1. On God's choice of certain biblical persons and their “seed” to be heirs to the land or his favor, see Szubin, H.Z. and Porten, Bezalel, Testamentary Succession at Elephantine, 252 Bull Am Sch Oriental Research 35, 37 (1983)Google Scholar. Nor do we consider here the pseudepigraphic “testaments”: The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Testament of Moses, and The Testament of Job. Other than in The Testament of Job (see below, text accompanying notes 115-16), there is no reference to property bequests in these “testaments.” See generally, Collins, J.J., Testaments, in Stone, Michael E., ed, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period 325–55 (Fortress Press, 1984)Google Scholar. Likewise, we do not here consider NT texts such as Matt. 19:29; 25:34; Mark 10:17; Eph. 1:13-14; Col. 3:24; and 1 Peter 1:4, where “inheriting” or “inheritance” refers to receiving or entering the coming Kingdom of God or messianic age. As to such usages, see Cranfield, C.E.B., Inherit, in Richardson, Alan, ed, A Theological Word Book of the Bible 112–14 (Macmillan, 1978)Google Scholar.

2. Similarly, we are not concerned here with biblical traditions regarding sons succeeding their fathers' office or status. On that topic, see Daube, David, Sons and Strangers (Boston U Sch of Law, 1984)Google Scholar.

3. See, for example, Gen. 48:21-22; Lev. 25:11-34; 27:16-25; Prov. 19:14; 23:10. Raymond Westbrook has convincingly demonstrated that in biblical times, in order to acquire an inheritable estate in real property, it was necessary to pay the “full price.” Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah, 6 Israel L Rev 29, 29–38 (1971)Google Scholar; The Price Factor in the Redemption of Land, 32 R Intl des Droits de L'Antiquite, 3d Ser 97, 115–16 (1985)Google Scholar. He cites such texts as Gen. 23:1-20 (cf 25:9-10); 33:19 (cf Joshua 24:32 which says that this land later “became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph”); and Gen. 49:29-32; and 50:13. These essays have recently been reprinted in Westbrook, Raymond, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (Sheffield, 1991)Google Scholar.

4. See, for example, Lev. 25:46; 2 Chron. 21:3; Prov. 19:14; Judith 8:7.

5. Gen. 24:36; 25:5-6.

6. Gordon, Cyrus H., Fratriarchy in the Old Testament, 54 J Biblical Lit 223, 230 (1935)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fensham, F. Charles, Widow, Orphan and Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature, 21 J Near E Studies 129, 136 (1961)Google Scholar. But see Burrows, Millar, The Basis of Israelite Marriage 32 (Am Oriental Soc, 1938)Google Scholar.

7. de Vaux, Roland, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions 115–17 (McGraw-Hill, 1961)Google Scholar. See also the annotator, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha 427 (Oxford U Press, 1991)Google Scholar (“NOAB-NRSV”). Also, see below, note 100.

8. Other ancient near eastern laws, known in the aggregate as “the cuneiform laws,” may well have been familiar to legal/political leaders throughout the biblical period and so served as the unwritten or customary law of the land. See generally, Westbrook, Raymond, The Law of the Biblical Levirate, 24 R Intl des Droits de L'Antiquite, 3d Ser 63, 85–86 (1977)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 69 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. It is unlikely; however, that all cuneiform law was considered authoritative in Israel; but where such known laws are apparently presupposed, they may well have been applied as customary law. While the substance of Israelite law is not necessarily unique, much of it may be distinctive. See Seters, John Van, The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel, 87 J Biblical Lit 401, 401–08 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. This pattern appears in instances where the sons' mothers are already deceased or are unmentioned. In cases where widows with sons are mentioned, the widows evidently inherited the property. See below, text accompanying notes 44-46.

10. See generally, Weingreen, J., The Case of the Daughters of Zelophehad, 16 Vetus Testamentum 518, 518–22 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. One annotator comments, “The request of the daughters of Zelophehad was unusual in that, according to ancient law, normally women did not inherit property.” The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha 200–01 (Oxford U Press, 1977)Google Scholar (“NOAB”); NOAB-NRSV at 204 (cited in note 7). The annotator neglects to tell us what that “ancient law” was or where it is to be found. Biblical tradition contains no such law.

12. Unless otherwise noted, translations quoted here follow the Revised Standard Version. Islamic law as set out in the Kur'an contained even more specific provisions. Under this law, each person or class of persons would receive a pre-determined fractional share of the estate (fara'id). See Suras 4:11-14, 176; 2:180, 240; and 5:106. Such provisions assumed and limited the power of testation. See generally, Powers, David S., On Bequests in Early Islam, 48 J Near E Studies 185, 185–200 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Post-biblical Judaism introduced numerous supplements to the provisions of Numbers 27. See, for example, Bloch, Arnold and Klein, Hyman, trans & eds, Maimonides' Laws of Inheritance (Shapiro, Vallentine & Co, 1950)Google Scholar; Grunfeld, Dayan I., The Jewish Law of Inheritance (Targum Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Nissim, Joseph, Rudiments of the Jewish Law of Inheritance Upon Intestacy and Bequests, Publications of the Society for Jewish Jurisprudence (Kelley & Sons, 1931)Google Scholar; Yaron, Reuven, Gifts in Contemplation of Death in Jewish and Roman Law (Clarendon Press, 1960)Google Scholar.

13. In Gen. 35:22, Bilhah is characterized merely as Jacob's “concubine.”

14. See Van Seters, 87 J Biblical Lit at 405 (cited in note 8). Compare Code of Hammurabi § 170, translated in Thomas, D. Winton, Documents from Old Testament Times 33 (Harper & Row, 1961)Google Scholar, which reads:

If a citizen, whose wife has borne him children and (also) his bondmaid has borne him children, (and) the father during his lifetime has said to the bondmaid's children, which she has borne him, ‘My children’; he has added them to the children of the wife. After the father goes to his fate, the children of the wife shall divide the property of the father's house equally with the sons of the bondmaid; the son and heir, the son of the wife, shall choose a share (first) and take it.

See also Code of Hammurabi §§ 145 and 146, which apply only when a man (“citizen”) has taken a priestess as wife. Id.

15. Van Seters urges that unlike most other ancient Near Eastern law and custom, the biblical practice here attested was “clearly for the sake of the wife and not the husband.” 87 J Biblical Lit at 403 (cited in note 8). See also von Rad, Gerhard, Genesis: A Commentary 186 (Westminster, 1961)Google Scholar. Von Rad suggests that under this arrangement the wife adopts the children borne by her maid. Id at 289.

16. A Harper's Bible Dictionary commentator takes Gen. 21:10 as evidence that in biblical times “the sons of a concubine did not inherit.” Harper's Bible Dictionary 422 (Harper & Row, 1985)Google Scholar (“HBD”). Likewise, The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible 375–76 (Westminster, 1976)Google Scholar (“NWDB”). The point, however, is that Ishmael would have inherited had not Sarah insisted on, and Abraham agreed to, his banishment. See Seters, Van, 87 J Biblical Lit at 403 (cited in note 8)Google Scholar; and Baab, Otto J., Inheritance, in 2 The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible 701 (Abingdon, 1962)Google Scholar (“IDB”). See also Gen. 25:5-6, which says that Abraham gave all he had to Isaac, but also gave gifts to the sons of his concubines, which sons, “while he was still living he sent… away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.” The probable implication is that Abraham sent these sons away so that they would not be around to claim a share of the inheritance he had given or bequeathed to Isaac. The New English Bible annotator, commenting on Gen. 21:8-21, asserts that “[a]ncient Near Eastern law stipulated that the offspring of a slave wife could either inherit with the children of the free woman or be set free.” The New English Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford Study Edition 20 (Oxford U Press, 1976)Google Scholar (“NEB”). Unfortunately the annotator does not mention which ancient Near Eastern law so provided. Possibly the annotator was thinking of the Lipit-Ishtar Law Code § 25, which reads:

If a man married a wife (and) she bore him children and those children are living, and a slave also bore children for her master (but) the father granted freedom to the slave and her children, the children of the slave shall not divide the estate with the children of their (former) master.

Pritchard, James B., ed, Ancient Near Eastern Texts 160 (Princeton U Press, 1950)Google Scholar (“ANET”).

17. See Lipit-Ishtar Law Code § 27, which provided that if a man's wife had not borne him children, any children borne to him by a harlot would be his heirs. ANET at 160 (cited in note 16). Conversely, see Sirach 23:22, which suggests that the offspring born in the union between an adulterous wife and her lover would be her legal husband's heir. From the husband's standpoint, such an heir would likely be objectionable, and this scenario may in fact account for the strong biblical antipathy to adultery when committed by a wife. See generally, Westbrook, Raymond, Adultery in Ancient Near Eastern Law, 97 Revue Biblique 542 (1990)Google Scholar.

18. See below, text accompanying notes 87-105.

19. See also Thomas, and Thompson, Dorothy, Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth, 18 Vetus Testamentum 79, 87 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “Through this marriage Sheshan himself obtained sons and heirs.”

20. Perhaps the underlying consideration in Gen. 15:3-4 was that a slave born in his master's house could be presumed to have been fathered by the master—an early version of the doctrine, res ipsa loquitur. But see Blackstone, William, 2 Commentaries on the Laws of England 12 (Strahan, 9th ed, 1783)Google Scholar. Commenting on Gen. 15:3-4, Blackstone conjectured that the practice there attested had derived as follows:

A man's children or nearest relations are usually about him on his death-bed, and are the earliest witnesses of his decease. They became therefore generally the next immediate occupants, till at length in process of time this frequent usage ripened into general law. And therefore also in the earliest ages, on failure of children, a man's servants born under his roof were allowed to be his heirs, being immediately on the spot when he died.

Compare Prov. 17:2 and 29:21 which also may refer to slaves inheriting from their masters.

21. It is not entirely clear from the context whether this slave was Eliezer of Damascus who was characterized in the preceding verse as the heir of Abram's “house.” It is possible that Eliezer was an otherwise unidentified kinsman of Abram's who would have inherited under the kind of custom institutionalized in Num. 27:11. There is no mention of Eliezer in Abraham's family tree in Gen. 11:24-28.

22. NOAB at 17 (cited in note 11); NEB at 14 (cited in note 16). Von Rad suggests that Abraham may have been cognizant of such practice, noting that Nuzi texts included “several contracts, according to which in the event of childlessness slaves were adopted; their duty then was to give the testator proper burial.” Genesis at 178-79 (cited in note 15). See also Gordon, Cyrus H., Biblical Customs and the Nuzi Tablets, in Campbell, Edward F. Jr., and Freedman, David Noel, eds, 2 The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 22–23 (Anchor-Doubleday, 1964)Google Scholar. Compare Code of Hammurabi § 170, (cited in note 14), which provides that a man may adopt sons borne him by a bondmaid or maid servant.

23. Daube suggests that traditions regarding adoption were deleted from biblical materials as part of Nehemiah's and Ezra's program of restoring family purity. Daube, , Sons and Strangers at 48 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.

24. Campbell, and Freedman, , 2 Biblical Archaeologist at 24–27 (cited in note 22)Google Scholar. It has also been suggested that Jacob's relations with Laban and his family evidence a pattern of matrilineal descent. Jay, Nancy, Sacrifice, Descent, and the Patriarchs, 38 Vetus Testamentum 52, 59–64 (1988)Google Scholar.

25. See generally Burrows, , The Basis of Israelite Marriage at 41–46 (cited in note 6)Google Scholar and Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 149-50, 157–58 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. Westbrook points out that there is “repeated evidence” in cuneiform law that a daughter could inherit from her father's estate. Id at 158-64.

26. See Brown, A.M., The Concept of Inheritance in the Old Testament, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Colum U, 1965, 10–11Google Scholar, cited in Leggett, Donald A., The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament: with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth 215, n 21 (Mack Pub, 1974)Google Scholar.

27. Job 42:15 says that Job gave his daughters inheritances along with their brothers. The likely meaning here is that he gave them property by bequest, not that they received these “inheritances” by intestate succession. See below, text accompanying notes 117-18. It is not clear whether Sheshan's daughters would have inherited his property if none of them had married and had children. 1 Chron. 2:34-41. Their father saw to it that one of them did marry; the resulting line of male progeny presumably inherited. On daughters' status as heirs in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, see Ben-Barak, Zafrira, Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East, 25 J Semitic Studies 22, 22–23 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28. Otto J. Baab points out that the Septuagint version of the law of levirate marriage in Deut. 25:6 reads “child” (to paidion) rather than “first son.” 2 IDB at 702 (cited in note 16). This change may suggest that the Septuagint editor intended the text to be read so that a firstborn daughter could be the deceased's heir under terms of levirate marriage, at least if there were no later-born sons. On the basis of Septuagint evidence (Deut. 25:5, 6), Westbrook concludes that “the most likely hypothesis is that until late biblical times at least, the existence of a daughter did not affect the imposition of the levirate, nor was the birth of a daughter considered fulfillment of the duty.” Westbrook, , The Law of the Biblical Levirate, 24 R Intl des Droits de L'Antiquite, 3d Ser at 79 (cited in note 8)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 69Google Scholar (cited in note 3). See also: Psalms 25:13 (the “children” of the righteous man shall “possess the land”); Prov. 19:14 (“House and wealth are inherited from fathers”); and Prov. 23:10 (“Do not remove an ancient landmark or enter the fields of the fatherless”).

29. According to Tobit 6:10-11, Sarah was her parents' only daughter and heir. If she had brothers, they, presumably, would have inherited under the provisions of Num. 27:8-11 and Sarah would have taken nothing.

30. Tobit 14:13. See below note 47 and accompanying text.

31. Tobit 1:1, 4, 5; 7:3.

32. Conceivably, the narrarator may have been thinking of levirate marriage tradition, under which the nearest surviving male kinsman had the right (or duty) to marry the sonless deceased's widow. See below notes 52-70 and accompanying text.

33. More precisely, such heiresses were to marry within “the family” of their father's tribe. Westbrook suggests that this concept meant that heiresses were likely to marry relatives no more remote than “cousins.” See Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 22, 163–64 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

34. According to Tobit 8:20-21, Raguel, Tobias' father-in-law, promised to give Tobias half his property at the end of the wedding feast, and the rest when he (Raguel) and his wife died. This promise, under oath, could be viewed either as a will or as part of the marriage contract. But if, under customary law, Tobias was entitled to receive his in-laws' property upon their death anyway by virtue of having married their only daughter, the promise merely confirmed that right.

35. Ruth 4:3; see also Ruth 4:5, the Hebrew text of which, translated literally, reads, “What day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi and from Ruth the Moabitess, you have bought the wife of the dead to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance.” Translation by Daube, David, Ancient Jewish Law 39 (Brill, 1981)Google Scholar. Cf the King James Version. From this version, it could be inferred that Ruth had inherited a portion of her father's or late husband's estate. See, however, Ruth 4:9 where Boaz says he has bought the land “from the hand of Naomi,” with no mention of Ruth's ownership.

36. Raymond Westbrook has urged that Ruth 4:3 be understood to mean that Naomi had already sold the property to a third party. Redemption of Land, 6 Israel L Rev 367, 373–75 (1971)Google Scholar, The Price Factor in the Redemption of Land, 32 R Intl des Droits de L'Antiquite, 3d Ser at 126 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. Both essays have been reprinted in Westbrook, Property and the Family (cited in note 3). He suggests that Elimelech or Naomi had sold the land at discount before leaving for Moab, and that in Ruth 4, it is a matter of redeeming this land from the third party. But Ruth 4:5 and 9 clearly say that the present purchase is from the hand of Naomi. Leggett argues persuasively against the theory that the land had already been sold. Levirate and Goel at 218-22 (cited in note 26). See also Burrows, Millar, The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth, 59 J Biblical Lit 445, 446–47 (1940)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vaux, De, Ancient Israel 166–67 (cited in note 7)Google Scholar; and Sasson, Jack M., Ruth: A New Translation with Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation 108–15 (Johns Hopkins U Press, 1979)Google Scholar. It appears more likely that Naomi's land was subject to redemption because her husband and their sons had died, leaving her without other means of support, than because of some possible (but unmentioned) previous sale to a third party.

37. See Leggett, , Levirate and Goel at 217 (cited in note 26);Google ScholarCampbell, Edward F. Jr., Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, 7 The Anchor Bible 158 (Doubleday, 1975)Google Scholar. Several legal issues arise in Ruth 4:1-12. See id at 154, referring to “the ocean of ink which has been spilled over … unanswered questions” there. We do not attempt to solve those questions here, but only to note those relating to inheritance, and to suggest some possible conclusions.

38. See also Leggett, , Levirate and Goel at 211–18 (cited in note 26)Google Scholar. “The announcement, made in the presence of the lawfully assembled body, that Naomi was selling the property, went unchallenged; thus there can be little doubt that she was lawfully in possession of the property.” Id at 218. See also Burrows, , 59 J Biblical Lit at 448 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar: “[W]e must admit that the book of Ruth assumes the practice of inheritance by widows …. At any rate our author assumes that his readers will not regard it as strange.” Compare Sasson, , Ruth: A New Translation with Philological Commentary at 108-15, 117-20, 139–40 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar. Sasson urges that although Naomi was in possession of the land and was selling it, she had not inherited it, but was holding it as Elimelech's land pending sale. When it was sold, however, she would be entitled to the proceeds.

39. De Vaux urges that Naomi was merely acting as the guardian of her deceased son's rights. Ancient Israel at 54 (cited in note 7). But see Westbrook, , Redemption, 6 Israel L Rev at 372–73 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar.

40. Compare Westbrook, , The Law of the Biblical Levirate, 24 R Intl des Droits de L'Antiquite, 3d Ser at 65 (cited in note 8)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, Property and the Family (cited in note 3). Here he seems to say that Boaz redeemed Mahlon's land, id at 66, but later concludes that neither Mahlon nor Chilion ever inherited the family property, id at 77. Westbrook's theory is that either Elimelech (or Naomi, as his agent) had sold the land before moving to Moab. See also Westbrook, , The Price Factor at 109-10, 126 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar, where he suggests that the right of redemption arose only when the seller had been compelled to sell at discount because he had become poor. While Elimelech might have become poor and sold his land to a third party before moving to Moab, the text does not so indicate. Rather, it appears that it was the levirate law that prompted the transactions reported in Ruth chap 4. Westbrook has carefully described the connection between levirate and redemption law. “The levirate therefore works alongside redemption. Just as the right of redemption restores to the family property that is lost (or threatened to be lost) by alienation, so the duty of the levirate restores a family to its property from which it is separated by extinction of the male line.” Redemption, 6 Israel L Rev at 372 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar. The latter conditions evidently obtain in Ruth chap 4.

41. See Beattie, D.R.G., The Book of Ruth as Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice, 24 Vetus Testamentum 251, 254–55 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The sons' estate could have been as yet undivided. See Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 132–38 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

42. See also Leggett, , The Levirate and Goel at 219–20 (cited in note 26)Google Scholar. But see Campbell, , Ruth, The Anchor Bible at 157 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar.

43. See also Ruth 1:22; 2:18; 3:1-3, 15-17. None of these texts suggests that Naomi and Ruth lacked a dwelling place or had to live “on the street,” or that they were guests in any one else's home. Burrows concludes that Naomi and Ruth lived in a house. 59 J Biblical Lit at 447 (cited in note 36). Sasson assumes that they lived in Naomi's “home.” Ruth: A New Translation at 124 (cited in note 36). Houses evidently were inherited in biblical times. See Prov. 19:14; Micah 2:2; Mark 12:40 = Luke 20:47.

44. 2 Kings 8:3, 5, 6.

45. It has been suggested that Naomi and the Shunammite widow of 2 Kings 4 and 8 might have held their deceased husbands' properties as trustees or executors rather than as owners. Burrows, Millar, An Outline of Biblical Theology 302 (Westminster Press, 1946)Google Scholar. By virtue of preeminence obtained either through birthright or a dying father's “blessing,” a son might have authority to administer his father's undivided estate. See Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 136–37 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. We find no evidence of trusteeship or estate administration by widows in biblical tradition; however, cuneiform laws do provide for something like such trusteeship arrangements. Whether a biblical widow with a son (or sons) “inherited” property from her husband or served as “trustee” after his death by operation of law may be largely a semantic question. In either event, she apparently held many of the “sticks” of ownership, including possession and control of the property at least during her son's (or sons') minority. It is completely unclear; however, when such sons may have attained “majority” or ownership themselves.

46. See also The Teaching of Amenope, 6:1-6, translated in Thomas, , ed, Documents from Old Testament Times at 179 (cited in note 14)Google Scholar. The Talmud later assumes that a husband inherits land from his wife. 14 Encyclopedia Judaica 581 (Keter Pub House, 1972)Google Scholar. In Judges 17:1-4, we see that Micah's mother, who may have been a widow, was a person of some wealth, which she may have inherited from her husband. It is not clear whether she lived in her own house or in her son's house.

47. It could be inferred instead that Raguel and his wife owned their property jointly; but such joint property ownership arrangements are otherwise unknown in the Bible, and are rare in ancient Near Eastern tradition. But see Muffs, Yochanan, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine 33–34 n 3 (Brill, 1969)Google Scholar.

48. See, for example, Pritchard, James B., The Ancient Near East 545–46 (Princeton U Press, Supp 1969)Google Scholar (“ANE”); Muffs, , Studies at 33–34 n 3 (cited in note 47)Google Scholar; Davies, Eryl W., Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage Part I, 31 Vetus Testamentum 138 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Widows did not fare so well in post-biblical Jewish law. See Grunfeld, , The Jewish Law of Inheritance 10–16 (cited in note 12)Google Scholar.

49. Burrows, , The Basis of Israelite Marriage at 47–48 (cited in note 6)Google Scholar; Vaux, De, Ancient Israel 54 (cited in note 7)Google Scholar. As to Egyptian law ca. 1100 B.C.E., see Fensham, , 21 J Near E Studies at 132–34 (cited in note 6)Google Scholar; Seters, Van, 87 J Biblical Lit at 405–06 (cited in note 8)Google Scholar.

50. See Leggett, , Levirate and Goel at 216–17 n 24-25 (cited in note 26)Google Scholar. It may be more than merely coincidental that no biblical traditions report that sons or daughters inherited their father's property while his widow was still alive.

51. See also Davies, , Inheritance Rights Part II at 257–68 (cited in note 48)Google Scholar.

52. Levine, Baruch A., Leviticus, in JPS Torah Commentary 254 (Jewish Pub Soc, 1989)Google Scholar; Vaux, De, Ancient Israel at 38 (cited in note 7)Google Scholar. See particularly Thomas and Dorothy Thompsons' study of “the name,” in 18 Vetus Testamentum at 84-88 (cited in note 19).

53. The story of Judah and Tamar does not tell us whether one of the twins inherited (as under the law of primogeniture) or whether both were eligible to do so. Nor is birthright mentioned here. The account of the twins' birth implies that which was born first may have been of some consequence: the midwife carefully ties a scarlet thread around the first hand presented. Deuteronomy 25:6 seems to say that only the “first son” born under levirate marriage would succeed to the name of the deceased. But it is unclear which twin was actually counted as first-born. Both sons were counted as sons of Judah. (Num. 26:19-22). There are no other instances where more than one son was born under levirate marriage.

54. He urges, for example, that Onan hoped to gain his later brother's inheritance by “marrying” Tamar, but avoiding effective intercourse with her, thus leaving no heirs to inherit in his brother's name. Westbrook, , Redemption of Land, 6 Israel L Rev at 374–75 n 36 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar, Westbrook, , The Law of the Biblical Levirate, 24 R Intl des Droits de L'Antiquite 3d Ser at 73 (cited in note 8)Google Scholar. Both essays have been reprinted in Westbrook, Property and the Family (cited in note 3).

55. Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 138, 140–41 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

56. See generally Leggett, , The Levirate and Goel at 228–45 (cited in note 26)Google Scholar. But see Beattie, D.R.G., Kethibh and Qere in Ruth IV 5, 21 Vetus Testamentum 490, 490–94 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. See Rad, Von, Genesis: A Commentary at 353 (cited in note 15)Google Scholar: “The son begotten by the brother is then considered the son and heir of the deceased man, ‘that his name may not be blotted out of Israel’ (Deut. 25:6).” See also Leggett, , Levirate and Goel at 247–48 (cited in note 26)Google Scholar.

58. “No passage in this work has produced more headaches.” Daube, , Ancient Jewish Law at 40–41 (cited in note 35)Google Scholar.

59. Id at 40. In Ruth, however, there is no indication that the go'el or nearer kinsman was married or had any children. But see the Thompsons, , Legal Problems at 98 (cited in note 19)Google Scholar; and Davies, Eryl W., Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the Go'el, 33 Vetus Testamentum 231, 234 (1983)Google Scholar.

60. NOAB at 328 (cited in note 11); cf. NOAB-NRSV at 336 (cited in note 7).

61. Patrick, Dale, Old Testament Law 138 (John Knox Press, 1985)Google Scholar. But see Westbrook, , Redemption of Land, 6 Israel L Rev at 370 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, Property and the Family (cited in note 3), “If the go'el were also a potential heir, he would frequently be intervening to buy back his inheritance.”

62. See Burrows, , 59 J Biblical Lit at 446 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar. Under terms of Numbers 27, the kinsman might be expected to have inherited the property. But the text of Ruth insists that Naomi owned the parcel of land. What would have happened to it if she married again? In fact, the kinsman did not inherit it because Boaz redeemed it (by purchase from Naomi) in connection with his marriage to Ruth, and, presumably, Obed eventually inherited it. Thus the kinsman was not in a position simply to assume that he and his children (if any—none are mentioned in Ruth) would inherit from Elimelech. Clearly Naomi's property interest in the parcel had priority over the kinsman's—notwithstanding the provisions of Numbers 27. Exactly what the nature of her interest was, and how she had acquired it, are not, unfortunately, so certain.

63. See above, notes 35-36 and accompanying text.

64. Daube, , Ancient Jewish Law at 40–41 (cited in note 35)Google Scholar. Compare Davies, 33 Vetus Testamentum at 231-34 (cited in note 59). Davies suggests that the kinsman understood that he was to marry Naomi and, because she was past child-bearing, expected to acquire her property as his own; but then backed out on learning that the widow in question was Ruth, because she might bear a son who would claim not only the redeemed property but also a share of the go'el's inheritance.

65. Daube, , Ancient Jewish Law at 37–43 (cited in note 35)Google Scholar. Daube's proposal evidently presumes that Naomi would have been eligible for Levirate marriage even though she had borne sons inasmuch as those sons had died without issue. No other biblical texts present such a situation. His proposal also assumes both that the nearer kinsman had no wife or children at the time, and that monogamy was then the standard societal norm. Because the text does not tell us otherwise, these assumptions are at least plausible. Absent data, interpreters must speculate. Compare Campbell, , Ruth, in 7 The Anchor Bible at 156 (cited in note 37)Google Scholar: “[S]urely [the kinsman] is already married and has a family of his own.” Westbrook notes that because Naomi was beyond the age of child-bearing, “the land purchased would pass to the redeemer's sons as part of his inheritance.” Westbrook, , Redemption, 6 Israel L Rev at 374 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar. But that would be a reason for the kinsman to welcome marriage with Naomi! Westbrook reads “widow of the dead” to mean Ruth, and concludes that the kinsman backed out simply because he would have had to pay money for land that would not become part of his patrimony. Id at 374-75. The kinsman's offspring by levirate marriage to Ruth would have inherited the property he had purchased from Naomi. But that outcome would scarcely have “ruined” the kinsman's inheritance (4:6). For another ingenious theory, see Sasson, , Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary at 136–40 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar. Sasson suggests that as redeemer, the kinsman could have become liable to support the impoverished Naomi and Ruth's son (if any) who would ultimately inherit the parcel; moreover, under the laws of redemption in Leviticus 25, the kinsman could have had to repurchase the parcel of land as often as these poor relations had occasion to sell it! Sasson denies that levirate marriage is a factor in the story of Ruth.

66. See also Beattie, 24 Vetus Testamentum at 251-67 (cited in note 41). Beattie concludes that widows could and did inherit their husbands' property. However, he does not see Ruth chap 4 as instancing levirate marriage. Instead, he sees the scene as “a simple case of the second marriage of a childless widow who has inherited her husband's estate and whose children, by her second marriage, will therefore be heirs, through her, to her first husband.” Id at 265 (emphasis added). The kinsman backed off, Beattie suggests, because Boaz had announced his intent to marry Ruth. Under these circumstances, if the kinsman redeemed the property, he would be doing so solely for the benefit of any son(s) born to Boaz and Ruth. Id at 266.

67. See Leggett, , The Levirate and Goel at 245 (cited in note 26)Google Scholar. It is possible; however, that Deut. 25:5-10 was meant to limit the obligation to the brother-in-law. See also Vaux, De, Ancient Israel at 22 (cited in note 7)Google Scholar.

68. See also Lipinski, E., Le Mariage de Ruth, 26 Vetus Testamentum 124, 127 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should not be forgotten that the narrative also implies that the duty of the levirate includes marrying a foreign (or at least a Moabitess) widow.

69. Daube, Ancient Jewish Law (cited in note 35). See Ruth 1:12, where Naomi speaks, albeit hypothetically, of having a husband, presumably a kinsman of Elimelech, and having sons whom the younger widows could marry, if they waited long enough.

70. Compare Westbrook, , The Law of the Biblical Levirate, 24 R Intl des Droits de L'Antiquite, 3d Ser at 77 n 43 (cited in note 8)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, Property and the Family (cited in note 3). Here he asserts that “Boaz does not raise up Elimelech's name … only Mahlon's.” It is not clear, however, that “the dead” (4:5, 10) alludes to Mahlon rather than Elimelech.

71. See generally, Daube, David, Studies in Biblical Law 43–45 (KTAV, 1969)Google Scholar; Westbrook, , Jubilee Laws, 6 Israel L Rev 209 (1971)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, Property and the Family (cited in note 3).

72. See Levine, , Leviticus, in JPS Torah Commentary at 270–74 (cited in note 52)Google Scholar. Houses within a walled city, however, could be sold in perpetuity (Lev. 25:29-30) unless the cities in question were “cities of the Levites.” (Lev. 25:32-33). But houses within unwalled villages, like farmland, could not be sold in perpetuity. (Lev. 25:31). Property not subject to sale in perpetuity supposedly would revert to its original owner in the Jubilee year.

73. See generally, Hart, John, The Spirit of the Earth, A Theology of the Land 69–71 (Paulist Press, 1984) (translation suggested by Hart)Google Scholar.

74. Westbrook, , Redemption of Land, 6 Israel L Rev at 367–68 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, Property and the Family (cited in note 3).

75. Westbrook, , Jubilee Laws, 6 Israel L Rev at 221 (cited in note 71)Google Scholar; Levine, , Leviticus at 173, 273 (cited in note 52)Google Scholar.

76. Lev. 25:13; see also Lev. 25:10, 28.

77. Westbrook urges that the right of redemption arose only when the seller had become impoverished and sold to a third party at less than normal price. See generally, Westbrook, , Redemption, 6 Israel L Rev at 368 (cited in note 36)Google Scholar; and Westbrook, , The Price Factor in the Redemption of Land, 32 R Intl des Droits de L'Antiquite, 3d Ser at 97 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. Both essays are reprinted in Westbrook, Property and the Family (cited in note 3).

78. A man who redeemed such land was to add a fifth of its value to the redemption price. (Lev. 27:19).

79. Leviticus 27:20-21 also provides that inherited land which a man has “sold” or leased to someone else, if not redeemed in the meantime, likewise would become holy to Yahweh in the Jubilee year. The Lessee's (or lease-holder's) interest would not be affected however, because the lessor (or original owner) otherwise would have retaken possession in the Jubilee year, thereby extinguishing the lessee's interest anyway.

80. Presumably “the priest” referred to throughout Leviticus 27 is the priest who happened to handle the particular case on behalf of the Jerusalem hierarchy. Similarly, modern lawyers refer, for example, to “the magistrate” or “the judge,” meaning the one who happens to hear a particular case.

81. Leviticus 27:28 provides that when a man has “devoted” an inherited field to Yahweh, it shall neither be sold nor redeemed. Perhaps “devoted” property is that which has already been given to Yahweh. Presumably a field so “devoted” would not be destroyed, unlike the fate of man and beast “devoted” under the old herem tradition. See Joshua 6:17, 21; Lev. 27:29. Perhaps “the priest” would take possession of the devoted field as in the case of dedicated land released in the Jubilee year. (Lev. 27:16-21).

82. If husbands were entitled to heiresses' inheritances as suggested in the book of Tobit (Tobit 6:11-12 and 14:13), such inheritances would pass out of the tribe if the husbands belonged to other tribes apart from the operation of the law of the Jubilee year. See Num. 36:3. Westbrook suggests that Num. 36:4 may have been a “mistaken gloss.” Westbrook, , Jubilee Laws, 6 Israel L Rev at 210 (cited in note 71)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 36 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. Compare Snaith, Norman H., The Daughters of Zelophehad, 16 Vetus Testamentum 124, 127 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83. See Ezek. 45:7-9; cf Isaiah 11:1-9.

84. For example, the “officials and nobles” against whom Nehemiah contended and some of the earlier post-exilic governors characterized in Neh. 5:1-15.

85. See, however, the prohibition against coveting one's neighbor's house in Exodus 20:17 and Deut. 5:21, and the prohibition against coveting his field in the latter text. Westbrook notes that because of dating problems, we do not know “whether Ezekiel was inspired by Leviticus, or Leviticus by Ezekiel,” or both by a common ideal. Jubilee Laws, 6 Israel L Rev at 226 (cited in note 71)Google Scholar.

86. 1 Kings 21:1-16; Isaiah 5:8; Micah 2:1-2. See generally, Napier, B. Davie, The Inheritance and the Problem of Adjacency: An Essay on 1 Kings 21, 30 Interpretation J Bible & Theology 3–11 (1976)Google Scholar. Weingreen argues persuasively that the Naboth story in 1 Kings 21, and also Num. 27:3-4, evidence the existence and operation of a law whereby property that otherwise would pass to heirs was confiscated by the sovereign if the owner had committed treason. Weingreen, 16 Vetus Testamentum at 521-22 (cited in note 10). Compare the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Matt. 21:33-39 = Mark 12:1-8 = Luke 20:9-15, where the tenants try to obtain the heir's “inheritance” by killing the heir. In contrast, King Omri purchased his estate, possibly from a kinsman (1 Kings 16:24). See Lawrence Stager, E., Shemer's Estate, 277/278Bull Am Sch Oriental Research 93, 103–04 (1990)Google Scholar.

87. HBD at 421-22 (cited in note 16). Strangely, many commentators assume that Deut. 21:15-17 requires that the older or oldest son receive a double share of the inheritance where there is no question as to a loved and unloved wife. See, for example, Kent, James, in Gould, John M., ed, Commentaries on American Law 376–77 (Little Brown, 14th ed, 1896)Google Scholar; Frazer, James G., Folk-lore in the Old Testament 430 n 1 (Macmillan, 1919)Google Scholar; Weir, C.J. Mullo, Nuzi, in Thomas, D. Winton, ed, Archaeology and Old Testament Study 76 (Clarendon, 1967)Google Scholar; Richardson, , ed, Theological Word Book of the Bible at 83 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar; NWDB at 376 (cited in note 16); Baab, 2 IDB at 702 (cited in note 16). Compare Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 20 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar: “The law (Deut. 21:15-17) renders invalid the father's gift in these special circumstances, where his preference is based on his attitude to his wives, not to the children themselves. By the same token, the right to reallocate the traditional shares among the heirs in other circumstances is acknowledged, and indeed adopted as normal practice.”

88. Nuzi evidence is ambiguous. Nashwi's will (or “tablet of adoption”) provided that his adopted son, Wullu, would share his estate equally with any of Nashwi's own sons. Zike's will (or tablet of adoption) provided that a certain Shuriha-ilu would take a double share if he (Shuriha-ilu) had a son of his own. Pritchard, ed, ANET at 219-20 (cited in note 16). These texts illustrate ancient wills, but do not appear relevant as to inheritance or birthright.

The only ancient Near Eastern texts apparently providing that the oldest son take two portions of inherited land are Middle Assyrian Laws, tablet B, id at 185, and an old Babylonian (Mari) judicial decision. Pritchard, , ed, ANE at 545 (cited in note 48)Google Scholar.

89. See also Patrick, , Old Testament Law at 129 (cited in note 61)Google Scholar: “The ruling assumes the principle of primogeniture—that a man's firstborn male child receives a double portion of his inheritance.” But see below, note 105 and accompanying text. See generally, Davies, Eryl W., The Meaning of pi senayim in Deuteronomy XXI 17, 36 Vetus Testamentum 341, 341–45 (1986)Google Scholar. Calum M. Carmichael suggests that the double portion provision in Deut. 21:15-17 may represent merely “the lawgiver's interpretation of what Jacob had done for Joseph in settling the prime inheritance upon him” in Gen. 48 and 49. Uncovering a Major Source of Mosaic Law: the Evidence of Deut. 21:15—22:5, 101 J Biblical Lit 505, 506–08 (1984)Google Scholar.

90. Similarly, under Islamic law, a man could not disinherit his wife—or anyone else. All was spelled out. See above, note 12.

91. Gaster, Theodor H., The Oldest Stories in the World 159–71 (Beacon Press, 1958)Google Scholar.

92. Id at 163; see also id at 164: “ ‘The law says clearly that the eldest is to have the most.’ ”

93. Id at 169.

94. The HBD reports that several other ancient Near Eastern cultures provided for “preferential treatment of the eldest son,” but that the codes of Lipit-Ishtar and Hammurabi required that all male heirs inherit equal shares. HBD at 134-35 (cited in note 16). See Lipit-Ishtar Law Code § 24, in ANET at 160 (cited in note 16); Code of Hammurabi § 170, in Thomas, , ed, Documents from Old Testament Times at 33 (quoted above in note 14)Google Scholar. The Babylonian Theodicy, vv. 245-64, however, suggests that the first-born may have enjoyed special favor or status. Thomas, Documents at 101. See generally, Mendelsohn, Isaac, On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son, 156 Bull Am Sch Oriental Research 38–40 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95. Arguably, Jacob gave Joseph a double share by adopting or otherwise designating the latter's two sons as recipients of equal shares with Joseph's brothers. (Gen. 48:1-6). Nothing is said here; however, about birthright or transfer of birthright. The arrangement is more in the nature of a bequest. See below, text accompanying note 112. It may well be, however, that this scene was meant to explain how it came about that Ephraim and Manasseh enjoyed full tribal status, and provides no information as to transfer of property by inheritance or bequest.

96. For example, NOAB at 31 (cited in note 11); NOAB-NRSV at 32 (cited in note 7); NEB 26 (cited in note 16). Unaccountably, a page earlier, the NEB annotator asserts that the first-born “had exclusive rights of inheritance.” Id at 25. Other than in the situation of Levirate marriage (Deut. 25:6), no biblical text suggests that the first-born son alone inherited when there were other sons. Frazer makes a plausible case for the idea that traces of ultimogeniture, or inheritance by the youngest son, can be found in biblical tradition. Frazer, , Folk-Lore in the Old Testament at 429–33 (cited in note 87)Google Scholar. Aside from Gen. 25:29-34, however, none of the texts he discusses involves inheritance of property. In Gen. 25:29-34, it is clearly implied that the older son normally would have enjoyed the birthright.

97. See Rad, Von, Genesis: A Commentary at 262 (cited in note 15)Google Scholar: “[W]hat is to be understood by the birthright is not sufficiently clear from the narrative.”

98. See also HBD at 135 (cited in note 16). See generally, Ahroni, Reuben, Why Did Esau Spurn the Birthright? 29 Judaism 323–31 (1980)Google Scholar. The NOAB annotator inexplicably cites Gen. 25:29-34 as authority for the proposition, “In antiquity it was believed that the right of the first-born was inalienable.” NOAB at 242 (cited in note 11); NOAB-NRSV at 245 (cited in note 7).

99. 1 Chron. 5:1. In Gen. 30:4-8 Bilhah is characterized as Jacob's wife and as the mother of Reuben's brothers, Dan and Naphtali. In Gen. 35:22 Bilhah is said to have been Jacob's concubine.

100. See Gen. 35:22 and 49:3-4. The latter text reports that Jacob declared that Reuben would lose his “pre-eminence.” Westbrook suggests that such pre-eminence of preference included “the right to administer the paternal estate while still undivided, which would normally have been assigned to the first-born.” Westbrook, , Property and Family at 136 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. Pre-eminence is also associated with birthright or the status of the first-born in Gen. 27:36-37 and 43:33. On the significance of Reuben's offense, see Goldin, Judah, The Youngest Son or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong, 96 J Biblical Lit 27, 37–38 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Goldin concludes that Reuben thereby intended to proclaim that he had succeeded his father, just as Absalom later did when he publicly took over his father's concubines (See 2 Samuel 16:20-22).

101. See generally, Gervitz, Stanley, The Reprimand of Reuben, 30 J Near E Studies 87, 87–98 (1971)Google Scholar.

102. NOAB at 1263-64 (cited in note 11); NOAB-NRSV at 101 NT (cited in note 7).

103. Here again, it may be that biblical customary law derived from other Near Eastern cuneiform law. To what extent the latter required that the first-born son receive a double portion, however, is uncertain. See above, notes 87-94 and accompanying text.

104. Another aspect of birthright tradition or custom may be better attested, namely, the oldest brother's seniority and leadership status within the family. See for example, Gen. 43:33, 1 Chron. 26:10, 2 Chron. 21:3, and discussion of these and several other texts in Gordon, , 54 J Biblical Lit at 223–31 (cited in note 6)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Because we are concerned only with inheritance of property, this aspect of biblical birthright tradition is not examined further here. See above note 100.

105. But see above, note 96 regarding Deut. 25:6. Henry Sumner Maine insisted, properly, that birthright should not be confused with primogeniture. He defined the latter as “the exclusive succession of a single son” to his father's property. Lectures on the Early History of Institutions 197 (London, 7th ed, 1905)Google Scholar. Nevertheless, interpreters occasionally use the terms “primogeniture” and “birthright” interchangeably. For example, Ahroni, 29 Judaism at 323-25 (cited in note 98). Without citing supporting evidence, De Vaux asserts, “It is probable that when land was inherited it was not shared like other property but passed to the eldest son or remained undivided.” Vaux, De, Ancient Israel at 166 (cited in note 7)Google Scholar.

106. Maine, Henry Sumner, Ancient Law 209 (Wm S Hein Co, 10th ed reprint, 1983)Google Scholar. See also Rackman, Emanuel, A Jewish Philosophy of Property: Rabbinic Insights on Intestate Succession, 67 Jewish Q Rev 65, 65–89 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But see Herzog, Isaac, 1 The Main Institutions of Jewish Law 296–98 (Socino Press, 1965)Google Scholar. Maine, of course, would not have known the vast body of recently recovered, ancient Near Eastern materials which show that the institution of testation was well established in many of these cultures. See generally, Szubin, and Porten, , 252 Bull Am Sch Oriental Research at 35–46 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar. For particular instances, see below notes 110, 111, 120, and 122.

107. Zeitlin, Solomon, Testamentary Succession: A Study in Tannaitic Jurisprudence, in Neuman, Abraham A. and Zeitlin, Solomon, eds, Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of the Jewish Q Rev 574 (Jewish Q Rev, 1967)Google Scholar. See also translation of Deut. 21:16 in NOAB-NRSV at 245 (cited in note 7): “on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons ….”

108. See above note 87 and accompanying text. De Vaux suggests that 2 Samuel 17:23 and 2 Kings 20:1 refer to situations where “a father … gave verbal instructions about the distribution of his property.” Ancient Israel at 53 (cited in note 7).

109. Presumably this estate included, inter al., the cave of Machpelah. See Westbrook, , Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah, 6 Israel L Rev at 29–38 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 24 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

110. See Atkinson, Thomas E., The Law of Wills 7 n 11 (West, 2d ed, 1953)Google Scholar. Atkinson observes that Sennacherib's will, executed ca. 681 B.C.E., likewise used the formula, “I have given” rather than “I give.”

111. See also a quotation from a Nuzi text deathbed will whereby a dying father gives a female slave to one of his sons as his wife. Weir, C.J. Mullo, Nuzi, in Thomas, , ed, Archaeology and Old Testament Study at 76 (cited in note 87)Google Scholar.

112. See Szubin, and Porten, , 252 Bull Am Sch Oriental Research at 37 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar. But see above, note 95.

113. Because the Chronicler reports Jehoshaphat's death and burial before stating that he gave his sons these gifts, it might be supposed that the sons received these gifts through a testamentary instrument or will. (2 Chron. 21:1-3). But it is equally likely that the Chronicler merely meant to say that Jehoshaphat had given his sons these gifts prior to his death.

114. De Vaux reads Sirach 14:13 similarly. Ancient Israel at 53 (cited in note 7).

115. The following citations are all drawn from Charlesworth, James H., ed, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols (Doubleday, 1983, 1985)Google Scholar.

116. See also Joseph and Aseneth 29:9(11), in Charlesworth, 2 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (cited in note 115), which tells that after reigning as king in Egypt for forty-eight years, Joseph “gave the diadem” to Pharaoh's young son.

117. See, for example, the orthodox wisdom theology represented by Job's friends, the creation faith endorsed in Job 38-39, and Job's exemplification of the covenant ethic in 29:11-17; 31:1-40. Dating and authorship of Job are uncertain, but its congruence with both certain biblical and cuneiform traditions is beyond doubt. See Pope, Marvin H., Job, in The Anchor Bible XXXII–XLII (Doubleday, 3d ed, 1973)Google Scholar.

118. If Job had arranged to leave his property to his children upon his death, and then lived another 140 years, his children would have taken nothing unless they managed to out-live him. Job was the only biblical person since the days of the “patriarchs” (Gen. 25:7; 35:28) said to have lived as long as 140 years, let alone longer. Pope notes that the Septuagint credits Job with a total of 240 years. Pope, Job at 353-54 (cited in note 117).

119. “[T]his son of yours … has devoured your living with harlots.” Luke 15:30. See also Luke 15:13. Earlier wisdom traditions had warned against such conduct. See Sirach 9:6: “Do not give yourself to harlots lest you lose your inheritance.”

120. There are other instances; however, where biblical widows apparently inherited their husbands' real property notwithstanding the written law of intestate succession in Numbers 27. See above, text accompanying notes 35-46. The bequest to Judith parallels a Ugaritic oral will in which a certain Yarimanu bequeathed his entire estate—including animals, slaves, bronze bowls, kettle and jugs, baskets, and a field—to his wife. That will, however, went on to provide that the couple's sons would be penalized if they sued their mother for the estate, but that she was to bequeath the estate to whichever son paid her respect. Pritchard, , ed, ANE at 546 (cited in note 48)Google Scholar.

121. See Rowley, H.H., Job, in Clements, Ronald E. and Black, Matthew, eds, New Century Bible 268 (Attic Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

122. An Old Babylonian text records that a woman bequeathed real property to her adopted daughter. ANE at 543-44 (cited in note 48). Several instances of bequests to daughters are found among the 5th century B.C.E. Aramaic legal documents from Elephantine. See Szubin, and Porten, , 252 Bull Am Sch Oriental Research at 41–44 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar. Daughters were beneficiaries of bequests in ancient Elam as well. See Ben-Barak, , 25 J Semitic Studies at 31–32 (cited in note 27)Google Scholar. Cf Joshua 15:14-19, Judges 1:11-15 (inter-vivos gift to daughter).

123. See van Selms, A., Job 158 (Eerdmans, 1985)Google Scholar. But see Ben-Barak, Zafrira, Job's Daughters and the Question of Inheritance in Israel and the Ancient Near East, in Society of Biblical Literature 1990 Intl Meeting Abstracts 7–8Google Scholar: “The daughters are given part of the inheritance, albeit in an inferior way.” This issue evidently troubled an earlier interpreter. See above, text accompanying note 116.

124. Grandchildren were also named as beneficiaries at Elephantine. Szubin and Porten, 252 Bull Am Sch Oriental Research at 41-44 (cited in note 1). However, Proverbs 13:22 could mean only that a righteous man's wealth would be enjoyed by his intestate heirs to the third generation. Compare Psalms 37:18.

125. See Muntingh, L.M., The Social and Legal Status of A Free Ugaritic Female, 26 J Near E Studies 102, 111 (1967), and above, note 120Google Scholar.

126. See Thompson, , 18 Vetus Testamentum at 97–98 (cited in note 19)Google Scholar.

127. Thomas, ed, Documents from Old Testament Times (cited in note 14).

128. Compare the NOAB annotator's comment, “She distributed her property, according to the Mosaic law (Num. 27:11).” NOAB, Apocrypha sec, at 95 (cited in note 11); NOAB-NRSV, Apocrypha sec, at 39 (cited in note 7).

129. Compare Prov. 29:21. There, however, the text is too uncertain to permit one to draw any conclusions.

130. See above, text accompanying notes 20-23.

131. Prov. 17:2 speaks of a “slave who deals wisely.” In biblical wisdom writings, wisdom and goodness are closely related if not synonymous attributes.

132. See above, text accompanying note 21.

133. See above, text accompanying notes 29-34. It is unclear what would happen if parents had no sons, but more than one daughter and one daughter married while the others remained single.

134. See above, text preceding and accompanying notes 35-51.

135. In Naomi's case, levirate marriage custom evidently provided that she might sell the inherited property to her deceased husband's nearest kinsman if that kinsman also married her—or by extension, the widow of one of her sons—in order “to restore the name of the dead to his inheritance.” (Ruth 4:5). Presumably, the son born of this marriage would not immediately inherit, i.e., take possession of the redeemed property, the day he was born. Perhaps he would do so only upon the death of his biological or surrogate father.

136. See above, text preceding note 128.

137. See above, text accompanying notes 107-20 and following 120.

138. See above, text preceding and accompanying notes 44-45.

139. Westbrook speculates that “all the sons of the levirate union shared in the inheritance of the deceased.” The Law of the Biblical Levirate, 24 R Intl des Droits de L'Antiquite 3d Ser at 79–80 (cited in note 8)Google Scholar, reprinted in Westbrook, , Property and the Family at 69 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. But see Wright, C.J.H., Family, in 2 Anchor Bible Dictionary 763 (Doubleday, 1992)Google Scholar (suggesting that other sons would be heirs to the levir's property).

140. See above, note 28.

141. The Jubilee year laws do not specify that the Jubilee year was to be repeated every fifty years, but refer instead to the year of Jubilee. Yet a cycle seems implicit in the provisions synchronizing the Jubilee year with the series of Sabbatical years in Lev. 25:1-10, and scholars generally assume that the law intended that the cycle be repeated throughout history. Later Judaism understood that the cycles were to have been repeated. 14 Encyclopedia Judaica 581–82 (Keter Pub, 1972)Google Scholar.