מתני׳ בא לו למזרח העזרה לצפון המזבח הסגן מימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו ושם שני שעירים וקלפי היתה שם ובה שני גורלו' של אשכרוע היו ועשאן בן גמלא של זהב והיו מזכירים אותו לשבח
בן קטין עשה י"ב דד לכיור שלא היה לו אלא שנים ואף הוא עשה מוכני לכיור שלא יהיו מימיו נפסלין בלינה
מונבז המלך היה עושה כל ידות הכלים של יוה"כ של זהב הילני אמו עשתה נברשת של זהב על פתח היכל ואף היא עשתה טבלא של זהב שפרשת סוטה כתובה עליה נקנור נעשו נסים לדלתותיו והיו מזכירין אותן לשבח
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 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 These were originally made of boxwood, and the High Priest Yehoshua ben Gamla fashioned them of gold, and the people would mention him favorably for what he did.
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.
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.
מונבז המלך עשה כל ידות הכלים וכו' נעבדינהו לדידהו דזהב
אמר אביי בידות סכינין מיתיבי אף הוא עשה כני כלים ואוגני כלים וידות כלים וידות סכינין של יום הכפורים של זהב תרגומא אביי בקתתא דנרגי וחציני
הילני אמו עשתה נברשת של זהב וכו' תנא בשעה שהחמה זורחת ניצוצות יוצאין ממנה והכל יודעין שהגיע זמן קריאת שמע
מיתיבי הקורא את שמע. שחרית עם אנשי משמר ואנשי מעמד לא יצא מפני שאנשי משמר משכימין ואנשי מעמד מאחרים אמר אביי לשאר עמא דבירושלים
ואף היא עשתה טבלא שמעת מינה כותבין מגילה לתינוק להתלמד בה אמר ר"ל משום רבי ינאי באלף בית
מיתיבי כשהוא כותב רואה וכותב מה שכתוב בטבלא אימא רואה וכותב כמה שכתוב בטבלא
מיתיבי כשהוא כותב רואה וכותב מה שכתוב בטבלא ומה כתוב בטבלא (במדבר ה, יט) אם שכב איש אותך [ואם לא שכב] אם שטית אם לא שטית התם בסירוגין
The mishna continues: King Munbaz would contribute the funds required to make the handles of all the Yom Kippur vessels of gold. The Gemara asks: If he wanted to donate money to beautify the Temple, he should have made the vessels themselves of gold, not just the handles. Abaye said: Although gold is not suitable for knife blades, as it is too soft for use in slaughter, the mishna is referring to knife handles.
The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita: King Munbaz also made the bases of vessels, the grips of vessels, the handles of vessels, and the handles of knives of Yom Kippur of gold. Apparently, knives are not categorized as vessels; therefore, the handles of the Yom Kippur vessels that Munbaz donated were not knife handles. The Gemara answers: Abaye interpreted that Munbaz donated gold for the handles of axes and hatchets. The blades of these implements cannot be made of gold; rather, like knives, they require stronger material.
§ 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 Gemara raises an objection: One who recites Shema in the morning with the men of the priestly watch, who served in the Temple during a given week, or with the men of the non-priestly watch, designated groups of Israelites who accompanied the priestly watch to Jerusalem that week, did not fulfill his obligation. That is because the men of the priestly watch recite Shema too early so that they will have sufficient time to perform the Temple service, and the men of the non-priestly watch, who recite lengthy prayers and stand over the daily morning offering when it is sacrificed, postpone reciting Shema. For whom, then, did the emanating sparks signal the time to recite Shema? Abaye said: It was an indicator for the rest of the people in Jerusalem, who recited Shema at the appropriate time to recite Shema.
§ 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.
The Gemara raises an objection from the halakhot of sota: When the scribe writes the sota scroll, he looks and writes that which is written on the tablet. Apparently, the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara rejects this: Emend the baraita and say: He looks and writes like that which is written on the tablet. The tablet aids the scribe in remembering the text that must be written.
The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita: When he writes, he looks and writes that which is written on the tablet. And what is written on the tablet? If a man lay with you…and if he did not lay with you; if you strayed…if you did not stray (see Numbers 5:19–20). Apparently, the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara answers: There, it was written with
alternating complete words and initials. The first words of each verse were written there, but the rest of the words in the verse were represented by initials. Therefore, this contribution of Queen Helene does not resolve the question of whether writing a scroll for a child is permitted.
Sotah tablet discussed in parallel on Gittin 60a
אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בהילני המלכה בלוד שהיתה סוכתה גבוהה מעשרים אמה והיו זקנים נכנסין ויוצאין לשם ולא אמרו לה דבר אמרו לו משם ראייה אשה היתה ופטורה מן הסוכה אמר להן והלא שבעה בנים הוו לה ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים
למה לי למיתני ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים
הכי קאמר להו כי תאמרו בנים קטנים היו וקטנים פטורין מן הסוכה כיון דשבעה הוו אי אפשר דלא הוי בהו חד שאינו צריך לאמו
וכי תימרו קטן שאינו צריך לאמו מדרבנן הוא דמיחייב ואיהי בדרבנן לא משגחה ת"ש ועוד כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא ע"פ חכמים
בשלמא למ"ד בשאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך מחלוקת דרכה של מלכה לישב בסוכה שאין דפנות מגיעות לסכך
משום אוירא אלא למאן דאמר בסוכה קטנה מחלוקת וכי דרכה של מלכה לישב בסוכה קטנה אמר רבה בר רב אדא לא נצרכה אלא לסוכה העשויה קיטוניות קיטוניות
וכי דרכה של מלכה לישב בסוכה העשויה קיטוניות קיטוניות אמר רב אשי לא נצרכה אלא לקיטוניות שבה
רבנן סברי בניה בסוכה מעליא הוו יתבי ואיהי יתבה בקיטוניות משום צניעותא ומשום הכי לא אמרי לה דבר ור' יהודה סבר בניה גבה הוו יתבי ואפ"ה לא אמרי לה דבר
Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Queen Helene in Lod where her sukka was more than twenty cubits high, and the Elders were entering and exiting the sukka and did not say anything to her about the sukka not being fit.
The Rabbis said to him: Is there proof from there? She was, after all, a woman and therefore exempt from the mitzva of sukka. Consequently, the fact that her sukka was not fit did not warrant a comment from the Elders.
Rabbi Yehuda said to them in response: Didn’t she have seven sons and therefore require a fit sukka? And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.
Before analyzing the objection being raised from the baraita, the Gemara seeks to understand its content. Why do I need Rabbi Yehuda to teach: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages? His first contention was sufficient.
The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying to them: If you say that Helene’s sons were minor sons and minors are exempt from the mitzva of sukka, and that is why the Elders said nothing; since they were seven sons, then it is not possible that there was not at least one among them who no longer needed his mother to look after him. The halakha is that a minor who no longer needs his mother has reached the age of training and is required to fulfill the mitzva of sukka by rabbinic law. Even if she gave birth to them in consecutive years, the oldest would be seven years old, and at that age a child does not need his mother to constantly look after him.
And if you say that a child who no longer needs his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka only by rabbinic law, and Queen Helene did not observe rabbinic law, come and hear that which Rabbi Yehuda said: And furthermore, she performed all of her actions only in accordance with the directives of the Sages.
The Gemara explores the statements of the amora’im who quoted Rav in light of this baraita. Granted, according to the one, Rabbi Yoshiya, who said that it is specifically in a case where the walls of the sukka do not reach up to the roofing that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, the baraita can be explained as dealing with a sukka of that type, as it is customary for a queen to reside in a sukka in which the walls do not reach up to the roofing,
due to the fresh air that circulates through the openings in the wall. However, according to the one who said that it is specifically in the case of a small sukka that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, in which case the baraita is referring to a case where Queen Helene resided in a small sukka, is it customary for a queen to reside in a small sukka whose area is less than four cubits squared? Rabba bar Rav Adda said: This ruling is necessary only in the case of a sukka that is constructed with several small rooms [kitoniyyot]. The sukka was large, but it was subdivided into many small rooms, each of which was smaller than four square cubits.
Again, the Gemara asks: Is it then customary for a queen to reside in a sukka constructed with several small rooms without leaving a large room in which she could assemble her family and servants? Rav Ashi said: This ruling is necessary only with regard to the compartments in the sukka. It was indeed a large sukka with a large central room; however, there were many small rooms adjacent to the main room. It is with regard to this type of sukka that there is a tannaitic dispute.
The Rabbis hold: Her sons were residing in a full-fledged sukka with a large central room, which everyone agrees was fit. However, she often resided in the small rooms due to modesty, to avoid being in the public eye. And for that reason the Elders did not say anything to her, as even if the small rooms were too small relative to the height of the sukka, there was no problem since her sons did not sit in them. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Her sons would occasionally reside with her in the small room, and even so, the Elders did not say anything to her, indicating that a sukka more than twenty cubits high is fit even in a small sukka. Now that the Tosefta can be explained according to all the statements cited by the amora’im in the name of Rav, no proof can be cited with regard to the essence of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to a small sukka more than twenty cubits high.
מתני׳ מי שנזר נזירות הרבה והשלים את נזירותו ואח"כ בא לארץ בש"א נזיר שלשים יום ובית הילל אומרים נזיר בתחלה
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 אמר רבי יהודה לא היתה נזירה אלא ארבע עשרה שנה:
גמ׳ קתני רישא בית שמאי אומרים נזיר שלשים יום ובה"א נזיר בתחלה לימא בהא קמיפלגי דבית שמאי סברי ארץ העמים משום גושה גזרו עליה
ובית הלל סברי משום אוירא גזרו עליה לא דכולי עלמא משום גושה גזרו עליה וב"ש סברי בסתם נזירות קניסנא וב"ה סברי כי קניסנא בתחילת נזירות:
מעשה בהילני המלכה וכו': איבעיא להו בשנטמאת ואליבא דב"ש או דלמא בשלא נטמאת ואליבא דב"ה
ת"ש עלתה לארץ והורוה ב"ה שתהא נזירה עוד שבע שנים אחרות וכו' ואי ס"ד בשנטמאת ואליבא דב"ש אי הכי ר' יהודה אומר לא היתה נזירה אלא י"ד שנה י"ד שנה ושלשים יום מיבעי ליה
תניא נמי הכי רבי יהודה אומר משום ר' אליעזר דאמר קרא (במדבר ו, יג) זאת תורת הנזיר התורה אמרה כי נטמא ביום מלאת תן לו תורת נזיר:
MISHNA: One who vowed many days of naziriteship while outside Eretz Yisrael, and completed his naziriteship, and afterward came to Eretz Yisrael, in order to bring the offerings at the end of his naziriteship, Beit Shammai say: He must be a nazirite for thirty days, so that he has observed a term of naziriteship in ritual purity in Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel say: He is a nazirite from the beginning, that is, he must observe his entire naziriteship again.
The mishna cites a related story: An incident occurred with regard to Queen Helene, whose son had gone to war, and she said: If my son will return from war safely, I will be a nazirite for seven years. And her son returned safely from the war, and she was a nazirite for seven years. And at the end of seven years, she ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel instructed her, in accordance with their opinion, that she should be a nazirite for an additional seven years. And at the end of those seven years she became ritually impure, and was therefore required to observe yet another seven years of naziriteship, as ritual impurity negates the tally of a nazirite. And she was found to be a nazirite for twenty-one years. Rabbi Yehuda said: She was a nazirite for only fourteen years and not twenty-one.
GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that Beit Shammai say: He must be a nazirite for thirty days, and Beit Hillel say: He is a nazirite from the beginning. The Gemara suggests a possible explanation of their dispute: Let us say that they disagree about this, that Beit Shammai hold that when the Sages declared that the land of the nations outside of Eretz Yisrael is impure, they decreed so with regard to its earth. In other words, they decreed that only the earth of the land of the nations is impure, but its airspace remains pure. If so, it is not a severe level of ritual impurity, and one who observed a vow of naziriteship outside of Eretz Yisrael is not considered to be impure to the extent that he would be required to start his naziriteship afresh once entering Eretz Yisrael,
and Beit Hillel hold: They decreed with regard to its airspace, and it is a severe level of ritual impurity, so he must start his naziriteship from the beginning once he arrives in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, it may be that everyone agrees that they decreed only with regard to its earth, and they disagree merely over the details of the penalty. Beit Shammai hold that we penalize him with an unspecified term of naziriteship, which is thirty days, and Beit Hillel hold that when we penalize, we require him to return to the beginning of his term of naziriteship, and he must observe the entire term of naziriteship afresh.
§ The mishna taught: An incident occurred with regard to Queen Helene. A dilemma was raised before them: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement? Does he hold that the case was one where she became impure in Eretz Yisrael, but after thirty days, and not after seven years, and Rabbi Yehuda spoke in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who hold that she was required to observe only a further thirty days upon her arrival in Eretz Yisrael, and due to her becoming impure she had to observe again her original term of naziriteship, for a total of fourteen years? Or perhaps the case is one where she did not become impure at the end of the seven years in Eretz Yisrael, and he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel that she had to observe an additional seven years upon her entry to Eretz Yisrael.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: She ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and Beit Hillel instructed her that she should be a nazirite for an additional seven years, etc. And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda says that the case is one where she became ritually impure after observing thirty days of naziriteship following her arrival to Eretz Yisrael, and he spoke in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, if so, why does Rabbi Yehuda say she was a nazirite for only fourteen years? He should have said fourteen years and thirty days, as even Beit Shammai obligate her to observe a thirty-day period of naziriteship in Eretz Yisrael. It must be that Rabbi Yehuda holds that she observed seven additional years, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and says that she did not become ritually impure.
The Gemara adds: This is also taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion cannot be established in accordance with Beit Shammai: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that the verse states: “This is the law of the nazirite when the days of his consecration are fulfilled” (Numbers 6:13). The Torah states: When he becomes impure on the day of the completion of his naziriteship, even if it was at the end of a lengthy term, give him the law of an unspecified nazirite, and he must observe a thirty-day term. Therefore, if she became impure at the end of those thirty days that Beit Shammai obligates her to observe, she should have been required to observe naziriteship for only thirty additional days, rather than a full seven years. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda certainly accepts the opinion of Beit Hillel, and claims that she did not become ritually impure.
(1) HOW HELENA THE QUEEN OF ADIABENE AND HER SON IZATES, EMBRACED THE JEWISH RELIGION; AND HOW HELENA SUPPLIED THE POOR WITH CORN, WHEN THERE WAS A GREAT FAMINE AT JERUSALEM.
1. 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. He had indeed Monobazus, his elder brother, by Helena also, as he had other sons by other wives besides. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his only begotten2 Josephus here uses the word monogene, an only begotten son, for no other than one best beloved, as does both the Old and New Testament, I mean where there were one or more sons besides, Genesis 22:2; Hebrew 11:17. See the note on B. I. ch. 13. sect. 1. son Izates, which was the origin of that envy which his other brethren, by the same father, bore to him; while on this account they hated him more and more, and were all under great affliction that their father should prefer Izates before them. Now although their father was very sensible of these their passions, yet did he forgive them, as not indulging those passions out of an ill disposition, but out of a desire each of them had to be beloved by their father. However, he sent Izates, with many presents, to Abennerig, the king of Charax-Spasini, and that out of the great dread he was in about him, lest he should come to some misfortune by the hatred his brethren bore him; and he committed his son's preservation to him. Upon which Abennerig gladly received the young man, and had a great affection for him, and married him to his own daughter, whose name was Samacha: he also bestowed a country upon him, from which he received large revenues.
(2) 2. But when Monobazus was grown old, and saw that he had but a little time to live, he had a mind to come to the sight of his son before he died. So he sent for him, and embraced him after the most affectionate manner, and bestowed on him the country called Carra; it was a soil that bare amomum in great plenty: there are also in it the remains of that ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them.3 It is here very remarkable, that the remains of Noah's ark were believed to he still in being in the days of Josephus. See the note on B. I. ch. 3. sect. 5. Accordingly, Izates abode in that country until his father's death. But the very day that Monobazus died, queen Helena sent for all the grandees, and governors of the kingdom, and for those that had the armies committed to their command; and when they were come, she made the following speech to them: "I believe you are not unacquainted that my husband was desirous Izates should succeed him in the government, and thought him worthy so to do. However, I wait your determination; for happy is he who receives a kingdom, not from a single person only, but from the willing suffrages of a great many." This she said, in order to try those that were invited, and to discover their sentiments. Upon the hearing of which, they first of all paid their homage to the queen, as their custom was, and then they said that they confirmed the king's determination, and would submit to it; and they rejoiced that Izates's father had preferred him before the rest of his brethren, as being agreeable to all their wishes: but that they were desirous first of all to slay his brethren and kinsmen, that so the government might come securely to Izates; because if they were once destroyed, all that fear would be over which might arise from their hatred and envy to him. Helena replied to this, that she returned them her thanks for their kindness to herself and to Izates; but desired that they would however defer the execution of this slaughter of Izates's brethren till he should be there himself, and give his approbation to it. So since these men had not prevailed with her, when they advised her to slay them, they exhorted her at least to keep them in bonds till he should come, and that for their own security; they also gave her counsel to set up some one whom she could put the greatest trust in, as a governor of the kingdom in the mean time. So queen Helena complied with this counsel of theirs, and set up Monobazus, the eldest son, to be king, and put the diadem upon his head, and gave him his father's ring, with its signet; as also the ornament which they call Sampser, and exhorted him to administer the affairs of the kingdom till his brother should come; who came suddenly upon hearing that his father was dead, and succeeded his brother Monobazus, who resigned up the government to him.
(3) 3. Now, during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, 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 when Izates had taken the kingdom, and was come to Adiabene, and there saw his brethren and other kinsmen in bonds, he was displeased at it; and as he thought it an instance of impiety either to slay or imprison them, but still thought it a hazardous thing for to let them have their liberty, with the remembrance of the injuries that had been offered them, he sent some of them and their children for hostages to Rome, to Claudius Caesar, and sent the others to Artabanus, the king of Parthia, with the like intentions.
(4) 4. And when he perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as he supposed that he could not he thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that, as he was a king, he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they should understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign; and that they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew. This it was that she said to him, and for the present persuaded him to forbear. And when he had related what she had said to Ananias, he confirmed what his mother had said; and when he had also threatened to leave him, unless he complied with him, he went away from him, and said that he was afraid lest such an action being once become public to all, he should himself be in danger of punishment for having been the occasion of it, and having been the king's instructor in actions that were of ill reputation; and he said that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision. He added, that God would forgive him, though he did not perform the operation, while it was omitted out of necessity, and for fear of his subjects. So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Ananias. But afterwards, as he had not quite left off his desire of doing this thing, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing; for as he entered into his palace to salute him, and found him reading the law of Moses, he said to him, "Thou dost not consider, O king! that thou unjustly breakest the principal of those laws, and art injurious to God himself, [by omitting to be circumcised]; for thou oughtest not only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they enjoin thee. How long wilt thou continue uncircumcised? But if thou hast not yet read the law about circumcision, and dost not know how great impiety thou art guilty of by neglecting it, read it now." When the king had heard what he said, he delayed the thing no longer, but retired to another room, and sent for a surgeon, and did what he was commanded to do. He then sent for his mother, and Ananias his tutor, and informed them that he had done the thing; upon which they were presently struck with astonishment and fear, and that to a great degree, lest the thing should be openly discovered and censured, and the king should hazard the loss of his kingdom, while his subjects would not bear to be governed by a man who was so zealous in another religion; and lest they should themselves run some hazard, because they would be supposed the occasion of his so doing. But it was God himself who hindered what they feared from taking effect; for he preserved both Izates himself and his sons when they fell into many dangers, and procured their deliverance when it seemed to be impossible, and demonstrated thereby that the fruit of piety does not perish as to those that have regard to him, and fix their faith upon him only.4 Josephus is very full and express in these three chapters, 3., 4., and 5., in observing how carefully Divine Providence preserved this Izates, king of Adiabene, and his sons, while he did what he thought was his bounden duty, notwithstanding the strongest political motives to the contrary. But these events we shall relate hereafter.
(5) 5. 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 thither; upon which he gave his consent to what she desired very willingly, and made great preparations for her dismission, 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 benefaction, which she bestowed on our whole nation. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine,5 This further account of the benefactions of Izates and Helena to the Jerusalem Jews which Josephus here promises is, I think, no where performed by him in his present works. But of this terrible famine itself in Judea, take Dr. Hudson's note here: — "This ( says he ) is that famine foretold by Agabus, Acts 11:28, which happened when Claudius was consul the fourth time; and not that other which happened when Claudius was consul the second time, and Cesina was his colleague, as Scaliger says upon Eusebius, p. 174." Now when Josephus had said a little afterward, ch. 5. sect. 2, that "Tiberius Alexander succeeded Cuspius Fadus as procurator," he immediately subjoins, that" under these procurators there happened a great famine in Judea." Whence it is plain that this famine continued for many years, on account of its duration under these two procurators. Now Fadus was not sent into Judea till after the death of king Agrippa, i.e. towards the latter end of the 4th year of Claudius; so that this famine foretold by Agabus happened upon the 5th, 6th, and 7th years of Claudius, as says Valesius on Euseb. II. 12. Of this famine also, and queen Helena's supplies, and her monument, see Moses Churenensis, p. 144, 145, where it is observed in the notes that Pausanias mentions that her monument also. he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem. However, what favors this queen and king conferred upon our city Jerusalem shall be further related hereafter.