Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:11:42.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Status of the Handmaiden Tamet: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 2 (TAD B3.3)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Bezalel Porten  and
Henri Zvi Szubin
Get access

Extract

Among the best known Aramaic documents from Elephantine are the so-called “marriage contracts” (TAD B2.6; 3.3,3.8; 6.1–4). Three of these are intact (TAD B2.6; 3.3), or virtually so (TAD B3.8), and are written by the scribe Nathan b. Ananiah (TAD B2.6; 3.3) and his son Mauziah (TAD B3.8) respectively. Mauziah wrote one of the fragmentary documents (TAD B6.4) and, on the basis of the handwriting, probably another one as well (TAD B6.1). Both are professional scribes with several other documents to their credit: Nathan — TAD B2.7; 3.1; Mauziah — TAD B2.9–10; B3.5. They were well-versed in legal terminology and so we must pay careful attention to their formulations, according appropriate significance to omissions or additions as among the various contracts. So, too, must we probe the legal realia underlying each document to see how these may account for unique formulations and revisions.

Type
Ancient and Jewish Law
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1-2 , Winter-Spring 1995 , pp. 43 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1995

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 Texts are cited according to Porten, B. and Yardeni, A., Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, Volume 1: Letters (Department of the History of the Jewish People; Jerusalem: Academon, 1986)Google Scholar = TAD A; Volume 2: Contracts (Jerusalem, 1989) = TAD B; Volume 3: Literature • Accounts • Lists (Jerusalem, 1993) = TAD C; Kraeling = Kraeling, E.G., Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New Haven: Yale University, 1953).Google Scholar

2 For the communal standing of the scribes of the Geniza ketubbot see Friedman, M. A., Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1980) I, 11–12.Google Scholar

3 “Minutiae Aramaicae,” (1968) 13 Journal of Semitic Studies 205–209.

4 Among these parties are the father (Mahseiah [TAD B2.6]), mother (Jehohen [TAD B6.4]), adoptive brother (Zaccur [TAD B3.8]), and master (Meshullam [TAD B3.3]).

5 Pestman, P.W., Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 1961) 31.Google Scholar

6 Greengus, S., “The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract,” (1969) 89 Journal of the American Oriental Society 512–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Roth, M.T., Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th-3rd Centuries B.C. (Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker, 1989) 25.Google Scholar

8 See Szubin, H.Z., Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law (PhD diss., unabridged version, Dropsie University, 1966) Chap XI.Google Scholar

9 For Roman law see Patterson, O., Slavery and Social Death (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1982) 48–62Google Scholar; also Joshel, S., Work Identity and Legal Status in Rome — Study of Occupational Inscriptions (University of Oklahoma, 1992)Google Scholar; cf. Buckland, W.W., A Textbook of Roman Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1921) 162–68.Google Scholar

10 Porten, B., “The Aramaic Marriage Contract of the Handmaiden Tamet” in Uffenheimer, B., ed., Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1971, in Hebrew) 307–329.Google Scholar

11 The results were published in Porten, B. and Yardeni, A., Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English, Volume 2: Contracts (Jerusalem, 1989) 53–100.Google Scholar

12 Elsewhere, too, Nathan was off by two days (TAD B2.7 [= Cowley 13]); see Porten, B., “The Calendar of Aramaic Texts from Achaemenid and Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Shaked, S. and Netzer, A., eds., Irano-Judaica II (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1990) 22–23.Google Scholar

13 M.T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th-3rd Centuries B.C., supra n. 7, at 4–6; P.W. Pestman, Marriage and Matrimonial Property, supra n. 5, at 12–13.

14 For this terminology see Yaron, R., Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri (Oxford: Oxford University, 1961) 46.Google Scholar

15 Charlesworth, J.H., ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) II, 235.Google Scholar

16 The S text adds “document of cohabitation” (βιβλίον συνοικήσεως).

17 The elements of such a štr in tandem with those of the Elephantine spr 'ntw subsequently coalesced into the rabbinic ketubah. The distinction between these three different documents, their nature and thrust, is not always clearly delineated in the scholarly literature, which often tends to homogenize them; cf. Falk, Z.W., Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth (Leiden: Brill, 1978), II, 280–284.Google Scholar For discussion of the distinctions see H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, supra n. 8, chap. XIV.

18 Yaron, R., “Aramaic Marriage Contracts from Elephantine,” (1958) 3 Journal of Semitic Studies 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For discussion of Biblical, Talmudic, and Ugaritic parallels and partial parallels see Löwenstamm, S., םלוע דעו װהעמ (1963) 32Google ScholarTarbiz 313–16 and further discussion by Yaron, op. cit., 31–32. See also the betrothal formula in Hos. 2:21.

19 Commenting on the expression in Deut. 15:17, a case involving master-slave interpersonal relationships, rabbinic authorities detected the limited, legal nuance underlying the terms and (e.g., Mekhilta ad loc. and rabbinic commentaries). See, too, the rabbinic reading of in Lev. 25:46 (BT Ked. 22b, Tosafot ad For further discussion of such formulae as and in juxtaposition to see H.Z. Szubin, Legal Terminology in Liturgical Texts (forthcoming)‥

20 Porten, B., “The Jews of Egypt” in Davies, W.D. and Finkelstein, L., eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984) 396.Google Scholar

21 We are grateful to Prof. Shaul Shaked for discussion of these terms.

22 For further discussion and the hieros gamos marriages in classical antiquity see H.Z. Szubin, “The Status of the Beloved Wife in Jewish Law and the Ancient Near East”, The Ancient History Bulletin (forthcoming).

23 For full discussion see Finkelstein, L., Sifra or Torat Kohanim according to Codex Assemani LXVI (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1956) 50–63Google Scholar; Halivni-Weiss, D., “Critical Notes”, (1961) 81 Journal of Biblical Literature 67–69.Google Scholar

24 The infinitive absolute occurs in immediate connection with the finite verb of the same stem to emphasize, among other things, the completeness of an occurrence, e.g., whwryš l' hwryšw, “but he did not completely dispossess them” (Ju. 1:28); l' hšmyd 'šmyd, “I will not completely wipe out (the House of Jacob)” (Am 9:8); wyśrl bd bd 'lm, “Israel was completely destroyed forever” (Mesha 7). See Kautzsch, E. and Cowley, A.E., Gesenius Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Oxford University, 1910)Google Scholar §1131-n, w (for inf. abs. of conjugation with kindred meaning, as here hophal hpdh and niphal npdth). Targum Jonathan renders wmtprq' kwl' 'd kdwn l' 'ytpryq't.

25 For the root ḥṣh with the meaning “divide, division” and not “halve, half” cf. Gen 33:1; Ju. 7:16, 9:43; Dan. 11:4; possibly Is. 44:16–17; and in Talmudic sources cf. Ker. 5a; Ned. 83a; Git. 23b, 41b; Kid. 20b; with specific reference to property and partnership law cf. Bab.Mez. 69a, 106a; Git. 74b; in the context of a ketubah Ket. 5:7 and even PT Ket. 7:7 according to Meiri, Bet ha-Beḥirah (ed. A. Schreiber, 260–70); and discussion, including Akkadian terminology (e.g. CH 137), in H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, supra n. 8, chap. XV.

26 See Porten, B., Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley: University of California, 1968) 222.Google Scholar

27 For comparison of the Aramaic documents with the Neo-Babylonian ones see Abraham, K., “The Dowry Clause in Marriage Documents from the First Millennium B.C.E.”, in Charpin, D. and Joannes, F., eds., La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la XXXVIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 1992) 312.Google Scholar

28 Cf. Szubin, H.Z. and Porten, B., “Litigation Concerning Abandoned Property at Elephantine (Kraeling 1)”, (1983) 42 Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 279–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 See discussion in H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, supra n. 8, chap. XII. For cognate legal systems see Mitteis, L., Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, II (Juristischer Teil; Leipzig, 1912)Google Scholar; Schulz, F., Principles of Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956) 215–21Google Scholar; Jolowicz, H.F., Roman Foundations of Modern Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) 107–12.Google Scholar

29a See H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, supra n. 8, chap. II. For the consequences of this hitherto unrecognised distinction for Talmudic sources and Geniza documents, see chap. XIII.

29b The right of divorce like the right of marriage is self-evident and does not have to be granted explicitly in a contract; see H.Z. Szubin, “The Status of the Beloved Wife in Jewish Law and the Ancient Near East” The Ancient History Bulletin (forthcoming).

30 See our forthcoming article, “The Status of a Repudiated Wife: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 7 (TAD B3.8).”

31 Cf. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, supra n. 14, at 54.

32 See H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, supra n. 8, chap. XIII.

33 Contra R. Yaron, Aramaic Papyri, supra n. 14, at 56; B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, supra n. 26, at 209, n. 36.

34 But cf. Friedman, M., Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study, supra n. 2, at 328–33.Google Scholar

35 See H.Z. Szubin, “The Status of the Beloved Wife in Jewish Law and the Ancient Near East” The Ancient History Bulletin (forthcoming).

36 See H.Z. Szubin, Testamentary Succession in Jewish Law, supra n. 8, chap. X, especially n. 44; contra Jolowicz, H.F., Roman Foundations of Modern Law (Oxford, 1961), 161–67Google Scholar; cf. Kahn-Freund, O., (1953) 11 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 611.Google Scholar

37 See Szubin, H.Z. and Porten, B., “A Life Estate of Usufruct: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 6”, (1988) 269 Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 See Rabinowitz, J.J., Jewish Law: Its Influence on the Development of Legal Institutions (New York: Bloch, 1956) 63–64.Google Scholar

39 Six Neo-Babylonian marriage agreements include clauses dealing with children born prior to the agreement; see M.T. Roth, Babylonian Marriage Agreements 7th-3rd Centuries B.C., supra n. 7, at 17–18; in nine demotic documents from Egypt “the contracting parties already have children” (P.W. Pestman, Marriage and Matrimonial Property, supra n. 5, at 29).

40 See P. Oxy. 148:2–5 and Taubenschlag, R., The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri (Warsaw, 1944) 57Google Scholar, n. 41 (“slave children … belong to the proprietor of their mother”) but see also p. 14 where he stated that the child of a free-slave marriage was “free and legitimate” under native Egyptian law.

41 See discussion in Szubin, H.Z. and Porten, B., “Testamentary Succession at Elephantine,” (1983) 252 Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 36.Google Scholar

42 The complex subject of male and female child custody in case of divorce, both in Jewish and Roman law, is beyond the scope of this study but we concur with Yaron's judicious observation that “Talmudic sources (contra Mitteis) can facilitate proper understanding of Roman edicts”: “Reichsrecht, Volksrecht and Talmud” (1964) 11 RIDA 298.

43 See Porten, B. and Yardeni, A., Textbook of Aramaic Documents, vol. 2, xiv.Google Scholar

44 B. Porten, “The Aramaic Marriage Contract of the Handmaiden Tamet”, supra n. 10, at 307–309.

45 The supralinear addition of hw just above the original hw should be considered a hyper-correction. The statement itself (both tmt hy šlyṭh, “it is Tamet [who] has right” and 'nny hw šlyṭ, “it is Anani [who] has right”), as Joshua Blau has pointed out to us, is a cleft sentence, designed for emphasis; see the illuminating discussion by Geller, S.A., “Cleft Sentences with Pleonastic Pronoun: A Syntactic Construction of Biblical Hebrew and Some of its Literary Uses” (1991) 20 The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 28.Google Scholar

46 For discussion see H.Z. Szubin and B. Porten, “A Life Estate of Usufruct: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 6”, supra n. 37, at 38–39.

47 For further discussion of this term cf. our forthcoming article, “The Status of a Repudiated Wife: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 7 (TAD B3.8)”.

48 In a fragmentary inventory of households we have the schema “PN son of PN, ywd/ywr, 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 Peṭosiri and Bela with the as yet undesignated Lilu, too young to be separated from his mother [TAD B.11:4–5, 12–14]) and so nšn rbh must mean a “grown female” and capable of establishing a household.