Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:20:00.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Cana Werman
Cana Werman
Affiliation:
Ben Gurion University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of whether it is permissible for Gentiles to marry Jews appears in scripture itself, which advances divergent views on the subject. Whereas both preexilic literature and the author of Chronicles permitted intermarriage, Ezra and his followers repudiated the practice. This article investigates the status of the question during the Second Temple period, when the impact of a new factor—conversion—further complicated the issue. Given the diversity present even in the Bible, it seems clear that several solutions to the problem would have been viable in the Second Temple period: (a) a total ban on intermarriage; (b) opposition to marriage with Gentiles unless they had abandoned idolatry or converted to Judaism; and (c) retention of the ancient tolerance of intermarriage, even in the absence of conversion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 90 , Issue 1 , January 1997 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the prohibition against intermarriage in antiquity, see Cohen, Shaye J. D., “From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage,” Hebrew Annual Review 7 (1983) 23–29Google Scholar.

2 Even Moses marries the foreigner Zipporah. In the midst of the controversy over Moses' marriage to a Cushite woman, scripture informs us that he has achieved the ultimate level of prophecy (Num 12:1-13). The case of Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11:3) demonstrates that intermarriage was not uncommon. Neither the Deuteronomic ban on intermarriage with the seven nations native to Canaan (Deut 7:3), nor the story of Dinah, rules out marriage with a circumcised foreign male or a foreign female. The law of the “beautiful captive woman” (Deut 21:10-14), moreover, takes marriage with a foreign woman for granted. The permanent ban on admitting an Ammonite or Moabite “to the congregation of the Lord” even to the tenth generation (Deut 23:4) and on Egyptians and Edomites until the third generation (Deut 23:8–9) is more problematic. Milgrom, Jacob (“Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel,” JBL 101 [1982] 174Google Scholar ) argues that this law reflects a northern Israelite polemic against the house of David. David was the descendant both of Judah and Tamar (and thus a mamzer [“bastard”]?) and of the Moabite woman Ruth. Rehoboam, the successor of Solomon, not incidentally, was the son of an Ammonite woman (1 Kgs 14:21). See the discussion on the phrase “congregation of the Lord” in Falk, Ze'ev W., “Those Excluded from the Congregation,” Beth Miqra 62 (1975) 342–51Google Scholar [Hebrew]. In Joshua 23:6-13 and 1 Kgs 11:1-2, the term congregation takes on the meaning “nation”; excluding foreigners from the congregation becomes a ban on intermarriage. In Lamentations, however, “entering the congregation” is the invasion of the sanctuary (Lam 1:10). Some scholars claim that the primary meaning of the concept involves eligibility to assume a place in the representative body of the people, or in its leadership, or to sit in judgment ( , Falk, “Those Excluded,” 345–48)Google Scholar . If , Milgrom (“Religious Conversion,” 173–75)Google Scholar is correct, this is the phrase's original meaning. Even if one adds the four Transjordanian nations to the seven autochthonous ones, no pentateuchal basis for a ban on intermarriage exists.

Early Second Temple period literature reflects a different view. Ezra and Nehemiah waged all-out war on intermarriage (Ezra 9-10; Neh 10:31; 13:23-27). It is clear that a significant shift occurred, whether owing to the emergence of an extremist faction ( Weinfeld, Moshe, “Universalism and Particularism in the Period of Exile and Restoration,” Tarbiz 33 [1964] 228–42Google Scholar [Hebrew; English summary]), or of a priestly one ( Schwartz, Daniel R., “On Two Aspects of a Priestly View of Descent at Qumran,” in Schiffman, Lawrence H., ed., Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls [Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990] 157–79)Google Scholar . Ezra and his followers, Weinfeld's separationists, disengaged the biblical laws excluding foreigners from their rationale, perceiving them as absolute (“Universalism and Particularism,” 237). As the desire to avoid the “abominations of the nations” faded and, with it, the ethnic prejudice against Ammonites and Moabites, a new fear took its place: the intermingling of “the holy seed with the peoples of the land” (Ezra 9:2). Since the “people of the land” are defiled by incest (Gen 19:30-38; Lev 18), marriage with them is not permissible (Deut 7:3) ( Fishbane, Michael, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1985] 114–23)Google Scholar . The concept of a “holy nation” changed from a primarily national-religious orientation to a primarily biological-religious one, and particularistic prohibitions became more general ( , Weinfeld, “Universalism and Par-ticularism,” 238)Google Scholar . Apparently, the author of Chronicles opposed this trend, as the book's persistent stress on the non-Israelite origin of several of its heroes shows. See Japhet, Sara, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1989) 346–51Google Scholar.

3 For a discussion of the dispute between the priestly halakhah and that of the Sages, see Sussmann, Ya'akov, “The History of the Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qimron, Elisha and Strugnell, John, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert X, Qumran Cave 4 V, Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-torah (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994) 179–200Google Scholar.

4 VanderKam, James C., “Putting Them in Their Place,” in Reeves, John C. and Kampen, John, eds., Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben-Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (JSOTSS 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 54.Google Scholar

5 Jub. 34.20. All citations from Jubilees, unless otherwise indicated, are from VanderKam, James C., The Book of Jubilees (CSCO 511; Leuven: Peeters, 1989)Google Scholar.

6 Gen 45:10; Jub. 34.21.

7 Jub. 41.1.

8 Jub. 28.6-8.

9 Compare Gen 31:6-7, 36-43.

10 Jub. 7.1; compare Gen 9:24-25.

11 Jub. 10.30-32.

12 This chapter has been treated at length by Sternberg, Meir, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985) 445–75Google Scholar . For a reaction to his approach and Sternberg's reply, see Fewell, Danna Nolan and Gunn, David M. “Tipping the Balance: Sternberg's Reader and the Rape of Dinah,” JBL 110 (1991) 193–211Google Scholar ; Sternberg, Meir, “Biblical Poetics and Sexual Politics: From Reading to Counter-Reading,” JBL 111 (1992) 463–88Google Scholar . A key article on the subject is Lyn Bechtel, M., “What If Dinah is Not Raped? (Genesis 34),” JSOT 62 (1994) 19–36Google Scholar ; and bibliography there.

13 Compare Exod 22:15; Deut 22:29.

14 See , Bechtel, “What If Dinah,” 32Google Scholar . This is also the view of the biblical author, as seen in his choice of the verb n3B, “to humiliate,” meaning to have intercourse in violation of existing bondings and obligations and without promise of marital or family bondings and obligations. See Deut 22:23-24; 2 Sam 13:11-14. Compare , Bechtel, “What If Dinah,” 23–25Google Scholar.

15 , Bechtel, “What If Dinah,” 34Google Scholar. (“outrage”) serves elsewhere in the Bible to evaluate the following: any girl found not to be a virgin (Deut 22:20-21), the murder of the concubine at Gibeah (Judg 20:6), Amnon's rape of Tamar (2 Sam 13:12), and any act of adultery (Jer 29:23). All these cases merit the death penalty for the offender. Translations of the biblical text in this article rely mainly on the new JPS translation; I have taken the liberty of making changes, however, where I believe that the translation does not do justice to the multifaceted nature of the biblical text.

16 Gen 34:7.

17 Gen 34:2.

18 Gen 34:5.

19 For this intended usage in biblical texts, see Sternberg, Meir, “The Truth vs. All the Truth, the Reading of Inner Life in Biblical Narrative,” Hasifrut 29 (1979) 110–46Google Scholar [Hebrew].

20 Gen 34:13.

21 Gen 34:27.

22 Gen 34:25.

23 , Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 471–72Google Scholar . The storyteller heightens the effect of animalistic impulses by describing the looting without any apparent order: The brothers move from the field (“their flocks and herds and asses”) to the town (“all that was inside the town”), back to the field (“and outside”), to the human captives (“all their children, and their wives”), and to the town (“all that was in the houses”) (vv. 28–29).

24 , Bechtel, “What If Dinah,” 32, 35.Google Scholar

25 The conclusion of the chapter clearly illustrates the nature of the conflict Jacob faced. On the one hand, Jacob's remarks show his insight into the perspective of the native inhabitants of the land, who found no fault with Shechem but found Simeon and Levi's acts unconscionable: “You have brought trouble on me, making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites” (Gen 34:30). Counterpoised to this view is Simeon and Levi's comment “should our sister be treated like a whore”? (Gen 34:31). In their eyes, Shechem's indifference to any responsibility toward Dinah was intolerable.

26 Gen 33:18.

27 Gen 33:16-17.

28 Gen 34:13.

29 This is the main argument in Bechtel's article (“What If Dinah”).

30 See Endres, John C. (Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees [CBQMS 18; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1987] 120–54Google Scholar ) for a study of the adaptation of biblical material in Jubilees 30. The story in Jubilees explicitly cites biblical persons and circumstances. See Dimant, Devora, “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in Mulder, Martin Jan, ed., Mikra (CRINT 2.1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 390Google Scholar . Jubilees 30 contains allusions to biblical material (ibid., 398), to both Genesis 34 and other injunctions, events, and personalities.

31 Gen 35:5.

32 Jub. 30.2-3.

33 Jub. 30.3. The motif of deception also appears at the conclusion of the Testament of Levi: “For from this day on, Shechem will be called a city of imbeciles; for as a man mocks a fool, so we mocked them; because also they had wrought folly in Israel to defile our sister” (T. Levi 7.2-3 ; Hollander, Harm W. and DeJonge, M., The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary [SVTP, 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985] 146)Google Scholar . As James Kugel notes, this is a play on the word (“outrage”) (“The Story of Dinah in the Testament of Levi,” HTR 85 [1992] 22–25)Google Scholar . Josephus omits this conversation entirely, recounting that Jacob and his sons were at a loss for ideas. He accuses no one of deceit (Ant. 1.338-41). In both texts Simeon and Levi initiate the action independently.

34 Other works also make no reference to the demand for circumcision. See Ps.-Philo Bib. Ant. 8.8; Philo, Migr. Abr. 224; Mut. Norn. 193-95, 199-200; Jdt 9:2. See the discussion in Pummer, Reinhard, “Genesis 34 in Jewish Writings of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” HTR 75 (1978) 177–88Google Scholar.

35 Jub. 30.4; Compare Gen 34:25: “On the third day, when they were in pain.”

36 Jub. 30.24.

37 Jub. 30.1.

38 Jub. 30.26.

39 Gen 33:18.

40 Jub. 30.17.

41 Jub. 30.18.

42 Jub. 30.23.

43 According to Jubilees, Levi's meritorious act resulted in the selection of his descendants “to serve before the Lord.” This follows the biblical statement, “The Lord set apart the tribe of Levi…to stand in attendance upon the Lord” (Deut 10:8). In his final blessing of the Israelites, Moses attributes the Levites' election to their zeal: “Who said of his father and mother, ‘I consider them not.’ His brothers he disregarded, ignored his own children” (Deut 33:9).

44 Num 25:10-13.

45 Jub. 30.5-6. This work is not alone in subscribing to this notion. Both the Testament of Levi and Judith 9:2-3 share the view that Simeon and Levi's deeds were decreed in heaven. The former introduces a new factor. The Shechemites died not only for their violation of Dinah, but “because they wished to do to Sarah also as they did to Dinah our sister.” Moreover, they persecuted Abraham, trampled his flocks, and maltreated his slave, as they did to all strangers, “taking their wives with force and banishing them” (T. Levi 6.8-11). Perhaps the author of the Testament of Levi found the view of Jubilees that the defilement of an Israelite daughter amply justified the punishment decreed against all the Shechemites insufficient grounds for imposing a death sentence on an entire city.

46 Jub. 30.5-6. The defilement of Jacob's daughter is thus an “outrage.” By this means, Jubilees unites two different evaluations occurring in the biblical account. I shall explicate this point below.

47 See also , Dimant, “Use and Interpretation,” 398.Google Scholar

48 Kugel notes that the claim that the Shechemites' punishment fulfilled a heavenly decree i s an inference from biblical usage of the expression “nothing like this is to be done/a thing not to be done” (“Story of Dinah,” 25-28). In scripture, the formula is the narrator's way of relating the brothers' reaction. Jubilees assumes the speaker to be God: the Shechemites die “so that there should not again be something like this.”

49 Jub. 30.2.

50 This verse alludes to Gen 34:16 (“we will give our daughters to you and take your daughters to ourselves”), not to Deut 7:3, which states: “do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” The Latin version of Jubilees adds filiis suis (“for their sons”) after the verb “not to marry” (literally, “not to take”). This is indeed an implicit quotation from Deuteronomy. Because of the Latin's general tendency to harmonize itself to the best-known text, however, its testimony is suspect.

51 Lev 20:20.

52 Gen 34:7.

53 Lev 21:9.

54 Lev 20:4-5.

54 Lev 20:3.

56 See Milgrom, Jacob, “The Function of the Hatta't Sacrifice,” Tarbiz 40 (1970) 1–8Google Scholar [Hebrew]. Israel Knohl ascribes this prohibition to the “Holiness School” (The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 102Google Scholar.

57 Ta-Shma, Yisrael “Leperušo šel Qeta mi-Sefer ha-Yovlot,” Beth Miqra 11 (1966) 99–102.Google Scholar

58 According to Jubilees, laws resulting from events find a place in the “heavenly tablets.” A few of the many examples include: Cain's death leads to the recording of the law of lex talionis (Jub. 4.32); festivals that Abraham celebrated are permanent (Sukkoth in Jub. 16.29; Passover in Jub. 18.19); a custom that Laban observed leads to the law requiring an elder daughter to marry before the younger (Jub. 28.7). A person's deeds, whether righteous or evil, also merit a line in the heavenly tablets (Jub. 5.14; 30.21-23; 31.32). The heavenly tablets allow this book to emphasize the eternal reality of a law, a righteous deed, or a transgression. This is particularly true in cases where the interpretation of the law is in dispute, as for example with; the significance of the festival of Shavuot (Jub. 6.17), the division of the year into quarters (Jub. 6.29), the laws of the Sabbath (Jub. 50.13), the site for eating the paschal sacrifice (Jub. 49.17), the problem of impurity after childbirth (Jub. 3.13-14), circumcision (Jub. 15.25), tithing of first fruits (Jub. 13.25; 32.15), and the prohibition against “giving a descendant to Molech” (Jub. 30.7-10). It is noteworthy that Jubilees also occasionally uses this concept to stress a law, often disputed, which does not derive directly from an event or deed. In such cases, instead of the expression, “For this reason it has been ordained on the heavenly tablets,” the expression, “For this is the way it has been ordained” appears. This is the case in Jubilees 30.

59 , Ta-Shma, “Leperušo šel Qeta,” 100Google Scholar ; , Cohen, “From Bible to Talmud,” 34Google Scholar.

60 4QMMT, in its treatment of intermarriage by priestly families, classifies this sin as fornication. See Sussman, Ya'akov, “The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Preliminary Observations on Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT),” Tarbiz 59 (1989) 26 n. 67Google Scholar [Hebrew]. In 4QMMT, however, the prohibition against such marriages derives from the law of hybridism, whereas Jubilees contains no clear reference to this law. Use of fornication and impurity here is the result of the assumption that Gentiles constitute an entity basically different from Israel; while the former are under the influence of the defiling spirits who descended from the Watchers and human women (Jub. 11.5; 15.30-32), the latter are under the supervision and rule of God.

61 Jub. 7.21.

62 Jub. 16.5.

63 Jub. 33.20.

64 The consequences of “impurity” in Leviticus are dire: “Thus the land became defiled; and I called it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants” (Lev 18:25). No mention of the land occurs in Jubilees 30, although the book does claim that incest (Reuben's act [Jub. 33.10]) and the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jub. 16.5) led to the defiling of the land.

65 The Ge'ez reads “daughters,” not VanderKam's “women.”

66 Jub. 30.15.

67 It is also possible that the author had the option of using Leviticus metaphorically. The trend at Qumran toward equating the community with the temple is well attested (see lQpHab [12] 3-4; 1QS [8] 5-10, and others). Our author could have argued that the nation has been defiled, quoting Leviticus as a prooftext. He has chosen instead to lay yet another charge at the door of those who marry foreigners. By their actions, they defile not only their offspring and the nation, but also the sanctuary and God's name.

68 Lev 20:2-5, from the holiness code (H). This division into sources follows the scheme of , Knohl (Sanctuary of Silence, 105).Google Scholar

69 Num 19:13, 20, also from H.

70 Lev 15:31, also from H.

71 Jub. 30.15.

72 , Endres (Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees, 124–25)Google Scholar discusses this problem. In Jubilees, Dinah and Bilhah, defiled by “fornication,” die prematurely (Jub. 34.15), perhaps as part of a general destruction of all wha are involved.

73 See Milgrom, Jacob, “The Graduated Hatta't of Leviticus 5:1-13,” JAOS 103 (1983) 249–54Google Scholar ; idem , “The Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles,” in Brooke, George J., ed., Temple Scroll Studies (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) 165–80Google Scholar ; idem, “The Scriptural Foundations and Deviations in the Laws of Purity of the Temple Scroll,” in Schiffman, Lawrence H., ed., Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series, 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 83–99Google Scholar ; , Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 180–81Google Scholar.

74 This was also true for the Temple Scroll. See , Milgrom, “Qumran Cult: Its Exegetical Principles,” 165–70Google Scholar ; idem, “Laws of Purity of the Temple Scroll,” 83-89.

75 See Gedalyahu Alon, “The Levitical Uncleanness of Gentiles,” in idem , Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977) 146–90Google Scholar ; and Breuer, Mordecai, “Tumat Ha-Nokhrim,” Sinai 105 (1990) 267–79Google Scholar.

76 The distinction between rabbinic and sectarian midrash is noteworthy here. Jubilees integrates the scriptural quotes directly into the text, and nothing distinguishes them from its author's words. This is not the case in the midrashim cited here, where a distinction exists. See Goldberg, Abraham, “The Early and Late Midrash,” Tarbiz 50 (1981) 94–106Google Scholar [Hebrew; English summary].

77 See the comprehensive discussion by Geza Vermes, “Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis,” in Petuchowski, Jakob J. and Fleischer, Ezra, eds., Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981) 108–24Google Scholar . I have relied on Vermes' translations of the texts (with the exception of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan). For 6, I based my work partially on Hammer, Reuven, Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

78 Lev 18:21.

79 According to MSS Cambridge Add. 470 II and Parma 138, Kaufmann codex.

80 y. Meg. 4.10, 75.3; compare y. Sank. 16.11; 27.2. See Weinfeld, Moshe, “The Molech Cult n i Israel and Its Background,” in Peli, Pinchas, ed., Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (5 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1969) 1. 37–61Google Scholar , esp. 47 [Hebrew].

81 Lev 20:2.

82 Deut 18:10. The text is from Midrasch Tannaim zum Deuteronomium, , Hoffman, ed. (Berlin, 1909) 109–10Google Scholar . My translation is based on , Hammer, Sifre, piska 171, p. 199Google Scholar . The version in the Sifre, however, is corrupt.

83 This observation suffers nothing from the fact that the prooftext for R. Ishmael's homily is from Leviticus 20. This citation evolved as a result of the need for a verse that specified punishment. The prohibition against intercourse with an Aramean woman cited in R. Ishmael's name depends, as do the other sources, on Leviticus 18. As Weinfeld shows, Pseudo-Jonathan retains the plain meaning of , “to pass through to idolatry” (“The Molech Cult in Israel,” 48).

84 Measured by adherence to the biblical text, the exegesis of Jubilees is less daring than that1 of the targumim or the Sages.

See , Endres, Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees, 136 n. 46Google Scholar.

85 Note that in Jub. 30.11 the angel addresses Moses, ordering him to bring this matter to the Israelites' knowledge. From this point on, however, the book never mentions punishment by stoning, but rather is content with moral condemnation of the act. This is especially striking i n contrast to other laws in Jubilees, where the provisions of the law precede an address to Moses and a restatement of the law, including the punishment. See, for example, the commandment regarding the Sabbath:

For this reason he gave order regarding it that anyone who

would do any work in it was to die; also, the one who would

defile it was to die. Now you command the Israelites to

observe this day so that they may sanctify it… anyone who

profanes it is to die (Jub. 2.25-27).

See also Jub. 33.10-14:

For this reason it is written and ordained in the heavenly

tablets that a man is not to lie with his father's wife and

that he is not to uncover the covering of his father because

it is impure. They are certainly to die together—the man

who lies with his father's wife and the woman, too—because

they have done something impure on the earth. There is to be

nothing impure before our God, within the nation that he has

chosen as his own possession.…Now you, Moses, order the

Israelites to observe this command because it is a capital

offence and it is an impure thing. To eternity there is no

expiation to atone for the man who has done this; but he is to

be put to death, to be killed and to be stoned.

See also Jub. 41.25-26. Perhaps the author's awareness of the problematical nature of the law he was presenting led him to avoid attaching to it the same weight as other laws. The verses that specify the reward (Jub. 30.20-22) present no call for action against sinners; rather, the reward accrues from refraining from intermarriage.

86 Cohen, Shaye J. D., “The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law,” American Jewish Studies Review 10 (1985) 27Google Scholar ; , Vermes, “Leviticus 18:21,” 122.Google Scholar

87 y. šabbat 1.4, 3.2. See the discussion in Ben-Shalom, Yisrael, The School ofShammai and the Zealots' Struggle Against Rome (Jerusalem: Ben-Tsevi, 1993) 252–72Google Scholar [Hebrew], Despite the book's weaknesses, Ben-Shalom convincingly demonstrates that R. Simeon bar Yohai's dictum, which includes both “their sons and their daughters,” preserves the original list of measures.

88 Jub. 30.7.

89 Gen 34:4.

90 See , Endres, Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees, 125–27, for the relevant calculations.Google Scholar

91 Sifre Deut. 244.

92 “‘After that you may come to her and possess her’ in other words, this is a case where she does not convert, but if she decides to convert she undergoes ritual immersion, and is permitted to him immediately” (Midrash Tannaim Deut 21:13 [Hoffman, ed., 128]). It is most probable that Midrash Tannaim also included the next sentence, today found in one manuscript of the Sifre as well as in Midrash Hagadol: “This indicates that if she does not want to convert after thirty days she is required to do so in twelve months. If then she does not want to, she must undertake the seven Noachide commandments. If after twelve months she does not want to undertake either of these, she is to be killed.

93 Sifre Deut. 213-14.

94 , PhiloVirt. 40.220–21.Google Scholar

95 , JosephusAnt. 20.139–46.Google Scholar

96 Sifre Deut. 213-14.

97 See Shinan, Avigdor, “MeArtapanos ad Sefer Ha-YaSar: Litoldoteha šel Aggadat Mošeh be-Cuš,” Eshkolot 2 n. s. (1977/1978) 58, 65–66.Google Scholar

98 Temple Scroll 63.14-15, in Yadin, Yigael, The Temple Scroll (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983) 286Google Scholar.