A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

-  937

of childlessness. Van Driel suggests that the manumission and adop-

tion of a slave in BM 78543 was to legitimize a son by a slave girl.^103

5.2.2.2 Adoption of strangers was a more commercial arrangement,

in return for services. The most important of these was care and

support of the elderly.^104 In YOS 17 1, a brother and sister are

adopted; the brother receives an inheritance share while the sister is

obliged to support the adopters. Such arrangements led to unconven-

tional forms of adoption—in two instances, a man adopts a father

and son together (VAS 6 188 = NRV 10, for performance of feu-

dal services; OLZ 7 (1904), 39, in return for support). A unique

arrangement is recorded in YOS 6 2 (= BR 6 5), where a man

gives two-thirds of his Egyptian slave in adoption to his own slave

(who is also an oblate). The share apparently refers to profit from

the adoptee’s earnings.

5.2.2.3 Revillout PSBA 9 attests to the adoption of a foundling, since

the adoptee’s name is ”a-pî-kalbi, “from the mouth of a dog”—the

technical term for an abandoned child. Throwing a child to the dog

can even be a symbolic act to create the legal status of abandonment.^105

5.2.3 Inheritance

5.2.3.1 Adoption made the subject eligible to inherit from the adopter

but not automatically entitled, at least where heirs already existed.

In adoption documents, the adopter assigns an inheritance share as

a separate act and the presence of siblings in the witness lists attests

to their acquiescence, suggesting that they would otherwise be able

to challenge the adoptee’s share (e.g., OLZ 7 (1904), 39).

5.2.3.2 Specific property might be transferred inter vivos, but some-

times the adopter would expressly retain the usufruct for his lifetime

(VAS 5 47; 6 184 = NRV 27). A different form of assignment was

(^103) “Care.. .,” 184.
(^104) E.g., VAS 5 47; BM 61737 = Roth, “Women in Transition.. .,” 134. See
van Driel, “Care.. .,” 183–91.
(^105) In Nbk. 439, a woman casts her infant son “at the dog’s mouth” in order
that another may take him up from the dog’s mouth. Malul (“Adoption.. .,” 104–5)
assumes that the latter adopts the child, but it is not a necessary outcome. In BM
94589 a child taken “from the dog’s mouth” is explicitly called a foster-child (tarbû)
and is ultimately given (in exchange) as a slave.
westbrook_f26_911-974 8/27/03 1:36 PM Page 937