The Case for Adversarial Yahad more

Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 brill.nl/vt The Case for Adversarial yaḥad 1 Shalom E. Holtz Yeshiva University, New York Abstract The words yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw regularly denote the relationship between opponents in physical warfare. Evidence from Hebrew and Akkadian shows that they have a similar function in descriptions of legal disputes, as well. Keywords yaḥ ad, yaḥ dāw, ʾet, ʿim, forensic terminology I. The Problem: The Ambiguities of Adversarial Togetherness In descriptions of warfare, the Biblical Hebrew words ʾet and ʿim present the same ambiguities as their English equivalent, “with”. In English, the phrase “fighting with someone” can describe an alliance or a dispute between two parties. In Biblical Hebrew, ʾet and ʿim most often denote the relationship between adversaries. Thus, when the verbs lḥ m (N-stem) and the related constructions ʿ-ś-h (G-stem) or ʿ-r-k (G-stem) milḥ āmâ are followed by ʾet and ʿim the resulting expressions mean “to fight against”, rather than “to fight alongside”. In some cases, however, ʾet and ʿim describe the relationship between allies, rather than enemies. For example, King David’s men use the locution y-ṣʾ (G-stem) lammilḥ āmâ ʾet when they tell their aging leader that he should no longer fight at their side in their own wars (2 Sam 21:17).2 The 1) Abbreviations follow P. H. Alexander, et al. (eds.), The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, Mass., 1999), §8.4 (p. 89-152). Abbreviations of Assyriological literature in section IV follow CAD. Versions of this article were read at the Yeshiva College Jewish Studies Faculty Colloquium and at a session on Biblical Law at the 2007 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. I thank the audiences at both these forums, as well as my father, A. Holtz, for their comments. I am also grateful for the comments of the anonymous VT referee. 2) For the expression h-l-k (G-stem) lammilḥāmâ ʾet indicating an alliance, see 1 Kgs 22:4. Note that the expression y-ṣʾ (G-stem) lammilḥāmâ ʿim always describes opposition, rather than alliance © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/156853309X413327 212 S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 expression y-r-d (G-stem) bammilḥ āmâ ʿim occurs when the Philistines warlords tell Achish of Gath that David must not fight among their own ranks (1 Sam 29:4). In the Chronicler’s version of the alliance between Ahab of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah, Ahab declares the alliance by saying weʿimmekā bammilḥ āmâ (2 Chr 18:3). Thus, when 2 Kgs 8:28 states (regarding Ahaziah of Judah) wayyēlek ʾet yôrām ben ʾaḥ ʾāb lammilḥ āmâ ʿim ḥ azāʾēl melek ʾarām, additional context is required to determine that Ahab and Ahaziah are allies fighting against Aram. Given that the words ʾet and ʿim are used in descriptions of warfare, it is not surprising to find that the words yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw, meaning “together”, are used in this context, as well. However, unlike ʾet and ʿim, which can refer to the relationship between both allies and opponents, when the words yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw occur in the context of physical conflict, they always refer to the relationship between opponents. Men fighting each other (Deut 25:11), Goliath and a hypothetical Israelite opponent (1 Sam 17:10), and the armies of Ishbosheth and David (2 Sam 2:13) are said to be yaḥ ad (1 Sam 17:10) or yaḥ dāw (Deut 25:11, 2 Sam 2:13).3 Thus, despite the English translation “together”, which admits either opposition or alliance, in these contexts the Hebrew words yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw refer to opposition. In addition to their use in descriptions of physical warfare, the words yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw also occur in descriptions of non-physical arguments. Specifically, they occur in four verses that employ the metaphor of arguing a case in court: Isa 41:1; 43:26; 50:8 and Job 9:32. Perhaps because these words usually denote actions performed “together”, the possibility that these words describe opposition in the courtroom context has not been explored. The regnant position separates the oppositional meaning of yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw in descriptions of physical conflict from their meaning in the context of nonphysical conflict. Thus, H.-J. Fabry writes that “in the forensic realm yaḥ ad refers to the joint status of the parties, equality before the law and identity of (Jud 20:14, 20, 28). This contrast between ʾet and ʿim should not be automatically applied to other locutions, however, since the two words are otherwise synonymous and appear in descriptions of either opposition or of alliance. 3) For this observation and the examples, see H.-J. Fabry, TDOT, s.v. yaḥ ad, p. 45. Jer 13:14 may be a fourth example. See A. B. Ehrlich, Mikrâ ki-Pheschutô Vol. 3 (Berlin, 1901), p. 205 and the translation offered in W. McKane, “Jeremiah 13:12-14: A Problematic Proverb”, in J. G. Gamme, et al. (eds.), Israelite Wisdom (New York, 1978), p. 107, and in W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC) (Edinburgh, 1986), p. 292. Fabry cites this verse as an example of the use of the term “in the forensic realm”, where the term yaḥ dāw does not have this meaning (TDOT, p. 46). S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 213 punishment”.4 Commentators on the four verses who do not ignore the words altogether (Fabry himself cites only Isa 50:8 in his list of “forensic” examples) interpret them along similar lines.5 A note in NJPS acknowledges the adversarial meaning of yaḥ dāw in Isa 50:8; otherwise, English versions of all four verses obscure it by translating both yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw as “together”. Dictionaries list some of these verses as examples, but do not comment on the adversarial nuance.6 A closer examination of the four verses that employ the metaphor of arguing in court, however, reveals that the words yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw function much as they do in descriptions of physical conflicts. In other words, the “togetherness” they describe does not imply “joint status” or “equality”, but rather the adversarial relationship between opponents in a case. II. Four Forensic Verses Isaiah 41:1 .‫החרישׁוּ אלי איִּ ים וּלאמּים יַ חליפוּ כ ַֹח יִ גְּ שׁוּ אז יְ דבּרוּ יַ חדּו למּשׁפּט נִ קרבה‬ ָ ָ ְ ָ ְ ִ ַ ָ ְ ֵ ַ ָ ִ ֲ ִ ֻ ְ ִ ַ ֵ ִ ֲ ַ Oh islands, fall silent to me, let nations renew their strength. Let them approach, then speak, let us draw near together for trial. This verse is a summons that opens a “trial scene” between the Lord and foreign nations. The first three clauses refer to the presentation of arguments during the trial: the Lord orders the nations to fall silent as He presents His case, to “renew their strength”,7 and then to approach and present their own case. This is indeed the order of events as the trial itself unfolds in the following verses. In verses 2-4, the Lord describes His role as the one who has granted victory to the heroic conqueror “from the East”. The foreign nations respond to the Lord’s statement in verses 5-7. They arrive at the trial (v. 5), but instead of presenting their case, they tremble in fear and only encourage each other.8 TDOT, s.v. yaḥ ad, p. 46. For specific references, see the discussion in section II below. 6) Both BDB and HALOT, s.v. yaḥ ad cite Isa 43:26. HALOT s.v. yaḥ ad also cites Isa 50:8. Neither dictionary mentions the adversarial nuance outside the legal sphere. 7) For discussion of this term, its place in the structure of the verse and defense of MT, see J. G. Janzen, “Another Look at yaḥ alîpû kōaḥ in Isaiah xli 1”, VT 33 (1983), pp. 428-434. 8) J. Goldingay and D. Payne, Isaiah 40-55, Vol. 1 (ICC) (London, 2006), pp. 151-153, characterize verses 5-7 as the “reaction to the challenge”. For similar interpretations of these verses, 5) 4) 214 S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 Unlike the first three clauses of verse 1, the fourth clause does not refer to the presentation of arguments. Instead, it refers to the initial stage, when both parties will first appear in court. The Lord issues a cohortative call to His opponents to “draw near for trial” (q-r-b lammišpāṭ).9 The two parties will appear “together” (yaḥ dāw). K. Baltzer comments on the use of this word, rather than the word bên (as in Deut 25:1). Baltzer suggests that the use of bên in Deut 25:1 denotes “a legal dispute between different parties”, which is not the case here, where the parties are “told to approach the court ‘together.’ ”10 This suggestion, however, does not account for the adversarial relationship between the Lord and the nations in this verse and in the subsequent trial scene. The word yaḥ dāw indicates that the Lord and the nations will be on opposing sides, even as they draw near for trial at the same time. Isaiah 43:26 .‫הזְ כּירנִ י נִ שּׁפטה יָ חד ספּר אתּה למﬠן תּצדּק‬ ָ ְ ִ ַ ַ ְ ָ ַ ֵ ַ ַ ָ ְ ָ ֵ ִ ַ Remind me—let us have a trial together! You state your case, so that you may be vindicated! Isaiah 43:22-28 form a speech by the Lord in which the Lord impugns Israel’s sacrificial worship and reminds them of their sinfulness since the beginning of history.11 This particular verse follows the Lord’s indictment of Israel’s see E. S. Hartom, Sēper Y ešʿayâ (Tel Aviv, 1969), p. 132 (Hebrew); J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (WBC) (Waco, Texas, 1983), pp. 102-104; W. Grimm and K. Dittert, Deuterojesaja: Deutung— Wirkung—Gegenwart (Calwer Bibelkommentare) (Stuttgart, 1990), pp. 91-93; J. T. Walsh, “Summons to Judgement: A Close Reading of Isaiah xli 1-20”, VT 43 (1993), p. 359; J. N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66 (NICOT) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998), pp. 79-85. Others, including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Qimḥi, have suggested that the nations’ fear in verses 5-7 is a response to the approach of the hero from the East (described in verses 2-4), rather than their response during the trial. See A. Ḥakham, Sēper Y ešʿayāhû (Daʿat Miqrā) (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 428-429 (Hebrew); E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Vol. 3) (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1993), pp. 78-80; B.S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL) (Louisville, 2001), p. 318. For the possibility that verses 6-7 are not integral to the scene, see C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-55 (Philadelphia, 1969), pp. 62-66; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah (Hermeneia), M. Kohl, Trans. (Minneapolis, 2001), pp. 91-93; J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55 (AB) (New York, 2002), p. 196. 9) See Y. Hoffman, “The Root QRB as a Legal Term”, JNSL 10 (1982), p. 68. Compare Deut 25:1 (n-g-š ʾel hammišpāṭ). 10) K. Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, p. 87 n. 1. See also Ḥ akham, Sēper Yešʿayāhû, p. 426. 11) For thorough discussion of the passage, see J. Goldingay, “Isaiah 43, 22-28”, ZAW 110 (1998), pp. 173-191. S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 215 sacrifices. The Lord summons Israel to state their case in a trial. J. Goldingay paraphrases the verse as follows: If Jacob-Israel wishes to dispute what Yhwh has said in vv. 22-24 and to avoid the conclusion that Yhwh’s self description in v. 25 is its only hope, it is invited to draw matters to the attention of Yhwh and the court.12 Thus, this verse evokes the image of a hypothetical trial in which the Lord and Israel are the opposing parties. They will have the trial (š-p-ṭ, N-stem) “together” (yāḥ ad). The word yāḥ ad, then, expresses their relationship as they appear for the trial. Given the adversarial context established by the verse, the word yāḥ ad should not be taken as an indication of the parties’ arrival at the same time, joint status, or the like.13 Instead, it points to their status as opponents. Isaiah 50:8 .‫קרוֹב מצדּיקי מי יָ ריב אתּי נַ ﬠמדה יָּ חד מי בﬠל משׁפּטי יִ גַּ שׁ אלי‬ ָ ֵ ִ ָ ְ ִ ַ ַ ִ ַ ָ ְ ַ ִ ִ ִ ִ ִ ִ ְ ַ ָ My vindicator is near! Who will argue against me—Let us stand together! Who is my adversary—Let him approach me! This verse forms part of the “servant speech” (vv. 4-9), in which the servant expresses confidence in the Lord. The first two words of the verse form a nominal sentence, in which the servant declares that his vindicator (maṣdîq), is near (qārôb). The remainder of the verse consists of two parallel challenge clauses, in which the servant calls out to any hypothetical opponents and challenges them to a legal dispute. Each challenge clause consists of a threeword question followed by a two-word volitional phrase. The three-word question begins with mî and refers to the hypothetical opponent (yārîb ʾittî/ baʿal mišpāṭî ). In the two-word volitional phrases that follow, the servant issues the challenge itself (naʿamdâ yāḥ ad/ yiggaš ʾēlāy). In the first challenge clause, the words ʾittî and yāḥ ad express the relationship of the servant to the hypothetical adversary. The appearance of the verb r-y-b (“to argue”) confers the adversarial meaning to the word ʾittî (“against 12) 13) Goldingay, ZAW 110 (1998), p. 187. An interpretation along these lines is implied in J. Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40-55 (London, 2005), p. 224. 216 S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 me”).14 Similarly, the phrase naʿamdâ yāḥ ad in the second part of the challenge clause does not simply mean that the servant and his adversary will “stand together (in court)”.15 Like ʾittî, the word yāḥ ad expresses the opposition between the two parties, and reenforces the verse’s image of confrontation in court.16 Job 9:32 .‫כּי ל ֹא אישׁ כּמוֹנִ י אﬠנֶ נּוּ נָ בוֹא יַ חדּו בּמּשׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ ַ ָ ְ ֱ ֶ ָ ִ ִ For He is not a man like me that I might answer Him, that we might come together to trial. Throughout Job 9, Job despairs of having a fair trial at which he might present his case against the omnipotent God.17 In this particular verse, Job declares that because he and God are not on equal footing, there is no possible way for them to argue fairly against each other in court.18 Job employs the forensic locution b-w-ʾ bammišpāṭ (“to come to trial”) to describe the impossible proceedings. The word yaḥ dāw (“together”) describes Job’s relationship to God if the two of them had actually “come to trial”. According to D. J. A. Clines, the word expresses Job’s hope that he and God might “go to court together, each of them equal before the law”.19 In context, however, the word yaḥ dāw denotes the opposition, rather than the equality, between Job and God. In all four of these verses, the central image is a legal dispute between two litigants. In each, the speakers—God, the prophet, or Job—imagine facing their opponents in a lawsuit. The term yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw denotes the relationship between the two parties to the lawsuit. Simply translating these words as See the discussion of adversarial ʾet and ʿim in section III below. For the specifically forensic connotation of ʿ-m-d, compare Deut 19:17. 16) See NJPS ad loc (note d, p. 964) and Ehrlich, Mikrâ, p. 120. 17) B. Zuckerman, Job the Silent (New York, 1991), pp. 106-107; E. L. Greenstein, “A Forensic Understanding of the Speech from the Whirlwind”, in M. V. Fox, et al. (eds.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (Winona Lake, Indiana 1996), pp. 242-243. 18) D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20 (WBC) (Dallas, 1989), p. 242, and F. R. Magdalene, On the Scales of Righteousness: Neo-Babylonian Trial Law and the Book of Job (Providence, 2007), pp. 233234. 19) D. J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, p. 242. For similar interpretations, see A. Ḥ akham, Sēper ʾIyyôb (Daʿat Miqrā) (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 77 (Hebrew), and J. Klein (ed.), ʾIyyôb (ʿÔlam Hattanak) (Tel Aviv, 1996), p. 74 (Hebrew). 14) 15) S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 217 “together” has led some commentators to ignore their adversarial connotation, well attested in the context of physical conflicts. This adversarial connotation, however, serves the imagery in all four verses quite well. Thus, there is no reason to suggest that yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw indicate anything but the opposition between the parties. III. Adversarial Togetherness in Biblical Hebrew Besides the contextual arguments just presented, support for the adversarial meaning of yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw also comes from the use of of ʾet and ʿim in the forensic sphere. Like ʾet and ʿim in descriptions of physical conflict,20 the words ʾet and ʿim denote opposition between parties to legal conflicts, as well. For example, when the verb r-y-b (G-stem) is used to describe one party’s action “against” another, it is usually followed by the prepositions ʾet (eleven cases)21 or ʿim (ten cases).22 The noun rîb also occurs with adversarial ʾet and ʿim to denote an argument “against” another individual.23 Similarly, the roots y-k-ḥ (“to argue”) and d-y-n (“to litigate”) occur with adversarial ʿim.24 The adversarial meaning of yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw in forensic contexts follows directly from the widely attested adversarial ʾet and ʿim. In general, yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw are simply alternative ways of expressing the relationship expressed by ʾet and ʿim: if X is ʾet or ʿim Y, then X and Y are yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw. So, if one adversary can be ʾet or ʿim another, then the two adversaries can also be yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw.25 The occurrences of adversarial yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw in Isa 43:26 and Job 9:32, two of the four verses discussed in section II above, are perfect illustrations of the alternation of these terms with adversarial ʾet and ʿim. In Isa 43:26, yaḥ ad occurs in the locution niššāpe ṭâ yāḥad. The alternate expression š-p-ṭ (N-stem) + See section I above. Num 20:13; Jud 8:1; Isa 45:9, 49:25, 50:8 (see above); Mic 6:1; Psa 35:1; Prov 25:9; Neh 5:7, 13:11, 13:17. 22) Exod 17:2; Num 20:3; Jud 11:25; Prov 3:30; Job 9:3, 13:19, 23:6, 31:13, 40:2; Neh 13:25. Other prepositions that serve this function, but much less frequently, are: ʾel (Jud 21:22; Jer 2:29, 12:1; Job 33:13); b (Gen 31:36; Jud 6:32; Hos 2:4); and m in Ps 43:1 (see NJPS). 23) Prov 23:11 (ʾet); Hos 4:1, 12:3; Mic 6:2 (ʿim). The preposition bên fulfills a similar function in Gen 13:7 and Deut 25:1. See also Gen 13:8, with the related noun merîbâ. 24) Mic 6:2 (ykḥ); Job 23:7; Qoh 6:10 (dyn). There are several instances of ykḥ + ʾet, but further research is required to determine whether ʾet in these cases is the accusative marker or an adversarial preposition. 25) I thank my teacher and colleague, R. C. Steiner, for sharing this fundamental insight. 21) 20) 218 S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 adversarial ʾet, meaning “to litigate against”, occurs in the description of the futile lawsuit between a wise man and a fool: ʾîš ḥ ākām nišpāṭ ʾet ʾîš ʾewîl (Prov 29:9).26 In Job 9:32, yaḥ dāw occurs in the phrase nābô yaḥ dāw bammišpāṭ. This is simply an alternative form of the expression b-w-ʾ (G-stem) bammišpāṭ + adversarial ʿim, which means “to enter into litigation against”. This expression occurs in Eliphaz’s question to Job (Job 22:4), “Is it because of your piety that He arraigns you, that he enters into litigation against you ( yābôʾ ʿimmekā bammišpāṭ)?” The expression also occurs without the definite article in Isa 3:14, and with adversarial ʾet instead of ʿim in Ps 143:2. Thus, in both Isa 43:26 and Job 9:32, the forensic locutions with yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw are simply alternatives for attested equivalent locutions with adversarial ʾet or ʿim. Just as one should translate ʾet or ʿim in these locutions as “against”, one should translate yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw as “against one another”. This demonstrable alternation between expressions with adversarial yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw in Isa 43:26 and Job 9:32 and those with adversarial ʾet or ʿim attested elsewhere suggests that similar alternatives for the use of yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw in Isa 41:1 and 50:8, the remaining verses, also exist. Ideally, one would expect to find the locutions q-r-b (G-stem) lammišpāṭ + adversarial ʾet or ʿim as an alternative for yaḥ dāw lammišpāṭ niqrābâ in Isa 41:1 and ʿ-m-d (G stem)+ adversarial ʾet or ʿim as an alternative for naʿamdâ yāḥ ād in Isa 50:8. These specific expressions are not attested in the Hebrew Bible, although it is entirely possible that they did exist in ancient Israel’s legal lexicon.27 One does, however, find nearly equivalent forensic locutions with adversarial ʾet or ʿim. The expression q-w-m (G-stem) lammišpāṭ + ʾet is found in Isa 54:17. It might be translated as “arise against for trial”, which would make it quite close to q-r-b (G-stem) lammišpāṭ + adversarial ʾet or ʿim, the hypothetical alternative for yaḥ dāw lammišpāṭ niqrābâ in Isa 41:1. Furthermore, the verb q-w-m is synonymous to the verb ʿ-m-d, so that the expression is nearly synonymous with ʿ-m-d + adversarial ʾet or ʿim, the hypothetical alternative to naʿamdâ yāḥ ād in Isa 50:8. One need only assume that the phrase in Isa 50:8 is an elliptical expression of a more complete (but unattested) phrase naʿamdâ yāḥ ād lammišpāṭ. Another possible interpretation of Isa 50:8 presents itself in light of the collocation of the verb ʿ-m-d (G-stem) with the noun rîb in Deut 19:17: the 26) This should be distinguished from other examples (such as Ezek 20:35-36) in which the same expression should be translated “to punish”. 27) The expression q-r-b (G-stem) lammišpāṭ + ʾel occurs in Mal 3:5. It is not clear that the preposition ʾel would furnish an alternative to yaḥad or yaḥdāw. S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 219 verb ʿ-m-d might refer to the verb r-y-b earlier in the verse. According to this possibility, the phrase naʿamdâ yāḥ ād is a shortened version of the more complete phrase naʿamdâ yāḥ ād lārîb, rather than naʿamdâ yāḥ ād lammišpāṭ. Thus, the hypothetical equivalent to naʿamdâ yāḥ ād would not be ʿ-m-d (G-stem) lammišpāṭ + adversarial ʾet or ʿim, but rather an expression along the lines of ʿ-m-d (G-stem) lārîb + adversarial ʾet or ʿim.28 If so, then a nearly synonymous equivalent would be Mi 6:1, qûm rîb ʾet hehārîm (“Get up, argue against the mountains”), with q-w-m (G-stem) instead of ʿ-m-d (G-stem). IV. Comparative Evidence The use of the togetherness terms ʾet, ʿim and yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw as adversarial terms is not a phenomenon restricted to Biblical Hebrew. Aramaic and Akkadian legal documents provide cognate examples of the adversarial use of prepositions that usually denote togetherness. In Aramaic, adversarial ʿm occurs, for example, in quittance clauses in the legal documents from Elephantine. The speaker declares dyn lʾ ʾyty ly ʿmhm ʿl znh ṭʿmʾ (“I have no case against them regarding this matter”).29 Akkadian itti, cognate to Hebrew ʾet, typically denotes the adversarial relationship between litigants in the locution dīna/dibba itti PN dabābu (“to argue a case against PN”).30 In the context of a discussion of Biblical Hebrew yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw, the following two Neo-Babylonian examples of the Akkadian expression dīna/ dibba itti PN dabābu are of particular interest. Both are from texts in which the opposing parties are summoned to make their case against each other: [mPN1 u mP]N2 a-na TIN.TIRki il-la-ku-u2-ma dib-bi-šu2-nu ša2 i-ba-aš2-šu-u2 it-ti a-ḫa-meš i-dab-bu-ub31 m PN1 and mPN2 shall come to Babylon and argue against each other whatever claims they have. Compare niṣsāb lārîb (Isa 3:13). ̣ B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (Winona Lake, IN, 1986), B 8.9:2, 6 and B 2.3:27. For other examples from outside Elephantine, see M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat Gan, 2002), s.v. dwn 2 (p. 141) and dyn 6 (p. 147). 30) AHw, s.v. dabābu 3b (p. 147); CAD, s.v. dabābu 4b (D, p. 9). See also the use of itti with verbs denoting war listed in AHw, s.v. itti 5 (p. 405). 31) BE 8/1, 48:1-5. 28) 29) 220 S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 [mPN1 u mP]N2 a-na . . . it-ti a-ḫa-meš il-la-ku-u2-ma di-i-nu [ša2] mPN1 a-na mPN2 iq-bu-u2 um-mu DUMU-u-⌈a⌉ ta-an-da-ḫa-aṣ . . . i-dab-bu-ub32 PN1 and mPN2 will go to . . . together, and they (!)/he will argue . . . the case [(in) which] mPN1 said to mPN2, “You struck my son!” m In both of these examples, the expanded adverbial phrase itti aḫāmeš (“with one another, together”) replaces the preposition itti as the expression of the relationship between the opponents. In the first example, the phrase modifies the verb dabābu and thus indicates that the two litigants will argue “against each other”. In the second, the words itti aḫāmeš modify the verb alāku to indicate that the opponents will “go together” to argue their claims. Thus, the Akkadian phrase itti aḫāmeš in the examples above is functionally equivalent to yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw in forensic contexts. Like yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw, itti aḫāmeš usually refers to actions done “together”. However, in the context of arguments in court, the term actually refers to the adversarial relationship between the parties. The functional equivalence of Biblical Hebrew yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw and Akkadian itti aḫāmeš is especially relevant to Isa 41:1. In this verse, yaḥ dāw modifies the locution q-r-b lammišpāṭ (“to draw near for trial”) which refers to the very beginning of the legal proceedings, when both parties first appear in court. In the second Neo-Babylonian example above, the expression itti aḫāmeš modifies the verb alāku, which refers to the same initial stage of the case, when the litigants “go” to court, but before they actually “argue” (dabābu). The parallel between Isaiah’s yaḥ dāw lammišpāṭ niqrābâ and the Neo-Babylonian text’s itti aḫāmeš illakūma is, therefore, quite striking. In both, equivalent expressions of adversarial togetherness (yaḥ dāw/ itti aḫāmeš) modify verbs of motion (q-r-b/alāku) to describe the opposing litigants’ first appearance in court. Admittedly, the Neo-Babylonian term lacks an overtly forensic equivalent to Hebrew lammišpāṭ.33 Nevertheless, the expression dīna dabābu (“to argue the case”) in the following clause provides the forensic context to explain why the litigants are “going together”. 32) BM 46660: 1’-7’ as transcribed with extensive commentary in C. Wunsch, “Du hast meinen Sohn geschlagen”, in C. Wunsch (ed.), Mining the Archives: Festschrift for Christopher Walker (Dresden, 2002), pp. 355-364. 33) The word a-na (“to”), equivalent to Hebrew l, is followed by a break in the text. However, the remaining text precludes the restoration of a forensic equivalent to mišpāṭ. Wunsch’s suggested restoration of mār banê (see Wunsch, “Du hast”, p. 358), presumably the authorities “to whom” the litigants will go, provides some additional forensic context, but is not a forensic term per se. S. E. Holtz / Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009) 211-221 221 The Akkadian evidence just presented converges with the evidence regarding yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw in Biblical Hebrew considered in the previous two sections. All three strands of evidence—the use of yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw in metaphoric lawsuits, the complementary relationship between expressions with yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw and expressions with adversarial ʾet and ʿim, and the equivalent use of Akkadian itti aḫāmeš—indicate that yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw can, in forensic contexts, mean “against one another”. Thus, the distinction between physical and legal conflict does not affect the use of the terms yaḥ ad or yaḥ dāw. In Biblical Hebrew, yaḥ ad and yaḥ dāw describe the relationship between opponents in both physical fights and lawsuits.