Talmud Commentary: Bavli 5/2. bSukkah 52b (mSukkah 5:2)

@General observations

The mishnah describes four acolytes carrying jugs of oil in preparation for the Festival of the Water Libation. The gemara then asks whether each youth really carried a jug of 120 log (about 60 liters), which appears much too heavy for a youth to hold, or whether the total amount of oil carried by the four youths was 120 log, that is 30 log per youth. A baraita from an unknown source is quoted here by the Bavli in order to prove that they only carried 30 log each. A tradition quoted as a baraita then claims that these youths were stronger and healthier than the son of Martha bat Boethus. Subsequently the gemara presents an authentic baraita, known from the Tosefta (tYom 1:14. It is unclear whether the gemara considers this the continuation of the previous baraita or not). This baraita describes the remarkable physical vigor of the son of Martha bat Boethus, who would carry two extremely heavy sides of an ox, walking slowly, in order to cast them on the altar for a sacrifice. Unlike the Tosefta, which tells this story in awe of the son’s physical strength, the gemara states that the priests did not permit him to perform this act alone, as the custom was for twenty-four priests to offer such a sacrifice together. Since this reaction to the actions of Martha’s son is only recorded in the Bavli but not in the baraita, Ilan deduces that its author did not approve of individual sacrifices, which symbolized wealth and corruption.[1]

The hypothesis that the acolytes were stronger than the mighty son of Martha bat Boethus answers the gemara’s question concerning their physical strength. Yet, if the Talmud did possess a tradition which claimed that each of these acolytes only carried 30 log, then perhaps the word משובחים (superior) in the baraita means something else. Thus, the gemara asserts that the acolytes were not stronger than the son of Martha bat Boethus but rather more agile. The gemara subsequently concludes that עקב בצד אגודל (heel by toe) indicates that while the son of Martha bat Boethus could easily ascend the path leading to the altar (every four cubits[2] there was an increase of one cubit in height), the acolytes were able to ascend steep ladders leading to the altar.

@Feminist observations

Naming a son after his mother – the son of Martha bat Boethus – embodies an unusual phenomenon in rabbinic literature. Who was Martha bat Boethus and why was her son named after her?

Martha bat Boethus lived in the period preceding the destruction of the Second Temple. Her designation as the daughter of Boethus shows that she belonged to the family of high-priests.[1] Tannaitic literature mentions her several times, and these references will be discussed below. One tannaitic source describes her marriage:

This tradition raises the issue of the halakhic prohibition against a high-priest marrying a widow. The rabbis inquire what should be done about a border case, where the man had already betrothed the widow and was then nominated high-priest – should he go on with the marriage or not? This tradition, presented as a precedent, refers to the marriage of the High Priest Yehoshu‘a ben Gamla. Josephus mentions Yehoshu‘a ben Gamla several times,[1] although he never mentions his wife. In rabbinic literature the situation is almost reversed, as will be shown presently. In the tradition under discussion here, the use of the Hebrew connective letter vav (and) may suggest a correlation between Martha’s betrothal to Yehoshu‘a ben Gamla and his nomination as high-priest. Since Yehoshu‘a be Gamla was nominated to the priesthood by Agrippa II, the great-grandson of Herod the Great,[2] this may indicate that Martha probably had some connection to the Herodian family and used it in order to advance her betrothed’s appointment to the high-priesthood. And indeed, the Bavli is quick to jump to these conclusions, as we shall see presently. Such an approach would, however, add a negative aura to the portrayals of both Martha and Yehoshu‘a. Yet the above premise of nepotism contradicts Yehoshu‘a ben Gamla’s positive appraisal elsewhere in the Bavli:

In light of this positive assessment we may conclude that the description of the marriage of Martha bat Boethus to Yehoshu‘a ben Gamla shortly before he was nominated high-priest is an objective chronological account, and is related in the Mishnah in order to raise the problem of a high-priest marrying a widow.

Aside from her marriage and a possible connection to royal circles, early tannaitic sources do not provide any real information as to the identity or status of Martha bat Boethus. Later talmudic-Palestinian and Babylonian sources do offer more details. However, due to their date, they cannot be viewed as contributing any reliable information. The following is a record of these references. One late Palestinian midrash portrays Martha bat Boethus as a wealthy high-class woman. It relates that following her marriage to Yehoshu‘a ben Gamla, she wished to see him performing the role of high-priest in the Temple:

This tradition both relates how rich and pampered Martha was at the time of her husband’s high-priesthood and alludes to her fate during the siege of Jerusalem, as related in this following tradition from bGittin:

As can be seen, in this tradition Martha’s feet are indeed bared as a result of her humiliation as hinted in the LamR tradition cited above. This story, told as one in a collection of stories in the Bavli about the destruction of Jerusalem, contains an account of Martha’s great wealth and her terrible downfall.[1] Other stories also record her great wealth. One tannaitic source makes the following statement:

From this text, we learn that for the rabbis Martha served as a paradigmatic example of a rich woman, known to all (much like a modern day Rothschild). An amoraic source treats her in a similar manner:

In this source the rabbis rule that despite Martha’s great wealth, as a widow she should be treated exactly the same as any other woman in her position. Although all of the above sources portray Martha bat Boethus as wealthy, perhaps even pampered, they do not condemn her for it. A narrative in the Yerushalmi, however, portrays her as a haughty woman who rudely confronts the sages during her days of glory:

According to this story, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai criticized Martha because he thought she acted rudely towards the sages, and he linked this behavior with Rabbi Eli‘ezer bar Rabbi Sadoq prediction of her tragic end. The same wording is found in three other traditions, which however, envisage such a fate for other women: tKet 1:9-10 calls her the daughter of Naqdimon ben Gurion.[1] bKet 66a calls her “the daughter of Naqdimon” and bKet 65a terms her “the daughter-in-law of Naqdimon”. Consequently, both the Tosefta and the Bavli confirm that the identification of the woman in the Yerushalmi as Martha bat Boethus is an error. We must conclude that this tradition too does not view the historical Martha bat Boethus negatively, but rather views the daughter of Naqdimon ben Gurion as such.

In addition, Lamentations Rabbah relates a story about a woman named Miriam bat Boethus, who was redeemed from captivity (it does not specify by whom). She was given clothing several times. However, each time they sank into the sea. Finally, she refused any further offer of clothing and justified her fate by saying: ראוי לו לגבאי שיגבה את חובו (the tax collector [i.e. God] rightly collects his debt). The text concludes with רמז הקב"ה לים והוציא לה כליה (God commanded the sea and it extracted her clothes). From the perspective of the sages, this story presents the protagonist in a positive light – Miriam bat Boethus believed in God and accepted her destiny. Still it is unclear whether this Miriam bat Boethus should be identified with Martha bat Boethus. It should be noted that this Miriam bat Boethus appears within a literary chain of stories, all relating to women designated Miriam. It is most likely that an author would have changed the name Martha into Miriam.

Unlike the indifferent attitude of tannaim to Martha bat Boethus, the ambiguous attitude of Rabban Yohanan be Zakkai to her in the Yerushalmi, and the undear attitude of LamR Babylonian sources present her in a totally negative light and do not approve of the appointment of Yehoshu‘a ben Gamla to the high-priesthood immediately after his marriage. The tradition is found in two locations in the Bavli and I present them here synoptically:

These two very late sources combine the statements of the third generation Babylonian amora, Rav Yosef and the sixth generation Babylonian amora Rav Assi. Rav Assi accuses Martha bat Boethus of bribery while the tradition of Rav Yosef three generations earlier is even more extreme and accuses both her and her husband of a conspiracy against the religious establishment.

According to Ilan, the comparison that we have just made between tannaitic sources and the Bavli reveals a great disparity in their perception of the image of Martha bat Boethus.[1] She believes a feminist perspective can explain the transformation from the positive attitude towards Martha bat Boethus in tannaitic sources to an extremely negative one in amoraic, particularly Babylonian literature. Ilan maintains that tannaitic sources preserve early Pharisaic traditions commending the wealth of the widow Martha bat Boethus. These did not condemn her affluence but rather praised it, as she was probably their financial supporter, and the tannaitic rabbis, the heirs of the Pharisees, received from them a positive assessment of her. Later on, and particularly in Babylonia, her generosity to the Pharisees (with most of what was known of the Pharisees) was forgotten and the amoraim in Babylonia and perhaps even in the Land of Israel adopted a hostile attitude towards her wealth. The amoraim scorned wealth in general and strong women in particular. Therefore Martha, the supreme example of an affluent woman from the Second Temple period, was identified with corruption. Even her son, about whom tannaitic sources relate a positive story, admiring his strength, is downgraded in the Babylonian tradition. Yet such a picture has no connection to the historical Martha or to her son the priest.