife: Fear not the
',P'1n nor those who are not l''nm, but fear rather the hypocrites (';2i, )
who are like the l' 'ln, whose deeds are like the deeds of Zimri and who
seek reward like Phineas."51Although scholars have been uncertain whether
the D'rtns mentioned in m. Sota 3.4 should be identified as Pharisees, no
one has ever doubted that this text refers to Pharisees, because of its par-
allel in Josephus. The differences between this episode and the description
found in Josephus, however, are numerous. The episode in the Babylonian
Talmud is not a deathbed scene regulating succession; the king is not rec-
ommending yielding power to the Pharisees, but suggests that the queen
not fear them. Others (who are hypocrites, but unlike in the New Testament
are not identified with the Pharisees) are the real source of a ruler's con-
cern. Although the Babylonian text is evidently much later than Josephus
and was probably transmitted orally over many generations, at least two
considerations suggest that it preserves a better version. One is a consid-
eration of the nature of oral traditions. When a story is transmitted orally
much can be altered in the process, but concise sayings have a tendency to
be transmitted precisely. Yannai's advice "Fear not. .. but fear rather .. "
is at the heart of the story in the form of an easily memorized short epi-
gram. Another consideration is the nature of Josephus's ordering of his
source material. Josephus already possessed a story of the reign of
Shelamzion-the one he had used in the Jewish War-which told of her

50JosephusAnt. 13.401; The text goes on to state: "These men, he assured her, had so much
influence with their fellow Jews that they could injure those whom they hated and help those
to whom they were friendly; for they had the complete confidence of the masses when they
spoke harshly of any person, even when they did so out of envy" (ET 7. 429). Schwartz
claimed ("Josephus and Nicolaus," 159) that this is one of the most obvious Nicolean texts on
the Pharisees. If that were true, then my claim that the advice Yannai gave his wife comes from
another source is less likely. Josephus himself, however, could have inserted a statement he
found in Nicolaus as part of Yannai's advice.
51b. Sota 22b; compare Numbers 25.
 TAL ILAN 13

alliance with the Pharisees.52 Josephus then inserted another source that
told of Yannai's advice to his wife-advice that mentioned the Pharisees.
Josephus combined the two sources in a way that made the queen's choice
of the Pharisees as co-rulers look like resignation to her husband's sound
advice. Considering the relationship between Yannai and his opponents
(most likely Pharisees53),however, it is doubtful whether even on his death-
bed, this king would have been prepared for a reconciliation with his worst
enemies.
I conclude, therefore, that the only support for the Pharisees that trans-
lated into political action during the Second Temple period was given by
a woman. Queen Shelamzion chose to invest governing powers with the
Pharisees in an independent move, which was evidently in opposition to the
policies followed by her late husband. Was it coincidence that she was a
woman or did her gender play an important role in her decision? This
question can only be answered if I can further identify women who sup-
ported the Pharisees.
Pheroras's Wife: As mentioned above, Josephus mentions another woman
who rendered political and monetary support to the Pharisees-the wife of
Pheroras. Pheroras was Herod's younger brother, who is described in
Josephus as an ungrateful weakling, who refused to support the king. He
plotted against Herod and his sons,54 although Herod had shown him infi-
nite kindness and compassion.55 The worst influence on Pheroras's life
appears to have been his wife. Although she is described by Nicolaus as a
"slave," Pheroras chose to marry her instead of aligning himself with the
king by marrying one of the king's daughters.56The entire description of
52Probablybased on Nicolaus of Damascus; see Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus," 159.
53Josephus Ant. 13.372-83; curiously, Josephus never identifies Yannai's opponents by
name. The identification of these opponents with the Pharisees is usually argued along the
following lines: The insurrection against Yannai was initiated on the feast of Sukkoth, when
the entire people pelted the king with their citrons because he failed to perform the sacrifice
in a satisfactory manner (Ant. 13.372). The same incident is recorded in rabbinic literature; the
high priest who is pelted by the mob is not identified by name but only by denomination as
a Sadducee (b. Sukk. 48b). This text is another episode found both in rabbinic literature and
Josephus's Antiquities but not in the Jewish War. The opponents of the sadducean approach
are identified in this text as aun, a designation the rabbis usually reserved for the allies of the
Pharisees (see Cohen, "Significance of Yavneh," 41). Further, Yannai's opponents can be
identified as Pharisees from the qumranic Pesher Nahum, the only qumranic document whose
historical allusions are not contested. The Raging Lion in this text (=Yannai) is said to have
crucified his opponents, the mprniLn 'vnn, usually identified as Pharisees. See David Flusser,
"Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in Pesher Nahum," in Menahem Dorman, Shmuel Safrai,
and Menahem Stern, eds., In Memory of Gedaliahu Alon: Essays in Jewish History and Phi-
lology (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1970) 133-68 [Hebrew].
54Josephus Ant. 16.68; 207.
55Ibid., 15.362.
56Ibid., 16.195-99.
14 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

this woman is influenced strongly by Nicolaus's biases. What stands out

and rings true is the mention of the woman's support of the Pharisees, as
I shall now try to demonstrate.
One of the more debated issues in Herodian chronology is whether the
two accounts of the oath of allegiance to the king that the Pharisees refused
to take describe two events or only one.57 If they describe two events,
when did the second occasion-in which the Pharisees were fined for their
refusal and the fine was paid by Pheroras's wife-take place? There are
two possible approaches to this problem. First, the two-source theory sug-
gests that these are two descriptions of the same event which Josephus
drew from two sources; perhaps he failed to realize that they were describ-
ing the same thing. Second, the harmonizing approach suggests that when
Josephus tells two similar stories, he is describing two distinct events which
took place on different occasions. If these were two events, one occurred
in 20 BCE, as its chronological ordering indicates. The other, which in-
volves Pheroras's wife, occurred sometime close to Herod's death and
Antipater's failed plot against Herod in 4 BCE, as its present position in the
text suggests.
I am convinced that the two-source theory, which suggests that these are
two descriptions of the same event, is correct. Josephus inserts the story of
Pheroras's wife's alleged support of the Pharisees when describing a plot
against Herod in which Pheroras was implicated. The outcome of this plot
was that Pheroras himself died in mysterious circumstances, and Herod
suspected Pheroras's wife of poisoning her husband. The oath of allegiance
story is presented in this context as an afterthought or flashback, revealing
that the woman's disloyal behavior toward Herod was deep-rooted and had
been forgiven in the past. Precisely because this episode describes an event
in the distant past, however, it sounds more authentic than the other alle-
gations Nicolaus hurled against Pheroras's wife. When describing the plot,
Nicolaus wanted to blacken the woman's name and the story of the oath
was conjured up because it was well known that the woman had supported
the Pharisees against the king.
This story is a second clear case of a woman's support of the Pharisees
in opposition to the expressed political leanings of her family. Pheroras's
wife, therefore, is another woman who took an independent religious-politi-
cal position by adopting Pharisaism.
The two examples discussed thus far are of women who are definitely
identified by the sources as supporters of the Pharisees. As we move from
the evidence in Josephus to that in rabbinic literature we are left on less

57Ibid., 15.369-70; 17.42; see Schwartz's summation of the topic with a bibliography in
"Josephus and Nicolaus," 160 n. 12.
 TAL ILAN 15

secure ground. Besides all the complications of using rabbinic sources for
the study of history, particularly the history of Judaism before the destruc-
tion of the Temple, the special problem of the words "Pharisee"and "Phari-
sees" in this literature should be addressed.
Although it is universally accepted that the rabbis were the heirs of the
Pharisees, rabbinic literature is hesitant in its use of the title Pharisee. This
may be because the rabbis never chose "Pharisee" as a name for them-
selves.58 Since no rabbi is ever designated "the Pharisee," we cannot expect
to discover women who are thus designated.59The issues that interested the
Pharisees, however, and that were eventually preserved in rabbinic litera-
ture, probably related to people who were either their close supporters or
their enemies. The former the rabbis remembered favorably, the latter they
remembered in derogatory terms. Queen Shelamzion, therefore, is remem-
bered in most favorable terms in rabbinic literature, and her name is con-
nected with the chief Pharisee of her time, Shimeon b. Shatah.60 The
Babylonian Talmud even makes them brother and sister.61 Her husband,
King Yannai, the Pharisees' great enemy, is mentioned only in unfavorable
episodes.62 I shall proceed to survey the evidence of other women men-
tioned in rabbinic literature in light of the rabbis' favorable assessment of
supporters and derogatory treatment of enemies.
Queen Helene of Adiabene: Josephus describes in great detail the con-
version of the royal house of Adiabene (the mother Helene and her two
sons Izates and Monbazus) to Judaism.63Nowhere does he state that the
queen or her sons adopted Pharisaic Judaism,64but a reference to the queen
in rabbinic literature requires such an assumption.

58Otherpossible reasons for this have been discussed elsewhere, see Rivkin, "Defining the
Pharisees," 205-49; Cohen, "Significance of Yavneh," 36-42.
590n an abstinent woman in rabbinic literature and the hypocrisy assigned to her see Saul
Lieberman, "Sin and its Punishment-A Study in Jewish and Christian Visions of Hell," in
Saul Lieberman et al., eds., Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1945) 254 [Hebrew].
60Sifra Lev. Behuqotai 1.1; Sifre Deut. 42.
6lb. Ber. 48a.
62See Daniel R. Schwartz, "KATA TOUTON TON KAIPON: Josephus' Source on Agrippa
II," JQR 72 (1981-82) 266-67. Schwartz refers to the work of Joshua Efron (Studies on the
Hasmonean Period [Leiden: Brill, 1987] 153-61), but Efron makes a distinction between
Yannai of the Babylonian Talmud and Yannai of other rabbinic compilations. I find this
distinction untenable.
63Josephus Ant. 20.17-96.
64Lawrence H. Schiffman discusses ("The Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene in
Josephus and Rabbinic Sources," in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, Juda-
ism and Christianity [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987] 293-312) Helene's con-
version in light of rabbinic traditions. The Pharisaic aspect of the conversion process described
in rabbinic literature, however, is not suggested.
16 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Rabbinic literature suggests that Queen Helene immigrated to Palestine

from abroad,65showed great piety, raised her sons as disciples of the rab-
bis,66 and made substantial contributions to the Temple,67 but she is no-
where portrayed as a convert. This does not imply that the rabbis did not
know of her conversion, but rather that this fact was irrelevant for the
sources that recorded Helene's actions.68 Why would the rabbis bother to
preserve the memory of this woman (when they have not preserved the
memory of so many others) unless she had a special interest in their pre-
decessors, or they an interest in her? Although it cannot be proven, it
seems plausible that Queen Helene of Adiabene, a gentile proselyte, chose
to convert to Pharisaic Judaism.
Josephus's description of the Adiabenese conversion lays great stress on
Izates, Helene's son.69 Izates is not mentioned even once in rabbinic litera-
ture. Rabbinic sources do mention Monbazus, Izates' brother,70but ulti-
mately they seem more interested in Helene. This is a prime example of the
rabbis' greater interest in a female whose male relatives are known to us
from Josephus. The next two examples are similar cases. They are women
who were related to importantpoliticians of the first century whom Josephus
mentions. In both cases Josephus does not mention the women; rabbinic
literature, in contrast, seems more interested in them than in their male
relatives.
Martha b. Boethus: The rabbinic corpus mentions Martha b. Boethus
several times, although she is portrayed less favorably than Queen Helene.
While Helene is mentioned only in early, tannaitic works, or in baraitot
(that is, tannaitic sources incorporated into the two talmuds), Martha b.
Boethus appears in two separate strata of stories, the tannaitic stratum and
the amoraic one. The tannaitic stratum, composed not much later than 200
CE, better reflects Pharisaic recollections of this woman than does the
Babylonian or even Palestinian Talmud. It is striking therefore that a nega-
tive bias toward Martha only develops in the later strata.
Who was Martha b. Boethus? Scholars agree that the name Boethus
places Martha within the family of high priests that first rose to prominence
at the time of Herod and thereafter enjoyed a position of power until the

65m.Nazir 3.6.
66t. Sukk. 1.1.
67m. Yoma 3.10.
68On the conversion source in Gen. R. 46.19, which mentions an unnamed queen (obvi-
ously Helene in the original), see Schiffman ("The Conversion," 301-2), who rightly claims
that the author of this tradition shows no indication that he knew the true identity of this
woman.
69Schiffman, ("The Conversion," 297-98) claims that the entire source in Josephus is a
bios composition whose subject is Izates.
70m. Yoma 3.10; t. Pe'a 4.18.
 TAL ILAN 17

destruction of the Temple.71 The Mishnah states that she was the wife of
the high priest Joshua b. Gamla: "A high priest shall not marry a widow. ..
and if he betrothed a widow and was nominated high priest-he shall take
her. There was the case of Joshua b. Gamla who betrothedMarthab. Boethus
and the king nominated him high priest and he took her to wife."72 This
mishnah indicates that the case of Martha was important enough to create
a precedent in the legal concept of the rabbis. Since the Mishnah is a
halakhic construction of the rabbis, the halakhic rulings incorporatedtherein
were probably never applied, unless also held by the Sadducees and other
ruling classes. In this case, it appears the rabbis corrected their rulings in
light of an actual precedent in which Martha b. Boethus was involved,
perhaps indicating her importance.
Josephus mentioned Joshua b. Gamla in numerous instances,73but never
mentioned his wife. Rabbinic literature, on the other hand, seems much
more interested in Martha than in her husband. The Babylonian Talmud
mentions Joshua b. Gamla as the founder of an egalitarian educational
system, but this may be a mistake, since a conflicting Palestinian tradition
assigns this action to Shimeon b. Shatah.74A Ben Gamla is mentioned as
contributing toward the Temple75 but he is not necessarily the high priest
Joshua b. Gamla.
Martha, on the other hand, is mentioned much more frequently.76 The
attitude toward Martha in the tannaitic collections is neutral, but her por-
trayal in the amoraic stratum is usually negative. The story of Joshua b.
Gamla's appointmentto the high priesthood following his betrothalto Martha,
for example, told in the Mishnah in neutral terms, is the result of a bribe
his wife gave the king in the Babylonian Talmud.77
The Babylonian Talmud records a unique legend which is of particular
interest; it tells of Martha'smisfortune and death during the siege of Jerusa-
lem. Although it has no tannaitic parallel, this tradition is incorporated into

71JosephusAnt. 15.320-22; see Menahem Stern, "Aspects of Jewish Society-The Priest-

hood and Other Classes," in Shmuel Safrai and Menahem Stern, eds., The Jewish People in
the First Century (2 vols.; CRINT 1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974-76) 2. 604-6.
72m. Yebamot 6.4.
73Josephus Bell. 4.160; 238-70; 316; idem, Vit. 193; 204.
74Compareb. B. Batra 21a and y. Ketub. 8.11, 32c; on these traditions and their historical
worth see David Goodblatt, "The Talmudic Sources on the Origins of Organized Jewish Edu-
cation," Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel 5 (1980) 89-102
[Hebrew].
75m. Yoma 3.9.
76Threemore times in tannaitic collections, t. Yoma 1.14; Sifra Lev. Emor 2:6; Sifre Deut.
281; once in the Palestinian Talmud, y. Ketub. 5.13, 30b; once or twice in Lam. R. 1.47; 49
(?); and five times in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Yoma 18a; b. Sukk. 52b; b. Yebamot 61a; b.
Ketub. 104a; b. Git. 56a.
77b. Yebamot 61a.
18 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

a collection of stories that describe the horrors of the Roman siege of

Jerusalem, Betar, and other similar events, many of which are clearly
tannaitic traditions.
And there was famine. Marthab. Boethus was of the wealthy of Jerusa-
lem. She sent her messenger. She said to him, "Go bring me fine
flour." By the time he came, it was sold out. He went and said to her,
"There is no fine flour, there is white flour." She said to him, "Go
bring me white flour." By the time he came, it was sold out. He went
and said to her, "There is no white flour, there is simple flour." She
said to him, "Go bring me simple flour." By the time he came, it was
sold out. He went and said to her, "There is no simple flour, there is
barley flour." She said to him, "Go bring me barley flour." By the time
he came, it was sold out. She removed her shoes. She said, "I shall go
and see if there is anything left to eat." A piece of dung stuck to her
heel and she died. R. Yohanan b. Zakkai read this verse concerning
her: "The tender and delicate woman among you, who would not ven-
ture to set the sole of her foot on the ground" [Deut 28:56]. There are
those who say she ate a fig [sucked by] R. Zadoq, she was disgusted
and died. . . when she was dying she produced all her gold and silver
and scattered them in the market, saying, "what good are these to me?"
fulfilling the verse: "They will throw their silver in the streets [and
their gold will be like refuse. Their silver and gold will not be able to
deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord]" (Ezek 7:19).78
This story of Martha b. Boethus's fate is one of two about the fate of
wealthy Jerusalemite women who lost all in the siege. The present redac-
tion of Martha's tale does not seem particularly sympathetic toward the
heroine, but the negative bias may be a Babylonian addition, similar to the
bribe mentioned by the Talmud in the previous example. The rabbis also
describe the fate of the daughter of Naqadimon b. Gurion during the war,
but they tell her story with compassion.79
Josephus is not interested in the fate of Martha b. Boethus at all, but
does tell in great detail the fate of her husband, Joshua. He fell prey to the
purge instigated by the Idumeans in the winter of 67-68 CE. Josephus
describes how he was killed together with another high priest, Annanus,
and how both were denied burial rites.80 What were the political leanings
of Joshua b. Gamla? Josephus is really not interested in the old allegiances
when describing the war against the Romans, because throughout it new

78b. Git. 56a; this tradition has been discussed in detail by Naomi G. Cohen, "The Theo-
logical Stratum in the Martha b. Boethus Tradition: An Explication of the Text in Gittin 56a,"
HTR 69 (1976) 187-96.
79See below.
80Josephus Bell. 4.316-25.
 TAL ILAN 19

parties and alliances were created.81 He does stress, however, that Joshua
b. Gamla was Annanus's ally throughout the war; elsewhere he states ex-
plicitly that Annanus was a Sadducee.82 From this, and from the fact that
he was high priest, I infer that Joshua too was a Sadducee; this explains
why rabbinic sources are not interested in him. Their interest in his wife,
however, may suggest that she had different political leanings. Was she a
supporter of the Pharisees? Of course this is mere conjecture, but it is
certainly a plausible explanation for her prominence in rabbinic literature.
If Martha was a Pharisee, she is another example of a wealthy aristocratic
woman who was attracted to the Pharisees.
The Daughter of Naqadimon b. Gurion: The next example is the weak-
est of all because it deals with an unnamed woman who appears in rabbinic
literature in a highly literary context. The only reason I decided to include
her is because in several respects her appearance in rabbinic literature re-
sembles that of Martha b. Boethus. She is the daughter of the famous
millionaire of rabbinic literature-Naqadimon b. Gurion.83 Naqadimon b.
Gurion is a much more prominent and popular figure with the rabbis than
Joshua b. Gamla; his daughter, however, appears in tannaitic sources,84
while Naqadimon b. Gurion is mentioned only in amoraic traditions.85The
Tosefta portrays the daughter negatively, as a spoiled rich child, who is
taught a lesson by the war. Nevertheless the rabbis portray her fate as a
tragedy:
Therewas the case of the daughterof Naqadimonb. Gurionfor whom
the rabbisallottedfive hundredgolden denariifor perfumesevery day
and she was only awaitinga levir. She cursed them, "Mayyou allot
thus and thus to your daughters."Said R. Eliezer b. Zadoq, "may I
[not] see consolationif I did not see her collectingbarleyfrombeneath
the hooves of horsesin Akko."86
It is interesting to note that the woman is associated here with a rabbinic
court of law. Whether rabbinic courts functioned during the Second Temple
periods in this capacity is unclear and beyond the scope of this article.

81Onthe alliances of the war and their social implications see Martin Goodman, The Ruling
Class of Judaea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
82Josephus Ant. 20.199.
83Onthis story see Burton Visotzky, "Most Tender and Fairest of Women: A Study in the
Transmission of Aggadah," HTR 76 (1983) 403-18; Ofra Meir, "The Story as a Hermeneutic
Device," Association of Jewish Studies Review 7-8 (1981-82) 231-62.
84t. Ketub. 5.9-10; Sifre Deut. 305.
85y. Ta'anit 4.2, 68a; b. Git. 56a; Gen. R. 41.1; 98.8; Lam. R. 1.31; Eccl. R. 7.11; Avot de-
Rabbi Natan (A) 6; ibid., (B) 13.
86t. Ketub. 5.9-10.
20 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

What is important is that the rabbis themselves associated the woman with
their own system of jurisdiction.
Unlike the Tosefta, the Sifre Deuteronomy makes the daughter of
Naqadimon b. Gurion an innocent victim of the war. She also is described
as an associate of the ultimate Pharisee and survivor of the destruction of
the Temple, R. Yohanan b. Zakkai.
Once R. Yohananb. Zakkai was riding a donkey and his disciples
were walkingafterhim. He saw a young woman(mv"i)gatheringbar-
ley from beneaththe feet of the beasts of Arabs. When she saw R.
Yohananb. Zakkaishe coveredherselfup in her hairand stood before
him and said, "Rabbi,supportme." He said to her, "My daughter,
whose daughterare you?" She said to him, "Naqadimonb. Gurion's
daughter."She said to him, "Rabbi,do you remembersigning my
ketubbah["marriagecontract"]?"R. Yohananb. Zakkai said to his
disciples, "I signed her ketubbahand it had one million golden denari
writtenin it. And membersof her in-laws'house and membersof her
house did not enter the Temple mount to pray if carpets were not
spreadbeneaththeirfeet."87
It seems, therefore, that at an early stage the rabbis retained two contradic-
tory traditions about the character of this woman. The importance of the
two traditions lies in the fact that the tannaitic rabbis were more interested
in the fate of Naqadimon b. Gurion's daughter than they were in the for-
tunes and fate of her father.
Naqadimon b. Gurion probably also is mentioned in the Jewish War.
Josephus mentions a person by the name of Gorion the son of Nicomedes
in a list of Jewish officials who negotiated with the besieged Roman gar-
rison stationed in the Antonia.88Despite the terms of surrenderagreed upon
by the besieged and this delegation, the Roman garrison was massacred
upon laying down their weapons. Gorion son of Nicomedes' political alle-
giance is rather obscure. His participation in these actions, however, places
him in one of two camps: either he was a revolutionary and treacherously
dealt with the Romans in order to obtain a surrender, knowing all the time
that his people had no intention of keeping their word; or he was part of
a delegation from a more moderate party that genuinely intended to come
to some agreement with the Romans but were then tricked by the extrem-
ists. The name of one of the other members of the delegations suggests that
the second explanation is the correct one; he is called Ananias Sadouki
(ao5ovKt)). This is most plainly understood as Ananias the Sadducee. Per-
haps the delegation was a sadducean idea, and Gorion son of Nicomedes
(identified here as Naqadimon b. Gurion) was also of sadducean leanings.
87Sifre Deut. 305.
88Josephus Bell. 2.451.
 TAL ILAN 21

Another passage in Josephus may refer to this man. In the Jewish War,
when describing the wave of purges of 67-68 CE, Josephus tells of the
Zealots' murder of a certain Gurion, "a person of exalted rank and birth,
and yet a democrat and filled with liberal principles, if ever a Jew was."89
Traditionally, this Gurion is identified with one Gorion b. Joseph, or Jo-
seph b. Gorion,90but there is no better reason to do so than to identify him
with Gorion b. Nicomedes, also known as Naqadimon b. Gurion. Perhaps
Josephus again describes the fate of a prominent Jerusalemite man whose
political leanings are probably not Pharisaic, while the tannaitic stratum of
rabbinic literature retains a story about the fate of his daughter. Does this
perhaps indicate that she had Pharisaic leanings?
The three examples cited from rabbinic literature are extremely tenta-
tive, the last one being most tentative of all; in light of the character of
rabbinic literature, we could hardly have expected anything better. Each of
these examples alone and all three examples together do not amount to
much hard evidence. My reconstruction is strengthened and made slightly
more plausible by the repetitive theme of the rabbis showing interest in
wealthy predestructionJerusalemite women,91whose male relatives Josephus
mentions and emphasizes. This indicates a shift in emphasis. The only
reason I can imagine for the rabbis' compassion for the fate of these women,
rather than their more important male relatives, is a feeling of solidarity
with them. The authors of these rabbinic tales may have felt a connection
with the women because of their interest in the cause of the Pharisees-the
rabbis' predecessors.
I have discussed five women, either very wealthy or actually royal, who
in varying degrees may have been attracted to Pharisaism. These examples,
together with the general claims made by the sources that the Pharisees had
a large following among women, including sadducean women, suggests
that the attraction of women to Pharisaism is indeed a topic worthy of
pursuit. It is true that the evidence is scanty, but it is not much thinner than
the evidence available for claims made in Second Temple historiography
that have gained universal acceptance.92 I surmise that Pharisaism indeed

89Ibid., 4.358 (ET 3. 105).

90See,for example, my article with JonathanPrice, "Seven Onomastic Problems in Josephus's
Bellum Judaica," JQR 84 (1993-94) 202.
91This preoccupation has been noted in the past, for example, see Herr (Eretz Israel, 291),
but the relationship to the information in Josephus has been ignored.
92For example, the identification of the Sadducees as a high-priestly party is one of the
pillars of Second Temple historiography. The evidence for this identification is no less ten-
tative. The two priests Josephus identifies as Sadducees are John Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.296), who
had previously supported the Pharisees (and who, according to rabbinic literature, turned
Sadducee at the end of his days; b. Ber. 29a), and Ananus (Josephus Ant. 20.199). Josephus
also mentions a certain Jonathan (Ant. 13.293) as a Sadducee, but we have no way of knowing
22 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

may have been very relevant for women, contrary to some claims made by
scholars of Judaism in the Roman period.

* Social Implications
If my assertion is correct, it is pertinent to ask what made Pharisaism
attractive to women, particularly to wealthy women? The answer to this
question is far from straightforward. Pharisaism, particularly the kind re-
flected in rabbinic literature, seems extremely hostile toward women, and
women's status in society. This overtly hostile attitude produced the claim
that Pharisaism in general was irrelevant to women. For example, with
regard to the daughter's inheritance, which is debated between Pharisees
and Sadducees in rabbinic literature, the Pharisees hold the stricter opinion:
say, "Wecomplainagainstyou,
The Boethusians(thatis, Sadducees)93
O Pharisees:whatif my son's daughterwho is empoweredthroughmy
son who is empoweredthroughme inheritsme, my own daughter,who
is empowered[directly]throughme, should she not inheritme?"The
Pharisees say, "No."94
The issue in this text is the daughter's inheritance. The Boethusians' argu-
ment depends on the biblical rule that in cases where there are no sons,
daughters inherit. On this basis, the Boethusians demand that a daughter
inherit in the case where her brother has died and left only one daughter.
The Pharisees claim that the granddaughter inherits because she has no
brothers and the daughter does not inherit since she had a brother who
produced an offspring. The right of the daughter to inherit alongside her
brothers is, and has always been, a problem in Jewish law. The position
taken by the Pharisees in this argument certainly does not improve the
position of women in Judaism. This is the only extant example that can

whether he was a priest. Josephus does claim that the wealthy supported the Sadducees (Ant.
13.298; 18.17), but he does not necessarily identify them with priests. In fact we seem to know
more priests who are Pharisees than Sadducees, for example, Josephus himself (Vit. 12).
Beside John Hyrcanus, rabbinic literature mentions only a few anonymous Sadducee priests:
a priest whom the people pelted with citrons on Sukkot (see above, n. 53); and a priest who
burnt incense on Yom Kippur in conjunction with sadducean ruling and died (b. Yoma 19b).
The rabbis, however, all agree that the Pharisees ran the Temple. In Acts 4:15 and 5:17 the
Sadducees are twice mentioned together with the priests, but that is as close as the identifi-
cation gets. The identification is based on this meager information, in addition to the name of
the group-Sadducees, perhaps derived from the name of the high-priestly family-Zadoq. In
light of this data, the rulings of the Sadducees are interpreted as priestly, see for example,
Daniel R. Schwartz, "Law and Truth: On Qumran-Sadducean and Rabbinic Views of Law,"
in Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls-Forty Years of Research
(Leiden: Brill, 1992) 229-40.
93See y. B. Batra 8.1, 16a; and Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees," 210.
94t. Yad. 2.20.
 TAL ILAN 23

perhaps be dated to the Second Temple period of the Pharisees' involve-

ment in a specific issue pertinent to women, but it does not explain why
women found Pharisaism attractive.
It is methodologically unsound to treat even the tannaitic strata or the
more ancient layers of rabbinic literature as reflecting the legal opinions of
the rabbis' forebears, the Pharisees. I suspect, however, that this is not the
only reason why women's support of the Pharisees would not be found in
legal literature but rather in a sociological model. In order to discover such
a model I shall refer to another Jewish movement, contemporary with the
Pharisees, which enjoyed a large following of women.
Christian feminists have long noted that the early Jesus movement, and
later Paul's following, were bolstered by many women.95 It has been noted
that women not only populate the parables told by Jesus and the stories
told of him, but that some women appearing in the Gospels such as Mary
Magdalene, the sisters Mary and Martha, and perhaps also Susanna and
Joanna wife of Chuza, were real women who played an active role in
founding the Christian movement after Jesus' death. It has also been noted
that although some of Paul's injunctions are less than favorable toward
women, many of the notables he greets in his epistles are women. Some of
the women in Jesus' Palestinian movement were not necessarily of the
destitute classes Jesus addressed-the poor, the hungry, the sinners. On the
contrary, Joanna, described as the wife of Chuza, Herod Antipas's trea-
surer,96is obviously an aristocrat; Mary, the mother of John Mark, is de-
scribed as the owner of a large house in which many believers resided.97
What can the meaning of wealthy women's attraction to Christianity be?
Many have attempted to answer this question, but the answer of Christian
feminists usually took the form of an apology for Christianity, and often
turned into a denigration of the Judaism over and against which the Jesus
movement developed. Naturally, Jewish feminists found themselves on the
defensive. Rather than acknowledging the outstanding role of women in
ancient Christianity, therefore, they found themselves defending a Judaism
that probably never existed at the time of Jesus.98
In the final analysis, however, Christian women did not find themselves
historically in a more exalted position than their Jewish sisters. How can
95Theliterature is enormous. The foremost publication on the topic, which is still superior
to all that was published subsequently, is Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A
Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Beginnings (New York: Crossroad, 1982);
on the Jesus movement, see pp. 105-59; for Paul's movement, see pp. 160-204.
96Luke 8:3.
97Acts 12:12.
98Fora survey of this relationship, see my introduction in Jewish Women in Greco-Roman
Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 44;
Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1995) 3-14.
24 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

one explain the apparent discrepancy between women's role in the forma-
tive stages of Christianity and their subsequent subordinate position? Many
theories have been raised to explain this, but I think a comparison with the
position of women within Pharisaism can be instructive in answering this
question. The agenda of the Pharisees was very different from that of the
Jesus movement, but they shared one feature-they were both opposition
movements within Judaism during the first century. Soon their ways parted
dramatically. Pharisaism survived the war against Rome and rose to a
position of leadership within Judaism; from an opposition party it slowly
developed into the only legitimate manifestation of Judaism. The Jesus
movement evolved into Christianity, it ceased to be a Palestinian or Jewish
movement, and became a subversive cosmopolitan religious movement within
the Roman Empire. Eventually, in the fourth century, it became the official
religion of the Roman Empire, superseding all other religions within it.
Both movements, therefore, evolved from opposition party to a position of
power.
Perhaps the initial similarity between the two movements explains the
attraction they both had for well-to-do women. The ruling parties were
dominated by a male aristocracy, who by virtue of their political power
found no need to seek support from larger segments of the population.
Opposition movements, on the other hand, rallied support where they could,
and thus adopted a more democratic attitude. Wealthy women could sup-
port opposition movements over and against their husbands' political lean-
ings, thus maintaining financial independence by supporting charities of
their choice. Through their monetary contributions, such women may have
influenced decision and policy making in the opposition parties they chose
to support. Such a reconstruction is certainly probable for early Christian-
ity, and is just as plausible for the Pharisee movement.
These movements' attitude toward women does not drastically alter the
claim of this model. Women who supported them obviously expected to be
treated with respect and to have their voice heard, perhaps not because they
were women but because they were wealthy. Prior to the emergence of
feminism toward the end of the nineteenth century, stereotypical generali-
zations made about women were internalized by the subjects of these gen-
eralizations, as they still are in many traditionaland less traditional societies
the world over. Women probably agreed that they were, among other things,
frivolous, jealous, talkative, and gossip mongers; they certainly agreed, at
least in theory, that the woman's place was in the home raising children,
cooking, spinning, and weaving. Women's support of opposition movements,
therefore should not be expected to coincide with positive legislation on
the question of women. Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza has shown, for ex-
ample, that Jesus' pronouncements in favor of the poor do not specifically
 TAL ILAN 25

mention women as their subject (although she believes that they were their
chief beneficiaries).99 Luise Schottroff has claimed that gender had no
importance in the Jesus movement.100 On the other hand, scholars who
have tried to interpret Jesus' rulings against divorce as favoring women10?
have been rightly criticized for their naivete.102 The best way to describe
the issue in early Christianity is to say that women were not attracted to the
Jesus movement because of its feminist legislation, and at the same time
that the Jesus movement did not produce abusive anti-feminist legislation
that alienated women supporters.103
What attracted women to Pharisaism is equally unclear. Perhaps they
were drawn to the Pharisees' belief in a life after death or the Pharisees'
middle ground on the question of predestination,104or the Pharisees' life-

99Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 122-30.

'0?Luise Schottroff, "Frauen in der Nachfolge Jesu in neutestamentlicher Zeit," in Willy
Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann, eds., Traditionen der Befreiung, vol. 2: Frauen in der
Bibel (Munchen: Kaiser, 1980) 106.
'l?Leonard J. Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Women (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979)
173-76.
102Bernadette J. Brooten, "Early Christian Women and their Cultural Context: Issues of
Method in Historical Reconstruction," in Adele Yarbro Collins, ed., Feminist Perspectives on
Biblical Scholarship (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985) 74.
103Otheroppositional and marginal cults and associations attracted women in the ancient
world, and if pursued further, would probably conform to this model. For example, the Egyp-
tian cult of Isis was a subversive, oppositional religious movement in Rome, which the au-
thorities fought with legislation, and which attractedmany women, although men also participated
in it; see Sharon K. Heyob, The Cult of Isis among Women in the Graeco-Roman World
(Leiden: Brill, 1975). Heyob contends that women were not the majority of Isis initiates but
were more numerous in Rome than elsewhere. At the same time they served only as secondary
priests in the cult. An investigation of the movement in light of my model would probably test
positively. Many women took part in Montanism, an opposition movement within Christian-
ity, see Fredrick C. Klawiter, "The Role of Martyrdom and Persecution in Developing the
Priestly Authority of Women in Early Christianity: The Case of Montanism," CH 49 (1980)
251-61. His explanations are different from mine, but he shows that in the past Montanism had
not been considered attractive to women because of the misogynistic writings of one of its
members, Tertullian (p. 251). This certainly fits the Pharisee model. Similarly, the subversive
gnostic movements counted many women among their adherents; see Karen King, ed., Images
of the Feminine in Gnosticism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). In this volume, James E. Goehring
makes a sociological claim similar to mine, ("Libertine or Liberated: Women in So-called
Libertine Gnostic Communities," 329-344), and see p. 329: "It has been recognized that
women found opportunities in gnostic communities that were closed to them in the 'orthodox'
church." Goehring gives examples of medieval Christian movements that could also fit into
this model (pp. 331-32). Modern religious and political movements could probably also fit the
bill. This model may even explain the attraction of gentile women to Judaism in the Diaspora
(see, for example, Josephus Bell. 2.560, who claims that all the women in Damascus were
attracted to Judaism).
104JosephusAnt. 13.171-73.
26 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

style.105 Women probably did not become Pharisee supporters because of

the group's legislation on the question of women. Did the Pharisees, how-
ever, initiate strong anti-feminist legislation while they were seeking women's
support? Or perhaps, as in early Christianity, this issue was not foremost
in their minds. I suspect the latter answer is correct. It is true that the
Mishnah's Division of Women,106 and much material in other mishnaic
tractates that relates to women is coercive and was composed in order to
regulate and control women's behavior in every aspect of their life.107 It is
pertinent to ask, however, what material in the Division of Women was
composed during the Pharisaic period.
JudithHauptman'srecent research of the relationshipbetween the Mishnah
and the Tosefta with regard to women may be instructive in this context.
Hauptman has shown that the Mishnah was edited in such a way as to
curtail, diminish, and censor women's rights and participation in Jewish life
both in general and in detail.108When Pharisaic Judaism finally gained the
upper hand and composed its manifesto, the Mishnah, therefore, it chose to
emphasize its control of women and reshape its attitude toward them from
neutral to restrictive and patronizing. This is not to say that the attitude
toward women in the Tosefta is egalitarian or feminist; it is not as vicious
as the Mishnah, however. Irrespective of the time when the halakhot in the
Tosefta were collected, therefore, the editing of the Mishnah marks a time
period when controlling women and putting them in their place was of
primary importance for the rabbis.
The baraitot found in the Tosefta and in some of the other tannaitic
collections may reflect the Pharisaic period. For example, the Tosefta rules
that women are not obligated to reside in a Sukkah but recalls that Queen
Helene had done so.109This probably indicates that the halakhah was for-
mulated some time after the days of the queen, who, as demonstratedabove,
was most probably a Pharisee supporter and is hardly likely to have dis-

'05Josephus Bell. 2.166.

'06See Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Women(5 vols.; SJLA 33; Leiden:
Brill, 1988) 5. 1-272.
107SeeWegner, Chattel or Person, 1-198.
'08Hauptman'swork is still in its formative stages. She has given numerous talks on the
topic. I attended one at the Association for Jewish Studies conference in Boston, December
1992, and one at the Jewish Law Association in Jerusalem, June 1994. For the present, the
following publications are good examples: "Mishnah Gittin as a Pietist Document," in Pro-
ceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish
Studies, 1990) 3. 1.23-30 [Hebrew]; idem, "Maternal Dissent: Women and Procreation in the
Mishna," Tikkun 6 (1991) 81-82; 94-95; idem, "Women's Voluntary Performance of Com-
mandments from which They Are Exempt," in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress
of Jewish Studies (4 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994) 3. 1.161-68
[Hebrew].
'09t. Sukk. 1.1.
 TAL ILAN 27

obeyed their dicta. This incident is not mentioned in the Mishnah.110In

another example from the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma'el it is ruled that
women are exempt from wearing phylacteries; the text, however, mentions
a woman by the name of Mikhal b. Kushi who was remembered as having
donned them.111The Mishnah also states that women are exempt from this
commandment, but does not mention that women had not always followed
this rule. This probably indicates that the halakhah was formulated after the
days of Helene and Mikhal. I think it is highly likely that the rabbis re-
member these women because they were Pharisees. These two examples do
not indicate what legislation concerning women the Pharisees enacted but
rather what areas of Jewish women's lives the Pharisees left untouched.
Neglecting these areas allowed women more freedom and enabled them to
join and support the Pharisees. These examples demonstrate that like early
Christianity Pharisaism did not legislate extensively concerning women,
perhaps in order to retain the women's support for the movement.112
These two examples are negative, that is, they show what was not en-
acted by the rabbis. Interestingly, the Tosefta also records one law on the
issue of women that supposedly was enacted by the foremost Pharisee,
Shimeon b. Shatah. He enacted the clause in the ketubbah that makes all
the husband's possessions surety for the ketubbah payment.113Shimeon b.
Shatah's enactment is also mentioned in the Palestinian Talmud and the
Babylonian Talmud, but it is significantly absent from the Mishnah.14 This
law is important because rabbinic sources date it to the only period in
Jewish history in which a queen ruled, and as mentioned above, this was
also the only time during the Second Temple period during which the
Pharisees were in power. It would be instructive to discover whether this
period had any significance for women's social and legal standing in Juda-
ism.
Few scholars have taken seriously the historical question of the sources
assigning halakhah to early Pharisaic rabbis. The foremost study of the
topic to date is Neusner's Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before
70. Neusner surveyed all traditions about Pharisaic rabbis before the de-

"?m. Sukk. 1.1.

I lMekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma'el Bo 17.
"2Perhaps the Pauline and deutero-Pauline legislation about women in Christianity fol-
lows the same pattern. Antoinette C. Wire suggests (The Corinthian Women Prophets: A
Reconstruction through Pauls's Rhetoric [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990]) that Paul's legisla-
tion on women in his First Epistle to the Corinthians came to check the strong position that
women attained in Corinth. If she is correct, this may also explain some of the anti-feminist
backlash evident in the move from Tosefta to Mishnah. I am not certain, however, that the
comparison is relevant in this case.
113t.Ketub. 12.1.
1l4y. Ketub. 8.11; b. Ketub. 82b.
28 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

struction of the Temple and concluded that none of the traditions can be
verified, and they should therefore not be held as historically reliable. On
the attribution of the ketubbah clause to Shimeon b. Shatah, Neusner stated
that "the pericope contains no evidence permitting the suggestion of a date.
Attributing to Simeon such an ordinance may have been a way of saying:
'In very olden times.'"115Accepting or discarding Neusner's opinion de-
pends on the nihilist state of mind of the scholar, since there equally is no
good reason to doubt this rabbinic statement. Some scholars have moved
from believing everything in rabbinic literature, unless it contradicted na-
ture, logic, or other historical information, to disbelieving everything in it,
unless manifestly proven correct. Both extreme attitudes should be modi-
fied, but even if this halakhah can be dated to this queen's reign, it is
difficult to decide whether she had any say in its enactment. Whether it
was enacted for the improvement of women's position, or was indicative of
the Pharisees' legal position on "the woman question" in the earlier stages
of Pharisaic history, is the question at hand.
In this essay I have suggested a reconstruction of the continuous rela-
tionship between women and the Pharisees from the first century BCE to the
redaction of the Mishnah at the end of the second century CE. The recon-
struction can be outlined as follows: since both rabbinic literature and
Josephus independently mention the influence of the Pharisees on non-
Pharisee women, and since both sources name some such women who were
wealthy and influential, I assume that there is some evidence for a relation-
ship between aristocratic women and the Pharisees. The Pharisees were an
opposition party during most of the Second Temple period; this may be the
reason why the women supported them. A woman was certainly instrumen-
tal in their rise to power between 76-67 BCE (the years of Queen
Shelamzion's reign). The Pharisees did not draw women's support because
they suggested egalitarian halakhah for women, but rather because they
accepted their support and did not enact detrimental rules against women.
When the Pharisees came to power sometime after the destruction of the
Temple, they turned their back on their previous following; the misogynis-
tic Mishnah is proof of this tendency.

* Appendix-The Case of the Dead Sea Sect

The claim that opposition groups in Second Temple Palestinian Judaism
were more congenial to women and more readily accepted their support
fails to account for the Essenes, the most typical opposition group of all.
Of course none of what has been written up to now has any relevance to
the Essenes, since they are described by Josephus and Philo as a celibate
monastic group that shunned the company of women (because of their
l1 Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, 1. 94.
 TAL ILAN 29

natural corruptibility).116Nothing beyond this can be said about the Essenes,

since most of what we know about them comes from Josephus's and Philo's
descriptions, which probably are both based on a common source.117For
the purpose of this study it is useful, however, to note that the Essenes'
Diaspora equivalent-the sect of the Therapeutics in upper Egypt-although
celibate, included women.18
The case of the Dead Sea sect, however, is another matter. Since the
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, scholars have debated whether
the authors of these writings were Josephus's Essenes or not.119 On the
whole, the scales have tipped toward a positive answer to this question.
One of the main reasons for the reservations scholars have voiced against
this identification, however, is the contradictoryevidence concerning women
that has come to light in association with the Dead Sea sect.120While the
Essenes were supposedly celibate, some of the scrolls (notably the Dam-
ascus Document and lQSa) take into account the married status of mem-
bers of the Qumran sect. Furthermore, the cemetery at Qumran yielded
both male and female skeletons. This data is not new and many scholars
have grappled with it. Skeptics have rejected the identification of the Dead
Sea sect with Josephus's Essenes on the basis of this data. Others have
explained the problem away. In this appendix I shall not pronounce judg-
ment on this problem. I shall merely show that the information pertinent to
women that can be gleaned from the scrolls fits well into the sociological
model I have set up above to explain the similarity in the pattern of support
that women rendered to the Jesus movement and to Pharisaism.12'

16Josephus Bell. 2.120-21; Philo Hypothetica 11.14.

117For the similarities in their description, see Philo ofAlexandria (trans. Francis H. Colson;
LCL; 10 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941) 9. 514-15. For the assump-
tion that both Philo and Josephus used Nicolaus of Damascus for their description of the
Essenes, see Ben Zion Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (University of California Publica-
tions in History 75; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962) 70-72.
"8Philo Vit. Cont.; on the female members of the Therapeutic sect, see Kraemer, "Monas-
tic Jewish Women," 342-70.
'19For a fairly recent summary see Todd S. Beall, Josephus' Description of the Essenes
Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 1-6; see
also James A. Sanders, "The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Quarter Century of Study," BA 36 (1973)
120-25.
'20See Sanders, "Dead Sea Scrolls," 118-19; 125.
121Aftercompleting this article I came across Eileen M. Schuller, "Women in the Dead Sea
Scrolls," in Michael O. Wise et al., eds., Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
the Khirbet of Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (Annals of the New York
Academy of Science 722; New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994) 115-31. I agree
with Schuller's view and hope this article will provide support for her thesis. See also Lena
Cansdale, "Women Members in the Yahad According to the Qumran Scrolls," Proceedings of
the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies,
1994) 1. 215-22.
30 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

That the Dead Sea sect was an opposition party needs no demonstration
in this context. Neither the sparse dealings of the qumranic documents with
women nor the predominant male language indicate that the texts were not
addressed to women. Women are mentioned incidentally in the legislation,
but none of the legislation sets out to regulate women's lives apart from
men's lives, or beyond what is found in the Hebrew Bible.122This fits the
pattern we have seen above. Women, if they were drawn to the group, were
drawn for reasons other than a more positive legal status of women. On the
other hand, the absence of specific regulations over women's lives may
suggest that women's support was welcome and not intentionally aggra-
vated. It is true that the sect ruled against uncle-niece marriages and di-
vorce, or alternatively, against polygamy,123but like Jesus' injunction against
divorce, these laws are not more relevant to women than to men. Thus the
female skeletons at Qumran were probably skeletons of members of the
sect; they were not merely wives of marrying Essenes, which seems to be
the main thesis for explaining the presence of female skeletons.'24 This
claim that the female skeletons were women sect members can be sup-
ported from a new angle. A recently published fragment from Cave 4
mentions a female scribe.125This could hardly be referring to women who
are not members of the sect, since the chances of finding female scribes in
the larger Jewish society were not high. A very fragmentary text from the
same cave mentions ninpri P :pr. Usually the term would mean "elders," but
since women are also mentioned in it, Baumgarten suggested that it refers
to aged members of the sect.126Schuller has noted correctly, that if for men

122Onthe latter, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, "Laws Pertaining to Women in the Temple
Scroll," in Dimant and Rappaport, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 210-28. Schiffman concludes that
"The views of the Temple Scroll on matters relating to women are extremely conservative.
The text does not advocate a revision of previous norms. . . ,[but rather] calls for the continued
observance of ancient laws" (228). In other words, the text lets the Bible speak and is not
interested in legislating on this topic.
'23For a summary of the discussion, see Geza Vermes, "Sectarian Matrimonial Halakhah
in the Damascus Rule," JJS 25 (1974) 197-202.
124See, for example, Roland de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1973) 128-29; see also Hartmut Stegemann, "The Qumran Essenes:
Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times," in Julio T. Barrera
and Luis V. Montaner, eds., The Madrid Qumran Congress (2 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 1.
126-34; Joseph M. Baumgarten, "The Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage," in Lawrence
H. Schiffman, ed., Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New YorkUniversity
Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supple-
ment Series 8; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990) 13-24.
125RichardH. Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Shaftsbury,
Dorset and Rockport, MA: Element, 1992) 207 (=4Q274 1:7).
'26Joseph M. Baumgarten, "4Q502, Marriage or Golden Age Ritual?" JJS 34 (1983) 125-
35.
 TAL ILAN 31

D:pt refers to elders, that is, leaders of the community, the same should be
assumed for the female term nlmpr.127
In view of this reconstruction, I suggest a new reading for a complicated
paragraph from 1QSa. This document sets out to regulate the life of the
sect in the messianic future, but describes a situation acutely similar to that
of the sect in the present. In a discussion of the stages in a man's life in
the sect, the age of twenty is set as the age for marriage. The text then
moves from masculine to feminine language and states that:
At the age of twentyhe [shall be] includedin the lot of his family in
the Yahad,the holy congregation.And he shall not approacha woman
to lie with her before he is twenty years old when he can distinguish
betweengood andevil. And she shall be receivedto testify the laws of
the Torahwhichconcernhim and appearat the hearingof judgment
(Ec:,MtonDD3n *'nlmn1nlmmmosn D r? Tn b-npn1p).128
Neil Richardson,129the first scholar who discussed this text, took this verse
literally, and suggested that the wife of the sect members were encouraged
to testify against their husbands in cases where they transgressed the law.
All scholars after him, however, beginning with Baumgarten,'30have come
to the conclusion that the text is faulty and should be emended. It is not
the wife who is the subject but the member himself.131 When he takes a
wife he has come to the right age to actively participate in the sect's legal
and legislative activities. The arguments for the emendation are: first, that
the context of the pericope is a discussion of the man's position in the sect;
second, that it is highly unlikely that a woman's capacity to give evidence
would be tied in with her husband's age (what if she were a minor); and
third, that it is doubtful whether a sect such as the Dead Sea sect, which
is probably a wing of the Essenes, would give women such an important
role in its judicial system. I think the first two arguments can be easily

'27Schuller, "Women," 122-23.

'281QSa 1.9-11.
'29Neil H. Richardson, "Some Notes on IQSa," JBL 76 (1957) 108-22; he was preceded
by D. Barthelemy, Discoveries in the Judean Desert [11 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1955] 1. 113), but his note is only an interpretation of the text, without a historical
assessment.
130JosephM. Baumgarten, "On the Testimony of Women in IQSa," JBL 76 (1957) 266-
69.
131Forexample, an emendation is found in the text of Jacob Licht, The Rule Scroll (Jerusa-
lem: Mosad Bialik, 1965) 257 [Hebrew]. The original reading is mentioned only in the foot-
notes. The new English translation of the scroll by Geza Vermes (The Dead Sea Scrolls in
English [London: Penguin, 1987] 101) does not even hint that the subject of the original
sentence was feminine. Thus Cansdale ("Women Members," 218), who used Vermes's trans-
lation rather than the original, was ignorant of the fact that IQSa 11 refers to women's testi-
mony and used the text only as a measure for the age of marriage in the sect.
32 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

dismissed as mere rhetoric: first, the context of the pericope is marriage,

and once marriagetakes place, women are integratedinto the context; second,
the woman's capacity to give evidence is not tied to the man's age, it is tied
to her marriage to him. Perhaps the age of marriage for men was also the
age of marriage for women in Qumran and the text does not state so ex-
plicitly because general male language included both. It may alternatively
be that the definition of majority for Qumran women was the age of mar-
riage. There is no explicit flaw, therefore, in the logic of the text.
The third argument, namely, that it is unlikely that women would be
given such an important role in the sect's legal system, is more formidable,
not because it is more convincing, but because it is so typical of the schol-
arly approach to unusual and unconventional texts preserved from antiquity
which deal with women. Bernadette Brooten discusses this issue in her
important book, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue.132 Brooten
showed that a stereotyped view of women's role in society created gross
misjudgments on the part of scholars, and she concluded, "Rather than try
to fit. . . these into our preconceived notions of what women were (and
are), and of what Judaism was, would it not be more reasonable to take
[them] as a challenge to our preconception, as traces to Judaism of which
we know very little?"'33 I think that in the case of the Qumran evidence
too, Brooten is right. Because the scrolls leave more mysteries unsolved
than provide solutions to one's questions, one searches for evidence about
the sect in external sources. An identification of the sect (say with the
Essenes) immediately burdens the scrolls with all other information avail-
able about the other sect. But if the Dead Sea sect is not identified with
another sect, there is no need to look for traces of evidence about that sect
in the Qumran scrolls. Indeed, if the sect is not identified with the Essenes,
there is no reason to suppose a strong anti-feminist agenda for it.134Thus
the text in IQSa can be taken at face value, as indicating that women were
members in the sect, and legislation discovered concerning their function in
it should not surprise, nor be dismissed.
In the final analysis, this text tells more about the sect than about its
attitude toward women. The text suggests that the wife turn informer on
her husband's conduct with regard to the sect's laws. The Qumran sect thus

'32Bernadette J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue (BJS 36; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1982) 30-32.
'33Brooten, Women Leaders, 32.
'34The discovery of "The Wiles of the Wicked Woman" in the sect's library (see John
Allegro, "The Wiles of the Wicked Woman: A Sapiental Work from Qumran's Fourth Cave,"
PEQ 96 [1964] 53-55) is not strong evidence for misogyny since it was not composed by the
sect, and was kept in their library together with other misogynist compositions like the Book
of Ben Sira.
 TAL ILAN 33

favors loyalty to the sect over loyalty to one's immediate kin. It displays
a system that regulates the life of its members over respecting their privacy
and conjugal intimacy.
Similarly, in the Damascus covenant (over and against biblical law, Num
30:14) a man is instructed to annul his wife's vows only when she has
vowed to transgress the laws of the sect. In cases where she has vowed to
abide by the sect's dicta, the annulment is void: "Concerning the oath of a
wife/woman, which empowers her husband to annul it, he shall not annul
an oath when he knows not if it was made to follow. .. and if it were made
to transgress the covenant, he shall annul it. And so too with relation to her
father."135This ruling shows that the sect preferred loyalty to its institu-
tions over all other loyalties. For that purpose it intrudes into the privacy
of the patriarchal home as portrayed in biblical and other Jewish law
codes.136
Both of these laws suggest that women's membership in the sect was
accepted and acknowledged. Having reclaimed the first text for the study
of women, and pointing out its connection to the second law, feminist
scholars may be tempted to interpret them as revealing a Judaism of the
Second Temple period, more congenial to women, and less patriarchal.
Perhaps scholars will go to the extreme extent of naming the Dead Sea sect
the most "feminist" Jewish manifestation: a woman serves as witness in
court; her vows are her own, not controlled by her husband, and so on. As
a historian I feel compelled to object to such a possible interpretation. It is
true that the subject of these two rulings is women, independent of men in
the sect. This indicates that they were members of the sect, not just wives.
It is important to note, however, that in both cases, women are not the
object of the rulings. The object of the rulings (both linguistically and
literally) is the regulation of the sect's way of life. In order to achieve
greater control of its members, it was occasionally profitable to pitch wife
against husband. This was not done for the good of women, but for the
good of the sect.
However, my initial model is still valid. Not because of its pro-feminist
legislation, but perhaps because of its marginal, oppositionary stance, the
sect was supported by women and accepted them as members. The female
skeletons at Qumran attest unequivocally to that fact. The sources do not
reveal, however, whether these women were wealthy or influential as in the
case of the women supporters of Pharisaism and Christianity.

'35CD 16.10-12.
1361wish to thank my colleague, Esther Chazon, for drawing my attention to this second,
relevant text.