I have long been intrigued by the story of Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael, and the similar stories of Rachel and Bilhah, and Leah and Zilpah – both of which ended happily. And, of course, Keturah, the wife Abraham took in old age.
To better
understand these stories and situations, a wider review of the Chumash and
Tanach texts and rabbinic literature has been necessary, and also the laws of
the lands during those times: hundreds of years before the giving of the Torah
after the Exodus.
As stated at
the very outset of this blog series, the patriarchs did not live in a
vacuum. The nations of Canaan and
Mesopotamia and Egypt all had established traditions, customs and laws: for no
society can survive more than a few days without mutually accepted rules.
The resultant
research and findings will be presented over 3 blogs:
Part
1: The Bible’s terminology of marriage
Part
2: Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael
Part
3: Keturah
SUMMARY on marriages
The Chumash
recognizes and accepts eight (8) different kinds of marriage.
But only two
(2) are ever discussed and set as Commandments: re: a war bride and an
under-age Israelite. The rest are to be
derived from the examples of marriages found in the Chumash and later Tanach
texts. What lawyers call precedents or case law.
As will be
shown later, the two it discusses are very rare situations and the rest, in
fact, are consistent with pre-existing ancient Mesopotamian Law.
The Bible,
however, spends two chapters detailing marriage practices of Egypt and even
Canaan that it abhors and prohibits as incestuous. The specific marital practices
-- all twelve (12) -- are defined in Lev.
18 and their punishments take up most of Lev. 20. They include marrying a woman and her
mother, and two sisters simultaneously. (Yes, Jacob’s unions with Leah and
Rachel are prohibited after the Exodus.)
MARRIAGE FORMULAE
For the
marital unions it accepts, the Bible uses two somewhat similar -- but
significantly different – formulae.
Formula #1: … לְאִשָּׁה לוֹ ‘he took to himself as a wife
…’
This is
used for a ‘full wife’ and two other situations:
·
‘Full wife’
1.
The marriage is between an adult male
and an adult female neither of whom is of ‘slave status’, i.e., both a
legally Free persons.
2.
Both are somehow related by
kinship: common ancestor or clan. All patriarch marriages are
so worded, as well as Esau’s marriage to a woman descendant of Ishmael.
It is also used by Hamor for the marriage proposal re: Dina when he
offers to ‘merge’ both peoples into one (Gen.34:8-10); ultimately agreeing to
have his people circumcised so they can all be ‘one people’ (verse 15).
3.
The marriage is arranged by the
male’s father with the female’s father or closest male kinsman. (Abraham via
Eliezer with Laban: Hamor with Jacob; Samson’s father with the father of his
first wife)
4.
The family of the groom must pay the
female’s father or closest male kinsman a substantial ‘bride price’: money, jewelry and/or animals -- which is subject to
negotiations. (Eliezer’s huge caravan of wealth (Gen. 24:53), Shechem’s offer for
Dina (Gen. 34:12), Pharaoh for Sarah (Gen. 12;16)). In rare instances, labour by the groom (Jacob’s
7 years for each wife; Moses tending sheep for his father-in-law). In 2 instances, circumcision: mass
circumcision of all the males of Shechem for Dina; and David pays King Saul for
his daughter 100/200 Philistine foreskins (1 Kings 18:25 and 27).
5.
The wife, in turn, will bring to
their new home a dowry of household items
and possibly personal servants/slaves as well. (Sarah with Hagar, Rachel with
Bilhah, Leah with Zilpah.)
6.
The prospective bride must give
her formal consent in advance (Rachel’s “Yes”. Samson’s first bride at their ‘date’.)
7.
The wedding ceremony is hosted by the
female’s family and the groom’s family is expected to attend if at all
possible. (Laban as host; Samson’s first wedding among Philistines accompanied
by his parents.)
8.
The wedding ceremony is held in front
of a gathering who acts as public witnesses to the union. (Laban as host;
Samson’s first wedding among Philistines accompanied by his parents.)
9.
After the ceremony there is a banquet
hosted by the bride’s family. (Laban as host; Samson’s first wedding among
Philistines accompanied by his parents.)
10.
The new couple then spends a seven (7) night
‘honeymoon’ to complete the wedding process.
As the bride and groom may never have met before the wedding (e.g.
Rachel and Isaac) this gives all couples time to talk, get to know each other
and, hopefully, bond. (Leah’s 7 nights, Samson’s first wedding 7 nights.)
11.
If for some reason they do not ‘meld’
and the male rejects her (or she him), then the marriage ends with a kind of
annulment. It is, in essence, a 7 day
and night ‘trial marriage’. (Laban’s warning to Jacob; Samson rejects his 1st
wife on day 7).
12.
If the honeymoon fails, the bride is returned
to her father and family in disgrace. (Samson’s 1st wife.) Her dowry comes back
and the bride price should also revert: though probably with ‘negotiations’ re:
the trauma the failure has caused the bride’s family and her potential ‘value’
to a second suitor/husband.
·
‘Surrogate womb’
In line with Mesopotamian law, a man ideally was
to have only one wife.
However, if
she proved barren and unable to conceive, the man could marry another ‘full
wife’ and have 2 wives at once, though the first wife remains the ‘mistress of
the home’. (Code of Hammurabi #145[i])
The second
option is for the barren wife to give her personal handmaiden/slave as a ‘substitute womb’ – today’s ‘surrogate’
mother. The child was to be considered as if the wife’s own offspring. This blocked the husband’s right to adding a
second ‘full wife’ to the home. (Code #144) The Torah uses Formula #1 לְאִשָּׁה לוֹ ‘he took to himself as a wife’ for
such a surrogate union.
The caveat under
Mesopotamian law was the surrogate remains a slave in status though now
under the ownership of the husband, and so too the offspring. (Code
#146) The offspring and their biological
mother only become ‘free’ on the husband’s death. (Code #171)
If, however, he
while alive publically declared any son(s) from this union as ‘my son(s)’, they
become equal heirs to his estate and property with any sons his first wife may
bear him after the first surrogate birth. (Code 171)
Finally, if
the man sends away or expels the surrogate (slave) wife and her (slave)
offspring, they are now free. (Cf. Exodus 21:11 and 14)
**** So now we
can better understand the Sarah-Hagar-Ishmael scenario. The similar situations with Rachel and Bilhah
and Leah and Zilpah
ended far better as the wives embraced the surrogates’s offspring and so too did their father Jacob:
hence the tribes of Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher (Genesis ch 30.)
·
‘War Bride’
The Chumash also uses Formula #1 for marriage with a woman captured in war (Deut. 21:11 and 14). She remains legally his captured slave but like the surrogate slave wife, she gets special consideration. If her captor changes his mind and decides not to go ahead and marry her, he must set her free (verse 14).
So, throughout
the Tanach, marriages between a free
adult male and free adult female – and even the rare union with a surrogate womb
slave and captured wife – receives the elevated phrasing of Formula #1: … לְאִשָּׁה לוֹ ‘he took to himself as a wife
…’
Formula # 2 … וּשְׁמָהּ אִשָּׁה חקַּוַיִּ = ‘XX took a
woman named YY’.
The second
phrasing is more impersonal, suggesting a ‘lower level’ of
matrimony -- and with a hint of disapproval:
·
Inter-marriage
It is used
for unions between free adults when one party is not a member of the kinship
group or clan: i.e., exogamy[ii].
So, it is
used for the marriage of King Ahab of Israel with his queen, Jezebel, princess of Tyre.
It also used
for the marriage of Patriarch Judah with the unnamed Canaanite daughter
of Sur (who bore Judah 3 sons), and for
the marriage Judah arranged for his oldest
son with the Canaanite Tamar.
·
The Female is a slave
When a freeborn,
unwed male voluntarily unites with a female of ‘slave status’.
a.
A young Israelite under-age female
purchased from her father with marital intent. (Exod. 21: 7–11 and
concubine story of Judges 19)
b.
A fully adult slave woman –
e.g., Keturah (See blog Keturah for full discussion and proof.)
In line with
Hammurabi’s Code and Torah law cited above, both females in either situation a.
or b. -- and any offspring -- continue in ‘slave status’ until the man’s death at which point they all go
free.
If the man declares
publically he considers the son(s) “my son(s)”, they inherit equally with any
son(s) he may also have had with his ‘full wife’ or a surrogate wife.
If the man
sends away or expels the slave wife and her (slave) offspring, they are now
free.
Finally, it
is wise to send off such offspring before the father’s death to prevent them challenging the ‘full
inheritance’ claims of any sons he had
from his deceased ‘full wife’.
E.g., Abrahams
sends his six (6) sons by his concubine Keturah off to the East with ‘gifts’.
So Keturah, is
not the freed Hagar.
7th option - Levirate marriage
The Bible
also has a 7th marital option which it deems either a Formula #1
marriage or a Formula #2 union depending on the situation.
When Judah’s
son Er died childless, Judah orders his second son, Onan, to marry Er’s widow,
Tamar, and father a son in Er’s name.
As Tamar was
not an Israelite or of the kinship circle, the union with Er (and Onan) gets Formula #2.
|
ו וַיִּקַּח יְהוּדָה אִשָּׁה, לְעֵר
בְּכוֹרוֹ; וּשְׁמָהּ,
תָּמָר. |
6 And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. |
Then, in the Book of Ruth a
similar situation occurs. Ruth,
originally a pagan Moabite who converts in the presence of her mother-in-law,
Naomi (Ruth 1: 16) returns with her to Judah. At the end of the book, Ruth, who
was childless, ends up marrying a close relative of her husband named Boaz.
As there is a male relative closer in kinship, this unnamed man gets
first right to fulfil the Levirate requirement. He refuses.
So Boaz steps in as the next closest kin to fulfil the Levirate
requirement.
As he is an Israelite and she is now an Israelite, their marriage gets
Formula #1.
Ruth 4:10
|
י וְגַם
אֶת-רוּת הַמֹּאֲבִיָּה אֵשֶׁת מַחְלוֹן קָנִיתִי לִי לְאִשָּׁה לְהָקִים שֵׁם-הַמֵּת
עַל-נַחֲלָתוֹ, וְלֹא-יִכָּרֵת שֵׁם-הַמֵּת מֵעִם אֶחָיו,
וּמִשַּׁעַר מְקוֹמוֹ: עֵדִים אַתֶּם, הַיּוֹם. |
10 Moreover
Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead
upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his
brethren, and from the gate of his place; ye are witnesses this day.' |
TERMINOLOGY OF MARRIAGE
The Bible has
two distinct words for females in cohabitation relationships.
One is פּיּלּגּשּ =
concubine. The other term is אּשּהּ which
can simply mean an adult female = woman, or also ‘wife’. Consequently, it is the context which
determines if אּשּהּ is
to mean ‘woman’ or ‘wife’.
And, as there
is no verb ‘to concubine’: only the female noun, such conjugal unions would appear
with a formula very similar to the marriage with a ‘full wife’ and using אּשּהּ.
This fact:
the existence of two very similar but significantly different marriage formulae,
does not seem to have been recognized or commented upon by the Talmuds and rabbinic
sources.
Concubine status
The term פּיּלּגּשּ appears a number of times in the Bible but there
is never a formal definition or enunciated law.
According to the
Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 21a:18, the distinction between a ‘wife’ and a
‘concubine’ is that a ‘wife’ has a higher legal status as she gets a formal written
contract (Ketubah) and ‘betrothal’ ceremony
and gift (kidushin) for the marriage
-- but a concubine does not.
The Talmud
passage cited above is part of a discussion focusing on King David whom, the
Talmud concludes, had not only at least 7 wives but also many concubines from
“beautiful women captured in war”. (10
of these were abused by Absalom and placed in isolation thereafter by King
David (2 Samuel 15:16 and 20:3)).
King Solomon,
according to 1 Kings 11:1-3, had 700
wives as ‘royal’ alliances with adjoining kingdoms and, in addition, 300
concubines.
So, from the
instances of King David and King Solomon, ‘wives’ are often the result of ‘political
alliances’ (a reality throughout the Ancient and Medieval and even Modern
times) while concubines are ‘chosen’ for their beauty and for romantic
pleasure.
However, an
analysis of marriage formulae not only in the Chumash but throughout the Tanach
suggests the Talmud’s distinctions between a ‘full wife’ and a ‘concubine’ is
oversimplified.
They fail to
accurately fit martial unions and situations prior to those of King David and
King Solomon: going all the way back to Abraham.
Marriage
options were far more diverse and complex and subject to the ancient
laws of the land.
And, as should
be clear from the above, ‘full wife’ marriages in ancient times did not
include a Ketubah – which is actually a
pre-nuptial agreement on terms of divorce: i.e. how much must a husband
pay on divorcing his ‘full wife’.
Yes, there were elements of Kidushin:
a formal ceremony in front of many attending witnesses as outlined above
under ‘full wife’, but the most important and vital part was the Bride Price: how much money, jewelry, animals, labour or even foreskins would the
bride’s father or closest male kinsman require up front for his permission.
As for the
term concubine, the only time in the Bible where the concubine union is elaborated is Judges 19:1-4 and the ensuing tale.
I include
here the first 8 verses to show the relationships involved.
The key
points are:
1.
The husband was not royalty but an
ordinary Levite.
2.
He had no other female spouse.
3.
She was not a ‘war bride’ or captive
but an Israelite from the tribe of Judah.
4.
She was not sexually promiscuous as
the King James Bible (1611) and JPS (1917) translate וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו
as “harlot”. Every rabbinic commentary
from Rashi on recognizes it means she “left her husband”[iii]. Otherwise, his pursuit and interaction with
her father make no sense.
5.
She is repeatedly called הַנַּעֲרָה = young girl. (Judges 19:5, 6, 8, 9). The KJB (1611) and JPS (1917)
incorrectly and misleadingly translate this as
‘damsel’. Others correctly use “girl” or
“young girl” [iv].
6.
Her father, even though she ran away from her
husband, treats him warmly and encourages him to extend this ‘visit’ from day
to day for five days.
7.
The connection between the father and
the husband is that of ‘father-in-law’ and ‘son-in-law’. The Hebrew חֹתְנוֹ - “in-law”
is used for both.
8.
The husband somehow convinces the
concubine to go home with him.
9.
Lastly, the opening verse describes
how their union was originally created, using a formula that indicates the
marriage was not a Formula #1 level of ‘full wife’: פִילֶגֶשׁ , וַיִּקַּח-לוֹ אִשָּׁה”He took to
himself a woman as a concubine”.
The story
continues for another 26 verses to the end of the chapter 19 and, in fact, does
not conclude until the end the book of Judges 21:25.
The story as
it unfolds becomes so embarrassing and horrific and dismaying that the writer’s
refusal to name the Levite husband and his concubine wife soon become clear.
Eventually,
after five days, the Levite, his concubine whom he had somehow placated and
induced to return with him, and his servant head homeward in the evening.
The servant
suggests they stop and rest overnight at the nearby city of the Jesubites,
i.e., Jerusalem, but the Levite refuses.
He will only stay at a community of Jews – “the children of Israel” (Judges
19:11-12) --and so they moved on to the Benjaminite city of Gibeah.
What a
mistake!
The people of
this city refused to house them for the night leaving them on the street:
without any food or drink and no feed for their 2 donkeys. Then, an elderly man returning from the
fields, a man from the tribe of Ephraim, takes them into his home. Following the examples of Rachel , Abraham and
Lot, he first feed the animals and then gives the Levite, the concubine and
servant a sumptuous and “merry” banquet.
Then, as if
in Sodom,
a crowd approaches and angrily demands the Levite be handed over to them.
The old man
offers his virgin daughter instead, but eventually the crowd is appeased when
the Levite hands over his concubine to them.
She is abused
all night and dies on the house’s doorstep.
The Levite
and his servant leave with her body. Once home, he cuts it up into 12 pieces
and sends each piece to a different tribe explaining the Sodomite horror that
is Gibeah. (Judges 19:29 and 20: 4-5).
Eleven (11)
of the tribes are so outraged by the Gibeahans that they mount a unified army
to punish and destroy the town. As for the tribe of Benjamin, not only do they
not participate, but rush an army to protect Gibeah!
The ensuing
battles between Benjamin and all the other tribes drag on for two chapters and thousands
of deaths.
In the end, Gibeah
is burned to the ground and all its animals and people killed, i.e., a total Cherem[v].
And all Benjaminite cities were also
burned down (Judges 20: 48, Judges 21: 23).
The 11
tribes, after finally crushing the men of Benjamin, took an oath they would
never allow their daughters to marry with any Benjaminite. (Judges 21:1)
But as ch 21
elaborates, the 11 tribes relented ‘somewhat’: as it would mean Benjamin would be permanently
ostracized from the children of Israel and, due to a shortage of women, die
out.
So, on
learning one community had not sent warriors to the battle – from Jabesh-gilead, they
sent an army which overruns the community and kills all males and all females
who were not young virgins. These 400 virgins they give to Benjamin so that
their vow would be kept, the reluctant community punished, and Benjaminites
again had wives of the children of Israel to continue on.
But 400 was not enough.
And so they colluded with the Benjaminites to
arrange a variation of the famous Roman founding Rape of the Sabine woman[vi]. They told them how to kidnap young virgins
when they go dancing alone outdoors at an annual religious festival honouring
God (Judges 21:19-23).
The book of Judges
justifiably ends this story -- and its pages -- with the line:
|
כה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר
בְּעֵינָיו, יַעֲשֶׂה. |
25 In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was
right in his own eyes. |
The ensuing
conflict shows that a concubine and her abuse was deemed intolerable
throughout the nation. They literarily went to war to avenge this nameless
concubine.
And while the
fact the Levite husband was willing to give up his concubine/wife to save his
own life is disconcerting, so too is the old man’s willingness to give up his virgin daughter.
Put simply, the
custom of protecting male guests – as was long ago displayed by Lot – seems to
have been ongoing.
Men count –
women don’t.
Consequently,
it seems to me fairly clear that we have here an instance of Exodus 21: 7-11: when a man ‘buys’ a
young Israelite girl from her father with the intent that he – or his son – will marry
her when she ‘turns of age’ – i.e., post
puberty.
(See Rashi ‘s
comments on Exodus 21:7 through 11, and especially verse 11 re: puberty. All subsequent commentaries agree with him.[vii])
The Judges text calls her a concubine as she is under age
and cannot be involved in contracting a ’full’ adult marriage.
She is a
young girl עֲרָההַנַּ (Judges 19:5,6,8 and 9) just like the young
virgins הלָוּתבְ נַעֲרָה of Judges 21:12.
And she is
also, in law a ‘slave’.
In this
unusual situation, she does not go free after 6 years like other Israelite
slaves (Exod. 21:7).
She remains
under the control of her ‘master’
אֲדֹנֶיהָ.
If he
then marries her or she is then given to his son in marriage, she remains in
‘slave status’: as she is to be ‘set free’ if she is rejected (Exod. 21:11).
Consequently,
although she is an Israelite, her marital union gets the lower status Formula
#2: she is under-age and also of ‘slave’ status.
So, the term
concubine פּיּלּגּשּ in the Tanach was not – as the Talmud suggests–
limited to adult women. Nor to females captured in war or acquired for their
anatomical sex appeal.
More
importantly, as will be shown further on, the term concubine פּיּלּגּשּ:
from
Patriarch times down to the institution of kingship in Israel, was used to
identify a female slave whom a
single man or widower took into his home and bed as his sole companion and mate. (See Part 3: Keturah.)
MARRIAGE FORMULAE
As mentioned earlier, the key to understanding martial unions in the Bible is to recognize that the Bible uses two distinct– if superficially similar – formulae.
Formula #1 - לְאִשָּׁה לוֹ
Gen. 16:3 ‘surrogate’ Hagar .
הלְאִשָּׁ לוֹ
אִישָׁהּ לְאַבְרָם אֹתָהּ וַתִּתֵּן
Gen. 24:67 Rebekah
. הלְאִשָּׁ
לוֹ וַתְּהִי-רִבְקָה אֶת וַיִּקַּח
Gen. 28:9 Esau takes a wife from Ishmael לְאִשָּׁה
לוֹ
…יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּת מָחֲלַת אֶת יִּקַּח.
Gen. 29: 28 Rachel
.לְאִשָּׁה לוֹ בִּתּוֹ רָחֵל אֶת לוֹ וַיִּתֶּן.
Gen. 30: 4 ‘surrogate’ Bilhah - לְאִשָּׁה שִׁפְחָתָהּ,בִּלְהָה אֶת לוֹ וַתִּתֶּן-
Gen. 30: 9 ‘surrogate’ Zilpah .לְאִשָּׁה יַעֲקֹבלְ אֹתָהּ וַתִּתֵּן
Gen. 34: 8 Proposal re: Dina .לְאִשָּׁה
לוֹ אֹתָהּ נָא תְּנוּ בְּבִתְּכֶם נַפְשׁוֹ חָשְׁקָה שְׁכֶם בְּנִי
Deut. 21:11 and 14 Wife captured in war
לְאִשָּׁה לְךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ בָהּ וְחָשַׁקְתָּ,
לְאִשָּׁה לְךָ וְהָיְתָה, וּבְעַלְתָּהּ, אֵלֶיהָ, תָּבוֹא כֵּן אַחַרוְ
Judges 14: 2
Samson’s first wife from Timnah - לְאִשָּׁה לִי אוֹתָהּ קְחוּ וְעַתָּה.
Judges 21:1 Oath
re: marriages to Benjamin .לְאִשָּׁה ןבִנְיָמִלְ בִּתּוֹ -יִתֵּן לֹא
1 Samuel 18:17 King Saul’s daughter to David
השָּׁאִלְ
לְךָ אֹתָהּ אֶתֶּן
… הַגְּדוֹלָה בִתִּי הִנֵּה -דָּוִד אֶל שָׁאוּל יֹּאמֶר
השָּׁאִלְ
לְךָ אֹתָהּ אֶתֶּן
… הַגְּדוֹלָה בִתִּי הִנֵּה -דָּוִד אֶל שָׁאוּל יֹּאמֶר
1 Samuel 25: 39-43
David weds widow Abigail and also Ahinoam of Jezreel
2 Samuel 11:27 David marries Bath Sheba
- השָּׁאִלְ לוֹ וַתְּהִי בֵּיתוֹ אֶל וַיַּאַסְפָהּ דָּוִד וַיִּשְׁלַח
Ruth 3: 13 Boaz
marries Ruth לְאִשָּׁה -לוֹ וַתְּהִי -רוּת אֶת בֹּעַז וַיִּקַּח,
Formula #2 - ‘YY takes a woman whose name is XX’:
…וּשְׁמָהּ
אִשָּׁה וַיִּקַּח
·
Gen. 25:1 Keturah
הרָוּטקְ וּשְׁמָהּ אִשָּׁה וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּסֶף,
· Gen. 26:34 Esau age 40 takes 2 Canaanite wives
|
וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה אֶת-יְהוּדִית, בַּת-בְּאֵרִי
הַחִתִּי--וְאֶת-בָּשְׂמַת,
בַּת-אֵילֹן הַחִתִּי. |
·
Gen. 38:2 Judah and his Canaanite
wife Sur (who produced Judah’s 3 sons)
|
ב וַיַּרְא-שָׁם יְהוּדָה בַּת-אִישׁ כְּנַעֲנִי, וּשְׁמוֹ שׁוּעַ; וַיִּקָּחֶהָ, וַיָּבֹא
אֵלֶיהָ. |
2 And Judah
saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; and he took her, and went
in unto her. |
·
Gen. 38:6 Judah takes Tamar as
wife for his son
וַיִּקַּח יְהוּדָה אִשָּׁה,
לְעֵר בְּכוֹרוֹ; וּשְׁמָהּ, תָּמָר
·
Judges 14:3
Samson’s parents view re: first marriage
השָּׁאִ לָקַחַת הוֹלֵךְ אַתָּה כִּי
·
Judges 16: 4 Samson loves Delilah דְּלִילָה וּשְׁמָהּ,
שֹׂרֵק בְּנַחַל האִשָּׁ
וַיֶּאֱהַב
·
1 Kings 16:31 King Ahab and Jezzebel
אִיזֶבֶל אֶת אִשָּׁה,
קַּחוַיִּ
Observations and Explanation
A review of the above two formulae and the situations in
which they were used shows the following:
In the case of Esau and of Samson, one time the Bible
uses the formula #1 and for the ‘other’ marital unions, formula #2.
And while the marriages of David: first to Saul’s
daughter and later to Bath Sheba are both in the form of formula #1; not so
with the royal union of King Ahab and Princess Jezebel, daughter of the king of
Tyre[i]. It
gets formula #2.
This suggests a pattern:
·
Unions between an adult Jewish male and adult female who is NOT part
of the extended kinship circle, i.e., exogamy or inter-marriage, are treated differently
by the Bible text: using the more impersonal formula of “XX takes a woman named
YY”.
Esau’s union with a daughter of Ishmael’s family receives
the superior formula #1 because she was kin through Abraham, but his two
earlier wives receive the formula #2 as they were pagan Canaanites.
As for King Ahab, his marriage to a princess nevertheless
gets formula #2 because she was Phoenician and of foreign descent. (The fact
she promoted the worship of Baal and hunted down and killed prophets loyal to
God would have added to the disapproval (1 Kings 16:31, 18:4).)
And regarding Samson, Delilah was a Philistine and the
text makes only one change to formula #2: he loved her`` וַיֶּאֱהַב replaces the normal וַיִּקַּח, but the rest is the same.
However, his first union with an anonymous Philistine female who lived
in Timnah, does get full formula #1 treatment.
The account, in fact is especially interesting as Samson’s father and
mother first reject the idea and used the formula #2 wording: השָּׁאִ לָקַחַת הוֹלֵךְ אַתָּה כִּי – “You want to take a
woman …?” (Judges 14:3), but Samson insists he wants this unnamed female as a
‘full wife’ (formula #1) and convinces his parents for them to make the
arrangement (verse 3).
The
Bible accepts Samson’s view (formula #1) as it states in verse 4 that it was
all done at God’s command.
Furthermore,
the ensuing wedding process is the most detailed formula #1 wedding description
in the entire Bible.
It entailed:
the consent of both his father
and mother who ‘arranged’ the marriage with the female’s father, Samson and the
female met on a ‘date’ and as she seemed agreeable to the marriage, it could
proceed. His father accompanied him to the Philistines to a wedding ceremony (hosted
by the bride’s family) and the nuptials concluded with a formal seven (7) day
feast hosted by the groom, Samson (Judges 14:1-17).
So
even though it was an inter-marriage, with an unnamed Philistine pagan woman,
the use of formula #1 reflects the
wedding arrangements with formal parental consent and involvement, and all the
formal steps for a ‘full wife’ marriage – on God’s orders -- justified it being
given formula #1 status.
Ahab’s union with his Queen Jezebel never got such Divine
approval and status in the eyes of the Biblical narrator.
I have left to the last the Formula #2 union between Abraham and Keturah.
When Hagar the maidservant slave marries Abraham at
Sarah’s instigation, formula #1 is used.
She is acting as a substitute or, to use today’s terminology, a surrogate. She is an adult and like all slaves of Abraham
and Sarah, according to tradition, had been converted to monotheism.
Why Keturah, who became married to Abraham when he was a
widower and single, gets formula #2 seems odd.
But not when all the data is included into the
picture.
Below is the full relevant text, Gen. 25:1-6.
|
א וַיֹּסֶף
אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה, וּשְׁמָהּ קְטוּרָה. |
1 And Abraham took another wife, and
her name was Keturah. |
|
ב וַתֵּלֶד
לוֹ, אֶת-זִמְרָן וְאֶת-יָקְשָׁן, וְאֶת-מְדָן, וְאֶת-מִדְיָן--וְאֶת-יִשְׁבָּק,
וְאֶת-שׁוּחַ. |
2 And she bore him Zimran, and Jokshan,
and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. |
|
ג וְיָקְשָׁן
יָלַד, אֶת-שְׁבָא וְאֶת-דְּדָן; וּבְנֵי דְדָן, הָיוּ אַשּׁוּרִם וּלְטוּשִׁם
וּלְאֻמִּים. |
3 And Jokshan begot Sheba, and Dedan.
And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim. |
|
ד וּבְנֵי
מִדְיָן, עֵיפָה וָעֵפֶר וַחֲנֹךְ, וַאֲבִידָע, וְאֶלְדָּעָה; כָּל-אֵלֶּה,
בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה. |
4 And the sons of Midian: Ephah, and
Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of
Keturah. |
|
ה וַיִּתֵּן
אַבְרָהָם אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ, לְיִצְחָק. |
5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac. |
|
ו וְלִבְנֵי
הַפִּילַגְשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לְאַבְרָהָם, נָתַן אַבְרָהָם מַתָּנֹת; וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם
מֵעַל יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ, בְּעוֹדֶנּוּ חַי, קֵדְמָה, אֶל-אֶרֶץ קֶדֶם. |
6 But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had,
Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet
lived, eastward, unto the east country. |
Despite the confusion created in verse 6 – as will be
elaborated in detail in Part 3: Keturah –
that verse actually refers to Keturah and her 6 sons; and she is the concubine of verse 6.
Otherwise, if she were a ‘full wife’, under Torah law, it
would have been ’illegal’ for Abraham to give his entire estate solely to
Isaac.
Deut. 21:15-16 , declares that the first born son of a
man – even if from a ‘hated’ wife, must get a double portion to any other son
from even a ‘beloved’ wife. While the focus is on the rights of primogenitor,
the text – by extension – means all sons of ‘full’ wives get a share of the
estate proportionately.
And this did not happen with Keturah’ sons.
Fortunately, the rediscovered ancient law code of
Mesopotamian ruler Hammurabi, Abraham’s contemporary, better fits the situation.
These laws applied to the 7 nations of Canaan as
descendants of Mesopotamian emigrants, and even to Abraham and Sarah who themselves
were born and raised Mesopotamians as were Lot, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah and
Laban.
The relevant Hammurabi laws are as follows:
170. If his wife bear sons to a man,
or his maid-servant have borne sons, and the father while still living says to
the children whom his maid-servant has borne: "My sons," and he count
them with the sons of his wife; if then the father die, then the sons of the wife and of the
maid-servant shall divide the paternal property in common. The son of
the wife is to partition and choose.
171.
If, however, the father while still living did not say to the sons of the
maid-servant: "My sons," and then the father dies, then the sons of
the maid-servant shall not share with the sons of the wife, but the freedom of
the maid and her sons shall be granted. The sons of the wife shall have no right to enslave the sons
of the maid; the wife shall take her dowry (from her father), and the gift that
her husband gave her and deeded to her (separate from dowry, or the
purchase-money paid her father), and live in the home of her husband: so long
as she lives she shall use it, it shall not be sold for money. Whatever she
leaves shall belong to her children.
This to me seems the explanation.
When Abraham sends away the sons of Keturah --while still
living -- with ‘gifts’, they were not – in law – ‘full sons’ but simply the
offspring of a relationship with a
maidservant slave (Code #171). Abraham never publically declared them to be
‘his sons’. This he only did – as the Bible states – with Isaac.
Put simply, Abraham was smart and knew the law.
By sending Keturah’s sons off while alive and in full
public view – and with inheritance ‘gifts’ -- he ensured the six (6) sons of
Keturah could not – after his death -- challenge in court Isaac’s exclusive
claim: by falsely stating Abraham had acknowledged them as ‘full sons’ as well.
Consequently, their mother, Keturah – under Mesopotamian
law -- had to be a female slave whom Abraham, now a widower and alone, took
into his home and bed.
And, as will be discussed in Part 3: Keturah, she was called ‘concubine’ because that
was the official term for a slave status female whom a single male took
into his home and bed as an ongoing companion.
The circle to protect Isaac as Abraham’s sole heir began with
Sarah demanding Ishmael be exiled. She
too knew Mesopotamian law.
Genesis 21: 10
|
י וַתֹּאמֶר, לְאַבְרָהָם, גָּרֵשׁ הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת,
וְאֶת-בְּנָהּ: כִּי לֹא
יִירַשׁ בֶּן-הָאָמָה הַזֹּאת, עִם-בְּנִי עִם-יִצְחָק. |
10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham: 'Cast out this
bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with
Isaac.' |
And it has come full circle now as Abraham ensures Isaac
will be his sole heir in spite of Abraham fathering – in old age no less – six
(6) more sons.
Only a marriage with a maidservant slave – labelled by the Bible as a concubine -- could ensure any male offspring would not automatically
threated Isaac’s inheritance -- and destiny.
Now, was Keturah also Hagar?
This last question will be examined in full in Part 3: Keturah. But the answer, in short, is NO.
She had to be another female. One
young enough to be able to give birth to 6 sons, and be a slave.
Abraham marries Keturah soon after Isaac, at age 40,
marries Rebecca (See Gen. 24:67 and Gen. 25:1, 25:20). Hagar by then would have been at least in
her mid-50s or early 60s.
(Do the math:
Hagar and her son Ishmael were both expelled when he was 17 and Sarah
did not die for another 24 years. That is a time gap of a minimum 40
years. Even if Hagar had been just age 15
when she was given to Abraham and gave
birth, she would now be at least age 55.
And in their 17 years together – until she and Ishmael
were expelled, Hagar only gave birth once. Keturah was far more fertile giving
birth to six (6) sons.)
More importantly, when Abraham expelled Hagar along with
Ishmael, she and her son became fully free. This was both Mesopotamian law (see #171) and
also Torah law as indicated by Deut. 25:14 re: a rejected war bride and Exod.
21:7 -11 where a girl is purchased to be a bride once of age, but is rejected
and ‘let go’.
So any rabbinic tradition that Hagar returned to be
‘remarried’ to Abraham is not viable.
(See Part 3:
Keturah for full discussion of rabbinic tradition.)
CONCLUSION
The Talmud’s view re: ketubah vs no-ketubah and ‘full wife’ vs
‘concubine’ is overly simplistic and also inaccurate for the ancient times of
the Patriarchs and down to King David.
The Bible recognizes SEVEN (7) different kinds of marital situations and
matrimonial unions.
Three (3) are deemed of the highest level of marriage and get an elevated
matrimony formula, Formula #1. Three(3) other
situations receive a different – if superficially similar – ‘lower’ matrimonial
formula, Formula #2.
And Levirate marriages can be either Formula #1 or Formula #2 depending on
whether the groom and bride are both free Israelites or kinsmen, or if she is
not.
The elevated Formula#1 for a ‘full wife’ לְאִשָּׁה לוֹ is used when:
1.
The marriage is
between two consenting adults and with the full blessing of the parents. It involves a ‘bride price’ of gifts to the
male head of the female’s household (Eliezer’s gifts) or labour in kind (Jacob)
and a dowry the bride brings with her to set up her home. It also includes a 7
night mandatory ‘honeymoon’ as a trail marriage.
With the exception of Samson’s first marriage – on God’s orders – Formula #1 is used exclusively for endogamous marriage; i.e., within the
circle of blood kinship.
2.
If a barren ‘full
wife’ gives her maidservant slave to her husband to bear offspring as a ‘surrogate’ for her, the maidservant
union is considered לְאִשָּׁה לוֹ. However, the maidservant stays
a slave in law, and so too the children, unless formally declared
‘my sons’ by the father. Only on the father’s death or if he expels them do the
woman and her children become legally FREE.
3. 3. Marriage to a
‘war bride’.
4. 4. Levirate marriage
when both male and female are adult Israelites.
Formula #2 is used for any union that is of a lesser status. It is in the more impersonal form: ‘XX takes a woman named YY’ is used. …וּשְׁמָהּ אִשָּׁה וַיִּקַּח
At times, she is even left unnamed to save embarrassment, as
with Judah’s wife and the concubine and her anonymous father in Judges ch 19.
1.
The marriage is between an adult male Israelite and an adult female who is
outside of the blood/kinship circle; i.e., exogamous inter-marriage.
2.
The marriage
involves an under-age Israelite female sold
to an Israelite man as arranged with her father. She is also legally a slave. (Concubine)
3.
The marriage is with an adult female slave
when the man is otherwise unwed. (Concubine)
4. Levirate marriage when the female is not an Israelite.
Finally, the label CONCUBINE was used for centuries for
any female
slave whom a free born single adult male or widower choose as
his conjugal mate.
In Hebrew, there is no separate verb “to concubine”. Only the words אִשָּׁה וַיִּקַּח = to take a woman (as a spouse). The phrase is used also for inter-marriages, and unions with an under-age purchased bride as allowed by Torah law.
Put simply, the term ‘concubine’ is to clarify and highlight
that she is a slave legally married to a freeborn male.
The image of such concubines as ‘sex object toys’ added
in multiples for romantic pleasure,
i.e., harems, as viewed by the Rabbis of the Talmud, is a misguided and unfair
representation prior to the libidinous ways of King David and King Solomon.
And while academics use the term ‘concubine’ for Hagar,
Bilhah and Zilpah[ii],
the Bible itself does NOT do so normally. Their marriages as ‘surrogates ‘received Formula #1
alongside ‘full free-born wives’. And their offspring: in the cases of Bilhah
and Zilpah, were embraced by Jacob, his two ‘full wives’ and all the other sons
as equal family members. Hence the 12 tribes of Israel.
Only once is there such a label applied: Gen. 35:22 when
Reuben slept with Bilhah.
|
כב וַיְהִי,
בִּשְׁכֹּן יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָרֶץ הַהִוא, וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת-בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ
אָבִיו |
22 And it came to pass, while Israel dwelt in
that land, that Reuben
went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine; and Israel heard of
it. {P} |
The Talmud
and Rabbinic attempts to deny the plain meaning of the text (i.e. he only
removed Jacobs bed or disheveled the sheets)[iii]
is rejected by the Radak (1160-1235) and Chatam Sofer (1762–1839) who
alone seem to have paid any attention to its use here, and how this
is in conflict with the full marriage Formula #1 used by the Torah for
Bilhah’s union with Jacob[iv].
The word פִּילֶגֶשׁ is used use here, they argue, to explain why
Reuben believed it was acceptable for him to have sex with this ‘extra wife’ of
his father. They go on to discuss how
Reuben was ‘confused’ and wrong to treat Bilhah as a concubine, and what
may have been acceptable under pre-Torah laws. She was, they argue correctly,
Jacob’s ‘wife’ under Formula #1.
The Radak and Chatam
Sofer seem to ignore the fact such ‘cohabitation with a father’s (actual
status) concubine’ was established practice even among Israelites: to assert one’s
right to ‘being the next heir’. It occurs when Absalom’s publically raped all 10
concubines of King David (2 Samuel 16: 21-22); the rumour that after Saul’s
death general Abner, in trying to become the next king, had cohabited with
Saul’s concubine Rizpha (2 Samuel 3: 6-7); and Solomon’s reaction and death
order for his older half-brother Adonijah
when he tricked Bath Sheba to try and
get Solomon’s permission to take as a
‘full wife’ Abishag, (1 Kings 2: 13-25), King David’s constant companion and ‘body heat’ bedmate in his old age (1
Kings 1:1-4).
Lastly, the benefits of a concubine union were significant
under Mesopotamian law as any further sons could not share in the rightful
inheritance of sons born previously to any ‘full wives’.
Abraham, the old but still vigorous widower, sought
companionship and a ‘slave’ bedmate who – under ancient law – could not
jeopardize the inheritance he owed his son Isaac from an earlier martial ‘full
wife’ union: even if nature took its course and six (6) sons were produced.
Polygamy and Harems
Ancient Mesopotamian law of the Patriarch’s time
preferred monogamy and at most two simultaneous wives if the first was barren.
This minimalist cohabitation group was the norm among the
Patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and also Abraham’s brother Nahor (Gen. 22:20-24).
Jacob’s double marriage to sisters was due to Laban’s trickery,
and even Esau taking a third wife was done to please his parents who hated his
two Canaanite wives (Gen. 28:6-9).
The prophet Samuel’s wealthy father centuries later only
had two wives and seems to be following Mesopotamian law as his first wife was
the barren Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1).
And when David married Abagail and also Ahinoam (1 Samuel
25:39-43) before he became a king, the author of this passage felt it necessary
to point out David was NOT violating any law or custom limiting a man to two
simultaneous spouses. For the text adds immediately that he was no longer married to his first wife –as
King Saul have revoked the marriage and she was married off to another.
1 Samuel 25:44
|
מד וְשָׁאוּל,
נָתַן אֶת-מִיכַל בִּתּוֹ--אֵשֶׁת דָּוִד: לְפַלְטִי בֶן-לַיִשׁ, אֲשֶׁר
מִגַּלִּים. |
44 Now Saul had given Michal his daughter,
David's wife, to Palti the son of Laish, who was of Gallim. |
Consequently, having more than two (2) spouses simultaneously
and any large harem of slave concubines, seems to have been a royal
prerogative only.
Gideon is the first with numerous ‘wives’ so that he fathered 71 sons. (There may
well have also been a dozen female offspring but females are not counted as they are not as
important as male heirs and warriors.)
And as noted by the text, one was a concubine
who ended up living back with her family far off from the rest – in Shechem[v].
The name of his son by the concubine is telling –
suggesting Gideon considered himself ‘kingly’. Why else would this concubine’s
son be named אֲבִימֶלֶךְ = ‘my father is king’. (Judges 8:31)
Thereafter, we must wait to King David and King Solomon
for mass polygamy and large harems of wives and concubines – as noted by the
Talmud.
Put simply, the ancient Mesopotamian rules no longer
applied: at least not for wealthy kings seeking alliances through marriage
and with large libidos.
[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jezebel
[iii]
Targum Jonatan seems to be the earliest ‘reinterpretation’. Neither the Mishna
nor Talmud accept the literal (peshat) meaning and the Talmud Shabbat
55b 6 repeats the Targum’s interpretation. Only Raddak and Chatam Sofer of the major
commentaries folowr the literal text. See Sefaria sidebar resource at https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.35.22?lang=bi&with=Commentary&lang2=en
[iv] See https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.35.22?lang=bi&with=Commentary&lang2=en
[v] On Gideon’s
death, her son named Abimelech = “My father is the king”, roused the people of
Shechem to make him their king, murdered all but one of Gideon’s other lawful
heirs and made himself ruler over the entire area. (Judges 8-9)
As the text stresses, his mother and her
extended family were Israelites living in Shechem. So how did she end up a ‘concubine’? Why did she and her biological son end up
back in Shechem – far from Gideon’s home in Ophrah: some 10 km southwest of Shechem[v]?
It seems that she and her son were exiled
and sent back to her parent’s home. And
by a process of elimination, as she was not a foreigner, being called a
concubine she fit the model of the under girl ‘bride’ of Exod. 21:7-11 and
Judges ch 19.
Gideon naming the son of a concubine
“Abimelech” was both arrogant and destined to cause trouble once he rejected
her and lawfully sent her and her son away. Bitterness and envy festered.
No comments:
Post a Comment