"Romancing
the Widow:
The Economic Distinctions between the´almanâ, the
´issa-´almanâ and the 'set-hammet"
Naomi Steinberg - DePaul University
I. Introduction to the
Problem: Beyond "Widows"
Biblical interpreters have used the
sixty-odd occurrences of ´almanâ in the Hebrew Bible to construct a system of
social altruism and emotional regard for ancient Israelite widows.[1] This paper
challenges the basis for this romantic depiction of the widow's circumstances
based on sympathy and shows instead the economic distinctions reflected in the
use of the word ´almanâ in contrast with other terms for widows, viz.,
´issâ-´almanâ and ´eset-hammet. The distinctions between these terms will be
explored in order to highlight the financial plight of the ´almanâ widow. In
this paper, I will argue that the use of ´almanâ in the Hebrew Bible indicates
the plight of the lowest end of the financial spectrum of widows in biblical
Israel. The fact that not all biblical widows are identified by the Hebrew term
´almanâ will be discussed and the differences that separate one group of ancient
Israelite widows from the next will be developed.[2] In addition, the
implications for interpreting biblical texts and understanding widowhood in the
biblical text are enhanced by combining the historical results of etymological
analysis with the ahistorical results of cross-cultural studies on patrilineally
organized societies.
The history of attempts to
understand the economic devastation that was the everyday reality of the ´almanâ
widow, and to appreciate the stages of widowhood, as well as to bring ritual
studies to bear on issues such as the clothing of widows that distinguished them
from other women, only skims the surface of the complex data in the Hebrew
Bible.[3] Further work may expand the inquiry to aliens and orphans as in Exodus
22:21-22 and elucidate the use of the often mentioned conjunction of aliens,
widows, and orphans. The implications of such study will contribute to the
larger project of reconstructing the social world of ancient
Israel.
II. A Cross-Disciplinary Analytical Model
Support Systems
We start by building a sociological model for analyzing the biblical material. A survey of cross-cultural perspectives reveals that support systems for widows can be separated into four overlapping support categories: (1) economic, (2) service, (3) social, and (4) emotional. Support is defined as "any object or action that the giver and/or receiver define as necessary or helpful in maintaining a style of life. A support system is a set of similar supports and a support network consists of those persons and groups who provide these supports." These categories of support can be further divided into two types: formal and informal support.
Background
Socio-Economic Principles
Our interest here is in economic support, a
broad category whose precise components vary cross-culturally, but one that
refers to the general economic resources by which a widow either supports
herself or through which she receives economic support. In the biblical world,
the following set of socio-economic principles shape the economic support
dynamics of a marriage:
Properties of a
Widow
In building a model to reflect the condition of widows in the
biblical world, we need to identify the properties of the widow and her
situation that will determine her circumstances. Here we identify some of these
properties and their values sufficient for this paper and leave a fuller
elaboration of them for further work. A more complete study would expand the
list of properties and examine how their variation in different cultures affects
the condition of widows. In the list of following properties, the name of the
property is followed by some of its values in parenthesis.
Wife's Property Brought to Marriage (land, money, livestock, other goods, none)
The ´almanâ widow in the biblical texts is a widow that has no basis for support - no property, no children, no patrilineal relatives, no birth family to return to (as was the case with Ruth's daughters-in-law or a priest's daughter in Lev 22:13 "but if a priest's daughter is widowed or divorced, without offspring, and returns to her father's house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father's food. No lay person shall eat of it.") In terms of the list of properties in the model to describe the ´almanâ we have:
All other widows, such as the ´eset-hammet in Deut 25:5 or the ´issâ-´almanâ in 2 Samuel 14 we characterize in this paper as inherited widows, i.e., widows with some means of support identified by the above properties. Biblical research generally collapses three different textual descriptions of widows, the ´almanâ, the ´eset-hammet or the ´issâ-´almanâ into one English word, "widow." To avoid this terminological confusion, henceforth we will distinguish between the ´almanâ widow, a widow without economic support, and either the ´issâ-´almanâ, an inherited widow with sons, or the ´eset-hammet, an inherited widow without sons.
The Meaning of
´almanâ
The excellent work of Paula Hiebert explored the ancient Near
Eastern etymological history of the root of the biblical term ´almanâ. Based on
her etymological studies and the usages and contexts of the ancient Near Eastern
data, with a particular focus on Middle Assyrian legal material, Hiebert
concluded that the status of ´almanâ defines those widows who were bereft not
only of a husband, but who had neither a son nor a father-in-law to protect them
against the social and economic vulnerabilities of being a woman alone. Such a
woman was in a dire economic situation, whether there was family property or
not, because when her husband died, a woman was unable to inherit property
beyond the dowry that she brought to the marriage-property that would probably
not sustain her for long. In the case of a widow whose husband died leaving
inheritable property, the widow remained as a continuing part of the patrilineal
property and the legal standing of her marriage did not dissolve upon the death
of her spouse. Thus, Hiebert determines that existence for a Mesopotamian widow
would have been precarious at best, and that her well-being would have depended
on whether or not she had a son or father-in-law to care for her after the death
of her husband, the son being the one eligible to inherit property from the
deceased, because a woman cannot inherit property. The Mesopotamian widow
without inheritable property would have depended on whatever minimal economic
welfare the state institutions of Palace and Temple provided for her.
III. The ´almanâ and
Other Biblical Widows
The foregoing discussion provides a background
against which we now set out to look at some of the biblical texts referring to
´almanâ and to other types of widows, i.e., inherited widows. This extends
Hiebert's study to cases in the biblical data where there are modified
occurrences of the ´almanâ that separate one group of ancient Israelite widows
from the next, and considers the implications of the differences for
interpreting biblical texts. In particular, in the Hebrew Bible we have three
primary types of widows:
- ´almanâ - a widow without
support
- 'issâ-´almanâ - an inherited widow with sons
- ´eset-hammet - an
inherited widow without sons
As we will discuss in examples below, the phrases ´issâ-´almanâ, found in 2 Samuel and elsewhere and ´eset-hammet, used in Ruth 4:5 and Deut 25:5 should be defined as "inherited widow." In other words, both phrases are meant to indicate that a woman is NOT an ´almanâ widow. They refer to women who have redemption rights in their husband's property, but for whom the legal protection this property can provide is jeopardized for one reason or another. The difference between the two terms rests in whether or not a son is alive to exercise the rights of redemption for this land. The three references noted below to the ´issâ-´almanâ all specifically mention that the widow named has a son, but that ´eset-hammet, used in Ruth 4:5 and Deut 25:5, envisions the circumstances of an inherited widow without a son.
´issâ-´almanâ
In the Hebrew Bible there are three widows
with sons, who are referred to as ´issâ-´almanâ, an "inherited widow, with
sons." These three are: 1) the wise woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14:5); 2) the mother
of Hiram of Tyre, who is introduced as being "the son of an ´issâ-´almanâ of the
tribe of Naphtali" (1 Kgs 7:14); and 3) the mother of Jeroboam, first monarch of
the Northern Kingdom, whose genealogy indicates he is "the son of Nebat, an
Ephraimite of Zeredah, a servant of Solomon, whose mother's name was Zeruah, an
´issâ-´almanâ " (1 Kgs 11:26). In each of these cases, the sons presumably are
providing substantial and adequate support for their mothers.
The ´issâ -´almanâ of
Tekoa
The narrative of 2 Samuel 14 tells of a woman from the village
of Tekoa, who is hired by Joab to tell a fictitious story that is designed to
bring about a reconciliation of David and his son Absalom, who has been banished
for killing David's other son Amnon, who had raped David's daughter Tamar. In
preparing the wise woman to tell her story that is aimed at bringing David to
self-judgment, Joab charges her in verse 2 to behave like a mourner
(hith'abbelî-na ´) and to dress herself in mourning garments (welibsî-na ´
bigdę-´´´´´´´´- ?ebel), instructions emphasizing the root ´bl, "to
mourn."
Joab's instructions here are worthy of comment because they contrast with the situation in Gen 38:14, where Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah, changes out of her widow clothing (bigdę-´almenűtah) before going out to meet her father-in-law. I believe that the difference here between garments of mourning and garments of the ´almanâ widow is far less confusing that it might initially appear, and suggest that there was a cycle of dress and behavior that accompanies the stages of initial grief from permanent widowhood. The wise woman puts on clothing that signals she is in mourning over the death of her son, but not yet in the state of an ´almanâ widow because she has another son, whereas the clothing that Tamar shed signals the circumstances of an ´almanâ widow, a woman without access to her husband's patrilineage-through either a son or the possibility of access to property. In light of Tamar's belief that she would not be called back by her father-in-law Judah in order for Shelah to fulfill his levirate duty, she dresses in garments that the ancient Israelite observer would immediately recognize as those of an ´almanâ, rather than those of someone in mourning. That something comparable to an ´almanâ uniform existed in biblical Israel is suggested by the terminology in Genesis 38 and finds further support from the injunction, "Do not take a widow's garment (beged ´almanâ) as a pledge," (Deut 24:17b). Additional uniforms may have distinguished other types of widows as well as mourners in general.
I focus on 2 Samuel 14 because in the case of the wise woman of Tekoa, we meet an individual who not only identifies herself as ´issâ-´almanâ, "an inherited widow without sons" as she prepares to tell her parable to David, but one who feels it is necessary to explain further, "my husband is dead" (wayyamot ´îssî) (v. 5). Are these two phrases synonymous, and if so, why does the woman repeat her widowed status twice?
In presenting her ruse to the king, the woman of Tekoa is arguing that as ´issâ-´almanâ, her future welfare depends on the life of her remaining son, who is in imminent danger of dying at the hands of patrilineal kinsmen who will kill him to avenge the death of his brother, who he has just killed. Should that death occur, the woman of Tekoa would be in a similar situation to that of Naomi in the book of Ruth. I believe that the Tekoaite woman is indicating that she is too old to be eligible for provisions of the levirate law, and should the second son of the woman from Tekoa die, the patrilineal land would revert back to the kinship group and both the woman and her predeceased husband's name would suffer the consequences. Naomi would have been in the same circumstances as the woman of Tekoa vis-ŕ-vis her husband's inheritance, but for the fact that Naomi has Ruth, who is the agent of redemption of Elimelech's patrimony. The woman of Tekoa specifically says in verse 7 that the death of her remaining son would leave her husband, "without name or remnant left on earth." Moreover, earlier in the same verse, she remarks that such a death would mean the death of the heir (hayyôres) and "would quench my soul surviving ember" (wekibbű ?et-gah?altî ´aser nis'arâ). The woman's expresses concern not only in the patrilineage, but raises the issue of the impact of her son's death on her personal economic circumstances. The woman of Tekoa is indicating that she cannot exercise her proprietary rights towards her husband's land (presumably this is the field the brothers were in when the killing took place) should both sons die because she is too old to do so. The death of the woman's second son would mean that her husband's name would be extinguished, viz., his inheritance would revert to the mispah?â, to his paternal kin, and the woman of Tekoa would have to reply on the economic support system network for the ´almanâ widow. We can conclude that in her opening statement, the woman says in effect, "I am as good as the ´almanâ widow, a woman who will be dispossessed, because my husband is dead, my firstborn son is dead, and it looks like my sole surviving son will soon be killed." Thus, the intent of verse 5, with its repetition of the woman's widowhood status, is that the woman will be left with no economic resources should her son die, because her husband is already dead.
The ´eset-hammet and
Naomi and Ruth
A good place to begin our analysis of the ´eset-hammet
is with the story of Naomi and Ruth, who are both bereft of their spouses.
Neither woman is referred to as ´almanâ. Ruth is identified as ´eset-hammet
(4:5), literally, "the wife of a dead man." This is the same terminology used in
Deut 25:5-10 to identify a woman who has died before her husband has fathered a
child and to whom the law of the levirate applies, viz., an inherited widow
without sons. In order to understand the dynamics intended by Deut 25:5-10, and
to consider their application in Ruth, it is necessary to investigate the
biblical statement of levirate intent, viz., that the child born of a union
between the deceased husband's brother and the deceased's widow "shall succeed
to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of
Israel" (Deut 25:6). The law of the levirate is designed to provide a male child
who will serve the social and economic interests of the dead man by functioning
as the heir who perpetuates the name, the property, and the inheritance of the
kinship unit to which the deceased belonged. Thus, the levirate law is an
expedient means to have property continue down the vertical patrilineage, viz.,
between generations rather than within a single generation, although as
expressed in Deut 25:5-10, it does not cover each and every possible situation
that might arise in fulfilling the kinship obligation to not alienate dead man's
land. The levirate law is a means to preserve the bloodline through the males,
who inherit the name and the property attached to this name--including the widow
of the deceased.
As I have already stated, neither Naomi nor Ruth is identified as ´almanâ. On the one hand, Naomi is represented as having property that can be redeemed; she has proprietary rights in her deceased husband's land. On the other hand, Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi's husband Elimelech, becomes the agent through whom this claim is realized. The key to interpreting the widowhood label that is implied for Naomi and is stated for Ruth, ´eset-hammet, is that there is land to be inherited by the child Ruth bears. Thus, it is a by-product of the levirate law that the birth of a male child will ultimately guarantee the presence of someone to take care of Ruth in her old age (if she herself does not die before the child can protect her); the levirate provision enforced here is intended to serve the patrilineal kinship interests tied to land and property. Not all women predeceased by their husbands are covered in the law of the levirate, just as not all women predeceased by their husbands are addressed in the laws of the ´almanâ, because these laws refer to distinctive categories of widows.
The literal interpretation of ´eset-hammet, the wife of a dead man, clearly indicates that because of the inheritable property from which they can derive economic support, Naomi and Ruth, are still in a very real sense married to their dead spouses.
The ´almanâ Widow in
Deuteronomy
The above distinctions in categories of widows finds
support in the only three texts in the entire Hebrew Bible that make specific
economic provisions for the dire straits of the ´almanâ widow, the poorest of
the spectrum of widows, women who we may imagine begging at the city gates. We
turn now to consider briefly Deut 14:28-29; 24:19-21; and 26:12-13. The evidence
marshaled for interpreting the ´almanâ widow in economic terms in the Hebrew
Bible finds support in the work of Lohfink, who investigates poverty in biblical
law and concludes that the class of individuals included in the category of
´ebyôn and `anî, "the poor," shifts from one biblical law code to the next.
Lohfink convincingly argues that in Deuteronomy the triad, the widow (´almanâ),
the orphan (yatôm) and the sojourner (ger), a group traditionally understood as
the poor throughout the Hebrew Bible, is a separate category from the poor,
identified by the words ´ebyôn and `anî, although the triad is still in need of
support.
In two of the three laws in Deuteronomy with explicit economic directives for those in need, the tithing law of Deut 14:28-29 and its follow-up in 26:12-13, the traditional triad of the widow, the orphan and the sojourner has been expanded to include the disenfranchised rural priests whose economic livelihood dried up with the deuteronomic centralization of worship in Jerusalem. The addition of the Levites, a group without land, to the list of individuals in need of the tithing provisions, viz., the widow, orphan, and the sojourner, establishes unambiguously that the common link in this list is landlessness, and establishes that the ´almanâ widow is a landless woman. The logic of tithing is explained in Num 18:21-24. Tithing is intended to give economic support to those who have no land to support themselves; tithing is equivalent to taxation, and results in a redistribution of goods from local landed citizens to the landless. In light of Lohfink's work that demonstrates that the ´almanâ is not grouped with the ´ebyôn and `anî in Deuteronomy, the inclusion of the Levites into the tithing laws that also mention the widow, we can understand the group to whom this tri-yearly tithe is aimed means those without land to support themselves. Ultimately, Deuteronomy creates a socioeconomic class that is also a poverty category, with the result that the landless, including the ´almanâ widow, depended upon the landed for economic welfare.
VI.
Conclusions
The foregoing analysis increases our scope of
understanding of the spectrum of widowhood in biblical Israel. Our perspective
builds on the economic basis for marriage, as a social mechanism to reinforce
kinship boundaries. The socioeconomic nature of marriage underscores the
connection between patrilineal descent and the existence of inherited property,
and results in economic differentiation between kinship groups. The existence of
inheritable property is the variable that determines the intersection of
economic class interests, related to the reproduction of the patrilineage for
purposes of a system of the transmission of property through inheritance, and
gender construction, because different categories of widows are found in the
biblical text based on whether or not there is inheritable property. Patterns of
transmission of inheritance are based on vertical patrilineal descent
principles.
Future discussions of widows in biblical Israel must utilize terminology that distinguishes different categories of widows. I suggest that henceforth we distinguish between the ´almanâ widow, a woman without economic resources after the death of her husband, and what I have labeled, the inherited widow, an ´issâ-´almanâ, an inherited widow with sons, or an ´eset-hammet, a woman who is transferred by levirate procedures to the nearest patrilineal kin of her husband. According to this categorization of widows, ´almanâ should be understood as an adjective with economic implications, describing a particular category of widows who are predeceased by a spouse with has no inheritable property. By contrast, an inherited widow is one who is married into a landed family. The property and the subsequent son, if any, are affiliated to the name of the woman's deceased husband, rather than her levirate spouse. However, if the ´almanâ widow subsequently remarries outside the patrilineage of her deceased husband, any sons she bears are affiliated to the patrilineage of her new spouse. Ultimately then, there are different economic circumstances that separate one category of widows from the other, and the distinction depends on whether or not the primary wife is married into a landholding family. Possibly future research will recover other more subtle nuances in the spectrum of widows. As we reconstruct widowhood in the biblical text we must recognize that in ancient Israel all widows, mothers of sons and mothers without sons, or simply childless widows, whether they were landed or landless, had to depend on others for support of one form or another.
Finally, on a methodological
note, this study demonstrates the value of combining historical etymological
analysis with ahistorical comparative anthropological studies for illumining
biblical data. We must analyze biblical texts based not only on the etymology of
the word ´almanâ and its Semitic counterparts, but incorporate into our
understanding of widows in biblical Israel the contexts and the usages of
distinctive terminology for these women.
Footnotes
1. Typically discussions of
the biblical widow have been word studies. See, e.g., O.J. Baab, "Widow," IDB;
F. C. Fensham, "Widow, Orphan and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and
Wisdom Literature," JNES 21 (1962) 129-39.
2. See, ´almanâ, HALAT, 1.56;
TDOT 1.288; and John H. Otwell, And Sarah Laughed: The Status of Women in the
Old Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977) 123-31.
3. Cross-cultural studies reveal the symbolic importance of clothing as an indicator of states of mourning and widowhood, and I intent to study this topic in future research. For the present, one notes that the significance of clothing is culturally determined. Thus the interpreter must analyze the clothing of biblical widows in light of the construction of gender in ancient Israel in order to grasp the particular meaning of women's garments as indicators of her widow status. On this subject in cross-cultural analysis, see, e.g., Jacky Goody, Death, Property and the Ancestors: A Study of the Mortuary Customs of the Lodagaa of West Africa (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962) passim.
4. Helena Znaniecka Lopata, "Widowhood: World Perspectives on Support Systems," in Widows: Volume 1, The Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific (ed. H. Lopata; Durham: Duke University Press, 1987) 4.
5. These principles are discussed further in Naomi Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 5-34. For discussion of the historical developments of the ancient Israelite household, see the essays in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. L. G. Perdue, J, Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins, C. Meyers; Louseiville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997).
6. I agree with Westbrook, who argues that redemption and levirate marriage go hand-in-hand, and that without the inheritance of landed property there is no rationale for a relative of the deceased to father a child for the widow; see Raymond Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 113; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 58-67. At the time such a child is born, rights to the patrimony of the deceased are vested in the infant heir.
7. From a modeling standpoint, the list of properties above is the basis for classifying cultures and for using the classifications for cross-cultural analysis. For another model, see Martin King Whyte, The Status of Women in Preindustrial Societies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978). The issues that Whyte addresses as a question (ibid., 65), I have listed as properties.
8. Most relevant for interpreting the biblical data is anthropological work on the relationship between marriage and patrilineal descent as it shapes inheritance patterns cross-culturally; see Jack Goody, Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); The Orient, the Ancient and the Primitive: Systems of Marriage and the Family in the Pre-industrial Societies of Eurasia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
9. She studies Akkadian almattu, Ugaritic´lmnt, Phoenician ´lmt, Aramaic ´armalta' , and Arabic ´armalat; see Paula S. Hiebert, "`Whence Shall Help Come to Me?': The Biblical Widow," in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. Peggy L. Day; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) 124-41.
10. Rivkah Harris, "Women
(Mesopotamia)," ABD 6 (1992) 949. See also, Victor P. Hamilton, "Marriage (OT
and ANE)," ABD 4 (559-69); and, Karel van der Toorn, "Torn Between Vice and
Virtue: Stereotypes of the Widow in Israel and Mesopotamia," in Female
Stereotypes in Religious Traditions (ed. R. Kloppenborg and W. Hanegraaff;
Leiden: Brill, 1995) 1-14. On this basis, Otwell argues that in the Hebrew Bible
´almanâ is from the root ´lm "to be silent," (Otwell, And Sarah Laughed,
125.
11. The phrase indicates that the woman is part of the inheritance
that passes to the nearest kinsman of the deceased.
12. Within the scope of a paper of this length, it is not possible to analyze the two other biblical references to the ´iâ-´almanâ. I suggest that both the unnamed mother of Hiram of Tyre (1 Kgs 7:14) and Zeruah, wife of Nebat, from the northern tribe of Ephraim, the mother of Jeroboam, are referred to as ´iâ-´almanâ, because they are inherited widows with sons.
13. For further analysis of the many issues raised by this text, see J. Hoftijzer, "David and the Tekoite Woman," VT 20 (1970) 419-44; Claudia Camp, "The Wise Women of 2 Samuel: A Role Model for Women in Early Israel?," CBQ 43 (1981) 14-29; Alice L. Laffey, An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 124-26; Denise Lardner Carmody, Biblical Woman: Contemporary Reflections on Scriptural Texts (New York: Crossroad, 1988) 45-8; Patricia K. Willey, "The Importunate Woman of Tekoa and How She Got Her Way," in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (ed. Danna Nolan Fewell; Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992) 115-31.
14. Analysis of this text can be found in T. Thompson and D. Thompson, "Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth," VT 18 (1968) 93-94; George W. Coats, "Widow's Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Genesis 38," CBQ 34 (1972) 461-66; H. C. Brichto, "Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife-A Biblical Complex," HUCA 44 (1973) 16; Raymond Westbrook, "The Law of the Biblical Levirate," RIDA 24 (1977) 65-87; and Susan Niditch, "The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38," HTR 72 (1979) 143-49. See also George W. Coats, Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (The Forms of Old Testament Literature Volume 1; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans; 1983) 272-76 for a discussion of relevant literary forms in this text.
15. For more on how the dynamics of this text reflect ancient Israelite kinship organization, see S. Bendor, The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ´Ab) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7; Jerusalem:Simor Ltd., 1996) passim.
16. This repetition may then be a means to emphasize the woman's dire circumstances; see, Hofitjzer, "David and the Tekoite Woman," 421. Possibly synonymous parallelism is an appropriate form of formal speech when addressing the king. One notices the woman's deferential tone towards David when she refers to herself as his maidservant: ?amâ (vv. 15,16) and iph?????â (vv. 6, 7, 12, 15, 17,19).
17. For general background on the levirate principle, see, Ralph Kalmin, "Levirate Law," ABD 4 (1992) 296-97. On the Deuteronomic formulation of this law, see R. P. Merendino, Das deuteronomische Gesetz (BBB 31; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1969) 318-20, and G. Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium (BWANT 93; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1971) 124-25.
18. S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1895) 284. The same principle of the inherited widow is evidenced in cross-cultural studies of the history of the family; see, Goody, Production and Reproduction, 83-84.
19. Carolyn Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws (BZAW 216; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993) 63-74. Pressler notes that there are few references to childless widows in the Bible; this is because the levirate law only had relevance when land was available to be inherited. With no land in her husband's name, a woman became ´almanâ, and was not able to avail herself of the levirate option of Deut 25:5-10. This law is the right of first refusal of the widow, given to the deceased husband's nearest patrilineal kin. Although the law may appear to protect the interests of the widow by providing her with a child to see to her needs in her old age, this humanitarian concern is a by-product of the law, and not its primary agenda. The law of the levirate protects patrilineal interests in its aim to produce as heir to the deceased in the event that there is property for vertical inheritance. Thus, I disagree with Eckart Otto, who concludes regarding Deut 25:5-10, "But these provisions of the Deuteronomic family law paved the way for the modern emancipation of women already, in antiquity, and their authors deserve our respect" ("False Weights in the Scale of Biblical Justice? Different Views of Women from Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy," in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East [ed. V. H. Matthews, B. M. Levinson, and T. Frymer-Kensky; JSOTSup 262; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998] 140). Regarding this humanitarian agenda, see Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972) 284; S. Dean McBride, "Deuteronomium," Theologische Realenzyklopädie 8 (1981) 534-35; "Polity of the Covenant People," Int 41 (1987) 242. For more on how the literal concerns of texts regarding widows may mask their intended purposes, see Mark Sneed, "Israelite Concern for the Alien, Orphan, and Widow: Altruism or Ideology?," ZAW 111 (1999) 498-507.
20. To be an inherited widow upon the death of one's husband would not preclude the possibility of being an ´almanâ widow later in time. Afterall, what if there were no available male to carry out the levirate responsibilities, or the available men proved to be barren? Another possibility that would present problems for the inherited widow would be if she were infertile.
21. Although the implications of Deut 15:11 are economic ("you shall generously open you hand"), the text does not explicitly refer to provisions for the ´almanâ widow. The economic implications of Deuteronomic legislation has already been established; see, e.g., Naomi Steinberg, "Deuteronomy and the Politics of State Centralization, in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. D. Jobling, P.L. Day, and G.T. Sheppard; Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991) 161-70; and Zipporah G. Glass, "Land, Slave Labor and Law: Engaging Ancient Israel's Economy," JSOT 91 (2000) 27-39.
22. See Norbert Lohfink,
"Poverty in the Laws of the Ancient Near East and of the Bible," TS 52 (1991)
34-50. Lohfink draws his conclusions on the significant differences in biblical
attitudes towards the poor based on his study of the Covenant Code (Exod
20:22-23:33), Deuteronomy, and the Holiness Code in Leviticus. Within these laws
´almanâ occurs in Exod 22:21, 23; Deut 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19, 20,
21; 26:12, 13; 27:19; Lev 21:14; 22:12. The grouping of widow, orphan, and
sojourner occurs in all of the above citations from Deuteronomy, with the
exception of 10:18. Deut 10:18 differs from the others ("He [Yahweh] executes
justice for the orphan and the ´almanâ, and loves the sojourner, providing food
and clothing") although it ultimately includes all three categories of
individuals. For a general discussion of poverty in the Hebrew Bible, see J.
David Pleins, "Poor, Poverty: Old Testament," ABD 5:420-14.
23.
Cf. Lev 19:9-10. For
more on the economic repercussions of this shift to more centralized government,
typically dated to the time of Josiah's reforms, and reactions to the new
policies, see Norman K. Gottwald, "Social Class as a Hermenteutical Category in
Biblical Studies," JBL 112 (1993) 12-14.
24. Lohfink maintains, "It became clear that what Deuteronomy does in these laws is not to add new groups to the poor, but rather to change the structures of society, so as to provide support for those groups which, for very different reasons, are not in a position to live off their own land. If that system worked, thse groups could no longer be considered poor .A widow then has the same status as, e.g., a levite- who according to Deuteronomy, is a very honored person in Israel," ("Poverty in Biblical Law," 44). It seems to me that this legislation is ideological and in practical terms does little to alleviate the needs of those without land to provide them with food and the means of an economic livelihood. Lohfink concludes, "The problem with this Deuteronomic view seems to have been that nobody believed in it" (47).
25. I thank Marvin Israel for his valuable suggestions and his insightful critical remarks about this paper.