MATRONA and RABBI JOSE: an ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION by TAL ILAN Jerusalem It Has Been Noted in the Past, That the Debates

MATRONA AND RABBI JOSE: AN ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION

It has been noted in the past, that the debates (or perhaps study sessions) taking place between Rabbi Jose ben Halafta and a certain Matrona, form a unique corpus of traditions in the midrashic literature'). In these pericopes (20 according to my calculation)2),

1) Z. FRAENKEL,"Zur Geschichte der jildischen Religionsgespräche", MGWJ IV (1855), pp. 206-209; M.D. HERR, "Dialogues between Sages and Roman Dignitaries", in Studiesin Aggadahand Folk Literature, ed. I. HEINEMANN,D. Noy, Jerusalem 1971 ( = Scripta Hierosolymitana XXII), pp. 146-149; F. B6HL, "Die Matronenfrage im Midrasch", Frankfurter judaistischeBeitrdge III (1975), pp. 29-64; R. GERSHONZON,E. SLOt..tomc, "A Second Century Jewish-Gnostic Debate. Rabbi Jose ben Halafta and the Matrona", Journal for the Study of Judaism XVI (1985), pp. 1-41. The last three will henceforth be referred to as HERB,BBHL and GERSHONZONand SLOMOVIC. 2) (1) Genesis Rabbah 1:7, THEODOR-ALBECKedition, p. 30, cf. Yalkut 5, SHILONIedition, p. 23; (2) 17:7, p. 158, cf. bsanhedrin 39a, Abot de Rabbi Nathan Version B 8, SCHECHTERedition, pp. 23-24, Yalkut 23 pp. 82-83, J. MANN, The Bible as Read and Preachedin the Old SynagogueII, Cincinnati 1940, p. 26 (Hebrew Section), M. GASTER,Exampla of the Rabbis, New York 1968, p. 34:LV; (3) 25:1, p. 239, cf. Yalkut 42, p. 146; (4) 63:8, p. 688, cf. Midrash Hagadol to Genesis 25:25, FISCHedition I, pp. 439-440; (5) 68:4, pp. 771-772, cf. Leviticus Rabbah 8:1, MARGALIOTedition, pp. 164-166, Tanhuma Ki Tisa 5, Bamidbar 16, Vayishlakh 10, Matot 6, Tanhuma BUBERedition Bamidbar 18, p. 8b, Matot 9, p. 81a, Psikta de Rab Kahana Ki Tisa 4, MANDELBAUMedition, pp. 18-19, Numbers Rabbah Bamidbar 3:6, Matot 22:8, Samuel Midrash 5:13, Yalkut 28, p. 28, 786, p. 635; (6) 84:21, p. 1027, cf. Tanhuma BUBERVeyeshev 8, p. 91a, Masekhet Semahot 21:9, Yalkut 143, p. 729, Midrash Hagadol to Genesis 37:35 I, pp. 639-640; (7) 87:10 pp. 1070-1071, cf. Yalkut 145, p. 752, Midrash Hagadol to Genesis 39:10 I, pp. 665-666; (8) Leviticus Rabbah 28:6, p. 662, cf. Pesikta de Rab Kahana Misbat Ha'omer 3, p. 143, Pesikta Rabbati Hacomer 18, ISH-SHALOMedition 93a; (9) Pesikta Rabbati Aseret Hadibbrot 21, p. 110b, cf. GASTER,p. 15:XVII; (10) 23, p. 117a, cf. Tanhuma Lekh Lekha 20; Bereshit Rabbati Lekh Lekha 17:1, ALBECKedition, pp. 72-73; (11) Tanhuma BUBERBereshit 2, p. lb, cf. Yalkut 6, p. 25, A. JELLINEK,Bet Hamidrasch V, Jerusalem 1938, p. 155; (12) Bereshit 20, p. 8a; (13) Miketz 9, p. 97a-b, cf. Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1:7:5, GASTER,p. 12:XIII, 28:XL; (14) Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:21:1, cf. Midrash Zuta to Ecclesiastes 3:21; (15) Exodus Rabbah 3:12:2; (16) Numbers Rabbah 3:2, cf. Samuel Midrash 8:2; (17) Midrash Hagadol to 19 a certain woman, designated Matrona, sets questions based on the text of the Old Testament to the second century sage Rabbi Jose ben Halafta, one of Rabbi Aqiba's famous disciples, one of the chief figures in the post Bar-Kokhba revolt era and a resident of Sephoris. Rabbi Jose answers her either in sympathy or in scorn but never sends her away without satisfaction3). Based on her title-Matrona-scholars from the very beginning assumed that the woman must be a high-class Roman matron residing in Palestine, whose queries represent typical polemical questions set to Jews by various groups of philosophical gentiles and heretics familiar with the Jewish Holy Scriptures. However, all those who have tackled the problem have not been able to agree as to the spiritual identity of the debater or her historicity. FRAENKEL had identified her as a Christian4), BoHL as a Godfearer (sebomene)5), GERSHONZON and SLOMOVIC as a Gnostic6) and HERR as a typical archetype of an anti-Jewish debater representing opi- nions and beliefs of anybody from Stoic to Epicurean to Roman to Christian to Gnostic7). Despite modern skepticism in dealing with rabbinic traditions, all those who have handled the Rabbi Jose and Matrona traditions have not been able to avoid speculating on the historicity of the lady. Although the traditions are set in highly stylized midrashic form, they had, nonetheless, aroused some confidence in all the scholars who have tackled them, and all agreed that, although some

Deuteronomy 21:19 V, pp. 602-603; (18) S.A. WERTHEIMER,Batei Midrashot I, Jerusalem 1952, Yelamdenu Pakudei, p. 167; (19) Da(at Zekenim (Tosfot to Genesis) 32:12; (20) Rabbi Judah ben Barzilai, Exegesison the Book of Yetsira, KAUFMANNedition, Berlin 1885, p. 150 (Hebrew). 3) Unlike Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, when he is confronted with a similar question put forward by a Matrona, according to the Jerusalem Talmud (ySota 3:4, 19a) or a wise woman, according to the Babylonian Talmud (bYoma 66b). Therefore, B6HL'S identification (pp. 39-44) of this pericope as belonging to the same genre as the Rabbi Jose and Matrona traditions is unfounded. Not only is the chief character missing, the woman inconsistently called once matrona and once wise woman, and the compilations in which the story is found, as will be shown below, different, but also the lack of an appropriate answer renders it suspect. 4) FRAENKEL(above, n. 1), cf. also Z.W. BACHER,"Ein polemischer Ausspruch Jose b. Chalafatas", MGWJ XLII (1895), pp. 506-507. 5) B6HL, pp. 58-64. 6) Above, n. 1. 7) Above, n. 1.