A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

   387

immediately come to live in the groom’s father’s house until the cou-

ple were old enough for completion, an arrangement known as

“daughter-in-lawship” (kallùtum).^74

5.1.2.3 “Claiming at the house of the father-in-law”—a ceremonial

act whereby the groom (in the first type of betrothal) claimed his

bride, based on his full payment of the ter¢atum.^75

5.1.2.4 Completion of marriage. Although in practice it appears

that completion was attended by elaborate wedding ceremonies, there

is some ambiguity as to the exact legal act completing marriage.

There are three possibilities, all of which have some evidence in

their favor: (a) transfer of the bride to the groom’s house, which

would obviously apply only to the first type of betrothal;^76 (b) sex-

ual intercourse;^77 (c) a solemn declaration by the groom (and possi-

bly the bride): “You are my wife/husband” or the like.^78

5.1.2.5 If, without justification, the groom refused to complete the

marriage, he forfeited the ter¢atum and any other payments that he

had made (LH 159). If the bride’s father refused to give his daugh-

ter in marriage, he was required to restore double the ter¢atumand

other payments received (LH 160). If his refusal was instigated by

a faithless companion of the groom, the latter was prohibited from

then marrying the bride instead (LL 29; LH 161).^79 If the bride her-

self refused to marry, she probably forfeited her dowry, but if her

refusal was by reason of her own misconduct, she suffered the death

penalty.^80 Death of the groom or the bride’s father annulled the

obligation to complete, but possibly not death of the bride, at least

if her father could provide a substitute.^81

(^74) See LH 155–6; CT 8 7b; CT 48 22:4–8; see Westbrook, Marriage Law...,
36–38.
(^75) ana bìt emim “asûm. Possibly, the phrase means to “claim for the bridal cham-
ber”: see Finkelstein, “ana bìt emim.. .”; Westbrook, Marriage Law.. ., 39–41.
(^76) Koschaker, Rechtsvergleichende Studien.. ., 116–17, and “Eheschliessung.. .,” 114.
(^77) Landsberger, “Jungfräulichkeit.. .,” 78–81; Malul, “ßillâm pa†àrum...”
(^78) Greengus, “Marriage Contract.. .,” 514–23.
(^79) On the function of the companion, see Malul, “Susapinnu.”
(^80) LH 142–43. For this interpretation, see Westbrook, Marriage Law.. ., 45–47.
Other commentators regard these paragraphs as concerning dissolution of a com-
pleted marriage, e.g., Yaron, “Eherechten.. .,” 68, 73–74.
(^81) See Westbrook, “Death.. .,” 32–36.
WESTBROOK_f10–360-430 8/27/03 12:26 PM Page 387