1 See, e.g., Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 152; W. Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 46.

2 See Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 46.

3 For a survey of the metaphor in literary research, and the various theories regarding its essence in understanding the literary work, see: Wallace Martin, “Metaphor,” in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. A. Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan; Princeton: Princeton University Press), 760–66.

4 Andrea L. Weiss, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose: Metaphors in the Books of Samuel (VTSup 107; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006), 131–32.

5 Carroll, Jeremiah, 152.

6 D. Landau, From Metaphor to Symbol: Figurative Principles in Literature (Hebrew; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1979), 66–67; C. Day Lewis, The Poetic Image (London: Jonathan Cape, 1947), 65–88, esp. 68–71.

7 See, e.g., C. Cohen, “A Philological Reevaluation of some Significant DSS Variants of the MT in Isa 1-5,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elowolde; Leiden/ Boston/ Köln: Brill, 2000), 50–52, esp. 51.

8 BHS in situ; Bright, Jeremiah in situ; W. Rudolph, Jeremia3 (HAT 1/12; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1968) in situ.

9 For example, W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 122; M. E. Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetorics of Intertextuality, Metaphor and Gender in Jeremiah 3.1.4.4 (JSOTSup 387; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 17.

10 Cf. Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute, 119–20.

11 Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute, 119 n. 19. In this connection, it is interesting to consider the opinions of O'Connor and Jennings. According to O'Connor, when turning to God in Ch. 3 the male form (12-18, 20-25) as well as the female form (1-11, 13a, 19) are used in order to stress that his guilt is all-encompassing. Jennings, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the addressee, God, has no definite sexual identity. See K. M. O'Connor, “The Tears of God and Divine Character in Jeremiah 2-9,” in Troubling Jeremiah (JSOTSup 260; ed. A. R. P. Diamond et al.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999]) 389.

12 This theory was raised at the beginning of the 19th Century by B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHAT, 11; Tübingen: Tübingen und Leipzig, 1901), 41–42. This view was accepted by Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute, 119; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 122; J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (AB, 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 318. Holladay sees the perplexity of the husband who wants to give his property as an inheritance to his wife, not to his daughter, since throughout the chapter contains a marriage metaphor and not a father-daughter relationship. Lundbom, is of the opinion that giving land to a female as an inheritance was not contrary to ancient law, at least not to the custom related in the stories of the daughters of Zelophehad and of Job.

13 Z. Ben-Barak, The Inheritance of Daughters in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: A Social, Legal and Ideological Turning-Point (Hebrew; Jaffa: Archaelogical Center Publication, 2003), 144–45.

14 In general, except for Jer 3:19, the combination לשית ב appears in the Bible about 10 times: Isa 16:3; Pss 12:6; 13:3; 73:9, 28; 88:7; Job 38:11, 36; Ruth 4:16, etc. It seems to me that the meaning in each case is similar.

15 See ibid., 147 for a summary of this development in Ben-Barak's opinion.

16 With regard to this inscription, see: H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanätische und Aramätische Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962), 5, 26 A I:12.

17 For this translation and related literature see: Shalom M. Paul, “Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses,” in Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and Ancient Near East 1967-2005 (Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2005), 109–19.

18 See Paul, “Adoption Formulae,” 116, and also the literature in n. 23. Other arguments which oppose comparing the Azitawadda inscription to Jer 3:19 can be found in: H.L. Ginsberg, “Ugaritico-Phoenicia,” JANES 5 (1973): 138.

19 M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 194.

20 Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant,” 194.

21 Paul, “Adoption Formulae,” 119.

22 Paul, “Adoption Formulae,” 117-18. On the opinion that there is no evidence of a custom to adopt in Biblical law, see: H. M. Wahl, “Ester, das adoptierte Waisenkind. Zur Adoption im Alten Testament,” Bib 80 (1999): 78–99.

23 Paul, “Adoption Formulae,” 110.

24 E.g., Exod 4:22; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 17:13; 22:10; Jer 31:9; Ps 80:27.

25 In personal correspondence, dated 27 May 2006, Prof. Westbrook writes that in his opinion Jer 3:19 relates to adoption and inheritance.

26 See Alan H. Gardiner, “Adoption Extraordinary,” JEA 26 (1940): 23–29. For the complete text of the document, its period, the place it was discovered, and a detailed analysis of the process of adoption and the legal steps involved as recorded in this document, see Gardiner, “Adoption Extraordinary,” 23-29 and the Appendix there that includes the Egyptian text. See also J. J. Rabinowitz, “Semitic Elements in the Egyptian Adoption Papyrus,” JNES 17 (1958): 145–46.

27 For the structure of the document, the period when the two parts of the document were joined, and the purpose of the unification, see Gardiner, “Adoption Extraordinary,” 26, 27.

28 I thank Prof. Raymond Westbrook who turned my attention to this interesting Egyptian adoption document. The text is based on Gardiner, “Adoption Extraordinary,” 23-24, and on Westbrook's web site, available at: [http://www.jhu.edu/neareast/rwcoursematerials.pdf].

29 J. Huehnergard, “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar,” RA 77 (1983): 13–17, 26–33, published and analyzed two such documents from Emar; K. Grosz, “Daughters Adopted as Sons at Nuzi and Mari,” in La Femme dans le Porche-Orient Antique (ed. J. M. Durand; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987), 81–86, esp. 81–83, treats two documents from Emar together with two documents from Nuzi. Westbrook who discusses among other matters, female inheritance, mentions eight documents from Emar (R. Westbrook, “Social Justice and Creative Jurisprudence I Late Bronze Age Syria,” JEHSO 44 [2001]: 36–38).

30 D. Arnaud, “Mariage et remariage des femmes chez les syriens du Moyen-Euphrate,” Sem 46 (1996): 12–16.

31 Huehnergard, “Five Tablets,” 16–19.

32 45 J. G. Westenholtz, Cuneiform Inscription in the Collection of the Bible Lands, Jerusalem: The Emar Tablets (Groningem: STYX Publications, 2000), 9–12.

33 G. Beckman, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar (History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs II Sargon; Padova: Sargon Srl, 1996), 17.

34 F. M. Fales, Prima dell'Alfabeto (Venice: Erizzo Editrice, 1989), 203–4.

35 Beckman, “Texts from the Vicinity of Emar,” 107–8.

36 D. Arnaud, Textes Syriens de l'âge du Bronze récent (AuOrSup 1; Barcelona: Sabadell, 1991), 122.

37 I would like to thank my teacher and colleague Prof. Aaron Skaist for helping me to locate these documents, and for his important insights into understanding the legal significance of bestowing the status of male and female to a daughter. In this paper we will not be able to fully analyze these documents or the sections in which the relevant material is found, or even to discuss their origins or period.

38 E. Lacheman, “Tablets from Araphand Nuzi in the Iraq Museum,” Sumer 32 (1976): 116–18.

39 For this interpretation, see Katarzyna Grosz, The Archive of the Wullu Family (CNI Publication 5; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1988), 49–51, 267–68.

40 Since their husbands are not mentioned, they may have been minors. Apparently the main heir also received the household gods. This is the only document from Nuzi that records the bestowal upon a daughter of the right and obligation to handle the house cult worship. For this interpretation, see Grosz, The Archive,” 50–51.

41 Huehnergard, “Five Tablets,” 13–19, 26–27.

42 D. Arnaud, “La Syrie du moyen Euphrate sous le protectorat hittite, Contrats de droit privé,” Aula Orientalis 5 (1987): 233–34.

43 Westenholtz, Cuneiform Inscription, 9–12.

44 Fales, Prima dell'Alfabeto, 203–4.

45 Beckman, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar, 17.

46 Beckman, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar, 39–40.

47 Beckman, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar, 107–8.

48 Arnaud, Textes Syriens, 133–34.

49 The length of the document prevents us from bringing its Akkadian translation. The translation can be found by Huehnergard, “Five Tablets.” For slight emendations, see A. Tsukimoto, “Akkadian Tablets in the Hiarayama Collection (II),” AS 13 (1991): 275–345.

50 Huehnergard, “Five Tablets,” 15.

51 Huehnergard, “Five Tablets,” 27

52 Huehnergard, “Five Tablets,” 429. This is also the opinion of Ben-Barak.

53 K. Van der Toorn, “The Domestic Cult at Emar,” JCS 47 (1995): 35.

54 R. Westbrook, “Social Justice and Creative Jurisprudence,” 37.

55 Westbrook, “Social Justice and Creative Jurisprudence,” 36–37.

56 For the two alternative interpretations see Huehnergard, “Five Tablets,” 27.

57 Huehnergard, “Five Tablets,” 27.

58 K. Grosz, “Daughters Adopted as Sons at Nuzi and Mari,” 82.

59 Beckman, Texts from the Vicinity of Emar, 40.

60 R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 14.

61 The Qere corrects the old feminine ending of ti in qr'aty. See Carroll, Jeremiah, 141.

62 See, e.g., Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 115.

63 However, many scholars found no difficulty in this transfer, and explained the plain meaning of the verse as an attempt to arouse the feelings of God by means of mentioning its ideal past and thereby to sway him to help His People in its current situation. See Carroll, Jeremiah, 142–44; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 303. Only William McKane (Jeremiah [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986] I, 61-62) attempts to solve this sharp transfer from a metaphor of marriage to that of children by means of explaining the word “father” in v. 4 as signifying “teacher.”

64 On this literary phenomenon in Jeremiah and its purpose, see A. R. P. Diamond and K. M. O'Connor, “Unfaithful Passions: Coding Women Coding Men in Jeremiah 2-3 (4.2),” in Troubling Jeremiah (JSOTSup 260; ed. A. R. P. Diamond et al.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 123–45, esp. 128-29. – For a comprehensive study of the phenomenon and its like, see: Sarah J. Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as a Mother and a Father in Deuto-Isaiah (JSOTSup 398; London/ New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2004).

65 See, e.g., Duhm, Jeremia, 41–42; Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute, 119. All these stress specifically the large number of children of the speaker. However, also according to the scholars who did not relate to this issue directly, one should not dismiss the fact that the addressee is not an only daughter.

66 This understanding is based on interpreting the word איך “how” in its common meaning as the formulation of a question, and the words “איך אשיתך בבנים” as a question presented by God Himself: How shall I set you among sons? This is how early translators, such as Targ. Jonathan (איכרי) and Jerome (quomodo) understood it. – However, not all the textual evidence supports this reading. According to some of the scholars, the LXX translators had before them a variant with the word אמנך that seems to mean “I have promised you” (N. H. Tur-Sinai, Peschuto shel Mikra, Prophets 3/1 [Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1967]), 165 – אמנך אשיתך בבנים. Some propose to emend the MT to אך “surely”; Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant,” 194; G. Hall, “The Marriage Imagery of Jeremiah 2 and 3: A Study of Antecedents and Innovations in a Prophetic Metaphor” (PhD. diss., Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, 1981) 106–7.

67 The root אמר (“to say”) juxtaposed to the word איך “how”) in a monologue generally signifies the wonder of the speaker at something that appears impossible, yet nevertheless occurred. See Isa 14:4; Ez 26:17; Prov 5:12. Second Samuel 6:9 is especially notable: “David was afraid of the Lord that day; he said, ‘How can I let the Ark of the Lord come to me’?!” There the root form of אמר appears with the question “how” juxtaposed exactly as Jer 3:19. They point to the inner turmoil with regard to carrying out an extremely difficult task. This comparison becomes stronger when we note the contrast between the human speaker in 2 Sam 6:9 who at this stage did not find a solution to his difficulty, and the solution that was found by the God-speaker in Jer 3:19. However, most of the commentators were satisfied that they understood correctly the meaning of the words ואנכי אמרתי as an alternative for the words “I thought” (e.g., A. Bauer, Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading (Studies in Biblical Literature 5; New York/Bern: Peter Lang, 1999), 60; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 318); “I wished” (Holladay Jeremiah 1, 121); “I intended,” (Hall, “The Marriage Imagery,” 106; P. C. Craigie, P. H. Kelley & J. F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25 [WBC 26; Dallas: Word Books, 1991, 64); or “I hoped” (Jones, Jeremiah, 104).

68 The word צבי in this context should be understood as “will/ desire” (compare the Arab parallel צבא, in Akkadian s9abû (and in Aramaic צבא – all with this meaning). The word צבאות is a metonym for “nation.” According to this the meaning is “a land desired by the nations.”

69 Many scholars and commentators understand the word ואומר to mean “I thought” (see, e.g., Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 122; Diamond and O'Connor, “Unfaithful Passions,” 133; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 318; התכוונתי – “I intended” (e.g., McKane, Jeremia I, 78). In our opinion, the word ואומר begins a proposed solution to a legal problem formulated at the beginning of the verse. This accords with the opinions just mentioned, but colors the word that expresses thought or the intention of God with a sense of reaching a decision. It differs from those who invest the word ואומר with an aspect of hope (Hall, “The Marriage Imagery,” 108) or expectation (Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute, 120) or even a command (J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 204, 206).

70 Among the first group are Thompson (Jeremiah, 207), who views the verse as a directive to address God as father, and J. Unterman (From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in Transition [JSOTSup 54; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987], 85), who understands the verse as a demand of the people to feel a close attachment to God, to like him, appreciate him, to do complete repentance, to treat God with love and honor or call upon Him in front of the other nations and to teach them the true religion (in agreement). This is an ancient approach. The Apocryphon of Ezekiel (J. R. Mueller and S. E. Robinson, “Apocryphon of Ezekiel,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume I: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments [ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1983], 487-95) included this verse in his call for repentance, whereas the Aramaic translator understood the verse as a directive to practice, that instructs them to call God, father, at the time of prayer (cf. Matt 6: 9). – In this connection it is worthwhile mentioning the view of W.L. Holladay (The Architectue of Jeremiah 1-20 [Lewisburg and London: Bucknell University Press and Associated University Press, 1976], 51), who considers v. 4 and our verse as a metaphor for a husband-wife relationship. The woman calls her husband “my father” and on his part he grants her property as if she were his son. Holladay gives as a reason, the possibility of the metaphor of marriage that appears in the first eleven verses of Ch. 3. Ten years later, however, Holladay changed his mind and suggested erasing the word “my father” from the text as a late addition (Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 115). – There are scholars who attempt to blur the question whether there is a continuation of a family metaphor or a religious demand. Among these are Craigie, Kelley and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25, 64; Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 303 (the verse demands that the addressees express their love). Similarly Bauer, Gender, 60 and Diamond and O'Connor, “Unfaithful Passions,” 133. According to these scholars, generally the verse requests that the addressees express their close relationship with the one who calls out to them.

71 Isa 64:6-7. See also 1 Chr 29:10: “David said, Blessed are You, Lord, God of Israel our father, from eternity to eternity.”

72 See: Jer 3:4; Ps 89:27-28; 2 Sam 7:14.

73 The expression לשוב מאחרי (“to turn away from me”) means: “to stop going in my footsteps” (as in 2 Sam 2:6 or in Ruth 1:16), and as a loan expression means: “to cease being loyal to someone” (compare 1 Sam 24:2; Jer 32:40). In general, the expression “to turn away from me” is rare in the Bible. The examples brought here make it seem that the verse under discussion also refers to a cessation of loyalty to God or cessation of following in his footsteps.

74 Westbrook, Property and the Family, 157.

75 See J. Fleishman, “Inheritance of the Dowry in the Ancient Jewish Law and in Ancient Near Eastern Law Codes,” Dinei Israel 23 (2005): 95-135 (Hebrew); Idem, “A Daughter's Demand and a Father's Compliance: The Legal Background to Achsah's Claim and Caleb's Agreement (Joshua 15,16-19; Judges 1,12-15),” ZAW 118 (2006): 354–73; Idem, “Their Father Gave Them nahala ‘an estate’ among Their Brethren’ (Job 42:15b): What Did Job Give His Daughters,” Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte (forthcoming).

76 S.A. Loewenstamm, “Law, Biblical Law,” in Encyclopedia Biblica 5 (Hebrew; Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1965), 619–20.

77 See: S. Greengus, “Filling Gaps: Laws Found in Babylonia and in the Mishnah but Absent in the Hebrew Bible,” Maarav 7 (1991): 149–71.

78 Greengus, “Filling Gaps,” 171.