876
5.1.2 The dowry consisted of cash; woolen and linen garments and
bronze utensils, each one priced; and a long list of perishable items
and oils (EPEB28:6–16, 41:5–21; TAD D3.16 for a fragmentary
dowry list). Almost eighteen years after his daughter’s marriage, Anani
labeled his bequest to her “an after-gift since it is not written on
your document of marriage” (EPE B44:8–9). Yet such documents
did not include realty. The husband was responsible for the dowry.5.1.3 In case of repudiation by either party, the dowry reverted to
the wife. All three marriage documents contained mutual provisions
to the effect that should (s)he stand up in a congregation and say
“I hated PN my husband/wife,” that party was obligated to pay the
other one “money of hatred,” and the wife was entitled to go away
wherever she desired, or return to her father’s house, as the case
might be (EPEB28:22–31, 36:7–10, 41:21–28). Considering that the
dowries for the free woman ran between 65.5+ and 78.125+ shekels,
“hatred money” of 7 1/2 shekels was not much. For the handmaiden
Ta(p)met, whose dowry amounted to 22.19+ shekels (EPEB36:6–7,
16), it was not such a small sum.^10 If pronounced by the woman, it
would mean denial of conjugal rights.^11 The term for divorce in the
documents is trk, “expel” (EPE B36:14 and n. 24), the same term
used to designate the expulsion of a widow from her former hus-
band’s house (EPEB28:29–31, 41:32). All three marriage documents
also contained mutual provisions of succession. Upon the death of
either spouse, the couple being childless, the survivor took over all
the property of the deceased, there being distinct differences between
his right to “inherit” her and her right merely to “control” or “
” (EPEB28:17–22, 41:28–30, 34–36; cf. B36:10–13).5.1.4 Since a man might have more than one wife, either at the
same time or in succession, special protection was offered the woman.
Thus Es ̇or assured the widowed Mibtahiah that he had no other
wife or children besides Mibtahiah (EPE B28:32–35) and Ananiah
assured Jehoishma that he would not take another woman besides(^10) The accepted explanation for “hate” (“n") in the Elephantine documents has
been “divorce,” yet there are cogent arguments to prefer “repudiation,” i.e., demo-
tion of the woman as a “beloved,” primary wife (cf. the situation of Rachel and
Leah [Gen. 29:31–33] and the Deuteronomic law on the rights of the first-born
[21:15–17]). See Szubin and Porten, “Repudiated Spouse...”
(^11) Porten and Szubin, “Status.. .,” 55–56; EPEp. 181, n. 42.
westbrook_f24_863-881 8/27/03 1:35 PM Page 876