1 For methodological reasons, we decided to treat the relevant laws concerning this topic in this manner, and not chronologically. In the discussion, we will point to the continuity and changes in laws as evident in the topic under discussion.

2 Transliteration and translation are based on M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta, Georgia, 1997), p. 112.

3 Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, p. 163. The translation of 1. 18 is based on W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (Wiesbaden, 1972), p. 874.

4 dumu or dumu.meš in Sumerian, maru (especially in plural) in Akkadian, בכים in Biblical Hebrew, בנין in Aramaic and בכים in post-Biblical Hebrew can signify ‘children’ - male as well as female - not only male progeny. See, for example, G. R. Driver and J. Miles, The Babylonian Laws (Oxford, 1952), pp. 338–341, esp. 341; CAD “maru,” vol. 10/1 mng. lb, 313. E. Szlechter, “Le Code de Lipit-Istar II,” RA 51 (1957):189–190. M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine (Tel-Aviv and New York, 1980), pp. 383, 403 no. 32.

5 A. van Praag, Droit matrimonial assyro-babylonien (Amsterdam, 1945), pp. 173–178 esp. 173-174. Apparently Driver-Miles, Babylonian Laws 2, p. 272 agree with this. Other researchers think that bestowing a dowry on a daughter is not a legal obligation on the father household. See R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOT Sup., 113) (Sheffield, 1991), p. 157; idem., “Mitgift,” RLA 8 (New York, 1994):276. M. Stol, “Women in Mesopotamia,” JESHO 38 (1995):134.

6 Driver-Miles, Babylonian Laws 2, pp. 272, 336; Westbrook, “Mitgift,” p. 276.

7 Van Praag, Droit matrimonial assyro-babylonien, p. 174; Driver-Miles, Babylonian Laws, pp. 272–273, 336, 344; Westbrook, “Mitgift,” pp. 276, 281; Stol, “Women in Mesopotamia,” p. 133.

8 Section 163 establishes that if there are no children, then the dowry returns to the woman's family following her death. The bridewealth remains in the husband's home.

9 Generally girls received movable goods as their dowry, although on rare occasions they received immovable property as well. See, K. Grosz, “Some Aspects of the Position of Women in Nuzi,” in B. S. Lesko (ed.), Women's Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989), pp. 171–172; Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law, pp. 143, 147–148.

11 The dowry was a transaction between the bride and her father because it concerned her inheritance of her father's assets. See J. Goody and S. J. Tambiah, “Bridewealth and Dowry,” Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 7 (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 7–12; Grosz, “Some Aspects of the Position of Women in Nuzi,” p. 171.

12 Compare: Driver-Miles, The Babylonian Laws 2, p. 344; Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Laws, p. 97.

13 For different views of the reason for this, see: Driver-Miles, The Babylonian Laws 2, p. 271; Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Laws, pp. 97–98. According to §29 of Middle Assyrian Laws, §13 of Neo-Babylonian Laws, and Mishnah Ketuboth 4:10, the woman's children inherit the dowry as well as the wedding gifts. Compare C. Saporetti, “The Status of Women in the Middle Assyrian Period,” Sources and Monographs on the Ancient Near East, 2. Introduction and Translation by B. Boltze-Jorden (Malibu, 1979), p. 11.

14 Compare: Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Laws, p. 93 n. 25.

15 One can understand that the woman's children inherit the dowry upon their mother's death only from §173. For more on the complex case treated in this section, see below.

16 It is possible that the possession she brings with her from her father's house are her own and that she brings them with her to her new home. See, G. R. Driver-J. Miles, The Assyrian Laws (Oxford, 1935), pp. 206–208.

17 On the reason for bestowing these gifts, see: Driver-Miles, The Assyrian Laws, pp. 208–209.

18 Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Laws, p. 27.

19 Driver-Miles, The Assyrian Laws, p. 208.

20 For a discussion of §13 of Neo-Babylonian laws, see below.

21 Under certain circumstances, as per Middle Assyrian Laws §25, the brothers-in-law may take her husband's property away from her, that is, all their brothers had given her.

22 Driver-Miles, The Assyrian Laws, pp. 209–210.

23 On researchers' puzzlement, see for example, Driver-Miles, The Assyrian Laws, pp. 210–211; G. Cardascia, Les lois assyriennes (Paris, 1969), pp. 161–164; Roth, Law Collections from Mosopotamia and Asia Minor, p. 193 n. 21.

24 von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, p. 874.

25 Cardascia, Les lois assyriennes, pp. 163–164; Westbrook, “Mitgift,” p. 278.

26 Compare, Cardascia, Les lois assyriennes, pp. 159–160.

27 On the father's authority to abrogate his heirs' right to inherit his property due to their misconduct toward him, see, J. Fleishman, Parent and Child in Ancient Near East and the Bible (Jerusalem, 1999; Hebrew), pp. 184–243.

28 Westbrook, “Mitgift,” p. 277.

29 Transliteration and translation based on Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites (Leiden - New York - Köln, 1997), pp. 36–37. I would like to thank Prof. Itamar Singer of Tel Aviv University for his aid in interpreting this section.

30 Generally, a Hittite woman lived in her husband's house. This section seems to speak of an unusual situation. Hasse suggested that it could be understood in three different ways: a) The woman had separated from her husband; 2) Her husband had disappeared during a journey and she returned to live temporarily in her father's home; c) Her husband agreed to live in his father-in-law's house. See R. Haase, “Drei Kleinigkeiten zum hethitischen Recht,” AoF 21 (1994), pp. 65–72, esp. 65.

32 This is Hoffner's translation in The Laws of the Hittites, p. 37. But in his commentary, p. 82, he writes, “and they have children.” This negates the possibility that the woman was marrying for the second time while she had children from her former husband as in the sections of the third case, which is discussed above. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is preferable to understand that if the woman brought a dowry and had children, then they were the owners of the dowry.

33 Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites, p. 182.

34 This is the opinion of researchers such as: E. Neufeld, The Hittite Laws (London, 1951), p. 142; Hoffner, “The Laws of the Hittites,” Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University (University Microfilms, 1963), p. 290; idem., “Legal and Social Institutions of Hittite Anatolia,” in Jack M. Sasson et al. (eds.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East 1 (New York, 1995), p. 559; G. M. Beckman, “Inheritance and Royal Succession among the Hittites,” in, H. Hoffner & G. M. Beckman (eds.), Kaniuwar, A Tribute to Hans G. Güterbock on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, May 27, 1983 (Assyriological Studies 23) (Chicago, 1986), p. 16.

35 This excludes the death of the woman in her father's house, which is not mentioned in the sections treated above.

36 It could be separate from her father's house, or a part of it. See, Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites, p. 181.

37 Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites, p. 178.

38 Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites, p. 178.

39 Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites, p. 182 n. 86.

40 For a discussion such as the purpose of burning the clothing and to whom they belong, see, H. A. Hoffner, Alimenta Hethaeorum, Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor (American Oriental Series 55) (Connecticut, 1974); Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites, p. 182.

41 Hoffner, “The Laws of the Hittites,” p. 302.

42 E. Neufeld, The Hittite Laws, p. 141; Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites, p. 290.

43 Hoffner, The Laws of the Hittites, pp. 295, 302.

44 These two section, like other sections discussed below do not clarify when the children are to receive this property. It is reasonable to assume that they will not receive the property until after the father's death. See, Van Praag, Droit matrimonial assyro-babylonien, pp. 174–175; Driver-Miles, The Babylonian Laws, p. 348; Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Laws, p. 94; idem., “Mitgift,” p. 278.

45 Transliteration and translation were taken from Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, pp. 30–31.

46 Transliteration and translation were taken from Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, p. 113.

47 It is possible that it was a first marriage for either or both of these women. See, Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Laws, p. 20 n. 82.

48 Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Laws, p. 28, maintains, and rightfully so, that this section is a forerunner of Hammurabi §167. However, one may also say that it is a forerunner of a number of laws that concern the inheritance of a dowry.

49 E. Szlechter, “Le Code de Lipit-Istar II,” pp. 189–190.

50 Driver-Miles, The Babylonian Laws, pp. 347–348.

51 E. Szlechter, “Le Code de Lipit-Istar II,” pp. 189–190.

52 Compare, Driver-Miles, The Babylonian Laws, p. 272.

53 Transliteration and translation were taken from Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, p. 115.

54 Transliteration and translation of §173-174 are based on Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, pp. 147–148

55 It is reasonable to assume that the children of a widow who remarried are no longer minors, because she does not take them along with her. Likewise, the apodosis of §172 establishes that “if her children exert pressure on her to leave the house, the judges may assess the circumstances and punish the children. The wife should not leave her husband's home.” Here we speak of the wishes of adults to remove their mother from their father's home. It is reasonable to assume that the mother of the adult children left her husband's house to open a new page in her life.

56 Compare, Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Laws, p. 93.

57 Compare, Driver-Miles, The Babylonian Laws, p. 352.

58 Westbrook, “Mitgift,” p. 282, thinks that it is possible that it differentiated between wedding gifts that logically would be inherited only by the progeny of the marriage for which it was given.

59 Westbrook, “Mitgift, p. 282, thinks that §13 in Neo-Babylonian Laws establishes the norm that the widow's children will receive the dowry, but if the mother wished, she could determine that her husband would inherit it. This can be understood from the broken §11. Since that section is quite fragmentary, it is doubtful if it can be so interpreted.