670
obviated the need for a ter¢atu, but if the groom repudiated the adop-
tion, he might be liable to pay it retroactively (RE 88; TBR 72).5.1.3 Divorce
5.1.3.1 The documents assume that husbands and wives have equal
capacity to initiate divorce.5.1.3.2 Form
Marriage was dissolved by a unilateral declaration: “You are not my
wife” or “You are not my husband,” respectively (Emar 124; RE
82; SMEA 9). TBR 75 contemplates the husband saying to his
mother-in-law/adoptive mother, “I divorce your daughter.” In TBR
28, the wife declared of her husband that he could take his son’s
hand and “go where he pleases” (a“ar libbi“u lillik). The verbs used
for divorce are mu““uru(Emar 213; TBR 75) and ezèbu (RE 6, 61;
Ekalte 40).5.1.3.3 Consequences
5.1.3.3.1 The penalties for divorce imposed by contractual clauses
were pecuniary only. A standard penalty seems to have been sixty
shekels upon the party divorcing, whether husband (Emar 124; RE
82; TBR 75) or wife (Emar 124, but see sec. 9 below). In Emar
213, a financier who in return for paying a widow’s debts had been
adopted by her as her heir and had received her daughter in mar-
riage would on divorce forfeit his expended capital and his inheri-
tance. In SMEA 9, daughters who divorced their husbands were to
forfeit their inheritance.5.1.3.3.2 In RE 61, it is stated only that if he divorces her, the
husband must divorce his wife “like a daughter of Emar.” This may
refer to a customary divorce payment. Similarly in TBR 28, a wife
declared that on divorcing her husband she had given him various
items of personal property, summarized as “these utensils” (unùte
annûti), apparently the local term for a dowry (see 6.3.5.1.1 below).
Most probably this refers to the forfeiture of her dowry.5.1.3.3.3 A few contractual penalties deal with the question of which
partner is to leave on divorce. It would seem to depend on whether
the matrimonial home is located with the husband’s family or theWESTBROOK_f16–657-691 8/27/03 12:29 PM Page 670