Daf Ditty Yoma 37: Queen Helena

Helene, queen of the Persian province of Adiabene, earned the respect of both the early
rabbis and the chronicler Josephus for her leadership and unusual piety. Helene, also called
Sadan, converted to Judaism around 30 CE, along with her husband/brother Monabazus
Bazaeus and their family.

She sent her younger son, Izates, into exile to protect him from coups and plots by his
brothers and installed her elder son, Monobazus, as steward until Izates could return. She
made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 46 CE, saving the local Jews from a famine by importing
grain and figs from Egypt, and donated several gold items to the Temple.

1
She kept a Nazarite vow for fourteen years, abstaining from alcohol and refraining from
cutting her hair, and reportedly lived in a massive sukkah frequented by several noted
rabbis. Shortly after Izates’s death and the coronation of Monobazus in 55 CE,

She died in Adiabene but her remains and those of Izates were transferred to Jerusalem by
Monobazus, and interred in the mausoleum she had built at a distance of three stadia to the
north of the city, known today as "the Tombs of the Kings" (Jos., Ant., 20:95; Jos., Wars,
5:55, 119, 147).

MISHNA: The priest then came to the eastern side of the Temple courtyard, farthest from the
Holy of Holies, to the north of the altar. The deputy was to his right, and the head of the

2
patrilineal family belonging to the priestly watch that was assigned to serve in the Temple that
week was to his left. And they arranged two goats there, and there was a lottery receptacle
there, and in it were two lots. These were originally made of boxwood, and the High Priest
Yehoshua ben Gamla fashioned them of gold, and the people would mention him favorably
for what he did.

Jastrow

3
Since the mishna mentions an item designed to enhance the Temple service, it also lists other such
items: The High Priest ben Katin made twelve spigots for the basin so that several priests could
sanctify their hands and feet at once, as previously the basin had only two. He also made a
machine [mukheni] for sinking the basin into flowing water during the night so that its water
would not be disqualified by remaining overnight. Had the water remained in the basin
overnight, it would have been necessary to pour it out the following morning. By immersing the
basin in flowing water, the water inside remained fit for use the next morning.

4
King Munbaz would contribute the funds required to make the handles of all the Yom Kippur
vessels of gold. Queen Helene, his mother, fashioned a decorative gold chandelier above the
entrance of the Sanctuary.

She also fashioned a golden tablet [tavla] on which the Torah portion relating to sota was
written. The tablet could be utilized to copy this Torah portion, so that a Torah scroll need not be
taken out for that purpose.

With regard to Nicanor, miracles were performed to his doors, the doors in the gate of the
Temple named for him, the Gate of Nicanor. And the people would mention all of those whose
contributions were listed favorably.

5
6
§ The mishna continues: Queen Helene, his mother, fashioned a decorative gold chandelier
above the entrance of the Sanctuary. It was taught in a mishna: When the sun rose, sparks of
light would emanate from the chandelier, which was polished, and everyone knew that the time
to recite Shema had arrived. The ideal time to recite Shema is at the moment of sunrise.

§ The mishna relates: Queen Helene also fashioned a golden tablet on which the sota Torah
portion was written. The Gemara comments: You learn from this that one may write a scroll that
contains only several portions of the Torah, from which a child may be taught. The Sages
disputed whether it is permitted to do so even for the purpose of education. Reish Lakish said in
the name of Rabbi Yannai: There is no proof from this mishna, as the tablet prepared by Queen
Helene consisted of the letters of the alef-beit, i.e., only the first letter of each word was written
on the tablet, representing the word.

Jastrow

Praised changes made in the Temple

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:1

1
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/yoma37/

7
The Mishna on our daf describes the preparations for the lottery that took place during the Yom
Kippur service, where the kohen gadol drew lots to determine which of the goats would be
sacrificed on the mizbe’ah and which would be the scapegoat, who would be sent to Azazel. The
Mishna records that a kohen gadol named ben Gamla exchanged the traditional wooden pieces that
were used for the lottery with golden ones, an action that met with the approval of the Sages.

The kohen gadol about whom this story is told is Yehoshua ben Gamla, who served in
the mikdash towards the end of the second Temple period. While he was still an ordinary kohen, he
married the wealthy widow, Marta bat Baitus, who used her influence and affluence to arrange for
him to be appointed kohen gadol. Although the Sages berated him for the means that he used to
receive the appointment, they acknowledged his positive accomplishments in that position. Aside
from the story in the Mishna, Yehoshua ben Gamla is best known for his role in establishing a
public school system in which every Jewish child, rich or poor, would be able to study,
commenting that were it not for his efforts, the Torah would have been forgotten.

It appears that he can be identified with the kohen gadol Yehoshua ben Gamliel, who was among
the last of the kohanim gedolim, who was killed during the destruction of the Temple.

The mention of Ben Gamla’s contribution to the mikdash leads the Mishna to enumerate a number
of other individuals who made other changes that were praised by the Sages.

King Munbaz would contribute the funds required to make the handles of all the Yom Kippur
vessels of gold. Queen Helene, his mother, fashioned a decorative gold chandelier above the
entrance of the Sanctuary. She also fashioned a golden tablet [tavla] on which
the Torah portion relating to sota was written. The tablet could be utilized to copy this Torah
portion, so that a Torah scroll need not be taken out for that purpose.

Helene was the queen of Adiabene, a small kingdom in the north of Syria on the banks of the
Euphrates. In the generation prior to the destruction of the second Temple, Helene, together with
her sons Munbaz and Izates, began to study Torah with Jews who traveled through their kingdom,
and eventually converted to Judaism. It appears that other members of the ruling elite did so, as
well. Helene visited Jerusalem a number of times and made donations both to the Temple and to
the destitute people living there. Her children followed in her footsteps, and even sent troops to
support the Jewish uprising during the Great Revolt.

Mark Kerzner writes:2

Ben Gamla made the lottery pieces out of gold, and the Sages would recall him with praise. There
were other individuals who should also be remembered for good. Ben Katin made twelve spouts
for the laver, so that the twelve Kohanim involved with the morning sacrifice could wash their
hands and feet at once. He also invented a mechanical device that prevented the water in the laver
from becoming unfit because of staying overnight.

2
http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma37.html

8
King Munbaz made all handles of vessels used for Yom Kippur out of gold. His mother Helene
made a golden candelabrum at the entrance of the Temple, so that when the sun rested on it, people
knew to say the "Shema, Israel" prayer. Finally, Nikanor was a man for whom a miracle happened,
and the heavy copper gate he had made for the Temple floated through the storm to the shores of
Israel, and they kept that door and named it after him, long after the other doors were replaced
with golden ones.

Winning the Lottery

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:3

One of the central features of the Yom Kippur service was that involving the two goats: one offered
as a sacrifice whose blood was sprinkled on the curtain of the Holy of Holies, and one on which
the kohen gadol would offer confession for the sins of the Jewish people before it was led to the
desert to be thrown off the mountain.
A lottery was held to determine which fate would await which goat. The Mishnah (Yoma 37a)
describes how two pieces of boxwood, one saying "for the Name" and one "for Azazel", were
placed in a wooden box from which the kohen gadol would draw the lots. Wanting to beautify the
Temple ornaments, "Ben Gamla made them of gold, and they would mention his name in praise".
The Mishnah goes on to record other people who similarly enhanced the beauty of the Temple and
are to be mentioned for praise.
Prior to performing any of the Temple services, one had to wash one's hands and feet. With
many kohanim at work, the lineups could be long, as there were only two faucets in the Temple.
Ben Katin increased that number to twelve, so that each of the kohanim involved in bringing

3
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/yoma-37-winning-the-lottery

9
the tamid shel shachar, the daily morning sacrifice, could wash at the same time[1]. "And he also
made a machine for the laver, so that its water would not be invalidated overnight". All Temple
vessels had to be emptied on a daily basis, ensuring that anything used in the Temple would be
"fresh". Ben Katin hooked up the Temple water system to a well, rendering the water constantly
fresh, so that the tedious job of emptying and refilling water would not have to be done daily[2].
"Munbaz made all the handles of the Yom Kippur vessels of gold; [Queen] Helena, his mother,
made a gold candelabra that was placed at the entrance way to Temple courtyard." The Gemara
(37b) explains that this enabled people to say the shema at the proper time. In an age before clocks,
the rays of the rising sun would bounce off the golden plate, reflecting glints and signaling that the
time for the recital of the shema had arrived.
The Mishnah concludes, "Nikanor; miracles happened to his doors, and they would mention him
for praise". Nikanor travelled to Alexandria, Egypt, to obtain the best-of-the-best doors for use in
the Temple. Unfortunately, a major storm struck as they travelled home by boat, and in a valiant
attempt to ease travel, one of the doors was thrown overboard.
When the captain instructed that the second door be thrown overboard, Nikanor said they should
rather throw him off the boat. Immediately, the storm ceased. Yet Nikanor was mitztaer, troubled,
by the loss of the first door[3]. As the boat came to port in Akko, they noticed the door surfacing
from under the boat. In commemoration of this "miracle"[4], Nikanor's gate was placed--at the
main Temple entranceway, no less--in its original copper state. This is in contrast to all other gates
of the Temple, which were made of gold.
The Talmud, in praising these people, invokes the verse zecher tzadik levracha (Mishlei 10:7), one
we associate with the truly pious. The Talmudic definition of piety thus includes those who cut
down on wait time, save us from extra work, beautify our utensils, or give us a mechanism to tell
time. And acharon acharon chaviv, the pious have an almost irrational dedication to making
mitzvoth beautiful. May we merit to be counted amongst the righteous.

[1] While in actual fact, thirteen people were involved in bringing the morning sacrifice, the actual slaughter of the animal could
be performed by anyone, and no preparatory washing was required (Yoma 25b).

[2] This is somewhat akin to our mikvaot, which must use only rainwater. Yet in practice, fresh "tap water" is used, which is
connected--neshikah, "kissing", is the halachic term used (most appropriate in the circumstances)--to the actual mikvah water,
rendering all the water kosher for use in the mikvah.

[3] It is hard not to contrast this story to that of Yonah, who tried to run away from G-d and had to be thrown into the sea.

[4] I am not sure which is the greater "miracle"; that the doors made it to Jerusalem, or the extent of Nikanor's dedication. If the
latter, then the word nissim should be understood in its original biblical meaning, as a sign (see, for example, Bamidbar 26:10)--in
this case, a sign of great dedication.

10
R. Jaclyn Rubin-Blaier writes:4

It can be difficult to find the right words to confess a mistake. Today’s daf offers a brilliantly
simple entreaty to God that is tailor-made for the majesty and magnitude of the Yom
Kippur confession.

As we learn today, the high priest confesses several times throughout Yom Kippur for different
groups of people, and each confession begins with the words Ana Hashem: Please, God. The
Gemara explains this simple but carefully-chosen phrase.

The priest’s entreaty is derived from two different texts. The first word, ana, is taken verbatim
from Moses’s plea to forgive the people after the sin of the golden calf. In Exodus 32:31–32, he
implores: “Ana! (Please!) This people is guilty of a great sin and have made for themselves a god
of gold. Now, if you forgive their sin then good, but if not, erase me from Your book that You have
written! ” Like the high priest on Yom Kippur, the burden of atoning for an entire nation falls
directly on Moses’ shoulders — and this is the first word out of his mouth.

The second word, God’s name, is taken from the confession of the elders and the priests in the
puzzling biblical prescription for the eglah arufah, the heifer whose neck is broken in the place of
an unsolved murder. As part of the atonement ritual performed in the place where a terrible crime
has taken place—but the culprit has not been apprehended and isn’t likely to be—the elders must
confirm, “Our hands have not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it ” (Deuteronomy 21:7).
According to rabbinic tradition, the priests respond: “Absolve, Lord, Your people Israel, whom you
redeemed, and do not let the blood of the innocent remain among Your people Israel ”
(Deuteronomy 21:8). Here, the priests call upon God by name to forgive the entire people for a sin
that surely most of them had nothing to do with.

These are not the only two texts the rabbis could have chosen. God is implored often in the Torah,
and confessions are part and parcel of the sacrificial process. So why are these the two
paradigmatic cases of confession on Yom Kippur?

In each of these cases, there is both an individual and a communal aspect to the scenario. There is
shared guilt and doubtful guilt. And there is a leader who must make it right. In the episode of the
golden calf, the people participate individually, willingly, but it is Moses who asks for forgiveness
on behalf of all of them. In the case of the unsolved murder, the killer is unknown and so it is the
community as a whole, represented by the elders and the priests, who must take responsibility.

There is also something fundamentally different about these two scenarios. In the first, Moses
admits that the people have sinned terribly and pleads with God not to enforce the logical
consequences of this action. In the second, the elders admit that something has gone wrong, but
they are making a claim that it is not part of a broader, structural problem in society. It is a ritual
enactment that claims something is wrong, but at the same time, nothing is wrong. It is a statement
that we are trying our best, even though our best doesn’t always live up to our ideals. Even well-
intentioned actions lead to mistakes.

4
Myjewishlearning.com

11
These two words — Ana Hashem — encapsulate everything Yom Kippur is meant to accomplish:
a delicate balance between communal and individual responsibility, an admission of guilt,
reflection on how good intentions sometimes lead to undesirable results, and a genuine attempt to
realign a broken world with our ideals. All of this in just two words, words that carry in them a cry
of entreaty beyond what any other words could express.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:5

Our daf (Yoma 37a) quotes a teaching of Rebbi who draws a beautiful lesson from a Torah verse.

In his stirring words of Parshat Ha’azinu, Moshe told the Jewish people: ‫ִכּי ֵשׁם ה' ֶאְקָרא ָהבוּ ֹגֶדל‬
‫“ – ֵלא•ֵהינוּ‬when I call the Name of God, ascribe greatness to our God” (Devarim 32:3) – which,
interestingly, is the biblical source for the brachot we recite before learning Torah (see Brachot
21a).

However, Rebbi derives a further lesson from this verse that whenever we hear the Name of God,
we should ‘ascribe greatness’ to it - by invoking a bracha. Thus, when the Jewish people heard the
Kohen Gadol pronounce the Name of God on Yom Kippur, they all responded by saying: ‫ברוך שם‬
‫( כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד‬see Mishna Yoma 3:8, 35b).

Beyond this, we also learn from here that whenever we hear a ‘regular’ bracha, we should also
‘ascribe greatness’ to it which is why, when the Name of God is used in a bracha, we respond with
the words ‫( ברוך הוא וברוך שמו‬see Rosh, whose ruling is then codified in the Tur and Shulchan
Aruch, Orach Chaim 124:5).

However, there is a fascinating difference of practice in terms of the application of this principle
to the Birkat Kohanim (the priestly brachot) which are recited daily in Israel, and in the diaspora
either weekly (by most Sefardim) or on the Chagim (by Ashkenazim).

As we know, the three statements recited by Kohanim are found in Bemidbar 6:24-26, and each
statement includes the Name of God. However, though we refer to these as brachot, they are not –
strictly speaking – structured as regular brachot. Given this, when the Name of God is uttered by
the Kohanim in their Birkat Kohanim, should the congregation respond with ‫?ברוך הוא וברוך שמו‬

According to various poskim (eg. Shayarei Knesset HaGedolah, Birkei Yosef, Pri Megadim), the
actual rule as learnt from Rebbi in our daf is to ‘ascribe greatness’ whenever God’s Name is
mentioned, from which it may be derived that one should certainly respond to hearing the Name
of God in the Birkat Kohanim with ‫ברוך הוא וברוך שמו‬. Significantly, this is the practice of many
Sefardim as codified by both the Ben Ish Chai (Tetzaveh 15) and the Kaf HaChaim (OC 128:87).

Contrasting this, the prevalent custom in almost every Ashkenazic community is not to say ‫ברוך‬
‫ הוא וברוך שמו‬in response to the Name of God in the Birkat Kohanim (for sources on this, see Piskei

5
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

12
Teshuvot OC 128 footnote 199), either given the assertion that this rule only applies to ‘regular’
brachot, or given the concern of it being considered an interruption (see V’Aleihu Lo Yibol Vol.
1 p. 91). Still, to avoid distracting the Kohanim, those that do say ‫ ברוך הוא וברוך שמו‬are encouraged
to do so quietly.

What we learn from here is that while God is great, our task is to acknowledge the greatness of
God, and thus whenever we learn the word of God (Torah) or hear the Name of God (Brachot), we
should ‘ascribe greatness’ to God.

Tombs of the Kings

13
 Helene, Queen of Adiabene

Tal Ilan writes:6

Helene was the sister and wife of Monabazus Bazaeus, king of Adiabene at the beginning of the
first century c.e., who converted to Judaism with other members of her family. Adiabene, a Persian
province on the northern extremities of the Tigris River, was at the time a vassal kingdom of the
Parthian Empire.

The main source of information about Helene is from Josephus’s Antiquities (20:17–96). In his
rather romantic narrative, Helene is described as the mother of a god-chosen younger son, Izates.
She protected him from his older, jealous brothers (her own sons and those of other wives) by
sending him into the custody of a king in Charax Spasinu. During her son’s absence, a sage named
Hananiah drew her to the teachings of Judaism. Coincidentally another Jewish sage, Eleazar,
influenced Izates in the same way. They both converted. At a later stage Helene’s elder son,
Monobazus, who eventually inherited Izates’s kingdom, followed their example and similarly
embraced Judaism.

Helene played an important role in the succession of her son, summoning the nobles of the
kingdom and informing them that it had been her husband’s wish to nominate Izates king.
Declining their advice to put Izates’s brothers to death in order to avoid plots against him, she
instead placed her elder son, Monobazus, as guardian of the country until the return of the heir.
Josephus lauds her for all these sage decisions.

Josephus further relates Helene’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 46–47 c.e. Confronted with a famine
in the city, she is reputed to have assisted the Jews of Jerusalem by buying grain and dried figs in
Egypt and importing them into the country in large quantities. According to Josephus, her
beneficial acts of patronage were warmly welcomed.

Finally, we are informed that on Izates’s death in 55 c.e., she returned to Adiabene to see her elder
son Monobazus crowned king. She died shortly thereafter. The bodies of both Helene and Izates
were then transferred to Jerusalem and buried in the royal sepulchre she had built while in the city.
Most of Josephus’s narrative is devoted to Izates’s reign and his exploits and successes. Obviously
it is drawn from this king’s royal chronicle.

Rabbinic literature also refers to Queen Helene, showing far more interest in her than in any other
member of the family. In three separate episodes, the rabbis inform us that

(1) Helene donated a golden lamp to the Temple, as well as a golden plaque on which was engraved
the biblical episode of the wayward wife (the sotah, Mishnah Yoma 3:10);

(2) Helene made a nazirite vow, to which she adhered—perhaps in accordance with Bet
Shammai—for fourteen years (Mishnah Nazir 3:6);

6
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/helene-queen-of-adiabene

14
(3) Helene resided in a grand sukkah, over 20 cubits high, which the rabbis
frequented (BT Sukkah 2:2).

It also relates that Helene was the mother of Monobazus (Mishnah Yoma 3:10) but makes no
mention of her relationship to Izates. The midrash Genesis Rabbah speaks of the conversion of
two kings—Monbaz and Zoitos—but seems not to connect them to Helene (Genesis
Rabbah 46:11).

All this suggests that, unlike Josephus, who used the Adiabenese royal chronicle and was interested
in kings, the rabbis had been impressed by the queen, her piety and her benefaction. Their
sympathetic portrayal of her may suggest that her conversion was to the Pharisee/rabbinic variety
of Judaism.

Helene’s royal sepulchre was the subject of both enthusiastic literary descriptions and
archaeological investigations. Josephus tells us that Helene in her lifetime built pyramids over the
intended tomb. Pausanias, in his Description of Greece (7, 16, 5), mentions a unique mechanism
that opened the tomb automatically at certain times and sealed it at others.

Louis Félicien Joseph Caignart de Saulcy 1807-1880 7

7
French numismatist, Orientalist, and archaeologist. Saulcy was born in Lille, France. He traveled in Syria and Palestine in 1850–
51, 1863, and 1869, discovering the Shihan Stele and recognizing that the mound of Jericho was the site of an ancient city. In 1863
he cleared the Tombs of the Kings in Jerusalem, mistaking them for the Tombs of the House of David. This was the first
archaeological excavation in the Holy Land. Although his archaeological work is now considered somewhat slipshod and
amateurish, Saulcy was of some importance as a numismatist: he was the first to catalogue the coins of Palestine, noting many
which have since disappeared, and left after him an extensive coin collection.

15
This tomb was discovered by the French archaeologist Louis Félicien Caignart de Saulcy (1807–
1880), who conducted the first systematic archaeological dig in Jerusalem in the middle of the
nineteenth century.

It is a magnificent structure that can still be visited today. A sarcophagus discovered in the
sepulchre bore the inscription ‫—צדן מלכתא‬Queen Sadan. From this, we may infer that the queen’s
Persian name was Sadan, while Helene was her Greek name.

Bibliography
Gafni, Isaiah. “The Conversion of the Adiabene Kings in Light of Talmudic Literature” (Hebrew). Niv Hamidrashia (1971): 204–
212.

This article describes the sources on the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene in light of halakhic rulings and rabbinic
references to the royal house.
Ilan, Tal. Integrating Women into Second Temple History. Tübingen: 1999.

In these two chapters, Ilan argues that Helene was converted to a Pharisee variety of Judaism. She further argues that she was a
follower of the school of Bet Shammai.
Schalit, Abraham. “Evidence of an Aramaic Source in Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews.” Annual of the Swedish Theological
Institute 4 (1975): 171–181.

In this article Schalit links the story of the Adiabenese royal conversion with another story about Babylonian Jews found in
Josephus Antiquities, vol. 20. He claims the source was in Aramaic and circulated in the eastern Diaspora. Schalit maintains that
the story of Helene and Izates was part of a royal chronicle.

Schick, Conrad “The (So-Called) Tombs of the Kings at Jerusalem” PEFQS 29 (1897): 182–88.

This report is a fair description of the Helene’s burial estate with a correct identification of the tomb as that of the royal
Adiabenese household.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene in Josephus and Rabbinic Sources.” In Josephus,
Judaism and Christianity, edited by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, 293–312. Detroit: 1987.

This article deals with the story of the conversion of Izates and Monobazus as it is recorded in Genesis Rabbah. It demonstrates
well that the rabbis did not connect this story with Helene, whom they knew from elsewhere, and that they were not aware that
she was a convert.

16
 Queen Helena and Her Gift to the Temple

Jeremy Brown writes:8

ALL OR NOTHING?

In Gittin 60o Talmud, there is an interesting (and most welcome) digression from the laws of
divorce and the ownership of slaves. The Talmud asks whether just a part of the Torah may be
committed to writing, or if the text must be produced as a whole. Here's the original question:

‫ א"ל אין כותבין‬...?‫בעא מיניה אביי מרבה מהו לכתוב מגילה לתינוק להתלמד‬

Abaye asked Rabbah: "May a scroll containing only a portion of the Torah text be written for a
young child to be taught from?" Rabbah answered: "We may not write portions of the Torah."

The Talmud then questions Rabbaha's ruling:

‫איתיביה אף היא עשתה טבלא של זהב שפרשת סוטה כתובה עליה‬

They asked a question on this: She also made a golden tablet on which the Sotah passage was
inscribed.

Someone, some she, had presented to the Temple a copy of a portion of the text of the Torah carved
out on a golden tablet. It was the text of the rite of the Sotah, which was then copied from this
golden tablet onto a scroll and later dissolved in water. From the story of this golden tablet, the
Talmud challenges Rabbah's ruling, because it shows that it is indeed permitted to reproduce
only part of the text of the Torah.

We won't dwell on how this issue is finally resolved. Instead, let's find out more about the woman
who made the donation. Her identity is revealed in a Mishnah in the third chapter of Yoma:

King Monobaz had all the handles of all the vessels used on Yom Kippur made of gold. His mother
Helena had a golden candlestick made over the door of the Hechal. She also had a golden tablet
made, on which the portion about the Sotah was inscribed.

So that's who it was. Queen Helena.

8
https://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2016/2/5/gittin-61a-queen-helena-and-her-gift-to-the-temple

17
QUEEN HELENA, PATRON OF THE SECOND TEMPLE

We first met the Queen when we studied Nazir, of all places, where it turns out she was a Jew-by-
choice:

‫מעשה בהילני המלכה שהלך בנה למלחמה ואמרה אם יבוא בני מן המלחמה בשלום אהא נזירה שבע שנים ובא‬
‫בנה מן המלחמה והיתה נזירה שבע שנים ובסוף שבע שנים עלתה לארץ והורוה ב"ה שתהא נזירה עוד שבע‬
‫שנים אחרות ובסוף שבע שנים נטמאת ונמצאת נזירה עשרים ואחת שנה‬

A story happened with Queen Helena. Her son went to war and she declared "If my son returns in
peace from the war I will be a nezirah for seven years." Her son returned from the war and she
was a nezirah for seven years At the end of these seven years she went up to live in the Land of
Israel, and Bet Hillel ruled for her that she must be a nezirah for another seven years [because
Bet Hillel ruled that the time period of nezirut observed outside of Israel does not count.] At the
end of the [second] period of seven years she became impure [which meant she needed to serve
the entire period again], and so she was a nezirah for a total of twenty-one years...(Nazir 19b)

In this passage Queen Helena, who died around 50 CE., is one of the few people in the Talmud
identified as having become a nazirite, and quite possibly the only one who became a nazirite three
times over. But there is a lot more to her story. Elsewhere in the Talmud (‫ א‬,‫ )בבא בתרא יא‬her son
is credited with saving Jerusalem from famine (at least according to Rashi there). And in
the Mishnah in Yoma (37a), from where the brief quote in today's Daf-Yomi comes from, the

18
Queen dedicated to the Temple both a golden candelabra and a tablet on which the section of
the Sotah was written.

THE QUEEN IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS

While the Talmud records a number of stories about Queen Helena, the great Jewish
historian Josephus provided some additional information about her life, which corroborate some
of the stories told about her in the Talmud.

About this time, it was that Helena, Queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, changed their course
of life, and embraced the Jewish customs, and this on the occasion following: Monobazus, the king
of Adiabene, who had also the name of Bazeus, fell in love with his sister Helena, and took her to
be his wife, and begat her with child. But as he was in bed with her one night, he laid his hand
upon his wife's belly, and fell asleep, and seemed to hear a voice, which bid him take his hand off
his wife's belly, and not hurt the infant that was therein, which, by God's providence, would be
safely born, and have a happy end. This voice put him into disorder; so, he awaked immediately,
and told the story to his wife; and when his son was born, he called him Izates...

A certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Ananias, got among the women that belonged to the
king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. He, moreover, by their
means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he
also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come
to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other
Jew and went over to them...

But as to Helena, the king's mother, when she saw that the affairs of Izates's kingdom were in
peace, and that her son was a happy man, and admired among all men, and even among foreigners,
by the means of God's providence over him, she had a mind to go to the city of Jerusalem, in order
to worship at that temple of God which was so very famous among all men, and to offer her thank-
offerings there. So, she desired her son to give her leave to go there; upon which he gave his
consent to what she desired very willingly, and made great preparations for her journey, and gave
her a great deal of money, and she went down to the city Jerusalem, her son conducting her on
her journey a great way. Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem;
for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was
necessary to procure food withal, Queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with
money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs.
And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very
quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it and left a most excellent memorial
behind her of this gift, which she bestowed on our whole nation. And when her son Izates was
informed of this famine, he sent great sums of money to the men in Jerusalem...

Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 2.

19
THE QUEEN IN THE WRITINGS OF NEUSNER

In 1964 the (then young) historian Jacob Neusner published a paper in the Journal of Biblical
Literature titled The Conversion of Adiabene to Judaism: A New Perspective. Neusner claimed
that the account of Josephus about the conversion of Queen Helena and the Adiabene’ s ruling
family to Judaism "cannot reasonably be rejected," and he located Adiabene in ancient Assyria,
in what is today called Armenia. He reminded his readers that the Queen was married to her
brother Monobazus (which is apparently what royalty did in that part of the world) and that it was
Monobazus who was first converted to Judaism. But he goes one step further and asks what
political motivation lay behind this conversion.

His answer is this: the Jews of the Near and Middle East in the first century were "a numerous and
politically important group" and "in Armenia, as well as in other areas, Jewish dynasts held power,
if briefly..." In addition, "Palestinian Jewry was a powerful and militarily significant group. It was
by no means out of the question for Palestine to regain its independence of Rome, perhaps in
concert with the petty kings of the Roman orient." By converting to Judaism, the House of
Adiabene might position itself as a powerful player should the Roman empire fall. In this way,
noted Neusner, Queen Helena and her royal house were repeating a maneuver made half a century
earlier by Herod, who, while remaining loyal to Rome, had "tried to win friends in other Roman
dependencies, as well as Babylonian Jewry." In fact, the Adiabene went a step further than had
Herod, and encouraged the revolution against Rome in 66 CE. They may have done so, suggested
Neusner, in order to gain the throne in Jerusalem itself.

If the Jews had won the war against Rome, who might expect to inherit the Jewish throne? It was
not likely that Agrippa II could return to the throne, for he and his family were discredited by their
association with Rome and opposition to the war. Some Jews probably expected that the Messiah
would rule Judea, but this could not seriously have affected the calculations of the Adiabenians.
Indeed, from their viewpoint, they might reasonably hope to come to power. They were, after all,
a ruling family; their conversion could not matter to the Palestinian Jews any more than Agrippa
I's irregular lineage had prevented him from winning popular support. Their active support of the
war, their earlier benefactions to the city and people in time of famine, their royal status, and the
support they could muster from across the Euphrates, would have made them the leading, if not
the only, candidates for the throne of Jerusalem.

20
 QUEEN HELENA'S FINAL RESTING PLACE

Neusner concedes that the conversion of Helene and Izates was not only a political act. Rather, he
suggests that is important to take note of the political consequences of their religious action. It
would seem though, that Queen Helena's family recognized the deeply religious consequences of
her decision to embrace Judaism.

Josephus later records that when, having returned to Adiabene, the Queen died, her son "sent her
bones...to Jerusalem, and gave order that they be buried at the pyramids their mother had erected"
(Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 4).

This suggests that, whatever else it was, Queen Helena's conversion was also recognized by her
family as a religious act; her son recognized her connection to Jerusalem, and arranged for her to
be interred there, near what is now the American Colony Hotel.

Today, we remember the Queen with a street named after her in downtown Jerusalem. We also
remember her as the convert Queen who became a nazirite, and as the only women in the Talmud
who is recorded as having made a donation to the Second Temple.

21
 Mishna Nazir 1:5 – 4:1 from Cambridge MS Add.470.1 Folios 90v and 91 r
combined.CC BY-NC 3.0

Queen Helena of Adiabene and Her Sons in Midrash and History

Dr. Malka Z. Simkovich writes:9

Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews, tells the story of Queen Helena of Adiabene and her sons
Kings Izates II and Monobazus II, and how they converted to Judaism in the mid-first century C.E.
Rabbinic literature preserves several anecdotes about this family. However, the rabbis knew little
about them, and grappled with their insider/outsider status.

9
https://www.thetorah.com/article/queen-helena-of-adiabene-and-her-sons-in-midrash-and-history

22
 Helena’s Nazarite Vow

The Mishnah tells of Queen Helena of Adiabene, called Heleni HaMalka in Hebrew, who
made a nazirite vow that she accidentally ended up doubling or tripling (m. Nazir 3:6):[1]

The story presents Queen Helena as pious but ignorant. The vow was misguided for two reasons.
According to the rabbis, a nazirite vow must be kept while in the land of Israel, which Helena does
not know.[2] Second, nazirite vows are generally for a short duration; seven years is an
unreasonable undertaking since if a nazirite vow is accidentally violated, it must be repeated from
the beginning.

This is only one of a number of anecdotes the rabbis tell about Queen Helena and her sons, all of
whom converted to Judaism. It captures the rabbis’ ambivalence about her, a righteous convert to
Judaism who, at the same time, is a consummate outsider.

Her story, and that of her two sons, Izates II and Monobazus II, is told at length by Josephus, the
late first century C.E. Jewish historian, in book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews (17-96).[3] The
rabbinic anecdotes about Helena and her sons are therefore, based on real people and likely
inspired by real occurrences.

Nevertheless, as well shall see, the rabbinic accounts are framed according to the rabbis’ loose
grasp of Second Temple period history.[4]

23
 Queen of Adiabene Goes to Jerusalem

Helena was the queen of Adiabene, a region in what was once Assyria, along the northern end of
the Tigris river, between the upper and lower Zab. After being a vassal of the Persian Empire and
then the Parthian Empire, it became an independent state in the first century B.C.E., with its capital
in the city of Arbela (modern Erbil; not to be confused with the Galilean city of the same name).

A map with Adiabene and Judah. 95-66 BC Armenica.org via wikimedia

According to Josephus, at a certain point during the reign of her son, Izates II (34-58 C.E.), after
both had converted to Judaism, Helena decided to move to Judea:

24
Helena’s Palace
Helena stayed in Jerusalem for many years, and famously built a palace there (Jud. War5:253),
where she lived until her return to Adiabene toward the end of her life. The palace was eventually
burnt at the end of the Great Rebellion (Jud. War 6:355). Nevertheless, the early Church Father
Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260 – 340 C.E.), mentions that Helena’s monuments were still visible
in his day:

25
Helena’s Tomb

Although we do not know when Helena moved to Jerusalem, according to Josephus she returned
briefly to Adiabene in 58 C.E. when her son Izates II died at the age of 55[7] and her other son,
Monobazus II, the older brother of Izates II, took the throne. She must have been at least in her
seventies at the time of this trip. Although consoled by the fact that her other son was made king,

26
“Helena was sorely distressed by the news of her son’s death, as was to be expected of a mother
bereft of a son so very religious” (Ant. 20:93-94), and she died soon after her return.

Helena was not buried in her native land; apparently, she had already constructed a tomb for herself
and Izates II in Jerusalem:

The tomb of Helena and Izates is a large structure that still exists. It was originally excavated by
Louis Félicien de Saulcy in 1863, but misidentified it as “the Tomb of Kings,” namely of earlier
Judahite kings. The number of sarcophagi found in this tomb (five complete and a piece of a sixth
lid) demonstrate that it was used for more than just Helena and Izates II.

Sarcophagus of Helena, Israel Museum

27
One sarcophagus has the remains of a woman referred to once as Queen Tzadan (‫ )צדן מלכתא‬and
another time as Queen Tzaddah (‫)צדה מלכתה‬. Though some believe this to be Helena, others note
that the body seems to be of a younger woman, not a septuagenarian.[8] If so, this Tzadda(n) was
probably someone else from the royal family and unknown to us. (The sarcophagus is now in the
Louvre.)

The Generosity of Helena and Munbaz

The Mishnah (late 2nd century C.E.) describes the donations of Helena and her son Munbaz
(=Monbazus II), mentioning his first (m. Yoma 3:10):

The list of gold objects donated to the Temple communicates the wealth and piety of this family.
Munbaz’s donations focus on preexisting Temple objects; since Temple utensils could not
themselves be made of gold, he decided to beautify them by giving them golden handles. Helena’s
donations, in contrast, are of new and unusual items.

Her first gift is a golden ‫נברשת‬, a term that appears nowhere else in rabbinic literature and is
generally translated as candelabrum or lamp. A candelabrum outside the sanctuary could be used
for decoration, or for light in the nighttime. The Tosefta (Yoma 2:3) suggests that it was meant to
shine at sunrise, perhaps as a picante decorative feature.[17]

Particularly intriguing is her donation of the sotah tablet, i.e., a tablet upon which a copy of the
curse that the priest must write out for the woman accused of adultery who is to drink the bitter
waters (see Num 5:23). First, it is striking that Helena is connected to both the nazirite and

28
the sotah, two biblical institutions that appear back to back in the book of Numbers. Second,
the sotah is a uniquely female ritual, but one that is quite negative, since it is designed to test
suspected adulteresses.

Although the purpose of the golden sotah tablet was to make matters simpler for the priest, who
could copy the required text onto parchment without bringing out a Torah scroll, having the text
of the curse carved in gold seems discordant. It is possible that the rabbis are offering a slight jab
to a woman who married her own brother, but more probably, it merely reflects their attempt to
paint Helena as a pious, well-meaning woman yet naively lacking a sense of what is appropriate
in the Jewish Temple.

Although Josephus says nothing about donating gold to the Temple, he does emphasize how fond
she is of the Temple, and it is certainly possible that the royal family did donate money. This would
fit with what we learn from Josephus elsewhere, that Helena and Izates donated money to save
Judeans from famine.

Josephus: Funds During the Famine

The story is set in the time Helena decides to move to Jerusalem, an act which was
enthusiastically supported by her son, Izates II, king of Adiabene, who even supplies her with
funds that ultimately benefited the poor:

29
As Josephus himself lived through this famine (he would have been around 11), and directly
benefited from Helena’s largesse, his appreciation here is likely real and personal.[19]

Josephus further claims that her son followed her lead:

Josephus’ account has a direct parallel in rabbinic literature. Ironically, the one member of the
royal family that does not appear in Josephus’ version, Monobazus II, is the hero of the rabbinic
account.

Tosefta: Munbaz Saves Judea from Famine

Tosefta Peah (4:18) describes how Munbaz expended his country’s treasury to save the Judeans
from famine:

The text continues in this vein, with Munbaz offering five more derashot about how his spending
money on feeding the starving Jews is a better investment than stockpiling treasure.[20] Here again,
Munbaz is painted in the light of truly pious man, and one whose loyalty is more with Judah than

30
with his own nation. Moreover, Munbaz is the consummate rabbi, able to support his act with
multiple midrashim on biblical verses.

Although the Rabbis bring up the same claim we find in Josephus, they not only conflate Izates II
with Monobazus II, but forget entirely that the impetus for this amazing relief work was their
mother, Helena.

Footnotes

1. Trans. Sefaria.org. cf. b. Nazir 19b.

2. That this rule appears nowhere in the Torah but is “oral law” highlights the rabbis’ message about the impossibility of

correctly fulfilling commandments outside their orbit.

3. Whiston division: chs. 2-4. For a monograph length treatment of the royal family, see Michał Marciak, Izates, Helena,

and Monobazos of Adiabene: A Study on Literary Traditions and History (Philippika 66; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz

Verlag, 2014).

4. For a literary and source critical analysis of the stories about the Adiabene royal family in Josephus and comparisons

with rabbinic literature, see Tal Ilan “The Conversion of the House of Adiabene,” in Josephus and the Rabbis, vol. 1

(eds., Tal Ilan and Vered Noam; Between Bible and Mishnah; Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2017) 508-520 [Hebrew].

5. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.12; trans. Philip Schaff.

6. See Doron Ben-Ami and Yani Tchekhanovets, “Has the Adiabene Royal Family ‘Palace’ Been Exposed in the City of

David?” in Unearthing Jerusalem, 150 years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (eds., K. Galor and G. Avni;

Winona Lake, Indiana. Eisenbrauns, 2011), 231-239. This was only one of multiple structures that the Adiabene royal

family built in Jerusalem. Another palace was built by a relative of Helena named Grapte (Jud. War4:567).

7. Josephus writes:

Not long-afterwards (=the failed Parthian invasion), Izates passed away, having completed fifty-five years of his life, and

having been monarch for twenty-four; he left twenty-four sons and twenty-four daughters. (Ant. 20:92)
The number 24 seems topological or literary here, and the description of his many sons may be tailored after similar

depictions of successful leaders in the Bible, such as Ibzan:

31
‫ִשׁים ָבּנוֹת ֵהִביא ְלָבָניו ִמן‬Ž‫ִשׁים ָבּנוֹת ִשַׁלּח ַהחוָּצה וְּשׁ‬Ž‫ִשׁים ָבּ ִנים וְּשׁ‬Ž‫ט ַו ְיִהי לוֹ ְשׁ‬:‫ יב‬.‫ח ַו ִיְּשֹׁפּט ַאֲחָריו ֶאת ִיְשָׂרֵאל ִאְבָצן ִמֵבּית ָלֶחם‬:‫שופטים יב‬

.‫ַהחוּץ ַו ִיְּשֹׁפּט ֶאת ִיְשָׂרֵאל ֶשַׁבע ָשׁ ִנים‬

Judg 12:8
After him, Ibzan of Bethlehem led Israel. 12:9He had thirty sons, and he married off thirty daughters

outside the clan and brought in thirty girls from outside the clan for his sons. He led Israel seven years.

8. See R. Steven Notley and Jeffrey P. Garcia, “Is Queen Tsadan to Be Identified with Queen Helena of Adiabene?” in

Megan Sauter, “The Tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene,” Bible History Daily (April 9, 2014).

9. For more on Berenice, see my, “Queen Berenice: A Woman of Contrasts,” TheTorah.com(2016).

10. In fact, the rabbis never mention Berenice at all.

11. Though Josephus tells some positive stories about her, Second Temple Jews were bothered by Berenice, since she did

not support the rebellion and ended up as Titus’ lover. Helena, in contrast, was beloved by Judeans for her generosity

with the poor and her piety. She was not alive during the rebellion, having died almost a decade before its outbreak, but

her descendants decidedly supported it and even fought in it (as will be discussed later).

12. Helena married her brother, Monobazus I, something that was not anathema in Persian culture; Berenice did not marry

her brother, but Agrippa II was a lifelong bachelor, and she lived with him for years after she was widowed, and rumors

about a possible physical relationship circled in Rome.

13. Eisenstin, Otzar HaMidrashim, 535.

14. The rabbis only ever discuss one Agrippa.

15. See Abaye’s statement in b. Berakhot 29a.

16. Trans. Sefaria.org. cf. b. Yoma 37b.

17. The Tosefta actually has this explanation after the sotah donation, but, as Lieberman already pointed out in his Tosefta

Kefeshuta (ad loc.), it is almost certainly meant as an explanation for the candelabra. The Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 37b)

explains that the purpose was to show everyone that it was time for morning prayers, but this seems like a later attempt

to connect the donation to a mitzvah where no connection was intended.

18. The early Church Father Eusebius of Caesaria (ca. 260/265 – 339/340 C.E.), commented on this passage as follows:

[Josephus writes that] “at this time it came to pass that the great famine took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen,

having purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the needy.” You will find this statement also in

agreement with the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at Antioch, “each according to his ability,

determined to send relief to the brethren that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of

Barnabas and Paul” (Acts 11:29–30). Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History, 2.12; trans. Philip Schaff.

32
 Here Eusebius buttresses the reputations of the Apostles by comparing their generosity to that of Helena.

19. Tal Ilan makes this observation; Ilan, “Conversion,” 519.

20. For an analysis of this text, see Gregg Gardner, “How Tzedakah Became Charity,”TheGemara.com (2017).

33