Female Slave vs Female Slave : המָאָ and החָפְשִ in the HB

s. The journal is archived by Library and Archives Canada and is accessible for consultation and research at the Electronic Collection site maintained by Library and Archives Canada. ISSN 1203–1542 http://www.jhsonline.org and http://purl.org/jhs 1 FEMALE SLAVE VS FEMALE SLAVE: המָאָ AND החָפְשִׁ IN THE HB0F EDWARD J. BRIDGE, MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY, NSW, AUSTRALIA

meaning between ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫שִׁ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ .Secondly, I discuss the terms and the contexts of their use in the Hebrew Bible where I discern patterns of use of the two terms.I also distinguish between the descriptive use of the terms and their use as deference in discourse.Previous proposals have failed to take fully into account these two uses, which I argue impact on the proposed meanings for the terms.

PROPOSED DISTINCTIONS IN MEANING BETWEEN ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ AND ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬
My review of proposals for distinctions in meaning between ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ ‫ה‬ covers publications in the last century which have proved influential.It starts with BDB, because of its continuing influence in philological studies in the Hebrew Bible.This review groups those publications that argue that there is a status difference between the terms (with ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ always thought to be the lower status term), those that argue ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ has a wider meaning than ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫,שִׁ‬ and those that argue the two terms are completely synonymous.
The earliest publication I covered in the first group is BDB.In its two brief listings for ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫,שִׁ‬ BDB shows the two terms are essentially synonymous.9F9 However, it also argues that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is distinct from ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ in two ways.The first is that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ denotes a "maid, maid-servant, as belonging to a mistress."Many occurrences of ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ are cited in support.No similar claim is made for ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫,אָ‬ though it is noted when it is also used in relation to the mistress (Gen 30:3; Exod 2:5) and when ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is used in relation to the master (Gen 29 :24, 29; 33:23[22]; Ruth 2:13).Secondly, BDB claims that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is more servile than ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫,אָ‬ citing Exod 11:5; 1 Sam 25:41 and 2 Sam 17:17, noting that ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is never used in such contexts.They also make the observation that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is rarely found in legislation (only in Lev 19:20) or in texts assigned to P (only in Gen 16:2, 5; 35: 25-26), whereas ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is found in both cases.They also observe that, when ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ are used for deference, they are synonymous (both are used "in token of humility") except that only ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is used toward God (1 Sam 11:1).
To summarize, BDB views the terms as essentially synonymous, yet maintains some distinction that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ being more servile than ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫.אָ‬These arguments and observations have merit, but BDB may have overstated its case in regard to ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ being more servile than ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫.אָ‬ Three references are not enough to build a strong case, and the role of the ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ in 2 Sam 17:17 (a messenger) is not necessarily servile.The use of ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ in relation to the master also works against BDB's argument that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ denotes a maid-servant who belongs to a mistress.

JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES
In a similar manner to BDB, Neufeld proposed that that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ refers to status, namely, a female slave of the lowest possible status.1 0 F10 This proposal is advocated by Fensham, Engelken and TDOT and is accepted by Avigad.1 1 F11 Neufeld, like BDB, cites Exod 11:5; 1 Sam 25:41 and 2 Sam 17:17 as indicating menial tasks.1 2 F12 TDOT also argues that the status difference in the two terms carries into deference in the following manner: the use of ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ in deference represents submissiveness on the part of the speaker and the use of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ represents "a heightened sense of self-awareness."1 3F13 Against this argument stand some of the passages that TDOT discusses (1 Sam 1:13-18; 1 Sam 25; 2 Sam 14) which show that ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ are interchangeable as terms of deference.1 4 F 14 In a similar vein that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is more servile than ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is Riesener's proposal that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ emphasizes a slave as a possession or laborer and that ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ emphasizes a slave's feminine qualities.1 5 F 15 This proposal is accepted by NIDOTTE and Younger.Younger also argues that the distinction carries into deference.1 6F16 Noteworthy is Riesener's observation of a frequent use of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ in conjugal contexts (Gen 20:17; Exod 21:7-11; Judg 9:18;19:19; and 2 Sam 6:20-22).This association with conjugality is also evidenced in the occurrences in, for instance, Exod 23:12, Ps 86:12 and Ps 116:12, in which the phrase ‫בן-אמתך‬ ("son of your female slave/servant") refers to children born in slavery.The appearance of ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ in this context in Gen 31:33, 33:1-6 and Lev 19:20, however, shows that Riesener's proposal may be too strong.1 7 F 17 The second group of publications argues that ‫אָ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ has a wider meaning than ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫.שִׁ‬ Jepsen, for example, proposes that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ primarily refers to an unmarried woman who gives personal service to a mistress (cf.BDB) whereas ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is a broader term, covering also a slave wife (thus anticipating Riesener).Over time this distinction was lost.1 8 F 18 This proposal has proved influential, being accepted by Wolff, a number of commentaries, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) and the Hebräisches und aramäishces Lexikon zum Alten Testament (HAL).1 9 F 19 Westermann and Wenham also interpret Jepsen as saying that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is usually used when a female slave is answerable to a mistress, whereas ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is used when a female slave is answerable to the master.2 0F 20 Prov 30:23b (and a female slave ‫ה[‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ ‫]וְ‬ when she supplants her mistress) and Isa 24:2c (as with the female slave ‫ה[‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫,]שִׁ‬ so with her mistress2 1 F 21 ) are frequently cited in support, though Gen 16 and 29-30 are also used.In critique, it is only by arguing that the two terms later lost their distinctions that it would be possible to understand ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ as synonyms, an idea that the scholarship reviewed so far does not accept.Furthermore, as noted above and by BDB, ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is also used in relation to the mistress (Gen 30:3; Exod 2:5; Nah 2:8 [7]).
The idea that ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is a broader term than ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ and also covers a slave wife is extended by Lipiński, who argues that that ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ can designate the status of a wife, whereas ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ does not.Recent scholars such as Younger and Jackson argue similarly.2 2 F 22 To assist their argument, both Lipiński and Younger appeal to epigraphic remains from the Levant and elsewhere.In two Hebrew inscriptions, ‫אמה‬ is used to refer to women associated with men: 18 Jepsen, "Amah," 293. 19 Wolff, Anthropology, 199; Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (trans.J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 238; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (WBC 2; Waco: Word, 1994), 6; Hermann J. Austel, "Shipḥâ.Maidservant, Maid," TWOT 946-947; Jack B. Scott, ‫ה"‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ ('āmâ)," TWOT, 49; and Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, et  al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (4 vols; Leiden/New York, Köln: Brill, 1994+), 1621. 20Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 6; Westermann, Genesis, 238.TDOT 15:408, also interprets Jepsen similarly. 21The phrase is ‫הּ‬ ‫תָּ‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ‫בִ‬ ‫גְּ‬ ‫כַּ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִּׁ‬ ‫,כַּ‬ and comes in the midst of a list of paired status-related terms, all beginning with the inseparable form of ‫י‬ ‫.כִ‬The exact nuances of ‫י‬ ‫כִ‬ are difficult to translate; however, Isa 24:2 intends that social status does not spare a person from God's apocalyptic judgment on the land. 22Lipiński, "Kinship," 15; Younger, "Comparative," 127-28; Bernard S. Jackson, "The 'Institution' of Marriage and Divorce in the Hebrew Bible," JSS 56 (2011), 221-51 (227-28, 235).What ‫אמה‬ means in these two inscriptions is debatable.Avigad argues ‫אמה‬ in the tomb inscription means "slave-wife,"2 3 F 23 but ‫אמה‬ in the Shelimoth inscription means "official," on analogy with the frequent use of ‫עבד‬ in both the Hebrew Bible and in seal inscriptions taking this meaning.2 4 F 24 Younger assumes ‫אמה‬ in both inscriptions means "wife,"2 5 F 25 but does not indicate whether ‫אמה‬ could refer to a free wife.Lipiński argues that ‫אמה‬ could refer to a free woman as a wife.To do so, he cites two Semitic language inscriptions, which use the cognate of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫,אָ‬ ʾmt: Lipiński draws attention to Amatbaal's having a patronym, something unusual for slaves in Ancient Near Eastern epigraphic remains, and to Queen Gaḥimat's designation as an ʾmt.It is unlikely that a queen is a slave!Despite Lipiński's persuasive argument that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ means a "house-born girl who was not a legal daughter of the paterfamilias," his argument that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ does not designate the status of a wife is proved false by Gen 33:1-6 in which ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is used to designate Jacob's wives' maid-servants in their roles as wives to Jacob.A second critique of Lipiński is his application of his observations of the inscriptional use of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ʾmt to 1 Sam 25:41 to conclude that Abigail uses � ‫תְ‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אֲ‬ to mean "wife."He seems unaware of the use of � ‫תְ‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אֲ‬ as a term of deference in the Hebrew Bible (e.g.Ruth 3:9; 2 Sam 14:15-16; 20:17; 1 Kgs 3:20), as well as Abigail's high use of � ‫תְ‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אֲ‬ in 1 Sam 25:23-31.

JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES
The third group of publications, those that argue the two terms are fully synonymous, goes back to Cohen's proposal that ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is characteristically used in legal contexts, whereas ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is more common in colloquial contexts.This proposal is adopted by Revell and Marsman.2 7 F 27 For Cohen, "colloquial context" means a setting in narrative.That is, ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is a "colloquial" term and ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is a "legal" term.This proposal allows the two terms to be understood as synonyms, which is primarily what Cohen argues.Cohen's proposal can only be used tentatively, since ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ appears in Lev 19:20 and Deut 28:68, which are legal contexts, and ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ appears in Gen 30:3; 31:33 and Exod 2:5, which are narrative texts.2 8 F 28 To summarize, proposals for distinctions in meaning between ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ generally argue that the two terms indicate status difference.That is, ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ indicates a higher status than ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫,שִׁ‬ whether it be on the basis of servility, birth (Lipiński only) or marriage.However, each proposal for a distinction in meaning between ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ suffers from the fact that the number of exceptions makes the proposal only tentative.Jepsen's claim that the terms lost their distinctive meanings is an attempt to recognize this problem, but is improvable since the Hebrew Bible uses the terms after they supposedly lost their distinct meanings.Even Cohen's proposal that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is a "colloquial" term and ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is a "legal" term, in order to defend the synonymy of the two terms, suffers the problem of exceptions, recognized by Cohen himself.This conclusion raises a matter which will be the subject of the rest of this paper, namely, can a proposal be made for a distinction in meaning between ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ that can cover all uses of the terms in the Hebrew Bible?
31 English Bibles translate ‫ם‬ ‫יהֶ‬ ‫ֹתֵ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫מְ‬ ‫אַ‬ ‫וְ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫יהֶ‬ ֵ ‫ד‬ ‫בְ‬ ‫ﬠַ‬ as male and female servants.Despite the high number of persons listed, it is best to understand ‫ם‬ ‫יהֶ‬ ֵ ‫ד‬ ‫בְ‬ ‫ﬠַ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫יהֶ‬ ‫ֹתֵ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫מְ‬ ‫אַ‬ ‫וְ‬ as denoting slaves, since these persons are listed separately from the assembly and just before livestock.that create the difficulty for proposing a distinction in meaning between the two terms that can cover all uses of the terms.
A third pattern is observable in the frequent use of ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ to denote a female slave or servant in relation to the mistress (Gen 16:1-8; 25:12; 30:4-18; 35:25-26; Ps 123:2; Prov 30:23 and Isa  24:2): ) in 21:12 continues this by saying to Abraham that Hagar is � ‫תֶ‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אֲ‬ (your female slave).That is, Gen 16 and 21 can support the pattern of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ being used in relation to the master and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ being used in relation to the mistress.Legal texts also give support to this pattern because of the male audience presupposed in the texts, such as when a man strikes his male slave or his female slave (Exod 21:20), and your male slaves and your female slaves in Deut (12:12, 18; 15:17; 16:11, 14).An alternative explanation for the change in terms used for Hagar is provided by Westbrook, who argues Hagar had a split legal personality.She is chattel to Sarah, but a wife to Abraham.3 4 F34 Thus ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is appropriate in Gen 16, but ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is appropriate in Gen 21 when Sarah, in effect, asks Abraham to divorce Hagar.
As with the previous two patterns, exceptions occur.F 35 In Jer 34:9-16, it can be assumed that men are in focus since all the people of Jerusalem are in view.These texts, along with Genesis 16 and 21, indicate another intersection of contexts: the predominance of ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ in narrative texts, 12 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES along with the many references in Genesis to Abraham and Jacob's slave wives, and the use of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ in legal contexts.If Genesis and legal contexts were removed from consideration, the pattern becomes less prominent, shown by the following: To these, three further references could be added for the use ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ in relation to the master: Judg 9:18; 19:19; 2 Sam 6:20-22.These occur in the context of marriage or other conjugal relationships, which I will treat as yet another pattern (see below).This distinction between ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ in the context of relationship between the female slave and her master or mistress should therefore be thought of as a pattern rather than as a difference in meaning between the two terms.
A fourth pattern is that ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is the predominant term to denote female slaves in marriage or other conjugal relationships with the master or another male member of the household (Gen 20:17;  30:3; Exod 21:7-11; Judg 9:18; 19:19; and 2 Sam 6:20-22): e.g.Frymer-Kensky (eds), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 262; London: T&T Clark, 1998), 155, who both argue the woman is sold as a debt-slave and for the purpose of concubinage.Marsman, Women, 450, takes a similar view, except that the woman had the status of slave-wife, not concubine.Mendelsohn argues that sale-adoption is in view (Slavery in the Ancient Near East [New York: Oxford University Press, 1949], 10) but then changes his mind to say she remains in the master's house to be married to yet another debt slave (pp.13-14).F 38 Since Exod 21:7-11 is in a legal context, it is not surprising that ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ will be used.The two women who are designated with ‫אָ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ in Judg 9:18 and 19:19 are also designated with ‫שׁ‬ ‫גֶ‬ ‫לֶ‬ ‫פִּ‬ ("concubine, secondary wife"; 8:31; 19:1), suggesting in these contexts they were secondary wives.3 9 F 39 It is noteworthy that in both cases, the designation of ‫שׁ‬ ‫גֶ‬ ‫לֶ‬ ‫פִּ‬ comes first, and ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is only used in a character's speech.The use of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ in 9:18 by Jotham may be derogative, whereas the use of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ in 19:9 by the Levite may be deferential.The Levite's subsequent behavior to his ‫שׁ‬ ‫גֶ‬ ‫לֶ‬ ‫פִּ‬ (allows her to be gang raped), however, suggests ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ carries the status of slave, an interpretation assisted by the narrator's use of ‫יהָ‬ ‫ֹנֶ‬ ‫ד‬ ‫אֲ‬ (her master) for the Levite in Judg 19:27.Gen 21:10-13 could also be argued to reflect this pattern of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ being the preferred term for marriage or other conjugal arrangement with the master.Against this, as discussed above, it could simply be part of the biblical pattern privileging ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ in the context of the female slave's relationship with the master or may reflect Hagar's legal standing with Abraham.In addition, the use of ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ in this context (Lev 19:20) provides an 37 2 Sam 6:20-22 is riposte between Michal and David, the topic of which is the use of slave women for sexual purposes without regard to marital status.

CONCLUSION
To conclude, no general distinction in meaning between ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ can be made.
‫אָ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ are synonyms, both when they designate women and when used by a speaker for deference.Patterns of use, or preference of one term over the other, however, occur.When ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ designate women, ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is preferred in legal contexts and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is preferred in Genesis.Outside Genesis, only ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is used in marital/conjugal contexts.Because of Genesis' strong preference for ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫,שִׁ‬ proposals for distinct meanings of ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ cannot be sustained, such as ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is used for female slaves or servants in relation to the master, and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is used for female slaves or servants in relation to the mistress.Since ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is mostly used for the patriarchs' slave wives in Genesis, the proposal that ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ refers to female slaves of the lowest status and ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ to female slaves in marriage contexts also cannot be sustained.When used as deference, both terms are used in a number of contexts, and the choice of which term is preferred in a long speech or dialogue appears to be arbitrary.Such arbitrariness overrides possible patterns that ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ is preferred in requests for marriage and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is preferred when a speaker critiques her hearer.Ultimately, the problem of determining distinctions in meaning between ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ and ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ is due to the intertwining of context of use and genre of text.For each possible context of use, from which a distinctive meaning for each term could be proposed, the other term also appears, even if from a different genre of text.
Amatbaal, daughter of Paṭesi, 'amat of Idnān, has given (it) as a gift to Astarte, her Lady.May you bless her in her days!Idnan [the engrav]er ([br]'?) has constructed the base.(Phoenician inscription, Ur Box; KAI 29 = TSSI 3.20) [Queen Gaḥimat] 'amat of the mukarrib of Saba, Yila <> mar Bayyin, son of Šumhu < alîy.(Sabaic rock inscription).26 F 26 ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ in relation to the master: Job 19:15; 31:13 ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫אָ‬ in relation to the mistress: Exod 2:5; Nah 2:8[7] ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ in relation to the master: Jer 34:9-16 ‫ה‬ ‫חָ‬ ‫פְ‬ ‫שִׁ‬ in relation to the mistress: Ps 123:2; Prov 30:23; Isa 24:2 And if a man sells his daughter to be a slave ‫ה[‬ ‫מָ‬‫אָ‬ ‫]לְ‬ … If something displeasing [is found] in the eyes of her master who appointed her for himself … And if he appoints her for his son … If he takes another [wife] for himself … And if these three things he will not do for her … (Exod 21:7-11)3 6 F 36 But you have risen against my father's house today … and have made Abimelech, the son of his slave ‫תוֹ[‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫]אֲ‬ king over the lords of Shechem … (Judg 9:18) … Michal the daughter of Saul went out to meet David, and said, "How the king of Israel honored himself today, who un-36 Interpretations as to the status of the female slave and the purposes of the legislation vary.See Westbrook, "Female Slave," 218-20, and Carolyn Pressler, "Wives and Daughters, Bond and Free: Views of Women in the Slave Laws of Exodus 21.2-11," V.H. Matthews, B.M. Levinson, T.