1 UMR 7041 ArScAn—HAROC, Maison René Gineouvès Archéologie et Ethnologie (Postdoctoral researcher of the Spanish Ministerio de Educación, ref. EX2009-0811). This work was partly carried out during a Postdoctoral stay in the Altorientalisches Institut of the Universität Leipzig, granted by the Alexander—von—Humboldt Stiftung (2010). I am indebted to S. Démare—Lafont (Université Panthéon—Assas/EPHE), B. Lion (Université François Rabelais—Tours) and C. Michel (CNRS—Nanterre) for their comments on some parts of this paper. I also thank Ch.W. Hess (Universität Leipzig) for his help in composing this paper in acceptable English.

2 See E.M. Meyers/J. Rogerson, The World of the Hebrew Bible, in: The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, Cambridge 22008, (39–325) 70. This theory was especially defended by W.F. Albright, for example in The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra, New York 1963, 5 (with previous literature).

3 For example J. Bright, Early Israel in Recent History Writing, Naperville 1956, 85. A detailed bibliography can be found in W.S. Lason/D.A. Hubbard/F.W. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids 1996, 748 n. 24, and an abstract in T.L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham, BZAW 133, New York 1974, 200–1. Gordon, however, thought that these references could be traced back to the Amarna period (14th CBC); see for example erēbu Marriage, SCCNH 1, 1981, (155–60) 157.

4 Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (n. 3).

5 J. van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, Yale 1975.

6 See an abstract of this issue in Lason/Hubbard/Bush, Old Testament Survey (n. 3), 41–3. See other parallels in W.W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture. Archival Documents from the Biblical World, Volume Three, Leiden/Boston/Köln 2002. For a study focused on the parallels with the Nuzi material see M.A. Morrison, The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Near Eastern Sources, BiAr 46, 1983, 155–64.

7 See J.P. Vita, The Patriarchal Narratives and the Emar Texts: A New Look at Genesis 31, in: L. D'Alfonso/Y. Cohen/D. Sürenhagen (eds.), The City of Emar Among the Late Bronze Age Empires: History, Landscape, and Society. Proceedings of the Kontanz Emar Conference, 25–26.04.2006, AOAT 349, Münster 2008, (231–41) 232.

8 See Vita, The Patriarchal Narratives (n. 7), 233–4.

9 Meyers/Rogerson, The World of the Hebrew Bible (n. 2), 70.

10 See for example R. Westbrook, Polygamie, RlA 10, 2003/2005, (600–2) 600b or B. Lion/C. Michel, Mariage, in: F. Joannès (ed.), Dictionnaire de la civilisation mésopotamienne, Paris 2001, (503–7) 504. Specific sections of R. Westbrook (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, HdO 72, Leiden/Boston 2003 can be consulted. For a perspective centered on the Old Testament see C. Friedl, Polygynie in Mesopotamien und Israel. Sozialgeschichtliche Analyse polygamer Beziehungen anhand rechtlicher Texte aus dem 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., AOAT 277, Münster 2000.

11 There are examples from different periods. On Old Babylonian Mesopotamia see in general R. Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law, AfO Beih. 23, Horn 1988, 103–11. In the Old Assyrian period there are cases in which a man could have a wife (aššatum) and a secondary one, called amtum; see K.R. Veenhof, Old Assyrian Period, in R. Westbrook (ed.), A History of the Ancient Near Eastern Law, HdO 72, Leiden/Boston 2003, (431–83) 453; C. Michel, Bigamie chez les assyriens du début du IIe millénaire avant J. C, RHD 84, 2006, (155–76) 162–3; idem, Les assyriens et leur femmes anatoliennes, in: J.G. Dercksen (ed.), Anatolia and the Jazira During the Old Assyrian Period, PIHANS 111, Leiden 2008, (209–29) 212–7; B. Kienast, Altassyrisch amtum = “Zweitfrau”, AoF 35, 2008, (35–52) 41. On Alalaḫ see J.J. Justel, La posición jurídica de la mujer en Siria durante el Bronce Final. Estudio de las estrategias familiares y de la mujer como sujeto y objeto de derecho, SPOA 4, Zaragoza 2008, 71; Ch. Niedorf, Die mittelbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden aus Alalaḫ (Schicht IV), AOAT 352, Münster 2008, 167–8. On Nuzi see J.M. Breneman, Nuzi Marriage Tablets, unpublished Ph.D., Brandeis University 1971, 290. On Emar see specially Justel, La posición jurídica de la mujer (above), 70–1.

12 See for example the marriage contract of Alalaḫ (IV) AlT 92, where it is said that, in case the wife should be unable to bear children, her brother would provide the husband with another wife (J.J. Justel, The Marriage Contract AlT 92 [Alalah] in the Light of the Marriage System of Late Bronze Age Syria, AoF 36, 2009, [97–109] 103). Note that in Emar the wife's guardian could state that, in case she died, one of her other sisters would be delivered as wife (Justel, La posición jurídica de la mujer [n. 11], 97–98). Compare this circumstance with Gn 29, 16 (already mentioned by J. Tropper/J.P. Vita, Texte aus Emar, TUAT NF 1, 2004, [146–62] 149 n. 6).

13 See for example J. Kohler/F.E. Peiser, Hammurabis Gesetz, HG 1, Leipzig 1904, 106 n. 6 or H. Gunkel, Genesis, GHAT 1, Göttingen 1922, 185.

14 For instance E.A. Speiser, Ethnic Movements in the Near East in the Second Millennium B. C. The Hurrians and their Connections with the Ḫabiru and the Hyksos, AASOR 13, 1931/1932, (13–54) 44. Perhaps the more representative treatment of this author is to be found in Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 1, New York 1964, 119–21.

15 See this idea in several works of Speiser, recently commented by A. Winitzer, Toward Assessing Twentieth—Century Ancient Near Eastern Scholarship. The Case of E. A. Speiser, in: J. Stackert/B. Nevling Porter/D.P. Wright (eds.), Gazing on the Deep. Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch, Bethesda 2010, (379–410) 388–92.

16 A complete bibliography is found in Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (n. 3), 253 n. 248.

17 J. van Seters, The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel, JBL 87, 1968, 401–8; Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (n. 3), 252–69. See in this sense recently Th. Römer, Milieux bibliques, in: Annuaire du Collège de France 109 (= 2008/2009), Paris 2010 (669–87), 671.

18 See specially Friedl, Polygynie (n. 10), 104–5, 202, 233–9, as well as the notes provided by K.R. Veenhof, Three Old Babylonian Marriage Contracts involving nadītum and šugītum, in: M. Lebeau/P. Talon (eds.), Reflets des deux fleuves. Volume de mélanges offerts à André Finet, Akkadica Supp. 6, Leuven 1989, (181–9) 186a. See for example that Van Seters, The Problem of Childlessness (n. 17), 404 n. 12 takes into account only two contracts, and not eight as done here in § 4.2.

19 For example see M. Stol, Women in Mesopotamia, JESHO 38, 1995, (123–44) 129; L.J. Bord, L'adoption dans la Bible et dans le droit cunéiforme, ZAR 3, 1997, (174–94) 176–7; R. Westbrook, The Female Slave, in: V.H. Matthews/B.M. Levinson/T. Frymer—Kensky (eds.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, JSOTS 262, Sheffield 1998, (214–38) 228–9; B. Gandulla, Marriage and Adoption: Two Institutions of Hurrian's Family Law in the Patriarchal Traditions, in: S. Graziani (ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, Napoli 2000, (319–31) 321; Justel, La posición jurídica de la mujer (n. 11), 73 n. 217.

20 Of P (Priestly) source only vv. 1a and 3, but Van Seters (The Problem of Childlessness [n. 17], 402 n. 8), for example, considers only a part of v. 3 to be P.

21 My own translation of biblical sources (with Speiser, Genesis [n. 14], 116 and 228–9). Personal names are normalized according to common use. Note that in this paper all feminine personal names — even those from the old Testament — bear a “f” in superscript, regardless whether they contain a female determinative (MUNUS) in the cuneiform text or not.

22 šifḥā means, according to HAL 1496b, “Sklavin.” The term should not be confused with ʾămā (see Gn 30, 3). This last one does not refer to a free women, whether a secondary wife of a free man or an (unfree) wife of a slave; šifḥā refers to an unfree girl, usually at the service of the lady of the house. Note, however, that both terms are mainly employed without distinction, as in Gn 30 (§ 3.2), and have thus been translated as “female slave.” See especially Westbrook, The Female Slave (n. 19), 232 n. 50 (contra Friedl, Polygynie [n. 10], 164–6).

23 One of the multiple meanings of the verb bnh, see HAL 133b.

24 ʾiššā, “Weib, Ehefrau” (HAL 90b). Speiser (Genesis [n. 14], 116–7) translates it as “concubine.” In this part the term seems to have the sense of “wife,” see also DCH 1 404a.

25 Except vv. 1–2 y 6, of E (Elhoist) source.

26 This symbolic act is attested in other passages of the Old Testament, as well as in one Old Babylonian court case from Nippur (published in E.C. Stone, Nippur Neighborhoods, SAOC 44, Chicago 1987, no. 40 = pl. 58), and a letter from Sippar—Amnānu (K. van Lerberghe, Sippar—Amnānu. The Ur—Utu Archive, MHET 1, Ghent 1991, 105). On this subject see specially M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible. Its Mediterranean Setting, CM 14, Groningen 2000, 178–9.

27 Translation by M.T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, WAW 6, Atlanta 1995, 108–9, where a transcription is also provided.

28 Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 107a; id., Polygamie (n. 10), 601b; id., Old Babylonian Period, in: R. Westbrook (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, HdO 72, Leiden/Boston 2003, (361–430) 424–5; Friedl, Polygynie (n. 10), 67 and 80; A. Seri, Domestic Female Slaves during the Old Babylonian Period, in: L. Culbertson (ed.), Slaves and Households in the Near East, OIS 7, Chicago 2011, (49–67) 52–3. On the nadītum of Marduk in general see especially L. Barberon, Les religieuses et le culte de Marduk dans le royaume de Babylone, Mémoires de NABU, Paris 2012.

29 See specially Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 107a; Veenhof, Three Old Babylonian Marriage Contracts (n. 18), 186a.

30 Moreover, in two documents (CT 8 2a, BE 6/1 84), among the dowry received by the nadītum—priestess a šugītum is included, with whom the husband could have children (Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law [n. 11], 108b; see also CT 45 119 (below), where the wife's biological sister was included in the dowry). In CT 47 40 a nadītum adopts a woman as daughter and kallātu, but there is no reference to the delivery to the husband, and therefore it seems to be simply a marriage adoption contract. It is not clear whether CT 2 44 must be included here, contra N. Pfeifer, Das Eherecht in Nuzi: Einflüsse aus altbabylonischer Zeit, SCCNH 18, 2009 (355–420), 378; the husband marries two wives, but it is not explicitly said that the first one has arranged the second's marriage.

31 Transcription in F.R. Kraus, Nippur und Isin nach altbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden, JCS 3, 1951, 113–5; translation (with Wilcke's collations) in Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 116.

32 Transcription of this part: 1Ia-lí-a-[b]i 2DUMU.MUNUS dur-ma-šum-ḫa-zi-ir 3ù dEN.ZU-BÀD-ri 4KI dur-ma-šum-ḫa-zi-ir AD.DA.NI 5ù dEN.ZU-BÀD-ri AMA.A.NI.TA 6Ita-a-a-tum DUMU.MUNUS dEN.KI-ḪE.GÁL 7a-na at-ḫu-tim il-qè-ši (…) 12Ita-a-a-tum a-na im-gur-ru-um DAM.A.NI 13a-na NAM.DAM.šè IN.NA.AN.SUM.

33 See the translation of the document in Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 133a, and the comments by F.R. Kraus, Neue Rechtsurkunden der altbabylonischen Zeit. Bemerkungen zu Ur Excavations Texts 5, WO 2, 1954/1959, (120–36) 129 and M. Van de Mieroop, Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur, BBVO 12, Berlin 1992, 213 n. 1.

34 Transcription of this part: 1[Ima-at-tu]-┌ú┐ 2[Iša-d]┌na┐-na-a 3┌KI┐ ni-id-na-at-30 AD.DA.NI 4ù be-el-tum-re-mi-ni AMA.A.NI 5NAM.>f<NIN.A.NI 6šU.BA.AN.TI 7Ima-at-tu-ú 8Iša-dna-na-┌a┐ NIN.A.NI 9ana ma-re-er-ṣe-tim DAM.A.NI 10i-di-iš-┌ši┐.

35 Translation in Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 119b; see also Westbrook, The Female Slave (n. 19), 234.

36 Transcription of this part: 1dIUTU-nu-ri DUMU.MUNUS i-bi-ša!-a-an 2KI i-bi-dša-a-an a-bi-ša 3Idbu-né-né-a-bi! 4ù be-le-su-nu i-ša-mu-ši.

37 Reading and commentaries in C. Wilcke, CT 45, 199: Ein Fall legaler Bigamie mit nadītum und šugītum, ZA 74, 1984, 170–80(collated). The document is broken in several parts, among them the one we are interested in. The following clauses (§ 4.3) indicate with all surety that it is a case of bigamy.

38 Transcription of this part: 4′I┌x-laal-tum┐ MUNUS šU.GI 5′┌e-xx┐-[š]a?[i-i]r?-┌ru?-ub?-ma x┐ 6′┌a-na at?-ḫu?-ti-ša! il?-qé?┐.

39 Transcription in S. Daiches, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus der Zeit der Ḫammurabi—Dynastie, LSS 1/2, Leipzig 1903, 26–7; translation in J. Kohler/A. Ungnad, Hammurabis Gesetz, HG 3, Leipzig 1909, 116; Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 121–2. The delivery of the woman in marriage does not appear, but is certainly attested in the clauses; see the concrete arguments in Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 104a.

40 Transcription of this part: 1sa-bi-tum 2DUMU.MUNUS a-ḫu-ši-na ù a-ḫa-ta!-┌ni┐ 3KI a-ḫu-ši-na AD.DA.NI! 4ù a-ḫa-ta-ni AMA.A.<NI> 5Ia-ḫa-sú-nu il-qé.

41 Translation in Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 124a; partial transcription after collation in C. Wilcke, Familiengründung im alten Babylonien, in: E.W. Müller (ed.), Geschlechtsreife und Legitimation zur Zeugung, München 1985, (213–317) 261 n. 68. R. Harris, Ancient Sippar. A Demographic Study of an Old Babylonian City (1894–1595 B.C.), PIHANS 36, Istanbul 1975, 320 n. 62 assumes that all the mentioned women were nadītum of Marduk, but in fact the term kulmašītum means “a woman devotee of a deity” (CAD K 526a).

42 Transcription of this part: 1Ia!-ḫi-li-bu-r[a-am] 2KI sa-na-ak-ra-tum 3DUMU.MUNUS mu-sa-li-mu-um NU.BAR 4Ia-ḫa-tum DUMU.MUNUS mu-sa-li-mu-[um] NU.GI[G] 5a-na ma-ru-tim il-qé-e-ši-ma 6a-na mu-ti-ša id-di-iš-ši.

43 Published by Veenhof, Three Old Babylonian Marriage Contracts (n. 18), 183; see also BM 97025.

44 Transcription of this part: 1Iṣi-ḫa-a-li-┌ša?-ra┐-bi ┌š┐U.GI 2DUMU.MUNUS bu-la-ṭa-tum 3bu-la-ṭa-tum um-ma-ša 4IdEN.ZU-na-di-in-šu-mi 5di-din-INANNA 6ù SIG-an-nu-ni-tum aḫ-ḫu-ša 7a-na i-nu-úḫ-É.SAG.ÍL ┌LUKUR dAMAR.UTU┐ 8a-ḫa-ti-šu-nu 9a-na it-ti-ša e-mu-u[q-ì-lí-ši-it-mar] 10a-ḫa-zi-im idd[i-nu-ši].

45 Published by Veenhof, Three Old Babylonian Marriage Contracts (n. 18), 184; see also BM 97057.

46 Transcription of this part: 1Ii-nu-úḫ-É-SAG.ÍL 2LUKUR dAMAR.UTU 3DUMU.MUNUS DINGIR-šu-ib-ni 4DAM e-mu-uq-ì-lí-ši-it-mar 5DUMU bur-dIšKUR! 6Ian-na-bu MUNUS šU.┌GI┐?-t[um] 7DUMU.MUNUS sa-bi-tum 8DUMU.MUNUS DINGIR-šu-ib-ni 9a-na it-ti-ša a-ḫa-zi-i[m] 10a-na e-mu-uq-ì-lí-ši-it-m[ar] 11DUMU bur-dIšKUR 12mu-ti-ša 13il-qé-e-ši.

47 On the relationship between these two contracts see Veenhof, Three Old Babylonian Marriage Contracts (n. 18).

48 See Wilcke, CT 45, 199 (n. 37), 171 n. 4; Veenhof, Three Old Babylonian Marriage Contracts (n. 18), 185a.

49 See Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 108b; Friedl, Polygynie (n. 10), 120–4.

50 BIN 7 173, UET 5 87, CT 8 22b, CT 48 48.

51 See Veenhof, Three Old Babylonian Marriage Contracts (n. 18), 185a.

52 See especially Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 109–10 or S. Greengus, Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and the “Wife—Sister” in Genesis, HUCA 46, 1975, (5–31) 14–5 n. 33.

53 In the above—mentioned corpus this formula appears in CT 45 119: 7′—8′, CT 8 22b: 5–6, CT 48 48: 6–8. See also Westbrook, The Female Slave (n. 19), 164 n. 32.

54 In the above-mentioned corpus this formula appears in BIN 7 173: 14–15, UET 5 87: 11–12, BM 97057: 22–28 (with indication of personal names).

55 In the above—mentioned corpus this formula appears in CT 48 48: 9–10, perhaps also in CT 48 57: 16–18.

56 Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 110b.

57 See this expression in other documents, for instance R. Harris, The Case of Three Babylonian Marriage Contracts, JNES 33, 1974, (363–9) 367 or Friedl, Polygynie (n. 10), 107–8.

58 See C. Michel, Old Assyrian Bibliography of Cuneiform Texts, Bullae, Seals and the Results of the Excavations at Aššur, Kültepe/Kaniš, Acemhöyuk, Alişar and Boǧakzöy, PIHANS 97, Leiden 2003, 53.

59 See the notes provided by B. Hrozný, Inscriptions cunéiformes du Kultépé, vol. I, Monografie. Archívu Orientálního 14, Praha 1952, 1b.

60 B. Hrozný, Über eine unveröffentlichte Urkunde vom Kültepe (ca. 2000 v. Chr.), In T. Folkers/J. Friedrich/J.G. Lautner/J. Miles (eds.), Symbolae ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentes Paulo Koschaker dedicatae, SD 2, Leiden 1939, 108–11.

61 Hrozný, Inscriptions cunéiformes du Kultépé (n. 59), pl. IV–V.

62 J. Lewy, On Some Institutions of the Old Assyrian Empire, HUCA 27, 1956, (1–79) 8–10. Other studies are, for example, the translation of J.J. Finkelstein, in: J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton 1950, 543a; B. Landsberger, Kommt Ḫattum “Hettiterland” und Ḫatīʾum “Hettiter” in den Kültepe—Tafeln vor?, ArOr 18/1–2, 1950, (329–50) 338–9; E. Bilgiç, Hititlerden Önceki Anadolu Halkının Evlilik Hukukunum Orijinal Tarafları, DTCFD 9, 1951, (227–50) 239–41 (collated); H. Hirsch, Eine Kleinigkeit zur Heiratsurkunde ICK 1,3, OrNS 35, 1966, 279–80; C. Saporetti, Beni nel matrimonio: la situazione in Assiria, in C. Saporetti (ed.), Il trasferimento dei beni nel matrimonio privato del Vicino Oriente Antico, Geo—Archeologia 1984/2, Roma 1984, (35–56) 36; R. Rems, Eine Kleinigkeit zum altassyrischen Eherecht, WZKM 86, 1996, (355–67) 361, 364–6; C. Michel, Les enfants des marchands de Kaniš, Ktema 22, 1997, (91–108), 105–6; idem, Bigamie (n. 11), 162–3; Kienast, Altassyrisch amtum (n. 11), 37–8. A complete edition of the document is envisaged in C. Michel, Women from Aššur and Kaniš According to the Private Archives of the Assyrian Merchants at the Beginning of the IInd Millennium BC, WAW, Atlanta, forthcoming.

63 On this woman see also C. Michel, Correspondance des marchands de Kanish, LAPO 19, Paris 2001, 501–2.

64 It was not clear which ideogram used, since the sign is partially damaged (see the comments of Hrozný, Über eine unveröffentlichte Urkunde [n. 60], 110; Lewy, On Some Institutions [n. 62], 9 n. 39). Some authors thought it to be DAM, aššatum, “wife” (for example Veenhof, Old Assyrian Period [n. 11], 452; Kienast, Altassyrisch amtum [n. 11], 37). Others proposed as more correct the reading GEMÉ, that is, amtum, “female slave/wife” (for example Landsberger, Kommt Ḫattum [n. 62], 339; J. Lewy, Ḫatta, Ḫattu, Ḫatti, Ḫattuša and “Old Assyrian” Ḫattum, ArOr 18/3, 1950, [366–441] 421; CAD M/1 416b; CAD š/1 392a; Rems, Eine Kleinigkeit zum altassyrischen Eherecht [n. 62], 361). The correct reading, based on other Old Assyrian marriage texts, seems to be aššatum; see the literature mentioned in n. 11 and specially Michel, Bigamie (n. 11), 163 n. 27.

65 Transcription of this part: 7… šu-ma: a-dí 8MU.2.šè li-pè-e 9lá ta-ar-tí-ší-šu-um 10GEMÉ: ší-it-ma 11ta-ša-a-am-ma.

66 G. Dosch, Die Texte aus Room A 34 des Archivs von Nuzi, unpublished Magisterarbeit, Univ. Heidelberg 1976, 4. The document was so retained in the adopter's archive, as usual in Nuzi.

67 E. Chiera, Excavations at Nuzi 1. Texts of Varied Contents, HSS 5, Cambridge 1929 pl. LXI–LXIII.

68 E.A. Speiser, New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Family Laws, AASOR 10, 1928/1929, 31–3.

69 For example, see the readings of E. Cassin, L'adoption à Nuzi, Paris 1938, 285–8; A. Skaist, Studies in Ancient Mesopotamian Family Law Pertaining to Marriage and Divorce, unpublished Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania 1963, 98–100; Breneman, Nuzi Marriage Tablets (n. 11), 222–6 (ll. 1–42, 53–55); S.C. Stohlman, Real Adoption at Nuzi, unpublished Ph.D., Brandeis University 1972, 84–9; Dosch, Die Texte aus Room A 34 (n. 66), 51–2. A complete bibliographical list will be provided in the monograph I am preparing containing all the documents from the kingdom of Arrapḫe relating to marriage law; there a discussion of some epigraphic problems in this passage will also be found.

70 Transcription of this part: 16ù fké-li-im-ni-nu a-na aš-šu-[ti] 17a-na Iše-en-ni-ma SUM-din šum-ma fké-li-im-ni-nu ú-la-ad 18ù Iše-en-ni-ma aš-ša-ta ša-ni-ta!(copy: na) la i-ḫa-az 19ù šum-ma fké-li-im-ni-nu la ú-la-ad 20fké-li-im-ni-nu MUNUS ša KUR nu-ul-i-[a-ú] 21a-na aš-šu-ti a-na Iše-en-ni-ma i-leq-qè.

71 See for example D.E. Fleming, Time at Emar. The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner's Archive, MC 11, Winona Lake 2000, 4–8.

72 D. Arnaud, Recherches au pays d'Aštata: Emar VI, Paris 1985/1987, I 145–6, III 230–1.

73 J.M. Durand/L. Marti, Relecture de documents d'Ekalte, Émar et Tuttul, RA 97, 2003, (141–80) 180. See especially J.J. Justel, L'adoption matrimoniale à Emar, RHD 86, 2008, (1–19) 6 n. 27 and 14 (where a new understanding of the legal deed is provided); idem, La posición jurídica de la mujer (n. 11), 72–3, and other references in the bibliographical tool http://www.hethport.uniwuerzburg.de/emarkonk/.

74 Regarding the differences between the Syrian and Syro—Hittite scribal schools, see in particular S. Seminara, L'accadico di Emar, MVS 6, Roma 1998, 9–20, and the collection of articles included in L. D'Alfonso/Y. Cohen/D. Sürenhagen (eds.), The City of Emar Among the Late Bronze Age Empires: History, Landscape, and Society. Proceedings of the Kontanz Emar Conference, 25–26.04.2006, AOAT 349, Münster 2008 (especially those of Fleming, Pp. 27–43, and Faist, pp. 195–205).

75 On the reading of this personal name see R. Pruzsinszky, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Emar, SCCNH 13, Winona Lake 2003, 142–3and Y. Cohen, Shortened Names in Emar and Elsewhere on the Basis of Cuneiform and Hittite Hieroglyphic Evidence, in: I. Singer (Ed.), ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis. Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Tel Aviv 2010, (32–43) 37.

76 Transcription of this part: 8… šúm-ma fa-nat-um-mi DAM Iše-gal 9 la tu-la-ad fdNIN-be-a a-na DAM-šú ša še-gal 10LÚ mu-ti-ša ta-na-din-ši.

77 See specially Tropper/Vita, Texte aus Emar (n. 12), 151–2.

78 See recently Y. Cohen, Feet of Clay at Emar: A Happy End?, OrNS 74, 2005, 165–70and id., The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age, HSS 59, Winona Lake 2009, 132–3.

79 B. Parker, The Nimrud Tablets, 1952—Business Documents, Iraq 16, 1954, (29–58) 37–9 and 55.

80 J.N. Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents, Warminster 1976, 103–7, also mentioned in A.K. Grayson/J. van Seters, The Childless Wife in Assyria and the Stories of Genesis, OrNS 44, 1975, 485–6. The more recent translation is that of K. Radner, Neuassyrische Texte, TUAT NF 1, 2004, (71–88) 75–7.

81 For example V.A. Jakobson, Studies in Neo-Assyrian Law, AoF 1, 1974, (115–121) 115–116; J.N. Postgate, On Some Assyrian Ladies, Iraq 41, 1979, (89–103) 97–98; K. Radner, Die neuassyrischen Privatrechtsurkunden als Quelle für Mensch und Umwelt, SAAS 6, Helsinki 1997, 165. See also Saporetti, Beni nel matrimonio (n. 62), 53.

82 Transcription of this part: 41šum-ma fṣu-[bé-(e)-tú l]a [t]a-a-ri 42la tú-ú-la-[d]a GEMÉ ta-laq-qe 43e-si qa-an-ni-šá Aš š[ub-t]i-šá ta-šak-kan.

83 These are HSS 19 49, HSS 19 51 and RA 23 51; see specially Gordon, erēbu Marriage (n. 3) and N. Bellotto, L'adozione con matrimonio a Nuzi e a Emar, KASKAL 1, 2004, (129–37) 130–1.

84 See other marriage adoption contracts from Emar in Justel, L'adoption matrimoniale (n. 73).

85 This phenomenon recurs in other Old Babylonian marriage contracts (for example CT 2 44), but not in those where the wife gives her husband another woman. See this idea already in Veenhof, Three Old Babylonian Marriage Contracts (n. 18), 185a.

86 Clearly in CT 45 119 and BM 97057/BM 97025.

87 According to Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 108b: “Nonetheless, there remain a fair proportion of the polygamy contracts where all allusion to the priesthood is lacking. Some of the protagonists have names typical of priestesses, but this is already weaker ground.” Later on (p. 109a): “A condition for polygamy confining it to the class of priestesses in OB law therefore remains unproven.”

88 In this case it is specified that the main wife would take a woman from Nullue and give her to her husband. Nullue is mentioned in Nuzi sources as the place where slaves come from (J. Fincke, Die Orts— und Gewässernamen der Nuzi—Texte, RGTC 10, Wiesbaden 1993, 192).

89 Note that in Gn 30 the first time fBilhah is mentioned she is called ʾămā (v. 3), thereafter šifḥā. See the comments in § 3.1.

90 CT 45 119, BM 97057/BM 97025.

91 BIN 7 173, UET 5 87, CT 8 22b, CT 48 48, CT 48 57.

92 UET 5 87, CT 54 119, BM 97057/BM 97025.

93 ICK 1 3, ND 2307.

94 CT 8 22b, CT 48 48.

95 UET 5 87, CT 45 119, BM 97057/BM 97025, CT 8 22b, CT 48 48, CT 48 57. However, according to the clauses of these contracts, it is clear that the status of the new wife was that of secondary wife, see § 4.3.

96 BIN 7 173, UET 5 87, CT 48 57.

97 CT 45 119, CT 48 48, HSS 5 67, BM 97025 (in this last contract the main wife takes the woman “to be married with her to PN,” l. 9: ana ittiša aḫāzim ana PN).

98 Gn 30, Emar VI 216 (where the adoptee's mother had given her, nadānu, to the main wife in adoption). In BM 97057 it is said that the family had given the secondary wife to the first one “to be married with her (to) PN,” ll. 9–10: ana ittiša PN aḫāzim.

99 In CT 8 22b the main wife and her husband had bought the female slave together. In the Old Testament narratives this is not stated because the female slave already belonged to the main wife.

100 Transcription: 12u4-um li-ib-<bi> Ia-ḫu-sú-nu 13ú-ša-am-ra-ṣu 14ú-ga-la-ab-ši-ma 15a-na KÙ.BABBAR i-na-di-ši.

101 Transcription: 7u4-um dUTU-nu-ri a-na be-le-su-┌nu┐ 8be-le-ti-ša ú-ul be-el-ti at-ti 9iq-ta-bu ú-ga-la-ab-ši 10a-na KÙ.BABBAR i-na-ad-di-i┌š-š┐i.

102 The sense of the verb ḫaṣānu is, according to dictionaries, “to shelter, to receive in a friendly way” (CAD Ḫ 129–130), “in den Arm nehmen” (AHw 331b).

103 Transcription: 45šum-ma ta-ra-[am-ma? ×?] ta-ḫa-si-ni 46šum-ma ta-ze-e-[r]a ta-da(over erasure)-a-ši.

104 Transcription: 13ù šúm-ma fa-nat-um-mi i-na Iše-gal 14LU mu-ti-ša tu-la-ad 15Iše-g[al] ù fa-nat-um-mi 16[f]d[NIN-b]e-a DUMU.MUNUS-šú-nu i-na É e-mi 17li-d[in-nu] KU.BABBAR.MEš NI!.MI.US.SA-ši 18lil-[q]u-ú.

105 šarra ammîm was the reading proposed by Hirsch, Eine Kleinigkeit (n. 62), 279–80, accepted for example by CAD š/2 317b. Other possibility was proposed by Lewy (On Some Institutions [n. 62], 10 n. 43), to emend ša-ra-am mì-im-<ma>, idea followed by CAD A/2 274a. Landsberger (Kommt Ḫattum [n. 62], 339 n. 56) proposed not to interpret this final part -mì-im. In fact, it is not clear whether the text refers to the main wife or the female slave. If it were the first case (as envisaged by Finkelstein, in: Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts [n. 62], 543a n. 2), it would be the same circumstance as that found in Emar VI 216 (Emar). Nevertheless, in my opinion it refers to the slave (this one is also the sense of the translation, for example, of Lewy, On Some Institutions [n. 62], 10, and Michel, Bigamie [n. 11], 163). The key would be in the preposition warkâ/ītu, which introduces a temporal subordinate sentence, “after” (GAG § 119f, AHw 1469b, CAD A/2 276–277; see specially G. Eisser/J. Lewy, Die altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden vom Kültepe. 3. und 4. Teil, MVAeG 35/3, Leipzig 1935, 167 n. b). If the subject were the main wife probably the preposition would have been šumma (as it happens in Emar VI 216: 13).

106 It is not clear who could sell the female slave, whether the husband or the main wife. We follow here Finkelstein, in: Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (n. 62), 543a n. 3: “The rendering is based on the fact that the pronoun and the verb are masculine, but considering that the masculine is also used throughout in the following two clauses, even when Halata is clearly the object of the first and the second, it might be presumed that she is the subject here also, which would configure better with the fact that it is she who was to provide the slave woman to begin with, and presumably would also retain the right to sell her.” The same idea is to be found, for example, in the translation of Michel, Bigamie (n. 11), 163.

107 Transcription: 12ù wa-ar-kà-tám 13iš-tù: ša-ra-am-mì-im 14ta-ra-ší-ú-šu-ni 15ú a-šar li-bi4-┌šu┐ 16a-na ší-mì-im i-da-šu.

108 This phenomenon is also observed in the expression “to build (a family) through her,” or in the bearing of children on the main wife's knees. These references and their Ancient Near Eastern parallels have been referred to in § 3.

109 Transcription: 44DUMU.MEš ú-šab-šá DU[MU.MEš?] DUMU.MEš-šá.

110 See Harris, The Case of Three Babylonian Marriage Contracts (n. 57), 365–7; Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (n. 11), 127 (collated). See the statement of Wilcke, Familiengründung (n. 41), 293.

111 Transcription: 11DUMU.MEš ma-la-a wa-al-du 12ù i-wa-la-du DUMU.MEš-ši-na-ma.

112 As Michel, Les enfants (n. 62), 106 points out: “Les enfants de l'esclave deviennent alors les enfants légitimes du couple, leur mère naturelle ne gardant aucun pouvoir sur eux.”