Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:19:33.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Status of a Repudiated Spouse: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 7 (TAD B3.8)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Zvi Henri Szubin  and
Bezalel Porten
Get access

Extract

The longest Elephantine contract is the “document of wifehood” (spr ʾntw) drawn up between Ananiah son of Haggai and Zaccur son of Meshullam. Numbering forty-five lines and measuring 30 cm wide by 92 cm high, it had been cut apart at the time of acquisition and was painstakingly put together, like a jigsaw puzzle, over a long period of time and in stages, both in 1949 by Anthony Giambalvo of the Department of Egyptian Art of the Brooklyn Museum and almost forty years later, in February, 1987, by Porten and Ada Yardeni. It was first published by Emil G. Kraeling in 1953 and then in 1989 by Porten and Yardeni with handcopy. The contract stipulated the terms, rights and obligations, and pecuniary consequences attendant upon the marriage of Ananiah to Jehoishma daughter of Anani son of Azariah and his wife Tamet (TAD B3.4:18), formerly handmaiden of Meshullam father of Zaccur (TAD B3.3:3, 3.6:2-4). As successor to Meshullam's estate, Zaccur possessed residual rights to Jehoishma and her mother Tamet (TAD B3.6:11-15). Since Zaccur provided the dowry and relinquished some of his rights to Jehoishma, it is with him and not with Jehoishma's natural father (Anani son of Azariah) that the contract was drawn up.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 46 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kraeling, E.G., The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven, 1953), 126–127, 201–222Google Scholar.

2 Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English (Academon. Jerusalem, 1989), II, 78–83 (= TAD B3.8)Google Scholar.

3 Porten, B. and Szubin, H.Z., “The Status of the Handmaiden Tamet: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 2 (TAD B3.3),” Israel Law Review 29 (1995), 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, first fully articulated in Szubin, H.Z., Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law (PhD diss., unabridged version. Dropsie University, 1966), Chap. XIIIGoogle Scholar.

4 Within the context of legal realia the šṭar psiqta evolved from and was a successor to the original spr ʾntw(i.e. the Elephantine-type document) and in turn served as antecedent to one of the elements later incorporated into the conflated ketubbah. In contrast to her mother Tamet's post-nuptial agreement, drawn up after the birth of the couple's son Pilti, Jehoishma's document is a pre-nuptial agreement. This is borne out by the contract, drawn up by her father Anani three months before her marriage, granting her a life estate of usufruct in his house (TAD B3.7); Szubin, H.Z. and Porten, B., “A Life Estate of Usufruct: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 6,” BASOR 269 (1988), 29–45Google Scholar.

5 See, e.g., Roth (below, n. 11); Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. XIV; for the confusion caused by equating our spr ʾntw with the later, conflated rabbinic ketubbah, see idem, Appendix C “In rem vs. In personam,” elaborated by Szubin in “Matrimonial Status of the Repudiated Spouse,” presented at the International Conference of the SBL at Leuven on August 10, 1994.

6 Cotton, H.M. and Yardeni, A., Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Naḥal Ḥever and Other Sites (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXVII, Oxford, 1997)Google Scholar.

7 Tellingly, our document addresses both of these prospective possibilities with comparable pecuniary consequences; see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. VI.

8 See Porten, B. and Szubin, H.Z., Israel Law Review 29 (1995), 50, n. 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the development and antecedents of this formulation, as well as “to have and to hold” and other habendum et tendendum clauses, see Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. X.

9 For the significance of the nexus between the recital and operative clauses in legal documents see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Appendix E, “The Legal Force of Operative Clauses” and Chap. II, nn. 12 and 26, concerning the halakhic norms requiring the use of present tense in the operative clauses of performance documents in contrast to past tense in probative documents memorializing past events.

10 In a fragmentary inventory of households we have the schema “PN son of PN, ywd/r, PN daughter of PN, nšn rbh, PN his daughter/son. All (told); x souls” (TAD C3.9). The term ywd/r designates a grown male (slave) (contrast the designated Petosiri and Bela with the as yet undesignated Lilu, too young to be separated from his mother [TAD B2.11:4-5, 12-14]) and so nšn rbh must mean a “grown female” and capable of establishing a household.

11 For further discussion of this clause see Porten, B. and Szubin, H.Z., Israel Law Review 29 (1995), 48–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar and more fully in H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. XIV. The reason our document eventually wound up in Jehoishma's archive, even though she was not a party to the original contract, is due to the legal tradition requiring that upon marriage the groom deliver to the bride the document of wifehood. For further discussion concerning matrimonial document devolution and the archival praxis prevalent in the ancient Near East, particularly under Persian rule, and attested in the earliest strata of Jewish law and lore spanning two millennia, from the pre-Tannaitic period to the present, see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chaps. III and XVII. Note, especially, Chap. I, n. 10 concerning the halakhic requirement that the ketubbah be delivered to the bride by the groom personally at the time of the inception of marriage. Tellingly, the divergence of halakhic opinions concerning this requirement is also rooted in the legal realia of our “document of wifehood” since it comprises one of the operative elements of the conflated rabbinic ketubbah.

12 See Porten, B. and Szubin, H.Z., Israel Law Review 29 (1995), 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 We may also note 1 Sam. 1:22 where ‘d ‘wlm is understood by traditional exegetes in the limited sense of one's lifetime, whether that of Samuel (Radak), Eli (M'tzudat David), or the Levite's duration of Temple service (Rashi); see Szubin, , Testamentary Succession, Appendix B, “Legal Lexicon and Scribal Praxis”Google Scholar. For ramifications of these and analogous formulations in liturgical compositions and early maṭ be'a ha'tfillah, see H.Z. Szubin, Legal Terminology in Liturgical Texts (forthcoming).

14 Roth, M.T., Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th-3rd Centuries B.C. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer; 1989), 24–28Google Scholar.

15 For the latter, see already Cowley, A.E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Oxford University, 1923), xxxGoogle Scholar though he misconstrued line 6 in that document.

16 Muffs, Y., “Two Comparative Lexical Studies,” The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 5 (1973), 287–94Google Scholar.

17 Muffs, Y., Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (Leiden, Brill, 1969), 53–56Google Scholar.

18 See, e.g. Berlin, P. 13593.4 in Lüddeckens, E., Ägyptische Eheverträge (Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1960), 64–69Google Scholar = C33 in Porten, B., Elephantine Papyri in English (Leiden, Brill, 1996)Google Scholar.

19 Yaron, R., Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri (Oxford, OUP, 1961), 53–59Google Scholar.

20 Friedman, M., Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Genizah Study (Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University, 1981), I, 313–316Google Scholar; Westbrook, R., “The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986), 399–401Google Scholar.

21 Freund, L., “Bemerkungen zu Papyrus G. des Fundes von Assuan,” WZKM 21 (1907), 174, n. 5Google Scholar; Epstein, J.N. “Notizen zu den jüdisch-aramäischen Papyri von Assuan,” JJLG 6 (1908), 368–370Google Scholar.

22 Schorr, M., Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts (Leipzig, Heinrich, 1913)Google Scholar.

23 King, L. W., Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (British Museum: London, 1910)Google Scholar.

24 Driver, G.R. and Miles, J.C., The Babylonian Laws (Oxford, 1960 [corrected]), I, 286, 291–292, 401–402Google Scholar; Roth, M.T., Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (2nd ed. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1997), 63, 107–108, 120 (CH is here designated LH)Google Scholar; Yaron, R., The Laws of Eshnunna (2nd ed. Jerusalem, Magnes, 1988), 61, 89–91, 208–209Google Scholar.

25 Moran, W.L., The Amarna Letters (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, 1992), 244, 326Google Scholar (in both of which “love” and “hate” are juxtaposed).

26 Landsberger, B., Die serie “ana ittišu” (Materialien zum Šumerischen Lexikon I. (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1937), 59Google Scholar.

27 Cf. Parker, B., “The Nimrud Tablets 1952 — Business Documents,” Iraq 16 (1954), 37–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Postgate, J. N., Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents (1976), 105–106Google Scholar = Westbrook, , Scripta, 400, n. 49Google Scholar. See, also, Grayson, A. K. and van Seters, J., “The Childless Wife in Assyria and the Stories of Genesis,” Orientalia 44 (1975), 485–486Google Scholar. This Neo-Assyrian document uses the term zêru in successive lines to refer to the mistress hating her slavegirl, to the wife hating her husband, and to the husband hating his wife.

28 In this context the term “hate” is generally explained as sexual rejection; cf. van Praag, A., Droit matrimonial assyro-babylonien (Amsterdam, N.V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1945), 88, 195Google Scholar.

29 See Wiseman, D. J., “Supplementary Copies of Alalakh Tablets,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 8 (1954), 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wiseman, D. J., The Alalakh Tablets (London, British Institute of Archaeology, 1953), 55Google Scholar. The fragmentary passage reads “If PN [= wife] ⌜hates⌝ PN [= husband] and divorces him” (We are grateful to Prof. Sam Greengus for this information). It is clear from this passage that “hate” is not identical with divorce.

30 Nougayrol, J., Lepalais royal d'Ugarit, vol. III (Mission de Ras Shamra, vol. VI. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1955), 54–55Google Scholar.

31 See Yaron, R., The Laws of Eshnunna, 116–117Google Scholar.

32 Nougayrol, J., Le palais royal d'Ugarit, vol. IV (Mission de Ras Shamra, vol. IX. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956)Google Scholar.

33 Driver, and Miles, , The Babylonian Laws II, 299Google Scholar.

34 Clause §24 in deeds of type A according to Pestman, P. W., Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt (Leiden, Brill, 1961), 63, n. 5Google Scholar.

35 Pestman, , Marriage, 22, 58–64Google Scholar.

36 Ebers, G., Papyrus Ebers (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1875)Google Scholar.

37 Erman, A., Life in Ancient Egypt (translated by Tirard, H. M.. London: Macmillan, 1894), 232–33Google Scholar and earlier in Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache 30 (1892), 63Google Scholar.

38 Contrast the translation of Lichtheim, Miriam, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley, University of California, 1975), I, 74Google Scholar, “He who hears is the beloved of god, he whom god hates does not hear”. The passage is cited by Otto, E., “Bedeutungsnuancen der Verben mrj ‘lieben’ und mśdj ‘hassen’,” MDAIK 25 (1969), 98–100Google Scholar. We are grateful to Günter Vittmann for the reference, discussion of this word, and transcription of the proverb.

39 For a survey of this term in its many ramifications see Branson, R.D., A Study of the Hebrew Term (PhD diss. Boston University Graduate School, 1976)Google Scholar; Lipinski, E., “sāne',” Fabry, F.-J. and Ringgren, H., eds., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1993), VII, 828–839Google Scholar; Jenni, E., “ hate” in Jenni, E. and Westermann, C., eds., Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 1997), III, 1277–1279Google Scholar. See further Szubin, H.Z., “The Status of the Beloved Wife in Jewish Law and ANET,” The Ancient History Bulletin (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

40 The case of Samson and his wife may be compared to that of David and Michal. When David fled and left Michal behind (1 Sam. 19:11-18), Saul saw fit to interpret David's action as abandonment and so gave her to another husband, Paltiel b. Laish (1 Sam. 25:44). Similarly Samson's father-in-law assumed that Samson had abandoned his daughter and therefore gave her in marriage to another man (Ju. 14:20, 15:2).

41 See Szubin, H.Z. and Porten, B., “Testamentary Succession at Elephantine,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 252 (1983), 37Google Scholar and more fully in H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chaps XII and XIV.

42 See H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chap. XII, n. 49 for the suggestion to read ahuvai rather than ohavai, as an extension of the alternate reading in Is. 41:8 (cf. 2 Chron. 20:7 with its reference to the right of succession). The traditional commentators were at a loss to find an explicit reference that Abraham loved God; since Deut. 4:37 stated that God loved the patriarchs, it was assumed, but only by implication, that Abraham must have reciprocated; for discussion of Is. 41:8 and its variants in the versions see Goshen-Gottstein, M., “Abraham — Lover or Beloved of God”, in Marks, J.H. and Good, R.M. (eds.), Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (Guilford, CT, 1987) 101–104Google Scholar. See further Neh. 13:26 and cf. Aramaic rḥym ʾlhn, “beloved of gods” in Aḥiqar (TAD C1.1:163). For the ramifications of the legal meaning of ʾhb “love” in early liturgical compositions see H.Z. Szubin, Legal Terminology in Liturgical Texts (forthcoming).

43 For other antecedents of biblical legislation, especially casuistic formulations in the Genesis narrative see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chaps. I and III. For discussion of the concept of primacy in matrimony in Persian law and lore, especially the pādixsay primary wife vis-à-vis the čagar wife in the context of stūrih legal realia, as well as the term šgl as “consort,” and hieros gamos marriages see idem, Chap. XI and Szubin, Z.H., “The Status of the Beloved Wife in Jewish Law and ANET”, The Ancient History Bulletin (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

44 See H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chap. XIV. For a possible Babylonian parallel cf. Hallo, W.W., “The Slandered Bride” in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago, University of Chicago, 1964), 95–105Google Scholar and Hallo, W.W., Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions (Leiden, Brill, 1996), 247–250Google Scholar.

45 For the distinction between payments as a contractual obligation (tšlwmym) and penalties (qnswt) and the concept of “monetary stipulation” (tnʾy mmwr), see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chap. XIV, especially Chap. III for the development of rabbinic formulary and subsequent innovative and creative halakhic solutions rooted in pre-Tannaitic law and lore, e.g., the Rabbinic Hetter ʿIsqa erroneously perceived as an artificial loophole evading the biblical prohibition of usury, it is in fact rooted in ubiquitous legal praxis paralleling the Achaemenid joint venture agreements.

46 For discussion of involuntary divorces (get meuseh) and the distinction between volition and coercion in the dissolution of matrimonial bonds see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. XVI and for the ramifications of the new interpretations in Israeli and American modern law see idem., “The Get Statute: N.Y. Domestic Relations Law §253 and Alternatives to the Agunah Problem,” Cardozo Law Review (forthcoming).

47 See Hugenberger, G.P., Marriage as a Covenant (Leiden, 1994), 216–228Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., 222.

49 For the privileges, as well as obligations of the first-ranking wife, see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. XV; also n. 56 wherein the Vilna Gaon's interpretation, perceived as erroneous, is vindicated. (Netziv on Deut. 21:15).

50 Andersen, F.I. and Freedman, D.N., Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible. Garden City, 1980), 217–224Google Scholar with summary statement, “there have been formal proceedings and no legal divorce. The situation involves an errant wife and an offended husband …” (p. 224). For a full discussion see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. XVI, especially n. 44.

51 See, in part, Roth, W.M.W, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament (VT Supp. 13. Leiden: Brill; 1965), 34–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar. We are grateful to Alejandro Botta for calling this work to our attention.

52 For other options available to a wife whose status within the matrimonial bond was diminished see Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. XV, especially nn. 26 and 41, demonstrating revealing convergence with Persian matrimonial traditions. For subsequent rabbinic codifications unreceptive to the institution of inchoate divorce, mandating the wife not to remain within her husband's domain nor reside in his proximity, see ibid., Chap. XVI and Appendix D, “The Demoted Wife and the Potential Divorcée.”

53 In the light of this understanding, the enigmatic passage in Malachi 2:16a comes to light — “If (you) hate (her), (then) divorce!” This interpretation is supported by the DSS 4QXIIa II.4 reading ky ʾm śnth šlḥ (Ulrich, E., et al. , DJD XV. Qumran Cave 4 X The Prophets [Oxford, 1997], 224Google Scholar) and is mirrored in the words of R. Judah, ʾm śnʾth šlḥ (Git. 90b), “If you hate her — divorce!” (“Do not leave the woman in an oppresive situation of repudiation; write her a bill of divorce!”) Paper presented by Szubin at the International Conference of the SBL in Budapest on July 26, 1995, “The ‘Beloved Son’ in the Hebrew Bible and the ‘Beloved Disciple’ in the New Testament in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Legal Texts.”

54 To be rendered “she may take her dowry and go to her father's house.” We are grateful to Barry Eichler for discussion of this passage. Holtz, S.E. (“‘To Go and Marry any Man that you Please’: A Study of the Formulaic Antecedents of the Rabbinic Writ of Divorce”, JNES 60 [2001], 241–258Google Scholar) equates the clauses in our document and other analogous legal sources with the rabbinic ge†. He likewise asserts that ͂n° must mean divorce because “the use of the apparently divorce-specific phrase to conclude the stipulations, however, suggests that these are actually divorce clauses” (252, n. 40). The use is more apparent than real, for the scribes judiciously employ trk for divorce/expulsion and sn' for repudiation/demotion. Furthermore, Holtz himself is aware that the “go wherever (s)he pleases” clause occurs also in adoption and inheritance documents. Tellingly, his conclusion to the discussion of those cases fits our interpretation perfectly. As stated (p. 248), “Once the relationship is ended — either by divorce, repudiation, or misconduct — the obligations that resulted from the relationship are terminated as well… [and the released party] may go wherever he or she pleases.” Thus, the clauses “go wherever she desires/go to her father's house” are not operative release clauses akin to the rabbinic ge†, which mandates departure from the husband's household, but optional, akin to the verbs yṣ' and yṣ'h in Ex. 21:2, 11 — the slave or handmaiden may go out from the master's house, not must go out. Once Anani has repudiated Jehoishma's status as a primary wife, she may go wherever she pleases.

55 For treatment of this verb in the various versions see Smelik, W.F., The Targum of Judges (Leiden, Brill, 1995), 221, 258, 306, 607–608Google Scholar; for all the nuances of the verb see Erlandsson, S., “zanah” in Botterweck, G.J. and Ringgren, H., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980), IV, 99–104Google Scholar; for commentary on the passage see Kaufmann, Y., Sefer Shoftim (Jerusalem, Kiryat Sepher, 1962), 282–283Google Scholar. Kühlewein, J., “znh to commit harlotry” in Jenni, E. and Westermann, C., eds., Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, II, 388–390Google Scholar, assigned our passage to znh II, “to become angry,” corresponding to Akk. zenû, “to be angry.” The Jewish medieval commentators understood that the legal scenario could not be interpreted as either adultery or divorce, for in either case she would have been prohibited from returning to the Levite's house; see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chap. XIV, n. 45, and especially n. 51 concerning concubinary relationships and concomitant halakhic issues, as well as one alternate solution for the array of agunah problems.

56 These tripartite clauses (act, definition, consequence) were characterized as following the “diagnosis-pattern,” well known in Biblical priestly literature and in Egyptian and Babylonian medical codes; Yaron, R., Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 110–112Google Scholar.

57 Driver, G.R. and Miles, J.C., The Babylonian Laws, I, 286–289Google Scholar; Roth, M.T., Law Collections, 107, 165–166, 170–171Google Scholar; Yaron, R., The Laws of Eshnunna, 61, 89–91, 208–209Google Scholar; Eichler, B., “Literary Structure in the Laws of Eshnunna” in Rochberg-Halton, F., ed., Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner (New Haven, American Oriental Society, 1987), 74–75Google Scholar; Driver, G.R. and Miles, J.C., The Assyrian Laws (Oxford, OUP, 1935), 250–266Google Scholar. For brief discussion of the absent husband in ancient Near Eastern law see Yaron, R., “Biblical Law: Prolegomena” in Jackson, B.S., ed., Jewish Law in Legal History and the Modern World (Leiden, Brill, 1980), 39–40Google Scholar; for circumstances under which an abandoned wife (agunah) would be permitted to remarry, see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. XVI and idem., Cardozo Law Review (forthcoming).

58 This, too, is not a marriage contract but a pecuniary agreement in contemplation of marriage; H.Z. Szubin, “Matrimonial Status of the Repudiated Spouse” presented at International Meeting of the SBL at Leuven, Belgium on August 10, 1994; idem, “The Role of Status in Matrimony: A New Interpretation of a Greek Papyrus from Elephantine (P. Eleph. 1),” Iura (forthcoming).

59 Porten, B., The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change (Leiden, Brill, 1996), D2 (translation by Farber, J.)Google Scholar.

60 Porten, , Archives from Elephantine, 225Google Scholar; Friedman, , Jewish Marriage, I, 427–428Google Scholar.

61 Friedman, , Jewish Marriage, I, 393–394Google Scholar.

62 See Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chap. XIV for elaboration on Lieberman, S., Tosefta Ki-fshuṭah (New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, 1967), 108–110Google Scholar.

63 CH [LH] 172; Yaron, R., Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 74Google Scholar; references in Friedman, M., Jewish Marriage, I, 428–429Google Scholar.

64 See H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chap. XIV.

65 Szubin, H.Z. and Porten, B., “A Life Estate of Usufruct: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 6,” BASOR 269 (1988), 41–42Google Scholar.

66 Ginsberg, H.L., “The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri,” JAOS 74 (1954), 159Google Scholar.

67 For attempt at finessing the various occurrences of this verb see Wildberger, H., “mʾs to reject” in Jenni, E. and Westermann, C., eds., Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, II, 651–660Google Scholar.

68 Translation of Roth, M.T., Law Collections, 108Google Scholar.

69 Here, too, the meaning of the term has been debated, with some taking it to refer to the rebellious wife (Epstein, J.N.JJLG 6 [1908], 368–70Google Scholar) while others associate it with the divorce procedure, either as a technical term (Yaron, , Law of the Aramaic Papyri, 55Google Scholar) or a motivational expression (Friedman, , Jewish Marriage, I, 316–18Google Scholar). But since the term clearly echoes the one in the Aramaic documents, its meaning must be sought along the same lines as that ascribed to it in our document; Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, Chap. XIII.

70 Friedman, M., Jewish Marriage, I, 327–332Google Scholar.

71 In a parallel document between one Nathan and Rachel, the clause reads, “and not desire her partnership” (šwtpth) and is restored to read, “and not desire [his] partnership]” (No. 2:32-33); Friedman, M., Jewish Marriage, II, 41Google Scholar. For telling convergence with Zoroastrian law and lore, see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap. XV, and “Matrimonial Status of the Repudiated Spouse” presented at the International Conference of the SBL at Leuven on August 10, 1994.

72 Friedman, M., Jewish Marriage, II, 55Google Scholar.

73 The verb typwq “she shall go out” probably does not appear in the Geniza fragment Hilkhot ha-Yerushalmi (NY, 1947) 61Google Scholar and its appearance in the printed editions must be an interpretive gloss, as maintained by H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession, Chap XIII, n. 17.

74 Szubin, H.Z. and Porten, B., BASOR 269 (1988), 38–39Google Scholar.

75 Kraeling, E.G., Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, 298Google Scholar.

76 Porten, B., “Aramaic Papyri and Parchments: A New Look,” Biblical Archeologist 42 (1979), 84–85Google Scholar.

77 TAD B2.1:2, 20, 2.2:3, 22, 2.3:2, 36, 2.7:2, 21, 2.8:2, 14, 2.9:3, 20, 2.10:3, 21; 3.1:2-3, 24, 3.4:3, 25, 3.5:2, 25, 3.6:2, 28, 3.10:2, 27, 3.11:2, 21, 3.13:2, 15; 4.4:2, 22; 5.5:2, 13.

78 Porten, , Archives from Elephantine, 258Google Scholar.

79 Azzoni, A., The Private Life of Women in Persian Egypt (PhD dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, 2000), 38Google Scholar.