Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:16:51.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Cancelled Marriage Contract from the Judaean Desert (XHev/Se Gr. 2)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Hannah Cotton
Hannah Cotton
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the publication of the Greek part of the Babatha Archive in 1989 and some of the documents from the Greek-Syriac archives of Mesopotamia and the Middle Euphrates in 1989–1991, the contribution of perishable material from places other than Egypt to the study of the Roman Near East and the Roman Empire in general has become obvious. But this is just the tip of an iceberg that has been surfacing for a while. The parchments and papyri from Dura Europus, discovered in the 1920s, were published in final form in 1959: they range from the first century C.E. to the middle of the third century C.E. with texts mainly in Latin and Greek, a few in Aramaic and Iranian and one in Syriac.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 84 , November 1994 , pp. 64 - 86
Copyright
Copyright ©Hannah Cotton 1994. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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 Lewis, N., The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Greek Papyri (1989)Google Scholar = P.Yadin.

2 Feissel, D. and Gascou, J., ‘Documents d'archives romains inédits du moyen Euphrate (IIIe siècle après J.-C.)’, CRAI (1989), 535–61Google Scholar; Teixidor, J., ‘Deux documents syriaques du IIIe siècle après J.-C. provenant du moyen Euphrate’, CRAI (1991), 144–64Google Scholar; Semitica 41–42 (1991–1992), 195–208; cf. Aggoula, B., Syria 69 (1992), 391–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 C. Bradford Welles, Robert O. Fink, and J. Frank Gilliam, The Excavations at Dura. Final report v. Part 1.

4 With one exception: No. 15 is from the second century B.C.E.

5 Casson, L. and Hettich, E. L., Excavations at Nessana II: Literary Papyri (1950), Nos 1–13Google Scholar; Kraemer, C. J. Jr., Excavations at Nessana III: Non-Literary Papyri (1958), Nos 14–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See especially Benoît, P., Milik, J. T., de Vaux, J. T. and R., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (DJD) II: Les Grottes de Murabba'at (1961)Google Scholar: the majority date from the first and second centuries C.E. The Bar Kokhba documents published so far are now all listed in Millar, F., The Roman Near East (1993)Google Scholar, Appendix II: ‘Documents from the Bar Kochba War’.

7 Y. Yadin, and J. Naveh, Masada I: The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions; H. M. Cotton and J. Geiger, Masada II: The Latin and Greek Documents.

8 Edited by Emanuel Tov with the collaboration of Stephen J. Pfann, appeared in 1993; see there Pfann, S. J., ‘History of the Judaean Desert discoveries’, pp. 97–108Google Scholar, and ‘Sites in the Judaean Desert where texts have been found’, pp. 109–20.

9 See Cotton, H., ‘The Guardianship of Jesus son of Babatha: Roman and local law in the province of Arabia’, JRS 83 (1993)Google Scholar, n. 1 for recent bibliography.

10 True, Babatha's orphaned son is called ‘Ιουδαîοс in P.Yadin 12, l. 7.

11 Cotton, op. cit. (n.9).

12 The distance between Aristoboulias of our papyrus (see below) and Zo'ar is 57 km, as the crow flies; between Aristoboulias and 'En-Gedi 23 km; between Zo'ar and 'En-Gedi 50 km; between Zo'ar and Livias in the Peraea (Transjordan, P.Yadin 37) 87.5 km; between Aristoboulias and Livias 61 km — a day's walk or two days at most between the furthest destinations (see Fig. 1).

13 See Appendix 1.

14 If the ‘year eleven’ at the opening refers to the era of the province of Arabia; Beyer, K., Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (1984), 309Google Scholar takes it as ‘year eleven to Nero’, i.e. 64 C.E.; cf. DJD II, No. 18: ‘year three to Nero’.

15 The editor very tentatively suggests ‘before the First Revolt’, DJD II, p. 114; Beyer, op. cit. (n. 14), 310: ‘spätestens 135 n. Chr., wahrscheinlich auch nicht viel früher’.

16 P. Yadin 10 to be published shortly by Jonas Greenfield and Ada Yardeni in IEJ. I am grateful to Professor Greenfield and Dr Yardeni for allowing me to quote from this as well as from the other unpublished Aramaic documents.

17 On the Mishnah, see below Appendix II.

18 See Friedman, M. A., Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study I (1980), 7–9Google Scholar.

19 I use ‘Jewish’ here simply to indicate that the personalities are Jewish, not to describe the character of the document.

20 Pfann, op. cit. (n. 8), 98.

21 Wadi Seiyal or Nahal Se'elim flows into the Dead Sea about four km north of Masada; it is south of Nahal Hever and Nahal Mishmar (see Fig. 1).

22 See Greenfield, J. C., ‘The Texts from Nahal Se'elim (Wadi Seiyal)’, in Barrera, J. Trebolle and Montaner, L. Vegas (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991 (1992, 662)Google Scholar: ‘There can … be little doubt that Nahal Hever is the source for the so-called Se'elim texts. However, for convenience and because the plates are so labeled in the Rockefeller Museum, the designation Se'elim will be maintained’; see also Yadin, Y., ‘Expedition D — the cave of Letters’, IEJ 12 (1962), 228–9Google Scholar. I follow the designation in Tov, op. cit. (n. 8), 64–6: XHev/Se.

23 Three of the Greek so-called P.Se‘elim are published in successive issues of the ZPE: ‘Another fragment of the declaration of landed property from the province of Arabia’, ZPE 99 (1993), 115ffGoogle Scholar. (for the first fragments, found among the papers of the late Professor Yadin, see ‘Fragments of a declaration of landed property from the province of Arabia’, ZPE 85 (1991), 263ffGoogle Scholar.); ‘Rent or tax receipt from Mahoza’, ZPE 100 (1994), 547ffGoogle Scholar.; ‘Loan with hypothec’, ZPE 101 (1994), 53ff.Google Scholar; two other papyri constitute part of the archive of Salome daughter of Levi (XHev/Se Gr. 1 and 5), which also includes a receipt in Aramaic P.Ṣe'elim 12 (= XHev/Se 12) and P. Yadin 37. The archive will be published in ZPE. The entire find of the so-called P.Ṣe'elim will be republished in the DJD series.

24 The bibliography is huge. For lists of marriage contracts and bibliography until 1988 see Montevecchi, O., ‘Ricerche di sociologia nei documenti dell'Egitto grecoromano, II: I contratti di matrimonio e gli atti di divorzio’, Aegyptus 16 (1936), 3–83Google Scholar; La Papirologia (1973), 205–5; Addenda (1988), 568.

25 Rupprecht, H. A., Studien zur Quittung im Recht der gräeco-ägyptischen Papyri (1971), 80–1Google Scholar; see also a list of cancelled documents in Maresch, K. and Packman, Z. M. (eds), Papyri from the Washington University Collection II: Papyrologica Coloniensia XVIII (1991), 75–8Google Scholar, ad No. 79.

26 e.g. P.Oxy. II. 266 from 96 C.E., where the ex-wife acknowledges that in accordance with a contract of marriage she received the money she had brought her husband as a dowry; this contract she is now returning to him cancelled: ᾔς τὴν ὲπίϕοϱον (scil. ὁμολογίαν) αὐτόθεν ἀναδεδωϰέναι [ϰεχιαϲμένην ε]ἰϲ ἀϰύρωϲιν (ll. 14–15); cf. P.Oxy. 362; 363; P.Lips. 27 (= M.Chr. 293, 123 C.E.). On acts of divorce on papyri see Rupprecht, op. cit. (n. 25), 43ff.; Préaux, Cl., ‘Un act de divorce du Brooklyn Museum (P.Brooklyn gr. 4 = SB 9740)’, Chron. d'Eg. 37 (1962), 323–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 In P.Oxy. 268 from 58 C.E. the widow and her daughter acknowledge the receipt of the mother's dowry from the dead man's nephew (ll. 7–9); the marriage settlement is now void: ϰαὶ εἶναι ἄϰυρον τὴν δηλουμένην τοῦ γάμου ϲυγχώρηϲιν, ll. 12–13; cf. P. Lond. 178 (145 C.E.); P.Oxy. 460; P.Col.Youtie II. 67; P. Tebt. II. 460. The Mishnah also knows of a receipt given to the husband once he pays the ketubba, cf. mKet. 9.9; mGittin 2.5; 8.8. P.Ṣe'elim 13 (= XHev/Se 13), 135 C.E., is in fact such a quittance given by a wife to her husband to acknowledge that she has no further claims on him (to be published by Ada Yardeni and Jonas Greenfield in Memorial Volume for Menahem Stern).

28 On double documents as peculiar to this part of the Roman world, in contrast to the practice in Egypt at the time, see Lewis, op. cit. (n. 1), 6–10; see also Koffmahn, E., Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wüste Juda (1968), 10ffGoogle Scholar.

29 e.g. P. Yadin 11; 14; 15; 16 etc.

30 Alternatively Κατυλλείνου, see IGR III. 81; cf. IGR 1. 623 Κατυλλείνου, a libertus of the emperor.

31 All of them written by Germanus the λιβλάϱιος (sic!), on which term see Lewis ad P. Yadin 15, l. 38, p. 64.

32 Unpublished. Admittedly, her name is transcribed in Greek as Сαλωμή in XHev/Se Gr. I, a deed of gift in Greek, see above (n. 23): the normal way of rendering Hebrew Shalom in Greek, see Bagatti, P. B. and Milik, J. T., Gli scavi del Dominus Flevit I (1958), 81Google Scholar on transcriptions of the name in Greek.

33 P. Ṣe'elim 8a was first published by Milik, J. T., ‘Un contrat juif de l'an 134 après J.-C’; RB 61 (1954), 183Google Scholar ( = Biblica 38 (1957), 264–5). It is now going to be republished by Dr Ada Yardeni.

34 Pointed out to me by Dr Ada Yardeni.

35 For the spelling see Sukenik, E. L., ‘A Jewish burial cave on the northern slope of Nahal Qidron, near Kfar Shiloah’, S. Krauss Festschrift (1936), 92Google Scholar. ; Rahmani, Y. L., ‘Jewish rock-cut tombs in Jerusalem’, Atiqot 3 (1961), 104Google Scholar: , to be read as followed by another name; Bagatti and Milik, op. cit. (n. 32) 88 No. 19: (‘Salome the proselyte’).

36 On the names Shalom and Shelamzion see Bagatti and Milik, op. cit. (n. 32), 79–81; Mayer, G., Die jüdische Frau in der hellenistisch-römischen Antike (1987), 106–7;; 109–10Google Scholar; Ilan, T., ‘New ossuary inscriptions from Jerusalem’, Scripta Classica Israelica II (1991/1992), 156–7Google Scholar.

37 CPJ 3, No. 1438 = Horbury, W. and Noy, D., Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (1992), No. 15Google Scholar, late Roman.

38 CPJ 3, No. 1454 = Horbury and Noy, No. 43, 5 C.E.

39 Horbury and Noy, No. 156, 78 B.C.E.

40 Yadin and Naveh, op. cit. (n. 7), No. 398.

41 ibid.

42 Peuch, E., ‘Inscriptions funéraires palestiniennes: Tombeau de Jason et ossuaires’, RB 90 (1983), 527Google Scholar, No. 39.

43 Amoraim the … commentator s of Tannaitic [Mishnaic] teachings’, Strack-Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (1991), 7.

44 Strack-Stemberger, op. cit. (n. 43), 182ff.

45 yYoma (‘the Day’, scil. the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur) 43.1; yQiddushim (‘betrothal’) 63.4; yAbodah Zarah (‘idolatry’) 43.1.

46 Βουϰεϱου in IGLS 2973, also from the Beqa', is said to be a diminutive of Βοϱϰαιος, see ad loc.

47 See Hachlili, R., ‘Names and nicknames in Second Temple times’, Eretz Israel 17 (1984), 203Google Scholar (Hebrew with an English summary on pp. 9*–10*). Could the nickname refer to his place of origin, the district of ‘Agaltain () mentioned in Nabataean and Aramaic documents? See Starcky, J., ‘Un contrat nabatéen sur papyrus’, RB 61 (1954), p. 163Google Scholar, l. 2; Yadin, Y., ‘Expedition D — the Cave of Letters’, IEJ 12 (1962), 250–1Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Nabataean kingdom, provincia Arabia, Petra and En-Gedi in the documents from Nahal Hever’, Ex Oriente Lux 17 (1963), 230–1; cf. Bowersock, G., ‘The Babatha papyri, Masada and Rome’, JRA 4 (1991), 340–1Google Scholar.

48 ‘through Judah (also known as Cimber) son of Ananias, En-Gedian, her guardian for the purpose of this matter’.

49 ‘present with her, her guardian for the purpose of this matter, Joseph son of Simon, her husband’.

50 ‘Le droit provincial dans la province romaine d'Arabie’, RIDA 23 (1967), 279 ff., and in ‘Römisches Provinzialrecht in der Provinz Arabia’, ANRW II. 13 (1980), 793 ff., but he is right to point out that this cannot be accounted for by the influence of the local language, since the Aramaic makes the distinction: the guardian of a woman is called — 'adon —ϰύϱιος: e.g. P. Yadin 15, l. 37: — ‘Yehudah son of Khthousion “lord” of Babatha’.

51 See Strack-Stemberger, op. cit. (n. 43), 79–80; Schürer, E., Vermes, G., and Millar, F., History of the Jewish People at the Time of Jesus Christ II (1979), 377–8Google Scholar. There are others: R. 'Akabia () son of Mahalalel, mAbot (‘fathers’), 3.1; mEduyot (‘testimonies’), 5.6f., see Strack-Stemberger, 73 for his date; perhaps father of R. Hananyah son of 'Akabiah (c. 130–160), mKet. 8.1, see Strack-Stemberger, 86; R. Issi son 'Akabiah () (c. 130–160) is mentioned in bPesahim (‘Passover offerings’) 113.2 and bYoma (‘the day’), 52.2, see Strack-Stemberger, 86.

52 Yadin and Naveh, op. cit. (n. 7), No. 461; cf. No. 645: [ ]-; ‘perhaps the beginning of the name 'Aq[iva]’.

53 Hachlili, R., ‘The Goliath family in Jericho: funerary inscriptions from a first-century A.D. monumental tomb’, BASOR 235 (1979), 48Google Scholar; 54. The spelling with aleph is probably wrong, see Beyer, op. cit. (n. 14), 348.

54 Milik, J. T., ‘Trois tombeaux juifs récemment découverts au sud-est de Jerusalem’, Liber Annus 7 (1956), 247Google Scholar, No. 13, fig. 16:2, cf. RB 65 (1958), 409.

55 CPJ 3, No. 1424 = Horbury and Noy, op. cit. (n. 37), No. 3, early Ptolemaic?

56 See Strack-Stemberger, op. cit. (n. 43), 84; he belonged to the third generation of Tannaites, c. 130–160 C.E.

57 See Cohen, N. G., ‘Rabbi Meir, a descendant of Anatolian proselytes’, JJS 23 (1972), 52–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and esp. nn. 7–8 there, where the epigraphical material is collected.

58 ibid., 53–9.

59 See note 57.

60 ‘Shelamzion to be wedded wife to Judah Cimber for the partnership of marrriage according to the laws, she bringing to him on account of bridal gift etc.’

61 ‘She bringing to him on account of bridal gift feminine adornment in silver and gold and clothing’.

62 In l. 7 the groom acknowledges that he has received from Tephrosaoïs daughter of Eudaimon (ἐν προϲφ[ορᾶ) a dowry (τὴν ϕεϱνὴν) in gold measured in the scales of Arsinoe etc. (ἔχειν … παρὰ [Τεφορϲάϊτοϲ τῆϲ ϰαὶ] Εὐδαιμονίδοϲ ἐν προϲφ[ορᾷ τὴν φερνὴν χρυϲ]ίου δοϰιμείου ϲ̣τ̣[α]θμῷ Ἀρϲινοειτιϰῷ ϰτλ.); in the case of a divorce he will return to her τὴν προϰειμένην φερνήν (l. 11); finally the wife says that she wants to bring to her husband ἐν πϱοςϕοϱᾷ jewelry and clothes (l. 21ff.).

63 The editor objects that ‘the term πϱοσϕοϱαί here is used to designate the objects elsewhere classed as parapherna’ and therefore ‘this may be a scribal error’.

64 Ehegüterrechtliche Verhältnisse in den griechichen Papyri Ägyptens bis Diokletian (1968), 250–89; Modrzejewski, J., ‘Zum hellenistischen Ehegüterrecht im griechischen und römischen Ägypten’, ZRG RA 87 (1970), 50ffGoogle Scholar. and esp. 69; Gernet, E., Beiträge zum Recht der Parapherna, Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 38 (1954), 19–32Google Scholar; see also the very lucid presentation of Rowlandson, J. L., Landholding in the Oxyrhynchite Nome, 30 B.C.–c.300 A.D. (unpub. D.Phil., Oxford, 1983), 128–51Google Scholar.

65 In CPR 24 (136 C.E. ) = M.Chr. 288, l.8 a mother gives her daughter some property ἐν φερνῇ ϰατὰ προϲφορὰν ἀναφαίρετον.

66 ‘And the same Eleaios acknowledges that he has been paid … the said two hundred (?) drachmae as dowry by Salome daughter of John Galgoula’.

67 For πϱοίξ and ϕεϱνή used interchangeably for dowry in the papyri see Wasserstein, A., ‘A marriage contract from the province of Arabia Nova: Notes on Papyrus Yadin 18’, Jewish Quarterly Review 80 (1989), 106–7Google Scholar, n. 44.

68 ‘She bringing to him on account of bridal gift feminine adornment in silver and gold and clothing appraised by mutual agreement, as they both say, to be worth two hundred denarii of silver’.

69 cf. DJD II, No. 115, ll.4–5; P. Yadin II, ll. 14–15 = ll. 2–3; DJD II, No. 30 (134 C.E.), l. 21; DJD II, No. 114 (171 C.E.), ll. 10–11; Milik, op. cit. (n. 33), ll. 7–8; Broshi, M. and Qimron, E., ‘I.O.U. Note from the time of the Bar Kochba Revolt’, Eretz Israel 20 (1989), 256Google Scholar, ll. 6–7 (Hebrew); idem, ‘A house sale deed from Kefar Baru from the time of Bar Kokhba’, IEJ 36 (1986), 206, ll. 5–6 and notes on pp. 210–11.

70 ‘Which appraised value the bridegroom Judah called Cimber acknowledges that he has received from the said Shelamzion his wife’.

71 See Benoit, DJD II, p. 252 ad No. 115, ll. 3–6: ‘Ces accouplements de termes [i.e. ἀπαλλαγῆναι ϰαὶ ἀπαλύειν; ἐξ ἀνανεώϲεωϲ ϰαταλλάξαι ϰ[αὶ] προσλαβεϲθαι] ainsi que leur parallélisme antithétique ne manque pas de saveur sémitique’.

72 ὁμολογῶι ἔχειν παρὰ τῆϲ … Ταορϲενυφεωϲ τῆϲ Ἀφροδιϲίου παραχρῆμα διὰ χιρὸϲ ἐξ οἴϰου ἐν προϲδόϲει ἐφ᾿ αὑτῇ φερνὴν ἀργυρίου ἐπιϲήιμου δραχμὰϲ ἑϰατόν; cf. CPR 24 ( = Stud.Pal. 20.5rp = MChr. 288, 136 C.E.), l. 4f.: ; BGU 1052, l. 9; BGU 1103, l. 11; P.Lond. 178, l. 9; P.Hamb. 3.220, l. 4.

73 cf. SB 9353 (140 C.E.), l. 21, where the groom promises to give back the dowry without delay.

74 It is true that the technical term for a husband providing for his wife is the compound ὲπιϰωϱηγεῖν, e.g. P.Oxy. 3500 (third century C.E.), ll. 8–9: (‘the husband is further to provide his wife with all necessities according to his means’); BGU 1045 ( = MChr. 282, 154 C.E.), ll. 18–19; P.Mil.Vogl. 71 (161–180 C.E.), ll. 9–10; P.Oxy. 905, l. 10. But the simple verb occurs too in the same context, cf. P.Oxy. 1273 (260 C.E.), l. 24: χορηγεί[τω] τῇ γυναιϰὶ τὰ δέοντα πάντα; cf. P.Oxy. 3491 (157/8 C.E.), ll. 16–17.

75 ‘so that Dionysius, having received the above mentioned dowry, will nourish and clothe Isidora as his wedded wife according to his means’.

76 See Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe III.2.2: ἔξω σωγαμετήν, with Geiger, J., ‘A note on P.Yadin 18’, ZPE 93 (1992), 67–8Google Scholar.

77 See Modrzejewski, J., ‘La Structure juridique du mariage grec’, in Bresciani, E. et al. (eds), Scritti in Onore di O. Montevecchi (1981), 231–68, at 250, n. 76Google Scholar (originally published in Dimakis, P. (ed.), Symposium 1979: Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (1983), 37–70Google Scholar.

78 ‘Ammonas will provide her with all the necessities, with clothing and with all other things as many as befit a wedded wife’; cf. Stud.Pal. xx. 5, ll. 21–2 (136 C.E.): ; BGU 1045 ( = MChr. 282, 154 CE.), ll. 18–19; P.Giess. 1. 2, ll. 15–17 (173 B.C.E.); P.Gen. 21, ll. 1–2 ( = MChr. 284, second century B.C.E.); P.Tebt. 104, ll. 13–14.

79 ‘She has given herself to Antaios … to be his wedded wife, bringing to him a dowry etc.’

80 ‘Judah son of Eleazar also known as Khthusion, gave over Shelamzion, his very own daughter … to Judah surnamed Kimber … for Shelamzion to be his wedded wife’.

81 ‘The same Eleaios son of Simon agrees to be reconciled and take again Salome daughter of Johannes Galgoula as wedded wife’.

82 See Ilan, T., ‘Notes on the distribution of Jewish women's names in Palestine in the Second Temple and Mishnaic periods’, JJS 50 (1989), 198–9Google Scholar.

83 Сελαμςιους is read on a first-century ossuary from Jericho, see Hachlili, op. cit. (n. 53), p. 42, No. 11a, figs 31 and 33; see also Beyer, op. cit. (n. 14), 130; 711.

84 ‘upon the said Judah Cimber's good faith and peril and [the security of] all his possessions, both those which he now possesses in his said home village and here and all those which he may in addition validly acquire everywhere’; cf. P.Yadin 37, ll. 10–11 for an almost identical phrasing.

85 It is possible that a maintenance clause occupied the first part of l. 7 of DJD II, No. 115, since the rest of the line as well as l. 8 are occupied by the liability clause: . At least it is clear that his property is liable for the maintenance of the children.

86 Mussies, G., ‘Jewish personal names in some nonliterary sources’, in van Henten, J. W. and van der Horst, P. W. (eds), Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (1993), 252Google Scholar.

87 Obbink, D., ‘Bilingual literacy and Syrian Greek’, BASF 28 (1991), 57Google Scholar.

88 Lifshitz, B., ‘Papyrus grecs du désert de Juda’, Aegyptus 42 (1962), 240Google Scholar ( = Yadin, Y., ‘Expedition D’, IEJ II (1961), p. 42Google Scholar, No. 3 = SB No. 9843), l. 1: Сον[Ϊμαῖ]ος; it could also be restored as СονΪ[λαῖ]ος, see Mussies, loc. cit. (n.86).

89 Ll. 11–15: , ‘The letter has been written in Greek on account of no opportunity having been found of having it written in Hebrew’, Obbink's restoration and translation, op. cit. (n. 87), 54–5; see also Howard, G. and Shelton, J. C., ‘The Bar-Kochba letters and Palestinian Greek’, IEJ 23 (1973), 102Google Scholar.

90 Obbink, op. cit. (n.87), 57.

91 Admittedly there is no safe evidence for the use of Nabataean names by Jews : in CIS II. 219 'Omrath is the wife of a man who declares himself a Jew; it is not at all certain though that she too is Jewish, see Hirschberg, H. Z., ‘New Jewish inscriptions in the Nabataean sphere’, Eretz Israel 12 (1978), 144–5Google Scholar (Hebrew).

92 For the following discussion I am much indebted to Professor B. Isaac for putting me on the right track.

93 Joshua 15:24, 55; II Chron. 11:8; Jos., Ant. VIII.246: Ζιϕά. Zif is one of the four cities whose names appear on the LMLK stamps from Lachish all dated to c. 700 B.C.E.: O. Tufnell, Lachish III: The Iron Age (1953), 342ff.; Na'aman, N., ‘Hezekiah's fortified cities and the LMLK stamp’, BASOR 261 (1986), 5–24Google Scholar. I owe this information to my friend Tsvi Schneider.

94 I Sam. 23:14–24; 24:2.

95 Kyrillos of Skythopolis, Vita Euthymii (ed. Schwarz, E., 1939), 11Google Scholar.

96 ibid. 12.

97 Kochavi, M. (ed.), Judaea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey 1967–1968 (1972) (Hebrew), p. 68, No. 178Google Scholar; Abel, F.-M., Géographie de la Palestine II (1938), 490Google Scholar.

98 Abel, op. cit. (n. 97); Kochavi, op. cit. (n. 97), p. 70, No. 190. For a fuller and updated bibliography on Aristoboulias and Zif see Y. Tsafrir, L. di Segni and J. Green (eds), Iudaea, Palaestina, Eretz Israel during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods: Maps and Gazetteer (forthcoming; the maps form part of the Tabula Imperii Romani). I am very grateful to the editors for letting me consult their manuscript.

99 Gazetteer of Roman Palestine ( = Qedem 5) (1976), p. 31, s.v. Aristoboulias.

100 Kochavi, op. cit. (n. 97), p. 64, No. 162 who identifies it with Biblical Haqqayin mentioned together with Ma'on, Carmel, Zif, and Yuta in Joshua 15:57 (ibid., p. 29).

101 P.Ṣe'elim (= XHev/Se) 9, kindly shown to me by Ada Yardeni. It opens with ‘Jacob son of Simon son of the Beard (?) (diqna ‘the beard’) said to Judah in Iaqum (or Iaqim)’. The name of the place also appears in the first signature.

102 DJD II, No. 115, ll. 2–3. The place-name Bethbassi still survives, see Abel, op. cit. (n. 97), 269.

103 All three appear both in Josephus' list, BJ III.54–5 and in Pliny the Elder's, NH v.70 = Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism I (1974), No. 204Google Scholar; see Stern's comparison of the two lists and their respective dates on pp.473f. and in great detail, Schürer-Vermes-Millar, op. cit. (n. 51), 184–98.

104 Isaac, B., ‘The Babatha archive’, IEJ 42 (1992), 68Google Scholar.

105 ibid.

106 ϰώμηϲ Αἰνγαδδῶν περὶ Ἱερειχοῦντα τῆϲ Ἰουδαίαϲ, see Isaac, op. cit. (n. 104).

107 See Schürer-Vermes-Millar, op. cit. (n. 51), 190–3.

108 Isaac, op. cit. (n. 104), 67ff.

109 The coins fix the era of the city to 199–200, Spijkerman, A., Studi Biblici Franciscani, Liber Annus 22 (1972), 369–84Google Scholar. Schürer-Vermes-Millar, op. cit. (n. 51), 194, n. 39, suggest tentatively that ‘the toparchy [of Idumaea] was administered from Beth Govrin’ — there is no evidence for this.

110 ‘A village (ϰώμη) in Daroma, in the territory of Eleutheropolis, eight miles east of Hebron’, Onom. 92. 19–22 (ed. E. Klostermann, reprint, 1966) see map of Palestine ‘nach dem Onomasticon’ attached to the back cover.

111 For the territory of Eleutheropolis, see Jones, A. H. M., ‘The urbanization of Palestine’, JRS 21 (1931), 83Google Scholar and n. 1 there, and pl. VII, and Abel, op. cit. (n. 97), 173. Presumably Eleutheropolis is the polis suggested by the title of Kynoros son of Diodotos on the bilingual ossuary from Khirbet Zif: Κύνωροϲ Διοδότου πρωτοπολείτηϲ— — published by Rahmani, L. Y., ‘A bilingual ossuary inscription from Khirbet Zif’, IEJ 22 (1972), 113–16Google Scholar, pls 18–19; see also Kutscher, E. Y., ‘Note on the title ’, IEJ, 22 (1972), 117Google Scholar, who takes the Aramaic equivalent of πϱωτοπολείτης, to mean ‘head of masters’; contra Y. Yadin, IEJ 22 (1972), 235–6 who reads and takes it to mean ‘head of dwellers’ ( 'amr = dwell).

112 There is no evidence for toparchies in Arabia.

113 P.Yadin 5, ll. 4–5.

114 P.Yadin 14. l. 20; 15, l. 3 = ll. 16–17; 17, ll. 2–3 = ll. 19–20; 18, l. 3 = l. 32.

115 P.Yadin 25, l. 28 = l. 64.

116 P.Yadin 19, ll. 10–11.

117 P.Yadin 20, ll. 22–3; 21, ll. 5–6; 22, ll. 5–6; 26, l. 18; 27, ll. 3–4.

118 P.Yadin 16, ll. 13–14; Βαβθα … Μαωζηνη τῆϲ Ζοαρηνῆϲ περιμέτρου Πέτραϲ; P.Yadin 37, ll. 2–3: ἐν Μαοζᾳ τῆϲ Ζοαρηνῆϲ τῆϲ π[ερὶ] Πέτραν.

119 The evidence for its status as a polis is P.Yadin 12, ll. 4–5 (114 CE): ‘Verified exact copy of one item of [guardianship] from the minutes of the council (βουλή) of Petra the metropolis’.

120 cf. Schürer-Vermes-Millar, op. cit. (n. 51), 195f. It is tempting to compare Zo'ara and Zif to the βουλήίαι (‘capital villages’) of the Trachonitis, but again the responsibilities of the latter towards the ϰῶμαι are unknown, see MacAdam, H. I., Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Arabia, BAR 295 (1986), 82–3Google Scholar. See Safrai, Z., ‘The village in the time of the Mishnah and the Talmud’, in Stern, M. (ed.), Nation and History: Studies in the History of the Jewish People (1983), 173–95Google Scholar (Hebrew) for an attempt to use archaeology and Jewish sources in order to describe the relationship between ‘mother villages’ and ‘daughter villages’.

121 ‘The Bani Naim — Zif Road’, see Kochavi, op. cit. (n. 97), p. 67, No. 170.

122 See Kochavi, op. cit. (n. 97), p. 62, No. 151 and p. 29. Kaphar Barucha is north of Zif and five km east of Hebron; cf. Abel, op. cit. (n. 97), 288; Kyrillos of Skythopolis, Vita Euthymii, 12; and see the description of the pilgrimage of St Paula, Jerome, Ep. 108.11.

123 See DJD in, Copper Scroll, col. xii, l. 8 on p. 298, and commentary on pp. 269 and 301. However, some read the beth כ as khaf כ, i.e. not The-Baruk but the krakh i.e. the large city, maintaining that here the word has its original meaning of ‘a fortress’, see Yevin, S., ‘Documents from Wadi Murabba'at’, Atiqot I (1955), 105Google Scholar; cf. Ginsberg, H. L., ‘Notes on two published letters to Jeshua Galgolah’, BASOR 131 (1953), 25Google Scholar; Naveh, J., On Sherd and Papyrus: Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods (1992), 108–9 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

124 See DJD II commentary ad No. 43. The Arabic name of the place is Kafar Barik, see Abel, op. cit. (n. 97), 269.

125 e.g. p. 26, ll. 10, 12; p. 68, l. 19; p. 70, l. 11; p. 78, l. 21; p. 86, l. 9; p. 130, l. 12 (Kostermann).

126 See Schwartz, J., Jewish Settlement in Judaea after the Bar-Kochba War until the Arab Conquest 135 C.E.-640 C.E. (1986), 38fGoogle Scholar. (Hebrew).

127 See Isaac, B. and Oppenheimer, A., ‘The Revolt of Bar Kokhba: ideology and modern scholarship’, JJS 36 (1985), 53–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kloner, A. and Tepper, Y., The Hiding Complexes in the Judaean Shephelah (1987), 366–72 (Hebrew)Google Scholar. For the numismatic evidence, see Barag, D., ‘A note on the geographical distribution of Bar-Kokhba coins’, Isr.Num.Jour. 4 (1980), 30–3Google Scholar, and below (n. 130).

128 See Kloner and Tepper, op. cit. (n. 127); Isaac and Oppenheimer, op. cit. (n. 127), 42–3.

129 See Kloner and Tepper, op. cit. (n. 127), 23–9, for the geological structure of the hideouts in the foothills of the Judaean Hills.

130 In December 1991 excavations carried out in a cave in the upper part of Nahal Hever (only three km east of Khirbet Istabûl ) revealed evidence for occupation during the Bar Kokhba Revolt, the most important of which was a tetradrachm from 134/5. Hanan Eshel informs me that it became obvious to the excavators that they had been preceded by the Beduin: could this cave be the source of the marriage contract we are discussing here? See AJA 97 (1993), 152–3; Amit, D. and Eshel, H., ‘A tetradrachm of Bar Kokhba from a cave in Nahal Hever’, Isr. Num. Jour. II (1990–1991), 33–5Google Scholar.

131 It is necessary to emphasize the Jewish character of the area before the Revolt, since it has been mistakenly claimed that it became overwhelmingly Jewish only afterwards, when refugees from the northern parts of the Hebron hills and from Jerusalem moved there, Schwartz, op. cit. (n. 126), 98; 106f.; cf. Mor, M., The Bar-Kochba Revolt: Its Extent and Effect (1991), 146Google Scholar; Safrai, Z., ‘The Bar Kokhba Revolt and its effect on settlement’ in Oppenheimer, A. and Rappaport, U. (eds), The Bar-Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach (1984), 190–2Google Scholar (Hebrew), is more cautious. Professor Amos Kloner assures me that the archaeological evidence clearly shows continuous Jewish settlement in this area from the Second Temple period until the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

132 Dio LXIX. 12.2–3; Isaac and Oppenheimer, op. cit. (n. 127), 49–52.

133 Lifshitz, op. cit. (n.88), 240–58 (= SB 9843–4); idem, ‘The Greek documents from Nahal Seelim and Nahal Mishmar’, IEJ II (1961), 53–61; Sevenster, J. N., Do You Know Greek? Novum Testamentum, suppl. 19 (1968), 168ffGoogle Scholar.

134 See Cotton and Geiger, op. cit. (n. 7), 113–27 (cf. pp. 9–10). The content of at least one group of Greek ostraca, Nos 772–7, closely resembles the Aramaic ostraca, Nos 557–84, see Yadin and Naveh, op. cit. (n. 7), 52–7. Both series contain delivery instructions which no doubt reflect the rationing of food among the sicarii who occupied the fortress.

135 See Cotton, op. cit. (n. 9), 112; cf. Sevenster, op. cit. (n. 133), 155ff. on the official character of the Greek texts from Wadi Murabba'at.

136 cf. Wasserstein, op. cit. (n. 67), 124ff.

137 In Fragment C, which belongs to the bottom of the document, we read γϱάμματα in the last line. It is reasonable to assume that we have here some version of the formula attested in P.Yadin 15, ll. 34–5 for example: Ἐλεάζαροϲ Ἐλεαζάρου ἔγραψα ὑπεὶρ αὐτῆϲ ἐρωτηθεὶϲ διὰ τὸ αὐτῆϲ μὴ ε<ἰ>δένα<ι>γράμματα (‘I, Eleazar son of Eleazar, wrote for her by request, because she is illiterate’); see Greenfield, J. C., ‘“Because he/she did not know letters”: Remarks on first millennium C.E. legal expression’, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 22 (1993), 39–44Google Scholar.

138 For active participation of the mother in the marriage contract see e.g. P.Eleph I (311 B.C.E. ) = Select Papyri 1.1 = M.Chr. 283; CPR 24 ( 136 C.E. ) = Stud.Pal. 20.5rp = M.Chr. 288; P.Oxy. 496 (127 C.E. ) = M.Chr. 287 (the grandmother); BGU 183 (85 C.E.) = M.Chr. 313; BGU 251 (81 C.E.); P.Stras. 237 (142 C.E.).

139 See Modrzejewski, op. cit. (n. 77), 252, cf. Wolff, H. J., Written and Unwritten Marriages in Hellenistic and Post Classical Roman Law (1939), 18Google Scholar; 25ff.; see the examples of ekdosis in the Roman Period cited there on p. 17, in n. 48. The use of ἐξέδοτο in P.Yadin 18, l. 3 = ll. 32–3, does not call, therefore, for an interpretatio Hebraica, given by Katzoff in Lewis, N., Katzoff, R., and Greenfield, J., ‘Papyrus Yadin 18’, IEJ 37 (1987), 240–1Google Scholar and in ‘Papyrus Yadin 18 again: a rejoinder’, JQR 82 (1991), 173–4Google Scholar.

140 See tYebamot (‘sisters-in-law’) 13.2 with Lieberman, S., Tosefta Ki-Fshutah: Part VI Seder Nashim (1967), 153–4 (Hebrew)Google Scholar.

141 cf. mYeb. 13.2.

142 Explicitly stated a few lines before in the passage just quoted: ‘A man may betroth (meqaddesh) a woman either by his own act or by that of his agent; and a woman may become betrothed either by her own act or by that of her agent’; cf. mQid. 3.8.

143 cf. Wasserstein, op. cit. (n. 67), 110ff.

144 λαμβάνει Ἡραϰλείδης Δημητρίαν Κώιαν γυναῖϰα γνηϲίαν παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸϲ Λεπτίνου Κώιου ϰαὶ τῆϲ μητρὸϲ Φιλωτίδοϲ … προϲφερομένην εἱματιϲμὸν ϰαὶ ϰόϲμον (δραχμῶν) (χιλίων), παρεχέτω δὲ Ἡραϰλείδης Δημητρίαι ὅϲα προϲήϰει γυναιϰὶ ἐλευθέραι πάντα.

145 .

146 .

147 ; note, though, that the phrase referring to the children is heavily restored.

148 ; P. Yadin 37 (131 C.E.), ll. 9–10 uses an almost identical formula: .

149 See Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 167ff., for the Halakhic sources. In mKet. 4:4 it is said explicitly that ‘the husband is obliged to feed his wife’, but no date can be assigned to this ruling.

150 However, three of the Murabba'at documents mention the maintenance of the wife after the husband's death: DJD II, No. 116; l.9: (‘And if Aurelius dies before Salome, she will be fed and clothed’); DJD II, No. 20, l. 10: ‘she will be fed and clothed’ i.e. after his death; DJD II, No.21, l. 15:‘and be nourished [from my possessions] all the days that you will [be in] the house of your widowhood’ — . Dr Ada Yardeni kindly allowed me to reproduce her new readings.

151 .

152 cf. the much later SB 4658 (Arsinoe, 323–642 C.E.), ll. 10–13: (‘for whom we readily vouch that we are ready to make him beloved by his wife, Maria, and cherish her as befits freeborn women’).

153 Geller, M. J., ‘New sources for the origin of the Rabbinic Ketubah’, Hebrew Union College Annual 49 (1978), 227–45Google Scholar.

154 .

155 See Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 167–78.

156 Sirat, C., Cauderlier, P., Dukan, M., and Friedman, M. A., La Ketouba de Cologne: Un contrat de mariage juif à Antinoopolis, Papyrologica Coloniensia 12 (1986), pp. 20–1Google Scholar, ll. 23–5; ; cf. pp. 13 and 57f.

157 e.g. P.Elph. 1 = M.Chr. 283 = Sel.Pap. 1. 1 (311 B.C.E), ll. 12–13; P-Tebt. 1052, ll. 19–22; P.Ryl. 154 (66 C.E.), ll.33–5; P.Oxy. 1273 (260 C.E.). ll. 35–6; P.Oxy. 237 (186 C.E.). In fact it is a standing feature of all bills of debt, see Kühnert, H., Zum Kreditgeschäft in den hellenistischen Papyri Ägyptens bis Diokletian (Diss. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1965)Google Scholar, passim.

158 See Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 451ff.; Koffmahn, op. cit. (n. 28), 68f. The phrasing is: ‘All properties which I have are surety and guarantee for your ketubba' — tKet. 12.1; cf. mKet. 4.7.

159 P.Yadin 18, ll. 16–18 = ll. 51–4; 37, ll. 10–11, quoted above ad ll. 9–10, in both as part of the guarantee of upkeep. In DJD II, No. 115, l. 17 it seems to be part of the guarantee of the return of the dowry: ; DJD II, No. 20, l. 12 (Aramaic).

160 P. Yadin II, ll. 10–11 = ll. 25–7; 17, ll. 12–15 = ll. 34–7; DJD II No. 114. ll. 19–21 (Greek); DJD II No. 18, l. 8; No. 26, l. 6; No. 30, ll. 23–4; Broshi, M. and Qimron, E., ‘A house sale deed from Kefar Baru from the time of Bar Kokhba’, IEJ 36 (1986), p. 206Google Scholar, l. 6; Milik, J. T., ‘Deux documents inédits du désert de Juda’, Biblica 38 (1957), 259Google Scholar, l. 11 (Aramaic).

161 See Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 452 and nn. 5–6 for this liability formula in the Jewish sources.

162 The condition of the wife's prior death is also absent from mKet. 4.11 (cited in the text), which provides for the daughters' maintenance. In this as well as in what follows I rely on the detailed discussion in Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 356–91.

163 mKet. 4.6–12.

164 Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 15. Friedman maintains there that ‘some of them reflect similar marital obligations elsewhere in the ancient Near East’.

165 Recently an Idumaean marriage contract, eleven lines long, from 176 B.C.E., written in Aramaic, was discovered on fragments of a jar in Maresha (near Eleutheropolis). The people involved are not Jewish as the Kos — the Idumaean God — element in their names demonstrates. In l. 6 male children seem to be singled out as heirs. Its publication, it is hoped, will illuminate for us the kind of environment in which the Jewish ketubba tradition evolved. I am very grateful to Professor Amos Kloner and Mrs Esther Eshel for allowing me to refer to this exciting discovery.

166 cf. mKet. 13.3.

167 See Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 380ff. and nn. 5–6 on p. 381.

168 Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 382.

169 See Falk, Z., ‘The inheritance of the daughter and the widow in the Bible and the Talmud’, Tarbiz 23 (1952), 9–15Google Scholar (Hebrew).

170 [c.40 letters missing] .

171 Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 369.

172 [c. 28 letters missing] .

173 The Greek texts are cited above in n. 148.

174 Although we disagree on many points, this discussion has gained immensely from Professor Jonas Greenfield's incisive criticism.

175 ‘Aramaic tanna: “to repeat, learn”’; tannaim: ‘the masters of teaching transmitted by continual oral repetition’, Strack-Stemberger, op. cit. (n.43), 7. The Tannaim were active in the first two and half centuries of our era.

176 On the Jewish sources, see Appendix 11.

177 The ketubbot from the Cairo Geniza are now conveniently collected in the second volume of Friedman, M. A., Jewish Marriage in Palestine (1981)Google Scholar: the earliest are from the tenth century C.E.

178 Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 163–4.

179 Jonas Greenfield translates the word ‘Juda eans’ rather than ‘Jews’. ‘According to the law of Moses and the Jews’ is the earlier formula: it was later replaced by ‘according to the law of Moses and Israel’, see Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 162ff.; cf. Flusser, D. and Safrai, Sh., ‘In the image of the form of his likeness ’, Isac Leo Seeligman Volume 11 (1983), 453–6Google Scholar (Hebrew). This alone should render suspect the story in tKet. 4.9 of Hillel the Elder, first century B.C.E.(?), and the Alexandrian ketubbot in which there occurred the words ‘according to the law of Moses and Israel’. P.Ent. 23 = CPJ No. 128 (218 B.C.E.), 1.2 is heavily restored to yield ; the editor of CPJ is rightly sceptical about the possible deductions to be drawn from such a poorly preserved text, since ‘no trace of any mention of Jewish law concerning marriage can be found in the remaining parts of the papyrus’; moreover, this will be ‘the only instance in the Greek papyri of Jewish national law being applied to the legal life of members of the Jewish community’, p. 238; cf. CPI 1 (Prolegomena), 33–4; see also 11, 4–5; cf. Cotton, op. cit. (n.9), 105. It is regrettable that those who cite the papyrus fail to point out that this is a heavily restored text, e.g. Falk, Z., Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth 11 (1978), 286Google Scholar.

180 see Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 155–67.

181 The full context is: .

182 So Katzoff, op. cit. (n. 139, 1987), 241; he retracted later: ‘Papyrus Yadin 18 again: A rejoinder’, JQR 82 (1991), 173Google Scholar.

183 See Wasserstein, op. cit. (n.67), 113.

184 See Wolff, op. cit. (n. 139), Addenda, p. vi (P.Cair. 10388, 1.5); 28–9, n.96 (P.Grenf. 21, 126 B.C.E. = M.Chr. 302, ll. 4 and 13, and see Mitteis there, p. 341, n. 1); 54, n. 192a; 67, n. 238 (BGU 1. 232 (108 C.E.), l.2K.: ; cf. Modrzejewski, J., ‘Le règle de droit dans l'Egypt ptolémaïque’, Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles, Am.Stud. in Pap. 1 (1966), 154Google Scholar.

185 Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 239.

186 ibid., 258.

187 ibid., 257 ft. and n. 71 for the sources; Geller, op. cit. (n. 153), 227ft.; cf. Archer, L. J., Her Price is Beyond Rubies: The Jewish Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine, (1990), 159–63Google Scholar.

188 DJD II, Nos 20 and 21 are too fragmentary to be used safely in evidence here.

189 This is its literal meaning.

190 Mohar means ketubba Mekhilta de R. Ishmael 308 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin); yKet. 3.5, 27d. Mekhilta ‘is the Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew midda or kelal, “rule, norm’ … the derivation of halakhah [‘law’] from Scripture according to certain rules', Strack-Stemberger, op. cit. (n. 43), 275. The Mekhilta d'R. Ishmael is a commentary on some chapters of Exodus ‘with a core going back to the school of R. Ishmael’ (middle of the second century), although its final redaction took place ‘in the second half of the third century’, Strack-Stemberger, 278–79.

191 P.Yadin 10, l. 15; DJD 11, No. 21, l.10 — in both it says ‘the money of your ketubba’ .

192 See e.g. Goody, Jack, ‘Bridewealth and dowry in Africa and Eurasia’, in Goody, J. and Tambiah, S. J. (eds), Bridewealth and Dowry, Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology (1973), 1–2Google Scholar; cf. Clark, G., Women in Late Antiquity (1993), 15–17Google Scholar. Such indirect dowry is found in the Elephantine papyri from the fifth century B.C.E.: in both Cowley, A. E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (1923), No. 15Google Scholar and Kraeling, E.J., The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine (1953), No. 7Google Scholar the bride-price is included in the dowry which the bride brings with her; see n. 200 below.

193 DJD 11, No. 115, P.Yadin 18 and 37, and the present document; not enough is left of the first part of DJD 11, No. 116 to allow any inferences to be made about its content.

194 The expression . may well be an echo of the formula (‘he reconciled her’) attested in later remarriage ketubbot, see Friedman, op. cit. (n. 177), 11, 156, n. 3.

195 See Kühnert, op. cit. (n. 157), 145 for the use of the verb in loans.

196 This is a contract of remarriage; nevertheless the groom acknowledges a fresh dowry, as in BGU 1101, 11. 6–9 (a remarriage contract from 13 B.C.E.); cf. P.Oxy. 1473, a remarriage contract from 201 C.E., where there does not seem to be a fresh dowry (see the editor's introduction). For Jewish deeds of remarriage ‘he who remarries his ex-wife’), see Fried man, op. cit. (n. 177), 11, 155ff., No. 13 and Gulak, A., A Collection of Legal Deeds used in Israel (Otsar Ha Shtarot) (1926), p. 42Google Scholar, No. 37 (Hebrew).

197 Note that this contract must have followed upon an unwritten marriage ; see Wolff, op. cit. (n. 139), passim; and the valuable paper by J. Modrzejewski, ‘Note sur P.Strasb. 237: une contribution au problème de , Eos 48 (1956) ( = Symbolae Raphaeli Taubenschlag Dedicatae 3 (1957), 137–54. There is no reason to believe that Salome was a minor and an orphan who ‘in keeping with a Jewish practice of the time’ moved in with her husband after betrothal (Lewis ad P.Yadin 37, p. 130): see now, Ilan, T., ‘Premarital cohabitation in ancient Judaea: the evidence of the Babatha Archive and the Mishnah (Ketubbot 1:4)’, HThR 86 (1993), 247–64Google Scholar. It is of course inaccurate to describe the which preceded P.Yadin 37 as ‘premarital cohabitation’.

198 Pace Katzoff, op. cit. (n. 139, 1987), 242 and n. 35. Note also that the sum of money in DJD 11, No. 115,l. 6 is not certain, see text above at n. 66.

199 See Wasserstein, op. cit. (n.67), 114.

200 Snodgrass, A. M., ‘A historical Homeric Society?’ JHS 96 (1976), 114–25Google Scholar, uses the co-existence of these two institutions in the Homeric poems to dispute their historicity, but he does allow for the possibility of co-existence in certain circumstances. Wasserstein, op. cit. (n.67), 127–8, n.91, gives the example of Cowley, op. cit. (n. 192), No. 15 for several marriage institutions conflated in the same document: bride-price to the bride's father, gift to the bride herself and dowry received by groom; see above, n. 192.

201 Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 288–311. And see P. Yadin 18 for the addition of 300 denarii.

202 cf. de Visscher, F., ‘Document sur la donatio ante nuptias’, Chr. d'Eg. 37 (1944), 101–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on P.Mich. 434, early second century c.E.; Mitteis, L., Reichsrecht und Volksrecht (1891), 256–312Google Scholar.

203 cf. Cotton, op. cit. (n. 9), 105–6 on the total absence from the Babatha Archive of any awareness of the existence of the rabbinic law on guardianship. To say that there could have existed a parallel Aramaic ketubba (see Green field apud Isaac, op. cit. (n. 104), 72 and n. 35) is to assume that such prescription did exist. N.Lewis for different reasons strongly denies that there could have existed a parallel Aramaic ketubba in the case of P. Yadin 18, ‘The World of P.Yadin’, BASP 28 (1991), 39fGoogle Scholar.

204 The case of a bill of divorce may well have been different because of the fundamental distinction between the two instruments: a bill of divorce creates in itself (constitutes) a new legal situation, whereas the marriage contract merely records (declares) financial transactions and sometimes mutual obligations. Perhaps this is why no Jewish bills of divorce written in Greek have so far been found, although even a bill of divorce could have been written in Greek: see mGittin (‘divorce certificates’), 9.8; cf. Wasserstein, op. cit. (n. 67), 125, n. 86. So far only one bill of divorce in Aramaic, DJD 11, No. 19, and one quittance in Aramaic, P.Ṣe'elim 13 (n. 27) have been found. It is also true that divorce takes place less often than marriage.

205 See Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), (472–80), on the formula attested in late ketubbot ‘valid wherever produced’.

206 On Jewish courts in villages and towns in Palestine see Schürer-Vermes-Millar, op. cit. (n. 51), 184ff.; Goodman, M., State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132–212 (1983), 155 ffGoogle Scholar. Perhaps those that existed had very limited jurisdiction.

207 cf. Cotton, op. cit. (n. 9), 106–7.

208 It is hard to believe, though, that there might have been a general rule which made it obligatory to deposit contracts and deeds in the city archives in order to make them valid, see Mitteis, op. cit. (n. 202), 173ff.; Gulak, A., Towards a Study of the History of Jewish Law in the Talmudic Period 1 (1929), 54ff.Google Scholar (Hebrew); cf. Alon, G., The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640C.E.), 11 (1984), 553–557Google Scholar.

209 cf. Cotton, , ‘Rent or tax receipt from Mahoza’, ZPE 100 (1994)Google Scholar, nn. 14–15 on P.Yadin 24,ll. 4–6: .

210 contra Friedman, op. cit. (n. 18), 8.

211 The argument that a marriage contract written in Greek was valid in a Jewish court is irrelevant: it does not make it a Jewish document, as Katzoff, op. cit. (n. 139, 1991), 176 seems to imply.

212 Goodman, op. cit. (n. 206), 13; 159ff. See the penetrating remarks of Wasserstein in the conclusion of his paper on P.Yadin 18, op. cit. (n.67), 121–30.

213 See Yaron, R., ‘The Mesadah bill of divorce’ Studi in onore di E. Volterra VI (1971), 438Google Scholar: 454–5.