Abbaye lived between  278-338 C.E. His father died before he was born, and his mother died in  childbirth. The little orphan was adopted by a kind uncle, who eventually took  care that the child would get excellent education, but during his early years,  the uncle gave him to a foster mother. What was the relationship between the  uncle and the foster mother is not clear, but it is certain she was not his  wife. It is possible she was an aunt, but there is no proof. We also know that  she was a highly respected physician, and Abbaye lived in her  house.

 Little Abbaye loved  her with all his heart, and called her Em, meaning mother, even when he grew up.  Her views and suggestions are quoted not only by him, but by many other rabbis  we meet in the Talmud. She is always mentioned in the same way: “Em said to  me.” And that little statement makes the words that follow it authoritative;  they are never disputed. As a result, her influence continued for almost two  thousand years, since she is still regarded as a Talmudic authority. 

The diversity of her  medical advice is intriguing. Diet, herbal medicine, and especially pediatrics,  were her areas of expertise, which make sense since a learned woman’s opinions  on these subjects clearly have more weight than those of a man. She was an  authority on the readiness of a sickly or weak boy for circumcision. She stated  the right time for boys and girls to start fasting during certain festivals,  thirteen and twelve, respectively, showing that she understood the fact that  girls mature earlier than boys. She determined at what age a child was  emotionally and mentally ready to start studying Scripture and Mishna. Her  knowledge of children’s welfare and growth was outstanding. But she also had  some understanding in psychology – even though the word was not invented yet – because she tells her patients how to handle malicious gossip. In all these  subjects the rabbis, who were men, did not hesitate to obey her directives. 

What I find most  important here is that she is not presented as a strange phenomenon, a prodigy.
Rather, she is talked about in the most matter of fact way. This was not a new  idea. You can find the same attitude years before, in the Old Testament, in the  description of the Woman of Valor in Proverbs 31. The woman described there is  strong, practical, hard working, and kind. She makes her own decisions, tends  to business and commerce as well as her home, teaches her children and her  attendants, and is generally the center of the household. Much later, in the  days of Maimonides, you meet women who are teachers, merchants, scholars, and  artisans. Hardly second class citizens… 
 
As for Hillel, I have already  mentioned in previous posts how much he respected and trusted his wife. In one  famous story, he is certain that when she is delayed in supplying hospitality  and dinner to their guests, there has to be a good reason, and he is right. She  tells Hillel and the guests that she felt she had to provide food to a hungry,  poor man. He had come to see her unexpectedly, and it delayed her; she gave the  man their dinner, and cooked another one for them. Hillel greatly approves of  her judgment and tells her so, and it is clear that the guests agree.[i] In another story,  Hillel’s disciples are concerned about loud cries that come from a house in his neighborhood, and are afraid something terrible happened to his family. Hillel calmly assures them it could not  possibly be happening in his house. He knows that his wife would be able to  handle any situation and take charge without panicking. No wonder they had such  a happy marriage and a brilliant family. 

_______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
[i] Notice that she is cooking the meal herself, and  servants are not mentioned. Hillel is known for refusing to take money from the  community he led – he believed that even a leader must support himself and his family by earning his own living. Also, from several quotations it seems that  Hillel and his wife believed in living modestly and avoided unnecessary luxury.  May all leaders come to this view…

We remember him as the handsome Richard  Burton, swept off his feet by the glorious beauty of Elizabeth Taylor, playing  the equally immortal Cleopatra. We remember him as the fascinating Marlon  Brando, glowering at the camera, and pronouncing "Friends,  Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears” in his best Brando voice. But Marc Antony  was nothing like that. He was reasonably attractive, but not a sex symbol of the  caliber of either of these two stunning gentlemen. And, let’s remember that he  was not an actor. He was, through and through, a Roman nobleman, military man,  and politician, with all the callous indifference to human life, including his  own, the practical approach to money, and the realistic views of humanity in  general that such a Roman would have. Personally I find him much more  interesting than any movie star, but that is, of course, a matter of  taste.

As mentioned in the previous post, I would like to show  Antony’s famous letter to Hyrcanus in its entirety. The nature of the letter is  so positive, practical, and reasonable, that it is difficult to connect it with  the usual image of Rome as the great oppressor of Judea. Of course, Judea was  indeed oppressed by the Romans; there is no doubt of it. However, had the Jews  played their cards differently, perhaps they would have had a much easier time  of it. Judge for yourself, but pay attention to the subtle way in which he  shows how Caesar’s fate affected both Rome and Judea.

“Marcus Antonius, Imperator, to Hyrcanus, High Priest and  Ethnarch, and to the Jewish nation, greeting. If you are in good health, it is  well. I also am in good health, as is the army. The envoys Lysimachus, son of  Pausanias, Josephus, son of Mennaeus, and Alexander, son of Theodorus, who met  me at Ephesus, have renewed the mission previously carried out by them in Rome,  and have conscientiously discharged their present mission on behalf of you and  the nation, making clear the goodwill you have for us. Being, thereof,  persuaded by both deeds and words that you have the friendliest feelings for  us, and being aware of your obliging and pious nature, I regard your interests  as my own. For when our adversaries and those of the Roman people overran all  Asia, sparing neither cities nor temples, and disregarding the sworn agreements  they had made, it was not only our own battle but that of all mankind in common  that we fought when we avenged ourselves on those who were guilty both of  lawless deeds against men and of unlawful acts against the gods, from which we  believe the very sun turned away, as if it too were loath to look upon the foul  deed against Caesar. But their god-defying plots, which Macedonia received as  though its climate were proper to their unholy crimes, and the confused mob of  half-crazed villains whom they got together at Philippi in Macedonia, where  they occupied places naturally favourable and walled in by mountains as far as  the so, so that the passed could be controlled through only one gate – these  plots and this mob, condemned by the gods for their unjust enterprise, we have  overcome. And Brutus, who fled to Philippi and was hemmed in by us, shared the  ruin of Cassius. Now that these men have been punished, we hope that henceforth  we shall enjoy peace and give Asia respite from war. We are therefore ready to  let our allies also participate in the peace given us by God; and so, owing to  our victory, the body of Asia is now recovering, as it were, from a serious  illness. Having, therefore, in mind to promote the welfare both of you and your  nation, I shall take care of your interests. And I have also sent notices  throughout the cities that if any persona, whether freemen or slaves, were sold  at auction by Gaius Cassius or by those subordinate to him, they shall be  released; and it is my wish that you shall enjoy the privileges granted by me  and Dolabella. And I forbid the Tyrians to use violence against you, and  command that they restore whatever they possess belonging to the Jews. As for  the crown which you have sent, I have accepted it.”
 
In the next segment, I think it might be a good idea to  take time to retell the story of Antony and Cleopatra, as it really happened –  as far as possible from Hollywood and certainly not in Glorious
Technicolor…

However, this was only the beginning. The whole region became quite restless.  Antigonus, the son of the ever trouble making Aristobulus, made advances and  sent bribes to Fabius. He had behind him the power of Ptolemy, the ruler of  Chalchis in Lebanon, who was married to Antigonus' sister. He was also connected  to Prince Marion of Tyre, who had at that point decided to invade the Galilee,  and captured three important garrisons. Things did not look good, but Herod  fought him and recaptured the garrisons. He went further and captured a Tyrian  garrison, but made a gesture of good will by releasing it and giving presents to  the more important citizens, with the clear view of engaging their favor for  himself and turn them against Prince Marion. He then immediately turned his  forces against Antigonus.

The battle against  Antigonus was fierce, but Herod prevailed. The relief felt by the people of  Jerusalem, including Hyrcanus, must have been great, because Herod was received  as a savior and was crowned with wreathes. As mentioned in a previous posting,  the final negotiations regarding Herod's marriage to the legendary beauty, the  Hasmonean princess Mariamne, must have taken place at this point. He was already  married to Doris, a native of Jerusalem, and had a son by her which was named  Antipater after Herod's father, but in these days most men in power had several  wives. It is most likely that Hyrcanus demanded that his granddaughter Mariamne  would become the chief wife, and there is little doubt that Herod would agree,  knowing how the two women were treated later, but this was years in the future  since Mariamne was almost a child at this point. Doris may have not even known  about the arrangement.

The region was still in  chaos. Cassius was killed by Antony and Caesar in the battle of Philippi. Caesar  went to Italy, but Antony went to Bithynia, where he was met by ambassadors from  every part of the region. Among them were important Jews from Jerusalem, who had  brought accusations against Herod and Phasael. These Jews were certainly not  supported by Hyrcanus. They told Antony that Hyrcanus' rule was a sham, and  Herod and Phasael usurped all power. This was a serious accusation, and perhaps  a little too near the truth to be ignored. However, Antony was a friend of  Herod, held him in great respect, and also, to tell the truth, received bribes from him, said to be quite large sums of money. The Jewish ambassadors had no  chance and were dismissed without even getting an audience. In addition, Herod  negotiated Hyrcanus' request to release any Jews that were held by Cassius as  prisoners of war. Antony's decrees  about these matters are most interesting,  and I will post them here in future segments, but one line is truly worthy of  mention right here. Antony wrote to Hyrcanus: "... Being, therefore, persuaded  by both deeds and words that you have the friendliest feelings for us, and being  aware of your obliging and pious nature, I regard your interests as my own."  Judea could have had a golden age...

Discovering or even speculating on Hillel’s mother’s name is not  possible. Women’s names were never recorded, not because they were of no  importance, but on the contrary, they were given the right of privacy as a sign  of respect; it was considered very bad taste to discuss women or their names in  public. This habit lasted well into the late middle ages.

Hillel’s  father’s name can be deduced. Males’ names ran in families with regularity and  consistency. A boy would be named after a deceased relative, never a living one. The reason for it has been  explained by some scholars as the fear  that the Angel of Death might mistakenly take the child instead of the older  namesake. However, this reasoning probably started during the middle ages,  because during antiquity the Angel of Death was not part of the Jewish religion. 
 
This may cause some misconceptions. For example,  Hillel is often mentioned as “Hillel the Elder,” but this is not because he was  the father of “Hillel the Younger,” but because it was his title as a member of  the Sanhedrin (The Great Council). The following list, consisting of Hillel’s  descendants, begins with Hillel’s son: Simeon, Gamaliel, Simeon, Gamaliel,  Simeon, Judah, Gamaliel, Judah, Gamaliel, Judah, Hillel, Gamaliel, Gamaliel.  There are only four names here; Hillel, Simeon, Gamaliel, and Judah. Since  Hillel’s father’s name could not be Hillel, then his name was Simeon, Gamaliel,  or Judah.

Simeon, Hillel’s eldest son, was probably born when Hillel was  very young, as was the custom. It is generally assumed that the father died  later, when Hillel’s brother, Shebna, offered to support his brother financially  and share the blessings of Hillel’s Torah study. Therefore, the father’s name
would not be Simeon, as Hillel would not call his son after a living relative.  Simeon must have been Hillel’s grandfather’s name, as he would be the  nearest paternal relative. So we can eliminate the name Simeon as Hillel’s  father. That leaves Judah and Gamaliel. In the list, the name Judah appears for  the first time much later, seven generations after Hillel; this shows that this  name was added either after a maternal relative or a secondary paternal one.  When Simeon had a son, he did not call him Hillel, because Hillel the Elder  lived a very long life and had to be alive when Simeon’s first son was born.  From the list, we see that Simeon called his son Gamaliel. He must have  called his son after Hillel’s father, who would be the closest deceased  relative. Hillel’s father’s name, therefore, almost certainly was Gamaliel. And  since so much of Hillel’s life needs the skills of Sherlock Holmes, it’s nice to  feel an almost certainty about anything. 

I dislike the concept of Karma. Often it is the easy way  out when a moral dilemma is presented. When a person commits a crime, be it  against humanity or against an individual, often he or she manages to escape  punishment. This is bad in itself, but I feel that people add insult to injury  when they say, “Never mind that he/she escaped. Karma will get all criminals in  the end.” To me, this is cheapening the trauma of the victims, trivializing  their suffering. 

I am not interested in punishment in another life. First  of all, I am not at all persuaded that reincarnation exists. Perhaps it does,  and then again, perhaps it doesn’t; there is no proof either way. Most of the  believers in Karma don’t even consider such ambiguity with proper seriousness, and it becomes a catch word, a cliché. But supposing Karma does exist, what of  it? I am not really interested in the punishment of someone who is no longer the  criminal, who has clothed his soul in a totally innocent body.

In addition, Karma makes it easy to blame victims for their misfortune. I have  actually heard people say that “If he was hurt, he probably hurt other people  in another life.” I call that callous. None of the people who say that, can  ever bring proof that the victim was someone else in that “other life” which  may or may not have existed.

This is why I like the story about the floating skull and  Hillel’s reaction to it. You must remember that the afterlife was not important  to Jews at that time. Death was death, and you obeyed God not because of the  fear of Hell or the longing for Heaven, but because obeying God was your duty  and your privilege. So when Hillel makes the comment which you will see below,  he means that the drama and its aftermath happened in this world and that  time.
 
Once Hillel saw a skull floating on the surface of the  water, and said to it: “Because you drowned others, you are drowned. In the end, those who drowned you will also be drowned.” 
  
In this short story Hillel reveals his views of divine  justice. Of course, we don’t always witness it. As said above, some murderers  get away with it, and we do not see their punishment. But often they are  punished – here and now, measure for measure. 
 
Hillel saw himself emotionally close to Aaron, the  brother of Moses; he might have had a vision of precedence to such an act of  justice, tied to Aaron’s life. Traditionally, the scholars of Hillel’s age saw  the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea during the Exodus as punishment for  a specific act – the drowning of the Jewish babies that were cast by them into  the Nile. God might have killed them in other ways, but drowning served as a  symbol for their crimes. The moral order of the world, dictating that he who  lives by violence dies by violence, is beautifully expressed in both of these  tales, told with such deceptive simplicity and covering many layers of thought  and emotion.

Soon enough the Festival of Tabernacles was about to take  place in Jerusalem. As usual, Herod set out for the celebrations, accompanied  by his soldiers. There was nothing out of the ordinary in his planned arrival,  but Malichus feared for his life. He went to Hyrcanus and begged him to prevent  Herod from entering the city. After some thought, Hyrcanus agreed and sent a  message to Herod that he could not come in with his soldiers, who were mostly  non-Jewish, because the Jewish population was in a state of ritual purity. The  excuse made no sense; there was no precedence to preventing non-Jews from  attending whatever festival they wanted to celebrate. Herod ignored Hyrcanus’ order and entered the city at night. 
             
Malichus knew he had no choice, so he went to Herod pretending to weep  for his great friend Antipater. Herod accepted Malichus’ condolences and eased  his fear by a show of friendship, but while doing so, had another idea. It was  clear to him that Phasael was right, and an open fight would cause a civil war.  So instead of killing Malichus, he wrote a letter to Cassius and related to him  the entire story in detail. Cassius knew Malichus well, and had several reasons  of his own to detest him. He believed Herod implicitly. He wrote back to Herod  and told him to wait, since he, Cassius, was going to take care of the matter  for him. Immediately, he wrote to the military tribunes in Tyre, informing them  that they should assist Herod in his plans when the time comes and they get the  order to proceed.
             
Malichus had spies everywhere, naturally, and he suspected that something  was going on, but instead of escaping he went to Tyre. Marching like that into  the lion’s den was quite uncharacteristic on his part, and there is no clear  explanation as to why he did it. Some scholars maintain that he had done so  because his son was held as a hostage in Tyre. Supposedly, Malichus planned to  steal his son, return to Judea, and try to seize power. The timing and the  motives are impossible to prove, but whatever they were, Malichus went to Tyre. 
             
Herod, still pretending to believe Malichus’ innocence, sent a servant to  Tyre. The reason given was to prepare a banquet and entertain Malichus and  several other dignitaries. But what the servant really did was approaching the  military tribunes and informimg them that the time has come to carry on Cassius’  order and kill Malichus. The drama ended abruptly and violently – the tribunes  went out of the city to meet Malichus on the seashore, and stabbed him to  death.
             
When Hyrcanus heard the news, he was so shocked he had a mini- stroke and  lost his power of speech for a while. Herod’s representatives explained to the  stricken man that it was done on Cassius’ order, and that Malchius had every  intention of starting a revolt in Judea, disposing of Hyrcanus, and seizing  power for himself. Slowly recovering, Hyrcanus accepted the explanation and when  he regained his power of speech  said,“Cassius had saved both me and my  country by destroying one who conspired against both.” 
             
We will never know if Hyrcanus meant what he said, or was forced to say  it by his fear of Herod’s growing power. Hyrcanus was at that time a very tired,  elderly man, and he knew Herod could be more dangerous than any enemy, so it  would be best to keep him on his side at any cost. Perhaps that is why he  allowed the greatest mistake that Herod ever committed to happen. Hyrcanus’  granddaughter, Mariamne, was at that time a very young girl. But already her  incredible beauty began to be evident to anyone who saw her, and Herod asked for  her hand. It would be years before they could get married, but Hyrcanus accepted  the offer despite knowing full well that it was not only Mariamne’s beauty that  attracted Herod. She was a Hasmonean princess – and Herod wanted to be related  to the powerful family and thus justify his quest for power. Herod could not  know that Marimane would become the love of his life, but would also be the  power that would later destroy his spirit and push him further and further into  insanity and murder.  

Antipater,  Herod, and Phasael sent reinforcements immediately, not only because of a  natural desire to revenge the death of a friend, but also because Antipater  anticipated trouble as soon as he heard about Caesar’s assassination. But more  was needed, and Cassius soon arrived there to return Syria to the hands of the  Romans. He defeated Bassus, but instead of adhering to the previous policy of  Rome toward the area, he started a reign of terror. To begin with, he demanded
an enormous amount of money from every city in Syria, in addition to delivery of  soldiers and arms. But he did not stop at Syria. The sum he demanded from Judea  was staggering. 

Antipater  stepped in and made a heroic effort to organize the taxes and the relationship  with Cassius. He divided the country into three sections. Each of his sons was  responsible for a third, and another man, Malichus, was given the responsibility  for gathering money from the last part. Antipater thought of Malichus as an  efficient organizer, and trusted him to do the job; he did not know that  Malichus was both hostile and fearful of him. 
 
Herod was the  first to collect the money for Cassius and deliver it promptly; by doing so, and  also by exercising his considerable charm, he even managed to establish a  friendly relationship with Cassius. By doing so, he saved his people from the  fate of those under Malichus. Clearly, Malichus was not the organizer Antipater  thought him to be, and he acted idiotically by not only resisting payment, but  attacking Cassius with his army. Naturally Cassius defeated Malichus, and then  sold every official in Malichus’ domain to slavery. He planned to execute  Malichus, but at the last minute Hyrcanus intervened – of course through  Antipater’s diplomacy – and saved Malichus’ life by sending a huge sum of money  of his own to Cassius. 
 
This act of  kindness turned out to be a horrible mistake. As soon as Malichus was released,  he started hatching a plot to kill Antipater. It was discovered, but when  Malichus declared, under oath, that he was innocent of any plot, Antipater  believed him. It is doubtful that Antipater would have believed him strictly on  the strength of an oath – he was too sophisticated not to know that some people  did not take these oaths seriously – but he was probably persuaded by Malichus’  reasoning that he could not be so stupid as to plot against Antipater while  Phasael was guarding Jerusalem and Herod having custody the arms. Not only did  Antipater accept his reasoning, but he saved Malichus’ life again when the  Syrian governor wanted to execute him on charge of stirring up a revolt in  Judea. 
 
This was one  of the very few mistakes Antipater ever made, but by saving Malichus, he saved  his own murderer. At the time, Antipater was staying at Hyrcanus’ home. Malichus  bribed Hyrcanus’ butler, who was always assumed above suspicion. The butler  poisoned Antipater’s food, and he died on the spot, at dinner. 
 
Herod would  eventually revenge his father’s death, but the loss of Antipater, always the  voice of reason, cost Judea more than anyone would expect. Had he lived longer,  he could have guided Herod for a few more years while maintaining the fragile  relationships between the Jewish factions and the Romans, and history might  have turned out more kindly for Judea.