Women in the Wilderness: The 'Female Legislation' of the Book of Numbers (Num 5,11-31; 27,1-11; 30,2-17) (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament) 9783161588563, 9783161588570, 3161588568

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Herausgegeben von Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

138

Francesco Cocco

Women in the Wilderness The “Female Legislation” of the Book of Numbers (Num 5,11 –31; 27,1 –11; 30,2 –17)

Mohr Siebeck

Francesco Cocco, born 1975; studied theology at the Theological Institute of Assisi (Italy) and biblical exegesis at the Pontifical Biblical Institute (Rome), where he gained a doctorate in Sacred Scriptures (2006); currently Professor of Old Testament Exegesis (Pentateuch) at the Pontifical Urbaniana University (Rome, Italy)

ISBN 978-3-16-158856-3 / eISBN 978-3-16-158857-0 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-158857-0 ISSN 1611 –4914 / eISSN 2568 –8367 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by satz&sonders in Dülmen, printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

...................................

Chapter I: The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31 . . . . . 1. The immediate context of the pericope and its boundaries 2. The internal unity of the pericope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. “Diachronic” hypothesis: the pericope as the product of the conflation of different traditions . . . 2.2. “Holistic-synchronic hypothesis”: the pericope considered as substantially unitary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Exegetical analysis of Num 5,11 –31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Introduction to the divine discourse (vv. 11 –12a) . 3.2. Exposition of the case (vv. 12b –14) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Adultery in the Ancient Near East and in biblical Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. The question of gender in the penal legislation of the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . 3.2.3. The ordeal in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . 3.3. Preparation of the ritual of the ordeal (vv.15 –18) . . 3.4. Oath (vv. 19 –24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Performance of the ritual of the ordeal (vv. 25 –28) . 3.6. Summary recapitulation of the case (vv. 29 –30) . . . 3.7. Addendum (v. 31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter II: An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11 1. The contexts (remote and close) of the pericope and its delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Exegetical analysis of Num 27,1 –11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Exposition of the case in narrative form (vv. 1 –4) 2.1.1. Inheritance in the Ancient Near East . . . . . 2.1.2. Inheritance in the biblical legislation . . . . . 2.2. Transfer of the case from Moses to YHWH and solution of the problem (vv. 5 –7) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

.... ... ....

7 9 12

....

14

. . . .

. . . .

25 36 37 37

....

38

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. 45 . 61 . 82 . 98 . 109 . 112 . 114

. . . . 117 . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

118 125 125 142 146

. . . . . 150

VI

Table of Contents

2.3. Transformation of the particular case into a general law (vv. 8 –11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The relationship between Num 27,1 –11 and Num 36,1 –12 3.1. Formal comparison between the two pericopes . . . . 3.2. Comparison of the content of the two pericopes and assessment of the relationships of dependence . . . . . Chapter III: “But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17 1.1 1. The practice of the vow in the Ancient Near East . . . 2. The practice of the vow in the context of the biblical traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The legislation in the Torah on the vow . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The legislation on the vow in Num 30,2 –17 . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Delimitation of the literary unit and structural hypotheses about the pericope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Exegetical analysis of the pericope . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. Introduction (v. 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. Irrevocability of vows freely made before YHWH (v. 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3. Vows made by the woman under her father’s protection (vv. 4 –6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4. Vows made before marriage and the role of the husband (vv. 7 –9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.5. Vows made when the woman is under her husband’s protection (vv. 11 –16) . . . . . . . . 4.2.6. Vows made by a widow or a divorced woman (v. 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.7. Summarising conclusion (v. 17) . . . . . . . . . 2 Conclusion 3 Bibliography

. . . 156 . . 160 . . . 161 . . . 163

. . . . 167 . . . . . 168 . . . . . 172 . . . . . 175 . . . . . 182 . . . . . 183 . . . . . 186 . . . . . 186 . . . . . 188 . . . . . 189 . . . . . 195 . . . . . 198 . . . . . 202 . . . . . 204

.....................................

205

...................................

211

4 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Biblical References (selective) Authors Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. . .. ..

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. 227 . . 227 . . 231 . . 233

1 Introduction

Not everyone is worthy of the divine numbering, but those who ought to be comprised within the number of God are designated by certain privileges. Now this book that is inscribed “of Numbers”, contains clear proof of this fact. It reports that by God’s command women are not summoned to the numbering. Doubtless this is due to the obstacle of feminine weakness. Nor is any slave summoned, insofar as they are ignoble in life and character. Nor is any Egyptian counted, of this who had been mixed in [with the people], for the obvious reason that they were foreign-born and barbarians. But only Israelites are counted, not all of them, but those “from twenty years old and upwards”. And it is not merely the consideration of age that is taken into account, but it is asked if he shows a strength that is adequate for war. For it is indicated through the word of God that “everyone that goes forth in power is numbered”. So, it is not solely age, but power too that is required of the Israelites. Those who are of a young age are not numbered, nor are they considered suitable for the divine reckoning, unless they happen to be firstborn or descend from priestly or Levitical stock. These alone among the young men are summoned to be the numbering. But absolutely no female is summoned. 1

Origen’s opening words in his first homily on the book of Numbers enter immediately into the heart of his comment on the text of the census in Num 1,1 –4, illustrating the peculiar characteristics of the list contained there. Then, on closer examination, it becomes clear that, in introducing his own interpretation of this pericope, the great Alexandrian exegete is faced with a task that is difficult, to say the least, that of accounting for the rationale governing the composition of the list of those who were numbered. What strikes the reader most is that Origen’s comment on the first census in the book of Numbers begins in a way that is apophatic, so to speak: rather than speak of those who have been included in the list, the author dwells on the mention of those who have been excluded from this catalogue. In doing this, through a kind of heterogony of ends, Origen concludes by devoting the first place to women, even if, formally, he lists 1

Origen, Homilies on Numbers, I, 1.1 (translation by T.P. Scheck).

2

Introduction

them among those who do not figure in the “divine numbering”; and it is to women themselves – through a clear thematic inclusion – that he assigns the close of the first part of this homily, establishing in peremptory terms their inadequacy to form part of the divine numbers: “Feminarum vero nulla prorsus adducitur”. If anyone who has had the task of reading – entirely and unabridged – this peculiar “fourth fifth” of the Torah which is the book of Numbers is convinced by Origen’s words that “there is no space for any woman among the divine numbers”, he will be rather surprised to encounter a good three chapters of this biblical book given over to the treatment of questions which have none other than women as the leading figures. To continue the play on words which is concealed behind the title of this book, there are women in the desert. 2 Absolutely! This is precisely the reason why I have decided to devote an entire monograph to the study of the legislation which the book of Numbers dedicates to the treatment and resolution of legal issues that have women as their leading figures. Anticipating in summary the issues we are going to analyse, we could add that the leading place enjoyed by women in these biblical texts is quite peculiar, to some extent bon gré mal gré. In fact, to all appearances, the three literary traditions of a legal nature which are the object of our investigation do not seem to enhance the autonomy, freedom, selfdetermination or whatever other synonym can be married conceptually with the idea of the leading role of women. Nevertheless, beyond appearances, an in-depth study of the texts in question may lead to a broader, even unexpected, reading of these three literary traditions which are the product of the skilful amalgamation of narrative and legislative material that is so characteristic of the Torah in general and the book of Numbers in particular. In fact, it is only on the surface that the three texts we are going to analyse appear to be linked simply by the fact of having women as their leading figures. The exegetical analysis will reveal clearly that there is a much more significant common trait, a fil rouge which perfectly unites three traditions which are quite distinct and separate in the overall structure of the book: I am referring to the legislator’s attempt to provide a law which acts as both a protection and a guarantee for women. It is quite clear that such a protection and guarantee has to be set in its proper context and so understood without violent anachronism. However, although 2

In Hebrew, the expression “women in the wilderness” would be ‫ָשׁים ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ִ ‫נ‬, thus directly evoking the Hebrew title of the book of Numbers (‫)בּ ִמ ְד ַבּר‬. ְ

Introduction

3

it could appear partial and very limited, it is the signal of a particular care which biblical legislation reserves for women in a cultural environment which is not embarrassed to describe them as the total property of men. We enter now into the details of the subjects which we are going to tackle in this book. A closer look at the passage studied in the first chapter (Num 5,11 –31) reveals that it presents in some detail the sinister hues of a ritual which we would not hesitate to describe as grim to which a woman suspected of adultery by a husband, seized with the disease of jealousy, has to be subjected. It is precisely because of these characteristics, so unusual as to be even bizarre, that this is a text which has long attracted the commentators’ attention. The latter are basically divided between those who interpret the text as a rather classic example of the imprecatory oath and those who detect there the typical characteristics of that extrajudicial process which is known as the ordeal or divine judgement. As will emerge more clearly from the examination of the individual positions which acts as a status quaestionis at the beginning of the chapter, the impression that can be gained from a careful assessment of the individual elements that compose the pericope is that our text constitutes a skilful development of both these components. In this way, Num 5,11 –31 reveals itself to be the product of a redactional process which has given life to a process which contemplates – simultaneously – both an assumption of responsibility on the part of the woman who has been charged, expressed by means of the imprecatory oath, and also the supreme and decisive intervention on the part of YHWH, which is expressed through the effects of the potion which the woman is ordered to drink. In my opinion, the decisive nature of this divine intervention allows the entire process to be shaped as an ordeal proper. The comparison with analogous practices in the Ancient Near East and attested in various ways, especially in the legal literature relating to this geographical and cultural area, will help us to understand better the nature of the particular contribution which the biblical tradition offers in this connection. For its part, the text studied in the second chapter (Num 27,1 –11) deals with the problem that daughters are considerably discriminated against in comparison with their brothers when it comes to the paternal inheritance. The first thing striking the reader is that the question tackled in this pericope arises as a merely private matter, with specific leading figures and quite clear contours in a real family story, namely, that of a descendant of Manasseh, Zelophehad. However, the question raised to Moses by Zelophehad’s daughters reveals exceptional characteristics right from the beginning: indeed, Moses seems unable to resolve it since he

4

Introduction

adjourns the case presented by the five daughters to the direct judgement of YHWH. It is precisely the supreme voice of God which arrives at a judgement broadly favourable to the women protagonists, recognising the validity of the issue raised by them and guaranteeing that their request be accepted by the people of Israel. From the narrative point of view, this summary can undeniably be considered as the conclusion of the matter relating to the family of Zelophehad: in fact, the initial problem could be said to be definitively resolved by the direct intervention of YHWH who ratifies the legitimacy of the five daughters’ request. However, what strikes the reader is that the divine speech does not finish in v. 7, which contains the assurance that the paternal inheritance will not be dispersed among the tribes, but continues and is transformed into a general precept which is valid for all the children of Israel. Basically, what we have here is the transformation of a particular case into a general law which is going to form a substantial enrichment of the biblical legislation relating to paternal inheritance. Finally, the third pericope (Num 30,2 –17) reports the many variables affecting the validity of vows made by women, examining the different circumstances in depth. This legal provision takes its cue from the general precept regarding vows and promises freely made before YHWH, strictly confirming their irrevocability according to the text of Deut 23,19.22 –24. Starting from there, Num 30,4 introduces what is presented as a series of circumstances which are actually different from the general precept. However, they are set out in such a way that they can only be understood as exceptions which – far from denying it – confirm the rule contained in the deuteronomic precept. These circumstances which differ from the precept of the general validity of vows have as their common denominator the fact that they concern only the vows uttered by women. Moreover, all share the fact that the woman pronouncing the vow is under the protection of a man: first the father and then the husband. A superficial reading could indicate that what we have here is a provision that is decidedly discriminatory towards women insofar as it sets a significant limitation on their ability to utter vows, subjecting it, in fact, to the approval of the man under whose authority the woman is placed at that moment. However, the interpretation that will emerge from the exegetical analysis suggests the possibility of an alternative way to read our pericope. Albeit in the awareness of the undeniable inequality of the conditions of women with respect to men, product of the socio-cultural conventions of the time in which the biblical tradition was consolidated,

Introduction

5

it is possible to interpret the provision of Num 30,2 –17 as an attempt to protect women. This protection takes practical form in the intention to free the woman herself from a burden – deriving from her uttering of the vow – which, according to the circumstances, could be shown to be unsustainable for the woman’s conditions of life in that kind of society. This summary anticipation of the content of the legislative texts which will be examined in this book contains a clue which, in my view, is of primary importance. Although each has its own specific nature relating to the case in question, the three pericopes which we are going to read actually bear an analogous function insofar as they are presented as real supplements to the previous legislation in the Pentateuch. In particular, Num 5,11 –31 complements the legislation on adultery, proposing a solution to be followed in cases in which the crime is only suspected and not well known; for its part, Num 27,1 –11 is presented as a supplement to the laws regulating the paternal inheritance, introducing a substantial novelty relating to the case of the absence of male heirs; finally, Num 30,2 –17 extends the law concerning vows, defining clearly the range of validity of vows uttered by women. All this undoubtedly contributes to reinforcing the idea that, as a whole, the book of Numbers can be considered as a basic block in the definitive shape of the legislative heritage enclosed in the Torah. 3 A final word on the methodology we are going to follow in presenting the analysis of the pericopes we are studying. Faithful to an approach inspired by interdisciplinary criteria, my exegesis will try to make use of the best contributions of both the synchronic and diachronic methods. Therefore, the analysis of each of the passages will begin from the text prout iacet, opening itself up gradually to considerations of a diachronic character relating to the origin as well as to the history of the literary evolution of the individual traditions, in constant dialogue with the thematically analogous evidence found in the Ancient Near East. With this introduction, it only remains for me to hope that those who have the patience to read these pages will enjoy a pleasant journey accompanied by the “women in the desert”.

3 For the same reasons, Num 35,9 –34 can certainly be added to the three texts studied in this monograph. I studied it in my previous monograph to which I refer: F. Cocco, The Torah as a Place of Refuge. Biblical Criminal Law and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 84; Tübingen 2016).

Chapter I The bitter waters of jealousy Num 5,11 –31

No son los celos señales de mucho amor, sino de mucha curiosidad impertinente; y si son señales de amor, es como la calentura en el hombre enfermo, que el tenerla es señal de tener vida, pero vida enferma y mal dispuesta; y así, el enamorado celoso tiene amor, mas es amor enfermo y mal acondicionado. 1 O, beware, my lord, of jealousy; It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock The meat it feeds on; that cuckold lives in bliss Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger; But, O, what damned minutes tells he o’er Who dotes, yet doubts, suspects, yet strongly loves! 2

I have allowed two pens of the calibre of Miguel de Cervantes and William Shakespeare to introduce us to the study of the so-called “law of jealousy” because it is not a simple matter to express oneself on a subject which concerns everyone as protagonist both in an active and a passive sense. If it is true that every human relation is based on trust, then, a fortiori, it is true and valid for relations of an emotional kind to the extent to which they involve the inner being of those people who bind themselves to each other, accepting that they are no longer two entities but a single thing, to paraphrase what the book of Genesis says about the first human couple (cf. Gen 2,24). In these kinds of relations, marriage represents the form that is stable and consecrated – in the widest sense that can be attributed to that term: in biblical language it is expressed and represented as ‫בּ ִרית‬, ְ a pact which

1 2

Cervantes, La Galatea, III. Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice, III, 3.

8

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

is solemn in character and tends to be irrevocable. 3 It is precisely these characteristics of stability, solemnity and irrevocability which make the marriage relation strongly exposed to jealousy since they imply the unique and exclusive nature of that relation. But we know: the flesh is weak. . . Ancient literature abounds in stories connected with jealousy: it is enough to recall the vast mythology relating to Hera, the greatest female divinity on Olympus by virtue of her being the consort of Zeus. Precisely for this reason, she was also venerated as patron of married life. What mythology recounts of this goddess can be framed within the opposing passions which characterise her marriage union with the father of all the gods: love and jealousy. In lyrical tones, the Iliad describes the fervent amorous passion which is kindled in Zeus when he sees his wife shining on the summit of Ida; but, at the same time, and in greater detail, it reports various scenes of conflict between the two spouses, inflamed by the anger of Hera, who lived constantly in the torment of jealousy on account of the extra-marital escapades – real or presumed – of her husband, Zeus. 4 As a literary work, the Bible is no exception in the panorama of ancient literature, and so it too is concerned with the phenomenon of jealousy in various modes and circumstances. It will be enough to cite the most emblematic case – as well as the first recorded in the text – which is undoubtedly the jealousy of Cain in his dealings with his brother, Abel (Gen 4,3 –16); but the list could be continued with a mention of the jealousy of the brothers with regard to Joseph, Jacob’s son (Gen 37,4); or of Miriam and Aaron with regard to Moses (Num 12,1 –15); and that is just in the Pentateuch. Within the various biblical texts which tackle the theme of jealousy in one way or another, there is one, however, which stands out in its peculiarity, especially in the eyes of the modern reader: it is a provision of a legal nature known as the “torah of jealousy”, which deals with the legal treatment of a husband’s suspicion of infidelity on the part of his own wife, a suspicion which is not confirmed by evidence, either first-hand or 3 I use the expression “tends to be irrevocable” because, in fact, biblical law foresees the possibility of the divorce or repudiation of the wife by her husband, for a just reason. In the course of our study, we shall be able to resume and go further into the reasons – as social as they are religious – for the univocal character of the carrying out of repudiation or divorce, as also for other disciplines connected with marriage which are precisely the exclusive prerogative of the husband vis à vis the wife. 4 Cf. Homer, The Iliad, XIV, 152 ff. On jealousy in the Greek world, see D. Konstan, The Emotions of Ancient Greek. Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature (Toronto – Buffalo, NY 2006) and, more recently, E. Sanders, Envy and Jealousy in Classical Athens. A SocioPsychological Approach (Oxford – New York 2014).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

9

from a third party. It is precisely this pericope – Num 5,11 –31 – which we are going to examine in this first chapter within the general frame of our study of the laws which the book of Numbers devotes to women. As first step in our enquiry, we shall try to set the text concerning the “law of jealousy” within its context, going on to mark out its boundaries. Then we shall look at the internal structure of the pericope to see if it is possible to arrange it into further internal sections that enable us to understand it better. Finally, we shall enter into the heart of the exegetical analysis by examining the individual verses in order to have a better understanding of the history of the formation of the text as well as its purpose in its present literary form.

1. The immediate context of the pericope and its boundaries The passage with which we are concerned is found within a macro literary unit which can take on a certain interest in the general understanding of the book of Numbers as the first great legislative section which is found there: Numbers 5,1 –6,27. This section is characterised by the presence of a series of laws and precepts which are not homogeneous with regard to their content, given that each of them disciplines and regulates realities and cases that are very different from one another. 5 In particular, the macro literary unit opens by listing laws which set forth the obligation to exclude impure people from the camp (5,1 –4); it continues with some duties of the priests (vv. 5 –10); it then records the so-called “law of jealousy”, which represents the immediate object of our study (vv. 11 –31); then enumerates the rules governing the state of the Nazirite (6,1 –21); and concludes with the priestly blessing (vv. 22 –27). 6 5 The lack of homogeneity in content in the literary unit should not represent a surprise for the regular reader of the book of Numbers. In fact, the fourth book of the Torah accustoms one quite quickly to the alternation of sections that are completely different among themselves, in such a way that the interminable lists which lie behind the Greek title of the book are followed – without any break in continuity – by vivid pages of narrative which, in their turn, give way to the technical and formal language of laws of a most disparate kind. This characteristic, peculiar to say the least, has resulted in the poor fortune of Numbers among the readers of the Bible in general and of the Pentateuch in particular, even if, recently, the trend seems to have changed and the exegetical studies of our book have increased a good deal. For a stimulating reading of this phenomenon (although its conclusions cannot wholly be shared), I refer to M. Douglas, “The Glorious Book of Numbers”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 1 (1993) 193 –216. 6 For a summary but quite exhaustive presentation of Numbers 5, see B.A. Levine, Numbers 1 –20. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 4; New

10

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

Following a happy insight of some recent commentators on the book of Numbers, we can say that what enables us to consider this part of the text as unitary to some extent, despite the non-homogeneous nature of its contents, is the eminently religious nature of the precepts found there. If, in fact, taken individually, the precepts of Num 5,1 –6,27 regulate aspects which do not have a direct connection among themselves, considered together, they are in the running to constitute one of the various legislative supplements which the book of Numbers offers to the previous legislation. 7 This is indicated particularly in the first part of the section, that is, in Numbers 5, the chapter which contains the pericope which we are going to study (Num 5,11 –31). J. Milgrom points out that, within this text, there is a highly recurrent verbal root which performs the double function of acting as the bond for the entire legal provision and of accounting for its position in its immediate context (that is, Numbers 5): this is the verb ‫ טמא‬which recurs a good seven times in different forms in our pericope. 8 The meaning of this verbal root (“to pollute”) justifies the presence of the “law of jealousy” in Num 5,11 –31 on account of the thematic assonance of this regulation with the immediately previous provision: in fact, Num 5,1 –4 speaks of the need to expel from the camp those who are affected with grave physical impurities while Num 5,5 –10 lays down the punishment for those who render themselves impure through the sacrilegious use of things which are destined for YHWH. 9 York 1993) 181 –182. On the content of the rest of the material in this legislative section of the book of Numbers (5,1 –6,27), see: E. Diamond, “An Israelite Self-Offering in the Priestly Code: A New Perspective on the Nazirite”, The Jewish Quarterly Review 88 (1997) 1 –18; I. Knohl, “The Guilt Offering Law of the Holiness School (Num. V 5 –8)”, Vetus Testamentum 54 (2004) 516 –526; F. Cocco, Il sorriso di Dio. Studio esegetico della “benedizione di San Francesco” (Num 6,24 –26) (Collana biblica; Bologna 2009). 7 In particular, J. Milgrom reckons this section as an “insertion of several laws into the account of the preparations for the march through the wilderness. Their common denominator is the prevention and elimination of impurity from the camp of the Israelites lest the Lord abandon His sanctuary and people” (J. Milgrom, ‫ במדבר‬/ Numbers [The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, PA – New York 1990] 33). For his part, B. Levine states in this connection that one of the clear functions of the book of Numbers “is to serve as a repository of previously unrecorded priestly texts. In this way, the content of Numbers helps to complete the priestly agenda” (Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 200). In connection with the arrangement of the legal material of the book of Numbers, I refer also to what I have maintained in Cocco, Torah, 41 –44. 8 To be precise, the verb occurs in Num 5,13.14(x2).20.27.28.29. 9 Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 351. The comment on the section in D.T. Olson, Numbers (Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville, KY 1996) 30 –43, runs along the same lines.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

11

A further element which testifies in favour of the unitary nature of chapter 5 of the book of Numbers on the thematic level is obtained by comparing this text with some passages from the book of Leviticus: to be specific, Num 5,1 –4 presents itself as a kind of amplification of what was already laid down by Leviticus 13 –15 in connection with the impurity deriving from leprosy and from sexual diseases; Num 5,5 –10 is meant to complement what has already been established by Lev 5,14 –16; 20 –26 relating to illicit embezzlement of a sacrilegious nature; and, finally, Num 5,11 –31 is concerned with the theme of marital infidelity, suspected but not supported by firm evidence, intending thus to complete what Lev 20,10 had provided in cases of full-blown infidelity on the part of one of the spouses. In addition to the content, a second element conferring homogeneity on the literary unit of Num 5,1 –6,27 is the recurrence of a formal indicator generally considered typical of the priestly vocabulary: that is, the formula ‫ֹשׁה לֵּאמֹר‬ ֶ ‫ְד ֵבּר יְהוָה ֶאל־מ‬ ַ‫ַוי‬, which introduces each and every precept which is laid down in this section. 10 As a result, as well as the disparity of content in relation to what precedes and what follows, which we have noted several times, this formal indicator can be used in order to isolate the pericope which is the immediate object of our study (Num 5,11 –31), marking out its boundaries with regard to the rest of the juridical material contained in the macro unit. In fact, the introduction to the divine discourse contained in Num 5,11 is an unequivocal marker of the beginning of the legal provision described by the text itself as ‫תּוַרת‬ ֹ ‫“( ַה ְקּ ָנאֹת‬law of jealousy”, v. 29). Nor is there any doubt about locating the conclusion of the pericope at v. 31 in that the following verse (Num 6,1) is easily identifiable as the trigger for a new legal provision from the recurrence of the introductory formula of the divine discourse which we have seen acting as a structural feature for the entire legal section of Num 5,1 –6,27.

10 The formula returns exactly in Num 5,1; 5,5; 5,11; 6,1; 6,22 and is considered in the same way as a superscriptio of a typically priestly character. On the specific nature of this introductory formula to divine discourses, cf. G.B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh 1903) 39, and the related bibliographical references.

12

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

2. The internal unity of the pericope If, for the reasons indicated just now, there is no real problem in identifying the textual boundaries of the law which records the ritual for the ordeal of jealousy, the question of the internal unity of the pericope reveals itself to be rather more delicate. This is not something that can be avoided in our exegetical analysis, seeing that it is the preliminary to any attempt at structuring the text: thus, we shall seek to throw light on the question beginning with an examination of the state of the question. Already, the most ancient commentators on the book of Numbers marked the presence in the text of some features that led them to observe a certain lack of harmony within this legal provision, and this visible on various levels. In particular, the “suspicious” elements include some contradictions and repetitions of which the following are examples: at the end of v. 15, we find what look like two technical descriptions of the legal provision which is described, at one and the same time as “offering of jealousy” and “a commemorative offering to recall a fault”; 11 in v. 24, the law prescribes that the priest give the woman the water of the curse to drink, but the identical injunction is repeated at the end of v. 26 as if for the first time. 12 These and other similar considerations encourage a reasonable number of exegetes to hold that the text which we have in front of us is the product of the conflation of at least two 13 different traditions. These can be distinguished to some extent both from a conceptual and formal point of view, even if they have been harmonised in a way that is acceptable, all things considered, in the final form of the text. 14 Other commentators, however, interpret the pericope in a unitary way, claiming that those 11

Thus the text of Num 5,15b: ‫ְכֶּרת ָעֹון‬ ֶ ‫רון ַמז‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ְחת ז‬ ַ ‫ְחת ְק ָנאֹת הוּא ִמנ‬ ַ ‫י־מנ‬ ִ ‫ִכּ‬ Cf. H. Holzinger, Numeri (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 4; Tübingen – Leipzig 1903) 19 –23. Other repetitions and redundancies are signalled by M. Weinfeld, “Ordeal of Jealousy”, Encyclopaedia Judaica, XV (ed. M. Berenbaum – F. Skolnik) (Detroit, MI 22007) 462 –463. 13 According to Martin Noth, the traditions which lie behind the final text of Num 5,11 –31 could actually be three, although – he states – “in the present version of the procedure two or even three different kinds of divine judgment are so closely amalgamated that they can no longer, from the literary point of view, be separated” (M. Noth, Numbers. A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; London 1968] 49). In the course of our examination of the various hypotheses, we shall have an opportunity to return to this proposal of Noth. 14 Thus, although with different nuances in the formulation of the hypothesis on the formation of the text: J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin 41963) 174; A. Kuenen, A Historical-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua). English Translation from the Dutch by P.H. Wicksteed (Oxford 1886) 92 –93; B. Stade, 12

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

13

factors which most tend to witness to incongruities in the text (especially the repetitions and disjunctions) are such only in appearance, and that, in reality, they are the product of mechanisms of literary composition well known and observable elsewhere in biblical prose. 15 Given that it is difficult to deny the problematic nature attaching to this lack of unity in the pericope (on the surface level, if none other), with the aim of giving equal consideration to both the final text and to the stages of its composition, in our analysis of the passage we shall try to study carefully the arguments which lie behind the two opposed positions: that which holds that the present text is the result of the fusion of different traditions, a position which, for convenience we might describe as the “diachronic hypothesis” – well aware of the risk of excessive simplification involved in every operation of this kind; and that which, for symmetry in the argument, we might call the “holistic-synchronic hypothesis”, in that it favours the overall unitary nature of the pericope, attributing what others interpret as difficulties in the text to precise choices in the literary composition of the passage.

“Beiträge zur Pentateuchkritik. 3. Die Eiferopferthora”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1895) 166 –178; J.E. Carpenter – G. Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch According to the Revised Version. Vol. II: Text and Notes (London 1900) 191 –193; Gray, Numbers, 49; C.F. Kent, Israel’s Law and Legal Precedents. From the Days of Moses to the Closing of the Legal Canon (The Student’s Old Testament 4; New York 1907) 109 –110, 255 –256; R. Press, “Das Ordal im alten Israel. I”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 51 (1933) 121 –126. For a summary but fairly exhaustive presentation of the different positions relating to the stages of composition of the pericope, see P.J. Budd, Numbers (Word Biblical Commentary 5; Waco, TX 1984) 62 –64. 15 So, for example, M. Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5:11 –31”, Hebrew Union College Annual 45 (1974) 25 –45; H.C. ¯ .A ¯ and a Reconsideration of Biblical ‘Law’”, Hebrew Union Brichto, “The Case of the S´ OT College Annual 46 (1975) 55 –70; W. McKane, “Poison, Trial by Ordeal and the Cup of Wrath”, Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980) 474 –492; J. Milgrom, “The Case of the Suspected Adulteress, Numbers 5:11 –31. Redaction and Meaning”, The Creation of Sacred Literature. Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text (ed. R.E. Friedman) (University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 22; Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1981) 69 –75 (this same article – with slight modifications, additions or reworkings – has been published with the same title and under the form of an excursus in the commentary on the book of Numbers in the JPS series on pages 350 –354); Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 192 –212; R.D. Cole, Numbers (The New American Commentary 3B; Nashville, TN 2000) 115, and, more recently, D.L. Ellens, “Numbers 5.11 –31: Valuing Male Suspicion”, God’s Word for Our World. Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries, I (ed. J.H. Ellens – D.L. Ellens – R.P. Knierim – I. Kalimi) (London – New York 2004) 55 –82.

14

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

2.1. “Diachronic” hypothesis: the pericope as the product of the conflation of different traditions In an article in which he presented what he himself described as his “contributions to the criticism of the Pentateuch”, B. Stade carried out an analysis of the legislation contained in Num 5,11 –31, dedicating a whole section under the title “Die Eiferopferthora”. 16 In his examination of this legislative text, he hypothesised and maintained that the difficulties emerging from the reading of the pericope in its present form are due to the conflation into a single literary tradition of two distinct archaic rituals. 17 On the basis of the same text, Stade named these rituals ‫רון‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ְחת ַהז‬ ַ ‫( ִמנ‬the offering of memorial) and ‫ְחת ַה ְקּ ָנאֹת‬ ַ ‫( ִמנ‬the offering of jealousy), claiming that both would have been characterised by recourse to a trial by ordeal through a cereal offering. Precisely for this same twofold reason – that is, on the one hand, through their formal agreement, arising from the fact that both procedures suppose an ordeal, and, on the other hand, through the partial coincidence of content in that, in both cases, it is a cereal offering that is prescribed – the two rituals would have been fused into a single literary tradition by later redactors despite the fact that they refer to cases that are not wholly equivalent. Through his analysis of the individual verses, the German exegete ended up in attributing to the first ritual (which he described as ‫ְחת‬ ַ ‫ִמנ‬ ‫רון‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫)הז‬ ַ vv. 11 –13a.15 –17.18b –19.22a.23 –24.25b.-26.31; to the second ritual (which he called ‫ְחת ַה ְקּ ָנאֹת‬ ַ ‫)מנ‬ ִ he assigned the remaining part of the text, namely, verses 29.13b.30a.14.30b.18a.21.22b.25a.27 –28. The signs which refer to the redactional work to which the pericope is supposed to have been subjected can also be made out clearly – according to our scholar’s hypothesis – in the order which Stade assigned to each of the verses which, as can easily be observed, is different from the sequence present in the final form of the text.

16 See: B. Stade, “Beiträge zur Pentateuchkritik”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 15 (1895) 157 –178. Stade’s Beiträge were three in total: two present in the same number of the journal just cited (in addition to the one with which we are concerned, the previous contribution studied the text of the Tower of Babel with the title “Der Thurm zu Babel”, pp. 155 –166), while the first – relating to the “mark” of Cain – was published in: Id., “Beiträge zur Pentateuchkritik. 1. Das Kainszeichen”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 14 (1894) 250 –318. 17 His actual words are: “So wird man auf die Vermutung geführt, dass zwei Darstellungen mit einander verschmolzen worden sind” (Stade, “Die Eiferopferthora”, 170). To be honest, in this he was the debtor of his predecessors, especially the already cited J. Wellhausen and A. Kuenen.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

15

Stade’s proposal was welcomed at first – at least in substance – by various other contemporary commentators who did not fail, however, to point out its limitations. This was the position of J.E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby who, in their comments on the pericope, borrowed the bipartition of sources postulated by Stade, though providing it with some significant modifications. In particular, these scholars maintained that the two elements which had been fused in the present text of Num 5,11 –31 were, respectively: a procedure of condemnation of a woman certainly guilty, indicated by them as “source A, offering of memorial”; and a trial by ordeal aimed at verifying the guilt or innocence of the woman. Until the moment of divine judgement, she remained only under suspicion. They defined this material as “source B, jealousy offering”. Therefore, the legal provisions thought to be lying behind the origin of the two sources would be substantially different: in the first case, the woman is simply suspected whereas, in the second, she is considered guilty, although without the support of first-hand evidence deriving directly from testimony (which is why recourse is made to the divine resolution through the ordeal). According to Carpenter and HarfordBattersby, these different procedures were fused with the aim of providing the legislator with a twofold view of the accused woman: “[. . .] In one scheme it is proposed to ascertain whether she is innocent or guilty: in the other her guilt needs no demonstration, but only draws down on her the priestly doom”. 18 In particular, “source A” would be represented by vv. 11 –13a.13c.15.18.21.23 –24.27b.25b –26a.31; while the remaining verses, vv. 29.13b.30a.14b.30b.16 –17.19.22.25a.26b –27a.28, would be attributed to “source B”. 19 For his part, G.B. Gray considered Stade’s analysis of the text “unconvincing”, only then to find that he had to conclude that the contradiction which makes itself especially clear in a passage of our pericope – namely, Num 5,24 –27 –, concerning the moment when the woman has to drink the potion, 20 cannot be resolved without accepting Stade’s thesis; alternatively, one has to consider v. 24 as an addition and so expunge it from the text in order to maintain its coherence.

18

Carpenter – G. Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 191. Cf. Carpenter – G. Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 191 –192. 20 In particular, the information contained in v. 24 would contradict that in v. 26, as we shall see more clearly in the following when we comment on the individual verses. 19

16

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

On the other hand, Gray also criticised the modified version of Stade’s thesis proposed by Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, contending that the key point of their hypothesis – namely, that the law of Num 5,11 –31 contains “two views of the incriminated woman” – is incoherent since both the sources (and not only “source A”, as claimed by Carpenter and Harford-Battersby) record a procedure intended to clarify a case – that of betrayal by the woman – which is not certain but simply suspected or assumed; hence the recourse to the ordeal provided for both cases. In fact, if it were not simply a matter of a suspicion but of a formal accusation supported by testimony, then the punishment would be quite different on the basis of the legislation provided elsewhere in connection with adultery caught in the act. 21 H. Holzinger’s criticism appears not only more moderate but also more proactive with regard to the impasse in which one risks finding oneself following Gray’s observations – however plausible – on the hypotheses of his predecessors. According to Holzinger, our text is the result of the combination of two ordeal rituals: the first would provide for the imploring of divine help through the cereal offering and involves as an ominous consequence a curse in the event that the offerer (here, the suspected woman) turns out to be guilty; the second would consist in the preparation of a potion to be administered to the suspected woman who would have to drink it after uttering an incantation. Holzinger assigns the respective verses to each of these rituals, except for the introduction of vv. 12b –14.15aa, which he considers common to both, and other verses which he holds to be redactional. 22 J.A. Bewer 23 also joined his voice to the debate on the redactional history of Num 5,11 –31, starting out from the theses of the exegetes who preceded him 24 and putting forward his own theories for the understanding of the formation of the text. Although appreciating the step forward in the literary criticism of the pericope represented by Holzinger’s ana21 Cf. G.B. Gray, “Jealousy, Ordeal of”, Encyclopædia Biblica. A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archæology, Geography and Natural History of the Bible, II (ed. T.K. Cheyne – J.S. Black) (London 1903) 2343. 22 For the details of the hypothesis, see Holzinger, Numeri, 20. His theory is adopted and borrowed in substance by R. Rendtorff , Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift. Eine gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Neue Folge 44; Göttingen 1954) 62 –63. 23 J.A. Bewer, “The Ordeal in Num., Chap. 5”, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 30 (1913) 36 –47. 24 In particular, he employs the analyses of Carpenter and Harford-Battersby as his starting point.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

17

lysis, Bewer claimed that “he has not succeeded in solving the puzzle entirely”, 25 to the extent that the first ritual – that classified by Holzinger as “A” – does not represent a real ordeal. In fact, Bewer observed that the cereal offering did not act as a means of clearing up the guilt (or not) of the suspected woman for the simple reason that the Old Testament does not know of any sacrifice – of whatever kind – which performs the function of an ordeal. 26 The sacrificial element represented by the cereal offering would, therefore, be the result of a latter addition to the ritual of the ordeal the key element of which would be, rather, the incantation joined to the curse: with its evocative power, this element was able to set in motion the power of God directly, thus guaranteeing a solution to the problem of the identification (or not) of the suspect’s guilt. Having clarified this limitation in Holzinger’s position, Bewer went on to present his own hypothesis of the formation of the text. He started from the fact that ancient Israel had two ways of ascertaining the guilt (or not) of a woman suspected of adultery: the first consisted of an oath taken before the divinity; the second was an ordeal characterised by the taking of a potion held to be sacred. 27 There is no way of establishing which of 25

Bewer, “Ordeal”, 39. According to Bewer, Holzinger’s reference to the episode of Cain and Abel (cf. Gen 4,4b.5a) would be innappropriate. The latter had adduced it as proof of the existence in the Hebrew Bible of an analogous recourse to sacrifice functioning as an ordeal. Thus, Bewer states: “Not only do we have no parallel in the Old Testament to a sacrifice that fulfils the function of an ordeal but, as far as I know, nowhere else either” (Bewer, “Ordeal”, 39). 27 Bewer signalled an interesting Babylonian parallel to this Israelite custom, referring to two precepts in Hammurabi’s Code which record a similar procedure to the biblical one for the treatment of cases of suspected adultery. In fact, whereas the first parallel (§131) is identical since it lays down that the woman pronounce an oath in the name of the divinity, the second (§132) provides that the woman “shall throw herself into the (sacred) river” (Bewer, “Ordeal”, 40). Undeniably, this is an example of the ordeal, in that the outcome of the procedure establishes the guilt or not of the suspect; but the element in question can be considered only analogous and not completely correspondent, as in the previous example. J.M. Sasson reports that “the earliest attestation of river ordeal dates to the time, or slightly later, of Entema of Lagash (ca. 2460 B.C.)” (J.M. Sasson, “Numbers 5 and the ‘Waters of Judgement’”, Biblische Zeitschrift 16 [1972] 249). For other parallels with the Mesopotamian environment, see: G.R. Driver – J.C. Miles (ed.), The Assyrian Laws (Ancient Codes and Laws of the Near East 2; Oxford 1935) 86; S.N. Kramer, “Ur-Nammu Law Code”, Orientalia 23 (1954) 48; G. Dossin, “L’ordalie à Mari”, Comptes rendues des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et des Belles-Lettres 102 (1958) 387 –393; W.L. Moran, “New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy”, Biblica 50 (1969) 15 –56, especially 50 –52; J. Milgrom, “Excursus 9: Adultery in the Bible and in the Ancient Near East”, Numbers, 348 –350; Id., “Excursus 8: The Judicial Ordeal”, Numbers, 346 –348. Concerning the relationship between cultic acts and judicial procedures in the Ancient Near East, with parallel references to the Mesopotamian and biblical environments in the first millennium B.C., see B. Wells, “The Cultic Versus the Forensic: Judahite and Mesopotamian Judicial Procedures in the 26

18

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

the two rituals is the more ancient or on the basis of what criterion one was chosen in preference to the other. 28 The important factor for the reconstruction of the textual history of Num 5,11 –31 is that, at a particular moment, the two procedures were fused in the redaction of a single law for reasons which, according to Bewer, can only be hypothesised: to this end, he proposed two possible solutions. The first holds that the fusion of the two traditions is responding to the wish of the final legislator to obtain a more secure verdict, because double-checked. On the other hand, the second interprets the work of the final redactors of the legislative text as the intention to involve YHWH more directly in the ordeal by water so as to remove the idea that this practice represented a magic procedure that was somehow self-sufficient and so independent of the divinity. Instead, with the oath, the latter was actively involved in the procedure. Having tackled – and resolved, at least to his own satisfaction – the problem of the double nature of the ritual contained in Num 5,11 –31, Bewer went on to consider the presence in our legislative text of the element which he held to be discordant with the context which is marked by procedures typical of the ordeal, namely the ‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫מנ‬, ִ the cereal offering. As we have already had the opportunity to see, it is precisely on this point that Bewer took the greatest distance from his predecessors who – Holzinger in particular – had speculated that the cereal offering represented the principal element of ritual “A” to the extent that it was this that provoked the divine intervention. According to Bewer, however, the cereal offering did not form part of the most ancient ritual: it was rather to be understood as a late insertion of a typically priestly character. In confirmation of this theory, he cited two biblical passages: Ex 22,8 –12, which records a series of occasions linked by recourse to YHWH’s intervention to settle disputes arising from an accusation of theft which is not supported by evidence that is juridically probative; 29 First Millennium B. C. E.”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 128 (2008) 205 –232 (on p. 229, he refers directly to Num 5,11 –31). Later in our study, we shall be able to return to the phenomenon of the ordeal in the Ancient Near East. 28 Still acccording to Bewer (without, however, the support of documentary evidence), the criterion of judgement in Babylonia was the following: if the suspicion came from the woman’s husband, then the procedure was the oath before the divinity; if the woman was accused by others, the ordeal by water was adopted (Bewer, “Ordeal”, 40). 29 This is the text of Ex 22,8 –12: “8 In every case of dishonest appropriation, whether it be about an ox, or a donkey, or a sheep, or a garment, or anything else that has disappeared, where another claims that the thing is his, the claim of both parties shall be brought before God; the one whom God convicts must make twofold restitution to the other. 9 When

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

19

and Lev 5,21 –26, which lists a series of offences against God and the neighbour which share the fact that they require both the restitution of the ill-gotten gains and a sacrifice of reparation to YHWH. 30 On comparing the two pericopes, Bewer pointed out that the legal text in Exodus, taken from the Covenant Code, 31 does not contemplate the recourse to any sacrificial practice which acts as mediation of the divine intervention. Rather, Ex 22,8 –12 represents a clear example of civil law which, however, has a few affinities of form and content with the legislation of a similar nature contained in the Mesopotamian juridical collections. 32 On the other hand, the second text cited belongs to the legislation of Leviticus and is of a markedly religious nature: in fact, where the Exodus text introduces the description of the case by speaking of “suspected embezzlement”, 33 Leviticus introduces the case with recourse to verbs such as “sin” or “commit infidelity”, 34 verbs which refer unambiguously to religious-cultic language. It is no surprise,

someone gives an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any other animal to another for safekeeping, if it dies, or is maimed or snatched away, without anyone witnessing the fact, 10 there shall be an oath before YHWH between the two of them that the guardian did not lay hands on his neighbor’s property; the owner must accept the oath, and no restitution is to be made. 11 But if the guardian has actually stolen from it, then he must make restitution to the owner. 12 If it has been killed by a wild beast, let him bring it as evidence; he need not make restitution for the mangled animal”. 30 This is the text of Lev 5,21 –26: “21 When someone does wrong and commits sacrilege against YHWH by deceiving a neighbor about a deposit or a pledge or a stolen article, or by otherwise retaining a neighbor’s goods unjustly; 22 or if, having found a lost article, the person lies about it, swearing falsely about any of the things that a person may do wrong; 23 when someone has thus done wrong and is guilty, that person shall restore the thing that was stolen, the item unjustly retained, the item left as deposit, or the lost article that was found 24 or whatever else the individual swore falsely about. That person shall make full restitution of the thing itself, and add one fifth of its value to it, giving it to its owner at the time of reparation. 25 Then that person shall bring to the priest as reparation to YHWH an unblemished ram of the flock, at the established value, as a reparation offering. 26 The priest shall make atonement on the person’s behalf before YHWH, so that the individual may be forgiven for whatever was done to incur guilt”. 31 For a general introduction to the Covenant Code and other “codes” in the Torah, furnished with an extensive bibliography, cf. J.L. Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN 2006) 40 –52. 32 In particular, Bewer referred to §§ 20, 249, 266 of Hammurabi’s Code, recording its text in a footnote (cf. Bewer, “Ordeal”, 41, note 2). For a presentation of the Hebrew law in parallel with the legal systems of the Ancient Near East, as also for the distinctions between civil and penal laws in the biblical legislation, I refer to Cocco, Torah, 5 –44. 33 The Hebrew text of Ex 22,8 which introduces the case reads: ‫שׁע‬ ַ ‫ר־פּ‬ ֶ ‫ל־דּ ַב‬ ְ ‫ל־כּ‬ ָ ‫ַע‬ 34 Thus Lev 5,21a: ‫וּמ ֲעלָה ַמ ַעל ַבּיהוָה‬ ָ ‫ֶפשׁ ִכּי ֶת ֱח ָטא‬ ֶ‫נ‬

20

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

therefore, to observe that this law contemplates not only the restitution of the ill-gotten gains but also a “sacrifice of reparation to the Lord”. 35 Bewer made use of the comparison of the phenomena observed in Ex 22,8 –12 and Lev 5,21 –26 in relation to the presence or not of references to sacrificial rituals to argue for his own reconstruction of the textual history of our pericope. His view was that, in Num 5,11 –3, “originally there was no offering in any of these cases [. . .] When the whole matter was looked at from a religious point of view, a false oath was regarded as an offense against Yahweh which must be atoned for by a sacrifice [. . .] According to the ancient legal practice they were simply matters of civil law (cf. Exod., chap. 22) and the men who had been wronged were to be satisfied by restoration and additional compensation, the latter varying at different times; here Yahweh has also been wronged and he also has to be reconciled-by an offering”. 36 Therefore, after a series of observations on the typology of sacrifice envisioned by the law of Num 5,11 –31 (namely, the cereal offering), Bewer presented his own reconstruction of the literary stratification of the whole pericope, signalling the two single basic components – the ordeal and the oath – along with what he had established as the subsequent redactional addition, that is, the ‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫מנ‬. ִ In his opinion, the introduction to the legal provision (vv. 12 –15a) is common to both rituals; he assigned vv. 16 –17.19 –20.22a.23 –24.27a to the ritual of the ordeal; to that of the oath, he allotted vv. 18a.21 –22b.27b. The late insertion about the offering would be found in vv. 15b.18b.25 –26. Finally, in Bewer’s theory, in the present form of the text, the subscription represented by vv. 29 –31 assumes the role of a recapitulatory summary of the entire procedure. 37 For greater clarity, we reproduce in a table the partition of the compositional material of Num 5,11 –31 as advanced by Bewer. In consulting this table, it is to be borne in mind that what he indicated as the introduction to the legal provision (that is, vv. 11 –15a) is not recorded becasue he held it to be common to both traditions. The same thing is to be said for the subscription (vv. 29 –31) which is considered as a summary of the law that has just been laid down.

35 This is what is read in Lev 5,25: ‫שׁם‬ ָ ‫ן־ה ֹצּאן ְבּ ֶע ְר ְכָּך ְל ָא‬ ַ ‫ָביא לַיהוָה ַאיִל ָתּ ִמים ִמ‬ ִ ‫מו י‬ ֹ ‫שׁ‬ ָ ‫ת־א‬ ֲ ‫ְא‬ ֶ‫ו‬ ‫ֹהן‬ ֵ ‫ל־הכּ‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ 36 Bewer, “Ordeal”, 42. 37 In this, he was taking up G.B. Gray (quoted to the letter in the text, among others), who had criticised both Stade and Carpenter and Harford-Battersby in connection with their theories of interpreting vv. 29 –31 as a “misplaced superscription” (Bewer, “Ordeal”,47).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

ordeal vv. 16 –17.19 –20.22a. 23 –24.27a

insertion-‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫ִמנ‬ vv. 15b.18b.25 –26

21

oath vv. 18a.21.22b.27b

[. . .] 15b for her he shall bring an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it nor put incense upon it because it is an offering of jealousy, a commemorative offering to recall a fault. 16

The priest shall bring the woman near and make her to stand before the Lord. 17 Then the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; he shall also take a little of the dust which is on the floor of the Dwelling and put it into the water. 18a

The priest shall therefore make the woman stand before the Lord, he shall unbind her hair

18b

and place in her hands the commemorative offering, which is the offering of jealousy, while the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness which bears a curse.

19

The priest shall make her swear and shall say to the woman: If no other man has lain with you and if you have not turned aside making yourself impure with another man while you belonged to your husband, may you be shown innocent by this water of bitterness which bears a curse.

22

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

ordeal vv. 16 –17.19 –20.22a. 23 –24.27a

insertion-‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫ִמנ‬ vv. 15b.18b.25 –26

oath vv. 18a.21.22b.27b

20

But if you have turned aside with another man while belonging to your husband and made yourself impure and another man has had relations with you other than your husband. . . 21

at this point the priest shall make the woman swear with an oath and the priest shall say to the woman: The Lord make of you a curse and an imprecation in the midst of your people, [when the lord makes your hips to wither and your belly to swell] 38

22a

may this water which bears a curse enter into your bowels to make your body swell and your hips wither! 22b

And the woman shall say: Amen, Amen!

23

And the priest shall write these imprecations on a document and wipe them out with the water of bitterness. 24 He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness which bears a curse and the water which bears a curse shall enter into her to produce bitterness.

38 According to Bewer, the concluding part of v. 21 (which we have indicated within square brackets and with italics) “is probably to be regarded as a redactional link” (Bewer, “Ordeal”,46).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

ordeal vv. 16 –17.19 –20.22a. 23 –24.27a

insertion-‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫ִמנ‬ vv. 15b.18b.25 –26

23

oath vv. 18a.21.22b.27b

25

The priest shall take the offering of jealousy from the woman’s hands, he shall present the offering with the rite of waving before the Lord and shall bring it to the altar.

26

The priest shall take a handful of that offering as its memorial and burn it on the altar; then shall he make the woman drink the water.

27a

When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, the water which bears a curse shall enter into her to produce bitterness; her belly will swell and her hips will wither 27b

and that woman shall become an object of imprecation in the midst of her people.

If we have dwelt so long on the presentation and analysis of Bewer’s theory, it is because his contribution appears to us the most innovative interpretation of our pericope that starts from Stade’s hypothesis, a hypothesis which has been more or less adopted by other scholars with modifications which do not affect its substance. For his part, on the other hand, Bewer offered an understanding of the redactional history of the text which accounts for the presence in the final form of the passage of elements that are heterogeneous and, at times, even discordant, and he did so in a way that is quite convincing. 39 39 Bewer’s position on the internal composition of Num 5,11 –31 and the stages of its redactional history are borrowed in substance by J. Morgenstern who takes his distance from all the main previous opinions (setting them out in a useful summary table) except

24

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

To complete our presentation of the hypotheses on the composition of Num 5,11 –31 which we have described generically as “diachronic”, it is appropriate to record – albeit briefly – the position of M. Noth 40 on account of its special nature with respect to the rest of the proposals which we have examined so far. 41 As we have mentioned previously, he claims that there are at least three typologies of judgement which can be distinguished within our pericope, despite the fact that in the final text these have been blended together in such a way as to be difficult to detect. In the reference the legislative text makes to the priest, 42 Noth recognises the literary signal which refers to the most ancient traditional stratum of the tradition “which very probably goes back to a time at which the scene was envisaged as being one of the many local sanctuaries with the priest who officiated at it”. 43 He, therefore, lists succinctly the three different then, in fact, going on to reproduce Bewer’s theory, though without citing it. The most significant and interesting contribution of Morgenstern’s article seems to be the classification of the examples and procedures of ordeals found in the Semitic world which show themselves particularly useful to have since the phenomenon was well attested and found in the living environment shedding light on the biblical traditions. Cf. J. Morgenstern, “Trial by Ordeal Among the Semites and in Ancient Israel”, Hebrew Union College Jubilee Volume (1875 –1925) (ed. D. Philipson – H.G. Enelow) (Cincinnati, OH 1925) 113 –143. 40 Cf. Noth, Numbers, 48 –49. 41 For completeness, among the “diachronic” hypotheses, we should also signal for its (at least relative) peculiarity that of D. Kellermann who speculates that the final form of the text is not the result of the conflation of material that is heterogeneous (and, ex hypothesi, also ancient) obtained by amalgamating different traditions but rather the product of the redactional expansion of what he calls the “Grundschicht” (pag. 79): cf. D. Kellermann, Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10. Literarisch und traditionsgeschichtlich Untersucht (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120; Berlin 1970) 70 –83. More recently, J. Jeon has summarised the diachronic theories on the formation of the text of Num 5,11 –31, reproducing them in a practical table. This survey is notable for the absence of Bewer’s theory. Such absence of reference to Bewer’s theory is all the more surprising if one takes account of Jeon’s conclusions concerning the interpretation of our pericope: he maintains, in fact, that Num 5,11 –31 is the result of the composition of two redactional strata, each of which records a different law (placing himself, therefore, on the “diachronic” side). This is the exact point – namely that the two laws in the pericope are independent – that Jeon claims marks the originality of his proposal in comparison with those who preceded him. However, as we have already seen, Bewer had already arrived at isolating within our pericope two strata containing two distinct rituals (ordeal and oath). In any case, Jeon’s research has its importance to the extent that it broadens the enquiry into the history of the composition of our text by offering another type of evidence, that which comes from linguistic analysis (applied according to the method of F. Polak) or that which derives from his attempt to reconstruct the origin of each of the strata of Num 5,11 –31 according to the history of the sources of the Pentateuch. Cf. J. Jeon, “Two Laws in the Sotah Passage (Num. v 11 –31)”, Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 181 –207. 42 The term ‫ֹהן‬ ֵ ‫ ַהכּ‬recurs a good thirteen times in our text: to be exact, in Num 5,15.16.17(x2).18(x2).19.21(x2).23.25.26.30. 43 Noth, Numbers, 49.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

25

types of divine judgement which, in his opinion, are glimpsed behind the present text of the procedure described by Num 5,11 –31: the first would be bound up with the water and its ancestral power to bring life or death (cf. vv. 27 –28). To this, in a second stage, would have been added a cultic element, here represented by the dust of the sanctuary which is to be mixed with the water (cf. v. 17). The second ritual would consist of an oath which provides for the invocation of a curse if the woman turns out to be guilty, and contemplates the mediation of the priest (vv. 19.21). Finally, the third ritual would prescribe the writing of some words in a book by the priest (v. 23) which is interpreted with reference to the vision recounted in Ezekiel 2,8 –3,3 where the prophet feeds on words written in the book. 44 According to Noth, just as in the prophetic text, so too in the case of Numbers 5, the words have their own efficacy and are to be regarded in a similar way to the cursing formula referred to by the second ritual. Among other things, this third ritual would act as a link between the first and second rituals to the extent that we find united there the elements characterising both those rituals, notably: the water of the first ritual and the words of the second which, in the third ritual, are brought together in a single element, namely, the potion which the woman has to drink to demonstrate her innocence.

2.2. “Holistic-synchronic hypothesis”: the pericope considered as substantially unitary Alongside those who have showed how to understand the exegetical analysis of Num 5,11 –31 as the attempt to reconstruct the “genetic map” of this pericope, with the aim of offering an explanation of what – at least on the surface – look like incongruities, repetitions or, more generally, inconsistencies, there are other scholars who relegate the approach to the literary history of the text into second place in order to devote themselves to the understanding of the law in its final form just as we find it in 44 This is the reading of Ezek 2,8 –3,3: “8 But you, son of man, hear me when I speak to you and do not rebel like this rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving you. 9 It was then I saw a hand stretched out to me; in it was a written scroll. 10 He unrolled it before me; it was covered with writing front and back. Written on it was: Lamentation, wailing, woe! 3:1 He said to me: Son of man, eat what you find here: eat this scroll, then go, speak to the house of Israel. 2 So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat. 3 Son of man, he said to me, feed your stomach and fill your belly with this scroll I am giving you. I ate it, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth”.

26

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

the text of Numbers. 45 Such a direction of study has its roots in a new understanding of the literary form of the biblical text, especially of some rhetorical-linguistic resources such as, for example, repetition, 46 which are not considered in the same way as the evidence of sutures resulting from the conflation of different traditions in a single text but as real tools at the disposition of the redactor who employs them knowingly either to compose complex texts or else to take up a previous subject that has been interrupted or left in suspense. Starting from the arguments which lie behind the various proposals of previous commentators on Num 5,11 –31 – especially that of Stade which, as we have seen, is universally considered the foundational hypothesis –, M. Fishbane maintains that they have substantially ignored “those stylistic and form-critical elements which are of a decisive importance for the exegesis of prescriptive texts in the priestly corpus”. 47 He declares, therefore, his intention of pursuing a quite different path, reinterpreting our pericope in a unitary way on the basis of intertextuality and comparison with the literature of the Ancient Near East. The result of Fishbane’s analysis can be summarised in the following idea: the duality which is evident within the pericope is not a question of original sources but rather of the cases which this juridical provision is contemplating. In fact, according to Fishbane, there are two cases being regulated by the law with which we are concerned: the accusation of marital infidelity which is not supported by first-hand evidence but sustained by a “probable cause, common knowledge, or prima facie evidence”; and the accusation of marital infidelity without any other basis than a suspicion on the part of the husband. Both cases would be classified in the same 45 Significant in this connection are the words of T. Frymer-Kensky: “Whatever literary prehistory the text may have had, it now has a unified structure and should be treated as a coherent whole” (T. Frymer-Kensky, “The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah [Numbers V 11 –31]”, Vetus Testamentum 35 [1984] 12). 46 We refer particularly to repetition because it occurs extensively in our pericope, but the same goes for other devices such as subscripts, “repetitive resumptions”, inclusiones and inversions. For analysis of the individual techniques, see C. Kuhl, “Die ‘Wiederaufnahme’ – ein literarkritisches Prinzip?”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 64 (1952) 1 –11; M. Weiss, “Die Methode der ‘Total-Interpretation’”, Congress Volume Uppsala 1971 (ed. G.W. Anderson et al.) (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 22; Leiden 1972) 88 –112; S. Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook”, Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (ed. F.M. Cross – S. Talmon) (Cambridge, MA 1975) 321 –400; M. Fishbane, “Biblical Colophons, Textual Criticism and Legal Analogies”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980) 438 –449. Other references in Freymer-Kensky, “Strange Case”, 12 –13. 47 Fishbane, “Accusations”, 29.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

27

way from the legal point of view as “torah of jealousy”. All that encourages our author to conclude that “Num. 5:11 –31 fits precisely into the formcritical-structure adduced”. 48 Fishbane’s unitary interpretation of the pericope opened up the path to some other studies which go in the same direction although starting from different assumptions. In particular, H.C. Brichto maintains that the failure to recognise the unitary nature of the pericope by those who postulate its fragmentary character resides basically in a problem of understanding the text which is considered by them as “redundant if not otiose”, and, even more, in the inaccuracy of the translation from the Hebrew. 49 Beginning from these premises, Brichto puts forward his own analysis with the proposal of a new translation equipped and corroborated with a philological commentary which supports its choices and demonstrates the unitary nature of the pericope; he therefore offers an overall interpretation of this legislative text, indicating its attributes of form, style and content. Finally, the argument is assisted by some general reflections on the impact which such an interpretation of the pericope has on the understanding of biblical law in general. 50 The substantial difficulty with Brichto’s interpretation of the text of Num 5,11 –31 on this basis lies in the fact that some of the arguments he employs and considers principal appear somewhat circular. This emerges with enough clarity in the translation which he offers of some key words which appear to be repeated in the text and which are rendered by Brichto in a different form: a sufficient example is the verb ‫יע‬ ַ ‫שׁ ִבּ‬ ְ ‫ְה‬ ִ ‫ – ו‬on the importance of which for the overall understanding of the text it is not necessary to expend too many words – which is translated “charge” in v. 48 Fishbane, “Accusations”, 35. As mentioned previously, the rest of the article contains a reinforcement of the stylistic-literary arguments through the literary material of the Ancient Near East which Fishbane considers similar (pp. 36 –39). 49 Right from the very beginning of his article, Brichto declares that he can demonstrate that the pericope of Num 5, 11 –31 is completely unitary, the product of a single source and wonderfully redacted in a Hebrew which he does not hesitate to describe as faultless (Brichto, “Case”, 55). 50 These final considerations which Brichto develops on biblical law in general, starting from his analysis of Num 5,11 –31, are probably the most debatable part of his contribution. The author himself shows that he is fully aware of this since, having affirmed that the pericope does not have any legislative character, he foresees that “so categorical a statement will raise many an eyebrow. And our attempt to lower the eyebrow is likely to stir up a storm of protest” (Brichto, “Case”, 68). In the author’s intention, this is a kind of salutary provocation, aimed at stimulating the reopening of the debate on the nature of biblical law with all the hermeneutical consequences involved. On the nature of biblical law, I refer to what I have written in Cocco, Torah, 5 –29.

28

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

19, while, in v. 21, it is rendered with “adjure”. 51 As Jeon rightly notes in his analysis of Brichto’s interpretation, such a double rendering of the verb in question is admissible only if the unitary nature and substantial internal coherence of the text is taken for granted: something which, in itself, represents the thesis to be demonstrated, and, as such, not easily able to be used as an argument in proof of the demonstration itself. 52 For his part, J. Milgrom builds on the theories of Fishbane and Brichto, recognising their merit in having contributed to the view of Num 5,11 –31 as a text which, although the product of composition, is unified and endowed with its own internal logic. Nevertheless, he differs from the two scholars just mentioned in the interpretation of vv. 21 and 31 which he reckons to be late interpolations, describing them as “two additions”. 53 According to Milgrom, the factor conferring a unitary nature on the pericope is of a formal nature: in fact, in the structure of the content of the legal provision, he identifies a sequence of five sections arranged in a double chiastic structure according to the scheme A-B-C-B′ -A′ . The antipodean element of this structure (A-A′ ) is characterised by the case the description of which effectively includes the text of the legal provision since it appears in vv. 12 –14 and 29 –30. Within the chiastic structure (B-B′ ), there is a presentation of what Milgrom interprets as 51 Cf. Brichto, “Case”, 59 –60. In note m on p. 61, the author explains his own choice in the rendering of the verb in question, but his argument sounds more apodictic than probative. 52 Jeon also objects to Brichto’s interpretation of vv. 12 –13 which reduces them to a “general statement” rather than as the protasis of the legislative provision. According to Jeon, the recapitulatory nature of vv. 29 –30 (in which, still following Jeon, reference is made to two distinct laws) is opposed to such an interpretation of the introductory verses. Cf. Jeon, “Two Laws”, 185. 53 Cf. Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 69. This very same argument about the late nature of v. 21 is what presses Milgrom to challenge the theory of T. Frymer-Kensky, who, on the basis of the literary figure of inclusio, proposes a fully unitary understanding of the text and offers a quadripartite structure (vv. 12 –14: introduction; vv. 15 –28: action; vv. 29 –30: recapitulation; v. 31 addendum-resolution). Each of the segments is signalled by an incipit characterised by the presence of a key word (cf. Frymer-Kensky, “Strange Case”, 11 –26). Although describing this theory as “replete with insights”, Milgrom claims that the secondary nature of Num 5,21 is incontestable, and affirms that this verse is to be held “foreign to the original core of the chapter and should not be considered in determining its authentic structure” (J. Milgrom, “On the Suspected Adulteress [Numbers V 11 –31]”, Vetus Testamentum 35 [1985] 368 –369). D.L. Ellens returns to the subject. She starts from considering Milgrom’s objection to arrive at her own variant to the structure proposed by Frymer-Kensky (cf. Ellens, “Numbers 5.11 –31”, 56 –62). As will emerge more clearly in the course of this study, what, in our opinion, turn out to be more convincing than the proposed structure are the insights of Ellens’s exegetical analysis to which we shall return in due course.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

29

the preparation (B: vv. 15 –18) and the execution (B′ : vv. 25 –28) of the ritual of the ordeal. This ritual represents one of the central elements of the legal provision from the point of view of the content: that is why it receives a prominent position also from the formal point of view and is, therefore, located in the internal boundary marked out by the rhetorical figure. Finally, the geminal element (C: vv.19 –24) encloses what the author describes as “the pivot of the entire structure and, hence, its most important section”, 54 namely, the oath. Milgrom defends his thesis of the structure of the pericope by indicating precisely the points of contact between the verses set in relation by the chiastic structure. In the particular case of the antipodes of the literary figure (i.e. A-A′ ), these points of contact are represented essentially by the occurrence in both segments of the same elements, listed as follows: the syntagma ‫תּו‬ ֹ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫שׂ ֶטה ִא‬ ְ ‫ת‬, ִ which occurs in v. 12 (A) and v. 29 (A′ ); so too the verb ‫ִט ָמ ָאה‬ ְ ‫נ‬, which occurs in vv. 13.14[x2] (A) and v. 29 (A′ ); 55 again, the syntagma ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫רוּח ִקנ‬ ַ ‫ ַתּ ֲעבֹר ָעלָיו‬which appears both in v. 14 (A) and in v. 30 (A′ ); and, finally, the syntagma ‫תּו‬ ֹ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫ת־א‬ ִ ‫קנֵּא ֶא‬, ִ which, similarly, is present in both v. 14 (A) and v. 30 (A′ ). Similarly to his statement on the antipodean section of the chiasmus, Milgrom maintains that the central part of the chiasmus (B-B′ ) is held together by elements common to the two sections and occurring in both, such as: the syntagma ‫ְחת ְק ָנאֹת‬ ַ ‫מנ‬, ִ which appears in v. 15.18 (B) and in v. 25 (B′ ); the lexemes of the same root which are present in segment B in v. 15 (‫ְכֶּרת‬ ֶ ‫)מז‬, ַ and v. 18 (‫רון‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫)זּ‬, and in segment B′ in v. 26 (‫ְכָּר ָתהּ‬ ָ ‫;)אז‬ ַ the syntagma ‫ֹהן‬ ֵ ‫ָקח ַהכּ‬ ַ ‫ ְול‬, present in v. 17 (B) is repeated in v. 25 (B′ ); the syntagma ‫ל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬, ִ attested in vv. 16.18 (B) is taken up again in v. 25 (B′ ); the syntagma ‫ֹתהּ‬ ָ ‫ְה ְק ִריב א‬ ִ ‫ ו‬also returns both in v. 16 (B) and in v. 26 (B′ ). In addition to the prominent recurrence of all these elements in each of the two segments, Milgrom holds that the connection between B and B′ is made patent by the internal structure of the segments themselves on the basis of three elements: the offering, the water and the woman. We shall try to elaborate the situation by setting out Milgrom’s argument in a table:

54

Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 71. Not however in v. 12, as Milgrom also maintains (cf. Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 70). 55

30

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

Segment B (preparation of the ritual: vv. 15 –18) offering The husband will bring his wife to the priest and for her he shall bring an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it nor put incense upon it because it is an offering of jealousy, a commemorative offering to recall a fault. 16 The priest shall bring the woman near and make her to stand before the Lord.

Segment B′ (performance of the ritual: vv. 25 –28) offering The priest shall take the offering of jealousy from the woman’s hands, he shall present the offering with the rite of waving before the Lord and shall bring it to the altar.26 The priest shall take a handful of that offering as its memorial and burn it on the altar;

15

25

water Then the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; he shall also take a little of the dust which is on the floor of the Dwelling and put it into the water.

water then shall he make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, the water which bears a curse shall enter into her; her belly will swell and her hips will wither and

woman The priest shall therefore make the woman stand before the Lord, he shall unbind her hair and place in her hands the commemorative offering, which is the offering of jealousy, while the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness which bears a curse.

woman that woman shall become an object of imprecation in the midst of her people. 28 But if the woman is not rendered impure and is therefore pure, she will be shown to be innocent and will be fruitful.

17

18

According to Milgrom, the recognition of the repeated presence of this structure within our text – which, precisely because repeated is to be considered intentional and so not the product of a compiling error, as claimed by a good number of commentators on the pericope – is the key which enables the solving of some of the more obvious incongruities of this pericope, two in particular: the one relating to the positioning of the woman before the altar and the one relating to the significance to be attributed to vv. 27 –28. The first aporia results from the fact that both v. 16 and v. 18 prescribe that the priest present the woman before the Lord in the sanctuary. 56 As we have already seen, this repetition generally tends to be interpreted as 56 Thus, Num 5,16: “The priest shall bring the woman near and make her to stand before YHWH”; and so, Num 5,18a: “The priest shall, therefore, make the woman stand before YHWH. . .”.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

31

one of the indications of the composite nature of the text which seriously affects its readability and fluency. However, Milgrom claims that v. 18a does not represent an otiose repetition but rather a “repetitive resumption” which enables the author to emphasise that the water had been prepared before the presentation of the woman before the presence of YHWH. 57 The second anomaly, which, according to Milgrom, finds its explanation in the correct appreciation of the literary structure governing the pericope, arises from the function of vv. 27 –28 in the framework of the passage as a whole. Partly correcting Fishbane’s view here, 58 Milgrom reckons that these two verses are not a simple “editorial summation” of what was previously established but represent the “kinetic counterpart of the static picture of verse 18”. 59 For element C (vv. 19 –24) also – which we have described as the geminal part, the real heart of the legislative provision – Milgrom records the formal elements which, by signalling the contact with the other parts of the chiasmus, justify the interpretation of the literary construction of our text on the basis of this rhetorical figure. In this case too, a table will enable a better indication of the correspondences and repetitions:

57 In view of the space devoted to vv. 16.18, it is somewhat curious that, in his criticism of Milgrom’s proposal, Jeon affirms that “in section B, the problem of unnecessary repetition between v. 16b and v. 18a is ignored: the verses are simply joined together” (Jeon, “Two Laws”, 185). 58 Cf. Fishbane, “Accusations”, 35 –38. 59 Milgrom continues by explaining that “both passages find the woman standing before the altar. In verse 18 she holds the minhah in her hands; in verses 27 –28 the waters are working their effect within her” (Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 70).

‫‪32‬‬

‫‪The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31‬‬

‫‪contact with‬‬ ‫‪B′‬‬

‫‪contact with‬‬ ‫‪A′‬‬

‫‪contact with‬‬ ‫‪B‬‬

‫‪contact with‬‬ ‫‪A‬‬

‫ְשׁ ַכב ִאישׁ‬ ‫‪13a‬ו ָ‬ ‫ֹתהּ‬ ‫אָ‬ ‫ֶרע‬ ‫כבת־זַ‬ ‫שְׁ ַ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ֶעלַם ֵמ ֵעינֵי‬ ‫ְונ ְ‬ ‫ִס ְתָּרה‬ ‫ישׁהּ ְונ ְ‬ ‫ִא ָ‬ ‫ְה ֱע ִמיד‬ ‫‪18‬ו ֶ‬ ‫ֹהן‬ ‫ַהכּ ֵ‬ ‫שּׁה‬ ‫ת־ה ִא ָ‬ ‫ֶא ָ‬ ‫ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬ ‫ת־ראשׁ‬ ‫וּפַרע ֶא ֹ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ָתן‬ ‫שּׁה ְונ ַ‬ ‫ָ‪f‬ה ִא ָ‬ ‫יה ֵאת‬ ‫ל־כּ ֶפּ ָ‬ ‫ַע ַ‬ ‫רון‬ ‫ִכּ ֹ‬ ‫ְחת ַהזּ ָ‬ ‫ִמנ ַ‬ ‫ְחת ְק ָנאֹת‬ ‫ִמנ ַ‬ ‫וּביַד‬ ‫ִהוא ְ‬ ‫ִהיוּ‬ ‫ֹהן י ְ‬ ‫ַהכּ ֵ‬ ‫ֵמי ַה ָמּ ִרים‬ ‫ַה ְמ ‪ָf‬אֲר ִרים‬

‫ם־לא‬ ‫ְא ֹ‬ ‫‪28‬ו ִ‬ ‫שּׁה‬ ‫ִט ְמ ָאה ָ‪f‬ה ִא ָ‬ ‫נְ‬ ‫ֹרה ִהוא‬ ‫וּטהָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ִקּ ָתה ְו ִנז ְְר ָעה‬ ‫ְונ ְ‬ ‫ָרע‬ ‫זַ‬

‫תּוַרת‬ ‫‪ֹ 29‬זאת ֹ‬ ‫שׁר‬ ‫ַה ְקּ ָנאֹת ֲא ֶ‬ ‫שּׁה‬ ‫שׂ ֶטה ִא ָ‬ ‫ִתּ ְ‬ ‫ישׁהּ‬ ‫ַתּ ַחת ִא ָ‬

‫‪Segment C‬‬ ‫)‪(vv. 19 –24‬‬ ‫ֹהן‬ ‫ֹתהּ ַהכּ ֵ‬ ‫יע א ָ‬ ‫שׁ ִבּ ַ‬ ‫ְה ְ‬ ‫‪ 19‬ו ִ‬ ‫ם־לא‬ ‫שּׁה ִא ֹ‬ ‫ל־ה ִא ָ‬ ‫ְא ַמר ֶא ָ‪f‬‬ ‫וָ‬ ‫ֹתְך‬ ‫שׁ ַכב ִאישׁ א ָ‬ ‫ָ‬

‫ט ְמ ָאה ַתּ ַחת‬ ‫שׂ ִטית ֻ‬ ‫ם־לא ָ‬ ‫ְא ֹ‬ ‫וִ‬ ‫ָקי‬ ‫ישְׁך ִהנּ ִ‬ ‫ִא ֵ‬ ‫ִמ ֵמּי ַה ָמּ ִרים ַ‪f‬ה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬ ‫ָה ֵאלֶּה‬

‫‪12b‬‬

‫ִאישׁ ִאישׁ‬ ‫כּהבנת‪f‬י־‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫תּו‬ ‫שׁ ֹ‬ ‫שׂ ֶטה ִא ְ‬ ‫ִת ְ‬ ‫בו ָמ ַעל‬ ‫וּמ ֲעלָה ֹ‬ ‫ָ‬

‫שׂ ִטית ַתּ ַחת‬ ‫ְא ְתּ ִכּי ָ‬ ‫‪20‬ו ַ‬ ‫ישׁךְ‬ ‫ִא ֵ‬

‫‪13b‬‬

‫ִט ָמ ָאה‬ ‫ְונ ְ‬

‫‪27b‬‬

‫ְצ ְב ָתה ִב ְטנָהּ‬ ‫וָ‬ ‫ְרָכהּ‬ ‫ָפלָה יֵ‬ ‫ְונ ְ‬ ‫ְתה‬ ‫ְהי ָ‬ ‫וָ‬ ‫שּׁה ְל ָאלָה‬ ‫ָה ִא ָ‬ ‫ְבּ ֶקֶרב ַע ָמּהּ‬

‫ִט ָמ ָאה‬ ‫ְהיא נ ְ‬ ‫וִ‬ ‫ְעד ֵאין ָבּהּ‬ ‫וֵ‬ ‫לא‬ ‫ְהוא ֹ‬ ‫וִ‬ ‫שׂה‬ ‫ִת ָפּ ָ‬ ‫נְ‬

‫ִתּן ִאישׁ ָבְּך‬ ‫ִט ֵמאת ַויּ ֵ‬ ‫ְכי נ ְ‬ ‫וִ‬ ‫ישְׁך‬ ‫תּו ִמ ַבּ ְל ֲעֵדי ִא ֵ‬ ‫כב ֹ‬ ‫ת־שׁ ָ ְ‬ ‫ֶא ְ‬

‫שּׁה‬ ‫ת־ה ִא ָ‬ ‫ֹהן ֶא ָ‬ ‫יע ַהכּ ֵ‬ ‫שׁ ִבּ ַ‬ ‫ְה ְ‬ ‫‪21‬ו ִ‬ ‫שׁ ֻב ַעת ָה ָאלָה‬ ‫ִבּ ְ‬ ‫ִתּן‬ ‫שּׁה י ֵ‬ ‫ָא ָ‬ ‫ֹהן ל ִ‬ ‫ְא ַמר ַהכּ ֵ‬ ‫וָ‬ ‫או ָתְך‬ ‫יְהוָה ֹ‬ ‫תוְך‬ ‫שׁ ֻב ָעה ְבּ ֹ‬ ‫ְל ְ‬ ‫ְל ָאלָה ו ִ‬ ‫ַע ֵמְּך ְבּ ֵתת יְהוָה‬ ‫ֹפלֶת‬ ‫ְר ֵכְך נ ֶ‬ ‫ֶאת־יֵ‬ ‫ת־בּ ְט ֵנְך ָצ ָבה‬ ‫ְא ִ‬ ‫וֶ‬

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

Segment C (vv. 19 –24)

contact with A

‫וּבאוּ ַה ַמּיִם ַה ְמ ָא ְר ִרים‬ ָ 22 ְ ‫בּות ֶבּ ֶטן‬ ֹ ‫ַצ‬ ְ ‫ָה ֵאלֶּה ְבּ ֵמ ַע ִיך ל‬ ‫ְפּל‬ ִ ‫ְו ַלנ‬ ‫שּׁה ָא ֵמן‬ ָ ‫ְא ְמָרה ָה ִא‬ ָ ‫ָרְך ו‬ ֵ‫י‬ ‫ָא ֵמן‬ ‫ת־ה ָאלֹת ָה ֵאלֶּה‬ ָ ‫כתב ֶא‬ ַ ָ ‫ ְו‬23 ‫ל־מי‬ ֵ ‫וּמ ָחה ֶא‬ ָ ‫ֹהן ַבּ ֵסּ ֶפר‬ ֵ ‫ַהכּ‬ ‫ַה ָמּ ִרים‬ ‫שּׁה‬ ָ ‫א‬Sָ ִ ‫שׁ ָקה ֶאת־ה‬ ְ ‫ְה‬ ִ ‫ ו‬24 ‫ת־מי ַה ָמּ ִרים ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬ ֵ ‫ֶא‬ ‫וּבאוּ ָבהּ ַה ַמיִם ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬ ָ ‫ְל ָמ ִרים‬

contact with B

contact with A′

33 contact with B′

27a

‫שׁ ָקהּ‬ ְ ‫ְה‬ ִ‫ו‬ ‫ת־ה ַמּיִם‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ְתה‬ ָ ‫ְהי‬ ָ‫ו‬ ‫ִט ְמ ָאה‬ ְ ‫אם־נ‬fִ ‫ַתּ ְמעֹל ַמ ַעל‬ ִ‫ו‬ ‫וּבאוּ‬ ָ ‫ישׁהּ‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ִא‬ ‫ָבהּ ַה ַמּיִם‬ ‫ָאֲר ִרים‬f ‫ַה ְמ‬ ‫ְל ָמ ִרים‬

If one observes the table carefully, one is led to the conclusion that the lexical, syntactic and formal correspondences between the antipodean elements (A-A′ ), the internal part (B-B′ ) and the geminal section (C) of the chiasm identified in Num 5,11 –31 are so prominent and recurrent as to render very difficult – if not impossible – the possibility of attributing their presence to chance. This undoubtedly redounds positively on the general assessment of the solidity of Milgrom’s interpretation of the structure of the final text of Num 5,11 –31, defending its substantial unity. 60 My view is that the broad survey of positions and interpretative theories of the text summarised so far has provided us with a sufficiently complete picture of the status quaestionis on the exegetical study of Num 5,11 –31. The general impression gained from it is that the arguments of those who apply a holistic-synchronic approach contain an element of polemic – in some cases implicit, in others scarcely concealed, in yet others openly declared – against their predecessors, those whom we have described, not 60 For the sake of completeness, it should be added – as, moreover, we indicated previously – Milgrom holds that vv. 21 and 31 are interpolations later than the body of the text. We shall return to this subject when we analyse the individual verses of the pericope.

34

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

without simplification, as “diachronic”. As often happens in cases like this, the vis polemica can run the risk of encouraging – simply for partisan reasons – the total rejection of the arguments of those who make use of a different methodological approach from one’s own. Inevitably, this ends up throwing the baby away with the bath water. In this particular case, maintaining the unitary nature of the final form of the text of Num 5,11 –31 ought not necessarily to involve the radical denial of the existence of a redactional process to which the pericope was subjected over a period of time. 61 In fact, after excluding some interpretative stratagems which resemble acrobatics rather than exegesis, it is hard to deny the presence in the text of heterogeneous material, elements which cannot be attributed to a single tradition or a single “hand”. On the basis of these and other similar considerations, it is more than reasonable to hypothesise that, at the origin of the pericope which is currently found in Num 5,11 –31, there are various legal traditions dissimilar among themselves, which have come together into a single tradition in the final form of the text as the result of a work of redaction which has its own raison d’être, and which was not limited to a maladroit compilation of heterogeneous literary material. In the end, it is a matter of having a good understanding of what are the traditions to be located at the origin of the text, as also of clarifying the possible aims of those responsible for the final redactional makeup of the law contained in Num 5,11 –31. The great merit of such an approach – which, on account of its characteristics, we could describe precisely as interdisciplinary – is that of gathering together the best of both exegetical efforts which we have summarised in the presentation of the status quaestionis, giving equal weight to both the diachronic and synchronic aspects of the exegetical analysis. For the solid nature of the arguments adduced in support of the particular exegetical analyses, I think that the respective proposals of Bewer on the genesis of the pericope and Milgrom on the interpretation of its final

61 Enough to recall in this connection a passage from Brichto’s contribution which perhaps constitutes the clearest example of this tendency: “[. . .] The passage in question is a single source, a coherent unit untouched by editor’s pen, formulated in impeccable Hebrew [. . .] The author framed with admirable consistency a procedure which is not a law, which presents no ordeal, which is untainted by magic and which achieves its design: a fair-mindedness deserving the plaudits of the most fastidious of hodiernal moralists” (Brichto, “Case”, 55).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

35

form are those best suited to an overall understanding – interdisciplinary, to be exact – of the text of Num 5,11 –31. In fact, as we have been able to see in the examination of the positions, on the one hand, Bewer’s hypothesis summarises the best of his predecessors’ exegetical study and, in a certain way, completes it, providing a plausible reconstruction of the traditional elements lying at the origin of the pericope; 62 on the other hand, Milgrom – who equally makes use of the results of the studies of those who have preceded him in a very similar direction, particularly Fishbane – offers, through the identification of chiasmus as the loadbearing structure of the whole pericope, a key to reading the final form of the text of Num 5,11 –31 which, the evidence shows, is more than reasonable since the correspondences between the different elements are easily verifiable. 63 As a starting point, the exegetical analysis which I am about to introduce will follow – at least in its essential lines – the subdivision of the text which emerges from Milgrom’s proposal, 64 to which we shall add all the clarifications and possible modifications necessary. Here is a summary in the form of a table:

62 For the reader’s convenience, we recall Bewer’s assignment of the individual verses according to the respective traditions: the oath tradition is found in Num 5,18a.21.22b.27b; the ordeal tradition in Num 5,16 –17.19 –20.22a.23 –24.27a; finally, the addition of the culticritual element of the cereal offering is to be seen in Num 5,15b.18b.25 –26. Cf. Bewer, “Ordeal”, 47. 63 A further element testifying to the solid nature of Milgrom’s proposal derives from the fact that, by contrast with the other representatives of the “holistic-synchronic” approach which we have previously cited, he does not seem to ignore the composite nature of the pericope and does not deny the presence of different traditions in it. He expresses himself thus at the opening of the article: “Modern critics uniformly regard the text of the law of the suspectful adulteress (Num 5:11 –31) as a conflation of at least two sources. Two procedures are employed to test the suspect, an oath and an ordeal (16 –24, 27 –28), with a sacrifice perhaps constituting a third test (15, 25 –26). Moreover, repetitions abound [. . .] Notwithstanding this evidence for multiple sources, it is to the merit of two recent scholars, M. Fishbane and H. C. Brichto, that they see this text as a logical and unified composition” (Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 69. My italics). Moreover – and in this he openly takes his distance from the two authors to whom he refers – although maintaining the substantial unity of the pericope, he recognises the secondary nature of vv. 21.31 which he considers to be later additions. 64 Cf. Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 69 –70.

36

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

Structure of Num 5,11 –31 v. 11 –12a

Introduction to the divine discourse

vv. 12b –14

Exposition of the case

vv. 15 –18

Preparation of the ritual of the ordeal

vv. 19 –24

Oath

vv. 25 –28

Performance of the ritual of the ordeal

vv. 29 –30

Summary recapitulation of the case

v. 31

Addendum

3. Exegetical analysis of Num 5,11 –31 From the methodological point of view, the exegetical analysis which we are going to tackle at this point in our study aims clearly at being inspired by that interdisciplinary criterion which we have just signalled as the royal road for an interpretation which wishes to avoid the risk of falling into a myopic reading of the text which is the product of partisan prejudices rather than of a rigorous examination of the clues furnished by the text itself. Like dwarves on giants’ shoulders, 65 we shall take as our starting point the two theories which we have held to be most convincing with regard to the interpretation of the history of the formation of the text (Bewer) and of its structure in its present form (Milgrom). We shall proceed to the study of the pericope through the examination of the individual verses with aim of studying in depth the aspects concerning both the genesis of our text and the purpose which it assumes in its final form. 66

65 This expression derives from an image, probably of mythological origin, referred to Bernard of Chartres by his pupil, John of Salisbury, who says: “Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarves sitting on giants’ shoulders (“nos esse quasi nanos gigantium humeris insidentes”), so that we can see more things than they and see further, not through the sharpness of our sight or the height of our body, but we are raised up and carried on high by the stature of the giants” (John of Salisbury, Metalogicon III, 4). 66 At the opening of each section of the pericope, I shall record, first, a translation of the text that I am going to analyse, keeping the explanation of the rendering for the comment on the individual verses.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

37

3.1. Introduction to the divine discourse (vv. 11 –12a) 11

And YHWH spoke to Moses, saying: 12a “Speak to the people of Israel. . .”

There are no doubts or difficulties in understanding the literary function of vv. 11 –12a which, as we have been able to indicate in the section on the boundaries of the pericope, represent a formal indicator commonly considered as typical of the priestly vocabulary. This introduces divine speech directed, in the first instance, to Moses – frequently associated with an address of the discourse to Aaron, although Aaron appears by himself rather rarely – who, in his turn, is called to communicate it to the people of Israel. 67 Generally, these discourses contain precepts, commandments and ordinances which the people are told to carry out. In the particular case of the section of Numbers in which our pericope is enshrined (that is, Num 5,1 –6,27), the same formal indicator with its clear introductory value, ‫ֹשׁה לֵּאמֹר‬ ֶ ‫ְד ֵבּר יְהוָה ֶאל־מ‬ ַ‫ַוי‬, also assumes an important structural function since it enables the delimitation of each of the different precepts and legal arrangements contained in this part of the text. 68

3.2. Exposition of the case (vv. 12b –14) 12b

If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, 13 if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act, 14 and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself. . .

The divine speech introduced by vv. 11 –12a gets to the heart of things in v. 12b which opens the exposition of the case which the legal provision in question is meant to regulate. The syntagmatic expression ‫אישׁ ִאישׁ‬, ִ found at the beginning of the discourse, has a clearly distributive value 69 67

Cf. Gray, Numbers, 49, and the relevant bibliographical references. As we have noted previously, this formula is found in Num 5,1; 5,5; 5,11; 6,1; 6,22. With the exceptions of Num 5,5, which presents a very slight variation in one of the verbs employed (‫ ַצו‬instead of ‫)דּ ֵבּר‬, ַ and of Num 6,22, in which the command is addressed specifically to Aaron and his sons as intermediaries between YHWH and the people, in the remaining cases, the expression ‫ֹשׁה לֵּאמֹר‬ ֶ ‫ְד ֵבּר יְהוָה ֶאל־מ‬ ַ‫ ַוי‬is always followed by the other (in a certain way complementary) introductory formula – ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל‬ ְ ‫ל־בּנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ – ַדּ ֵבּר ֶא‬which we find in our text in v. 12a 69 Thus, J.E. Hartley, Leviticus (Word Biblical Commentary 4; Dallas, TX 1992) 203. The distributive sense of the repetition of the same substantive is clearly attested by the Hebrew 68

38

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

and is employed to introduce a law of a casuistic nature. This is neatly confirmed by the contextual presence of the conjunction ‫ ִכּי‬which is likewise characteristic of the formulae relating to this kind of legal prose. 70 Apparently irrelevant to the present context of the syntagma ‫ ִאישׁ ִאישׁ‬is the theory that the repetition of the same substantive is to be understood in a sense that includes both the genders, as maintained, for example, by K. Elliger – though commenting on a different text (Lev 15,2). 71 In fact, in our particular case, it is difficult to claim that the role of plaintiff is assigned indifferently to the man and the woman in the legal provision introduced by the syntagma because it is quite clear from what follows in the text that the law provides very different roles – and, therefore, very different outcomes – for the husband and wife. Among other things, the law immediately prior to ours is introduced in Num 5,6 through an expression which indicates the object of the legal provision in these terms: ‫שּׁה‬ ָ ‫־א‬ ִ ‫או‬ ֹ ‫אישׁ‬. ִ This is an uncommon expression in biblical legislation: 72 something which leads us to hold with greater certainty that, when the legislator intends to refer to both genders, he does so in a manner that is explicit and clear. It implicitly confirms our interpretation of the syntagma ‫ ִאישׁ ִאישׁ‬of Num 5,12 as a specific indication of the masculine gender. 3.2.1. Adultery in the Ancient Near East and in biblical Israel Our observation about the restriction of the role of plaintiff in the legislative provision of Num 5,11 –31 to the husband alone gives us, now, the opportunity to develop some considerations relating to the juridical case

grammars: cf. E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Second American Edition (Boston, MA 1910) § 123 c; P. Joüon – T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 27; Roma 2006) § 135 d. It is statistically interesting to note that the expression occurs 18 times in the Hebrew Bible: of these, a good 15 are found in legal contexts of a casuistic type, analogous to Num 5,12b. Here is a survey of the occurrences of the syntagma in the MT: Ex 36,4; Lev 15,2; 17,3.8; 18,6; 20,2.9; 22,4.18; 24,15; Num 1,4.44; 4,19.49; 5,12; 9,10; Ezek 14,4.7. In the specific case of the employment of the syntagma in Lev 15,2 and its interpretation, cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1 –16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 3; New York 1991) 906. 70 For more detail on the nature and characteristics of casuistical law in the Bible, see Cocco, Torah, 25 and the related bibliographical references. 71 Cf. K. Elliger, Leviticus (Handbuch zum Alten Testament. 1 Reihe 4; Tübingen 1966) 193. 72 Cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 187.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

39

of adultery as it was conceived in the Ancient Near East in general and in biblical Israel in particular. 73 In general, we can state that, not only in Israel but among all the more important peoples of the Ancient Near East, adultery was considered a very serious crime, with a significance which crossed the threshold of the private matter – relating, that is, only to the persons directly involved – to attain the status of an event laden with public repercussions in both the social and religious spheres. However, we need to make some clarifications to this. In fact, with an abundance of details and of references to the Near Eastern sources, W. Kornfeld explains that the conception of the public significance of adultery and, consequently, that of its religious repercussions on the entire community did not originally belong to the beginnings of Assyro-Babylonian juridical thought for which adultery was considered, rather, as an injury done to the husband. 74 For this same reason, the husband – the injured party – had the right to take justice into his own hands. According to Kornfeld, it was only with the legislation of the Babylonian king, Hammurabi, that it is possible to observe a change in the perception of the significance of adultery and of the extent of its repercussions. Therefore, we must look at what is written in his “Code” about adultery: § 129: If the wife of a seignior has been caught while lying with another man, they shall bind them and throw them into the water. If the husband of the woman wishes to spare his wife, then the king in turn may spare his subject. 75 73 For a general introduction to the Mesopotamian laws, cf. E. Szlechter, “La ‘loi’ dans la Mésopotamie ancienne”, Revue internationale des droits de l’Antiquité 3/12 (1965) 55 –77; M.T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 6; Atlanta, GA 21997); J.L. Ska, “Le droit d’Israël dans l’Ancien Testament”, Bible et droit. L’esprit des lois (ed. F. Mies) (Namur – Bruxelles 2001) 9 –43; R. Westbrook – B. Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction (Louisville, KY 2009) 20 –25. 74 “Dans le passé, l’adultère n’était probablement considéré que comme un délit privé, selon l’idée que s’en faisaient les Babyloniens et les Assyriens” (W. Kornfeld, “L’adultère dans l’Orient Antique”, Revue Biblique 57 [1950] 95). Already before Kornfeld, this had been claimed by E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. With Special References to general Semitic Laws and Customs (London 1944) 163 –170. This same position relating to the conception of adultery in the Ancient Near East was taken up by M. Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law”, Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume. Studies in Bible and Jewish Religion Dedicated to Yehezkel Kaufmann on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. M. Haran) (Jerusalem 1960) 5 –28. 75 J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Third Edition with Supplement (Princeton, NJ 1969) = ANET, 171. For the transcription and translation of “Hammurabi’s Code” (and related comments), see: J. Bottéro, Le code

40

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

If, on the one hand, Hammurabi’s legislation shows itself in continuity with the common feeling of the Ancient Near East in considering adultery as a grave injury to the husband alone, on the other hand, it seems to go further since it classifies the said offence among capital crimes and, consequently, provides death by drowning for the woman tarnished with infidelity. 76 This particular type of physical elimination of the guilty was prescribed by the legislation attributed to the famous Babylonian king in some other particular cases which it will be useful to recall for the sake of their typology: the case of incestuous relations between father and daughter; 77 the case of a woman who contracts a new marriage while her husband is a prisoner of war even though she continues to enjoy the support of the latter’s goods; 78 finally, the case of a woman who refuses to perform her conjugal duties. 79 Helpfully, Kornfeld points out that the common denominator among the criminal cases for which the pain of death by drowning is prescribed is provided by the fact that the offences share the same sphere: families-relations. Precisely for this reason, these offences go beyond the private sphere to become a question which regards the whole community, considered as an extended family. With regard to the specific case of adultery, the novelty introduced by Hammurabi’s legislation is clearly shown in the fact that the judgement de Hammurabi (Faits de civilisation 5; Paris 1967); E. Szlechter, Codex Hammurapi (Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentia 3; Roma 1977). One of the rare diplomatic editions of the text is: E. Bergmann, Codex Hammurabi. Textus primigenius (Roma 1953). For a comment on the “Code”, cf. J. Klíma, “La perspective historique des lois Hammurapiennes”, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1972) 297 –317; H. Petschow, “Beiträge zum Codex Hammurapi”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 76 (1986) 17 –75. 76 On account of the considerations which we shall develop in what follows, it will be useful to note, as of now, that only the betrayal by the wife is considered an offence while the husband does not incur any crime if the woman with whom he has extra-marital relations is free. Cf. Kornfeld, “L’adultère”, 96. 77 “§ 155: If a seignior chose a bride for his son and his son had intercourse with her, but later he himself has lain in her bosom and they have caught him, they shall bind that seignior and throw him into the water” (ANET, 172). 78 “§ 133: If a seignior was taken captive, but there was sufficient to live on in his house, his wife [shall not leave her house, but she shall take care of her person by not] entering [the house of another]. § 133a: if that woman did not take care of her person, but has entered the house of another, they shall prove it against that woman and throw her into the water” (ANET, 171). 79 “§ 142: If a woman so hated her husband that she has declared, “You may not have me,” her record shall be investigated at her city council, and if she was careful and was not at fault, even though her husband has been going out and disparaging her greatly, that woman, without incurring any blame at all, may take her dowry and go off to her father’s house. § 143: If she was not careful, but was a gadabout, thus neglecting her house (and) humiliating her husband, they shall throw that woman into the water” (ANET, 172).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

41

on the fate of the man involved exceeds the competence of the offended husband – who, therefore, cannot take justice into his own hands – to become the object of the final decision of the king. In essence, with Hammurabi, we are witnessing an evolution in the juridical conception of adultery which is concerned no longer only with the husband who has been injured by the cheating behaviour of his wife but has come to be considered criminal behaviour with social consequences. That this is a juridical evolution with respect to the past is also confirmed indirectly by the testimony of some documents prior to Hammurabi. 80 These attest that, before the “Code”, the husband enjoyed greater discretion in the establishment of the fate of his unfaithful wife: he could, in fact, be content with selling her into slavery, or depriving her of her own goods, or even simply repudiating her rather than claiming her life. However, there is a further and fundamental consequence brought about by the change in the attitude to adultery which is owed to the legislation introduced by Hammurabi. The fact that, as we have seen, the crime inherent in the violation of the marital pact on the part of the wife is regarded as affecting not only the injured spouse but also the entire people to whom he belongs, has consequences in the religious sphere also. In fact, the foundation on which the Babylonian king bases his right to promulgate laws is of a divine nature; he presents himself to his subjects as earthly representative of Šamaš, god of justice, as well, of course, as of Marduk, who, as god of gods, embodies the fullness of wisdom. Thus, since adultery was an offence against the fundamental law of Babylonian society – as a direct violation of one of the norms of Hammurabi’s “Code” – this crime appears as an offence against the divinity which is the source and origin of that law. In the final analysis, therefore, it appears not only as a crime but also as a grave sin. 81 We can say, therefore, that among the peoples of the Ancient Near East – at least at a certain moment in history and then henceforward – adultery was considered not simply an offence but a grave sin, as is apparent quite clearly from the testimony of some Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources. 82 Particularly illuminating in this respect is the infor80

The precise reference to these Mesopotamian sources is found in Kornfeld, “L’adultère”, 97 notes 1 and 2. 81 So Kornfeld, “L’adultère”, 96 –98. 82 The Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources to which we are going to refer are noted by A. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law. A New Approach to the Decalogue (Oxford 1970) 118, and taken up by Milgrom, Numbers, 348 –349. I observe that Phillips’s position with regard to the religious significance of the offence of adultery among the peoples of the

42

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

mation to be found in some matrimonial documents from Egypt which go back to the ninth century B.C.: the most ancient of these, which is attributed to the fourteenth year of the reign of the pharaoh Takelothis I, 83 refers to adultery as the “great sin”, 84 thus employing terminology which – as we shall see shortly – corresponds perfectly to that used in the same connection in the Bible. There is some Mesopotamian evidence of notable interest for our subject: one of these sources describes adultery as a “grievous guilt”, classifying it among the offences against the divinity committed by men against the god Ninurta; 85 another source warns that whoever is tainted with adultery incurs the wrath of Marduk; 86 again, in the opinion of W.L. Moran, the “faute mystérieuse” spoken of in the Akkadian texts of the royal palace of Ugarit – an offence so great as to cause ostracism and the condemning to death of the king’s wife – can only be understood as the adultery of the queen with regard to the king. 87 In support of what has just emerged from our examination of the documents of the Ancient Near East relating to the religious dimension of adultery, we can cite some biblical passages which include some forAncient Near East appears a little ambiguous: on the one hand, he maintains that “adultery in the ancient Near East was regarded as a secular offence against the husband and not, as in Israel, against God” (p. 117), only then being found to have to observe that “in spite of this difference between Israel and other Near Eastern countries, it appears that adultery was widely termed “the great sin”” (p. 118). However, this is the context in which Phillips cites the Egyptian and Mesopotamian documents with which we are going to be concerned. 83 Pharaoh belonging to the XXII dynasty, reigned over Egypt in the first half of the IX century B.C. 84 Here is the German translation of the hieroglyphic text deciphered by G. Möller: “Wenn ich die Frauensperson N.N. meine Schwester, die mir gehört, entlasse . . . außer (wegen) der großen Sünde die beim Weib gefunden wird, so gebe ich ihr. . .” (my italics). For the text and translation of the document, cf. G. Möller, “Zwei ägyptische Eheverträge aus vorsaïtischer Zeit”, Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften / Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, III (Berlin 1918) 31. For the analysis of the relationship between the Egyptian text and the Bible, cf. J.J. Rabinowitz, “The ‘Great Sin’ in Ancient Egyptian Marriage Contracts”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18 (1959) 73. 85 Thus we read in an eulogy in honour of the god Ninurta: “He who has intercourse with (another) man’s wife, his guilt is grievous” (W.G. Lambert [ed.], Babylonian Wisdom Literature [Oxford 1960] 119). 86 The reference is found on tablet IV, 7 of the collection of Sumerian and Akkadian incantations entitled Šurpu. For the text and translation of the source, cf. E. Reiner, Šurpu. A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations (Beihefte zum Archiv für Orientforschung 11; Graz 1958) 25. 87 For the Ugaritic text, cf. C.F.-A. Schaeffer – J. Nougayrol, Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit, IV (Mission de Ras Shamra 9; Paris 1956) 132 –148. For the interpretation of the text, cf. W.L. Moran, “The Scandal of the ‘Great Sin’ at Ugarit”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18 (1959) 280 –281.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

43

eign men among the protagonists of the events they recount. That is interpreted as implicit confirmation of the fact that the redactors of the biblical accounts must have taken for granted the extension of this belief – namely, the fact that adultery constituted an offence against the divinity, and not simply an injury towards one’s neighbour – even outside Israel. 88 Here it is appropriate to cite two texts briefly: the first is drawn from one of the episodes which form part of the Abraham cycle, that is, the account of his stay in Gerar at the court of King Abimelech (Gen 20,1 –18); the second is a short passage concerning the troubled story of Joseph in the house of Potiphar (Gen 39,8 –9). Enamoured with Sarah and sincerely convinced that she was Abraham’s sister – on account of what he had learned from the patriarch – Abimelech summoned Sarah with the intention of lying with her. At night, however, he was informed in a dream by God himself that he was on the point of falling – although unaware – into the sin of adultery. For our purposes, extremely significant are both the ensuing dialogue between the king of Gerar and Abraham and also the consequences which derive from this event (Gen 20,8 –18): 8

So Abimelech rose early in the morning and called all his servants and told them all these things. And the men were very much afraid. 9 Then Abimelech called Abraham and said to him: “What have you done to us? And how have I sinned against you, that you have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin? You have done to me things that ought not to be done”. 10 And Abimelech said to Abraham, “What did you see, that you did this thing?”. 11 Abraham said: “I did it because I thought: “There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife”. 12 Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife. 13 And when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, I said to her: “This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me: ‘He is my brother’””. 14 Then Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male servants and female servants, and gave them to Abraham, and returned Sarah his wife to him. 15 And Abimelech said: “Behold, my land is before you; dwell where it pleases you”. 16 To Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver. It is a sign of your innocence in the eyes of all who are with you, and before everyone you are vindicated”. 17 Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children. 18 For YHWH had closed all the wombs of the house of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife.

88

This is the opinion – correct, as I see it – of both Phillips, Ancient, 117 –118, and Milgrom, Numbers, 349.

44

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

It will not have escaped the reader that, in order to describe the adultery in Gen 20,9, the narrator places on the lips of Abimelech – who is not an Israelite – the expression ‫ח ָט ָאה ְג ֹדלָה‬: ֲ words wholly corresponding to the “grievous / weighty / great sin” which occurs in the Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources just cited. Secondly, with regard to the content of Num 5,11 –31, it is very significant that the sterility which God inflicts as a punishment (later withdrawn) on the women of the house of Abimelech on account of the king’s “great sin” – namely adultery – corresponds to one of the possible outcomes of the sotah with which we are concerned. In fact, in the event that she is guilty, the woman accused of infidelity becomes sterile through the divine will which is manifested in the ordeal of the “bitter waters” (cf. Num 5,22.27). With the second biblical passage we have mentioned, we leave the Abraham cycle for the story of Joseph. Forced by Potiphar’s wife – who is infatuated with him – to lie with her, Joseph rejects the advances of his mistress with these words (Gen 39,8 –9): 8

But [Joseph] refused and said to his master’s wife: “Look, my lord does not call me to account for what is in his house and he has given into my hands all that he has. 9 He himself is not greater than me in this house; he has not kept anything back from me except you, because you are his wife. How then can you do this great evil and sin against God (‫אתי לֵאל ִֹהים‬ ִ ‫ְח ָט‬ ָ ‫שׂה ָהָר ָעה ַה ְגּ ֹדלָה ַה ֹזּאת ו‬ ֶ ‫ְאיְך ֶא ֱע‬ ֵ ‫”?)ו‬.

By contrast with the previous example, in which the expression was placed on the lips of a foreigner (King Abimelech), the speaker in this case is an Israelite, Joseph. However, he is addressing an Egyptian woman and describing the adultery which she is urging him to commit as a “great evil” (‫)הָר ָעה ַה ְגּ ֹדלָה‬ ָ and “sinning against God” (‫אתי לֵאל ִֹהים‬ ִ ‫ְח ָט‬ ָ ‫)ו‬. By doing this, he lets it be clearly understood that he shares one language and one sentiment with the addressee of his discourse who is a foreigner in relation to the people of Israel. 89 89

In addition to the reference which we have just made to the story of Joseph in the house of Potiphar, it is interesting to recall an Egyptian story very similar to the Biblical events. It is a popular tale known as the The Story of the Two Brothers, contained in Papyrus D’Orbiney (dated to the XIII century B.C.) which is kept in the British Museum in London (BM 10183). There is a notable correspondence with the life of Joseph: the older brother closely resembles the biblical Potiphar, and the younger brother is like the favourite son of the patriarch Jacob. Here is the passage which concerns us most closely: “The younger brother found the wife of his elder brother sitting and doing her hair. Then he said to her: ‘Get up and give me (some) seed, for my younger brother [sic but read elder] is waiting for me. Don’t delay!’ Then she said to him: ‘Go and open the bin and take what you want! Don’t make me leave my combing unfinished!’ Then the lad went into his stable, and he took a big jar, for he wanted to carry off a lot of seed. So he loaded himself with barley and emmer and came out carrying

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

45

3.2.2. The question of gender in the penal legislation of the Ancient Near East There is another element relevant to our discourse on adultery which merits our attention: this is the univocal nature, so to speak, of the shape of the criminal category of adultery. On close examination, in fact, it is only the adulterous behaviour of the wife which is considered an offence: for the peoples of the Ancient Near East, the extra-marital unions of the husband do not represent any crime, provided that the woman with whom the man in question has relations is free from the marriage bond. If she were married, in fact, the man who had sexual relations with her would be committing an injury against the woman’s husband: only by virtue of that, therefore, would the deed be described as adultery. We find an extensive juridical witness to what we have just said in “tablet A” of the Middle Assyrian Laws: 90 § 13: When a seignior’s wife has left her own house and has visited a(nother) seignior where he is living, if he has lain with her, knowing that she was a seignior’s wife, they shall put the seignior to death and the woman as well. § 14: If a seignior has lain with the wife of a(nother) seignior either in a templebrothel or in the street, knowing that she was a seignior’s wife, they shall treat the adulterer as the seignior orders his wife to be treated. If he has lain with her without

them. Then she said to him: ‘How much (is it) that is on your shoulder?’ [And he] said to her: ‘Three sacks of emmer, two sacks of barley, five in all, is what is on your shoulder.’ So he spoke to her. Then she [talked with] him, saying ‘There is [great] strength in you! Now I see your energies every day!’ And she wanted to know him as one knows a man. Then she stood up and took hold of him and said to him: ‘Come, let’s spend an [hour] sleeping (together)! This will do you good, because I shall make fine clothes for you!’ Then the lad [became] like a leopard with [great] rage at the wicked suggestion which she had made to him, and she was very, very much frightened. Then he argued with her, saying: ‘See here – you are like a mother to me, and your husband is like a father to me! Because – being older than I – he was the one who brought me up. What is this great crime which you have said to me? Don’t say it to me again! And I won’t tell it to a single person, nor will I let it out of my mouth to any man!’ And he lifted up his load, and he went to the fields” (ANET, 25. The italics are mine). In the words of the younger brother, the adultery which his older brother’s wife invites him to commit is described as a “great crime”: there is no reference to sin against the divinity, but the expression is certainly in continuity with the Near-Eastern evidence which we have just seen in presenting adultery as the gravest of faults. 90 ANET, 181. This legislative corpus goes back to the first half of the XI cent. B.C., a period marked by the Assyrians’ control over the whole of the Mesopotamian region. The collection of these laws is recorded on thirteen tablets (catalogued in alphabetical order from A to O), containing provisions of various kinds. In particular, our “table A” consists of 59 precepts and records laws almost exclusively devoted to women both as victims and as protagonists of the crimes contemplated in the legislation. Cf. Roth, Collections, 153.

46

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

knowing that she was a seignior’s wife, the adulterer is guiltless; the seignior shall prosecute his wife, treating her as he thinks fit. § 15: If a seignior has caught a(nother) seignior with his wife, when they have prosecuted him (and) convicted him, they shall put both of them to death, with no liability attaching to him. If, upon catching (him), he has brought him either into the presence of the king or into the presence of the judges, when they have prosecuted him (and) convicted him, if the woman’s husband puts his wife to death, he shall also put the seignior to death, but if he cuts off his wife’s nose, he shall turn the seignior into a eunuch and they shall mutilate his whole face. However, if he let his wife go free, they shall let the seignior go free. § 16: If a seignior [has lain with a(nother) seignior’s] wife at her invitation, no blame attaches to the seignior; the (married) seignior shall inflict such punishment on his wife as he thinks fit. If he has lain with her by force, when they have prosecuted him (and) convicted him, his punishment shall be like that of the seignior’s wife.

One of the practical consequences of legislation like this is that the woman has a merely passive role in the shape of the criminal case of adultery. In other words: whereas the betrayed husband can always accuse his wife of adultery, whatever the circumstances, the wife who is subject to such a betrayal has no power to act in law with respect to her husband whenever he has extra-marital relations. He would be punished only in the case where he injured another husband by going with a married woman: 91 but it is also clear that, in this case, the plaintiff against the adulterer would be the betrayed husband, and not the wife of the adulterer, despite the fact that she was similarly the victim of the betrayal. Given this unequal treatment between the sexes – though quite consistent with the social valuation of the role of women in comparison with men in antiquity 92 – it is particularly interesting to focus on the Pentateuchal legislation concerning adultery. Considering their content, what 91 For Babylonian law, the same thing goes for a woman promised in marriage. In fact, we read in the “Code of Hammurabi” in § 130: “If a seignior bound the (betrothed) wife of another seignior, who had had no intercourse with a male and was still living in her father’s house, and he has lain in her bosom and they have caught him, that seignior shall be put to death, while that woman shall go free” (ANET, 171). 92 On the subject of the unequal treatment of men and women with regard to the social contract in general and to marriage, adultery and divorce in particular, cf. D.R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage. A Sociological Study (New York 1953); C. Pressler, “Sexual Violence and Deuteronomic Law”, A Feminist Companion to Exodus – Deuteronomy (ed. A. Brenner) (The Feminist Companion to the Bible 6; Sheffield 1994)102 –112; D.W. Rooke, “Wayward Women and Broken Promises: Marriage, Adultery and Mercy in Old and New Testaments”, Ciphers in the Sand. Interpretations of the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7.53 –8.11) (ed. L.J. Kreitzer – D.W. Rooke) (Sheffield 2000) 17 –52; R.S. Kawashima, “Could a Woman Say ‘No’ in Biblical Israel? On the Genealogy of Legal Status in Biblical Law and Literature”, Association for Jewish Studies Review 35 (2011) 1 –22.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

47

is particularly striking is the fact that the laws which the Torah devotes to the regulation of this offence are equally directed at the husband and the wife. According to some scholars, this is due to the fact that, by virtue of the oath of reciprocal fidelity at the base of their union, both the spouses are equally liable for the consequences relating to the guilty infringement of the pact which unites them. Among the strongest arguments adopted in defence of this thesis is the fact that the marriage union is presented by different texts of the Hebrew Bible as a covenant between the spouses, having YHWH himself as witness. 93 Against this interpretation, however, there are some considerations which suggest that the reason for this phenomenon is to be sought elsewhere. Bearing in mind the very nature of biblical legislation, which is distinguished in being the direct product of the will of YHWH, we can easily consider that the greatest expression of the prohibition of adultery is that presented in the Decalogue, the divine law par excellence. Like the other precepts contained in the “ten words” and on account of their universal value, the formulation of the commandment appears in its essential form and stripped of all detail both in the version of Exodus (20,14) and in that of Deuteronomy (5,18), which record the same, peremptory, prohibition: ‫ְאף‬ ָ ‫לא ִתּנ‬. ֹ Despite the laconic nature of the expression, it is in the nature of things that – considering the supreme importance of the legislation of which it is a part – the force of the law is to be understood erga omnes and, therefore, concerns every member of the people of Israel, regardless of sex. 94 In confirmation of this, the passages of the Torah which record legislative provisions relating to adultery indicate clearly that the consequences of this offence affect both the man and the woman involved. Among these, certainly emblematic for its lack of ambiguity is the text of Lev 20,10, which declares:

93 Thus, especially, G.P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant. A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 52; Leiden – New York – Köln 1994) 280 –338. His position is criticised in detail by D.W. Rooke who claims that the thesis of the reciprocal fidelity between husband and wife in biblical Israel is undermined by various factors, chief among them polygamy, a custom that was socially tolerated. For the details of the criticism, cf. Rooke, “Wayward Women”, 23 n. 14. 94 In this connection, I recommend a brief but very acute note by Athalya Brenner with a title so eloquent as not to need further comment: A. Brenner, “An Afterword: The Decalogue – Am I Addressee?”, A Feminist Companion to Exodus – Deuteronomy (ed. A. Brenner) (The Feminist Companion to the Bible 6; Sheffield 1994) 255 –257.

48

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, the adulterous man and woman must be put to death. 95

This is echoed with equal clarity by Deut 22,22: When a man is found to have lain with a married woman, both of them must die: the man who has lain with the woman and the woman herself. Thus you will root out this evil from Israel.

However, we must bear in mind a fact which is not at all insignificant. On the basis of what is maintained by A. Phillips, it was only from the time of the cultic-religious reform of a deuteronomic stamp carried out by King Josiah 96 that women became equally subject to the prohibition of adultery – as to every other precept, moreover – the simple fact being that, before this, they were not considered members of the covenant community in the same way as men. According to this hypothesis, the deuteronomic reform of the VII century B.C. incorporated Israelite women among the children of Israel in their own right, simultaneously introducing the prohibition against men contracting marriage with foreign women (cf. Deut 7,3 –4). 97 However, this impartial treatment, which – at least from a certain moment on, if we accept Phillips’s theory – the biblical laws reserve for both spouses with respect to the consequences of adulter, is to be considered 95 For the various interpretations of this law, as well as for the explanation of the various grammatical phenomena found there, cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17 –22. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 3a; New York 2000) 1747 –1748. For the controversial theme of the obligation to impose the death penalty and the problems connected with it, I refer to the discussion raised by H. McKeating, “Sanctions against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society, with Some Reflections on Methodology in the Study of Old Testament Ethics”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 11 (1979) 57 –72, taken up by A. Phillips, “Another Look to Adultery”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 20 (1981) 3 –25, and taken still further in H. McKeating, “A Response to Dr Phillips”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 20 (1981) 25 –26. 96 On the literary characteristics and the historical reliability of Josiah’s so-called “reform”, I refer to what I have written elsewhere: F. Cocco, Sulla cattedra di Mosè. La legittimazione del potere nell’Israele post-esilico (Num 11; 16) (Collana biblica; Bologna 2007) 65 –77; Id., “Il processo di centralizzazione delle istituzioni religiose e cultuali”, Ricerche Storico Bibliche 1 (2009) 25 –36; Id., “La ‘riforma di Giosia’ e le alterne vicende del santuario di Betel”, Nova et Vetera. Miscellanea in onore di padre Tiziano Lorenzin (ed. L. Fanin) (Studi religiosi; Padova 2011) 121 –129. 97 Phillips concludes thus: “Thus before the Deuteronomic legislation it was only the wife’s lover who could be tried, convicted and executed for the crime of adultery, the injured husband being left with the choice of forgiving his wife or divorcing her [. . .] Accordingly, Deut. 22:22 must be understood as new legislation enacting that the wife, as well as her lover, was to be persecuted and executed for the crime of adultery” (Phillips, Criminal Law, 110 –111).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

49

an isolated phenomenon, a particular case in which the legislation shows itself operating without regard for gender. In fact, it is actually a very specific case, a kind of exception in a panorama where the husband and wife are generally not regarded in an equal manner. Thus, we find that, similarly to what we have seen happen in the legislation of the Ancient Near East, what formally defines the criminal case of adultery for the laws of the Bible is simply the civil status of the woman. In fact, for there to be a crime, it is necessary that the sexual relations take place between a married woman and a man who is not her husband. It is difficult to interpret the silence of the biblical legislation with regard to the opposite situation – namely, the case of a married man who has sexual relations with a woman who is not his wife – unless as tacit acquiescence of the fact that a married man could have sexual relations with other women, providing the latter were not married or promised to another member of the community. The perception one gets is that the biblical legislation concerning adultery is aimed at the exclusive protection of the interests of the husband. 98 The reasons for this disparity of treatment between the two sexes are not difficult to grasp in the wake of what we have observed previously: a conception like this of the relationship between men and women is fully in line with the common sentiment of the other peoples of the Ancient Near East, which considered the woman to be in a position of absolute dependence on the man. 99 Moreover, Israelite society was a patriarchal 98 This is clearly stated by Rooke in her observations on the deuteronomic legislation relating to marriage and similar institutions: “Whenever an irregular sexual union occurs, its severity is assessed and damages are awarded according to the male party who has been offended [. . .] Once a woman is married, (or betrothed, which was as binding as marriage), she is bound to her husband in all matters of sexual activity, and if a married or betrothed woman is discovered with another man then both she and her partner are to be put to death (Deut. 22.22 –24; cf. Lev 20.10). Once again, the rationale for the punishment includes a reference to the male party (22.23); the man is to be put to death not because he has violated the woman as such, but because he has appropriated another man’s wife” (Rooke, “Wayward Women”, 18 –19). Rooke speaks of the existence of a real double standard in the assessment of sexual practices: what was considered acceptable for the man was held to be absolutely reprehensible for the woman (cf. Rooke, “Wayward Women”, 22). 99 In this connection, it is appropriate and even necessary to observe the existence of an interpretation of the man-woman relationship within Israelite society which is considerably different from that which we have just referred to as the opinio communis: this is the feminist interpretation. One of the pillars of this interpretation, which sees in Carol Meyers one of its best-known representatives, is the idea that, in the nomadic period prior to the establishment of the monarchy, Israelite society had a predominantly egalitarian conception of the relationship between the sexes, although maintaining the fundamental differences relating to each of them (cf. C. Meyers, Discovering Eve. Ancient Israelite Women in Context

50

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

society, firmly founded on the principle of authority embodied in the head of the family: we should not wonder, therefore, that the man enjoyed privileged treatment before the law. Deborah Rooke identifies three factors which help us to understand the reasons for the basically “chauvinist” nature of Israelite society. We could summarise them thus: a “scientific” type; an “eschatological” type; and a “social” type. 100 The first is of a cultural type and responds to the fact that, according to the thinking of the time, human procreation took place only thanks to the man’s seed while the woman acted simply as the “breeding ground”, the sphere where the seed was received, without having any active role in the proceedings. The second factor in the subordination of the woman to the man, bound up with and consequent on the first, has its roots in the ancient eschatological thought of Israel. Before there was any belief in an otherworldly existence, it was held that the only way of surviving death was that of having sons who would, in some way, perpetuate the existence of their ancestors. Now, by virtue of what we have said, only the males were regarded as able to guarantee the perpetuation of the human race as “bearers of the seed”: in the eyes of that society and culture, this justified their superiority over women, as also the legal precautions intended to preclude the woman’s adultery. In fact, an illicit sexual union could have caused the woman to bear in her womb the seed of a man who was not her husband, with all the relevant consequences. The third subordinating factor is a merely social one: in a society, like the patriarchal one, with a strong tribal base and an emphasis on the [New York – Oxford 1988]). More recently, her position on the theme of the difference in gender and the relationship between the genders in biblical Israel is deployed on the side of a new anthropological concept, that of heterarchy (cf. C. Meyers, “Contesting the Notion of Patriarchy: Anthropology and the Theorizing of Gender in Ancient Israel”, A Question of Sex. Gender and Difference in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond [ed. D.W. Rooke] [Hebrew Bible Monograph 14; Sheffield 2007] 84 –105). A detailed encounter with the feminist approach on the question of the relationship between man and woman in Israelite society takes us away from the main aims of this study: therefore, I shall not refer to the question except in matters of detail and subjects which specifically require it. For in-depth study, I refer to the rich contribution of C.V. Camp, “Numbers 5:11 –31: Women in Second Temple Judah and the Law of the Controlling Priest”, Celebrate Her for the Fruit of Her Hands. Essays in Honor of Carol L. Meyers (ed. S. Ackerman – C.E. Carter – B. Alpert Nakhai) (Winona Lake, IN 2015) 111 –132, which has a fruitful dialogue with some positions which we have already cited (for example, that of D.L. Ellens) or still others such as that of A. Bach, “Good to the Last Drop. Viewing the Sotah (Numbers 5.11 –31) as the Glass Half Empty and Wondering How to View It Half Full”, The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (ed. J.C. Exum – D. J. A. Clines) (Valley Forge, PA 1994) 26 –54. 100 Cf. Rooke, “Wayward Women”, 23 –24.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

51

family, if the male wishes to guarantee his possession of power he has to show that he has firm control over those subject to him. Lack of fidelity on the part of the wife (or wives) would demonstrate his unfitness for rule: either through not being able to protect his own women from the wiles (or assault) of another male, or through not managing to maintain his control through obedience when the initiative for the betrayal stems from the women. 101 Last but not least: following what we have learned so far about adultery and the state of men and women in the Ancient Near East and in biblical Israel, we return to our study of the pericope which is the object of our enquiry. If we analyse the content of Num 5,11 –31, we observe that this law too reveals an asymmetrical effect in the treatment of the two sexes by the biblical legislation to the extent that it contemplates only the case of the suspicion of betrayal which is raised by the husband. It does not foresee any circumstances which assign to the woman the role of plaintiff in the procedure of accusation. In the words of D. Haberman, in Num 5,11 –31, “there is no parallel text that considers a man’s turning, a soteh, and a woman’s jealousy”. 102 Having attempted to throw light on the concept of adultery in the Ancient Near East and in biblical Israel, we shall take up the exegetical analysis of our text where we left it off, that is, with the comment on v. 12b. Although the syntagma ‫ ִאישׁ ִאישׁ‬of Num 5,12b clearly refers to the man – as is inferred from the general context of the pericope and the reflections which we have made in this connection above – the first verb we meet is a feminine form, ‫שׂ ֶטה‬ ְ ‫ת‬, ִ as if to indicate implicitly, without excessive wordplay, that she is the final and certain object of the prescriptions which are going to be introduced. The root of the verb employed, ‫שׂטה‬, occurs just six times in the whole of the Masoretic Text, 103 and four of these occurrences are concentrated 101 Cf. C. Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 216; Berlin – New York 1993) 42. 102 B.D. Haberman, “The Suspected Adulteress: A Study of Textual Embodiment”, Prooftexts 20 (2000) 15. This is echoed by Rooke who affirms: “The trial by ordeal for suspected adultery (Num. 5.11 –31) is a ‘man only’ prerogative” (Rooke, “Wayward Women”, 21). 103 This verbal root is found in Num 5,12.19.20.29; Prov 4,15; 7,25. For completeness sake, we should note that the root is also present in the Hebrew version of Sir 42,10c which appears in the scroll entitled “Ben Sira Scroll from Masada”. This records: []‫ועל אישה‬ ‫תשטה‬, “or [lest] she prove unfaithful to her husband”. The translation is derived from A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sirah. A New Translation with Notes by +Patrick W. Skehan. An Introduction and Commentary by Alexander Di Lella, O. F. M. (The Anchor Bible 39; New

52

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

in our pericope. Given the statistical importance of this information, it does not seem hazardous to claim that it concerns a very significant word – if not, even, a technical term proper – with regard to the subject of the legal provision of Num 5,11 –31. This impression is corroborated by a comparison with the Jewish tradition which, as we have seen, makes use of the feminine participle of this root, or sotah, to describe the charge of adultery committed by the woman against her husband. 104 The same word is used in the technical jargon of exegesis to describe the pericope we are analysing tout court. The root ‫ שׂטה‬has cognates in various other languages of the Ancient Near East such as Aramaic, Ethiopic and Arabic. It refers to the idea of “going astray, distancing oneself from the right way by stepping over its boundaries”. 105 In general, verbs which describe movement allow at least a twofold interpretation of the action which they are meant to signify: York 1987) 477 –483. For the text of the Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, see Y. Yadin (ed.), The Ben Sira Scrol from Masada (Jerusalem 1965), later republished in Y. Yadin, “The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada”, Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963 –1965. Final Report (ed. S. Talmon – Y. Yadin) (Jerusalem 1999) 151 –225. On the question of the antiquity of the manuscript, cf. S. Zeitlin, “The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada”, The Jewish Quarterly Review 56 (1966) 185 –190. On the interpretation of some obscure passages, cf. J.M. Baumgarten, “Some Notes on the Ben Sira Scroll from Masada”, The Jewish Quarterly Review 58 (1968) 323 –327 and, more recently, on the basis of new photographic evidence, E.D. Reymond, “New Readings in the Ben Sira Masada Scroll (MAS 1H)”, Revue de Qumrân 103 (2014) 327 –343. 104 Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 37. A tractate of the Mishnah is dedicated to this subject and, in fact, entitled Sotah: it is the fifth of the seven tractates of the order Nashim (women), which, in its turn, is the third of the six books of the Mishnah. For analysis of the Mishnaic tractate in question, see, in addition to the already cited article of B.D. Haberman, the sociological study of A. Destro, The Law of Jealousy. Anthropology of the Sotah (Brown Judaic Studies 181; Atlanta, GA 1989); I.F. Stone, “The Precarious Ties that Bind Us: Sotah 2a”, CrossCurrents 51 (2001) 273 –287; S. Greenfield, “The Theater of Deviance and the Normative Boundaries of Society: Lesson from the Rabbinic Interpretations the Biblical Law of Sotah”, Journal of Law and Religion 28 (2012 –2013) 105 –142. 105 Given the relatively few attestations of this lexeme, it is appropriate to hold with P.J. Budd (Numbers, 64) that N.H. Snaith’s statement which speaks of the “frequency” of the use of ‫ שׂטה‬to designate matrimonial infidelity is somewhat misleading. Cf. N.H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (The New Century Bible. New Edition; London 1967) 200 –201. For in-depth study of the meaning of the root, cf. F. Brown – S.R. Driver – C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Oxford31957) 966; F. Zorell, Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti (Rome 1984) 798; L. Köhler – W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament. Dritte Auflage, IV (Leiden – New York – København – Köln 1990) 1227; R.L. Harris – G.L. Archer – B.K. Waltke (ed.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, II (Chicago 1980) 874; D. A. J. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, VII (Sheffield 2011) 121 –122; J.A. Thompson, “‫”שׂטה‬, The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), III (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 1230.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

53

that implies that the verb can be understood in its literal sense or in a figurative one since the movement can imply either simply a changing of place (this is the literal sense of the verb) or else a change of an interior nature, not necessarily linked to changes of place (this represents the figurative sense of the verb). If we rely on the attestations of the root ‫שׂטה‬ in the MT, we can say that, in this specific case, the semantics of the verb go entirely in the direction of the figurative sense: none of the occurrences seems to be able to be categorised as the description of a physical shift of the subject of the verb from one place to another. Nevertheless, within the overall figurative sense of ‫שׂטה‬, it seems possible to make a further distinction between a more general, broader value of the verb and a meaning that is more technical, so to speak. As can be easily realised, it is the context that makes the difference. The broader and more general sense of our root can be observed in the occurrences of the verb which are found in the sapiential literature and, more precisely, in the book of Proverbs. Thus, in Prov 4,14 –15, we read: 14

Do not enter the path of the ungodly, and do not walk in the way of the wicked. 15 Shun it, do not cross it, turn aside (‫)שׂ ֵטה‬ ְ from it, pass on.

This is the text of Prov 7, 25: Do not let your heart turn aside (‫ֵשׂ ְט‬ ְ ‫)אל־י‬ ַ to her ways, do not go astray in her paths.

As can be seen, in both these cases, the verb is employed in the context of an exhortation to avoid following the ways of evil and has a connotation of a markedly moral or ethical type. In our opinion, this is the broadest sense which can be attributed to the root ‫שׂטה‬. 106 However, it is our view that it is possible to speak of a more specific – almost technical – use of the verb when it is used in a special way in relation to specific circumstances rather than to indicate general ways of conduct. This is precisely what is clear within Num 5,11 –31 where all the remaining occurrences of the root ‫ שׂטה‬appear (Num 5,12.19.20.29). In this precise context, the verb assumes a value that, with B. Levine, we could describe as “quite 106 In partial confirmation of this use in the broad sense, we may add M.V. Fox’s comment on Prov 4,15. Noting that, on other occasions, the verb is used only with reference to sexual transgressions, he maintains that the use of ‫ שׂטה‬in Prov 4,15 “may be deliberately incongruent”, something with which I agree. In my opinion, the incongruity with respect to the technical use of the verb should be extended also to Prov 7,25 which cannot be compared to the occurrences of the verb in Num 5,11 –31 since – by contrast with the latter – the subject is not the woman but the heart of the man who is warned not to allow himself to be turned aside. Cf. M.V. Fox, Proverbs 1 –9. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 18a; New York – London – Toronto – Sydney – Auckland 2000) 181.

54

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

graphic” 107 since it indicates unambiguously the adultery of the woman which, through this root, is described in terms of a practical action, a “deviation” in fact. Having introduced the sotah – understood in its strict sense here as the wayward woman – as the subject of the provision which is being introduced, v. 12b continues with the description of the case with the aid of another syntagma which has the function of making explicit the nature of the sotah’s “going astray”: ‫בו ָמ ַעל‬ ֹ ‫וּמ ֲעלָה‬. ָ Once again, we have another feminine verb – something not very typical in Hebrew prose but fully accounted for by the context, as we have seen in the case of the immediately preceding verb. What attracts more attention is the fact that the verb is found employed in a syntagma characterised by the presence of a figura etymologica: 108 where the indirect complement is expressed by the preposition ‫ ב‬with the masculine singular suffix, the direct object of the verb is a substantive with the same root, namely, ‫מ ַעל‬. ַ What is more, very frequent with the verb in question, 109 recourse to this rhetorical figure is to be understood as the intention to emphasise the meaning of the action expressed by this verbal root. It will therefore be useful to linger on it. According to the opinion of some scholars, the verb ‫ מעל‬would be derived in verbal form from the segolate substantive ‫מ ַעל‬. ַ With the aid of comparative philology, it is claimed that the root can be linked to cognate lexemes in Arabic which indicate betrayal or acting in a depraved way, being unfaithful, misappropriating unjustly. At least originally, however, the verb cannot have had a technical meaning of a legal nature, as is inferred from the fact that it is used to indicate infidelity or imperfections which cannot all be reduced to the same kind or case. 110 107

Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 192. By “figura etymologica” we understand a rhetorical figure that is both grammatical and semantic which consists in the juxtaposition of two words with the same root. A good example would be Romeo who, in his dialogue with Mercutio, says: “I dreamt a dream tonight” (W. Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, I, 4). Remaining in the biblical sphere, one could cite as an example the beginning of the book of Ruth (1,1a): . . . ‫ֹפ ִטים‬ ְ ‫שׁפֹט ַהשּׁ‬ ְ ‫ימי‬ ֵ ‫ְהי ִבּ‬ ִ ‫ַוי‬ 109 The figura etymologica occurs a good 20 times in the MT, two of them in our pericope (Num 5,12.27) and one in the pericope immediately preceding (Num 5,6). For the other references, cf. R. Knierim, “‫ מעל‬m’l treulos sein”, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. E. Jenni – C. Westermann) I, (München – Zürich 1971) 920. 110 For detailed study of the meaning of the root, cf. Brown – Driver – Briggs, Lexicon, 591; Zorell, Lexicon, 457; Köhler – Baumgartner, Lexicon, II, 613 –614; H. Ringgren, “‫”מעל‬, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, VIII (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 1997) 460 –463; Knierim, “‫”מעל‬, 920 –922; Harris – Archer – Waltke, Wordbook, I, 519 –520; Clines, Dictionary, V, 400 –401; R. Wakely, “‫”מעל‬, The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament 108

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

55

As for usage, the philologists note that the negative action expressed by the root can involve both other human beings and God. 111 From the statistical point of view, it is clear that, in the vast majority of cases, the verb has God as its object, directly or indirectly: a good 29 out of a total of 35 occurrences of the verb are of this type. 112 By contrast, the cases in which the object of the action expressed by ‫ מעל‬is different – at least from a grammatical point of view – are just 6: these are Num 5,12.27; Josh 7,1; 22,20; 1 Chr 2,7; Prov 16,10. We are recording these passages in a table to facilitate a better appreciation of their characteristics and to try to offer some relevant considerations: Biblical text

Description of the content

Num 5,12: Speak to the Israelites and say to them: “If a man has a wife who has gone astray and has committed infidelity against him (‫בו ָמ ַעל‬ ֹ ‫)וּמ ֲעלָה‬ ָ ...

Unfaithfulness of the wife to the husband

Num 5,27: When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful (‫ַתּ ְמעֹל ַמ ַעל‬ ִ ‫)ו‬ to her husband, the water which bears a curse shall enter into her to produce bitterness; her belly will swell and her hips will wither and that woman shall become an object of imprecation in the midst of her people.

Unfaithfulness of the wife to the husband

Josh 7,1: But the Israelites violated (‫[ ַמ ַעל‬. . .] ‫ִמ ֲעלוּ‬ ְ ‫)ַויּ‬ the law of extermination: Achan, son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took possession of things vowed to extermination and so the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the Israelites.

Violation of the law of extermination

Josh 22,20: When Achan, son of Zerah, broke faith (‫ָמ ַעל‬ ‫)מ ַעל‬ ַ against the extermination, did not the wrath of the Lord fall on the whole community of Israel, even though he was a single individual? Did he not die for his sin?”.

Violation of the law of extermination

1 Chr 2,7: Sons of Carmi: Achar, who caused shame in Israel because he violated (‫)מ ַעל‬ ָ the extermination.

Violation of the law of extermination

Prov 16,10: The oracle is on the lips of the king, in judgement his mouth does not go astray (‫ִמ ַעל‬ ְ ‫)לא י‬. ֹ

Error in judgement

Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), II (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 1020 –1025; Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 188. 111 So, especially, Ringgren, “‫”מעל‬, 461. 112 They are: Lev 5,15.21; 26,40; Num 5,6; Deut 32,51; Josh 22,16.31; 1 Chr 5,25; 10,13; 2 Chr 12,2; 26,16.18; 28,19.22; 29,6; 30,7; 36,14; Ezra 10,2.10; Neh 1,8; 13,27; Ezek 14,13; 15,8; 17,20; 18,24; 20,27; 39,23.26; Dan 9,7.

56

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

If we look at the table, at first glance we can say that the six occasions of the verb ‫ מעל‬which we have recorded can be divided into two groups on account of their sharing the direct object of the verb. The first group is composed of the two quotations from the book of Numbers in which the root ‫ מעל‬has the betrayed husband as its object; the second group consists of the remaining four quotations which are similar on account of the religious nature which characterises the object of the verb in each case. If the homogeneous nature of the first group is quite clear, that of the second needs some clarifications. The first three quotations of this second group (Joshua and 1 Chronicles) share the same object for the verb ‫מעל‬, that is, the law of extermination; the last one (that from Proverbs) concerns the judgement pronounced by the king on whose lips there is no error because of the divine assistance which is guaranteed to him by virtue of his royal anointing. 113 Now, on account of the eminently religious nature both of the law of extermination, the ‫חֶרם‬, ֵ which was aimed at the total eradication of every trace of idolatry, as well as of the divine foundation of the monarchy presupposed by Prov 16,10, we can rightly claim that these last four passages (which we have described as the second group of the table) can be associated with the occurrences in which the verb ‫ מעל‬has God as its direct object – even if indirectly. The consequence of this would be that Num 5,12.27 would remain the only cases in which the root ‫ מעל‬does not have a “religious” use but is employed to express an offence against a man. That is undoubtedly true stricto sensu; but if we go back to what we said previously in connection with the religious repercussions of adultery, I think that we can claim without too much forcing that our pericope does not represent an exception where the meaning of the verb ‫ מעל‬is concerned: in Num 5,12.31 too, it is being used to describe a misdeed which – even if directed against a man in the concrete – is nonetheless directed also against God. From the thematic point of view, the beginning of v. 13 does not present any break in continuity with the previous verse, given that it continues with the description of the criminal case which the legal provision is going to regulate. After employing a sequence of two verbs in the feminine (‫שׂ ֶטה‬ ְ ‫ ִת‬and ‫ ָמ ֲעלָה‬in v. 12), the legislator now makes use of a verb in the masculine to indicate the content of the adulterous deed explicitly. 113 Thus, in this connection, Wakely, “‫”מעל‬, 1022: “The mouth of the king does not err when he speaks in judgment. In this idealized picture, where the monarchy is considered to be the instrument and upholder of God’s just rule on earth, the king is depicted as one who, inspired and filled with righteousness and wisdom, speaks oracularly, like a prophet, when he gives a righteous judgment”.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

57

Considering the context of the passage and especially what we have said previously in relation to adultery, this change in the gender of the verb is not insignificant: the ‫ ִאישׁ‬spoken of in v. 13 is clearly another ‫ ִאישׁ‬than the woman’s (husband), who is referred to in the exordium of the provision as the injured party who is bringing the case. This confirms the fact that the crime of adultery consists exclusively of the sexual union between a married woman and an ‫ ִאישׁ‬who is not her own husband, whereas the same is not the case vice versa. In v. 13, there is another recourse to the figura etymologica, which, as we have observed, was also in the close of the previous verse. In fact, the sexual act is described with the aid of the verb ‫שׁ ַכב‬, ָ employed in coordination with a syntagma – ‫ֶרע‬ ַ‫כבת־ז‬ ַ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ – the first element of which is homoradical in relation to the verb utilised. In one of its figurative senses the root ‫שׁכב‬, which, in the strict sense, means “to lie”, is the most frequent euphemism to describe sexual union. 114 The feminine nominal denominative of the root with which the verb forms the figura etymologica in v. 13, ‫כבה‬ ָ ְ ‫שׁ‬, ִ deserves some comment. Statistics reveal a mere 9 occurrences of this lexeme in the whole of the Hebrew Bible: 115 discounting the two occurrences in Ex 16,13 –14 where, in syntagmatic combination with the substantive ‫טל‬, ַ it is used to indicate the layer of morning dew which formed in the desert around the Israelite camp, on the remaining 7 occasions, the term has always the same semantic value, as attested by the fact that it is invariably used in syntagmatic form with the term ‫ֶרע‬ ַ‫ ז‬to indicate the emission of sperm. Although this review is relatively restricted, composed of only seven examples, the cases are significant in that they contemplate the possible circumstances bound up with the act of spermal emission, starting from general pollution (Lev 15,16.17.32; 22,4) and going on to include ejaculation in the context of sexual intercourse with a woman (Lev 15,18; 19,20; Num 5,13). The syntagma ‫ֶרע‬ ַ‫כבת־ז‬ ַ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ present in this verse (Num 5,13), therefore, comes into this second category of meaning, denoting complete sexual intercourse between a man and a woman culminating in ejaculation. Despite appearances, this not an irrelevant detail because it specifies in a highly concrete way what are the circumstances which enable the deed – that is, the carnal union between the married woman and the man who is 114 Cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 192. We note that, as well as being present in Num 5,13, the root ‫ שׁכב‬also appears in our pericope in v. 20 with the same nuance, and always in a formulation in which the subject of the verb is the man (“. . . and a man is united sexually with you. . .”). 115 These are: Ex 16,13.14; Lev 15,16.17.18.32; 19,20; 22,4; Num 5,13.

58

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

not her husband – to be interpreted as adultery. In other words, if there is no “scattering of the seed”, it is not adultery, 116 because, for the penal law in the Bible too, the principle of strict interpretation is applied. 117 The detailed and precise description of the case is continued in v. 13 with the introduction of a new, important element: the secret nature of the adulterous episode in the eyes of the husband. The man’s ignorance of the fact is expressed by the use of a passive form, ‫ֶעלַם‬ ְ ‫ נ‬with the deed being 118 the understood subject. The verb which immediately follows, ‫ִס ְתָּרה‬ ְ ‫נ‬, corresponds to the preceding one both from a semantic point of view (the meaning of the two roots is almost identical) and – at least in part – a formal one, given that here too we have a niphal. What varies is the gender of the person in question: third person masculine singular case in the first case (‫ֶעלַם‬ ְ ‫)נ‬, while ‫ִס ְתָּרה‬ ְ ‫ נ‬is a third person feminine singular. This suggests that the subject is no longer the deed but the woman who has committed it, and that the verb takes on a reflexive rather than a passive nuance; so that we would have a translation of the kind: “The fact remained hidden to the eyes of her husband and she managed to keep it hidden”. 119 On close consideration, from the point of view of content, the second statement – that is, the fact that the woman succeeds in her intention without being discovered – does not add much to the general understanding of the fact: in fact, the first statement already contains within itself the idea expressed by the second since it informs the reader of the ignorance of the fact on the husband’s part. This encourages the belief that the repetition of the same concept, rather than being intended to add particular nuances of meaning, focuses on the idea of the deception perpetrated by the cheating wife on her own husband, increasing its gravity. The detail which follows immediately – ‫ִט ָמ ָאה‬ ְ ‫ְהיא נ‬ ִ ‫ – ו‬is a further confirmation of the serious nature of the woman’s action. With extreme brevity and terseness, the legislator declares that – insofar as the woman’s 116 In his section commenting on Lev 18,20, Milgrom confirms that this reading stricto sensu was also current in medieval Judaism, citing the authority of Nachmanides in support of his statements: ““You shall not use your lying for seed”. According to the former rendering, “for seed” is essential; otherwise, “your lying” would be punishable even for an embrace or a kiss (Ramban)”, (Milgrom, Leviticus 17 –22, 1550). 117 The principle of the strict interpretation of penal laws represents one of the key points of every penal procedure from time immemorial and is made explicit by a well-known Latin adage: Favorabilia sunt amplianda, odiosa sunt restringenda. 118 Cf. Gray, Numbers, 49. 119 Gray translates “and she be undetected” (Gray, Numbers, 49), while A.B. Ehrlich gives “und sie wurde dabei nicht ertappt” (A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. Zweiter Band: Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium [Leipzig 1909] 125).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

59

act remained secret in the eyes of her husband and so she was potentially getting away with it, given that if she had been discovered she would have expected death – nevertheless, this act has the gravest of consequences, precisely those connected with falling into a state of impurity. Although, in this particular case, it is not strictly a matter of ritual impurity, that is, deriving from contact with something impure, the results foreseen are the same and should be understood as totally inauspicious, not only for the one incurring the impurity – in this case, the unfaithful woman – but also for the community to which she belongs. 120 In this connection, because of its thematic and even formal likeness to our text, it will be useful to record what is stated in Deut 24,4: Then her former husband, who dismissed her, may not again take her as his wife after she has become defiled (‫שׁר ֻה ַטּ ָמּ ָאה‬ ֶ ‫)א ֲחֵרי ֲא‬. ַ That would be an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring such guilt upon the land the Lord, your God, is giving you as a heritage.

At first sight, this decree in Deuteronomy is conceived as a private matter – that is, the sexual union of a man with a woman who is defiled. However, it turns out to have a broader dimension of a religious and social character since it is an abomination in the eyes of YHWH and, what is more, causes the land which God is giving to his people to fall into a state of sin. Thus, we can interpret the reference of Num 5,13 to the impurity contracted by the woman through her betrayal as a further confirmation of what we have said about the biblical conception of adultery which was understood not as simply a penal matter of a private nature but as a crime which, at the same time, was a sin and had consequences on the whole community. The conclusion of v. 13 underlines a further important element related to what was previously said by the law in connection with the husband’s ignorance of the matter and the woman’s ability to deceive: the absence of witnesses. This is not an insignificant addition, especially if one bears in mind the form of the legal provision we are examining. In fact, as we have said and as we shall have further opportunity to comment, Num 5,11 –31 is recording the information and laws concerning the performance of an ordeal, not for the carrying out of an ordinary penal judgement: one of the elements of difference distinguishing the two procedures is precisely, in the case of the ordeal, the absence of witnesses who can provide evidence 120

Thus, both Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 192, and Milgrom, Numbers, 37 (with the reference to Deut 24,4).

60

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

about the course of events and attest the guilt of the accused woman beyond all doubt. In the other case, a formal accusation of adultery, supported by authoritative testimony – that is, by the united testimony of at least two witnesses, according to the provisions of Num 35,30 and Deut 17,6; 19,5 – would have involved almost automatically and inevitably the condemnation to death of the guilty woman, according to what is foreseen and prescribed in Lev 20,10 and Deut 22,22 –27. 121 In conclusion to v. 13, the absence of witnesses is followed by another incidental statement which has the woman as its subject once again: ‫ְהוא‬ ִ‫ו‬ ‫שׂה‬ ָ ‫ִת ָפּ‬ ְ ‫לא נ‬. ֹ The interpretation offered for this conclusion is twofold: some commentators interpret the third person feminine singular of the niphal perfect of the verb ‫תפשׂ‬, which literally means “to hold, apprehend”, in terms of “not being forced”, claiming that an interpretation that sticks too closely to the basic sense of the word would only produce a tautology with respect to the previous statement on the woman’s ability to deceive; 122 others, however, hold that the verb is to be rendered along the lines of the proper meaning of the root, and so as “she was not taken / apprehended”. 123 On the basis of the fact that the verb ‫ תפשׂ‬is frequently employed to describe the capture of criminals, enemies and fugitives, B. Levine justifies this second option as the one most consistent with the context, and he responds to the objection on the grounds of the alleged tautology by claiming that a certain degree of repetition should not appear out of place in a legal provision like this. Moreover, he observes – quite correctly in my opinion – that if one had to go for the interpretation of “not being forced”, one would be introducing into the formulation of the case the woman’s consent to the sexual relations as a deciding element for the existence of the fault or not. Levine rightly points out that this would be an unnecessary introduction since in no case would a woman who was the victim of carnal violence be responsible for the impurity deriving from it:

121 For a detailed study on the role and nature of witnesses in biblical law, see M. Greenberg, “Witness”, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. An Illustrated Encyclopedia (ed. G.A. Buttrick), IV (Nashville, TN 1962) 864; B. Wells, The Law of Testimony in the Pentateuchal Codes (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4; Wiesbaden 2004) 82 –108. 122 So, for example, Milgrom, Numbers, 37. However, we should notice that, on the following page, he also leaves room for the plausibility of the alternative interpretation, actually ending up in leaning towards the latter on the basis of what he himself maintained in Excursus 9. 123 Thus Gray, Numbers, 49; Budd, Numbers, 60; Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 193.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

61

thus, it is much more plausible to interpret the clause ‫שׂה‬ ָ ‫ִת ָפּ‬ ְ ‫לא נ‬ ֹ ‫ְהוא‬ ִ ‫ ו‬as “and she was not taken / apprehended”. 124 According to the plan which we have adopted to represent the structure of the pericope, v. 14 concludes the description of the criminal case (vv. 12b –14) with very important information. In general and summary terms, we could say that it establishes the conditions why it is suitable to proceed with the ritual of the ordeal which is going to be introduced in the following verses since it introduces the main theme of the whole provision: the husband’s jealousy. The centrality of this theme for the procedure we are studying is quickly dealt with: if the criminal case in question were that of adultery pure and simple, as established by Num 5,11 –31, there would be no reason for it because it would be something already clearly and definitively laid down elsewhere in the Torah. However, the clause of v. 13 has told us of the absence of direct witnesses (husband included) of the adultery, taking the case into the generic category of a suspected crime rather than the eminently juridico-penal one of a crime proper. 125 That is what justifies the need for the legislator to introduce a means of resolving the case alternative to the regular process for adultery through the provision contained in our pericope: this is precisely the role of the ordeal. That is why, and by virtue of what has just been said, Num 5,11 –31 can rightly be described as the “ordeal of jealousy”. 3.2.3. The ordeal in the Ancient Near East We have just described a clear juridical distinction between adultery, understood strictly as a deed of penal significance which involves the setting up of a trial of the one who is tainted with it, and the suspicion of adultery, which is not a penal matter because it is not supported by 124

Cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 192 –193. In itself, in fact, the “suspicion of a crime” is not sufficient material to constitute a crime. In the classical legal jargon of the United States, suspicion is defined as “a belief to the disadvantage of another, accompanied by a doubt. Without proof, suspicion, of itself, is evidence of nothing. When a crime has been committed, an arrest may be made when, 1st, there are such circumstances as induce a strong presumption of guilt; as being found in possession of goods recently stolen, without giving a probable account of having obtained the possession honestly; 2dly, the absconding of the party accused; 3dly, being found in company of known offenders; 4thly, living an idle disorderly life, without any apparent means of support. In such cases the arrest must be made as in other cases” (J. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary. Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America with References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law, II [Philadelphia, PA 1839] 424. My italics). 125

62

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

probative evidence. Since it represents the stratagem employed by the biblical legislation of Num 5,11 –31 to clarify the guilt or not of the woman suspected of infidelity by her own husband, before proceeding with the exegesis of the pericope, it will be useful to say something about the nature and general characteristics of the ordeal in the Ancient Near East. 126 As has emerged between the lines of what we have said so far about the social customs in general and the juridical practices in particular of the peoples of the Ancient Near East, the ordeal was an alternative instrument to the ordinary penal trial which was not applicable in some specific cases for the juridical reasons mentioned above. In particular, it was aimed at clarifying the truth of a fact the dynamics of which could not be corroborated by the coinciding testimony of at least two people. 127 That it is an alternative practice to ordinary judgement is clear from the fact that it has a completely different nature. The penal process is aimed at clarifying the dynamics of the facts and consequently attributing the responsibility for them to each of the parties, and so results substantially in a verdict of guilt or innocence in re. The ordeal, on the other hand, invokes divine intervention to establish whether what the person who is subjected to it

126 I must say at once that in the brief treatment of the ordeal which I am preparing to make, I shall be deliberately leaving aside those aspects which characterise the phenomenon in the medieval and modern periods. I shall focus, rather, on the practice in the Ancient Near East. That corresponds to the plan of this present work which is an exegetical study of Num 5,11 –31 and not a monograph on the ordeal, but also to the fact that there is a substantial difference between the ordeal as practised in antiquity and as it existed in the medieval and modern periods. In this connection, it could be interesting to note the opinion of J.E. Löwy, who describes the difference between the biblical ritual of the sotah and the medieval ordeal like this: in the medieval ordeal, the accused was subjected to the risk of physical wounds resulting from contact with natural elements such as water, fire, wild animals etc. In the biblical ritual, on the other hand, the only natural element employed is the water which the suspected woman is called on to drink. This element did not represent per se a danger to the woman’s life which – in the case of guilt – would end up being threatened by the procedure only by virtue of the supernatural power evoked by the curses and oaths pronounced in the ritual. Cf. S. Eidelberg, “Trial by Ordeal in Medieval Jewish History. Laws, Customs and Attitudes”, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 46/47 (1979 –1980) 105 –120. For the detailed study of the phenomenon in the medieval period, in addition to the previous article, I refer to R. Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water. The Medieval Judicial Ordeal (New York – Oxford 1986), as also to the more recent contribution of P. Leeson, “Ordeals”, Working Paper. Mercatus Center at George Mason University (2010) with considerable bibliographical references. 127 According to S. Allam, as well as in the absence of conclusive proof, recourse to the ordeal was contemplated in cases where “les juges se sentent incapables de régler une affaire donnée, à cause de son énormité ou caractère” (S. Allam, “Sur l’ordalie en Egypte pharaonique”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 34 [1991] 362).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

63

declares is true or not. In this way, the ordeal does not actually enter into an examination of the res like the ordinary penal process. 128 The most ancient witnesses to this practice go back to the middle of the III millennium B.C. 129 and extend throughout the course of Mesopotamian history, at least until the end of the neo-Assyrian period (end of the VII cent. B.C.). As B. Wells notes, the arrival of the neo-Babylonian period marked the disappearance of the ordeal from Mesopotamian jurisprudence without the use of this procedure reappearing. 130 Despite their conspicuous conceptual closeness, the ordeal cannot be reduced simplistically to the juridical sphere because its phenomenology shows it to be, on the whole, a clear sociological event, embracing areas that go beyond the law, such as, for example, religion and morality. 131 On the basis of what has been inferred from the documentary sources which we possess, 132 the chief characteristic of the ordeal as practised among the Mesopotamian peoples consists in the almost unanimous employment of the natural element with which it was linked, that is, flowing water. In fact, whereas other peoples of different latitudes and above all of different periods characterised the practice of the ordeal with recourse to a fair variety of elements such as fire, iron, stones, wild beasts etc., the populations of the Ancient Near East made almost exclusive use of flowing water to discern the divine judgement in a case which could not be resolved by ordinary judicial means, in the absence of conclusive

128 Illuminating in this connection is the etymological discussion of G. Cardascia on the origins of the word “ordeal”. He claims that ““ordalie”, du latin médiéval ordalium, apparaît comme un abrégé de l’allemand Gottesurteil, “jugement de dieu”. Sans son premier composant le vocable semble avoir perdu un élément essential et celui qui l’on ha conservé n’est pas parfaitement propre. En effet, l’ordalie vise moins à obtenir du dieu une sentence que la preuve susceptible de la fonder” (G. Cardascia, “L’ordalie fluviale dans la Mésopotamie ancienne”, Revue historique de droit français et étranger [1922-] 71 [1993] 169). 129 Cf. C. Wilcke, Early Ancient Near Eastern Law. A history of Its Beginnings – The Early Dynastic and Sargonic Periods (Winona Lake, IN 2007) 168.For a complete and systematic bibliography, arranged by subjects, I refer to T.S. Frymer-Kensky, The Judicial Ordeal in Ancient Near East, Yale University Dissertations 1977, 614 –653. 130 Cf. Wells, “Cultic”, 209 –211. 131 Describing the phenomenological sphere of the ordeal, J. Bottéro speaks of a “milieu ‘total’”, asserting that “elle se trouve articulée à la fois sur quantité d’institutions religieuses, sociales, juridiques, ‘morales’, et sur toute une façon de voir et sentir les choses” (J. Bottéro, “L’ordalie en Mésopotamie ancienne”, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 11 [1981] 1005). 132 The Mesopotamian sources which contain references to the ordeal are more than a hundred: a good number of them are cited in Bottéro, “L’ordalie”, 1010 n. 1; others in the rest of the same article.

64

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

evidence. 133 To have a thorough understanding of the importance of this flow of water, it will be useful to bear in mind that, in the context of the ordeal, the river in question was considered like a divinity, something signalled by the use of a particular onomastic in cuneiform writing. 134 Having established the natural element chiefly used, namely, flowing water, we shall seek to have a better understanding of three things: what were the specific reasons for setting the ordeal in motion; what was the nature of the procedure; and who was subjected to it. We shall start with the reasons for having recourse to the divine judgement of the ordeal. According to the most ancient legislative collection in our possession, the so-called Code of Ur-Nammu, 135 use of the ordeal was prescribed for cases of witchcraft – at least according to the opinion of some 136 – or adultery, something that is deduced indirectly from two provisions which are actually intended to regulate the compensation due 133 I describe as “almost exclusive” the recourse to water as the essential element of the ordeal because there are rare attestations of the use of different elements such as “l’attouchement de la langue (par un métal incandescent?) ou la manipulation de talismans, censés chargés d’un dangereux pouvoir surnaturel”. However, as Bottéro goes on to argue, the allusions to such practices which can be found in the sources are rare and not so clear whereas the evidence for the use of flowing water for the performance of the ordeal is overwhelming (cf. Bottéro, “L’ordalie”, 1012). 134 Cf. Bottéro, “L’ordalie”, 1012 –1013. In addition to the already cited article by Bottéro, see on this subject: A.I. Lieberman, Studies in the Trial by River Ordeal in Ancient Near East During the Second Millennium BCE, Brandeis University Dissertations 1969; J. Klíma, “L’ordalie par le fleuve en Élam (d’aprés les documents akkadiens de Suse et de Huhnur˘ ˘ , “A Ma¯ lamir)”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 66 (1972) 39 –59; D.I. Owen Unique Late Sargonic River Ordeal in the John Frederick Lewis Collection”, A Scientific Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs (ed. E. Leichty – M. de J. Ellis – P. Gerardi) (Philadelphia, PA 1998) 305 –311; B. Wells, “Ordeals, ancient Near East”, The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, IX (ed. R.S. Bagnall – K. Brodersen – C.B. Champion – E. Erskine – S.R. Huebner) (Malden, MA 2013) 4928 –4929. 135 This legislative collection owes its name to the Sumerian king (otherwise transliterated as Ur-Namma) who founded the third dynasty of Ur and lived around the end of the XXII cent. B.C. Some scholars claim that the paternity of the collection belongs in reality to Ur-Nammu’s son, Shulgi, who reigned over Ur immediately after this father at the beginning of the XXI cent. B.C. (probably between 2094 –2047). Cf. Roth, Collections, 13 –14; Ska, “Le droit”, 14 –15. 136 As can be appreciated on account of the square brackets in the following text, the word “sorcery” – among other things, central in the definition of the case to which the ordeal is applied – is the product of a conjecture by S.N. Kramer, one of the editors of the cuneiform text, in comparison with the laws of Hammurabi (precisely, col § 2). J.J. Finkelstein, who very significantly introduces the subject by noting that “the difficulties in this section are at present insoluble”, warns that Kramer’s reading has no textual support, and is not consistent with the amount of the pecuniary punishment prescribed (three shekels of silver) which would be inadequate for the case (cf. Finkelstein, “Laws”, 74). For his part, M.T. Roth points out that T. Frymer-Kensky also understands that the provision has to do with “sorcery”, but, at the same time, observes that it is not exempt from doubts, especially on

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

65

in the case where the river ordeal declared the accused persons innocent. We read thus in the two laws in question: 137 lines 270 –280: If a man accused another man of [sorcery] and he (i.e. the accuser) had him brought to the river-ordeal, but the river-ordeal proved him innocent, the one who brought him (i.e. the accuser) must pay three shekels of silver. 138 lines 281 –290: If a man had accused the wife of a(nother) man of fornication but the river-ordeal had proved her innocent, the one who had accused her must pay onethird mina of silver. 139

If, as we have seen, the information about the ordeal which we infer from the laws of Ur-Nammu are indirect, the “Code of Hammurabi” provides us with first-hand information about the subject, for it legislates on the procedure to be adopted in the case of absence of evidence in the two cases mentioned above, sorcery and adultery. This procedure is in fact the ordeal by river. This is the text of the law relating to sorcery: § 2: If a seignior brought a charge of sorcery against a(nother) seignior, but has not proved it, the one against whom the charge of sorcery was brought, upon going to the river, shall throw himself into the river, and if the river has then overpowered him, his accuser shall take over his estate; if the river has shown that seignior to be innocent and he has accordingly come forth safe, the one who brought the charge of sorcery against him shall be put to death, while the one who threw himself into the river shall take over the estate of his accuser. 140

The importance of this law for the reconstruction of the phenomenon of the ordeal is quite clear: in addition to telling us about the juridical base of the procedure, it informs us of the possible consequences and final outcomes which flow from the execution of this provision. The juridical base is quickly accounted for, and does not represent any novelty with respect to what we have seen so far: it is a question of the absence of evidence. The consequences of the procedure are interpreted as a judicial verdict, it being understood that the judge in this case is the “divine river”: account of questions of thematic coherence with the immediately preceding and following provisions which are united among themselves in being concerned with offences of a sexual nature. For the details of the argument, cf. Roth, Collections, 21 n. 12. 137 In citing the laws of Ur-Nammu, I am indicating the lines rather than the number of the sections because this second kind of numeration is not consistent in the different critical editions of the texts which, however, respect the number of the lines. For details and explanations of the question, cf. J.J. Finkelstein, “The Laws of Ur-Nammu”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 22 (1968 –1969) 66; Roth, Collections, 14; ANET, 523. 138 Finkelstein, “Laws”, 68. Cf. also Bottéro, “L’ordalie”, 1020; Roth, Collections, 18. 139 Finkelstein, “Laws”, 68. Cf. Roth, Collections, 18. 140 ANET, 166.

66

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

the possibility that the accused be swallowed up by the river corresponds to a verdict of guilt while the possibility that he or she survives the power of the waters is equivalent to an acquittal. The final outcomes are the direct product of this twofold possibility deriving from the ordeal: in the case of a result unfavourable to the one who was subjected to the divine judgement, the accuser was able to take possession of the goods of the accused who had now perished in the trial; however, in the case where the accused was favoured by the river, the accuser was put to death for false testimony and the accused could take possession of the goods of his or her accuser. Here is the text relating to the suspicion of adultery: § 132: If the finger was pointed at the wife of a seignior because of another man, but she has not been caught while lying with the other man, she shall throw herself into the river for the sake of her husband. 141

Even if it contains rather less detail than the law about the accusation of sorcery, this law too is unambiguous in establishing recourse to the ordeal for cases of suspected adultery, confirming that – as usual, one could say – the basis of the procedure is the absence of direct testimony. The third legislative collection from which we can glean information about the reasons for recourse to the ordeal in the Ancient Near East is that of the Middle Assyrian Laws. This legislation refers to the “divine judgement of the river” in three specific cases, all recorded on “table A”. Here is their text in translation: § 17: If a seignior has said to a(nother) seignior, “People have lain repeatedly with your wife,” since there were no witnesses, they shall make an agreement (and) go to the river (for the water ordeal). 142 § 22: If in the case of a seignior’s wife one not her father, nor her brother, nor her son, but another person, has caused her to take to the road, but he did not know that she was a seignior’s wife, he shall (so) swear and he shall also pay two talents of lead to the woman’s husband. If [he knew that she was a seignior’s wife], he shall pay the damages [and swear], “I never lay with her.” However, if the [seignior’s] wife [has declared], “He did lie with me,” when the man has paid the damages to the seignior, he shall go [to the] river, although he had no (such) agreement; if he has turned back from the river, they shall treat him as the woman’s husband treated his wife. 143 § 24: If a seignior’s wife, having deserted her husband, has entered the house of an Assyrian, whether it was in the same city or in some neighboring city, where 141

ANET, 171. ANET, 181. 143 ANET, 181. 142

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

67

he set her up in a house, (and) she stayed with the mistress of the house (and) spent the night (there) three (or) four times, without the master of the house knowing that the seignior’s wife was staying in his house, (and) later that woman has been caught, the master of the house whose wife deserted him shall cut off (the ears of) his wife but take her back; they shall cut off the ears of the man’s wife with whom his wife stayed; if he wishes, her husband may pay three talents thirty minas of lead as the (redemption) price for her, or if he wishes, they may take his wife away. However, if the master of the house knew that the seignior’s wife was staying in his house with his wife, he shall pay the (extra) third. However, if he has denied (it) by declaring, “I did not know (it),” they shall go to the river (for the water ordeal). However, if the man in whose house the (other) man’s wife was staying has turned back from the river, he shall pay the (extra) third; if the seignior whose wife deserted him has turned back from the river, he is quit since he fulfilled the total (requirement) for the river (ordeal). However, if the seignior whose wife deserted him does not cut off (the ears of) his wife (and) takes her back, there is no punishment at all. 144

The information that comes from the first law we have recorded (§ 17) is that, just as happens in the legislation both of Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi, recourse to the river ordeal is triggered by the suspicion of adultery nourished in the husband by extensive gossip. Since it is a matter of suspicion, recourse to the judicial process ordinarily prescribed for adultery is not applicable because there is no direct attestation of the fact on the part of witnesses. However, if the circumstances envisaged are quite clear (the suspicion of adultery), the formulation of the law turns out to be somewhat general in laying down the details of the procedure: in fact, there is no clear understanding as to which of the two, husband or wife, has to be subjected to the ordeal by river. However, by analogy with the previous legislation, we can suppose with a certain degree of probability that it is the accused woman, not the husband, who is to undergo the trial of the river. What is new and interesting in comparison with the previous legislation of a similar kind is the evocation of a certain kind of agreement of a binding nature 145 between husband and wife, prior to the ordeal. In this case too, there are no details to shed light on the nature and mode of this agreement. According to Bottéro, it has to be excluded that the previous agreement spoken of by the law is to be understood as a form of resolution of the dispute alternative to the ordeal in the sense that the trial would have to be carried out only if the spouses did not 144

ANET, 182. At least according to Roth who translates the passage in question thus: “They shall draw up a binding agreement” (Roth, Collections, 159). 145

68

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

reach an understanding. Rather, the agreement represents a preliminary to the performance of the ordeal, aimed at negotiating the way it is carried out. 146 In the eyes of the modern reader, the case contemplated by § 22 could appear strange: in fact, the case described is that of a man who takes on a journey a woman with whom he has no ties of affinity either direct (father, brother, son) or acquired (husband). It is clear that, in the legislator’s mind, “taking a woman on a journey” corresponded with having intimate relations with her: hence the reason for the legal provision. This contemplates two specific circumstances: the first is characterised by the claim of ignorance of the conjugal status of the woman on the part of the accused man who is bound to clear himself by pronouncing an oath and concurrently paying a fine to the husband of the woman with whom he has “journeyed”. The second circumstance, however, contemplates the case of a man who declares – contrary to what was the common perception of the time, as we have seen – that he has not had sexual relations with the woman with whom he has “journeyed”, by whom, however, he is accused of having had relations. On the basis of the law, what is prescribed in this second circumstance – in addition to the payment of the monetary compensation to the husband, as in the previous case – is recourse to the ordeal of the river in order to establish which of the two is telling the truth. The conclusion of the law allows it to be understood clearly that the refusal to undergo the ordeal would correspond to a declaration of guilt. The law in § 24 tackles the sphere of the relations between husband and wife, even if here we do not have a formal case of adultery committed or alleged but a rather complicated case when it comes to the formulation of the offence. In fact, it foresees the circumstance of a woman who separates from her own husband to set up in the house of another member of the Assyrian people, including herself among the members of his harem for a certain time (quantified by the law as three or four days) 147 without his being aware of having the wife of another man under his roof. As its 146 Bottéro derives this theory from observing a detail: in the case presented in § 22, because of the absolute gravity of the case, the law prevents any kind of agreement between the two litigants prior to the ordeal. The argument is that what is prohibited in serious cases can be conceded in less serious ones such as we can consider that described in § 17, given that it is based – usually – on gossip (cf. Bottéro, “L’ordalie”, 1025). 147 Literally, the text says: “She stayed with the mistress of the house”, without further details. I am using the word “harem” in the proper sense of the term, as it was used in the medieval and modern Islamic spheres for the place reserved for the women. Thus, I am not attributing to it the generic value of “multitude of women at one man’s disposal”

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

69

first provision, the law enacts that, when the woman is discovered, her husband is to mutilate her by cutting off her ears and not to receive her back in his house. The same fate awaits the wife of the man in whose harem the “fugitive” woman is established, although she does not necessarily have to be repudiated, the matter remaining at the husband’s discretion. However, the law goes further in contemplating an additional circumstance, namely, that the master of the house in which the “fugitive” woman is entertained is aware of the woman’s conjugal state. In this case, if he admits the fact, he must compensate the deceived husband with a monetary sum; if, on the other hand, he denies things, then the law lays down recourse to the trial by river. Again, the law provides that each of the two men can refuse to be subjected to the divine judgement of the river, although with different consequences for both. 148 Beyond what has been said so far in relation to the rationale and applicability of the procedure, we have very little information enabling us to describe in detail how the ordeal was actually carried out, and, among other things, the little information that we have is neither consistent nor conclusive. What can be said is that the cuneiform texts represent recourse to the ordeal with the expression “go to the divine river”, an expression which – beyond the merely basic information indicating the centrality of the flowing water, as we have seen – is interpreted differently by scholars. According to Bottéro, the expression implies that the place chosen had characteristics such as to enable the person who had to subject himself to the ordeal to dive into the flowing water. He asserts that some texts of the middle of the II millennium B.C. use the expression “go to the bank”, meaning by that the bank from which those who had to be subjected to the river ordeal were thrown. However, this was not just any bank or which the expression sometimes has in contemporary colloquial language with sexual connotations. I agree, in fact, with Bottéro’s thesis. He claims that the law in question “ne pouvait naturellement être question d’adultère, mais seulement de la soustraction d’une épouse au gré souverain de son seigneur et maître” (Bottéro, “L’ordalie”, 1026). In my opinion, the reason for this statement is found in the quality and quantity of the punishment prescribed – which would be too small if it were a case of adultery – as also in the possibility of commuting the ordeal with the payment of compensation. In fact, as we have seen, cases of full-blown adultery foresee the death of the guilty party while, if the accused is declared innocent, they envisage the imposition of the divine judgement which does not remain at the discretion of the accused. 148 If the refusal comes from the one who has received the “fugitive” woman under his roof, he must pay her husband compensation in cash; if, on the other hand, it is the husband of the “fugitive” woman who refuses the ordeal, he does not incur any punishment, although he is bound to pay for the cost of the ordeal.

70

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

cliff. Since this was not simply a juridical procedure but a many-sided phenomenon with a markedly religious connotation, it had to be carried out in a sacred place as is indicated by some sources which refer to the presence of a priest or other dignitary set over the riverside sanctuary which was to serve as the theatre for the ordeal. 149 Others, such as J.M. Durand, hold that the trial consisted in crossing the river by swimming, remaining submerged for a particular distance without emerging from the depths of the river. If the one who had been subjected to the ordeal managed to come out of the trial unharmed, finally re-emerging from the water into which he dived, the judgement of the divine river was favourable to him and so he was exonerated from the accusation. 150 For his part, G. Cardascia questions the interpretations of Bottéro and Durand both for their location of the ordeal and for its procedure in practice. Cardascia’s argument emphasises the fact that, both being Frenchspeakers, these two scholars interpret the verb šalû in its strict sense as “dive into”: this inevitably influences their mental shape of the place in which the practice was carried out – a cliff-like river bank – given that “diving” requires certain conditions. According to Cardascia, however, the verb has the more general meaning of “submerge oneself ”, something which, unfortunately is not grasped in French, which – by contrast with English and Italian, for example – does not distinguish between these two shades of the verb. 151 Reinterpreting the text on this basis, Cardascia claims that the ordeal procedure took place like this: the accused person was summoned to enter the water on foot, walking deeper until the water reached a depth such that it was possible to claim that the accused was “in the hands of the divine river”. In confirmation of the fact that the one undergoing the ordeal did not have to dive into the water but immerse himself in it in order to cross it, he cites a particular document 152 which declares that the trial consisted in the fact that two individuals crossed the river weighed down with a millstone. Now, it is quite clear that this requires a crossing of the water on foot not by swimming because that 149

Cf. Bottéro, “L’ordalie”, 1012; 1029 –1030; 1045 –1046. Cf. J.-M. Durand, “L’ordalie”, Archives épistolaires de Mari, I / 1 (Archives royales de Mari 26/1; Paris 1988) 509 –539. 151 In English, we have “to dive” and “to immerse / submerge”; in Italian “tuffarsi” and “immergersi”. 152 Cf. D. Charpin, “Le champions, la meule et le fleuve, ou le rachat du terroir de Puzurrân au roi d’Ešnunna par le roi de Mari Yahdun-Lim”, Florilegium marianum. Recueil d’études en l’honneur de Michel Fleury (ed. J.-M. Durand) (Mémoires de N. A. B.U. 1; Paris 1992) 29 –38. 150

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

71

would have been impossible for anyone to keep afloat while bearing a millstone. 153 Starting from the work of Durand, W. Heimpel reinterprets it by modifying some of its assumptions by virtue of considerations bound up particularly with the nature of the territory in which the ordeal was carried out. 154 The material published by Durand shows that, within the range of the territorial influence of the city of Mari, the region of the city of H¯ıt 155 was the best of possible locations for the performance of an ordeal to the extent that people came there for this reason from the cities of Carchemish, Aleppo and Elam as well as, naturally, from Mari. According to Heimpel, however, the convenience of this location for the ordeal in the territory of H¯ıt derived not so much from the fact that the city rose above the banks of the Euphrates as from the fact that it was surrounded by springs of bitumen for which, among other things, the city was renowned. 156 These springs poured out toxic gas, and the temperature within them was very high, rendering them very dangerous for people. 157 Heimpel proposes that it was precisely these lethal springs which were the test to which people exposed to the judgement of the divine ordeal were subjected. If this interpretation is accepted, then this inevitably changes the yardsticks with which to measure the outcome of the test by comparison with those proposed by the scholars we have studied previously. In the case of what we could rename as “ordeal by bitumen”, remaining immersed in the deathly spring would have been the signal of the death of one undergoing the test; the re-emerging – considered as a “rejection” (in this case, a wholly positive one) on the part 153

Cf. Cardascia, “L’ordalie”, 179 –180. Cf. W. Heimpel, “The River Ordeal in Hit”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 90 (1996) 7 –18. 155 It is a city still existing today in the Iraqi province of Al-Anbar whose origins go back to the Babylonian period (around the XIX cent. B.C.). “On the Euphrates River, H¯ıt is a small walled town built on two mounds on the site of the ancient city of Is. In ancient times the town was known for its bitumen wells which were used as far back as 3000 years ago to include the building of Babylon and for caulking boats. H¯ıt also became a frontier fortress for Assyria. Now H¯ıt is a marketplace for agricultural produce and oil pipelines to the Mediterranean Sea which cross the Euphrates there” (“H¯ıt”, The New Encyclopædia Britannica, V [Chicago 1980] 66). 156 On this subject, see also S. Lackenbacher, “Le bitume, un enjeu à l’époque d’Hammurabi”, Revue des Études Anciennes 94 (1992) 325 –336. 157 Heimpel records some testimonies of travellers of the XVI cent. of our era, who happened to be in the place in question and described the environment thus: “Every one of these springs makes a noise unto a smith’s forge in blowing and puffing out of this matter which never ceaseth night or day [. . .] The Mores and the Arabians of that place say that that hole is the mouth of hell” (Heimpel, “River”, 8). 154

72

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

of the “divine river” – would have marked his deliverance and, at the same time, the rebuttal of the accusations which he had received. Finally, a word about the persons involved in the ritual. In speaking of the location and the way of carrying out the ordeal, we have already been able to point to the fact that some of the sources refer to the presence of a priest or another dignitary entrusted with the guardianship of the river sanctuary where the divine judgement took place. 158 We shall try, now, to understand better who and what were the subjects personally involved in carrying out this divinatory practice. Not infrequently, in describing the “the pilgrimage to the divine river”, the documents indicate the involvement of more than one person in carrying out the procedure envisaged in this expression. It is not clear if all the people actively participating in this “pilgrimage” (in other words, the parties concerned) were then called upon to carry out the ordeal personally, that is, by immersing themselves physically in the water. 159 What we can say with reasonable certainty, by reason of what we have read in the two laws we have quoted above, is that Hammurabi’s legislation prescribes that only the accused is to be immersed in the river while the fate of the accuser depends on the final outcome of the ordeal. 160 A rather interesting piece of information from the tablets is that, in around a third of the cases described, those who are actually subjected to the ordeal do not undergo it in person but through a third party. We do not know the exact reasons for this kind of delegation: by employing a conceptual analogy with what happened in more recent times and in contexts completely different from this one, we can presume that we are dealing with something similar to the practice of those medieval lords who declared themselves absolved from practices of penance or piety by imposing them on their servants, or even on anyone who was prepared to carry them out in their place. 161 158

Cf. Bottéro, “L’ordalie”, 1012; 1029 –1030; 1045 –1046. Speaking of the ordeal in general and not just the ordeal by river, G. Cardascia distinguishes between unilateral and bilateral ordeals and explains their differences and details. Cf. Cardascia, “L’ordalie”, 170 –171. On the same subject, cf. Frymer-Kensky, Judicial Ordeal, 11 –16. 160 Concerning the fate of the accuser, for the sake of completeness, we should add that this is explicitly true only for the case of sorcery (§ 2), in which it is said clearly that a result of the ordeal which is favourable to the accused will cause the transfer of the punishment to the accuser: nothing similar is said of the husband if the woman turns out to be acquitted by the “river god” by surviving the ordeal. 161 This is what happened in the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages when the system of the compositio began to come into force, that is, the redemption of one’s own punishment 159

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

73

Our long parenthesis on the ordeal in the Ancient Near East enables us to continue now with our exegetical analysis of Num 5,11 –31 aided by a body of information which acts as a conceptual background, an ideal frame through which to read and interpret some of the key elements of the procedure described within the pericope, which, as we have seen, does not always appear linear and immediately comprehensible insofar as it is composed of heterogeneous elements (on the basis of the working hypothesis that we have chosen, at least two: the ordeal and the oath, with the addition of the offering). Especially in the exegetical analysis of the sections relating to the preparation of the ritual (vv. 15 –18) and its performance (vv. 25 –28), we shall be able to verify in the text the presence of elements of continuity as well as ones that are new with respect to what we have learned about the ordeal in the Ancient Near East. As we said at the beginning of our analysis of v. 14, the occasion for this excursus was prompted by the reference to the surge of jealousy which overwhelms the woman’s husband, causing the inauguration of the whole procedure. The irrational, impulsive and, above all, subjective nature of the husband’s interior impulse, we reflected, is precisely what warrants the recourse to a quasi-judicial procedure such as the ordeal rather than to the canonical penal process for adultery. We turn now to analyse in what way and with what terms the text describes the interior impulse which is described by the Hebrew text of Num 5,14 as ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬, ַ or “spirit of jealousy”. As it appears, this syntagma is found in the MT solely within our text, and, in fact, twice in Num 5,14 and once in Num 5,30 (on the recapitulatory function of which we shall speak later). In order to understand its meaning better, we shall try to unravel the two elements of which the syntagma is composed. This should help us to identify the specific contribution which each of them guarantees to the whole. The substantive ‫רוּח‬ ַ represents a term which is ambiguous and polyvalent in itself, one which can leave the way open to quite contrasting interpretations. It is necessary, therefore, to make the effort to clarify its

through the payment of a sum of money. By the very nature of the thing, it was the poor who lent themselves to this type of transfer, or, also, the monks to whose monasteries the nobles gave lands or possessions in exchange for punishment. For a detailed study, cf. C. Vogel, Il peccatore e la penitenza nel Medioevo (Leumann, Torino 21988); M. Sodi – R. Salvarani (ed.), La penitenza tra I e II millennio. Per una comprensione delle origini della Penitenzieria Apostolica (Città del Vaticano 2012).

74

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

meaning in the context of our passage as far as possible. 162 With a macroscopic generalisation, one can say that ‫רוּח‬ ַ has basically two meanings in the literal sense and one in a figurative sense: in the literal sense, it means “wind” or “breath”, while, in a metaphorical sense, it is generally translated with the term “spirit”. If there is anything shared by these categories, it is precisely the aleatory and enigmatic nature of the realities which they evoke. For the most part, all of these can somehow be reduced to a movement, now in a physical, now in a figurative sense. 163 When the word is employed in an absolute sense, the absence of references of another kind obliges us to refer to the context to understand its value. In Num 11,17.25b, as in other similar cases, 164 the employment of the term refers to a person who – according to the circumstances and always through supernatural intervention – possesses the ‫רוּח‬, ַ or is filled with it, or is deprived of it, and it is accustomed to indicate an extraordinary quality which renders the protagonist suitable to fulfil the mission entrusted to him. Z. Weisman observes that, on the phenomenological level, there is a substantial difference between the ‫רוּח‬ ַ understood as something within people (corresponding in practice to the idea of the “heart” 165), and the ‫רוּח‬ ַ understood as something external, which transcends the individual and which, if transmitted, causes a profound link among those who share in it. We can ascribe to the first category the occurrences in which the ‫רוּח‬ ַ of the protagonist is object of a formula similar to that contained in Jer 51,11: “YHWH is stirring up the spirit of the king of Media because his plan for Babylon is to destroy it”. To the second type, on the other hand, Weisman ascribes two episodes which are linked by the fact that, in both, the ‫רוּח‬ ַ is perceived as something external to the person and is presented as the bearer of a “reality” from one subject to another or one group to another, as in the case of the seventy elders: this is the case in Num 11,16 –17.24 –25 and 2 Kgs 2,1 –15, which share the 162 On the analysis of this term, I refer to what I have written (with particular reference to Numbers 11) in Cocco, Cattedra, 179 –183. 163 Cf. R. Albertz – C. Westermann, “‫”רוּח‬, in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. E. Jenni – C. Westermann) II, (München – Zürich 1976) 728. In his analysis of the use of this term in the first seven books of the Bible, P.-É. Dion identifies five types of usage: wind, vital principal, psychological notion, disposition coming from God, and “breath of YHWH” which is poured out on some people. Cf. P.-É. Dion, “La rwh. dans l’Heptateuque. La protestation pour la liberté du prophétisme en Nb 11,26 –29”, Science et Esprit 42 (1990) 171 –176. 164 Cited by Dion, “rwh. ”, 174. 165 Z. Weisman refers to the places where the two terms appear to be employed in a synonymous manner: cf. Z. Weisman, “The Personal Spirit as Imparting Authority”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93 (1981) 225 n. 2.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

75

theme of the transmission of authority. 166 It is a different situation when the term is constructed in the form of a syntagma with another word. As is clear, in this case considerable importance in the identification of the meaning of the term we are analysing is assumed by the elements which accompany it and specify its semantic value. Among these cases, we note for their frequency the syntagmas ‫רוּח יְהוָה‬, ַ or ‫רוּח ֱאל ִֹהים‬ ַ or again ‫רוּח‬ ַ ‫חיִּים‬, ַ to cite only the best known and recurrent examples which do not need any special effort to be understood. In our specific case of Num 5,14 (and the same can be said for Num 5,30 which is a repetition of it, as we shall see), the full understanding of the semantic value of the term ‫רוּח‬ ַ is subordinated to and linked with the understanding of the element with which it is joined in syntagmatic form, namely, ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫קנ‬. ִ 167 This is not an insignificant term, given that in some passages of the pericope it is employed to describe the very essence of the provision. It will be sufficient in this connection to cite Num 5,29 which thus perfectly summarises the content of the law: ‫תּוַרת ַה ְקּ ָנאֹת‬ ֹ ‫זאת‬. ֹ It is no cause for surprise, therefore, if we point out that, of the 85 overall occurrences of the substantive ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫ ִקנ‬in the Hebrew Bible, a good 7 make their appearance in Num 5,11 –31, where we should also count the occurrences of the verbal root ‫( קנא‬3 in total in our pericope). Without certain correspondences in the cognate languages of the Ancient Near East, the root has a vast spectrum of meanings which can mainly be ascribed to a sense that is generally positive – that of the zeal which redounds to the advantage of someone or something – and, symmetrically, to a sense that is rather negative, namely, that of jealousy (and of envy which can be considered its variant) properly understood as a spiteful feeling towards a person to whom one is linked by a certain bond. Although diametrically opposed in their general tenor, the two main meanings of the term share the basic phenomenological aspect from the psychological point of view, exhibiting themselves as “an intense, energetic state of mind, urging towards actions”. 168 Very significantly, the 166 In fact, the recurrent formulations in the two texts are not identical: with reference to Moses, Num 11,17 speaks of ‫שׁר ָעלֶיָך‬ ֶ ‫רוּח ֲא‬ ַ ‫ ָה‬whereas, in 2 Kgs 2,15, the expression is ‫רוּח‬ ַ ‫א ִליָּהוּ‬. ֵ However, Weisman maintains that the examination of the dynamics of the construct state in the Hebrew Bible allow the latter formula to be interpreted as “the spirit which was on Elijah” (cf. Weisman, “Spirit”, 226 n. 3). 167 For a detailed study of this lexeme, cf. Brown – Driver – Briggs, Lexicon, 888; Zorell, Lexicon, 727; Köhler – Baumgartner, Lexicon, III, 1110; Clines, Dictionary, VII, 263 –266; 168 H. G. L. Peels, “‫”קנא‬, The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), III (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 938.

76

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

verb‫“ אהב‬love” functions both as antonym and as prerequisite of the verb ‫קנא‬, and the action described by the verb in question is manifested as fear (in some cases as a real obsession) of losing the object of one’s love. 169 As is the case with many other human sentiments, that expressed by the term ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫ ִקנ‬is also referred to God in an anthropomorphic way although with its own significance with respect to the merely human meaning of the term. 170 The theme of “divine jealousy”, well known also from the collective imagination and theological vocabulary of the Ancient Near East, is conceived by biblical Israel rather differently in that YHWH is never jealous of idols or men – as happens with the Mesopotamian divinities – but burns with zeal when he observes that Israel is not behaving in a way that reflects the covenant made with God. According to some scholars, the affirmation of monotheism in Israel was only a development of this “theology of the divine zeal”, which does not allow the presence of rivals of any kind to occupy the position belonging to YHWH in the life of the people. 171 Now that we have come to examining the context of the use of this lexeme in our pericope, we can say that the family relationship in general and the marital one in particular represent one of the chosen areas of expression for the sentiment of ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫ ִקנ‬understood as jealousy. In this connection, beyond its presence in Num 5,11 –31, to which we shall obviously return, there is a very significant occurrence of the term in Prov 6,32 –35. There, in the context of a series of warnings intended to put the Israelites on their guard against taking foreign women as wives, it is stated in connection with the jealousy of the husband caused by his wife’s adultery: 32

But those who commit adultery have no sense; those who do it destroy themselves. They will be beaten and disgraced, and their shame will not be wiped away; 34 for passion enrages the husband (‫ָבר‬ ֶ ‫ְאה ֲח ַמת־גּ‬ ָ ‫י־קנ‬ ִ ‫)כּ‬ ִ , he will have no pity on the day of vengeance. 35 He will not consider any restitution, nor be satisfied by your many bribes.

33

169 E. Reuter, “‫”קנא‬, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, XIII (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 2004) 49. 170 On the nature of “divine jealousy” and its similarity and difference with respect to the human variety, see the article of N. Amzallag, “Furnace Remelting as the Expression of YHWH’s Holiness: Evidence from the Meaning of qanna’ (‫ )קנא‬in the Divine Context”, Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2015) 233 –252, and the response of M.R. Schlimm, “Jealousy or Furnace Remelting? A Response to Nissim Amzallag”, Journal of Biblical Literature 136 (2017) 513 –528, who refutes his arguments. 171 Cf. G. Sauer, “‫קנא‬, Eifer”, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. E. Jenni – C. Westermann) II, (München – Zürich 1976) 647 –650.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

77

Let us begin by saying that there is a fundamental and inescapable difference between the case considered by Prov 6,32 –35 and that in Num 5,11 –31: this consists precisely in that distinction between the deed and the suspicion of the deed on which we have previously reflected and which represents the main reason why the Pentateuchal text provides recourse to a quasi-judicial procedure such as the ordeal rather than the regular penal process for adultery. However, the sapiential text of Proverbs envisages the concrete case of full-blown adultery, indicating the heavy consequences for the adulterers caused by the jealousy of the betrayed husband: 172 the consequences are lethal, and the text signals their inevitability. Highly significant in this connection is evidence from Egyptian wisdom which corroborates the information in Prov 6,35 to some extent by confirming that the male adulterer will not be able to escape the anger of the betrayed husband, as if the punishment were inherent in the very act of infidelity. In fact, the text known as the Instruction of Ankhsheshonq puts it like this: 173 Do not make love to a married woman. He who makes love to a married woman is killed on her doorstep. 174

With respect to what has just been maintained in connection with the sapiential text of Prov 6,32 –35, the circumstance in which the term ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫ִקנ‬ is employed in Num 5,11 –31 has the particular nature of representing a mental state – what the text describes as the “spirit of jealousy” – which overwhelms the husband without his having evidence of his wife’s betrayal according to what is asserted by Num 5,13 which records the absence of witnesses and reiterates the secrecy in which the misdeed is wrapped. Now, even if the case which lies in the background of the two pericopes is substantially different – in the first case, the adultery is transparent whereas the second case is one of suspicion only – the interior impulse 172

In the strict sense, the text is in the masculine singular, allowing one to understand at first glance that the only addressee is the man who commits adultery: but, as C.H Toy rightly observes, “according to the old law the punishment of adultery was death for both parties (Dt. 22,22 –24; Lev. 20,10; cf. Ez. 23,45 –47”, (C.H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs [International Critical Commentary; New York 1899] 141). Therefore, the consequences set out by the text should be extended also to the woman with whom the man commits the adultery. 173 This is a text which appears on a papyrus in the British Museum (BM 10508). Its script is of the late Ptolemaic period even if the composition of the text could be older. The instruction is named after a priest of the god Ra who operated at Heliopolis. 174 M. Lichteim (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume III: The Late Period (Berkeley, CA – Los Angeles, CA – London 1980) 177.

78

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

which dwells in the husband and spurs him to action is common to Proverbs 6 and Numbers 5, and seems to have the same disruptive nature. Consideration of the consequences which the husband’s jealousy produces to the harm of those who – actually or presumably – are tainted with adultery (namely, death, according to Prov 6,34 –35) can be shown to be of great importance in understanding the overall significance of the text of Num 5,11 –31. In fact, it enables us to understand the ordeal procedure recorded there in terms of a provision aimed at limiting the husband’s anger and so, in the final analysis, conceived as a substantial guarantee of permanence in the woman’s life. 175 Undoubtedly, a first reading of the text leads us to reduce the whole procedure described in Num 5,11 –31 to a law laden with misogynistic connotations, appearing very bizarre and frankly hardly comprehensible in the eyes of the modern reader. However, a deeper reading of the text, which benefits, for example, from what we have just shown from our analysis of v. 14, can help us to understand that it is precisely thanks to this procedure that a wife suspected of adultery, rightly or wrongly, is able to avoid the anger which jealousy triggers in her husband, inflamed by the ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬. ַ Anger which could very probably end up in acts with fatal consequences, if we take on board the implications of the sapiential text which we have just quoted. However, there are further important considerations to be developed with regard to the origin of the impulse of jealousy which takes over the husband. The text of Num 5,14 does not specify any objective reason lying at the base of this impulse and does not account for its appearance: as we have reiterated several times, we are moving in the rather generic area of the husband’s suspicions, at least if we stick to the letter of the text. 176 On the other hand, our uncertainty is not removed by the double variant introduced by the text in the formulation of the hypothesis of the woman’s guilt, given that it is said that the “spirit of jealousy” can take hold of the husband independently of whether the woman has defiled herself or

175 Along the same lines of a guarantee in favour of the woman is the interpretation of Numbers 5 made by E. von Nordheim, “Das Gottesurteil als Schutzordal für die Frau nach Numeri 5”, Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte. Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. R. Bartelmus – T. Krüger – H. Utzschneider) (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 126; Freiburg Schweiz 1993) 297 –309. 176 This is also the position of R. Achenbach, who affirms: “Der einzige Hinweis auf die Tat bleibt die ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬, ַ die den Mann umtreibt (v.14.30), sei es zu Recht (v.14a) oder zu Unrecht (v.14b)” (R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3; Wiesbaden 2003] 505).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

79

not. 177 Now, according to G.B. Gray, the specific nature of the formulation chosen by the sacred writer to represent the man’s jealousy (that is, ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫)רוּח‬ ַ consists precisely in representing the irrational character of the interior impulse, since it arises without any reason, thus rendering the impulse which takes hold of the husband completely uncontrollable. 178 On the basis of this hypothesis, therefore, the point of the expression “spirit of jealousy” is to describe a state of mind over which the husband cannot have control: this frees the author of the biblical text from the need to show that this state of mind is justified in some way and can be ascribed to some kind of triggering cause. More recently, D.L. Ellens pushes still further in explaining the significance of the absence of reasons for the impulse of jealousy which takes possession of the husband of the woman who is suspected, justly or not. In fact, she not only holds that the suspicion which seizes the husband is without details and lacks concrete motivation but also affirms that the rage deriving from the entrance of the ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬ ַ is supported by the sympathy of the author and the community – male and chauvinist, as she puts it – which stands behind him. This community is well aware of the dynamics which are activated in a man’s mind and applies itself to providing a remedy under the pressure of gender solidarity. 179 Although the two scholars we have considered so far start from different points of view and base their reasoning on independent arguments, they both tend to favour the irrational character of the ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬ ַ and the absence of reasons for his origin. For his part, however, B. Levine takes a very different position. In particular, he objects that G.B. Gray’s statements on the question turn out to be scarcely plausible when he considers the method of carrying out the ordeal and the nature of its consequences. In fact, beginning from considering the procedure to which the woman is subjected, Levine claims that the event which arouses the ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬ ַ in the husband is a somewhat suspicious pregnancy which cannot be ascribed by the husband himself to the couple’s ordinary sexual routine. The theory that the origin of the husband’s jealousy is a suspicious pregnancy would 177 In its clearly redundant formulation, in fact, Num 5,14 states: “When a spirit of jealousy takes possession of the husband and he becomes jealous of his wife who has defiled herself (‫ִט ָמ ָאה‬ ְ ‫ְהוא נ‬ ִ ‫)ו‬, or a spirit of jealousy takes hold of him and he becomes jealous of his wife who has not defiled herself (‫ִט ָמ ָאה‬ ְ ‫לא נ‬ ֹ ‫ְהיא‬ ִ ‫”)ו‬. Milgrom explains that “the need to effect this stylistic balance would account for the double use of “has defiled herself ” in the first case” (Milgrom, Numbers, 303 n. 43). 178 Gray describes the ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬ ַ literally as “an uncontrollable or unaccountable impulse” (Gray, Numbers, 50). 179 Cf. Ellens, “Numbers 5.11 –31”, 79 –80.

80

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

be warranted by the fact that the final outcome of the ordeal – independently of whether it is favourable to the woman or not – has always to do with the woman’s belly which could easily be understood as a metaphor for the conception of a new being. 180 Whatever the origin of the unbridled impulse taking hold of the husband and conditioning his thoughts and behaviour, the highly important fact is that, in the context of the law recorded in Num 5,11 –31, it is the man’s jealousy which is presented as the factor which sets in motion the entire procedure of the ordeal which, not by chance, is described by the text itself as ‫תּוַרת ַה ְקּ ָנאֹת‬, ֹ “torah of jealousy”. Precisely this identification of the ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬ ַ as the trigger of the ordeal suggests a further element of reflection. In the comment on v. 12, we have already mentioned that, apart from the fact that the laws have the suspected and accused woman as their real addressee, the material formulation of the law has the husband as the one explicitly and directly called play a leading role: only the man, in fact, is recognised by the law as having the capacity to act in judgement and so, by extension, to initiate this quasi-judicial process of the ordeal. Consistently with this, we can affirm that, at the centre of attention in the law of Num 5,11 –31, there stands out clearly the solution of a problem which wholly belongs to the man, what Ellens describes as “a ‘malady’ called ‫”רוח קנא‬. 181 According to this scholar, the recovery of the husband’s mental stability – temporarily disturbed by the impulse of jealousy – would actually represent the one and only objective of this legal text. 182 In support of her own thesis, Ellens summons up a series of formal and structural clues found in the pericope, beginning with the analysis of what follows from observing the fact that “Num. 5.11 –31 addresses a state-of-mind, not an act”: 183 something which, for that matter, we ourselves have pointed out several times, arguing that it is precisely this which 180 In fact, contemplating the case of the woman’s guilt, Num 5,27 lays down that “if she has defiled herself and has acted disloyally against her husband, the water of condemnation will turn bitter, with the result that her belly will swell and her thigh sag”; whereas, contemplating the case of innocence, Num 5,28 states that “if the woman has not defiled herself, and she turned out to be pure, she shall be cleared of the charge, and retain seed” (translation by Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 184. My italics). 181 Ellens, “Numbers 5.11 –31”, 55. 182 Ellens’s leave little room for doubt about her conviction of the validity of her own theory: “This is not the law of probable adultery. It is not the law of probable pregnancy. Nor is it the law of protection of the vulnerable woman. It is the law of jealousy. The husband is jealous. This is his law” (Ellens, “Numbers 5.11 –31”, 75). 183 Ellens identifies at least six groups of structural signals which prove her hypothesis of the interpretation of Num 5,11 –31 as a remedy for the interior malaise of the jealous husband. Cf. Ellens, “Numbers 5.11 –31”, 75.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

81

is the characteristic that differentiates the trial for adultery envisaged in Lev 20,10 and Deut 22,22 from the quasi-judicial procedure for the ordeal laid down in our text. Continuing with her analysis of the text, Ellens ends up maintaining that the ultimate aim of the whole procedure is that of raising into a public matter something which, in itself, ought to have been only a private problem, namely, the husband’s jealousy. If it were to cross the threshold of a personal matter concerning the man alone, at most it could attain the level of a problem involving the normal ménage of the couple, but nothing more. Instead, the biblical text, as we have it – following Ellens’s argument – does not hesitate to manifest sympathy towards the husband and concern for the impulse of jealousy which has taken hold of him. Not only that: to the solution of the man’s problem, the law of Num 5,11 –31 unhesitatingly subordinates the well-being of the woman since it does not take into the slightest account the consequences deriving from the simple fact of subjecting her to the ordeal, regardless of its outcome. In fact, it is difficult to think that a woman would have remained untainted in the eyes of public opinion after having been accused by her husband and subjected to the ordeal, even if the verdict turned out to be favourable. The prejudiced nature of such a procedure can be understood – again according to Ellens – only as the wish to prevent the control exercised by the woman, through her capacity to arouse her husband’s jealousy, from being able to represent an attempt at dominance over the man in a profoundly chauvinist society. 184 The reflections which spring from Ellens’s exegetical analysis are certainly profound, stimulating and extremely useful for a better understanding of the meaning of a text which, as we have emphasised several times, is difficult for the modern reader not only to understand, never mind to accept. Although grasping its essential contribution, for reasons that emerge from the analysis I have proposed of the semantics of the syntagma ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬, ַ 185 I disagree respectfully with the fact that Ellens does not detect in the provision of Num 5,11 –31 any sign of care displayed for the woman. 186 Although conceding that the procedure can be interpreted 184

Cf. Ellens, “Numbers 5.11 –31”, 75 –78. I am referring particularly to the lethal consequences which it implies following what emerges from the use of the syntagma in the passages of the sapiential literature which we have cited in the course of our exegetical analysis (cf. Prov 6,32 –35). 186 In fact, Ellens seems to deny the risk of lethal consequences for the woman on the part of the husband who is seized with the “spirit of jealousy”, and she underestimates its force. One of the passages in which this tendency is most evident is the following: “Even the 185

82

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

also – not only, as Ellens claims – as an attempt to remedy the state of mental disturbance caused by the husband’s suspicion that he has been betrayed, I do not see the need to deny firmly that the text has, as one of its aims, also that of protecting the life of the woman from the foreseeably threatening consequences of the wrath of the jealous husband. In support of this interpretation, it will be sufficient to recall the high value which the Bible constantly puts on the life of each human being, from Cain on, independently of gender or any other more or less discriminating factor. To summarise what we have done so far, with an extreme resumé, two important considerations emerge from the exegetical analysis of the first verses of our pericope which set out the case which the whole provision is going to regulate. The first consideration is that, bearing in mind the risk of a fatal outcome arising from the jealous impulse of her husband, the ordeal in Numbers 5 can be interpreted overall as also – obviously not only, as we have said – the provision of a guarantee for the woman; a provision aimed at safeguarding her life, protecting it from the potential threat constituted by the alteration in the mind of the husband induced by the ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬. ַ Like the first, the second consideration affects the overall understanding of the text since, on the basis of what has been said so far, the procedure described in Num 5,11 –31 can be understood not simply as a punishment for the woman who is actually or allegedly tainted with adultery against whom there is no overwhelming proof, but rather – even if not only, it is well to repeat – as the attempt to solve the problem of a man “sick with jealousy”.

3.3. Preparation of the ritual of the ordeal (vv.15 –18) [. . .] 15 The husband shall bring his wife to the priest and for her he shall bring an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it nor put incense upon it because it is an offering of jealousy, a commemorative offering to recall a fault. 16 The priest shall bring the woman near and make her to stand before the Lord. 17 Then the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; he shall also take a little of the dust which is on the floor of the Dwelling and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall therefore make the woman stand before the Lord, he shall absence of the death penalty may have been engineered in the original context in deference to the husband, who might want to keep his faithless wife. The aim, again, is to leave the widest possible scope for the husband’s welfare and interests with respect to the woman who belongs to him” (Ellens, “Numbers 5.11 –31”, 81).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

83

unbind her hair and place in her hands the commemorative offering which is the offering of jealousy, while the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness which bears a curse.

The exposition of the case and the peculiar circumstances which form the prelude to the initiation of the quasi-judicial proceeding of the ordeal on the part of the husband seized by suspicion are over. Now, with v. 15, our text sees the beginning of the description of the regulations which have to be followed for the correct performance of the ritual. On the basis of what has just been said, it is no wonder that the subject indicated as the principal actor of the series of actions to be set in motion is the husband, 187 as shown clearly by the masculine verbal form ‫ְה ִביא‬ ֵ‫– ו‬ which reappears, moreover, identically within the same v. 15 – which opens the description of the procedure. In line with what has emerged from the analysis of the previous verses, the first and basic action of the man – who has been seized by the “spirit of jealousy” and is suspicious about the conduct of the woman, of whose feared infidelity, however, he has no proof – consists in bringing his own wife before the priest. Beyond the clear practical and procedural implications, this initial action which the law assigns to the man has a very symbolic significance: by bringing the woman before the priest, the husband who is “sick with jealousy” demonstrates – and actually declares – that he refuses to manage the situation and resolve it in an autonomous manner, something which could have had lethal consequences for the wife, and professes himself ready to trust the final decision on the case to the intervention of God, mediated by the priestly figure. The text says nothing about the readiness or not of the woman to be subjected to the ritual: now, this silence seems to be difficult to interpret except as the absence of alternatives for the woman, who, willingly or 187 As G.B. Gray justly observes, the husband’s leading role in setting the whole procedure in motion cannot be said to be altered in the least by the presence of the third person singular feminine suffix which accompanies the word “offering” (‫)ק ְר ָבּנָהּ‬. ָ In fact, it is completely clear that the suffix does not have subjective value but serves rather to make explicit that the offering is performed by the husband – primary actor – on behalf of his wife. This can also be confirmed by the fact that both the Greek version of the LXX (which simply has τὸ δῶρον) and the Vulgate (which reads only oblationem) omit the feminine suffix in order to facilitate the comprehension of the text by avoiding the misunderstanding which can arrive from the faulty understanding of the suffix itself (cf. Gray, Numbers, 50 –52). The same goes for the preposition ‫ֶיה‬ ָ ‫על‬, ָ which immediately follows the word ‫ ָק ְר ָבּנָהּ‬and is similarly furnished with a feminine suffix. According to J. Milgrom, the text underlines the leading role of the husband even in the presentation of the offering because the woman is “under suspicion of being a brazen, unrepentant sinner, [so] she is not qualified to bring her own sacrifice. Hence, her offering is brought by her husband on her behalf ” (Milgrom, Numbers, 38).

84

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

not, had to undergo a practice which, as we have just pointed out, is required and willed by the husband. Moreover, it is very difficult to think that a woman would have subjected herself willingly to a procedure like this, even if she were totally convinced of her own innocence: indeed, the simple fact of undergoing the ordeal represented a taint on the woman’s honour that was difficult to remove. Even if she were declared innocent by the divine judgement, there usually remained over her a certain aura of suspicion since her husband had shown open doubt with regard to her fidelity. 188 Our text continues with the description of the procedure to be followed by introducing one of the elements which, as we have pointed out in our reconstruction of the redactional history of the pericope, very probably belongs to the more recent layers, that is, the offering. Even if it is a later addition – at least, following our hypothesis 189 – the offering finds its raison d’être in the final form of the text in view of the characteristics that are typical of that text, which is clearly priestly. That the insertion of the offering blends in with its context can be argued on the basis of two reasons: first of all, the fact that the presentation of an offering is wholly consistent with the invocation of an intervention of the divinity in human life: it is not permissible to approach God to ask him a favour – of even just to render him glory – with empty hands. 190 Secondly, the priestly character of the final form stamps on the text a religious remodelling of the nature of the offence committed by the woman (at least allegedly) through her own infidelity. That is to say, it is no longer an injury done to the husband but an offence directly against God which has consequences for the holiness and purity of the entire Israelite community. This is the reason which justifies the presence of a sacrificial offering in the ordeal ritual of Num 5,11 –31 from a cultic point of view.

188

Pace B. Levine, who says: “One assumes that the woman in question would submit to the ordeal only if she claimed her innocence and wanted to save her marriage and retain her rights” (Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 193 –194). 189 I recall that I have chosen the reconstruction of the redactional history of Num 5,11 –31 offered by J.A. Bewer (cf. supra, section 2.1 of this chapter). 190 In fact, we read in Ex 23,15: “You shall observe the feast of Unleavened Bread: for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I have commanded you, at the appointed time in the month of Abìb, for in it you came out of Egypt. You must not appear before me empty-handed”. There is an echo of this in Deut 16,16: “Three times a year, all your males shall appear before the Lord, your God, in the place which he will choose: on the feast of Unleavened Bread, on the feast of Weeks, and on the feast of Booths. No one shall appear before the Lord empty-handed”. Cf. Gray, Numbers, 50; Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 194.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

85

In that the sacred writer makes use of the generic term ‫ק ְר ָבּן‬, ָ which normally indicates any type of offering or even a gift, 191 the material quantification of the offering, established as “a tenth of an ephah of barley meal”, encourages the belief that our text intends to refer to a ‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫מנ‬. ִ Although it can have a rather generic significance and so be like ‫ק ְר ָבּן‬, ָ this term is employed in biblical legislation – except for Deuteronomy – as a technical term to indicate an offering of food which consists of cereals. 192 Still in connection with the offering spoken of in Num 5,15, particularly interesting are two stipulations which are provided in relation to the procedure to be followed for the preparation of the sacrifice to be offered in these circumstances. The first stipulation concerns the type of meal. This has to be ‫שׂע ִֹרים‬ ְ ‫ק ַמח‬, ֶ namely, meal of barley. If we compare this with the instructions for cereal offerings in Lev 2,1 –3, this direction in Num 5,15 sounds a real exception to the general rule which prescribes the sacrifice of ‫ ֹסלֶת‬, that is, fine flower. Here is the text of Leviticus: 1

If anyone presents as an offering an oblation in honour of the Lord, his offering shall be of fine flour (‫) ֹסלֶת‬, over which he shall pour oil and put incense. 2 He shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; he shall take from it a handful of fine flower and oil, with all the incense, and the priest shall make it to burn on the altar as its memorial: it is a sacrifice consumed by fire, a pleasing odour in honour of the Lord. 3 The rest of the oblation belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is the holiest part, the portion of the Lord.

The other stipulation concerns the fact that, generally, the ‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫ ִמנ‬was offered along with a certain quantity of incense and oil, as we read clearly in Lev 2,1 –2. In our particular case, on the other hand, the text of Num 5,15 is a clear instruction not to pour any of these two precious elements on the offering. What is the reason for these two variants which Num 5,15 introduces into the confecting of the offering to be presented in sacrifice for the ordeal? One answer can come from the analysis of the only other legislative text which forms – at least in part – an exception in its indication of the content of the ‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫מנ‬, ִ and that text is Lev 5,11. The context of this reference is that of offerings to be presented for a sin that has been committed (Lev 4,1 –5,13). The text indicates in great detail those sins which require these sacrifices in order to be pardoned, and what is necessary to 191 “Hebrew qorba¯ n is a generic term for various sorts of offerings, merely designating what is ‘brought near, presented’” (Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 194). 192 For detailed study, cf. R.E. Averbeck, “‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫”מנ‬ ִ , The New International New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), II (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 978 –990.

86

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

offer to obtain the forgiveness of these sins. It then goes on to contemplate the case of a sinner who is poor and does not have the means to buy the lamb or goat required by the law for the sin offering (cf. Lev 5,6). In such a case, the law allows the commutation of the small beast (goat or lamb) to a pair of turtle doves or young pigeons (cf. Lev 5,7 –10). However, this is what Lev 5,11 envisages in a still more extreme situation: 11

But if he cannot afford two turtle doves or two young pigeons, he shall bring, as an offering for the sin has committed, a tenth of an ephah of barley meal (‫) ֹסלֶת‬, as a sin offering; he shall put upon it neither oil nor incense, for it is a sin offering.

The importance of this text lies in the fact that it offers us an explicit and direct explanation of the absence of the oil and incense which normally accompany the cereal offering (cf. Lev 2,1 –3), indicating the reason for it in the very nature of the sacrifice: ‫כּי ַח ָטּאת ִהיא‬, ִ “for it is a sin offering”. This emphasis gives us a clear key with which to understand the provision of Num 5,15 which, similarly, prescribes that oil and incense are not to be poured on the barley meal. The offering which the jealous husband brings to the priest can be rightly understood as the equivalent of a sin offering since the woman is suspected of betrayal. 193 Similarly, the instruction to use flour that is less costly, such as barley meal instead of fine flour, can be understood as a further negative – we could say, even penitential – touch. Gray points out that this was already the interpretation of Philo who explained that “the absence of the accompaniments is due to the fact that the occasion was no happy one, but one that was most grievous”. 194 Similarly to what we have observed for Lev 5,11, Num 5,15 too accompanies the direction not to pour oil and incense on the vegetable offering with the specification of the nature of the sacrifice. This specification is made up of certain elements which we are going to analyse separately. First of all, the text initially describes the offering as a ‫ְחת ְק ָנאֹת‬ ַ ‫מנ‬, ִ “offering of jealousy”. If, on the one hand, this first description is hardly astonishing, bearing in mind what we have said about the importance which the pericope attaches to the theme of the husband’s jealousy, on the other hand, it offers a piece of information that is somewhat significant and even surprising. In fact, as Levine observes, the language employed 193

Cf. Budd, Numbers, 64; Milgrom, Numbers, 38; Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 194. Gray, Numbers, 51. The same argument is taken up by Noth, Numbers, 50. Milgrom notes that barley, being cheaper than wheat, was the food of the poor and animals, and, in this connection, records the comment of Rabbi Gamaliel, who explains the different nature of the flour indicated for the offering of the sotah: “Because her [of the suspected] act was an act of a beast, so her offering is the food of a beast” (Milgrom, Numbers, 38). 194

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

87

by the writer – who reproduces very closely the formulary used for describing the cereal offerings in the book of Leviticus – is of a legal type: as such, it has the power to erect into a law an object, such as jealousy, that is a human emotion which is hostile and negative in itself. 195 Taking up and completing what was said in the section on the analysis of v. 14 regarding the syntagma ‫ְאה‬ ָ ‫־קנ‬ ִ ‫רוּח‬, ַ I believe that it is further confirmation of the centrality of jealousy as a key element of the whole procedure. The specification of the nature of the sacrifice has another element which accompanies the first and fundamental description – that is, ‫ְחת‬ ַ ‫ִמנ‬ ‫ – ְק ָנאֹת‬adding a new connotation: ‫ְכֶּרת ָעֹון‬ ֶ ‫רון ַמז‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ְחת ז‬ ַ ‫מנ‬, ִ “commemorative offering, recalling a fault”. On the basis of the syntax of the previous formulation, which is a nominal phrase, it is possible to understand that as the main clause whereas this additional element acts in apposition to the nominal phrase. On the one hand, this syntactic-grammatical consideration highlights once again the centrality of the theme of jealousy in the mens of the legislator; on the other hand, it ascribes a further function to the procedure which it is describing: a function we could describe as at once paradigmatic and didactic. In fact, by describing the offering of jealousy as a “commemorative offering, recalling a fault”, the text is suggesting that, by virtue of all the peculiarities demonstrated above which distinguish this offering from all the other cereal offerings, 196 the ‫ְחת‬ ַ ‫ִמנ‬ ‫ ְק ָנאֹת‬serves as a constant warning which recalls the gravity of a sin the effects of which cross the threshold from the private sphere to affect the purity of the entire community. 197 If, up to this point, the subject of the acts to be carried out in the ritual, which is gradually being described, is invariably the husband of the suspected woman, from v. 16, the leading role is transferred to the priest to whom the husband has brought the woman according to the instruction in 15a. The task of the minister of the cult is described through two verbs in the hiphil, ‫ְה ְק ִריב‬ ִ ‫ ו‬and ‫ְה ֱע ִמָדהּ‬ ֶ ‫ו‬. Their combination produces the effect of offering precise coordinates for the location of the ordeal. 198 The syntagma which accompanies the second of these verbs, together 195

Cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 194. In addition to what we have shown above, we should add as a peculiarity of this law the particular use of the term ‫רון‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ז‬, which, in the Masoretic Text, generally has an extremely positive value and, not infrequently, refers to the mirabilia Dei and commonly to the benefits which the offeror has received from YHWH (cf. Gray, Numbers, 51). In this case, however, it is employed in relation to something very negative. 197 Cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 195. 198 The same pair of verbs, with the same value, is found also in Num 8,9 –13 in connection with the levites. 196

88

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

with the religious connotation conveyed by the hiphil form of both the verbal roots, leaves little doubt about the identification of the place in which the ritual has to be carried out: the expression ‫ל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬, ִ in fact, is intended to indicate the place in front of the tent of meeting or the Tabernacle. Since one of the practices that was going to be carried out was the cereal offering, which was going to be burned, one may presume that the location referred to in this exact moment is precisely the space before the altar on which the offerings were burned. This was situated in the courtyard of the Tabernacle. 199 The nature of the instructions contained in v. 17, as also their relation to what immediately precedes and follows, represent one of the favourite arguments of those who report the lack of homogeneity – and so the multiplicity of conflated traditions – in the pericope of Num 5,11 –31. The difficulty lies in the fact that the verse in question lays down for the priest a series of actions which can be summarised as the preparation of the liquid concoction which the woman will have to sip. At least according to the interpretation of those who advocate the fragmentary nature of the pericope, this disturbs the fluency of the law by interrupting the sequence of instructions recorded in v. 16 and then resumed in v. 18. We shall try to examine the specific content of v. 17 so as to be able to understand if it is really foreign to its context or whether, instead, it could be understood as consistent and compatible with the rest of the information that precedes and follows. The priest is commanded to prepare a potion to be administered to the woman. The basic element is ‫ֹשׁים‬ ִ ‫מיִם ְקד‬, ַ literally, “holy water”. Although apparently simple, this expression is rather enigmatic when it comes to its precise meaning, not least because it appears in this specific form only in our passage. According to a suggestion of Gray, help in understanding this syntagma could come from a comparison with the Greek version of the LXX which, in this particular case, records a textual variant: ὕδωρ καθαρὸν ζῶν, literally “pure living water”. This textual variant is founded by analogy with two other laws – notably, Lev 14,5 200 and Num 19,17 201 – in 199 Cf. Ex 28,29 –30.35; 29,11. Levine notes that, from a conceptual point of view, the expression ‫ ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬is equivalent to ‫מו ֵעד‬ ֹ ‫ֹהל‬ ֶ ‫ ִל ְפנֵי א‬or ‫שׁ ָכּן‬ ְ ‫( ִל ְפנֵי ַה ִמּ‬cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 195). Cf. also Gray, Numbers, 51. 200 “The priest will command them to slaughter one of the birds in an earthen vessel with flowing water (ἐφ᾽ ὕδατι ζῶντι)”. We should note that the correspondence with Num 5,11 is not confined to the reference to the water but also includes the mention of the same container (‫י־חֶרשׂ‬ ֶ ‫כּ ִל‬, ְ “earthen vessel”). 201 “For one who has become unclean they shall take the ashes of the victim burnt for the sin offering and pour them out on the flowing water (ὕδωρ ζῶν), in a vessel”. In this case,

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

89

which the expression ὕδωρ ζῶν appears. This is supposed to have encouraged the Greek redactors to modify the text of Num 5,17 harmonising it with these particular occurrences and so actually proposing a rather precise interpretation of the syntagma ‫ֹשׁים‬ ִ ‫מיִם ְקד‬. ַ Thus, the testimony of the Greek version could persuade us to hold that this syntagma should be interpreted as “pure, fresh water”. 202 However, it is also possible to interpret the syntagma without necessarily having to opt for a de facto correction of the MT on the basis of the Greek variant. In fact, Milgrom proposes understanding ‫ֹשׁים‬ ִ ‫ ַמיִם ְקד‬as a reference to water contained in a sacred laver which was to be present in the sanctuary according to the provisions of Ex 30,17 –21.29: 17

YHWH spoke to Moses: 18 “You shall make a laver of bronze with its pedestal of bronze, for washing; you shall put it between the tent of meeting and the altar and you shall put water in it. 19 Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet in it. 20 When they go into the tent of meeting, they shall wash with the water, lest they die; and so when they approach the altar to officiate, to burn an offering which is to be consumed by fire in honour of the Lord, 21 they shall wash their hands and their feet, and they shall not die. It shall be a ritual statute for ever for Aaron and his descendants throughout their generations”. 29 You shall consecrate these things so that they become most holy: whatever touches them will become holy.

Verse 29, which acts as conclusion to this provision for the construction of the laver for the priests’ ablutions, can be shown to be highly significant for our purposes. If, in fact, one assumes that the water used by the priest for the preparation of the potion is drawn from this sacred bronze basin – the location of which in the sanctuary corresponds to the place in which the priest has to stand the suspected woman (cf. Num 5,16) – one understands why Num, 5,17 describes the water with the expression ‫ַמיִם‬ ‫ֹשׁים‬ ִ ‫קד‬. ְ The holiness of the element would derive from its contact with the bronze laver which formed part of the “most holy things” spoken of in Ex 30,29. 203 Similar attention is due to the container in which the priest has to pour the water in order to prepare the potion. This vessel is described by the text as ‫י־חֶרשׂ‬ ֶ ‫כּ ִל‬, ְ “earthen vessel”. These artefacts were in common use the mention of the container is generic and not specific as in Lev 14,5 (where it is identical to Num 5,17). 202 Cf. Gray, Numbers, 51. Taken up also by Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 195. 203 Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 39. Still on the question of the interpretation of the expression ‫ֹשׁים‬ ִ ‫ ַמיִם ְקד‬as “holy water”, note also the position of W.R. Smith, who claims that the syntagma indicates “water from a holy spring” (W.R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites [New York 1956] 181).

90

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

in the majority of ritual procedures except those carried out in the area of the sanctuary: in that case, as indicated by Numbers 7, the containers used for the offerings generally had to be of precious metal, and so silver or gold. 204 Thus, the particular case of Num 5,11 –31 forms a kind of exception to this general principle since the procedure found there is performed in the sanctuary and yet provides for the use of an earthen container. The reason for this peculiarity is to be interpreted as a further reflection of what we have already described as the “penitential air” which invests the whole procedure. The poor material would thus be a reference to the poverty of the situation itself, contributing to lending an aura of austerity to the circumstances. A further element in understanding the special nature of the vessel prescribed for the preparation of the potion could be obtained from a comparison with other procedures which utilise earthen vessels for sacrificial use: this is the case, for example, with the ritual of purification of those with leprosy and their homes (Lev 14,5.50). Similar to what is described by Num 5,17, this law provides that the priest uses a ‫י־חֶרשׂ‬ ֶ ‫ְכּ ִל‬ and puts in it ‫מיִם ַחיִּים‬, ַ which, as we have seen, is a formula which presumably corresponds to the liquid required by our procedure (that is fresh, flowing water). Now, the thing which both these contexts could share, enabling us to understand the reason for the use of the same vessel in the performance of both rituals, is the state of impurity which affects the people involved in such procedures: like the leper, the woman who commits adultery contracts impurity which almost corresponds to the ritual variety. 205

204

This long chapter of the book of Numbers (a good 89 verses!) presents in detail the offerings of the chiefs of the tribes of Israel. Each offering is presented in containers of precious metal, specifically plates of silver, vessels of silver and cups of gold. The final verses are particularly interesting for us since they record the list of gifts offered for the dedication of the altar, providing us also with a precise inventory of the utensils: “84 These were the gifts for the dedication of the altar from the chiefs of Israel on the day on which it was anointed: twelve plates of silver, twelve vessels of gold, twelve cups of gold; 85 every silver plate was of a hundred and thirty shekels and every vessel of seventy. Total silver of the vases: two thousand, four hundred shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary; 86 twelve cups of gold full of incense, at ten shekels per cup, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. Total of the gold of the cups: a hundred and twenty shekels”. 205 Cf. Lev 18,24 –30. We should observe that Num 5,13.14.29 makes explicit use of the root ‫טמא‬. We should not pass over a detail that is certainly not insignificant given that it could virtually nullify the parallel between the two cases: the woman is impure like the leper (something that would further justify the presence of an earthen vessel rather than one of another, more precious material) only to the degree in which she is declared such by the outcome of the ordeal. If, instead, she emerges acquitted by the divine judgement, she will

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

91

Although our text does not mention it explicitly, the purpose of the earthen vessel employed in the ordeal prescribed by Num 5,11 –31 deserves further attention. 206 According to the regulations which we find in Lev 6,21 207 and Lev 11,33, 208 the earthen vessels which have become impure either through contact with holy things or through contamination with impure animals cannot be reused and have to be destroyed. If we abide by this general principal, which obliges the destruction of utensils which have come into contact with impurity in any of its forms, then the vessel used for the ordeal in Num 5,11 –31 must also be destroyed in every case so as to avoid its reuse: whether because contact with the holiness of the potion has rendered it impure, in which case it has to be destroyed on the basis of the provision of Lev 6,21; or whether because the condition of the woman corresponds to a state of impurity since the verdict of the ordeal turns out to unfavourable to her in which case the vessel has to be destroyed according to the prescription of Lev 11,33. The second part of v. 17 completes the instructions for the preparation of the potion to be proffered to the suspected woman. The priest is instructed to add to the “holy water”, which is already in the earthen vessel, a little of the dust of the sanctuary. In this case too, there are not be impure. On the particular connotation which the categories of “pure” and “impure” assume in the ritual of the sotah, I refer to Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 207 –209. However, it is to be borne in mind that – as we have observed on several occasions – even the simple fact of being subjected to the ordeal because suspected of infidelity constituted a kind of indelible stain on the woman’s reputation, whatever the outcome of the procedure. 206 On this detail, I have taken up Milgrom’s suggestion in its general lines. However, as will be noted briefly, I have made a particular alteration to his observations: Milgrom does not seem to contemplate the case where the woman emerges acquitted from the ordeal, reckoning purely and simply that “in all probability, the earthen vessels specified for use with the leper and suspected adulteress also were broken because of the association of these persons with impurity” (Milgrom, Numbers, 39). 207 This is the text of Lev 6,18 –21: “18 Say to Aaron and his sons: ‘This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed the sin offering shall be killed before YHWH. It is a very holy thing. 19 The priest who offers it as a sacrifice for sin, may eat it; he must eat it in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting. 20 Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy; if part of its blood splashes on a garment, you shall wash the patch stained with blood in a holy place. 21 But the earthen vessel which has been used to cook it will be broken; if it has been cooked in a bronze container, this shall be well scoured and rinsed with water’”. 208 Lev 11,29 –33 reads thus: “29 Among the animals which swarm on the earth you shall hold impure: the mole, the rat and all kinds of lizard, 30 the shrew, the lizard, the gecko, the green lizard and the chameleon. 31 Among the animals that swarm, these shall be impure for you; whoever touches their dead bodies will be impure till the evening. 32 Every object on which one of these dead bodies falls shall be impure: if it is an object of wood or cloth or skin or sack or any other utensil; it shall be immersed in water and be impure until evening, then it will be pure. 33 If one of these falls on an earthen vessel, whatever is in it shall be impure, and you shall break the vessel”.

92

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

many, different scholarly opinions concerning the use of this particular ingredient, even if there is substantial unanimity on a fundamental point: the sacred nature of the element in question which shares in the holiness of the place in which it is found and from which it is taken. However, the explanations differ on the purpose of the use of the dust of the sanctuary and on its specific function. According to Gray, it would serve to augment the divine power and holiness of the potion, adding to that of the “holy water”; or again, still in the same interpretative context, the use of the dust would be testifying to the belief that this element had curative properties bound up intrinsically with the holiness of the place. 209 For his part, Levine holds that the swallowing of the earth by the woman would be a model of the link between her and the sanctuary from which the dust was taken, and therefore with the divinity which dwelt in that sanctuary as supreme judge. 210 In addition to all this, I think that it is possible to identify a further value intrinsic to the element chosen for confecting the potion. I base my view on Gen 3,19. There, the dust – which had already been introduced in Gen 2,7 in the account of the creation of adam, fashioned with the dust of adamah – is clearly indicated as an element with the function of representing human existence (as soon as it was created) and, at the same time, its inexorable dissolution following death: ‫ל־ע ָפר ָתּשׁוּב‬ ָ ‫ְא‬ ֶ ‫י־ע ָפר ַא ָתּה ו‬ ָ ‫כּ‬, ִ “for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return”. If, as can be argued from the chronological arrangement of the actions of Num 5,11 –31 in its present form, the woman was present at the confecting of the potion which was going to be proffered to her, 211 the use of the dust could easily have a discouraging power from its enormous evocative potential: it recalled the omnipotence of God, the judge to whose judgement the woman was being subjected, who exercises his own power over the life and death of every living creature. There is a further element. Without necessarily contradicting the explanations mentioned so far, it could be useful to account for the employment of the sanctuary dust as an ingredient of the potion which is to be 209 Cf. Gray, Numbers, 51. In connection with the second interpretation, Gray cites the example of an intercultural parallel taken from the Islamic world, namely, “the custom of eating dust from the grave of Mohammed as ‘a cure for every disease’”. 210 Cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 210, who also cites a Mesopotamian parallel found in the archives of Mari, in which there is record of the mixture of water and dust in an ordeal ritual. 211 To this specific element, the source of lively discussion among the exegetes of Num 5,11 –31, we shall return in the section analysing v. 18.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

93

confected for the ordeal: it concerns the fact that the mixing of the earth with the water would certainly have had the effect of rendering disgusting a drink which, at the end of v. 18, is described as ‫מי ַה ָמּ ִרים ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬, ֵ “the water of bitterness which bears a curse”. 212 Introduced by this last statement, we pass on now to comment on v. 18 itself. Already in the section on the status quaestionis of Num 5,11 –31 but also in the course of the exegetical analysis, it is precisely this verse which has emerged as one of the passages most often held up as emblematic by those who maintain the fragmentary nature of our pericope. In fact, the verse opens with a statement which retraces literally and in a slavish way the direction to the priest to make the accused woman stand before YHWH which we have already encountered in v. 16b: ‫ֹהן ֶאת־‬ ֵ ‫ְה ֱע ִמיד ַהכּ‬ ֶ‫ו‬ ‫שּׁה ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬ ָ ‫ה ִא‬, ָ “The priest shall therefore make the woman stand before YHWH . . .”. In this connection, I feel it necessary to reiterate what I expressed previously at the end of the examination of the various hypotheses for understanding the stages in the formation of the pericope. There, I affirmed that, although maintaining that the present text is the result of the conflation of at least two different traditions – that relating to the ordeal and that connected with the oath – with a further late redactional addition of a priestly character, represented by the reference to the cereal offering, my view is that it is not necessary to maintain the fragmentary nature of the pericope in its final form, attributing the repetition of v. 18a (as also the other repetitions) to lack of expertise on the part of the final redactor. Rather, following Milgrom’s proposal, it is preferable to understand the beginning of v. 18 as a genuine stylistic device, known as “repetitive resumption”, employed deliberately by the redactor as if intending to pick up the thread of the description of the actions which the priest is commanded to perform with regard to the woman. This description was partly interrupted by v. 17, which focuses on the ingredients of the potion to be proffered to the woman suspected of adultery. 213 The following action which the procedure described in v. 18 assigns to the priest consists in the unveiling of the woman’s head: ‫ת־ראשׁ‬ ֹ ‫וּפַרע ֶא‬ ָ ‫שּׁה‬ ָ ‫ה ִא‬. ָ Although with some interpretative nuances, scholars coincide substantially in holding that this is a gesture intended to manifest the 212 To this concoction, already disgusting in itself, should be added the equally bitter taste of the ink which the priest is ordered to add to the potion, as we shall see in commenting on v. 23. 213 Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 39 –40.

94

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

shame of the woman in being suspected by her own husband. To have a clear idea of the symbolic significance of the gesture, it is sufficient to recall that going out with an uncovered head was obligatory for a person who had been diagnosed with leprosy, in such a way that he or she was immediately recognisable and so kept separate from the other members of the community. 214 Thus, one could interpret the uncovering of the head as a sort of stigma which pointed to the public disgrace of the one subjected to it. 215 As a further gesture prescribed by v. 18, the priest has to place in the woman’s hands the offering which she herself had received from her husband according to the terms of v. 15. The woman’s posture is a plastic expression of the prayer for justice (assuming she were innocent) or for mercy (in the event that she were guilty) which the woman addresses to the divinity who knows everything and from whom no secrets can be hidden. The text returns to describe the offering with the words used previously. However, a careful comparison between v. 15b and v. 18b shows that here we have one of those passages which reveal the ability of the redactors of the final text and which ought to discourage the theory of careless “mixing of traditions”. Here are the two hemistichs in a synoptic arrangement: v. 15b

v. 18b

‫רון‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ְחת ז‬ ַ ‫ְחת ְק ָנאֹת הוּא ִמנ‬ ַ ‫ִמנ‬

‫ְחת ְק ָנאֹת ִהוא‬ ַ ‫רון ִמנ‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ְחת ַהזּ‬ ַ ‫ִמנ‬

As can be appreciated from this arrangement, the elements are not simply repeated and reproduced in an identical way but appear to be organised following the scheme X-Y-Y-X: 216 214 Thus, Lev 13,45: “The leper struck by this plague shall wear torn clothes and have his head uncovered; veiled as far as the upper lip, he will go on his way crying: ‘Unclean! Unclean!’”. 215 I record a comment of J. Sasson which, though remaining in the realm of mere suggestion, seems stimulating. Recalling the New Testament passage of Lk 7,36 –50, which describes the encounter between Jesus and a woman “of easy virtue”, Sasson asks whether the gesture – not described but implicit in the sequence of actions reported – of the woman’s loosening of her hair in front of Jesus cannot be interpreted as an indirect reference to Num 5,11 –31. In fact, given that the evangelist is intending to put forward the image of Jesus as merciful judge who absolves the woman’s sins, the action of the one who looses her hair before the divine judge could be recalling that of the woman suspected of adultery who, in Num 5,17, is presented with uncovered head before the judgement of YHWH. This is only a suggestion, I repeat, but one I think that is not without interest and ingenuity. Cf. Sasson, “Numbers 5”, 250 n. 9. 216 Specifically, ‫ְחת ְק ָנאֹת‬ ַ ‫ ִמנ‬corresponds to X whereas ‫רון‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ְחת ז‬ ַ ‫ ִמנ‬corresponds to Y.

95

‫רון‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ְחת ַהזּ‬ ַ ‫ִמנ‬

‘

v. 18b:



‫ְחת ְק ָנאֹת הוּא‬ ַ ‫ִמנ‬

‘

v. 15b:



The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

‫רון‬ ֹ ‫ִכּ‬ ָ ‫ְחת ז‬ ַ ‫ִמנ‬ ‫ְחת ְק ָנאֹת ִהוא‬ ַ ‫ִמנ‬

Now, this use of chiasmus confers on the whole just that touch of literary refinement which ought to be sufficient to avoid dismissing v. 18b as mere repetition. Rather, by means of a rhetorical figure, it is a way of emphasising the fundamental contents which make up part of what we could describe as the semantic substratum of the “torah of jealousy”. The final segment of v. 18 informs us that, while the woman is holding the cereal offering in the palm of her hands, the priest has to hold the earthen vessel containing the potion which so far is made up of the “holy water” and the dust of the sanctuary. The specific contribution of this segment consists in offering us a further description on which to reflect: the water which the previous verse had described as ‫ֹשׁים‬ ִ ‫מיִם ְקד‬, ַ is now called ‫מי ַה ָמּ ִרים ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬. ֵ At first glance, one might think that the reason for the variation could be inferred precisely from what we have just observed: the potion which the priest is preparing is no longer simply composed of pure water but contains an element – the dust of the sanctuary which the priest has poured into it – which could clearly give the drink a disgusting, and very probably bitter, taste. Undoubtedly, this is a formal, material, reason, so to speak, which could justify the presence of the new expression for the potion which the priest is holding. On a closer look, however, the description is more complex: it does not speak simply of “bitter water”, but of “the water of bitterness which bears a curse”. This curious formula has something of the mysterious about it, something, what is more, well suited to a procedure with undeniably magical features such as the ordeal. Let us begin by saying that, in the Hebrew Bible, the syntagma ‫ֵמי‬ ‫ ַה ָמּ ִרים ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬appears only within our pericope, although not always in the same form. It is present in this full form in v. 18, v. 19 and v. 24. Then, there is an abridged version, that is, ‫ה ַמּיִם ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬, ַ which lacks the qualifier ‫ה ָמּ ִרים‬: ַ this abbreviated form surfaces in vv. 22, 24(x2) and 27. However, we should note that both in v. 24 and v. 27, this abridged syntagma is followed – if not immediately, then within the verse – by another syntagma, ‫ל ָמ ִרים‬. ְ Although this is morphologically distinct, from a semantic point of view it performs the same function as the qualifying ‫ ַה ָמּ ִרים‬in the more extended formula. Finally, there is a further version of the expression, and it is shorter than the others in that it lacks the participle ‫ה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬: ַ this is the syntagma ‫מי ַה ָמּ ִרים‬, ֵ which is found only in Num 5,23.

96

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

If one looks closely at all the occurrences of the expression, therefore, the only variant that is in any way significant is precisely the most abridged version, that is, ‫מי ַה ָמּ ִרים‬. ֵ When all is said and done, in fact, the others are complete since they are made up of both the elements characterising this syntagma (bitterness and curse). It is a matter of understanding now whether the variant employed by the redactor in v. 23 is a response to stylistic necessity – such as, for example, the desire to avoid excessive repetition of the whole formula – or if, instead, it could have some other value. Since biblical legislative texts tend to be prolix and, by their very nature, are not concerned with repetition to the point that they can reach redundancy, we can suppose that what we have here is a specific choice of the redactors. Partially anticipating what we shall reiterate in the analysis of v. 23, we can hypothesise that the exclusive mention which this verse makes of bitterness as qualifying the water refers to and is bound up with the action which the priest is performing: that of wiping out the imprecations which he has written shortly before on a document, dissolving the ink in the water. It is clear that the result of this operation contributes noticeably to increasing the disgusting nature of the water which already contains the dust of the sanctuary: that could have led the redactor in this case – the only time among the occurrences of this expression – to privilege the motif of bitterness above that of the curse. Having established – at least hypothetically – the specific value of the variant, we shall now attempt to analyse the overall significance of the full expression ‫ ֵמי ַה ָמּ ִרים ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬in its figurative sense, granted that the literal sense refers quite clearly to the disgusting taste of the concoction. There have been various proposals for interpreting this syntagma: 217 to these I am seeking to add mine on the basis of some semantic and symbolic considerations. Putting together the individual elements composing it, one can argue that the expression ‫ ֵמי ַה ָמּ ִרים ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬suggests the fact that, just as it was prepared, the concoction has a power which is exclusively harmful: that is why it is described as “bitter” – well beyond the sense of taste – and, still worse, “damned”. 218 This implies that, independently of whether 217

For a summary of the principal positions on the subject, cf. I. Cardellini, Numeri 1,1 –10,10. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (I libri biblici 4.1; Milano 2013) 249 –250, and the related references. 218 I am using this adjective which, in my opinion, has the advantage of including the double nuance of “curse” and “condemnation”. In fact, following Levine, we can interpret the verb ‫ ארר‬not simply as “curse” but as “condemn”, underlining the precisely intensive aspect of the verbal form which is a piel participle (cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 196).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

97

the woman was guilty or innocent, from the human and natural point of view, the result could only have been one of physical harm for the one who was subjected to the trial. In other words, for the suspected woman, that water could simply and solely have been “bitter” because always the cause of “damnation”. This, we repeat, only from a human and natural point of view. However – by definition – the ordeal is Gottesurteil, divine judgement: therefore, God is being called on through his supernatural judgement to pronounce on the woman’s guilt or innocence. In the first case, he will not intervene to relieve the guilty woman from the naturally poisonous power of the “bitter water”; in the second case, however, God will intervene on behalf of the woman found innocent by making sweet what nature – with the help of human hands – has predisposed to be only and exclusively “damnably bitter”. This interpretation is aided by a precedent in Israel’s history which, semantically and symbolically, corresponds almost perfectly to the circumstances evoked by the ordeal: I am referring to the miracle performed by YHWH at Marah, recounted in Ex 15,23 –25. 219 The well-known account, which is none other than the etiology of the place, records a miracle containing the fact that God intervenes to transform the waters which are found there – which the text describes as ‫“ ָמ ִרים‬bitter”, and so declaring it undrinkable – into healthy, fresh and drinkable water. As well as representing an attempt at explaining the significance of a syntagma as obscure as ‫מי ַה ָמּ ִרים ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬, ֵ a similar interpretation is along the lines of and appears coherent with one of the principal concerns of Israel: that is to avoid the least shadow of doubt about the fact that the “ordeal of jealousy” was an esoteric practice dependent on human action alone, and that the potion had a magic power of its own. The presence of the priest, minister of God, and the need – presented in the terms above – of the direct intervention of YHWH for the correct conduct of the trial guarantee the protection of Israelite orthodoxy averting the suspicion of contamination from similar esoteric practices which were, for that matter, common practice among Israel’s neighbours.

219 23 “ They arrived at Marah, but they could not drink the water of Marah because it was bitter (‫)כּי ָמ ִרים ֵהם‬. ִ That was why it was called Marah. 24 Then the people murmured against Moses: “What shall we drink?”. 25 He called on the Lord, who showed him a piece of wood. He threw it into the water and the water became sweet”.

98

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

3.4. Oath (vv. 19 –24) 19

The priest shall make her swear and say to the woman: If no other man has lain with you and if you have not turned aside making yourself impure with another man while you belonged to your husband, may you be shown innocent by this water of bitterness which bears a curse. 20 But if you have turned aside with another man while belonging to your husband and made yourself impure and another man has had relations with you other than your husband . . ., 21 at this point the priest shall make the woman swear with an oath and the priest shall say to the woman: YHWH make of you a curse and an imprecation in the midst of your people, when YHWH makes your hips to wither and your belly to swell; 22 may this water which brings a curse enter into your bowels to make your body swell and your hips wither! And the woman shall say: Amen, Amen! 23 And the priest shall write these imprecations on a document and wipe them out with the water of bitterness. 24 He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness which bears a curse and the water which bears a curse shall enter into her to produce bitterness.

The stage which we have described as the preparation for the ritual (vv. 15 –18) is over. Verse 19 begins the description of the oath which, in the final version of the ritual recorded in the final form of the text of Num 5,11 –31, accompanies the cereal offering and the ordeal proper. 220 In the Hebrew Bible, an “oath” is meant to be the public manifestation of the obligation to carry out faithfully what a person is promising. In a religious context, the oath has the divinity as its ultimate referent and is often and deliberately corroborated by the evocation of a curse which follows on the failure to respect the promise made through the oath itself. 221 The solemnity of the declaration takes on sacred features to the extent in which the divinity is directly in it, evoked by the person who utters the oath as a guarantee of the veracity of the declaration itself. Irrevocability attaches to the sacred character of the oath, always deriving from the involvement of the divinity. 222

220

In the section on the reconstruction of the redactional history of the pericope, it emerged that, originally, the two procedures – ordeal and oath – could have been separate and independent, as happened, moreover, in the Ancient Near East according to the procedures recorded in the legislative documents which we have had occasion to cite. For the details, see points 2 and 3.2.3. of the present chapter. 221 Cf. Cf. I. Kottsieper, “‫”שׁבע‬, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry), VII (Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln 1993) 974 –1000; T.W. Cartledge, “‫”שׁבע‬, The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), IV (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 32 –34. 222 We shall be able to return to the theme of the irrevocability of oaths in the context of the study of the discipline of vows which will occupy the third chapter of the present book, devoted to the analysis of Num 30,2 –17.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

99

Speaking still in general terms, we can say further that one of the functions of the oath can consist of a solemn declaration as to the veracity of a fact which, through the most diverse of circumstances, turns out to be sub judice. Where the form is concerned, then, the oath consisted generally of alternative formulations, varied hypothetically so that they were mutually exclusive: if the one were true, the other collapsed as a result. The oath recorded in Num 5,19 –22 is of a particular type, described by scholars as an oath of purgation, “whose purpose it was to clear the accused of a charge”. 223 This specific nature is also echoed in the formulation of the oath which in certain ways turns out to be the opposite of what would be expected because oaths are assertive – at least in general. Precisely by virtue of this assertive nature, the innocence of the one swearing is usually represented by an action expressed in the positive whereas an action expressed in the negative corresponds to guilt. Putting this in concrete terms, we shall try to offer an example of assertive swearing: “I swear that I am telling the truth. If I am not telling the truth, may I be punished as a result”. The action corresponding to the innocence of the swearer (“I swear that I am telling the truth”) is expressed by an action of a positive stamp whereas the one corresponding to guilt is formulated in an expression of negative stamp (“if I am not telling the truth”). By its very nature, however, the oath of purgation provides that the swearer manifests his own innocence by denying having done what he is accused of, 224 and accepts punishment to the degree in which – through divine judgement – he turns out to be responsible for the state of affairs laid to his charge. Coming specifically to our text, the first thing we notice is that the leading role in the action is attributed once again to the priest. Not only is he called on to make the woman suspected of adultery take the oath – well described by recourse to the causative hiphil form of the verb, ‫יע‬ ַ ‫שׁ ִבּ‬ ְ ‫ְה‬ ִ ‫ו‬. He also has to administer her the formula of the oath, to the words of which the woman will agree with an assent which, from the formal point of view, is limited to the twofold repetition of the word “amen”. In order

223

Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 196. The “purgation” of the deed consists precisely in this confession of not being guilty through which the accused is relieved, “purged” of the weight which the accusation has laid upon him. 224

100

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

to appreciate its special nature and its content, we reproduce in a table the formulation of the oath of purgation in Num 5,19 –20.22: 225 Negative formulation (declaration of innocence)

Positive formulation (admission of guilt)

protasis

19b

If no other man has lain with you and you have not turned aside making yourself impure with another man while you belonged to your husband. . .

20

apodosis

19c

22a

. . . may you be shown innocent by this water of bitterness which bears a curse.

But if you have turned aside with another man while belonging to your husband and made yourself impure and another man has had relations with you other than your husband. . . . . . may this water which bears a curse enter into your bowels to make your body swell and your hips wither!

It will be noted that, where the great part of the content is concerned, the literary architecture of both formulations consists of elements previously introduced in the lexicon of the legal provision which we are studying. 226 Nonetheless, there is an element of novelty in v. 22a – what is more, already present in v. 21c, as we shall see shortly – consisting of the specific indication of the harm which the “damned water” will cause the woman, unless God intervenes to declare her innocence, by neutralising the power of the poison. The text warns that, in this case, the “damnation” of the water will be manifested in “a swollen belly and sagging thighs”. We shall try to analyse the expression ‫ָרְך‬ ֵ‫ְפּל י‬ ִ ‫בּות ֶבּ ֶטן ְו ַלנ‬ ֹ ‫ַצ‬ ְ ‫ל‬, to obtain a thorough understanding of its significance. 227 The root ‫ צבה‬appears in verbal form only twice in the Hebrew Bible: needless to say, both occurrences are found in our pericope, in Num 5,22.27, to be precise. The feminine singular adjective ‫צ ָבה‬, ָ which is derived from this root, appears a single time in the Hebrew Bible, and,

225

Given its peculiarity, we prescind in this section from v. 21, the treatment of which is deferred until later. 226 For the details of the correspondences, I refer to the table which I elaborated on the basis of Milgrom’s analysis (cf. point 2.2. of this chapter). Arranging the text in a chiastic structure, he describes the oath as “the pivot of the entire structure and, hence, its most important section” (Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 71). 227 On this particular point, see Excursus 13 of Cardellini, Numeri 1,1 –10,10, 252 –254.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

101

notably, in Num 5,21. 228 In all three cases just mentioned, both the verbal and adjectival forms invariably have the term ‫בּ ֶטן‬, ֶ “belly”, as their object. The statistical information we have observed in relation to ‫ צבה‬renders the lexeme interesting because it enables it to be considered as a technical term in connection with the procedure we are analysing. If we look at the two verbal occurrences, we note that, in Num 5,22, the root ‫ צבה‬is used in the hiphil: the employment of the causative form of the verb refers directly to the action performed by the “bitter water” which has a destructive power that causes the swelling of the woman’s belly if she is declared guilty. In Num 5,27, on the other hand, we find the qal form of the verb ‫צבה‬, employed to indicate the action of the belly which swells in the same way as a result of the poisonous action of the “bitter water” (and so, once again, if the woman is guilty). Similarly, the adjectival form in Num 5,21 describes the swollen shape of the belly, product of the direct action of YHWH, who does not intervene to counteract the effect of the “bitter water” in order to punish the woman who has clearly been found guilty of what she has been accused. After listing its morphological variants and relative distribution within our pericope, it is a question, now, of understanding the concrete nature of the harm represented by the action expressed by the verb ‫צבה‬, that is the “swelling of the woman’s belly”. To do this, we must bear in mind that, in the formulation of the law, alongside the swelling of the belly, there is another action presented as consequence of the “bitter water”: ‫ָרְך‬ ֵ‫ְפּל י‬ ִ ‫ְו ַלנ‬ which could be understood as the sagging of the upper part of the thighs, an area which the Bible often uses as a euphemism for the genitals. 229 Like the previous one, this expression also appears a little nebulous as to its specific significance. This has given rise to a fair range of opinions among interpreters who, right from antiquity – Josephus is included among them – have sought to understand the pathology hiding behind this change in the area described by the term. 230 As one of the most recent to propose an interpretation of the expression ‫ָרְך‬ ֵ‫ נפל י‬in a pathological sense, I note the details of the theory of T. Frymer-Kensky, who – on the basis of the idea of movement which is strongly attached to the root ‫– נפל‬ interprets the syntagma as the description of a prolapsed uterus. The causative hiphil form of the verb would serve as a clear expression that 228 For in-depth study, cf. P. J. J.S. Els, “‫”צבה‬, The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), III (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 735 –737. 229 Cf., for example, Gen 24,2; 46,26. 230 For the details of some of these theories, cf. Frymer-Kensky, “Strange Case”, 19 n. 15.

102

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

this pathological phenomenon is the direct result of the administration of the concoction to the woman. 231 Although conceding that, literally, the verb ‫ְפּל‬ ִ ‫ ַלנ‬could be translated correctly with “to cause to fall” – something which would coincide perfectly with the anatomical description of a prolapsed uterus – it is doubtful whether this pathology was so well known at the time of the redaction of the text as to enable the writer to represent its exact dynamics and, what is more, to reproduce them in a legislative text. 232 Levine’s theory is more plausible. As we have been able to anticipate when discussing the establishment of the causes of the husband’s impulse of jealousy, he interprets the complete expression ‫ָרְך‬ ֵ‫ְפּל י‬ ִ ‫בּות ֶבּ ֶטן ְו ַלנ‬ ֹ ‫ַצ‬ ְ ‫ ל‬as “miscarriage”. 233 This interpretation is based on a contrasting parallel obtained by juxtaposing this negative result of the ordeal with what we see to be its positive result: in the case of the woman’s innocence, in fact, the procedure provides that the woman can “retain her seed” (Num 5,28), an expression which, according to Levine indicates the possibility of bringing the pregnancy to its full term. 234 Therefore, just as the possibility of continuing the pregnancy is the reward of innocence, the interruption through spontaneous abortion of a pregnancy, which – through an unchallengeable divine judgement – is declared to be the fruit of the clandestine and adulterous love of the sotah, is the punishment for being guilty. However, we must now take a step back. It will not have escaped the reader that in composing the summary table of the two key formulations of the oath of purgation (Num 5,19 –20.22), we passed over v. 21. As anticipated in the note, this was not forgetfulness or an oversight but rather a deliberate choice intended to account for the peculiarity of this verse in relation to its context. This shows itself on two levels: first of all, on the level of the formal arrangement of the entire provision since the verse in question, placed as a kind of narrative barrier between v. 20 and v. 22,

231

Cf. Frymer-Kensky, “Strange Case”, 19; Cardellini, Numeri 1,1 –10,10, 253. The same doubt is raised by C.V. Camp who says: “I suspect that T. Frymer-Kensky’s effort to equate the ya¯ re¯k’s “falling” with a prolapsed uterus over-medicalizes the ancient world view” (Camp, “Numbers 5”, 114 n. 2). 233 Cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 198. We should note that, albeit in more basic and succinct terms, the same theory had been advanced by Budd, Numbers, 65. 234 As already pointed out, Levine claims that the suspicion which lies behind the man’s jealousy is caused in the final analysis by a suspicious pregnancy of his own wife which the man cannot ascribe to the couple’s normal sex life (cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 193). 232

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

103

ends up by interrupting the flow of the discourse. 235 This is clear to such an extent that in the translations of the text into languages different from Hebrew, the problem has to be obviated by recourse to diacritical signs which underline the parenthetical nature of the information contained in v. 21. Secondly, the particular nature of v. 21 emerges from considering its content seeing that – except for some details proper to it, to which we shall return shortly – in general, what is recorded there is only a slavish repetition of what is already present in v. 19 or v. 22. In order to give a visible summary of what we have just stated and with the aim of being able to continue our analysis of the text, we reproduce v. 21 in tabular form, breaking down its context so as to indicate the elements of continuity with vv. 19 and 22, as also the novel elements compared with these two verses: continuity with v. 19

own elements

continuity with v. 22

At this point the priest shall make the woman swear and the priest shall say to the woman:

with an oath YHWH make of you a curse and an imprecation in the midst of your people, when the Lord makes

your thighs to sag and your belly to swell.

With a degree of clarity, the table shows the specific contribution of v. 21 in relation to what is said in v. 19 and what is then reiterated in v. 22. This contribution consists of the addition of two elements, and we shall have to dwell on their importance: these elements are the syntagma ‫שׁ ֻב ַעת ָה ָאלָה‬ ְ ‫בּ‬, ִ repeated twice – though in a slightly different form 236 – in the same v. 21; and the explicit mention of YHWH’s direct intervention in the ordeal procedure, which is similarly reiterated twice in the verse. The syntagma ‫שׁ ֻב ַעת ָה ָאלָה‬ ְ ‫ ִבּ‬is not very common: it occurs just four times in the whole of the Hebrew Bible and, what is more, never in an identical form. 237 The fact that half the occasions occur in our pericope make it an interesting expression for the purposes of our study. According 235

Milgrom notes this clearly, stating: “Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that originally 22 followed 20, for then the adjuration reads smoothly and lucidly” (Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 71). 236 The second time, the syntagma appears with the terms reversed, ‫שׁ ֻב ָעה‬ ְ ‫ְל‬ ִ ‫ל ָאלָה ו‬, ְ something which, what is more, marks out a further chiasmus within a pericope which not infrequently makes use of this rhetorical figure, as we have shown. 237 In addition to the two occurrences in Numbers already indicated, the syntagma is found in Dan 9,11 (‫שּׁ ֻב ָע ַה‬ ְ ‫ְה‬ ַ ‫)ה ָאלָה ו‬ ַ and Neh 10,30 (‫בוּעה‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫וּב‬ ִ ‫)בּ ָאלָה‬. ְ Thus, in all four cases, the syntagma appears in a slightly different form.

104

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

to scholars, it is a rather precise juridical term which serves to identify the imprecatory component of the oath. This particular nuance is properly attributed to the syntagma by the second term, ‫אלָה‬, ָ which indicates the curse associated with the failure to perform an oath. Numerous witnesses of a legal character such as, for example, royal inscriptions show that in the Ancient Near East, it was customary to accompany oaths with an imprecatory supplement which acted as a deterrent to protect the fulfilment of the promise contained in the oath itself. Remaining in the biblical sphere, it will be enough to cite Deut 29,11.18 –19, which represents a specific example of the use of the term ‫ ָאלָה‬in connection, not with any kind of pact, but with the covenant with YHWH. If we add all this up, we can claim that the term in question is associated with the ominous consequences of failing to fulfil one’s word given solemnly in an oath. 238 The concrete case of the use of the syntagma ‫שׁ ֻב ַעת ָה ָאלָה‬ ְ ‫ ִבּ‬in Num 5,21 has to be analysed carefully for a number of reasons. First of all, the oath in question is not the result of a spontaneous decision on the part of the woman but, as we have seen, it was imposed on her by the procedure of the ordeal: in fact, it is the priest who administers it, even the formula, to the woman suspected of adultery who has to follow it slavishly, confining herself to confirming it with the twofold “amen”. However, the peculiarity of this oath arises from another factor also: if it were an oath like all the others, the imprecatory part would already constitute in itself an adequate addition to give weight to the declaration of the one swearing (here, the woman), and the function of the syntagma ‫שׁ ֻב ַעת ָה ָאלָה‬ ְ ‫ ִבּ‬could be reduced to a warning – maybe, even, a threat – about the serious nature of the obligation which is going to be assumed. In the case of Num 5,19 –22, however, the oath reinforced by the curse does not seem to be sufficient for the suspected woman since she is also called on to sip the potion prepared by the priest. We can only hypothesise the reasons for these peculiarities on the basis of some reflections on the redactional history of the text. On the basis of our theory of reconstruction, in fact, the law regarding the sotah, which is contained in Num 5,11 –31, is the result of the convergence in a single literary confection of three different traditions: the oath, the ordeal and the offering. Those which – still according to this reconstruction theory – appear to be the two oldest traditions, namely the oath and the ordeal, are supposed to have existed originally in independent forms: it is plausible, therefore, to argue that, before the fusion of ancient traditions 238

Cf. Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 197.

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

105

in the current redaction, the oath was the spontaneous expression of the one swearing (and not imposed, as in Num 5,19 –22) and, above all, was sufficient in itself to produce the exoneration of the one uttering it (not as in Num 5,19 –22 in which the oath is combined with the taking of the potion prepared by the priest). In short, therefore, the peculiarity of the oath in Num 5,19 –22 would be the result of redactional work which has blended traditions that were originally independent and self-sufficient, ending up by changing their nature. We come to the second characteristic element added by v. 21, namely the explicit mention of YHWH’s direct intervention in the affair. The specific import of this addition is very obvious and emerges clearly from the comparison between the formulation of v. 21b and that of v. 22a: v. 21b

v. 22a

YHWH make of you a curse and an imprecation in the midst of your people, when YHWH makes your thighs to sag and your belly to swell.

May this water which bears a curse enter into your bowels to make your belly swell and your thighs sag!

Comparison between the verses shows two things: on the one hand, the reproduction in both the verses of elements which we could describe as the outcome of the procedure if the woman had actually gone astray. According to what was hypothesised from v. 20, what we have here is the curse, the swelling of the belly and the sagging of the thighs, brought back again both in v. 21 and in v. 22 in a form which gains elegance from the chiasmic arrangement. On the other hand, in the face of the correspondence of the objects, emphasis is given to the prominence of the subject which causes the actions described above. In fact, whereas, according to v. 22, it is the ‫ ַה ַמּיִם ַה ְמ ָא ְר ִרים‬which cause the negative consequences for the woman, v. 21 leaves no doubts about the fact that every ominous effect relating to the guilt of the accused is produced by the direct intervention of YHWH, whose holy name is repeated a good twice in the verse. This phenomenon is still more significant when one realises that v. 21 is the only place which makes an explicit mention of a direct intervention of YHWH, evoking his name. 239

239 The tetragrammaton appears also in vv. 16.18.25.30, but always in the syntagma ‫ִל ְפנֵי‬ ‫יְהוָה‬, to indicate the place chosen for the ordeal. The only two occasions when the divine name is used in an absolute way, as the subject of verbs, are precisely in Num 5,21.

106

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

In my opinion, the variation in the subject of which we have just spoken can easily be ascribed to the intention of the redactors responsible for the final literary confection of our pericope to eliminate the idea that the “bitter water” had its own magic power with an efficacy that was somehow autonomous and independent of the will of the Almighty. Following Milgrom’s suggestion, we can reckon that the addition represented by v. 21 is meant to correct the appeal of this interpretation, signalling in a repeated way YHWH’s absolute control over human affairs and attributing to God full control over all his creatures. 240 It will be noticed that the correction takes place in a manner typical of antiquity, that is, through juxtaposition rather than substitution. 241 What I mean to say is that, just as attested by numerous other examples, 242 the biblical redactors do not erase the tradition they intend to renew or even to modify but retain it, adding, as a kind of counterpoise, a new tradition which is able to transform the general understanding of the entire text. In our specific case, the idea that the “bitter water”, by its own power, was the ultimate cause of the unfaithful woman’s punishment is not removed (and that is why v. 22 remains in the final text), but linked with the attribution to YHWH of the origin of all the actions relating to the woman’s punishment (expressed in v. 21). The final considerations relating to the content of v. 21 give us a better understanding of the reason for its existence within our pericope, something we have described as “awkward”, for the reasons laid out above. As we have already anticipated, Milgrom interprets the function of v. 21 in terms of a genuine correction in a theological sense of the overall interpretation of the ordeal ritual recorded in Num 5,11 –31. Clearly, he argues, in the tradition of the Ancient Near East, the practice of the ordeal through magic water does not prescribe the direct invocation of the divinity and attributes a thaumaturgical force to the water. 240

Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 41. This is what J.L. Ska has described as the “law of conservation”: “If what is ancient has such great value, then nothing can be eliminated. If a tradition is ancient, it must be maintained even if it has been superseded. A law cannot be abolished, even if it is no longer applicable. Ancient society is fundamentally conservative. Indeed, nothing is eliminated; everything is preserved and interpreted” (Ska, Introduction, 169). 242 The same Ska produces a series of examples of the phenomenon described above: among these, the most striking is undoubtedly the presence of three legislative codes within the Pentateuch (the Covenant Code, the Deuteronomic Code and the Holiness Code) which contain laws and regulations sometimes very similar, and which, not infrequently, propose different solutions to the same problem. In the course of the text’s redaction, none of these was eliminated; instead the process was one of making additions which were juxtaposed with the previous material (cf. Ska, Introduction, 169 –170). 241

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

107

Hence, it appears legitimate to infer that the textual tradition relating to the ordeal – which, together with that relating to the oath, formed the oldest basis of Numbers 5 – similarly did not know of any direct reference to God, enabling the understanding that the salvific or maleficent power was actually a property of the water. This is why v. 21 is important: it was interpolated into the text with the aim of clarifying the divine paternity of the power which is manifested in the ritual of the ordeal. 243 After trying above to clarify the function of v. 21, we shall complete the analysis of this section about the path with the examination of v. 23. The leading role is assigned once again to the priest who is ordered to dissolve in the vessel containing the potion the ink necessary to put in writing the expressions contained in the previous verses. The term ‫ה ָאלֹת‬, ָ with which the text designates the content of the words which the priest is told to put in writing in order to dissolve it in the water later, leaves little doubt about the identity of the portion of the text to which it is meant to refer: it is the ‫שׁ ֻב ַעת ָה ָאלָה‬ ְ administered by the priest to the woman, recorded in v. 21, which, among other things, contains the sacred tetragrammaton repeated twice. We can certainly agree with Gray that “the original purpose [of dissolving the words in the water, my note] was to impart an actual efficacy to the potion”. 244 It is a custom well known not only in the ancient world but even in modern times, as is attested by evidence for its use which stretches from West Africa to Tibet. 245

243 Milgrom speaks literally of the “intrusion of verse 21” (cf. Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 71). The author concludes his discussion on Num 5,21 by asserting that, even if it is an insertion – which, for obvious reasons is still more recent than the text into which it is inserted – “there can be no doubt that the interpolation of 21 took place during the early formation of the text and not during its final stages” (Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 72). In support of this claim, he adduces arguments of a formal and stylistic nature, such as the balancing of terms which outline the harmonic structure of the whole pericope, following what we were able to notice in the sections concerning the structure of Num 5,11 –31. While I accept without reservations Milgrom’s interpretation of the function of v. 21 (theological correction), I honestly find it difficult to recognise as a “compelling reason” for the antiquity of the redactional intervention a reason of a stylistic character which could very well be suited to the final stages of the last redaction of the present text. 244 Gray, Numbers, 54. 245 L.A. Waddell reports that the Tibetans are accustomed to curing some sicknesses by ingesting paper on which an augury has been written. In Gambia, instead, the practice is to write some passages of the Koran on the inner part of an earthenware cup and then to fill it with water and stir it until the writing has dissolved. The sick person is then called upon to drink the potion thus prepared so as to be able to regain his health. Cf. L.A. Waddell, The Buddhism of Tibet or Lamaism. With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and Its

108

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

Verse 23 concludes with a reference to the “bitterness” of the potion which is represented by use of the already known syntagma ‫מי ַה ָמּ ִרים‬. ֵ We could say that this bitterness could be understood both in a literal and a figurative sense: in the literal sense, the water which forms the basic ingredient of the potion, the natural taste of which had already been adulterated by the presence of the sanctuary dust in v. 17, becomes even more “bitter” by virtue of the dissolved ink. Therefore, the first meaning of the expression belongs to the sensory sphere of taste. However, the bitterness of this water goes beyond the flavour sensed by the taste buds, and relates to the imprecations contained in the text which the priest has written and then dissolved in the water. We note that this “virtual bitterness” of the water will manifest itself and be the bearer of negative consequences only in so far as YHWH does not intervene to cancel the maleficent power, namely, in the case of the guilt of the woman suspected of adultery. As we have seen in our reconstruction of the redactional history of our text, 246 v. 24 has given rise to numerous questions about the unitary nature of the pericope. This is because the instruction contained at the beginning of the verse, ‫ת־מי ַה ָמּ ִרים ַה ְמ ָאֲר ִרים‬ ֵ ‫שּׁה ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ִא‬ ָ ‫שׁ ָקה ֶא‬ ְ ‫ְה‬ ִ ‫ו‬, which prescribes that the priest make the woman drink the potion, is repeated in v. 26b with a formulation the formal variations of which with respect to the previous one are so minimal as not to affect the substance of the parallelism. 247 For reasons of plausibility, we exclude the possibility that the ritual is prescribing a double taking of the potion by the woman: if this were the case, the “second drinking” of v. 26b would have been given adequate prominence by a text which is describing the performance of a ritual and is, therefore, slavish and even pedantic by its very nature. 248 Rather, one can interpret the content of Num 5,24a as an addition to the instructions in vv. 16 –18, which we have described as preparation for the ritual. After having described the way to make up the potion and its ingredients, the text can only be alluding to the basic purpose of this

Relation to Indian Buddhism (London 1899) 401 (cit. by Gray, Numbers, 54 who, however, attributes to Egypt what Waddell refers to as a particular custom of the Moslem populations of the Gambia). 246 Cf. point 2.1. of this chapter. 247 Thus, the text of Num 5,26b: ‫ת־ה ָמּיִם‬ ַ ‫שּׁה ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ִא‬ ָ ‫ַשׁ ֶקה ֶא‬ ְ ‫ְא ַחר י‬ ַ‫ו‬ 248 Thus Gray in this connection: “Two draughts are unlikely; and, if intended, would probably have been more clearly expressed by the addition of “again” or “a second time” in v. 26b” (Gray, Numbers, 55).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

109

preparation which is obviously the administration of the drink to the woman by the priest. 249

3.5. Performance of the ritual of the ordeal (vv. 25 –28) 25

The priest shall take the offering of jealousy from the woman’s hands, he shall present the offering with the rite of waving before YHWH and shall bring it to the altar. 26 The priest shall take a handful of that offering as its memorial and burn it on the altar; then shall he make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, the water which bears a curse shall enter into her to produce bitterness: her belly will swell and her thighs shall sag and that woman shall become an object of imprecation in the midst of her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and so is pure, she will be shown to be innocent and will be fruitful.

With the description of the preparation for the ritual completed, v. 25 brings us into the procedure proper. The first stage is the presentation of the offering by the so-called “rite of waving”, in Hebrew, ‫נוּפה‬ ָ ‫תּ‬. ְ We have already discussed the type and nature of the offering in the comment on v. 15: 250 we shall seek now to make a close examination on the mode of the “waving” to which our ritual explicitly refers. The term ‫נוּפה‬ ָ ‫ ְתּ‬derives from the root ‫נוף‬, which appears a total of 34 times in the Hebrew Bible, always in causative form. 251 The basic meaning of the root in Hebrew, as in other cognate languages, refers to an undulating movement which involves a shifting from one spot to another (“swinging”). However, there is a secondary meaning of the verb which describes another type of movement, this time in a vertical direction, and it is interpreted as “be high, exalted”. It is precisely from this second meaning that one is inclined to derive the term ‫נוּפה‬ ָ ‫תּ‬. ְ Its use is established in the cultic sphere as a technical term which – at least according to some scholars – describes the elevation rather than 249

Cf. Gray, Numbers, 55; Milgrom, Numbers, 41. For the literary form of Num 5,11 –31 (but with particular reference to vv. 21 –24), I refer to an interesting article by A.M. Kitz who, from the textual point of view, compares our ritual with Psalm 109 and with a similar ritual recorded in a Hittite text: A.M. Kitz, “Effective Smile and Effective Act: Psalm 109, Numbers 5, and KUB 26”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69 (2007) 440 –456. 250 Cf. point 3.3. of this chapter. 251 To be exact, the term appears 32 times in the hiphil form (including once in our pericope, in Num 5,25), once in the hophal (Ex 29,27) and once in the polel (Is 10,32). See further in H. Ringgren, “‫נוּפה ;נוף‬ ָ ‫”תּ‬ ְ , Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry), V (Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln 1986) 318 –322; R.E. Averbeck, “‫”נוף‬, The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), III (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 63 –67.

110

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

the agitation of the offering. 252 The symbolic significance of the rite of offering by elevation is quickly explained: the upward movement made by the gesture of the one offering – generally the priest, in the records – is a plastic and visible evocation of the ideal destination of the offering which is being presented to the one who “dwells on high”, namely, the divinity. Moreover, v. 25 explains clearly the final destination of the offering by following the verb which describes it (‫ְהנִיף‬ ֵ ‫ )ו‬with the syntagma ‫ל ְפנֵי יְהוָה‬, ִ 253 “before YHWH”. Verse 26 informs us that, after having presented God with the offering by elevation, the priest is told to set the actual ritual of the offering in motion. It will be noted that the procedural instructions recorded in v. 26 are reduced to the essentials. This is simply because – since it involves a ‫ְחה‬ ָ ‫מנ‬, ִ as we have explained in the comment on v. 15 – the ritual to be followed for the offering is well known: it is described in detail in Lev 2,2. The burning of part of the cereal offering – which was to serve as a memorial, as indicated by the root of the word employed, ‫ְכָּרה‬ ָ ‫ ַאז‬254 – is followed by the administration to the accused woman of the potion which had been confected (v. 26b) by the priest. Verse 27 begins with a case to be subjected to textual criticism. Like the Syriac, the Greek version of the LXX does not record the first part of the verse which we find in the Masoretic Text, that is, ‫שׁ ָקהּ ֶאת־‬ ְ ‫ְה‬ ִ‫ו‬ ‫ה ַמּיִם‬. ַ Given that the content of the text in question reproduces basically, even if not identically, 255 the concluding part of v. 26, this discrepancy between the versions can be interpreted in two ways: some think it is an example of dittography, in which case the scribe responsible for the present version of the MT would have repeated the concluding part of v. 26 accidentally. The consequence of this theory is that the LXX and the Syriac are reproducing the older text. For other scholars, however, the older text would be that recorded by the MT, and the scribal error would be not dittography but parablepsis due to homoioteleuton: the shorter 252 Thus G.R. Driver, “Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch”, Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1956) 100 –105; J. Milgrom, “The Alleged Wave-Offering in Israel and in the Ancient Near East”, Israel Exploration Journal 22 (1972) 33 –38; Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 276. 253 In the context of explaining the presence of the root ‫ נוף‬in Num 8,11 (in which the verb and the derived nominal form ‫נוּפה‬ ָ ‫ ְתּ‬are found), Levine says: “The verb means “to raise”, and this mode of presentation is described in the Mishna. The offering was not “waved”, as many have explained it, but was rather carried to and fro, while being held high, in order to display the offering before the Deity” (Levine, Numbers 1 –20, 276). 254 On the meaning and use of this term, see Driver, “Three Technical Terms”, 99 –100. 255 In fact, this is the text of Num 5,26b: ‫ת־ה ָמּיִם‬ ַ ‫שּׁה ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ִא‬ ָ ‫ַשׁ ֶקה ֶא‬ ְ‫י‬

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

111

variant of the LXX and the Syriac would be explained by the fact that both v. 26b and v. 27a terminate with the same word, ‫ת־ה ַמּיִם‬ ַ ‫א‬. ֶ This would have led the scribe to jump over the word ‫שׁ ָקהּ‬ ְ ‫ְה‬ ִ ‫ו‬, which, in the MT, appears between the two occurrences of the word. Although, in general, the rule lectio brevior, potior holds, my view is that in this particular case, the second solution is to be preferred to the first. In fact, in order to accept the theory of dittography, one has to be satisfied with the fact that the accidental repetition is substantial but not formal, given that before the repetition of the same content there are significant variations in form. This does not speak in favour of a mechanical error. Instead, the theory of parablepsis due to homoioteleuton accounts for the origin of the variant without any effort at understanding. Discounting this question of critica textus, v. 27 does not offer particular novelties in content, and the same can be said of v. 28. Rather than a real thematic advance, these two verses contain what can be understood as the reiteration of the two possible outcomes of the ordeal, anticipated and set out, what is more, in Num 5,19 –22. As we have noted previously in the context of the exegetical analysis of v. 14, it is probable that the origins of the impulse of jealousy which takes possession of the man and sets in motion the whole procedure described by this pericope is to be sought in a pregnancy which proves to be suspicious in the husband’s eyes because he cannot put it down to the couple’s own sex life. In that section, we also anticipated the fact that the content of vv. 27 –28, which summarises the possible outcomes of the ordeal, comes to the aid of this theory, by emphasising in both cases – both that favourable to the woman and that adverse – aspects which have to do with the woman’s fertility or lack of it. In fact, if the verdict of the ordeal manifests the guilt of the accused, she is to be punished with regard to her childbearing ability, 256 by incurring the curse of the “bitter water”. If, on the other hand, the divine judgement confirms her purity by decreeing her innocence, she will be able to be “sown with seed” (‫ָרע‬ ַ‫) ְו ִנז ְְר ָעה ז‬, that is, be fertile. 257

256 In fact, this is my interpretation of the expression ‫ת־בּ ְט ֵנְך‬ ִ ‫ְא‬ ֶ ‫ֹפלֶת ו‬ ֶ ‫ְר ֵכְך נ‬ ֵ‫ְבּ ֵתת יְהוָה ֶאת־י‬ ‫צ ָבה‬, ָ “may YHWH make your thighs sag and your belly to swell”. Cf., above, point 3.4 of this chapter, especially the exegesis of vv. 21 –22. 257 Cf. C. Nihan, “Nombres 5/11 –31 et l’enfantement de la justice divine au sein de la communauté”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses 72 (1997) 435.

112

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

3.6. Summary recapitulation of the case (vv. 29 –30) 29

This is the law of jealousy when a wife goes astray with another man while she belongs to her husband and makes herself impure, 30 and when a spirit of jealousy takes possession of the husband and he becomes jealous of his wife; he shall make his wife appear before the Lord and the priest will apply this law to her in full.

Commenting on vv. 27 –28, we have been able to show the absence of new details in the content, emphasising that this is more a reiteration of what has been said previously than a real advance in the composition and description of the procedure we are studying. This is even more true for the verses immediately following, with a basic difference: whereas the summary character of vv. 27 –28 is confined to content, vv. 29 –30 present themselves as a recapitulation of the whole provision from a formal point of view as well. The incipit of v. 29 leaves no doubt about this, employing a formula which is well attested in the priestly legislation of the Pentateuch as the conclusion of a series of ritual instructions: this is the formula ‫תּוַרת‬ ֹ ‫זאת‬. ֹ 258 Technically, it is a subscript formula, with the function of recapitulating in conclusive form the nucleus of the content expressed previously, sealing it, as it were, through the legal and ritual qualities attached to the term ‫תּוָרה‬. ֹ 259 Reiterating what we have said previously, I must emphasise that, in this particular case, the element indicated as central by the subscript formula is the husband’s jealousy. In fact, the whole legislation of Num 5,11 –31 is summarised by v. 29a as ‫תּוַרת ַה ְקּ ָנאֹת‬. ֹ That the husband’s jealousy is the central element of the law may emerge also from a further consideration relating to the comparison with the introduction of the law. Since we have already indicated that vv. 12a –14 contain the exposition of the case which the law is meant to tackle, it will be useful to compare these two verses with vv. 29b –30 which, act as a summary of the whole provision, as signalled by the fact they are introduced by the subscript formula:

258 The formula is found again in the same form in Lev 6,2.18; 11,46; 12,7; 13,59; 14,32.57; 15,32; Num 5,29; 6,21; Ezek 43,12(x2). Moreover, it appears in an absolute state (‫תּוָרה‬ ֹ ‫)זאת ַה‬ ֹ but with an identical function and meaning in Lev 7,37; 14,54; Num 19,14. 259 For numerous examples of the use of this formula, cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 42.

113

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

v. 12a –13 straying of the woman

jealousy of the husband

v. 14

If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act,

v. 29b

v. 30

. . . when a wife goes astray with another man while she belongs to her husband and makes herself impure,

and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself. . .

. . . and when a spirit of jealousy takes possession of the husband and he becomes jealous of his wife; he shall make his wife appear before the Lord and the priest will apply this law to her in full.

An interesting element emerges from this comparison: whereas, in v. 13, the introduction to the case devotes itself to the detailed description of the woman’s straying, indicating, for example, the secrecy of the matter because of the absence of witnesses, the reference which the summary makes to this element – the woman’s straying – in v. 29b is more concise and basic. By contrast, it will be noted that v. 30 reproduces an almost word for word description of the husband’s jealousy which has already been presented in v. 14 in the introduction to the case. On closer examination,

114

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

the text of Num 5,30 goes even further: it is not limited to summarising the contents of the introduction to the provision (v. 14); it also reproduces what we could consider the linchpin of the whole procedure. This consists in the instruction to the husband to make the woman appear before YHWH, entrusting her to the hands of the priest. As we have underlined several times, it is precisely the priest who is the real leading figure of the whole procedure of the ordeal of the “bitter water”, the one who is called to implement it in full. The law relegates the husband to the role of mere spectator while the woman has to carry out passively the procedure administered to her by the priest. What appear to be simple, and for the most part summary, procedural instructions end up confirming the hypothesis already formulated about the function and fundamental aim of the law in Num 5,11 –31, the socalled “torah of jealousy”. On the one hand, they underline the centrality of the husband’s jealousy as the factor which justifies the setting in motion of the whole procedure; on the other hand, the repetition of the absolute nature of the leading role of the priest, to whom the husband is ordered to entrust his case, indicates what I would claim to be one of the chief aims of the law, namely, to avoid the case where, on account a simple suspicion caused by jealousy, not corroborated by the evidence of witnesses, the husband could put his own wife to death, invoking the provisions of Lev 20,10 and Deut 22,22 –27 for cases of adultery.

3.7. Addendum (v. 31) 31

The man shall be free from guilt, but the woman shall bear her guilt.

Verse 31 is to be considered an addendum and – like v. 21 – very probably an interpolation later than the rest of the text. This can be inferred from observations about both the form and the content. In fact, as Milgrom observes, its presence can scarcely be justified after the subscript formula which, by its very nature, summarises the provision presented so far and so ought to conclude its exposition. Confirmation of this lies in the chiastic arrangement of the technically most important element of the formula (that is, the term ‫)תּוָרה‬, ֹ which is repeated at the beginning of v. 29 and at the end of v. 30 to mark the conclusion of the pericope through the employment of the rhetorical figure of inclusion. 260 260 Milgrom’s words do not leave any doubt about this: “Thus, in thought and in form, the law of the suspected adulteress is finished and sealed by this concluding inclusion” (Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 73).

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

115

Now that we have ascertained the secondary nature of this addendum in relation to the context, it is a matter of trying to cast light on the reasons which led the later redactors to add this postscript to a text laden with content to the point of redundancy. In this case too, taking up some of the observations of Milgrom, we can argue that – in the same way we have noted in commenting on the logic of the addition in v. 21 – the purpose of the interpolation of v. 31 responds to the need to correct some practical consequences of the ritual or to balance its effects. What is striking is that, just as v. 21 is aimed at reshaping the understanding of the power attaching to the procedure, shifting the hermeneutical horizon from the purely magical to the theological plane, so what has been added by v. 31 can be understood as a “theological expansion” of the provision contained in our text. This theological expansion is made concrete in two consequences which we are going to analyse. The first consequence of this addition consists in the total absence of guilt from the accusing husband, whatever the outcome of the ordeal: ‫ִקּה ָה ִאישׁ ֵמ ָעֹון‬ ָ ‫ ְונ‬, “the man shall be free from guilt”. That the freedom from guilt underlying this provision of v. 31a is absolute is inferred from the general nature of the statement: since no specific circumstance is introduced, what is provided by the text of the addition is to be interpreted broadly. To be still more clear, if the divine judgement were to establish the woman’s innocence, it would go without saying that the husband’s accusations were false: with the addition of v. 31a, the man cannot be blamed for false witness, as could have happened without the detail in this addition. The “theological” nature of this correction made in Num 5,31a consists mainly in the confirmation of God’s centrality in the whole process just as in every other aspect of human life: only YHWH, in fact, can enable the man to be immune from guilt even when he is found to be infringing a law of capital importance such as the commandment against bearing false witness. We should also add that the certainty of non-imputability undeniably sounds reassuring to the ears of the husband who will himself be completely secure and so encouraged to make use of the procedure of the ordeal rather than try to resolve the problem by himself. The first statement in the addendum is of a general character and, consistent with that, has consequences of a general type for the accusing husband to whom it is addressed; the second part of the addendum – contained in v. 31b and addressed to the woman – is clearly of a specific nature in that it contemplates only one of the possible outcomes of the ordeal: the case of a guilty verdict for the accused. Nonetheless, despite

116

The bitter waters of jealousy: Num 5,11 –31

appearances, this is not a case of a sterile redundancy which is limited to reproducing in a summary way what has already been affirmed by vv. 19 –21 in connection with the negative consequences of the ordeal. Literally, the text is saying: ‫ת־עֹונָהּ‬ ֲ ‫שּׂא ֶא‬ ָ ‫שּׁה ַה ִהוא ִתּ‬ ָ ‫ְה ִא‬ ָ ‫ו‬, “the woman, on the other hand, shall bear her own guilt”. Just as in the first part of the verse, so too here we are in the presence of a hermeneutical twist of a theological type insofar as the expression does not describe a generic punishment but refers clearly to the divine punishment. 261 This enables us to understand the purpose of the addition of v. 31b which shows itself fully in line with first part of the same verse: seeking the ultimate fate of the woman from God, the only and supreme judge. It will be noted that, in the specific case contemplated by this part of the text, the woman is no longer suspected but declared guilty: strictly, this would involve the killing of the woman by stoning as prescribed by Lev 20,10 and Deut 22,22. The provision of Num 5,31b acts literally as deus ex machina insofar as it solves this problem by asking the supreme lawgiver – YHWH – for the permission to disregard so blatantly the law which He Himself has given. Both the first and second consequences which have been indicated as the specific contribution of the addition in Num 5,31 are meant to solve two concrete problems, left open to a degree by the procedure described by vv. 11 –30. Recapitulating in a very summary way, we can say that the first problem concerned the imputability of the accusing husband whereas the other concerned the immediate fate of the woman in the case of a declaration of her guilt. The particularly interesting fact is that both problems are solved by the redactors responsible for the final composition of the pericope through the insertion of a direct, even if not verbally explicit, reference to the divinity. In the first case, YHWH is the only one able to exonerate the accusing husband from any responsibility; similarly, in the second case, it is always God who removes the woman declared guilty of adultery from the husband’s retribution, classifying the woman’s guilt as a case of sin, and so himself laying down that she is called on to answer to him alone.

261 There are numerous attestations of the use of ‫ נשׂא ָעֹון‬in this theological sense, such as, for example: Lev 5,1.17; 7,18; 17,16; 19,8; 20,17.19; Num 5,31; 9,13; 14,34; 30,16. Cf. D.W. Zimmerli, “Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezechiel. Ein Beitrag zum Problem an Hand von Ez. 141 –11”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft 66 (1954) 1 –26. Cf. also Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress”, 73.

Chapter II An inheritance for five daughters Num 27,1 –11

Andaba la casa alborotada, pero, con todo, comía la sobrina, brindaba el ama y se regocijaba Sancho Panza, que esto del heredar algo borra o templa en el heredero la memoria de la pena que es razón que deje el muerto. 1

True to the witty and clever style which informs his entire work, Miguel de Cervantes does not fail to adorn with an irony heavy with wisdom even the most tragic moment of the long and extraordinary affair of the ingenious hidalgo de La Mancha. In describing the final moments in the life of Don Quixote, he lingers over the contrast – human to such a point as not to be ethically reprehensible – between the imminent death of the novel’s hero and the life which continues on its way, tranquil and even cheerful, in the characters who surround him. Even the faithful Sancho Panza is described as being joyful. This would surprise the reader to the point of indignation were it not for the sarcastic comment of the most famous of Iberian pens: “Que esto del heredar algo borra o templa en el heredero la memoria de la pena que es razón que deje el muerto”. Faced with the death of someone who is dear, the thought of the inheritance, seen now as something imminent, has the power to blot out – or at least to mitigate – in the heir his sorrow for the loss of the dying relative. It is precisely inheritance that constitutes the principal theme of our study in this second chapter which is devoted to examining Num 27,1 –11; it is a pericope which, by virtue of the nature of the protagonists, holds its rightful place within the general framework of our study of the laws which the book of Numbers devotes to women. This brief passage presents the questions posed to Moses by the daughters of Zelophehad concerning the fate of their paternal inheritance which risked being dispersed among the other tribes because their father had died without leaving any male heirs. 1

Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quijote de la Mancha, Capítulo LXXIV: De cómo don Quijote cayó malo y del testamento que hizo y su muerte.

118

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

Following our procedure in the first chapter, the first stage of our study will be occupied with siting the pericope in its contexts, remote and close. We shall then proceed to mark out the boundaries of the literary unit. The second stage will turn to the internal organisation of the pericope in order to propose a structure in thematic segments which enables us to have a better understanding. Finally, we shall undertake the exegetical analysis proper by studying each of the verses which make up the pericope in order to shed light on the purpose of the text in its present form, as also – where possible – on the history of its literary formation and its connections with texts that are thematically and literarily similar.

1. The contexts (remote and close) of the pericope and its delimitation The need to begin the study of the pericope with its location in its remote and close contexts offers us, now, the opportunity to develop some reflections on the general structure of the book of Numbers and the peculiarities which it presents. As we have shown elsewhere, 2 the “fourth fifth of the Torah” represents a real headache for those who try to identify its internal shape: to take account of the objective difficulties which the structure of Numbers involves, it will be sufficient to refer, summarily, to the opinions of some of the classical commentators on our book. Among these, Gray claims that “the book of Numbers is a section somewhat mechanically cut out of the whole of which it forms a part; the result is that it possesses no unity of subject”. 3 For his part, O. Eissfeldt repeats an idea that is certainly not dissimilar, emphasising the deep thematic fragmentation within the five books of the Pentateuch. 4 In his commentary, G.J. Wenham expresses without reservation the impossibility of understanding the book of Numbers except in relation to the rest of the books of the Pentateuch, actually questioning the idea that it could have an autonomous and independent structure. 5 In his proposal to reconstruct the structure of the book of Numbers, D.L. 2

Cf. Cocco, Torah, 40 –41. Gray, Numbers, xxiv. 4 Cf. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction. Including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran. The History of the Formation of the Old Testament (Oxford 1965) 157. 5 Cf. G. J. Wenham, Numbers (The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary; Leicester 1981) 18. 3

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

119

Stubbs puts forward an image which does not hide the marginal treatment of the fourth book of the Pentateuch compared with the other four: “Our ‘tree’, Numbers, gets lost in the forest of the Pentateuch”. 6 More recently, this “pessimistic” tendency towards the organisation of the material which forms the book of Numbers has undergone a notable variation. In my opinion, revealing as to what lies at the basis of this change of perception are the words of M. Douglas, who affirms that “the interpretation of a sacred text cannot go forward comfortably on the assumption that the editors put it together carelessly. The problem then is to take the pattern we are given and try to understand it”. 7 The attempts to understand the logic which guided those responsible for the final form of the text of the book of Numbers are various and different in nature: 8 for its plausibility, I confine myself to noting Ska’s correction of the thesis elaborated by R.P. Knierim, who identified a bipartite structure in the book on the basis of criteria of form and content. We shall start by recalling the pillars of Knierim’s proposal. From a formal point of view, he interprets the whole of the book of Numbers through the literary genre of the military campaign and understands the arrangement of the material as following the scheme “plan-execution of the plan”. He ends up by being able to structure the fourth book of the Torah into the following two sections: Num 1,1 –10,10, devoted to the preparation for the military campaign; Num 10,11 –36,13, taken up with the account of Israel’s march in the desert. 9 Ska points out that the second of Knierim’s sections is further patient of subdivision into parts, again on the basis of criteria of form and content. If it is actually true that the whole narrative bloc which forms the second section is held together by the description of the desert march, there is a turning point in the narrative,

6 D.L. Stubbs, Numbers (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids, MI 2009) 22. 7 M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 158; Sheffield 1993) 87. 8 For a systematic survey of the main proposals for the structure of the book of Numbers, cf. D.T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (Brown Judaic Studies 71; Chico, CA 1985) 34 –35; E. Zenger – C. Frevel, “Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuch-komposition”, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. T. Römer) (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Loveniensium 215; Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA 2008) 35 –74; J.L. Ska, “Old and New in the Book of Numbers”, Biblica 85 (2014) 102 –116. 9 Cf. R.P. Knierim, “The Book of Numbers”, Die hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. E. Blum – C. Macholz – E.W. Stegemann) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990) 155 –163; Knierim – Coats, 9 –16.

120

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

marked by the introduction of a new vocabulary: the vocabulary of a taking possession of territory. In fact, we read in Num 21,24 –25: 24

But Israel put him to the sword, and took possession (‫ִירשׁ‬ ַ ‫ )ַויּ‬of his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok and as far as Jazer of the Ammonites, for Jazer is the boundary of the Ammonites. 25 Israel seized all the towns here, and Israel settled (‫ֵשׁב‬ ֶ ‫ )ַויּ‬in all the towns of the Amorites, in Heshbon and all its dependencies.

Ska observes correctly that the presence of two technical verbs such as ‫ ירשׁ‬and ‫ ישׁב‬cannot not mark a before and after in the plan of the entire narrative of Numbers. He, therefore, proposes to subdivide what Knierim had identified as the second section of the book into two further parts. In this new scenario, the first part of the second section (Num 10,11 –21,20) is meant to describe the march of Israel in the desert; for its part, the second (Num 21,21 –36,13) brings us into the actual phase of the conquest and possession of the land. 10 These valuable observations of Ska can be supplemented by a useful observation of F. García López 11 which is linked to the topographical information ‫מואב‬ ָֹ ‫בות‬ ֹ ‫בּ ַע ְר‬, ְ “in the plains of Moab”, a phrase which is employed repeatedly in the final portion of the book to give the geographical location of the people of Israel on their journey in the desert. The first thing noticed is that all the occurrences of this syntagma are found concentrated in Numbers 22 –36. 12 Moreover, on the basis of its inclusive use in Num 22,1 and 36,13, the expression deserves to be claimed as structuring element of this final section of the book. Following along the lines of this first, general observation, García López proposes to subdivide further the section framed by these two extremes into two subsections: the first, which he describes as being of narrative character, devoted to the description of the conquest of Transjordania and containing some information relating to the consequent occupation of the land of Canaan (Num 22,1 –33,49); and the second, described as discursive in nature, 13 containing laws and instructions similarly preparatory to the conquest of Canaan (Num 33,50 –36,13). The reasons underlying this proposal to subdivide the text are fundamentally formal in character: in fact, to the 10

Cf. Ska, Introduction, 35 –38 Cf. F. García López, “La place du Lévitique et des Nombres dans la formation du Pentateuque”, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. T. Römer) (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Loveniensium 215; Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA 2008) 79. 12 To be precise, the syntagma ‫מואב‬ ָֹ ‫בות‬ ֹ ‫ ְבּ ַע ְר‬occurs in Num 22,1; 26,3.63; 31,12; 33,48.49.50; 35,1; 36,13. 13 In fact, five speeches of YHWH are recorded within this unit: Num 33,50 –56; 34,1 –15; 34,16 –28; 35,1 –8; 35,9 –34. 11

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

121

already noted variation of literary genre (narrative for the first subsection and discursive for the second), is added the presence of inclusive thematic motifs which contribute to the delimitation of the two subsections joining, respectively, Num 22,1 14 to 33,48 –49a 15 and Num 33,50 –51 16 to 36,13. 17 Following all these considerations about the general structure of Numbers, we can now better situate the pericope we are going to study. Num 27,1 –11 lies in what Ska has described as the final great thematic section of the fourth book of the Torah, devoted to describing the beginning of the conquest of the land (Num 21,21 –36,13). In still more detail, our pericope is in what García López has described as the narrative part of this final section of Numbers (Num 22,1 –33,49), and so has to be understood in the context of the instructions received by the people in view of their entrance into the promised land. We shall summarise in pictorial form what we have just said using a simple diagram which puts together the proposal of Knierim (first level), the additions of Ska (second level) and those of García López (third level): Num 1,1 –10,10 Preparation for the military campaign

Num 10,11 –36,13 Execution of the military campaign

Num 10,11 –21,20 Israel’s march in the desert

Num 21,21 –36,13 beginning of the conquest proper

Num 22,1 –33,49 description of the conquest and preparatory laws

Num 33,50 –36,13 preparatory instructions and laws for the entrance

14 “Then the Israelites moved on and encamped in the plains of Moab on the other side of the Jordan opposite Jericho”. 15 “Setting out from the Abarim range, they camped on the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho. They camped by the Jordan on the plains of Moab”. 16 “YHWH spoke to Moses on the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho: Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When you go across the Jordan into the land of Canaan”. 17 “These are the commandments and decisions which YHWH commanded the Israelites through Moses, on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan opposite Jericho”.

122

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

This is the macro context of the literary unit. We shall now seek to establish more clearly what is its immediate context, delimiting its literary boundaries. 18 The beginning of the pericope can be easily identified in Num 27,1 through a series of thematic and formal considerations. Starting from the thematic point of view, it is difficult to deny that Num 26,65 represents the conclusion of the previous literary unit since it constitutes the close of the thematic recapitulation which accompanies the second census in Numbers (Num 26,1 –65), explaining its raison d’être and underlining by inclusion (cf. Num 26,1 –2) that the origin for the numbering of the Israelites is directly divine. From the merely formal point of view, one observes without any difficulty the passage from the literary genre of the list, typical of the census, to that of narrative, which is resumed in Num 27,1. Last but not least, the Masoretic indication of the setumah, which immediately follows Num 26,65, indicates that the preceding material is a finished parashah, confirming that what follows is a different unit. Like the beginning, the conclusion of the pericope causes no problems of identification in that Num 27,12 introduces a quite different theme from that tackled in vv. 1 –11. In fact, there disappear from the stage those who until that point have been the leading figures, that is, the daughters of Zelophehad, and the plot is focused on new protagonists such as Eleazar and Joshua, as well as, obviously, the ubiquitous Moses. To that we can add the fact that, in introducing the divine speech, Num 27,12 impresses on the text a variation of literary genre with regard to Num 27,1 which introduced a narrative. In this case too, the presence of the setumah constitutes a further indication that what we have here is the conclusion of a literary unit. Finally, if we take a general look at the rest of the textual material in the book of Numbers, we observe that, because of the very close thematic affinity which links Num 27,1 –11 to Num 36,1 –12 – something to which we shall return in detail in the course of our analysis – we could say that these two passages enclose by way of inclusion the whole series of 18

On the specific role of the tradition relating to the daughters of Zelophehad in the final redaction of the book of Numbers, see U. Bechmann, “Prophetische Frauen am Zweiten Tempel? Ein Vorschlag, die Töchter Zelofhads (Num 27) als Kultprophetinnen zu verstehen”, Biblische Notizen 119/120 (2003) 52 –62. Again, in connection with the function of Num 27,1 –11 in the scheme of the final redaction of Numbers (particularly of the section Numbers 25 –31), see J. Grossman, “Divine Command and Human Initiative: A Literary View on Numbers 25 –31”, Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 54 –79.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

123

instructions contained and included within them. These instructions are formally distinct but homogeneous with regard to substance in that they share the aim of facilitating and preparing for the entrance of the people into the promised land. 19 Having established the boundaries of the literary unit, we shall now consider the internal strcuture of our text. Given that the pericope presents a substantially unitary face, we can identify within it some passages on the basis of their formal affinity with other similar texts: 20 I refer in particular to two passages in the same book of Numbers (9,6 –14 21 and 15,32 –36 22)

19 As C. Frevel correctly observes, “the framing compositional function is suspended in 4Q365 fragment 36 where Num 36:1 is immediately consecutive to Num 27:11” (C. Frevel, “The Book of Numbers – Formation, Composition, and Interpretation of a Late Part of the Torah. Some Introductory Remarks”, Torah and the Book of Numbers [ed. C. Frevel – T. Pola – A. Schart] [Forschungen zum Alten Testament / II 62; Tübingen 2013] 24 n. 91). The text of Numbers (or, better, part of it) found at Qumran forms a peculiar witness to this tradition in that it incorporates variants found in the Samaritan Pentateuch but foreign to the Masoretic Text. The publication of the critical edition of this textual witness is due to N. Jastram, “4QNumb (4Q27)”, Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. E. Ulrich – F.M. Cross et al.) (Discoveries in the Judean Desert 12; Oxford 1994) 205 –268. For a complete index of all the passages of the book of Numbers in the Dead Sea Scrolls (and so, not only at Qumran), cf. P.W. Flint – A.E. Alvarez, “The Preliminary Edition of the First Numbers Scroll from Nahal Hever”, Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999) 137 –143. 20 Through what I have been able to reconstruct, the relationship between these texts was first noticed by J. Weingreen, “The Case of the Daughters of Zelophcad”, Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966) 520, and then taken up by Noth, Numbers, 211; Budd, Numbers, 300; L. Schmidt, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri 10,11 –36,13 (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 7/2; Göttingen 2004) 163. 21 6 “ There were some, however, who were unclean because of a human corpse and so could not celebrate the Passover that day. These men came up to Moses and Aaron that same day 7 and they said to them, ‘Although we are unclean because of a human corpse, why should we be deprived of presenting YHWH’s offering at its prescribed time along with other Israelites?’. 8 Moses answered them, ‘Wait so that I can learn what YHWH will command in your regard’. 9 YHWH then said to Moses: 10 Speak to the Israelites: ‘If any one of you or of your descendants is unclean because of a human corpse, or is absent on a journey, you may still celebrate YHWH’s Passover. 11 But you shall celebrate it in the second month, on the fourteenth day of that month during the evening twilight, eating it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, 12 and not leaving any of it over till morning, nor breaking any of its bones, but observing all the statutes of the Passover.13 However, anyone who is clean and not away on a journey, who yet fails to celebrate the Passover, shall be cut off from the people, for not presenting YHWH’s offering at the prescribed time. That person shall bear the consequences of this sin.14 ‘If an alien who lives among you would celebrate YHWH’s Passover, it shall be celebrated according to the statutes and regulations for the Passover. You shall have the same law for the resident alien as for the native of the land’”. 22 32 “ While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was discovered gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who caught him at it brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole community. 34 But they put him in custody, for there was no clear decision as to what should be done with him. 35 Then YHWH said to Moses: ‘This man shall be put to death;

124

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

as well as Lev 24,10 –22. 23 It will come as no surprise that to these should be added the final narrative in the book of Numbers on account of the already noticed affinity between Num 27,1 –11 and Num 36,1 –12. If we look still more carefully at the list of pericopes just mentioned, the unifying factor emerging is the fact that, in each case, Moses appears incapable of solving the problem presented to him on the basis of the law then available to him and so is obliged to turn to YHWH to obtain a “supplement of revelation”. Furthermore, it will be noticed that one of the clearest common denominators is the fact that the laws recorded there are perfectly included in a markedly narrative context to the point of being literally occasioned by the event they narrate. 24 This happy marriage between legal and narrative material makes the Pentateuch unique in the panorama of the legislative collections of antiquity, enabling the Torah to be described in terms of “narrated law”. In addition to these considerations of content and theme, the common feature which characterises all these texts is the fact that they all share the same formal structure. According to de Vaulx, this structure constitutes a particular literary genre. Following his observations, we can summarise it schematically like this: 25

let the whole community stone him outside the camp’. 36 So the whole community led him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as YHWH had commanded Moses”. 23 10 “ A man born of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and in the camp a fight broke out between the son of the Israelite woman and an Israelite man. 11 The son of the Israelite woman uttered the YHWH’s name in a curse and blasphemed. So he was brought to Moses – now his mother’s name was Shelomith, daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan – 12 and he was kept in custody till a decision from YHWH should settle the case for them. 13 YHWH then said to Moses: 14 Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and when all who heard him have laid their hands on his head, let the whole community stone him. 15 Tell the Israelites: Anyone who blasphemes God shall bear the penalty; 16 whoever utters the name of YHWH in a curse shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone that person; alien and native-born alike must be put to death for uttering YHWH’s name in a curse. 17 Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death; 18 whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution of another animal, life for a life. 19 Anyone who inflicts a permanent injury on his or her neighbor shall receive the same in return: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The same injury that one gives another shall be inflicted in return. 21 Whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution, but whoever takes a human life shall be put to death. 22 You shall have but one rule, for alien and native-born alike. I, YHWH, am your God”. 24 Cf. Frevel, “The Book of Numbers”, 24. 25 Cf. de Vaulx, Nombres, 318 –319. Milgrom too holds that the four texts indicated above reproduce a “common literary pattern”, and he records what he believes to be their principal passages. However, in my opinion, his proposal for the structure of this literary genre seems a little overdone – 8 points for 11 verses – which is why I have gone for de Vaulx’s scheme which is simpler and more basic. Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 230.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

125

1) Presentation of the case in narrative form with exposition of the problem to Moses; 2) transfer of the case from Moses to YHWH, who provides the solution to the problem; 3) casuistic transformation of the case which is raised from a particular case to a general principle; 4) carrying out of the solution indicated by YHWH. 26 On the basis of this scheme, which, as we have said, refers to the literary genre of our pericope, it is now possible to proceed to mark the internal structure of the text, something that will be particularly useful for our subsequent exegetical analysis: Structure of Num 27,1 –11 v. 1 –4

Exposition of the case in narrative form

vv. 5 –7

Transfer of the case from Moses to YHWH and solution of the problem

vv. 8 –11

Transformation of the particular case into a general law

2. Exegetical analysis of Num 27,1 –11 From the methodological point of view, the exegetical analysis which will take up the present section will continue to be inspired by the same interdisciplinary criterion which informed the study of the pericope in the previous chapter. In this case too, we shall strive to avoid the risk of falling into a myopic reading of the text which is the product of partisan prejudices rather than a rigorous examination of the information furnished by the text itself. To this end, we shall seek to subject the pericope to the most appropriate approach in order to understand it correctly.

2.1. Exposition of the case in narrative form (vv. 1 –4) 1

There drew near the daughters of Zelophehad, son of Hepher, son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh, son of Joseph. These daughters were called Malah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. 26

However, this last point is not common to all the traditions signalled above but is evident only in Num 15,36 and Num 36,10 –12 (cf. de Vaulx, Nombres, 319).

126

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

2

They presented themselves to Moses, before the priest Eleazar, before the chiefs and all the community at the entrance to the tent of meeting, and they said: 3 “Our father died in the desert. He was not among the company united against the Lord, he was not among the men of Korah, but he died on account of his own sin, without sons. 4 Why should the name of our father disappear from his family because he had no sons? Give us a possession in the midst of our father’s brothers”.

Like every self-respecting narrative, our passage begins in v. 1 by introducing the characters who are going to play a leading role in the account. If one looks closely at this introduction, there is an element which cannot avoid attracting the attention of the reader, that is, the fact that those whom the text indicates as subjects of the verb which begins the narrative (namely, ‫ַתּ ְקַר ְבנָה‬ ִ ‫ו‬, “they drew near”) are called, generically the “daughters of Zelophehad”, before the proper name of each is given. These will follow so as to complete this basic piece of information. To understand the reasons for this peculiarity, we have to take a step backwards within the book of Numbers, turning our attention to the chapter immediately preceding our pericope, Numbers 26. In the context of the summary of the long census which takes up the whole chapter, the words recorded in Num 26,64 –65 indicate with terse peremptoriness that in the list of those who have been registered in this second census there is no one who was counted in the first census carried out by Moses and Aaron in the Sinai desert and recorded in Numbers 1 –4. 27 The reason for this absence is clearly explained by Num 26,65 which refers to the divine decision according to which all of them would have to die in the desert because of their infidelity with the exception of Joshua, son of Nun and Caleb, son of Jephunneh on account of their faithfulness to YHWH. This general statement aims at contextualising the second census, making it qualitatively different from the former in that its object is the assigning of land to the individual tribes and families representing the new generation, those born in the desert and immune from the sin of the previous generations. 28 This same statement makes highly significant and noteworthy what is recorded by Num 26,33. Here, in the context of the presentation of the descendants of Manasseh, we read in connection with one of his descendants: 27 On the second census of the book of Numbers, see I. Kislev, “The Census of the Israelites on the Plains of Moab (Numbers 26): Sources and Redaction”, Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 236 –260. 28 In this connection, Kislev says: “In its new location, the census functions as a “database” according to which Canaan will be divided, as stated in vv. 52 –54” (Kislev, “Census”, 250).

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

127

As for Zelophehad, son of Hepher, he had no sons, but only daughters. The names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah.

The mention of Zelophehad – together with accompanying information about his peculiar family consisting solely of women – undoubtedly represents an interesting feature for anyone studying the homogeneity of the content of the second census and its relation both to the first census of the book of Numbers and the list of Jacob’s descendants in Genesis 46. 29 In fact, scholars observe that the patriarchal tradition of Genesis 46 does not mention the descendants of Manasseh. However, they appear in Num 26,29 –33 in a quantity which exceeds expectations. In the latter list, in fact, the Manassehites are represented as far as the fourth generation and beyond, as one can make out from this summary table: Iezer Helek Asriel MANASSEH

Machir

Gilead Shechem

Mahlah

Shemida

Noah

Hepher

Zelophehad

Hoglah Milcah Tirzah

Such a span for Manasseh’s family is objectively disproportionate to what is given for the other tribes. Yet this does not appear to constitute a difficult problem. Bearing in mind the broader context, it is plausible, if not exactly clear, that the inclusion of the fourth generation in the family 29 Here, I shall not be concerned, unless very marginally and only so far as strictly relevant to my theme, with the genetic relationship between Genesis 46 and Numbers 26, and not even with the implications of the textual differences between the MT and the LXX (in certain cases really notable). On these specific aspects, I refer to Kislev’s systematic discussion in the article cited above as well as in I. Kislev, “The Counting of Jacob’s Descendants Coming to Egypt: Tradition and Text”, Iggud: Selected Essays in Jewish Studies. Vol. 1: The Bible and its World, Rabbinic Literature, and Jewish Thought (ed. B. Schwartz – A. Melamed – A. Shemesh) (Jerusalem 2008) 148 –149.

128

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

tree of Joseph (undoubtedly anomalous, from a formal point of view in comparison with the immediate context) has the purpose of introducing proleptically one of the descendants of Gilead, namely, our Zelophehad. 30 The explicit mention of his daughters – who, as is clear from the previous table, represent the sixth generation from the founder of the tribe – constitutes a formidable literary hook to prepare the stage for those who will be at the centre of the event which occupies the pericope immediately following the second census in the book of Numbers. 31 As for the etymology of Zelophehad, there is no certainty: according to A. Lemaire, “le nom lui-même signifie “à l’ombre (sous la protection) de Pahad (= Parent)”; ce dernier titre divin paraît lié au cycle de Jacob dans la tradition élohiste (Gn., 31,42.53) et représente probablement un témoignage sur la religion des ancêtres, “au-delà du Fleuve” (cf. Jos., 24,15)”. According to this scholar, the name of our character corresponds to that of the last king of Hepher, known for not having had male descendants. On his death, the kingdom – without heirs – was absorbed into the group of peoples who dwelt around it, and which Lemaire describes as “confédération israélite”. 32 We have fully pointed out importance of the mention of the father of the people who are to be the main characters of our narrative. Now, Num 27,1 continues by recording the genealogy of Zelophehad, which faithfully records the one introduced in Num 26,28 –32 and concludes with the mention of the names of each of his daughters of whom the rea30 In this connection, Gray is quite clear, describing the extension of Manasseh’s genealogy to the daughters of Zelophehad as “an irrelevant anticipation of 27,1” (Gray, Numbers, 392). For his part, in connection with his comment on Num 27,1, Milgrom expresses himself thus: “[The names] are probably original to this chapter, although they have been cited in 26:33” (Milgrom, Numbers, 230). Kislev takes up the argument, asserting that Num 26,30 –33 certainly represents an addition in relation to the traditional material (that is, material that can be ascribed to the patriarchal tradition of Genesis 46). However, with regard to the literary history of this addition, he claims that “it is more reasonable to assume that rather than constituting a later addition, artificially interpolated in order to link the census to the following episode, the author of Numbers 26 was himself responsible for the insertion of vv. 30 –33” (Kislev, “Census”, 256 –257). This statement is based on criteria of form and content which render the verses in question wholly compatible with the context. 31 According to R. Albertz, the literary and thematic relationship between Num 26,30 –33 and Num 27,1 –11 represents only one example of the interconnections present in the section of Numbers 25 –36, in which “all chapters are linked by a network of cross-references and of identical or similar phrases”. For the details of the argument, I refer to his complete article: R. Albertz, “A Pentateuchal Redaction in the Book of Numbers? The Late Priestly Layers of Num 25 –36”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125 (2013) 220 –233. 32 A. Lemaire, “Le “pays de Hépher” et les “filles de Zelophehad” à la lumière des ostraca de Samarie”, Semitica 22 (1972) 20.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

129

der has already been made aware, moreover, in Num 26,33. The commentators are in substantial agreement that what we have here are symbolic names: this is not an unimportant observation insofar as it enables us to understand better the nature and purpose of the narrative in which these women are the leading figures. In this connection, Gray’s opinion is illuminating for its clear brevity when he states that “the names [. . .] are names of clans or places, a fact which in itself is sufficient to show that this story is not a historical account of certain individuals, but a mode of raising a legal point”. 33 Recognising the symbolic value of the names of Zelophehad’s daughters, as well as their literary function within the narrative of Num 27,1 –11, we shall seek to understand what can be the information contained in this symbolic code. According to Noth, 34 at least three of the five names correspond to toponyms which can be located: Tirzah is to be associated with the homonymous city which sprang up on the heights of Samaria, to the north east of Shechem 35 Its king is mentioned in Josh 12,24 as the last member of the list of kings defeated by Joshua. The mention of this city returns in 1 Kgs 14,17 in the context of the account of the death of Abijah, son of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14,1 –18). In the following chapters of the first book of the Kings, 36 Tirzah is indicated as the capital of the kingdom of Israel until King Omri left it in the sixth year of his reign in order to transfer it to Samaria. There is a further mention of Tirzah in 2 Kgs 15,14.16, in the context of the conflict which brought Menahem, son of Gadì, to the throne: 14

Menahem, son of Gadì, came up from Tirzah, entered Samaria and struck Shallum, son of Jabesh, slew him and became king in his place [. . .] 16 Then Menahem struck Tappuah, all who were in it and its territory, starting from Tirzah. He laid waste to all his territory, because they had not opened its gates to him, and he ripped open all the pregnant women.

The final mention of Tirzah in the Hebrew Bible appears in the poetic expression of Song of Songs where the beloved woman is described as ‫ָפה ְכּ ִת ְר ָצה‬ ָ ‫י‬, “beautiful as Tirzah” (6,4).

33

Gray, Numbers, 398. Cf. Noth, Numbers, 207. 35 It corresponds to the present-day Tell el-Far’ah which is in Palestinian territory not far from Nablus. Cf. M.A. Sweeney, I & II Kings (The Old Testament Library; Louisville, KY 2007) 186. 36 Cf. 1 Kgs 15,21.33; 16,6.8.9.15.17.23. 34

130

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

Alongside the toponyms relating to Zelophehad’s last born, there are others linked to the second and third born although they are found in sources outside the Hebrew Bible: 37 in fact, both Noah and Hoglah, appear in names of districts on the Samarian ostraca of the VIII century B.C. 38 In addition, we should note that, in his study on the “land of Hepher”, A. Lemaire also offers locations for the remaining two daughters of Zelophehad, namely, his firstborn, Mahlah, and the fourth child, Milkah. According to this scholar, the location of the toponym relating to Mahlah corresponds to ‫חולָה‬ ֹ ‫א ֵבל ְמ‬, ָ country of the prophet Elisha according to 1 Kgs 19,16. 39 As for the toponym connected with Milkah, its location would be near “la ville de Mirka, à 3 km d’Arrâba, à l’ouest d’un Wadi El-Melek et d’un lieu-dit Ard El-Milk”. 40 Having tried to shed light on the different names of the characters who people the first verse of our pericope, we shall return briefly to the verb which opens the narrative, that is, ‫ַתּ ְקַר ְבנָה‬ ִ ‫ו‬, “they drew near”. In its basic significance, ‫קרב‬, the root used here, connotes a verb of movement which produces the effect of bringing the subject near to something or someone. 41 Alongside the typically cultic value, which describes the 37

De Vaulx has a different opinion: he identifies the name of Noah with the toponym found in Josh 19,13 relating to one of the cities of Zebulun (cf. de Vaulx, Nombres, 320). On close examination, however, the Masoretic vocalisation of this toponym is different from that of the name of Zelophehad’s daughter. This is the reason why the versions opt for translating it with “Nea” rather than with Noa. The Vulgate is the only exception, recording “Noa”, something which may explain de Vaulx’s choice. As for Hoglah, de Vaulx claims to be identified with the ‫ ֵבּית ָח ְגלָה‬spoken of in Josh 15,6. 38 In particular, Noah is mentioned on 50, while Hoglah appears on ostraca 45, 46, 47 and 66. Cf. G.A. Reisner – C.S. Fischer – D.G. Lyon, Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908 –1910, I (Cambridge, MA 1924) 233 –243; for ostracon 66, cf. I.T. Kaufman, The Samaria Ostraca. A Study in Ancient Hebrew Palaeography, Harvard University Dissertations 1966, 146 –147. 39 Cf. E. Klostermann (ed.), Das Onomasticon der Biblischen Ortsnamen. Eusebius Werke, III / 1 (Leipzig 1902) 32; H.J. Zobel, “Abel-Meholah”, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 82 (1966) 83 –108; J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (The Century Bible. New Edition; London 1967) 307 n. 22; Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible. A Historical Geography (Philadelphia, PA 1967) 241; S. Mittmann, Beiträge zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes (Abhandlungen des Deutschen PalästinaVereins; Wiesbaden 1970) 128, 151, 220. According to other authors, the toponym is to be located further south, in relation to El Mahruk, near Wadi Farah: C.F. Burney, “The Topography of Gideon’s Rout of the Midianites”, Studien zur semitischen Philologie und Religionsgeschichte: Julius Wellhausen zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 17. Mai 1914 gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern und in ihrem Auftrag (ed. K. Marti – J. Wellhausen) (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 27; Giessen 1914) 93 –96. 40 Lemaire, “Le “pays de Hépher””, 17. 41 Cf. B.T. Arnold, “‫”קרב‬, The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), III (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 976 –978.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

131

presentation of a person or an offering to the divinity, the verb is also employed consistently in the juridical sphere to indicate the action of a person who steps forward to present his own case. Citing our pericope specifically as an example, Gane and Milgrom claim that “when a group comes before (liphnê) its leaders (always plural: Nu. 27:1 –2; 36:1; Josh. 17:4), we are dealing with a formal appeal in a situation demanding an authoritative decision”. 42 Not by chance, the same verb reappears with the same juridical nuance in v. 5, in that case describing the action of Moses, as we shall see in the comment on this verse. After v. 1 has told us that Zelophehad’s daughters – of whose individual names and paternal genealogy we have been informed at the same time – “drew near”, v. 2 continues to mark out the frame in which things are going to develop through the introduction of those who are to be the addressees of the petition initiated by the five women. The verbal syntagma which opens the description, ‫ֹדנָה ִל ְפנֵי‬ ְ ‫ַתּ ֲעמ‬ ַ ‫ו‬, “they presented themselves”, indicates a concrete action – that of presenting oneself before someone – enriching it with a specific modality, that of the respect of one who knows he is in the presence of someone who is supposed to be his superior. It is an idiomatic expression, present elsewhere in the Pentateuch to indicate the demeanour of one who appears before God to obtain his judgement (cf. Num 35,12; Deut 19,17) or to serve him in the cult. However, the use of the verb also belongs to the intra-human sphere as demonstrated by the occurrences of the root in circumstances in which a subordinate stands before his own superior to await orders or instructions. 43 The addressees of the demeanour expressed by the syntagma ‫ַתּ ֲעמ ְֹדנָה‬ ַ‫ו‬ ‫ל ְפנֵי‬, ִ which, as we have seen, unites respect with the request, are listed in a definite order: firstly, Moses, then the priest, Eleazar, next a category described as ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫ְשׂ‬ ִ ‫הנּ‬, ַ “the chiefs”, and, finally, the entire community (‫ָכל־‬ ‫)ה ֵעָדה‬. ָ If the mention of Moses – as also, moreover, his position at the beginning of the list – does not arouse any wonder, it will be useful to dwell for a little on the analysis of the other people whose presence among the addressees of the petition could be helpful in understanding the outline and the merits of the petition itself.

42 R.E. Gane – J. Milgrom, “‫”קרב‬, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, XIII (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 2004) 135 –148, especially 138. Cf. also Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 346 –347. 43 So, for example, in: Gen 41,46; Jdg 20,28; 1 Kgs 22,19; 2 Kgs 5,16; Zech 3,4. Cf. Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 344.

132

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

Eleazar’s presence alongside Moses as second in the list, finds the whole of its explanation in the apposition ‫ֹהן‬ ֵ ‫הכּ‬, ַ “the priest”, which accompanies and qualifies the name of Aaron’s younger son. Starting from Num 20,22 –29, this particular title, the prerogative of Moses’ elder brother until the day of the latter’s death, becomes the denominative of Eleazar whom YHWH himself had indicated as Aaron’s successor in the priesthood. As I have pointed out elsewhere, 44 within the book of Numbers, we witness an evolution in the character of Eleazar who sees a gradual increase in his importance and ends up assuming the role of Aaron’s replacement in the highest religious office of the people of Israel. 45 Although Aaron’s third born, he becomes the direct heir by virtue of the death – anything but fortuitous, according to what I have been able to conjecture in my study – of the two brothers who preceded him in the dynastic line: Nadab and Abihu, who perished through the divine will after a fault with which they were stained but about the nature of which there is no lack of questions (cf. Lev 10,1 –2; Num 3,4; 26,61). What is certain is that, in the Pentateuch, after the death of Aaron, Eleazar puts on his father’s robes – literally as well as figuratively: that is why we should not be surprised that in this affair he appears alongside Moses in the role of priest of the people of Israel. Together with Moses and Eleazar, the priest, v. 2 records the presence of ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫ְשׂ‬ ִ ‫הנּ‬, ַ “the chiefs”. The term ‫ָשׂיא‬ ִ ‫ נ‬is a nomen professionis derived from the root ‫“ נשׂא‬raise”, and, according to the most common interpretation indicates someone who “has been raised, promoted to chief”. The statistics tell us that it is a term particularly beloved of the book of Numbers: in fact, of a total of 126 occurrences in the Old Testament, a good 60 appear in the fourth book of the Torah; nor is this all that surprising in view of the numerous lists of and references to the chiefs of tribes or families found in Numbers. It is a term typical of the priestly tradition. Moreover, its use is also well in evidence in the book of Ezekiel where it appears 36 times. Returning to the book of Numbers, the word is employed to indicate different functions: aides of Moses and Aaron in the census of the people, military officers, and leaders of various levitical groups. What all these functions have in common is the deep respect which the people afforded to those bearing such a title: precisely by virtue 44 Cf. F. Cocco, “‘Mors tua, vita mea’. Eleazaro e il sommo sacerdozio”, Biblica 94 (2013) 509 –533. 45 On the figure of Eleazar in Numbers, see also D. Nocquet, “Nb 27, 12 –23, la succession de Moïse et la place d’Éléazar dans le livre de Nombres”, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. T. Römer) (Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA 2008) 655 –675.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

133

of this respect, the ‫יאם‬ ִ ‫ְשׂ‬ ִ ‫ נּ‬were entrusted with a representative function vis à vis the respective groups to which they belonged. In the particular case of Num 27,2, the role attributed to the “chiefs” is that of forming a board around Moses and Eleazar in the juridical matter of examining the problem posed by the daughters of Zelophehad. 46 Still in v. 2, the list of addressees of the daughters’ petition is completed by the mention of ‫כל־ה ֵעָדה‬ ָ ָ , “all the community”. The term ‫ ֵעָדה‬represents a lexeme that is most interesting in biblical Hebrew on account of its semantic evolution over the course of centuries. Employed in ancient times to indicate any group of animals (without any distinction of species), the term is attested gradually in the human sphere. Initially, it portrayed a group of people similar to a herd of animals. The subsequent semantic development embraced the sphere of human socialisation ending up in crystallising into a political meaning: in particular, the lexeme came to form part of the priestly vocabulary 47 and was generally employed to indicate the whole assembly of the tribes of Israel. 48 Although the close connection with the priestly style could incline us towards a later origin for the term, comparison with the Ancient Near East encourages us to hold that the institution called ‫ ֵעָדה‬in biblical Hebrew is rather old. In fact, according to scholars, our term corresponds to the Mesopotamian institution known as puhrum of which T. Jacobsen speaks in terms of “primitive democracy”. Such an institution makes an ill match with monarchy which, by definition, is totally different from democracy. Thus, the theory is that the origin of the called ‫ ֵעָדה‬in Israel and puhrum in Mesopotamia was prior to the institution of the Israelite monarchy. 49 As for the use of the term ‫ ֵעָדה‬within the Hebrew Bible, I am going to limit myself here to recording an important idea adopted by 46 Cf. H. Niehr, “‫ָשׂיא‬ ִ ‫”נ‬, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, X (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 1999) 44 –53; K.T. Aitken, “‫ָשׂיא‬ ִ ‫”נ‬, The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), III (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 171 –172. 47 Of the total of 149 occurrences, a good 129 are found in Genesis – Numbers. However, the term is absent in Deuteronomy which has precise recourse to the synonym qahal to express this concept. Cf. Cocco, Torah, 76, and the related bibliographical references. 48 Cf. D. Levy – J. Milgrom – H.-J. Fabry – H. Ringgren, “‫”עָדה‬ ֵ , Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, X (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 1999) 468 –481; E. Carpenter, “‫”עָדה‬ ֵ , The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), III (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 326 –328; M. R. W. Farrer, “Congregation, Solemn Assembly”, The New Bible Dictionary (ed. J.D. Douglas) (Grand Rapids, MI 1962) 248. 49 Cf. T. Jacobsen, “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2 (1943) 159 –172.

134

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

Milgrom: he argues that the so-called “priestly redactor” opted systematically for the use of ‫ ֵעָדה‬rather than the synonym ‫ק ָהל‬, ָ and so borrowed the archaic use of the word, that is, that which had the technical value of assembly of the people, corresponding to a “political body invested with legislative and judicial functions”. 50 The last significant information in v. 2 concerns the location of the event: through the expression ‫ל־מו ֵעד‬ ֹ ‫ֹה‬ ֶ ‫פּ ַתח א‬, ֶ all the characters we have been considering so far are gathered “at the entrance of the tent of meeting”. This is a location of clear symbolic value which has the function of portraying the event which is going to be introduced as a formal judicial act. In fact, the entrance to the sanctuary directly evoked the presence of YHWH, supreme judge and lawgiver of the people in whose presence the most important juridical questions were presented and settled. 51 The direct speech of Zelophehad’s daughters, which was introduced in the conclusion of v. 2 by the verb ‫לֵאמֹר‬, has its proper beginning in v. 3 with a statement which has the tone of a lapidary sentence: ‫ָא ִבינוּ‬ ‫מת ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬, ֵ “our father died in the desert”. From the point of view of the plan of the narrative, this is an essential element given that, in order to discuss testaments and inheritance, it is a necessary and indispensable condition that the testator is dead and, therefore, the heirs are fully such. 52 In addition to this juridical-technical tone in the first part of the statement (‫)א ִבינוּ ֵמת‬, ָ the expression includes a further element which is certainly not insignificant, the syntagma ‫בּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬. ַ In the context of our general introduction to the book of Numbers, at the beginning of the present chapter, we have already noted that one of the important themes 50 Cf. J. Milgrom, “Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of PreMonarchic Israel”, Jewish Quarterly Review 69 (1978) 65 –81, especially 69. I repeat that this is simply the conclusion of Milgrom’s argument. I have submitted the whole to detailed examination in Cocco, Torah, 77. 51 On the tent of meeting, its symbolism and the literary paternity of the expression, cf. J. Morgenstern, “The Tent of Meeting”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 38 (1918) 125 –139; Id., “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting’”, Hebrew Union College Annual 18 (1944) 1 –52; F.M. Cross, “The Tabernacle. A Study from an Archaeological and Historical Approach”, The Biblical Archaeologist 10 (1947) 45 –68; M. Haran, “The Nature of the “’ohel mo’edh” in Pentateuchal Sources”, Journal of Semitic Studies 5 (1960) 50 –65; V.W. Rabe, “The Identity of the Priestly Tabernacle”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25 (1966) 132 –134; M. Görg, Das Zelt der Begegnung. Untersuchung zur Gestalt der Sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 27; Bonn 1967); R.J. Clifford, “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971) 221 –227. 52 This is what is affirmed in the Letter to the Hebrews. The context is certainly different but certainly not alien to the Hebrew mentality: “16 Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive” (Heb 9,16 –17).

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

135

of the fourth book of the Torah is represented by the total handover from the generation who took part in the Exodus to a new generation, born in the desert and destined to enter into and take possession of the promised land. Moreover, this handover cannot be reduced to a natural turnover between the generations, more or less part of the natural order of things: the epilogue of the account of Num 14,1 –35 leaves little doubt about the fact that the perishing of the whole generation of the Exodus is a direct consequence of lack of faith in YHWH by those who formed part of it. A lack of faith which – through divine intervention – is inexorably punished with their exclusion from entry into the land which God had sworn to give to the descendants of Abraham. That inevitably implies the death of them all ‫בּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר ַהזֶּה‬, ַ “in this desert”. 53 What has been said so far about the syntagma ‫ ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬has important consequences for the general understanding of our pericope. Developing the argument, we can legitimately infer that, far from relating a mere true story, the daughters of Zelophehad are beginning to lay solid foundations to reinforce what will be their peroration. Through the expression “our father died in the desert”, they are establishing – even before entering into the merit of the matter – that their father, Zelophehad died in sharing the fate of all the members of his generation, perishing in the desert on account of the infidelity and unbelief displayed on the occasion of the expedition of the spies (cf. Numbers 13 –14). 54 On the basis of what has been made clear by the first part of v. 3, it becomes much easier to understand the content of the rest of the verse in which the women continue to describe the state of their father, Zelophehad, adding:

53 The divine words leave no room for doubt about the cause of this grave decision: “28 Tell them: ‘By my life’ – oracle of YHWH – ‘I will do to you just what I have heard you say. 29 Here in the wilderness your dead bodies shall fall. Of all your men of twenty years or more, enrolled in your registration, who grumbled against me, 30 not one of you shall enter the land where I solemnly swore to settle you, except Caleb, son of Jephunneh, and Joshua, son of Nun. 31 Your little ones, however, who you said would be taken as spoil, I will bring in, and they shall know the land you rejected. 32 But as for you, your bodies shall fall here in the wilderness, 33 while your children will wander for forty years, suffering for your infidelity, till the last of you lies dead in the wilderness. 34 Corresponding to the number of days you spent reconnoitring the land – forty days – you shall bear your punishment one year for each day: forty years. Thus you will realize what it means to oppose me. 35 I, YHWH, have spoken; and I will surely do this to this entire wicked community that conspired against me: here in the wilderness they shall come to their end and there they will die’” (Num 14,28 –35). 54 So too Gray, Numbers, 398; Noth, Numbers, 211; Budd, Numbers, 301; Milgrom, Numbers, 231.

136

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

Although he did not join the faction of those who conspired against YHWH, Korah’s faction, he died for his own sin without leaving any sons.

Like the first words, this part of v. 3 also contributes to clarifying the case and contains references to other events recounted in the book of Numbers. The first episode referred to by our text relates to the wellknown affair of Korah whose rebellion against Moses and Aaron – but, in the final analysis, against YHWH – is reported in Numbers 16. 55 Even to the eyes of the more inexperienced reader, Numbers 16 presents itself immediately as an intricate affair which sees the collection of several narrative components into a single narrative under the common theme of revolt and rebellion against established authority. In particular, within this chapter, two narrative threads emerge around which the whole event is woven: the one referring to Dathan and Abiram, descendants of Reuben, who protest against the authority of Moses, questioning its legitimacy and premises; the other (divided, in its turn, into two strands) relating to Korah who, within the narrative, shows himself to be the leader of two groups – that of the “two hundred and fifty” notable members of the assembly of Israel and that of the levites – sharing the claim to privileges of a religious type. Since Num 27,3 refers explicitly to the affair of Korah and his company (‫ֹרח‬ ַ‫)עַדת־ק‬, ֲ we shall put on one side the case of the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram in order to try to understand what is hidden behind his character: we shall do this, starting from a summary analysis of the motives of the protest led by Korah; going on to the addressees of the protest; and ending up with the divine punishment which came upon Korah and his company. The motives for the protest are two in nature. This is not surprising in view of what we said previously about the double situation represented by the character of Korah: one of the motives concerns the group of the “two hundred and fifty”, the other, the levites. The complaints of the first group are found quite clearly in a passage of Num 16,3b which reads: The whole community, all of them, are holy; YHWH is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over YHWH’s assembly?

This complaint focuses on the holiness common to the assembly of Israel which is invoked as a principle of equality among the various components of the community. For this reason, the case is put forward as a complaint against the priesthood. The latter are guilty of separating themselves from 55

For the treatment of this particular point, I refer broadly to what I wrote in Cocco, Cattedra, 205 –260, which provides detailed argument and the relevant bibliography.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

137

the rest of the assembly, setting themselves on a superior level through their claim to an exclusive prerogative over the performance of the cult. In particular, according to my theory, the concrete object of the claim would have been represented by the offering of incense for which the “two hundred and fifty” would like to have been authorised. The conclusion of the affair, which sees the censers transformed into instruments of death for the “two hundred and fifty”, confirms that this is a unique prerogative of the priests. This is thus a denial of the claim of our group of rebels. As for the motives of the second group which looks to Korah as its head, that is, the levites, they are recorded in Num 16,8 –10: 8

Moses also said to Korah: “Hear, now, you Levites! 9 Are you not satisfied that the God of Israel has singled you out from the community of Israel, to have you draw near him to maintain YHWH’s tabernacle, and to attend upon the community and to serve them? 10 He has allowed you and your Levite kinsmen with you to approach him, and yet you seek the priesthood too”.

The problem raised by these verses presupposes a polemic much more specific than that of the group of the “two hundred and fifty”, reported in Num 16,3: it is no longer a question of some kind of lay claim against the priesthood in general but rather of a dispute wholly internal to the priestly circle which sees an opposition between a clerical group which we can consider second class, represented by the levites, and a superior group represented by the priests descended from Aaron. As for the addressees of the protest, the group of “two hundred and fifty” approaches Moses and Aaron jointly whereas, from Num 16,11, we infer that the levitical protest is directed at Aaron alone. 56 Despite this difference – ultimately negligible as to substance – it is clear that the claim of both groups who have Korah as their head is of a religious type given that both cases involve the brother of Moses to whom YHWH had entrusted the priesthood. 57 Finally, worthy of note is the divine punishment which breaks out on the rebels to punish their insolence. As mentioned before, the punishment of Korah’s company consists in “divine fire” which springs from the censers of the “two hundred and twenty” and consumes them completely: a process which recalls very closely the fate of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and 56 In fact, we read: “It is therefore against YHWH that you and all your faction are conspiring. As for Aaron, what has he done that you should grumble against him?” (Num 16,11). 57 This is one of the substantial differencies compared with the affair of the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, who focus their complaint only on Moses, questioning his authority (cf. Num 16,2.13 –14).

138

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

Abihu, who were consumed by a, vaguely described, “unholy fire” which they had offered to YHWH (cf. Lev 10,1). However, in connection with what is recorded in Num 16,35, we must make some distinctions: in this verse, there is no mention of the fate of Korah, the chief actor in the revolt, but only of that of the “two hundred and fifty” men who were his fellow rebels. According to some scholars, this gap in our information can be filled if we take account of the fact that, within the context of the account of the punishment of the Reubenites, Num 16,32b encompasses within the fate of Dathan, Abiram and their companions the “people of Korah” and so – implicitly – Korah himself. This digression on Numbers 16 enables us to return now to the reference which Num 27,3 makes to the “company of Korah” and to understand its features better. In declaring Zelophehad’s distance from the ‫ֹרח‬ ַ‫עַדת־ק‬, ֲ his daughters are simply laying another block to strengthen the peroration of their own case. If the first stage in this process consisted of indicating that their father died “in the desert”, they now remove the suspicion that he could have been part of the groups of those who died in the desert, certainly, but as a result of being tainted with particular sins – such as those of Korah and his company – and not as a result of the sin common to the whole of the Exodus generation. This is a crucial detail since – as Levine records – by virtue of the law of herem “those condemned to death by the judicial process lost title to their estates, which would then be expropriated by the king or the temple”. 58 We should note that, in the particular case of Korah, it was not simply a matter of just any judicial process but of a divine judgement, something – clearly – which ends up by further extending the effects of the penalty. 59 58 Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 345. Levine also observes that, although generally known as a practice belonging to the context of war, the herem was also practised in various contexts of a legal type. He concludes his argument thus: “Individuals would be condemned to death under this law, such as one convicted of flagrant idolatry (Exod. 22:19). In such an event, the property of the condemned would be appropriated by the state or by the temple” (Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 356). 59 I notice that on this point scholars’ opinions diverge. For example, C. Frevel – who, from the beginning of his argument, describes the mention of Korah in the context of Num 27,3 as “unclear” – holds that, even if Zelophehad had been among Korah’s followers, his daughters would not have suffered repercussions on their paternal inheritance since even the sons of Korah did not suffer the consequences of their father’s sinful deed, according to what is repeated, among other places, by Num 26,11 (cf. Frevel, “The Book of Numbers”, 25 n. 94). For his part, H. Seebass argues that some particularly grave sins automatically cause the disinheritance of the children. In support of this, he cites the cases reported in Lev 27,20 –21; 1 Kgs 21,15 –16; Ezr 10,7 –8 (cf. H. Seebass, Numeri [Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament 4/3; Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007] 207). I fully share Frevel’s impression that

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

139

Having made clear that their father had nothing to do with Korah’s band, the women’s plea is expanded with a further detail which recalls and, at the same time, explains the fate of Zelophehad: ‫או ֵמת‬ ֹ ‫י־ב ֶח ְט‬ ְ ‫כּ‬, ִ “he died on account of his own sin”. This detail introduces a new, important element which the daughters utilise to strengthen the argument which is the basis of the petition which they are preparing to present: this new element consists in the evocation of the concept of individual responsibility. According to biblical law, – at least from a certain time on, since there is no lack of examples in which the sins of the fathers fall on their children – Israel did not admit the principle of substitution in penal cases: responsibility for a deed fell only on the one committing it. Consequently, one could not call children to account for the misdeeds of their fathers. 60 We shall try to summarise what we have said so far about the content of v. 3. With the two important details we have just mentioned – that the father was not part of Korah’s band and that he died only because of the sin he shared with his whole generation, not for other kinds of sins – the daughters of Zelophehad are only underlining that the fate pending over their father’s inheritance risks causing an injustice within the midst of the people of Israel who are waiting to take possession of the promised land. In fact, the tribe of Manasseh – of whom Zelophehad is the last male descendant – is condemned to remain without any territory on account of the fact that he died without giving birth to male heirs. On this basis, the five young women arrive at formulating their actual request: in the absence of male heirs, they wish to be the beneficiaries of their father’s inheritance. This is what is recorded in v. 4 which opens with a rhetorical question, having at its centre the problem of the survival of the name of the petitioners’ father. The importance of the “name” in the Semitic sphere in general and in the Israelite-biblical one in particular goes well beyond what one might none of Seebass’s citations justifies the theory that the daughters of Zelophehad would have been excluded from their father’s inheritance if he had been among the allies of Korah. 60 See Deut 24,16; 2 Kgs 14,6. However, it is especially Ezek 18,1 –32 which presents a full treatise on individual responsibility. It will be enough to record the first four verses to understand the general tenor of the prophet’s argument: “The word of YHWH came to me: Son of man, 2 what is the meaning of this proverb you recite in the land of Israel: “Parents eat sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge”? 3 As I live – oracle of the Lord YHWH: I swear that none of you will ever repeat this proverb in Israel. 4 For all life is mine: the life of the parent is like the life of the child, both are mine. Only the one who sins shall die!”. The proverb cited by Ezekiel shows – even if indirectly – that in times past the principle of individual responsibility did not have to be applied if it is true that the sins of the fathers were inherited by their children.

140

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

think at first sight. In the ancient world, far from being limited to representing a mere sign of distinction between one person and another, the name was considered a kind of description or anticipation of the characteristics of the person who bore it, or of his social status. 61 The centrality of the concept expressed by this word is quickly indicated even if only from the statistical point of view: in fact, the lexeme ‫שׁם‬ ֵ appears in almost all the books of the Old Testament, with a total of 864 occurrences. 62 With regard to its semantics, the use of the word reveals various nuances, which go from the literal sense to the figurative. The most significant piece of information for our purposes is the fact that “šem constitutes a reality that guarantees the bearer an existence, however hard to define, that endures beyond death”. 63 This survival in life beyond the threshold of death of the “name” – a concept which, in this specific case, coincides fully with the person bearing it – is generally conveyed by the presence of sons: it is they who, defining themselves through the patronymic (“son of. . .”), guarantee the existence of the memory of one who no longer belongs to the world of the living. Alongside this fundamental feature of safeguarding the memory of the dead man, the action of perpetuating his name of the part of his sons has a very concrete aspect for them: the acquisition of the patrimony of the one whose name the sons bear. Among other things, this ensures that the patrimony remains in the possession of the same family – named after the founder – from generation to generation. 64 On the basis of this last factor, it is easier to understand the concern of the daughters of Zelophehad, precisely with regard to the danger that their father’s name “disappear from his family”, as it reads in Num 27,4a: ‫תּו‬ ֹ ‫שׁ ַפּ ְח‬ ְ ‫תּוְך ִמ‬ ֹ ‫ם־א ִבינוּ ִמ‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬ ֵ ‫ָרע‬ ַ‫ָמּה ִיגּ‬ ָ‫ל‬

We have thrown light on the meaning of the subject (“name”). Now, it will be useful to try to understand better the verb which describes the situation dreaded by the daughters of Zelophehad. The basic meaning of the root ‫ גרע‬refers to the action “to shave”, as attested in Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic. This basic meaning also persists in the use of the verb in 61 Cf. A.P. Ross, “‫”שׁם‬ ֵ , The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), IV (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 147 –150. 62 The only books in which the lexeme does not appear are the prophetic books of Obadiah, Jonah and Haggai. Cf. H.-J. Fabry – H. Ringgren, “‫”שׁם‬ ֵ , Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, XV (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 2006) 133. 63 Ibid. On the same wavelength, Noth, Numbers, 211. 64 Cf. Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 346; Schmidt, Numeri 10,11 –36,13, 164, who cites Ruth 4,5.10 as an example of the link between name and patrimony.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

141

the Old Testament, 65 although it is accompanied by two other nuances which extend its semantic field: “to diminish, lessen” and “to take away”. This last sense of the verb relates to juridical vocabulary to indicate the specific action of “depriving someone of something”. 66 It is precisely this last meaning that describes the fear of Zelophehad’s daughters: they fear that their father’s name will be blotted out from this family. Putting together our observations so far on the meaning of the word ‫שׁם‬ ֵ and the root ‫גרע‬, we can reformulate the question of the five young women in terms which enable us to understand the sense beyond the literary convention employed by Num 27,4a, paraphrasing it in these words: “Why should the heritage which goes back to Manasseh, whose last proprietor in the line of descent was our father, be taken away from his family because he did not have any male heirs?”. It will be noted that the conclusion of the question repeats the statement about the absence of male heirs among Zelophehad’s descendants: ‫לו ֵבּן‬ ֹ ‫כּי ֵאין‬. ִ On a closer look, this is the same description as that which concludes the previous verse. The question in v. 4a is an anaphoric repetition of the substance of the formulation, although in a slightly different form. 67 Having thus established the basis of their plea, the daughters of Zelophehad finally formulate the specific request which has impelled them to “draw near”, as we learned in Num 27,1. The petition which they address to Moses 68 is reported in Num 27,4b in these terms: ‫תוְך ֲא ֵחי ָא ִבינוּ‬ ֹ ‫ְתּנָה־לָּנוּ ֲא ֻחזָּה ְבּ‬

65

See, for example, Is 15,2; Jer 48,37; Ezek 5,11. Cf. H. Ringgren, “‫”גרע‬, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, III (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 2006) 66 –67. Levine notes an interesting detail, pointing out that the verb in question “was part of the ancient mathematical vocabulary. It means ‘to subtract, withdraw an amount or item’ [. . .] It contrasts with hôsîp ‘to add, increase’” (Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 345). On the root, ‫גרע‬, see also G.J. Gevaryahu, “The Root G-R-A in the Bible: The Case of the Daughters of Zelophehad and Beyond”, Jewish Biblical Quarterly 41 (2013) 107 –112. 67 The end of v. 3 reads ‫לו‬ ֹ ‫־היוּ‬ ָ ‫לא‬ ֹ ‫וּבנִים‬, ָ whereas v. 4 has ‫לו ֵבּן‬ ֹ ‫כּי ֵאין‬. ִ As can be seen, discounting differences of form, the substance of the expression does not change. 68 Some ancient manuscripts, including the Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX and the Vulgate, record a variant of the verb in the plural: ‫תּנוּ‬. ְ According to Gray, the other figure who is associated with Moses by these versions as the addressee of the petition would be Eleazar (cf. Gray, Numbers, 398). Accepting this interpretation of the origin of the variant, one could opt without difficulty for the reading in the Masoretic Text (in the singular) on the basis of the principle of the lectio difficilior. The variant found in the other versions (in the plural) is trying to harmonise the person of the verb with the plurality of subjects before whom the case is being brought according to Num 27,1. 66

142

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

The key term for understanding the content of the request is clearly the substantive ‫א ֻחזָּה‬. ֲ It is a lexeme linked to a root common to the semitic languages which means “to grasp, seize, take hold of”: the meaning of the substantive, therefore, refers to property which is held in possession. 69 The majority of the occurrences connects the substantive to the land which is why there is a tendency to interpret ‫ ֲא ֻחזָּה‬as “portion of land which is held in possession”. If, at first glance, the term is employed to indicate property acquired by gift or acquisition, the ultimate sense of the lexeme refers to a portion of land which is already a stable part of the patrimony and, therefore, is passed on by inheritance. 70 On the basis of these details relating to the key term, the exact tenor of the petition of Zelophehad’s daughters becomes quite clear: since ‫ֲא ֻחזָּה‬ does not indicate just any property but the portion of land received in the event of a father’s death by inheritance, the young women are asking to be included in the line of succession of the family of Manasseh on account of the absence of male descendants. To have a better understanding of the import of this request, it is necessary to examine the laws which regulated inheritance in the Ancient Near East in general and in biblical Israel in particular, especially in cases where there were no male heirs. 2.1.1. Inheritance in the Ancient Near East Sociological studies of the Ancient Near East show that one of the pillars supporting its societies was the preservation of the family patrimony. This was enabled by laws which regulated the passage of a family’s property down the generations and controlled the phenomenon of the dispersion of the ancestral wealth. This concern was immediately reflected in the great importance generally attributed to having descendants: children were the essential condition for the perpetual transmission of the patrimony without any break in continuity. From that derives directly the perception of sterility or infertility as the worst of evils which could strike

69 Cf. W.T. Koopmans, “‫”א ֻחזָּה‬ ֲ , The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), I (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 358 –360. 70 On the significance, origins and specific use of the term ‫ ֲא ֻחזָּה‬in biblical Hebrew, see: B.A. Levine, “Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations”, Proceedings of the Eight World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Discussion: Bible Studies and Hebrew Language (Jerusalem 1983) 69 –82; Id., “On the Semantics of Land Tenure in Biblical Literature: The Term ahuzzah”, The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (ed. M. Cohen et al.) (Bethesda, MD 1993) 134 –140.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

143

a family since it led to the inevitable consequence of the surrender of what had been the family patrimony to people outside the direct line of descent. In practice, from the phenomenological point of view, many scholars associate sterility with the fact of having only female children: that is due in part to the argument that, because of the mentality and customs of the time, women did not enjoy equal inheritance rights with men; and, in part, on the basis of the fact that, by becoming on marriage a member of another family, the woman would usually have brought her paternal inheritance as a dowry to her husband, causing the effective end of her ancestors’ patrimony. On the other hand, the analysis of the sources which make up the legislative patrimony of the Ancient Near East do not enable us to arrive at any certainty since the subject is not tackled clearly or explicitly, and the scattered references concerning the question of the inheritance of daughters are not consistent over time. Nevertheless, relying on the work of experts, we shall try to shed light on the question starting from the information in our possession. 71 The ancient Sumerian text of Gudea, ensi of Lagash, 72 records some information which turns out to be secondary to the main subject of the text which is the protection of the orphan and the widow from the abusive behaviour of rich men but which is of some importance for our theme here. In fact, as a comment on the previous situation, Gudea expresses himself thus: “In the house in which there is no son, the daughter enters into the position of heiress”. 73 The formulation of the statute leads to the clear understanding that it is an arrangement dictated by a specific state of affairs. By that I mean to say that the daughter’s right of inheritance recognised in this Sumerian text is not something natural – as in the case of the male child – but is brought in to remedy a contingency considered unfavourable, such as the absence of sons. Nevertheless, that such an ancient document formally acknowledges the possibility that a woman could enter legitimately into the process of inheritance is pretty significant.

71

All the documents of the Ancient Near East referred to here are taken from Z. Ben Barak, “Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East”, Journal of Semitic Studies 25 (1980) 22 –33. 72 This is a text reproduced on one of the numerous statues which portray Gudea, governor (or ensi) of Lagash between 2144 and 2124 B.C. The statue in question is catalogued as “statue B” and is currently preserved in the Louvre (catalogued as AO 2). 73 Text cited by Ben -Barak, “Inheritance”, 23.

144

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

Another Sumerian legal text going back to the Third Dynasty of Ur, 74 almost contemporary with the previous text, presents a still more specific case, recording the legal case of an adopted woman who had been disinherited. According to this document, the adoptive father – who had formerly designated as heir both the plaintiff and her sister, also adopted – disinherited the plaintiff when she was going to marry a man who, from what we can understand, had no intention of becoming a member of the family clan of his future wife. In addition to this particular case, the document is very interesting for a number of reasons: first of all, it shows the currency of the custom of including daughters within the hereditary system – even adopted daughters – when there were no male heirs; moreover, the act of disinheriting the daughter in anticipation of the unwillingness of the future son-in-law to join the family clan confirms the powerful concern of the head of the family to safeguard the patrimony inherited from the ancestors. 75 The juridical material coming from the city of Nuzi, 76 which belonged to the same geographical and cultural area, although some centuries later than the cases examined so far, offers interesting starting points for reflection on our theme. In particular, in certain passages from a will there is a somewhat unusual situation:

74

The Third Dynasty of Ur (also called Ur III) was a Sumerian royal dynasty of the homonymous city which reigned towards the end of the III millennium B.C. This period, called the “Neo-Sumerian Age”, saw the Sumerian cities return to assuming a leading role in Mesopotamia after the fall of the Akkadian Empire. For a detailed study, cf. M. Liverani, Antico Oriente. Storia, società, economia (Roma-Bari 2009) 221 –246. 75 To acknowledge the difficulty in reading and interpreting the documents from the Ancient Near East which we have mentioned at the beginning of our treatment of this point, we note that by contrast with the documents just analysed, which witness to what appears to be an established practice of including daughters within the hereditary system when male descendants are lacking, there exists a text (again, Sumerian) from the city of Sippar which categorically denies the possibility of a woman’s being able to inherit. Z. Ben-Barak argues, however, that this is to be understood as a principle of the general impossibility of a woman’s inheriting and so is not to affect the validity of the particular exception represented by the fact that there are no male heirs which is the concern of the other two documents cited. Cf. Ben -Barak, “Inheritance”, 23 –24. 76 Nuzi is an ancient Mesopotamian city which, according to scholars, corresponds to the present-day Iraqi city of Yorgan Tepe which is found not far from Kirkuk. The archaeological excavations carried out in the area at the beginning of the twentieth century – as well as by the black market – have produced thousands of various cuneiform tablets dating to the XV cent. B.C. They represent material of a juridical and administrative character which enables us to reconstruct the life of this little centre which formed part of the kingdom of the Mitanni. For further study, cf. Liverani, Antico Oriente, 417 –422.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

145

Thus (declared) Unaptae, “My daughter Šilwaturi I have given the rank of son” [. . .] The entire inheritance share, in the city and in the various cities, I have given to my daughter Šilwaturi, whom I had given the status of son. 77

This is a unique case, 78 where not only is the only daughter designated by the father as his sole heir, but she is given the status, the rank of “sonship”. 79 The reasons lying behind such a legal provision can be ascribed to the testator’s intention to protect his patrimony, assuring himself that it remains in the possession of the hereditary line descending from him. In fact, by securing his daughter’s right of inheritance, the testator is preventing his own wife – who, among other things, might very well not be the daughter’s mother – from taking possession of the inheritance, and the same for any uncles of the girl (brothers of the testator). 80 As well as this unusual and specific evidence, among the material found at Nuzi, a good number of juridical documents have been observed which enable us to reconstruct the practices whereby the paternal inheritance was assigned to the descendants. 81 Given that the fundamental principle remained the one common to all the societies of the ancient world – namely, if there were sons, they were the natural heirs of the family patrimony –, the specific provisions recorded in the legal documents of Nuzi explain the modus operandi where the testator had not produced any sons. In this case, from the evidence in our possession, two possibilities emerge: the first – corresponding, moreover, entirely to what is observed in the Sumerian documents of the second millennium B.C. which we have just cited – consisted in the assignment of the patrimony to the only daughter, designated as sole heir; the second consisted, instead, in the adoption by the testator of a male to be declared sole heir to whom the sister-in-law was married at the same time. This second practice was also known as “matrimonial adoption”. 82 77 For the text, cf. E.R. Lacherman, “Tablets from Arraphe and Nuzi in the Iraq Museum”, Sumer 32 (1976) 116 –119, 133 –134 n. 2., cited by J. Paradise, “A Daughter and Her Father’s Property at Nuzi”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 32 (1980) 189 –207, especially 189. 78 At least among those published until now: E.R. Lacherman observes that the same legal provision constituted by the attribution of “sonship” to a daughter appears in an unpublished text in the Yale Babylonian Collection (cf. Lacherman, “Tablets”, 118.) 79 Concerning the attribution of the status of “sonship” to the only daughter, cf. Paradise, “Daughter”, 193 –195. 80 Cf. Paradise, “Daughter”, 197 –198. 81 On this subject, cf. J.S. Paradise, Nuzi Inheritance Practices, Pennsylvania University Dissertations 1972. 82 On the phenomenon of so-called “matrimonial adoption” at Nuzi, see: E.M. Cassin, L’adoption à Nuzi (Paris 1938); G. Cardascia, “L’adoption matrimoniale à Babylone et à

146

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

As well as resolving the problem that arose when a man had no male heirs to whom to bequeath his patrimony, the Nuzi documents show themselves to be an important juridical source insofar as they regulate the inheritance expectations of the daughters even in the presence of male heirs. Here also, we have two possibilities: the first provides that the daughter is considered by the testator as principal joint heir; the second that she is considered non-principal heir. In the first case the daughter enjoyed with her brothers the right to have a share in the paternal inheritance without there being a need for any supplementary legal measure such as, to take just one example, the declaration of the status of “sonship” required in the event of the absence of male heirs. In the second case, the daughter was assigned not the possession but rather the income from a part of the paternal property, and – more generally – did not participate in the general division of the patrimony which remained the share of the heirs proper (sons). This examination of some juridical sources from Mesopotamia has pointed out the characteristics and meaning of some of the legal provisions of the Ancient Near East relating to the inheritance rights of daughters. We now turn our attention to the biblical text to try to understand the points of continuity with and the differences from the socio-cultural context in which this text arose. 2.1.2. Inheritance in the biblical legislation Since, like the great legislative collections of the Ancient Near East, biblical law did not arise as a systematic and comprehensive treatise embracing every possible case but rather as a support of a jurisprudential nature to help those administering justice to settle the pressing questions in the daily life of a people, 83 it is no surprise that the “codes” in the Torah do not provide exhaustive treatment of our subject of inheritance. 84 The only passages mentioning it are Deut 21,15 –17 and Lev 25,46, as well, Nuzi”, Revue historique de droit français et étranger (1922-) 37 (1959) 1 –16; S. Greengus, “Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and the ‘Wife-Sister’”, Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975) 5 –31; B. Eichler, “Another Look at the Nuzi Sistership Contracts”, Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (ed. M.D.J. Ellis) (Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts & Sciences 19; New Haven 1977) 45 –59. 83 On this aspect, cf. Cocco, Torah, 19 –34. 84 On the biblical legislation on inheritance, cf. R.H. Hiers, “Transfer of Property by Inheritance and Bequest in Biblical Law and Tradition”, Journal of Law & Religion 10 (1993) 121 –155; H. Seebass, “Zur juristischen und sozialgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

147

of course, as our Num 27,1 –11. We shall try to examine the content of these first two texts before returning our attention to the pericope we are studying. In the deuteronomic text of Deut 21,15 –17, we are within a series of prescriptions of various kinds. We read: 15

If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and if both the loved and the unloved bear him sons, but the firstborn is the son of the unloved wife: 16 when he comes to bequeath his property to his sons he may not consider as his firstborn the son of the wife he loves, in preference to the son of the wife he does not love, the firstborn. 17 On the contrary, he shall recognize as his firstborn the son of the unloved wife, giving him a double share of whatever he happens to own, since he is the first fruits of his manhood, and to him belong the rights of the firstborn.

As is clear, even on a superficial reading, the law recorded here intends to regulate a specific circumstance in family life: the behaviour of the father towards his firstborn. 85 The case, represented here with the typical language of casuistic laws, envisages a man married to two wives, one of whom enjoys her husband’s favour while the other is disagreeable to him. The legislative text specifies that the father’s preference for one of his wives must remain outside the area of the relationship of the father to the sons which each of them has borne him, emphasising the fact that the firstborn – by being ipso facto “the first fruit of his manhood” – enjoys fundamental and irrevocable rights, whatever the type of relation between the father and that son’s mother. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the fact that this same law, though concerned explicitly with a question relating to the rights of priTöchtererbrechts nach Num 27,1 –11 und 36,1 –12”, Biblische Notizen 102 (2000) 22 –27; C. Carmichael, “Inheritance in Biblical Sources”, Law & Literature 20 (2008) 229 –242. 85 On the legislation relating to the firstborn, see J. Mendelsohn, “On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 156 (1959) 38 –40; P. Watson, “A Note on the ‘Double Portion’ of Deuteronomy 21:17 and II Kings 2:9”, Restoration Quarterly 8 (1965) 71; B.J. Beitzel, “The Right of the Firstborn (pî šnayim) in the Old Testament (Deut. 21:15 –17)”, A Tribute to Gleason Archer (ed. W.C. Kaiser jr. – R.F. Youngblood) (Chicago 1986) 179 –190; M. Tsevat, “‫כור‬ ֹ ‫”בּ‬ ְ , Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, I (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 1975) 121 –127. There is a direct parallel to this legislation on the firstborn in the Middle Assyrian laws: for a detailed study, cf. C. Saporetti, “Questioni di eredità nel diritto ebraico e medio-assiro”, Bibbia e Oriente 13 (1961) 65 –68 and the related bibliographical references. Still on the comparison between the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East in relation to this subject, see E. Davies, “The Inheritance of the Firstborn in Israel and the Ancient Near East”, Journal of Semitic Studies 38 (1993) 175 –191. On the specific passage of Deut 21,15 –17, cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12 –34. 1. Teilband: 12,1 –23,15 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Freiburg – Basel – Wien 2016) 1636 –1638, 1653 –1655.

148

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

mogeniture, becomes a source of first-hand information on the subject of paternal inheritance. By quantifying the rights of the firstborn in relation to the other sons, the law indicates with precision that quantity corresponding to the part of the inheritance which the father is bound to assign to him. The secondary information which can be deduced here is that, for the biblical legislation too, the principle holds which is common to all the ancient societies we have mentioned previously: 86 that it is the sons – beginning with the firstborn, obviously – who constitute the foundation for descent and who, therefore enjoy the possession of the paternal patrimony as heirs. As we anticipated at the beginning of this point, the other Pentateuchal text which refers to inheritance in addition to Deut 21,15 –17 is Lev 25,46 which is found enshrined within the law relating to slavery. 87 The text of Lev 25,44 –46 reads thus: 44

The male and female slaves that you possess – these you shall acquire from the nations round about you. 45 You may also acquire them from among the resident aliens who reside with you, and from their families who are with you, those whom they bore in your land, and they may be your property, 46 and bequeath to your children as their hereditary possession forever. You may treat them as slaves. But none of you shall lord it harshly over any of your fellow Israelites.

To have some idea of the biblical concept of slavery, it will be sufficient to cite Ex 21,21 where it is affirmed that slaves are the “money (‫)כּ ֶסף‬ ֶ of his master”, to indicate that he has full ownership over them and can dispose of them freely. Moreover, this is what is reiterated by the text of Leviticus just quoted: having established that the Israelites must acquire their slaves from other peoples (including those who dwell permanently in Israel), Lev 25,45b concludes with an expression containing a familiar word. In fact, we read in this passage: ‫ַא ֻחזָּה‬ ֲ ‫ָכם ל‬ ֶ ‫ְהיוּ ל‬ ָ ‫“ ו‬and they may be your property”. The substantive ‫ – ֲא ֻחזָּה‬which we analysed above, establishing 86

In this connection, very interesting is a comment of R.S. Driver who confirms the idea that the biblical legislation belongs to the common social and even ancestral patrimony: “The present law does not institute the right of the firstborn, but invests with its sanction an established usage, and guards it against arbitrary curtailment” (Driver, Deuteronomy, 247). 87 Concerning the biblical law on slaves, see: H.L. Ellison, “The Hebrew Slave: A Study in Early Israelite Society”, The Evangelical Quarterly 45 (1975) 30 –35; I. Cardellini, Die biblischen “Sklaven”-Gesetze im Lichte des keilschriftlichen Sklavenrechts: Ein Beitrag zur Tradition, Überlieferung und Redaktion der alttestamentlichen Rechtstexte (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 55; Bonn 1981) 280 –311; H. Ringgren, “‫”ע ֶבד‬ ֶ , Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, X (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 1999) 387 –390 and the relevant bibliographical references.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

149

that, in the most common use of it in the Old Testament, it indicates the ownership of land which is passed on from generation to generation as an inheritance – is employed in Lev 25,45 to describe slaves. By reason of the employment of such a specific term, it does not appear forced to claim that, for this legislative text, slaves are held to be the property of their master in the same way as the land which he received as his inheritance from his father and which he will transmit by inheritance to his son. To conclude these brief reflections on Lev 25,44 –46, we can claim that the same goes for this pericope as we argued at the end of the comment on Deut 21,15 –17: like the deuteronomic text, the Leviticus passage also has as its main aim that of legislating on a matter extraneous to the subject of inheritance – here, specifically, slavery – and ends up treating our subject in only a secondary way. In addition to these two passages which, although regulating other matters (the rights of the firstborn and the legitimate possession of slaves, respectively), end up by touching directly on the theme of inheritance, there is a legislative passage in the Pentateuch which refers to it indirectly: this is Deut 25,5 –10, devoted to the juridical treatment of the institution of the levirate. 88 Here it is: 5

When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall come to her, marrying her and performing the duty of a brother-in-law. 6 The firstborn son she bears shall continue the name of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. 7 But if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and say, “My brother-in-law refuses to

88 On the levirate, see: P. Cruveilhier, “Le lévirat chez les Hébreux et chez les Assyriens”, Revue Biblique 34 (1925) 524 –546; M. Burrows, “The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 77 (1940) 2 –15; D.A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament. With Special Attention to the Book of Ruth (Cherry Hill, NJ 1974); E.W. Davies, “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage. Part 1”, Vetus Testamentum 31 (1981) 138 –144; D.E. Weisberg, “The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate Marriage in the Bible and in Ancient Israel”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2004) 403 –429; B. Kilchör, “Levirate Marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5 –10 and Its Precursors in Leviticus and Numbers: A Test Case for the Relationship between P / H and D”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 77 (2015) 429 –440 (even if with some reservations on the relationship of dependence which the author identifies among the texts examined); B. Embry, “Legalities in the Book of Ruth. A Renewed Look”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41 (2016) 31 –44. On the particular text of Deut 25,5 –10, cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 12 –34, 1823, 1849 –1851.

150

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel and does not intend to perform his duty toward me.” 8 Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, declaring, “This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!” 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, “the house of the man stripped of his sandal.”

The specific reference of the levirate which can be said to be related, albeit indirectly, to the question of inheritance is contained in v. 6. In fact, this verse establishes beyond all doubt that the son born from a levirate marriage must be considered the heir of the deceased husband of his mother, even if he is the natural son of her second husband (the levir, to be precise). Our investigation into the subject of inheritance in the biblical legislation in general and the Pentateuch in particular has shown that it is a theme that is tackled only marginally and for the most part in relation to other problems which are similar or pertinent to it. In view of the general nature of biblical legislation – which, as we have recalled, does not arise out of the systematic reflection of the law as a whole but rather responds to specific contingencies – we are encouraged to argue that the theme of inheritance did not represent a pressing question but had stable juridical features which leant on those universal principles which we have recognised to be present in every society of the ancient world. Put more simply: if there are no particular laws relating to inheritance, it is because it did not represent a problem in practice. Bearing in mind these important considerations, we return now to our analysis of the text of Num 27,1 –11, taking it up again where we left off, that is, from the words, at the end of v. 4, in which the five daughters of Zelophehad seek from Moses that the ‫ ֲא ֻחזָּה‬of their father be assigned to them.

2.2. Transfer of the case from Moses to YHWH and solution of the problem (vv. 5 –7) 5

Moses presented their cause before the Lord. 6 The Lord said to Moses: 7 “The daughters of Zelophehad are right in what they say. You shall give them a property in possession among the brothers of their father and you shall pass on to them the inheritance of their father”.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

151

In the course of the exegetical comment on the previous section, we pointed out that – even discounting a variant of the verb in the plural found in some manuscripts, the origin of which we have explained and which, in any case, would include Moses too among the addressees – the plea of the five young women to be assigned the inheritance of their father which was formulated at the end of v. 4, has undoubtedly Moses as interlocutor. Nihil novi, one will think, in view of the fact that in the entire Pentateuchal narrative he is usually taken as the leader of the people and acts for them as legislator both directly and as mediator. What is somewhat surprising is what is recorded in v. 5, which, with brevity of expression, communicates information which makes an assessment of the whole proceedings difficult: Moses is unable to resolve the question by himself and, therefore, presents the cause (‫שׁ ָפּט‬ ְ ‫)מ‬ ִ of Zelophehad’s daughters before YHWH. The use of the verb ‫ קרב‬in syntagmatic form with the substantive ‫שׁ ָפּט‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬can be considered typical of juridical language. 89 In general, the root is employed in the piel to describe the formal act of presentation of a legal case: 90 in our text, however, the form utilised is that of the hiphil, generally used to describe the presentation of offerings and so belonging to the cultic sphere. In biblical Hebrew, there are only two examples of this root in the hiphil in legal contexts, both of them in the Pentateuch: the first is found in our Num 27,5, the second in Deut 1,17. The deuteronomic passage reads thus: In rendering judgment, do not consider who a person is; give ear to the lowly and to the great alike, fearing no one, for the judgment is God’s. Any case that is too difficult for you bring (‫)תּ ְק ִרבוּן‬ ַ to me and I will hear it.

These words form part of the pericope in which Moses reminds the people of the reason for choosing the tribal chiefs to help him in leading the people (cf. Deut 1,9 –18). In particular, he shares with them the burden of the administration of justice, assigning to them the task of resolving disputes arising within their tribes. The end of v. 17 informs us that Moses reserved to himself the final instance of judgement in cases considered too difficult to be resolved by the chiefs he had designated: to express this transfer of the more difficult cases from the chiefs to Moses, the passage employs precisely the root ‫ קרב‬in the hiphil, just as happens in Num 27,5 89

Cf. Gane – Milgrom, “‫”קרב‬, 138. See, for example, Is 41,21: “Present (‫)ק ְרבוּ‬ ָ your case, says YHWH; bring forward your arguments, says the King of Jacob”. In this particular case, the substantive employed in syntagmatic form with the root is ‫ריב‬.ִ Cf. Levine, Numbers, 347. 90

152

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

to represent the action of Moses when he transfers the decision in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad to the judgement of YHWH. There are not many cases in the Pentateuch where one witnesses a similar transfer of competence from Moses to YHWH: among these, we can mention Lev 24,10 –12 which records the episode of the blasphemer which we mentioned at the beginning of the exegetical analysis of our passage. Having introduced the case (vv. 10 –11), v. 12 states: “And he was kept in custody till a decision from YHWH should settle the case for them”. There are no doubts, therefore, that the decision on the case would have supernatural origins. Another example of a decision sought by Moses from YHWH is registered in Num 9,4 –14 in the context of the episode relating to the celebration of the Passover at Sinai. The text affirms that two men, who had been made impure by contact with a dead body, wanted nevertheless to celebrate the Passover along with their people and so submitted their situation to Moses and Aaron. Moses’ response, recorded in v. 8, leaves no doubts: “Moses answered them: “Wait so that I can learn what YHWH will command in your regard””. In this case too, the question is resolved neither by Moses nor by Aaron but by God himself, as recounted in vv. 10 –14. A third case is found in Num 15,32 –41: this is the well-known case of the collector of wood on the sabbath. Caught in the act, he too is brought before Moses and Aaron in the presence of the whole community. That there was uncertainty over what to do is signalled by v. 34 which states: “But they put him in custody, for there was no clear decision as to what should be done with him”. In v. 35, it is YHWH himself who issues the verdict, showing once again the superseding of Moses’ jurisdiction in this particular case. Given the relative scarcity of evidence for this practice, the interpretations of the transferring of judgement on cases from Moses to YHWH can be mixed. This is evident from the rabbinic tradition which barely conceals its embarrassment and even confusion in having to admit this effective restriction of jurisdiction which the biblical text imposes on Moses’ authority. 91 In my opinion, on the basis of the novel context represented by the question on the legislative level, the direct submission to divine intervention aims at legitimising beyond all possible doubt the provision which this text is introducing among the laws of Israel. In other 91 Some rabbis see in the state of affairs in Num 27,5 a divine punishment for Moses’ sin; others, however, recognise there a good example of the humility that Moses wishes to impart to those who, in future, will be called to judge the causes of the people of Israel and will feel uncertain about the resolution of a specific question. Cf. B.J. Bamberger, “Revelation of Torah After Sinai: An Aggadic Study”, Hebrew Union College Annual 16 (1941) 97 –113.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

153

words, the extension of inheritance rights to women could well represent a controversial element in Israel’s culture, and the divine seal on the question is intended to prevent any possible risk of challenging a measure that was so innovative and unprecedented in the popular view. Introduced in v. 6 through the typical formula for opening divine speech, YHWH’s words on the question submitted by Moses are given straight away in v. 7. The opening of the divine utterance is simultaneously solemn and laconic; it goes immediately to the nub of the question by declaring the validity of the petition presented by the daughters of Zelophehad: ‫ֹברֹת‬ ְ ‫ָפ ָחד דּ‬ ְ ‫נות ְצל‬ ֹ ‫ֵכּן ְבּ‬

The use of the root ‫ דבר‬in syntagmatic form with the adjective ‫ ֵכּן‬represents a very unusual phenomenon in the panorama of biblical Hebrew: it occurs only three times in the whole of the bible. In addition to the verse which we are analysing, this particular syntagma is found only in Ex 10,29 and in Num 36,5 within a passage which matches our pericope. What these three occurrences of the syntagma have in common is the fact that they represent a solemn ratification of something that has previously been affirmed by others: Ex 10,29 is a confirmation by Moses of the truth of Pharaoh’s words when, in Ex 10,28, the latter dismisses Moses, saying that he will never see his face again; 92 in Num 36,5 we have a perfect parallel to our text in that Moses declares the truth of the words of Joseph’s descendants who have just spoken to ask that the patrimony of their father be protected, exactly like the daughters of Zelophehad in Num 27,4. 93 God’s affirmation of the validity of the petition in Num 27,7a constitutes the basis on which the provision proper is established. This is contained in the divine words which follow immediately: ‫ָהן‬ ֶ ‫יהן ל‬ ֶ ‫ַחלַת ֲא ִב‬ ֲ ‫ְה ֲע ַב ְר ָתּ ֶאת־נ‬ fַ ‫יהם ו‬ ֶ ‫תוְך ֲא ֵחי ֲא ִב‬ ֹ ‫ַחלָה ְבּ‬ ֲ ‫ָהם ֲא ֻחזַּת נ‬ ֶ ‫ָנתֹן ִתּ ֵתּן ל‬

Since YHWH holds the young women’s request to be valid, Moses is charged with enacting the petition by means of specific instructions consisting in the assignment to Zelophehad’s daughters of their father’s inheritance. To describe the object assigned to the five women by the divine will the text makes use again of the word ‫ ֲא ֻחזָּה‬the meaning of which we have 92 Ex 10,29 reads thus: “Moses replied: “You are right (‫!)כּן ִדּ ַבּ ְר ָתּ‬ ֵ I will never see your face again””. 93 We read thus in Num 36,5: “So Moses commanded the Israelites at the direction of YHWH: “The tribe of the Josephites are right in what they say (‫ֹב ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֵי־יו ֵסף דּ‬ ֹ ‫)כּן ַמ ֵטּה ְבנ‬ ֵ ””.

154

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

dealt with previously in commenting on Num 27,4b. This time, however, the term appears accompanied by another term: ‫ַחלָה‬ ֲ ‫נ‬. The resulting syntagma (‫ַחלָה‬ ֲ ‫)א ֻחזַּת נ‬ ֲ appears only twice in the Hebrew Bible: in addition to our text, it is found only in Num 32,32 in the context of the account of the partition of Transjordania. 94 Given the paucity of attestations, the determination of the precise meaning of this syntagma cannot be conclusive: nevertheless, the semantic field in which the lexemes lie is similar if not the same, seeing that both terms have to do with real estate. That is why some scholars argue that what we have here are two synonyms: variation in their use is primarily due to reasons of style or antiquity. The general tendency is to hold that, between the two terms, the most ancient is ‫ַחלָה‬ ֲ ‫נ‬, with ‫ ֲא ֻחזָּה‬being distinctive of more recent texts: that would be reflected in the fact that Deuteronomy uses ‫ַחלָה‬ ֲ‫נ‬ exclusively whereas Leviticus employs the term ‫ ֲא ֻחזָּה‬to express what is basically the same concept. For his part, Milgrom argues that the two substantives cannot be considered synonymous sic et simpliciter and offers a precise interpretation of the syntagma which uses them together: “’Ahuzzah is a technical term denoting inalienable property received from a sovereign; nahalah refers to inalienable property transmitted by inheritance. The land seized by the Israelites (’ahuzzah) will become their inheritance (nahalah). Thus, this conflated expression makes sense”. 95 Therefore, if we accept Milgrom’s argument, we can interpret the content of what Moses is told to hand over to Zelophehad’s daughters as “the land possessed as an inheritance” by their ancestors, within their family. The expression ‫ַחלָה‬ ֲ ‫א ֻחזַּת נ‬, ֲ the meaning of which we have just attempted to clarify, is further specified by the words immediately following: ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫תוְך ֲא ֵחי ֲא ִב‬ ֹ ‫“ ְבּ‬among the brothers of their father”. According to Frevel, this is an important detail in that it indicates the existence of other brothers of Zelophehad who could have become his heirs, perhaps through levirate marriage. 96 With all due respect for this valuable opinion, there are various reasons which encourage me to have a slightly different idea which I shall seek to explain briefly. First of all, the reconstruction of Manasseh’s family which emerges from Num 26,30 –33 94 For completeness sake, we note that the syntagma also exists in reverse form, as in Num 35,2 in the context of the law about the Levitical cities: “Command the Israelites out of the heritage they possess (‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫ַחלַת ֲא ֻחזּ‬ ֲ ‫)מנּ‬ ִ to give the Levites cities to dwell in; you will also give the Levites the pasture lands around the cities”. 95 Milgrom, Numbers, 232. 96 Cf. Frevel, “The Book of Numbers”, 27.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

155

does not contemplate the mention of any direct descendant of Hepher other than Zelophehad. Even assuming that Hepher had produced other sons and so Zelophehad was not his only son, as well as explaining the reason for the absence of these hypothetical other sons in the census of Numbers 26, we have also to explain – against all the evidence, I would say – why they had not perished with the desert generation of which, like Zelophehad, they were a part and could, therefore, constitute a threat to the inheritance of Zelophehad’s daughters. The only members of the desert generation who did not die before the entry into the promised land were Joshua, son of Nun, and Caleb, son of Jephunneh, according to Num 26,65. That is why I argue that the expression ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא ֵחי ֲא ִב‬indicates the whole family of Jacob / Israel more generally, and so the body of all the tribes: as the daughters of Zelophehad, the last branch of the descendants of Manasseh, son of Joseph, they are to receive the inheritance which belonged to the head of their family whose “name” is to remain intact – with the corresponding part of the inheritance – like those of Jacob’s other sons. That the reference to the paternal family could be interpreted as general and all-embracing, and not specific can also be deduced from another little detail: the suffix that accompanies the term ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫א ִב‬. ֲ It is a third person masculine plural suffix: if it referred only to the family of which Zelophehad was the father stricto sensu, we ought to have a feminine plural, as happens, moreover, at the end of the same verse, in the phrase immediately following. In my view, the presence of the masculine suffix cannot be put down to a scribal error – as understood by many manuscripts and the Samaritan Pentateuch 97 – but rather to the deliberate intention of the author to indicate the whole family of the Israelites and not just the family of Zelophehad. The last part of Num 27,7 contains an expression which, from the point of view of content, appears as a simple redundancy in respect to what was stated in the first half of the verse: ‫ָהן‬ ֶ ‫יהן ל‬ ֶ ‫ַחלַת ֲא ִב‬ ֲ ‫ְה ֲע ַב ְר ָתּ ֶאת־נ‬ fַ ‫ו‬, “and transfer their father’s heritage to them”. However, some commentators observe that this last part of v. 7b makes use of a verb which is actually different from the one employed in the first part of the same verse: here, we find the hiphil of the root ‫ ;עבר‬there – and, moreover in the rest of the pericope – the verb ‫ נתן‬is used to indicate the assigning of Zelophehad’s inheritance to his daughters. This variation could not be a simple stylistic device to avoid repetition of the same verb. According to Milgrom – who 97

Cf. the notes of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia ad locum.

156

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

bases this assessment on the ancient rabbinic interpretation – recourse to the root ‫ עבר‬in the causative form of the hiphil has a specific connotation which expresses “the “transfer” from the qualified to the unqualified”. 98 In confirmation of this hypothesis, he cites some other examples in biblical law, among others, the “transfer” of every firstborn male from God (to whom he belongs by right) to man (cf. Ex 13,12). If we develop the argument and apply it to the present case, we arrive at a complete understanding of the meaning of the variation of the verb in the concluding expression of Num 27,7. By means of this literary stratagem – minuscule in size but of great significance in its effects – the author intends to emphasise that the transfer of the inheritance to the daughters constitutes something extraordinary from the legal point of view in that they are “unqualified” to receive the paternal inheritance: they become its owners only through the direct intervention of YHWH who changes what up until that moment had been established practice. 99

2.3. Transformation of the particular case into a general law (vv. 8 –11) 8

Moreover, you shall say to the Israelites: “When a man dies without leaving a son, you shall make his inheritance pass to his daughter. 9 If he does not even have a daughter, you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he does not have any brothers, you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, you shall give his inheritance to the closest relative in the family circle and he shall possess it. This shall be for the Israelites a legal statute, according to what the Lord commanded Moses”.

Right from the beginning of the exegetical comment on Num 27,1 –11, we have signalled the importance of the fact that this pericope can be described as a clear example of “narrated law” since it carries within it that union between narrative and legal material which is a basic interpretative key with which to understand one of the most peculiar characteristics of the Torah. 100 In particular, the affair of Zelophehad’s daughters which 98

Milgrom, Numbers, 232. Levine is also of this opinion and states: “It may be significant that the verb used to express the bequeathing of territory by a father to his daughter, in the absence of a son, is he’bîr “to transfer”, whereas in the following verses, the verb used to express the same process, from father to other mail heirs, brothers and paternal uncles, is na¯ tan “to grant”. Whereas na¯ tan reflects normal usage respecting the granting of land, the verb he’bîr, in this sense, is virtually restricted to the present verse. The implication is that something unusual is being prescribed, from a legal point of view” (Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 347: italics are mine). 100 See the monograph of A. Bartor, Reading Law as Narrative. A Study in the Casuistic Laws in the Pentateuch (SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature 5; Atlanta, GA 2010), as 99

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

157

presents a problem to be resolved by a particular intervention, constitutes – we said – the narrative base on which the redactors of the text set the more properly juridical and legislative element of the text which ends up characterising the entire pericope. Through the study of the individual verses, we have reached the solution of the initial problem: a solution which sees its climax in the divine intervention recorded in Num 27,7 through which the petition presented by the five young women is received and heard. Nonetheless, we observe that YHWH’s intervention does not end completely with the declaration of the rightness of the request of Zelophehad’s daughters since, starting with v. 8, there is a resumption of the divine speech, as marked by the formula used to reintroduce the divine speech in Num 27,8a: ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל ְתַּד ֵבּר לֵאמֹר‬ ְ ‫ל־בּנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ְא‬ ֶ‫ו‬

On the one hand, recourse to this particular formula makes clear the redactional intent to signal that, from the literary point of view, there is no breach in continuity between what God has said up to that moment and what he is going to say in what follows. On the other hand, however, the content of the formula marks quite clearly a change in the addressee by comparison with the previous pronouncement. The provision of Num 27,7 concerned the daughters of Zelophehad alone; the one introduced by the resumption in v. 8a has, instead, the ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל‬ ְ ‫ ְבּנֵי י‬as its specific recipients, something clearly indicated by the emphatic position which they occupy within the formula. 101 This simple, syntactic observation has a notable importance in the scheme of the passage as a whole in that it marks exactly the point in which a question which arose as a private problem, relating to a particular family group, becomes the pretext for the codification of a general principle which, from then on, was going to regulate the whole of Israelite society with respect to that particular issue, namely, the transmission of an inheritance. In confirmation of what we have just said about the transformation of the case from a specific problem to a general law, the beginning of v. 8b has all the formal characteristics of a casuistic law, as signalled by the presence of the formula ‫אישׁ ִכּי‬, ִ as also by the anaphoric repetition also the illuminating article of R.M. Cover, “The Supreme Court, 1982 Term – Foreword: Nomos and Narrative”, Harvard Law Review 97 (1983) 4 –68. 101 This is the case of a waw-X-YIQTOL where the position of “X” (in this particular case ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל‬ ְ ‫ל־בּנֵי י‬ ְ ‫)א‬ ֶ is anticipated in terms of the usual construction in order to emphasise it. Cf. A. Niccacci, Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (Jerusalem 1986) 50 –52, 111.

158

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

of ‫ְאם‬ ִ ‫ ו‬which appears in the following verses. 102 In view of the narrative event which acts as the immediate occasion of the legal provision, it is not surprising to observe that the first case contemplated by the law on inheritance regards the case of a man who dies without any male children: ‫תּו‬ ֹ ‫ָתו ְל ִב‬ ֹ ‫ַחל‬ ֲ ‫ְה ֲע ַב ְר ֶתּם ֶאת־נ‬ ַ ‫לו ו‬ ֹ ‫וּבן ֵאין‬ ֵ ‫ִאישׁ ִכּי־יָמוּת‬

Although the text does not say so directly, it emerges implicitly from the immediate context that the term ‫ ֵבּן‬is being used in its strict sense to indicate the male child and not generically a man’s issue. Consequently, the case which v. 8b is intended to regulate is an exact photograph of the case of Zelophehad which has been examined and resolved in Num 27,1 –7. Given the kind of case, it is not necessary to add much to what we have considered extensively in the commentary on the pericope so far: nevertheless, it is useful to recall the attention to the verb used to indicate the transfer of the inheritance from the father to his female descendants, that is, ‫ְה ֲע ַב ְר ֶתּם‬ ַ ‫“ ו‬you shall transfer”. It will be noticed that the verb comes from the same root, ‫עבר‬, employed in Num 27,7 to describe the same operation of transferring the paternal inheritance. Valid in this case too are the considerations developed in the comment on this specific occurrence of the root: the choice of ‫ עבר‬in preference to the verb ‫ – נתן‬which will be regularly employed in the rest of the legal provision to represent the passage of an inheritance between individuals of the male sex – responds to the wish to draw attention to the legal novelty constituted by a law which envisages an active role for women in a sphere which, until then, was considered the exclusive prerogative of men. A simple summary table of the verbs used in Num 27,7 –11 to signify the transfer of an inheritance from one individual to another will enable the immediate recognition of what has just been argued: Recipient of the female sex v. 7

‫ְה ֲע ַב ְר ָתּ‬ ַ‫ו‬

v. 8

‫ְה ֲע ַב ְר ֶתּם‬ ַ‫ו‬

Recipient of the male sex

v. 9

‫ְת ֶתּם‬ ַ ‫וּנ‬

v. 10

‫ְת ֶתּם‬ ַ ‫וּנ‬

v. 11

‫ְת ֶתּם‬ ַ ‫וּנ‬

102

For the characteristics of casuistic laws in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible, cf. Cocco, Torah, 25 –26.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

159

Verse 8 contemplated the case which contained the most important juridical novelty in the entire provision. Verse 9 continues to present the law regarding inheritance, providing the possible alternatives to the situation already resolved. This is achieved by a process which we could describe as a “cascade effect”: each of the hypothetical cases arises as the result of a variation on the previous case. Therefore, if v. 8 speaks of the case in which, in the absence of sons, the paternal inheritance is transferred to daughters, v. 9 contemplates the case in which there are no children at all, either male or female. In these circumstances, the recipients of the inheritance are the dead man’s brothers. Since this is a legal and, a fortiori, casuistical formula, it does not seem otiose to observe that the term ‫אח‬, ָ “brother” is being used here stricto sensu to indicate the sons of the same father, and not in the broader sense which the term also possesses to describe kinship in general. 103 In the progressive scheme which we have noted, the case contemplated by v. 10 is that of a man who not only had no children but not even any brothers: an only son, therefore, and without direct descendants. Such a case leaves the way open for the brothers of the man’s father, that is, his paternal uncles. In view of the fact that there is a further variant in v. 11 – to which we shall turn shortly – in the case of Num 27,10, the term ‫ ָאח‬is also to be understood strictly to indicate only the paternal uncles and not generically the kin of the testator’s father. Consistent with the nature of casuistic laws which tend to be allembracing in considering the possible variations in a specific case, v. 11a contemplates the eventuality – rather extreme, to tell the truth – in which a man dies without having left children, brothers or even paternal uncles. In this case, his inheritance must be transferred to the individual described by the text as ‫תּו‬ ֹ ‫שׁ ַפּ ְח‬ ְ ‫רו ַה ָקּרֹב ֵאלָיו ִמ ִמּ‬ ֹ ‫שׁ ֵא‬ ְ “his nearest relative in his clan”. With this expression, the law intends to describe the dead man’s closest relative belonging to the same family clan: in fact, the substantive ‫שׁ ֵאר‬, ְ the basic meaning of which is “flesh, meat”, is often employed by biblical Hebrew as synecdoche to indicate blood relationship. The same is true for other Semitic languages such as Akkadian. 104

103

Cf. Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 347. Cf. H. Ringgren, “‫”שׁ ֵאר‬ ְ , Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, XIV (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry) (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge 2004) 270 –272. 104

160

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

The legal provision containing the casuistic exposition of the individual cases possible in relation to inheritance is sealed in v. 11b by the following words: ‫ֹשׁה‬ ֶ ‫שׁר ִצוָּה יְהוָה ֶאת־מ‬ ֶ ‫שׁ ָפּט ַכּ ֲא‬ ְ ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל ְל ֻח ַקּת ִמ‬ ְ ‫ְתה ִל ְבנֵי י‬ ָ ‫ְהי‬ ָ‫ו‬

This is a particular priestly formula which is intended to establish beyond all possible doubt that what is contained in the provision concluded by this formula comes direct from YHWH, and is transmitted to the people through the mediation of Moses with all the force of a divine utterance. It is clear that such an endorsement of the law by YHWH himself only confirms the exceptional nature of the content of the law, which, as we have underlined several times, introduces a very significant novelty by enabling daughters to enter into the direct line of descent by acquiring the paternal inheritance. Among other things, this is fully in line with what we have said previously in commenting on the fact that the question raised by Zelophehad’s daughters is transferred by Moses to the judgement of God himself (cf. Num 27,5). As for the formulation of v. 11b, we note the presence of a particular syntagma which is employed to describe the nature of the legal provision recorded in Num 27,8 –11: it is ‫שׁ ָפּט‬ ְ ‫“ ֻח ַקּת ִמ‬law of judgement”. This syntagma appears on only one other occasion in the Hebrew Bible, coicidentally, in the same book of Numbers and, more precisely, in Num 35,29. 105 In both cases, the expression serves to underline the juridical importance of the provision which this syntagma is sealing in the concluding formula of the provision itself.

3. The relationship between Num 27,1 –11 and Num 36,1 –12 We have previously mentioned that the portion of the book of Numbers found among the manuscripts of Qumran 106 reveals an order that 105 In this connection, see what I have written in Cocco, Torah, 106. Also interesting and appealing is the translation proposed by Levine: “A statute of jurisprudence” (Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 348). Cf. also Frevel, “The Book of Numbers”, 28. 106 Particularly, we are talking of fragment 36 of manuscript 4Q365 which forms part of the collection known today as “4QReworked Pentateuch”, previously called “4QPentateuchal Paraphrases”. Both titles, but especially the more recent one, recall the fact that the manuscripts which make up this collection contain a reworked form of the Pentateuch, as is demonstrated by the specific case we are studying. Cf. S. White Crawford, “Three Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 and Their Relationship to the Temple Scroll”, The Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994) 259 –273, especially 259.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

161

is quite peculiar in the final chapters of the book itself. In particular, in this specific version, Num 27,11 is not followed immediately by the pericope relating to the transfer of the leadership from Moses to Joshua (Num 27,12 –23) but rather by the passage which corresponds to Num 36,1 –12 according to the Masoretic Text and the other main versions. The operation carried out by the redactor of this fragment of “reworked Pentateuch” is to make clearer the general perception of every reader of the book of Numbers with regard to the close relationship which links these two pericopes: a relationship which, fundamentally, is based on the fact that the two narratives – we recall that the foundation of the legal pronouncement is indisputably a narrative – share the same protagonists and the same problems. This perception is reflected extensively in the various comments on the text: the exegetes are unanimous in agreeing that Num 36,1 –12 represents a sort of corollary, an addition held by some to be necessary, by others as at least appropriate, to the legislation on inheritance introduced by Num 27,1 –11. 107 That is why, having analysed in detail the narrative which tells of the petition of Zelophehad’s daughters and the resolution of the matter (Num 27,1 –7) as well as the extension of the legal provision in question to the entire people of Israel (Num 27,8 –11), we shall conclude our study of the question of women’s inheritance with a careful examination of the pericope which represents its thematic extension: Num 36,1 –12.

3.1. Formal comparison between the two pericopes Even a superficial reading quickly reveals that the links between Num 27,1 –11 and Num 36,1 –12 are not limited to theme and content but also include questions of a formal character. 108 A simple synoptic table will be sufficient to take into account the numerous correspondences between these two passages: 107 To give only a taste of the exegetical unanimity, here are some passages from various introductions to the comment on Num 36,1 –12: “This chapter is a supplement to 27,1 –11” (Gray, Numbers, 477); “This is an appendix to 27,1 –11” (Noth, Numbers, 257); “The connection between this passage and Num 27:1 –11 is obvious” (Budd, Numbers, 388); “Numbers 36 would appear to be an addendum to the Book of Numbers, introduced for the purpose of qualifying the legalities of Numbers 27:1 –11 on the matter of inheritance” (Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 575). 108 Cf. I. Kislev, “Numbers 36,1 –12: Innovation and Interpretation”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010) 249 –259, especially 249.

162

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

Numbers 27

Numbers 36

27,1 // 36,1a

‫ן־ח ֶפר ֶבּן־‬ ֵ ‫ָפ ָחד ֶבּ‬ ְ ‫נות ְצל‬ ֹ ‫ַתּ ְקַר ְבנָה ְבּ‬ ִ‫ו‬ ‫שׁ ְפּחֹת‬ ְ ‫ַשּׁה ְל ִמ‬ ֶ ‫ן־מנ‬ ְ ‫ן־מ ִכיר ֶבּ‬ ָ ‫ִל ָעד ֶבּ‬ ְ‫גּ‬ ‫ֹתיו‬ ָ ‫מות ְבּנ‬ ֹ ‫שׁ‬ ְ ‫ְאלֶּה‬ ֵ ‫ן־יו ֵסף ו‬ ֹ ‫ַשּׁה ֶב‬ ֶ ‫ְמנ‬ ‫ְת ְר ָצה‬ ִ ‫וּמ ְל ָכּה ו‬ ִ ‫ְח ְגלָה‬ ָ ‫ֹעה ו‬ ָ ‫ַמ ְחלָה נ‬

‫שׁ ַפּ ַחת‬ ְ ‫בות ְל ִמ‬ ֹ ‫אשׁי ָה ָא‬ ֵ ‫ִק ְרבוּ ָר‬ ְ ‫ַויּ‬ ‫ַשּׁה‬ ֶ ‫ן־מנ‬ ְ ‫ן־מ ִכיר ֶבּ‬ ָ ‫ִל ָעד ֶבּ‬ ְ ‫ְבּנֵי־ג‬ ‫שׁ ְפּחֹת ְבּנֵי ֹיו ֵסף‬ ְ ‫ִמ ִמּ‬

27,2 // 36,1b

‫ְל ְפנֵי ֶא ְל ָעזָר‬ ִ ‫ֹשׁה ו‬ ֶ ‫ֹדנָה ִל ְפנֵי מ‬ ְ ‫ַתּ ֲעמ‬ ַ‫ו‬ ‫כל־ה ֵעָדה‬ ָ ָ ‫יאם ְו‬ ִ ‫ְשׂ‬ ִ ‫ְל ְפנֵי ַהנּ‬ ִ ‫ֹהן ו‬ ֵ ‫ַהכּ‬ ‫ל־מו ֵעד לֵאמֹר‬ ֹ ‫ֹה‬ ֶ ‫ֶפּ ַתח א‬ ‫תּוְך‬ ֹ ‫ם־א ִבינוּ ִמ‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬ ֵ ‫ָרע‬ ַ‫ָמּה ִיגּ‬ ָ‫ל‬

‫ְשׂ ִאים‬ ִ ‫ְל ְפנֵי ַהנּ‬ ִ ‫ֹשׁה ו‬ ֶ ‫ְד ְבּרוּ ִל ְפנֵי מ‬ ַ‫ַוי‬ ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל‬ ְ ‫בות ִל ְבנֵי י‬ ֹ ‫אשׁי ָא‬ ֵ ‫ָר‬

27,4 // 36,3 –4

‫לו ֵבּן ְתּנָה־לָּנוּ‬ ֹ ‫תּו ִכּי ֵאין‬ ֹ ‫שׁ ַפּ ְח‬ ְ ‫ִמ‬ ‫תוְך ֲא ֵחי ָא ִבינוּ‬ ֹ ‫ֲא ֻחזָּה ְבּ‬

27,7a // 36,5b ‫ֹברֹת‬ ְ ‫ָפ ָחד דּ‬ ְ ‫נות ְצל‬ ֹ ‫ֵכּן ְבּ‬

‫שׁ ְב ֵטי ְבנֵי־‬ ִ ‫ְהיוּ ְל ֶא ָחד ִמ ְבּנֵי‬ ָ‫ ו‬3 ‫ָתן‬ ָ ‫ַחל‬ ֲ ‫ָשׁים ְו ִנג ְְר ָעה נ‬ ִ ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל ְלנ‬ ְ‫י‬ ‫ַחלַת‬ ֲ ‫ְנו ַסף ַעל נ‬ ֹ ‫ֹתינוּ ו‬ ֵ ‫ַחלַת ֲאב‬ ֲ ‫ִמנּ‬ ‫וּמֹגַּרל‬ ִ ‫ָהם‬ ֶ ‫שׁר ִתּ ְהיֶינָה ל‬ ֶ ‫ַה ַמּ ֶטּה ֲא‬ ‫ָר ַע׃‬ ֵ‫ָתנוּ ִיגּ‬ ֵ ‫ַחל‬ ֲ‫נ‬ ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל‬ ְ ‫ִהיֶה ַהֹיּ ֵבל ִל ְבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ְאם־י‬ ִ‫ ו‬4 ‫ַחלַת ַה ַמּ ֶטּה‬ ֲ ‫ָתן ַעל נ‬ ָ ‫ַחל‬ ֲ ‫ְנו ְס ָפה נ‬ ֹ‫ו‬ ‫ַחלַת ַמ ֵטּה‬ ֲ ‫וּמנּ‬ ִ ‫ָהם‬ ֶ ‫שׁר ִתּ ְהיֶינָה ל‬ ֶ ‫ֲא‬ ‫ָתן‬ ָ ‫ַחל‬ ֲ ‫ָרע נ‬ ַ‫ֹתינוּ ִיגּ‬ ֵ ‫ֲאב‬ ‫ֹב ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֵי־יו ֵסף דּ‬ ֹ ‫ֵכּן ַמ ֵטּה ְבנ‬

It will be noted, first of all, that the verbal root ‫ קרב‬used to describe the first action in the affair of the Manassehites recounted in Num 36,1 is the same one recorded in Num 27,1 at the beginning of the story of Zelophehad’s daughters. Secondly, the addressees of the petition in both cases are almost completely identical: the only exception is the syntagma ‫ְל ְפנֵי‬ ִ‫ו‬ ‫ֹהן‬ ֵ ‫א ְל ָעזָר ַהכּ‬, ֶ present in Num 27,2 but absent from Num 36,1b. 109 The third likeness concerns the common recourse to the root ‫ גרע‬to indicate the risk involved in the oath: in both cases, this is represented by the fact that the “name” of one of the families was to be blotted out from among the tribes of Israel. As we pointed out in the comment on Num 27,4, this is a rather rare verb. Its use in a juridical sphere is rather specific. Thus, its presence in both Numbers 27 and 36 confirms the hypothesis of the link between the two pericopes. The fourth element of contact between 109 However, in connection with this difference, we should note that the LXX (followed by the Peshitta) adds to Num 36,1b καὶ ἔναντι Ελεαζαρ τοῦ ἱερέως, thus, in some way harmonising our two texts. Although the notes of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia propose accepting the variant of the Greek and Syriac versions, I think that we should bear in mind the principle lectio brevior potior and so retain the reading of the Masoretic text. The shorter version has the advantage of explaining the origin of the longer variant which would have been expanded in harmony with Num 27,2: on the other hand, an abbreviation of the original text is explicable only as the result of a scribal error. Without absolutely denying this latter possibility, my view is that the first hypothesis is to be preferred.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

163

the two texts is provided by the formula through which both petitions are declared to be basically worthy and so accepted. The number and weight of these likenesses of form and vocabulary have encouraged the most ancient commentators on the text to claim that what we have here are two passages written by the same hand. 110 More recently, however, exegetes have expressed a different opinion on the literary paternity of the two pericopes, arriving at the conclusion that they are the product of two different redactions. 111

3.2. Comparison of the content of the two pericopes and assessment of the relationships of dependence Ignoring the question of literary paternity, which has now been tackled and supposedly resolved on the basis of the results of the exegetical debate, it is undeniable that there is a thematic connection between these two legal texts. Given that we are not faced with the mere repetition of the same content, we shall seek to have a better understanding of the relation which unites these two laws and its basis concerning inheritance by analysing the content of Num 36,1 –12. After v. 1 has identified the bearers of the question to be settled as the Gileadites, descendants of Manasseh and Joseph, v. 2 continues with the basis of the petition which has to be presented by them. What underlies the content of this verse is the assigning of the territory by Moses to each of the tribes which constitutes the specific content of Num 34,1 –29: both in this text and in Num 36,2, we find the term ‫גּוָרל‬, ֹ “lot”, to indicate the concrete method to be used for the partition of the land of Canaan. The reason for the reference to the account of the assigning of their territory to each of the tribes is made explicit in Num 36,2 which states clearly that the partition of the land has its basis in the sovereign decision of YHWH, communicated to the people through Moses. This is a very important point because it is precisely this divine arrangement that the questioners use as a lever to establish their own reasons and reinforce their arguments. Along with the mention of the partition of the land, the concluding part of v. 2 refers to the affair of Zelophehad and his five daughters 110 Thus A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, und Josua (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13; Leipzig 18862) 221; Kuenen, HistoricalCritical Enquire, 98. 111 The agreement on this point is huge: cf. Gray, Numbers, 477; Budd, Numbers, 389; Milgrom, Numbers, 511 –512; Levine, Numbers 21 –36, 575; Kislev, “Numbers 36,1 –12”, 250 –252; Frevel, “The Book of Numbers”, 28 –29.

164

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

in Num 27,1 –7, indicating its epilogue succinctly with these words: “[. . .] And my lord was commanded by YHWH to give the heritage of Zelophehad our kinsman to his daughters”. Num 36,3 –4 finally arrives at the explanation of the risk feared by the questioners: if Zelophehad’s daughters – who have been declared their father’s heirs by the direct intervention of YHWH and, therefore, legitimate holders of the patrimony of Manasseh’s family – have to marry men belonging to another tribe, their father’s inheritance will be dispersed by merging it with the patrimony of the tribe of the husbands of Zelophehad’s daughters. In essence, what the questioners are raising is the risk of a contradiction, that is, the conflict between two divine provisions which seem to be mutually exclusive: the first is that which concerns the right of each tribe to have its own territory and to retain it in perpetuity (cf. Num 34,1 –29); the second is that regarding the right of daughters to inherit their father’s fortune in the absence of male heirs (Num 27,1 –8). 112 The question is resolved in vv. 5 –9 by a comprehensive pronouncement of Moses. In declaring the validity of the petitioners’ assertion, he indicates endogamy as the solution to the problem they fear. By marrying within their own family, in fact, the five heiresses will avoid the de facto transfer of their paternal inheritance to another tribe on their death, seeing that their hypothetical heirs will be heirs of their respective fathers and not of the women themselves. This particular provision (v. 6) is followed by a series of general provisions linked by the fact of all being concerned with the preservation of the inheritance of each of the Israelite tribes. This must remain intact according to what YHWH established previously (vv. 7 –9). On analysing this section in more detail, it becomes apparent that it contains a key term, repeated a good six times within the span of three verses: I am referring to the substantive ‫ַחלָה‬ ֲ ‫נ‬. It occurs twice in v. 7, twice in v. 8, and twice in v. 9. This concentration in such a brief space is a clear indication of the centrality of the theme expressed by the word in question: given that we are within a legal text, we shall have no difficulty in arguing that the direct objective of the legal provision of Num 36,7 –9 is precisely the preservation of the ‫ַחלָה‬ ֲ ‫ נ‬of each of the tribes of Israel. Finally, vv. 10 –12 represent a reprise of the narrative base of this legal text (vv. 1 –6) in that they contain the completion of the arrangement imparted by Moses to the daughters of Zelophehad: they married within

112

I borrow the happy insight of Frevel, “The Book of Numbers”, 28.

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

165

the family of the sons of Manasseh, thus avoiding the dispersal of their paternal inheritance. On the basis of the tenor and form of the central nucleus of what we have shown to be a legal provision of a general character (vv. 7 –9), as also of the narrative conclusion of the pericope (v. 12), we can argue that the basic theme of the law recorded in Num 36,1 –12 turns precisely on the preservation of the integrity of the inheritance of each of the tribes. For Num 27,1 –11, we observed that the problem raised by Zelophehad’s daughters acted as base and trigger for the juridical treatment of the subject of inheritance (exhaustive in character like all laws of the same kind). In the same way, in Num 36,1 –12, the question raised by Joseph’s descendants – as well as resolving directly the problem of Zelophehad’s daughters, protagonists in this case too, as in Num 27,1 –7 – represents the occasion for the legal establishment of the juridical principle of protecting the paternal inheritance. Beyond the fact that both events have at their centre the specific situation of Zelophehad’s daughters, the closeness between the two juridical provisions (Num 27,1 –11 and Num 36,1 –12) is also clear for thematic reasons: both these laws, in fact, have to do with the general law of the inheritance of the tribes of Israel. The relationships of literary dependence between the two traditions do not present a difficult question as we have pointed out several times previously: it is very clear, in fact, that what is prescribed by Num 36,1 –12 represents an addition to what is provided in Num 27,1 –11. In this connection, I share Frevel’s idea that the expansion represented by the more recent tradition (ex hypothesi Num 36,1 –12) is in no way detrimental to the force of the previous law (Num 27,1 –11), the validity of which remains intact. The law of Num 36,1 –12 succeeds, rather, in making possible the implementation of what was established by Num 27,1 –11 without prejudice to what YHWH himself had already laid down in connection with the preservation of the inheritance (cf. the law of Num 34,1 –29). Far from abolishing the first, then, the second law guarantees the possibility of its implementation. To conclude the comparison between Num 27,1 –11 and Num 36,1 –12, it is important to take note of an element which – beyond its banal appearance – can be revealed as really significant for grasping the repercussions on the biblical juridical system of what we have identified as the umpteenth legal Fortschreibung in the book of Numbers. 113 To this end, 113

For this observation too we are largely indebted to Frevel, “The Book of Numbers”, 28 –30. U. Bechmann also speaks of the episode featuring the daughters of Zelophehad

166

An inheritance for five daughters: Num 27,1 –11

here is a comparison of the introductions which each of the two pericopes puts before the divine pronouncement which resolves the respective legal question: Num 27,5 –6 ‫שׁ ָפּ ָטן ִל ְפנֵי יְהוָה׃‬ ְ ‫ת־מ‬ ִ ‫ֹשׁה ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ַקֵרב מ‬ ְ ‫ַויּ‬ ‫ֹשׁה לֵּאמֹר‬ ֶ ‫אמר יְהוָה ֶאל־מ‬ ֶ ‫ וַֹיּ‬6

Num 36,5 5

‫ל־פּי יְהוָה‬ ִ ‫ִשָׂר ֵאל ַע‬ ְ ‫ת־בּנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ֹשׁה ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ְצו מ‬ ַ ‫ַוי‬ ‫לֵאמֹר‬

5

As we have underlined extensively in the course of the exegetical comment, Num 27,5 portrays the transfer of the case of Zelophehad’s daughters from Moses to YHWH, with all the attendant consequences and implications. The verse immediately following, which introduces the divine speech and indicates that it is addressed in the first instance to Moses, is only declaring that he is performing his customary role as mediator between God and the people to whom he is called to transmit the content of the divine decision. On the other hand, in introducing the pronouncement which resolves the question presented by Joseph’s descendants in the previous verses, the text of Num 36,5 indicates clearly that Moses is the subject of this pronouncement, asserting that he is imparting the order ‫ל־פּי יְהוָה‬ ִ ‫ע‬, ַ “at YHWH’s bidding”. Although the difference appears subtle, given that – in the final instance – the origin of the command still comes from YHWH, it is impossible to be unaware of a change in the formulation of Moses’ role. If Num 27,5 does not hesitate in declaring his incompetence (in a juridical sense), providing the basis for the transfer of the case directly to God, Num 36,5 certainly awards a substantial increase to the competence of Moses (again, juridically speaking) in the promulgation of the legal supplement constituted by the entire narrative of Num 36,1 –11. 114

in terms of “actualisation of the Torah” from the legal point of view (Bechmann, “Prophetische Frauen”, 57 –58). Similar in tone is the article of D.H. Aaron who considers Num 27,1 –11 one of the examples of literary stratagems employed by the biblical redactors to modify particular customs or social practices. Cf. D.H. Aaron, “The Ruse of Zelophehad’s Daughters”, Hebrew Union College Annual 80 (2009) 1 –38. 114 Pace Milgrom, Numbers, 297, who argues that the expression ‫ל־פּי יְהוָה‬ ִ ‫ ַע‬in Num 36,5 implies that Moses had already consulted YHWH because he was incapable of solving the case on his own. Secondarily, Milgrom hypothesises that God had already anticipated the problem by assigning the five daughters of Zelophehad husbands from within the paternal family, but Moses reported the thing only in Num 36,6.

Chapter III “But if a woman makes a vow . . .” Num 30,2 –17

Ein Gelübde zu tun ist eine größere Sünde, als es zu brechen. 1

If there is an element which is most characteristic of human beings and distinguishes them from other living beings it is undoubtedly their relational capacity, understood as the ability to establish significant bonds with those around them, the ability, that is, to go beyond the mere mechanism of instinct or convenience which lies at the basis of the relationships between the other animals. These significant bonds are based essentially on trust, a spontaneous and profound sentiment which unites the two people in relation reciprocally. Nevertheless, in view of the objective human weakness in remaining faithful to the fiduciary link at the basis of the relation with one’s fellows, in order to anticipate the failure of the relations they are constructing, human beings not infrequently fortify themselves through the formulation of agreements or pacts which formally oblige the interested parties to maintain the bond that has been freely established. The relation which people establish with God mirrors the intra-human situation. That is why it is not surprising that the characteristics which shape it are very like those which distinguish the relation between one person and another. Also at the base of the relations binding people to God is reciprocal trust which is expressed concretely in the faithfulness of both the parties to the pact to commit themselves to walking together on the path of life. Certainly not to guarantee the faithfulness of God – who, throughout the history of salvation, shows himself to be the faithful one par excellence – but to obtain greater benefits from him, people assume formally

1

“To make a vow is a greater sin than to break one” (G.C. Lichtenberg, Sudelbuch K, 1793 –1796).

168

“But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17

before God various solemn commitments which they declare themselves ready to fulfil if the divinity shows favour in receiving and granting their requests. Such solemn commitments, formally assumed before God on condition that he fulfils human desires are called vows. 2 Since nothing that is properly human remains foreign to the interests of the Bible, we should not be surprised to find within the sacred books of Israel various texts – both narrative and legislative – devoted to the illustration of the practice of vowing in its different forms. In this third chapter of our study of the laws which the book of Numbers devotes to women, I would like to shed light on some characteristics of the vow which emerge from the scriptural treatment of this practice, concentrating particularly on the law concerning vows made by women which is found in Num 30,2 –17. To this end, I shall start from a brief examination of the practice of the vow in the Ancient Near East and in the Torah to go on to focus on the analysis of the legal text which Numbers devotes entirely to women and to the vows uttered by them. 3

1.1 1. The practice of the vow in the Ancient Near East In general terms, we can say that, in the cultures of the Ancient Near East, far from representing a mere stratagem aimed at negotiating the obtaining of a benefit from the divinity, the vow is, rather, a way of reinforcing

2 For the terminological details and the semantic distinction which the biblical language operates between “promises”, “oaths” and “vows”, I refer to the extensive contribution of T.W. Cartledge who makes a fundamental distinction between oaths and vows which can be summarised as follows: “While an oath begins with human action (or inaction) and moves from there to God’s potential response, a vow begins with a plea for divine action, followed by a conditional promise of the worshiper’s response” (T.W. Cartledge, Vows in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 147; Sheffield 1992] 16). Alongside this substantial difference, Cartledge points out another characteristic which, in his opinion, constitutes a fundamental distinction between oaths and vows: the always conditional nature of the vow. He maintains that the formulations described by other scholars as “unconditional vows” are nothing other than oaths and so not properly vows. For the detail of his argument, I recommend a complete reading of the first two chapters of his monograph. 3 The basis of the study taken forward in this chapter is a recently published article of mine: F. Cocco, “‘Ma se una donna avrà fatto un voto. . .’ (Nm 30,4). La donna nella legislazione di Nm 30,2 –17”, “Figlio dell’uomo alzati, ti voglio parlare” (Ez 2,1). Studi in onore del Prof. Marco Nobile in occasione del suo 75° compleanno (ed. A. Cavicchia – M. Cucca) (Bibliotheca 43; Roma 2018) 63 –84.

“But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17

169

the relational link uniting the faithful to the divinity, underlining their reciprocity. 4 Among the various pieces of evidence in our possession, the so-called Sumerian Letter-Prayers are particularly significant. They go back to the Neo-Sumerian period of the Third Dynasty of Ur (XXII–XXI cents. B.C.). 5 What characterises this particular literary genre is the fact that, in order to address the divinity, the faithful make use of the epistolary form, composing a letter which contains some recurring elements – something that justifies the classification of the letters themselves into a specific literary genre. These distinctive elements are: the salutatio addressed to the divinity, moulded in the general form of the incipit of letters in the archives but containing the epithets proper to the divinity in question and other laudatory forms; the message proper of the letter, which forms the body of the missive and can record either a complaint that the divinity has not acted in relation to previous prayers or, vice versa, thanksgiving for benefits received or, again, the request for favours; finally – of most interest to us – the conclusion of the Letter-Prayer which can contain the formulation of a vow, intended to repay the divinity’s generosity towards the worshipper. 6 Beyond the contents of the prayer – which can be inscribed without difficulty within the normal nature of the expression of religio, understood as the link uniting people to God – what appears to me extremely interesting in this epigraphic evidence is the literary form, namely, the letter. By definition, the epistolary genre presupposes a link of reciprocity between sender and recipient which, in the human world, is realised in the reversal of roles when the recipient replies to the missive received, becoming in turn the sender. It seems to me hugely significant that this religious expression has combined with the epistolary genre to make explicit the relation – deep and reciprocal – which unites the human being to the divinity: in this context, the vow contained in these Letter-Prayers is meant to seal and strengthen the reciprocity of this relation. The Assyrian and Babylonian literature also records numerous witnesses to the practice of vows with very similar characteristics to what we 4

Cf. R. de Vaux, Les Institutions de l’Ancien Testament, II (Paris 1960) 360; H.J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel. Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (SBL Old Testament Studies 49; Leiden – Boston, MA 2003) 575 –577. 5 For a detailed study of this particular literary genre, cf. W.W. Hallo, “Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968) 71 –89. 6 Cf. Hallo, “Individual Prayers”, 76 –77; Cartledge, Vows, 74 –75.

170

“But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17

have just seen when speaking of the Sumerian world. Although Akkadian does not have a precise term for “vow”, there is a term – ikribu¯ , and the related cognate root kara¯ bu – which forms part of the vocabulary of prayer in general but which appears to be employed to indicate a vow. 7 After a significant survey of various testimonies to the public and private religious practice relating to this cultural environment, Cartledge concludes thus with regard to vows in the Assyro-Babylonian world: “Although the ikribu¯ does not always function in the same way as the Hebrew vow, it often has much in common with its Hebrew counterpart, including similar life situation (distress), locations (the sanctuary), literary forms (prayer, especially laments), contents (temple offerings, public praise), and regulations (vows are sacred and must not be withheld)”. 8 Even if numerically less than those from the Sumerian or AssyroBabylonian literature, the witnesses to vows from Ugarit have a particular importance which is very interesting in its similarity with the general Near Eastern and biblical practice. 9 The points of contact are particularly evident in the circumstances in which and from which the vow arises: generally, it is a situation of suffering which impels the worshipper to address the divinity to obtain its favours. Another common element is the context in which the vow is uttered, that is, the sanctuary. With regard to the literary structure, the Ugaritic literature reveals suprising similarities to the biblical narratives which record the account of the formulation of a vow. Last but not least, in Ugaritic as in biblical Hebrew, the use of the root ndr is employed solely in the religious sphere, with reference to the divinity, to express the performance of the votive practice. So far we have been concerned with votive practices characterised by the fact that they express the reciprocity of the relation between people and the divinity, beseeching the latter for a powerful intervention through the gesture of a solemn promise of something which is offered in exchange for the desired favour. However, the examination of other evidence shows a new element compared with the forms of vow considered so far which, for convenience, we could describe as “conditional”. Beside these there existed in the Ancient Near East another expression of votive practice 7

Cf. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 576. Cartledge, Vows, 91. 9 For detailed study, see: L. Fisher, Ras Shamra Parallels. The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, II (Analecta Orientalia 50; Roma 1975) 131 –152; S.B. Parker, “The Vow in Ugaritic and Israelite Narrative Literature”, Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (1979) 693 –700; Cartledge, Vows, 108 –122. 8

“But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17

171

which was characterised by the unconditional nature both of the subject and the duration of the promise. In other words, this second procedure did not contemplate an offering that could be quantified in material or temporal terms, seeing that the person was offering to God not simply something but – in a certain way – himself, committing himself solemnly to be faithful to his word without the direct envisioning of a favour to be obtained in exchange for such fidelity. 10 For a better understanding of the nature and characteristics of this “unconditional” votive practice, it may be useful to resort to some evidence from the Egyptian world, going back to the third and second millennia B.C. 11 In particular, rather than vows proper, these are really oaths which can be classified into two basic types: assertive oaths, that is, solemn declarations aimed at guaranteeing the truth of something asserted by the one uttering it; or else promissory oaths, containing the promise to be faithful to the word given to accompany the declaration contained in the oath. The distinction between the two types is easily made: by their very nature, assertive oaths are attestations relating to the past or present whereas promissory oaths involve the future of the person uttering them. 12 On the basis of this fundamental distinction, we can easily realise that – although not vows stricto sensu – promissory oaths are highly significant for our study in that they contain one of the key elements of the vow, namely, the orientation towards the future. In analysing the structure and the content of these promissory oaths there emerges another datum relevant to the present study: compared with the types of vow which we have examined so far and described as “conditional”, none of the examples catalogued by Wilson in his study of oaths records any reference to the presence of conditions which qualify the promise uttered by the taker of the oath. This led Cartledge to conclude that “bargaining with the deity seems to play a surprisingly small role in the Egyptian religious literature, as compared with other contemporary cultures”. 13

10

This is what C.A. Keller sums up in his distinction between the “conditional vow and unconditional vow”: cf. C.A. Keller, “‫נדר‬, geloben”, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. E. Jenni – C. Westermann) II, (München – Zürich 1976) 39 –40. 11 For the anthology of the texts and their analysis, cf. J.A. Wilson, “The Oath in Ancient Egypt”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 7 (1948) 129 –156. 12 Cf. Wilson, “Oath”, 129. 13 Cartledge, Vows, 99.

172

“But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17

This fully confirms the importance of the Egyptian evidence mentioned above for the awareness of the practice of “unconditional” vows or promises made to the divinity in the Ancient Near East.

2. The practice of the vow in the context of the biblical traditions Biblical Israel took from its cultural and social environment both the forms of vow which we have shown to be present in the Ancient Near East and which we have described as “conditional” and “unconditional”. Their presence is registered in numerous Old Testament texts which recur to the practice of the vow to characterise the reciprocity of the relationship between man and YHWH. The attestations are multiple and of different kinds: resorting to a generalisation, we can distinguish between attestations of the practice of vows in the poetic-cultic sphere, present in abundant quantity and kind in the book of Psalms, and attestations which are found within narratives. 14 As can be easily realised from the very nature of the things, between the two cases just mentioned – the cultic and the narrative – it is the second that contains the greater amount of information useful for a better understanding of the subject of vows in ancient Israel, given that the poetic-cultic references tend to be limited to reproducing technical vocabulary without going into the description of cases and characteristics. By their very nature, on the other hand, the narrative texts linger over the description of the circumstances, anticipating or preparing in a certain way what the legislative texts are going to explain in detail with regard to the regulation and subject of the practice of vows. In order to give a concrete example of what we have just argued, it will be sufficient to refer to Gen 28,10 –22. This is an episode in the Jacob saga which is particularly well known because of the famous “dream of the ladder” and the simultaneous foundation – at least from the aetiological point of view – of the sanctuary at Bethel. The frame of the passage can be easily identified for thematic reasons: both the beginning and the end of the pericope refer to the journey which the patriarch is undertaking in

14 Cf. O. Kaiser, “‫”נדר‬, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed. G.J. Botterweck – H. Ringgren – H.-J. Fabry), V (Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln 1986) 262 –264. On the etymological value of the verb ‫פאל‬, used similarly to (and not infrequently in syntagmatic form with) ‫ נדר‬to indicate votive practice, see C. Lemardelé, “Le verbe pa¯ la¯ ’ et la pratique des vœux”, Revue Biblique 111 (2004) 481 –198.

“But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17

173

order to return at last to his own home from which he had to distance himself suddenly because of his deception of Esau. If the literary boundaries of the pericope appear well marked and do not represent a difficult problem, the internal unity of the passage seems more complex to understand since there are certain thematic elements that are so distinct as to be considered by some commentators as impossible to harmonise with one another. Among the thematic elements that clash most are the presence within a single narrative of the promise of assistance by YHWH (vv. 13 –16) along with the formulation of a vow by Jacob (vv. 20 –22): the words with which the patriarch commits himself to serving God and to building him a sanctuary in exchange for his protection seem to take no account of the fact that this protection had already been promised and guaranteed by YHWH in a wholly gratuitous way. To summarise very briefly, we can say that there are two ways to tackle the problem of the coexistence of virtually incompatible themes: the historical-critical approach and the method of the history of traditions. Among those who espouse the method of source criticism, the most common solution proposed for this aporia – a solution adopted in this as in many other similar cases in the Bible – consists in the attribution of the two contrasting themes (that of the unconditional promise by God and that of the vow, in this case conditional, formulated by Jacob) to two different “sources”, blended into a single textual tradition by later redactors. Thus, it is argued that the theme of the promise (vv. 10.13 –16.19a) is to be attributed to J, whereas the theme of the vow (vv. 20 –22) would be part of the redactional contribution of E, containing, as a whole, the account of the dream and the erection of the pillar as well as, obviously, the reference to the vow (vv. 11 –12.17 –18.22). 15 Those who follow the history of traditions method, on the other hand, argue that there are not sufficient grounds for postulating two sources behind the present text of Gen 28,10 –22, 16 and that we ought to be speaking rather of redactional interventions modifying an original narrative. This 15 A. de Pury has a detailed survey of the scholarly theories about this, concluding his examination with his own reconstruction of the origin of the text. Cf. A. de Pury, Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob. Genèse 28 et les traditions patriarcales, I (Études Bibliques; Paris 1975) 32 –45. 16 E. Blum is somewhat direct in affirming that the only criterion which acts as a starting point – and also as justification – for the division of the pericope into sources is the divine name, and, at the same time, he emphasises the weakness of the argument since the sacred tetragrammaton is actually the only divine name used consistently within the entire account of Gen 28,10 –22. For the details of the argument, cf. E. Blum, Die Komposition

174

“But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17

original narrative would consist of vv. 11 –12 and 16 –19, so that the rest of the text would have to be considered as the result of later additions. 17 This position too has aroused scholarly reactions, 18 showing further how this passage leaves itself open to quite different interpretations, a sign of the importance of the material within it. In my opinion, Wenham’s position represents a good attempt at mediation between the opposing theories here in that he limits himself to observing the plurality of thematic elements in the text – on which he begins his proper exegetical analysis – and assessing them in the broad context of the Jacob cycle without claiming to resolve the question of the origin of the traditions which these elements contain and transmit. 19 However, we shall concentrate on the part of the pericope which most concerns us, that is, Gen 28,20 –22 which recounts the vow pronounced by Jacob in anticipation of the journey which the patriarch has to undertake in order to return to his father’s house. Here is the text of Genesis: 20

Jacob then made this vow (‫ֶדר לֵאמֹר‬ ֶ‫ַעקֹב נ‬ ֲ ‫ִדּר י‬ ַ‫)ַויּ‬: “If God will be with me and protect me on this journey I am making and give me food to eat and clothes to wear, 21 and I come back safely to my father’s house, YHWH will be my God. 22 This stone that I have set up as a sacred pillar will be the house of God. Of everything you give me, I will return a tenth part to you without fail”.

As well as being really emblematic in exemplifying what the Hebrew Bible understands by a vow, the passage takes on a certain importance in that it provides the first occurrence of the root ‫ נדר‬in the MT which, both in its verbal and substantival forms (‫ֶדר‬ ֶ‫)נ‬, represents the technical vocabulary of the vow in the Hebrew language. 20 Among other things, it is the only des Vätergeschichte (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984) 7 –35. 17 Thus (as well as the already cited Blum) C. Westermann, Genesis 12 –36: A Commentary. Translated by J.J. Scullion (Minneapolis, MN 1985); R. Rendtorff , “Jakob in Bethel. Beobachtungen zum Aufbau und zur Quellenfrage in Gen 28:10 –22”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98 (1982), 511 –523. 18 To cite only one example, R.N. Whybray maintains that those who uphold the history of traditions method are simply replacing their own “set of presuppositions for the earlier ‘documentary’ ones” (R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplements Series 53; Sheffield 1987] 210). 19 Cf. G.J. Wenham, Genesis 16 –50 (Word Biblical Commentary 2; Dallas, TX 1994) 219 –221. 20 The root has direct and almost identical correspondences in cognate languages such as Ugaritic, Phoenician-Punic, Aramaic, Egyptian and Syriac. For a detailed study, cf. Keller, “‫נדר‬, geloben”, 39 –43; Kaiser, “‫”נדר‬, 262 –263; R. Wakely, “‫”נדר‬, The New International Dictionary of the Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. W.A. VanGemeren), III (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 37.

“But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17

175

vow to appear in the patriarchal story, something which heightens the significance of this testimony. 21 In the Genesis narrative, the reader will not have failed to notice the presence of numerous characteristics which we have indicated as typical of the practice of vows in the Ancient Near East: we shall point them out here. First of all, Jacob’s vow is a commitment that he freely assumes: it arises spontaneously from the patriarch’s intention to commit himself to God without any external pressure. Secondly, the fulfilment of the vow uttered is clearly subordinate to the desideratum which Jacob expresses without any hesitation in formulating the vow itself: it is, therefore, a conditional vow, similar to many we have seen in studying the votive practice of the Ancient Near East. The third element which is recognised in the typology of conditional vows is the fact that Jacob’s vow is formulated in a moment of severe distress and uncertainty about his own life. Finally, even the reference to the pillar which ‫ִהיֶה ֵבּית ֱאל ִֹהים‬ ְ ‫י‬, “will be a house of God” can also be read and understood in continuity with the Near Eastern practice which tended to locate the formulation of vows in a sacred spot, thus in physical contact with the place believed to be the dwelling of the divinity which the one promising the oath intended to address.

3. The legislation in the Torah on the vow If the account of Jacob at Bethel is the first Pentateuchal text to register recourse to the root ‫ נדר‬to describe the formulation of a vow – at least following the canonical order of the books – the first legislative text of the Torah to tackle the regulation of vows is Lev 27,1 –13. 22 This legislative section is found within the last chapter of Leviticus and is commonly considered an appendix to the Holiness Code. 23 With regard to content, this chapter is made up of three distinct thematic elements: 21 Cf. Y. Peleg, Going Up and Going Down. A Key to Interpreting Jacob’s Dream (Genesis 28:10 –22) (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 609; London – New York 2015) 146. 22 For comment on the text, cf. Noth, Leviticus, 203 –208; Hartley, Leviticus, 476 –488; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23 –27 (Anchor Bible 3b; New York 2001) 2365 –2436; P.J. Budd, Leviticus (New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI 1996) 378 –390. 23 Noth is quite clear on this point when he states: “This chapter, coming after the great reward and punishment announcement of ch. 26, is clearly a later supplement. It refers to the Law of Holiness, and particularly to the jubilee-year regulations, but has no special connections in content” (M. Noth, Leviticus. A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; London 1965] 203). On this specific point, see the opinion of C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah

176

“But if a woman makes a vow . . .”: Num 30,2 –17

after the general introduction to the divine speech (vv. 1 –2a), vv. 2b –13 contain the (very detailed) legislation about the fulfilment of vows of persons or animals made in honour of YHWH; vv. 14 –25 record laws relating to the dedication to the sanctuary of a house or a field (whether inherited or acquired), as well as the establishment of the value of a shekel; finally, vv. 26 –33 record restrictions on people or objects which can be offered to God. The recapitulatory nature of v. 34 makes it a natural conclusion not only of chapter 27 but of the entire book of Leviticus. Even from this briefest of thematic surveys of the different parts which make up Leviticus 27, it emerges clearly that the most interesting part for our study is the first pericope, Lev 27,1 –13. In general, we can say that this legislative text presents itself as a real table of correlations which indicates precisely what is the equivalent in money or in numbers of animals to be presented as an offering in replacement of the person or animal which is meant to be offered to YHWH. Various interesting things emerge from the exposition of the law. Among these is a piece of information which, from a formal view alone is hidden between the lines, but which stands out for its importance: I am referring to the fundamental concept concealed behind the table of correspondences which we have just mentioned, namely, the prohibition of human sacrifice. We are well aware that, in the surrounding cultures, this type of sacrifice was well known and a fairly habitual practice: by introducing a series of values corresponding to people, 24 our law expresses – even if in an apophatic way, so to speak, in that it does not say so directly but ignores the very idea of it – the prohibition of vows that envisage human sacrifices of any kind. If, in this case, the text can be allowed a reference to the prohibition of human sacrifice so indirect as to be cryptic, it is because this law has been explicitly formulated in Lev 18,21 which reads: “You shall not offer any of your offspring for immolation to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am YHWH”. Moreover, the same concept has already been reiterated in Lev 20,2 –5: 2

Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel, who gives offspring to Molech shall be put to death. The people of the land shall stone that person. 3 I myself will turn against and cut off that individual from among the people; for in the giving of offspring to Molech, my sanctuary was defiled and my holy name was profaned. 4 If the people of the land condone the giving of offspring

to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (Forschungen zum Alten Testament / II 25; Tübingen 2007) 94. 24 The text of Lev 27,2c speaks of a vow made ‫ְפשׁ