You are on page 1of 25

The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures

ISSN 1203-1542 new purl address:

The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures participates in the ATLAS project. Articles are being indexed in the ATLA Religion Database and their abstracts appear in Religious and Theological Abstracts. The journal is archived by the National Library of Canada, and is accessible for consultation and research at the Electronic Collection site maintained by The National Library of Canada.

Volume 3: Article 7 (2001) John R. Huddlestun, “Unveiling the Versions: The Tactics of Tamar in Genesis 38:15”

Unveiling the Versions: The Tactics of Tamar in Genesis 38:15 John R. Huddlestun
College of Charleston, SC


The MT of Genesis 38:15 reads as follows: hynp htsk yk hnwzl hb#$xyw hdwhy h)ryw, “When Judah saw her (Tamar), he thought her to be a prostitute, for she had covered her face.” At first blush, the statement seems fairly straightforward: the veiled face of Tamar leads Judah to conclude that she is a common prostitute. But as Judah himself later discovers, appearances can be deceptive, and such is also the case as one delves into the exegetical history of this passage. Here the reader encounters a variety of interpretive expansions, all of which turn, implicitly or explicitly, on the causal relationship introduced by theyk clause of the second half of the verse. Previously (v. 14), we learn that Tamar had donned a veil (Py(cb sktw), covered herself up (Pl(ttw), and taken a roadside posture, but it is only the first of these acts that is mentioned in Judah’s inference in verse 15.1 Thus it is with some warrant that biblical scholars, past and present, have associated the garment with the profession; that is, it was the veil of Tamar that signaled to Judah her status as a prostitute.2 Others, however, have disputed this reading of the verse, citing biblical and ancient Near Eastern evidence to indicate that the veil itself was not diagnostic, but simply allowed Tamar to conceal her identity.3 Following this view, while it is reasonable to assume, at least from the biblical text, that prostitutes did in fact adorn themselves in a distinctive manner (e.g., Jer 4:30; Ezek 23:40), their identity as such appears not to be linked to a veil.4 In addition to the biblical passages, the most frequently

5 Others. Judah and Tamar. have cautioned that customs may vary regionally and we should not assume that those of Assyria applied equally to ancient Israelite society. fail to note the addition to 38:15 in the Septuagint and Vulgate (cited in the apparatus of Kittel’s Biblica Hebraica.cited evidence are those Middle Assyrian laws governing the use of veils among various classes of women. as well as a recent major study of Genesis 38 in particular (Menn. widows. But there is yet another body of evidence. It is somewhat surprising to find that the majority of commentaries of the last century (e. Von Rad.8 The Vulgate follows with the passive ne cognosceretur (“she was not recognized”). female slaves. Wenham).6 One thus encounters two plausible explanations of the verse in the scholarly literature (referenced in notes 2 and 3). unmarried hierodules (qadiltu).. see note 3). daughters. that bears directly on how one understands Tamar’s actions. the second more comparative in orientation. and concubines unaccompanied by mistress--unlike married hierodules. Here prostitutes. and accompanied concubines--are prohibited from appearing veiled in public. Vater. while the Vetus Latina reflects the LXX more closely: cooperuerat enim faciem suam et non cognovit eam (“because she had covered her face and he did not recognize her” - . however. the first more of a plain sense reading of the verse in isolation. but omitted in Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia). drawing upon other biblical texts and Middle Assyrian law.g. Westermann. 2. rarely mentioned in the literature on these verses. Spieser. the LXX adds kai\ ou)k e)pe/gnw au)th/n (“and he did not recognize her”).7 By way of extension at the end of the verse. Driver.

she covers [her] face with a veil” . But if not the veil. .11 So concluded Rashi. he thought her to be a prostitute. Judah would have recognized her. but necessary. in order not to be recognized. hnwzl hb#$xyw . the expanded verse then reads as follows: “When Judah saw her. had she not do so. who commented as follows: Pl(ttw . it was the second that conveyed her harlot status.” Here theyk clause is explained: Tamar covered her face to conceal her identity. While the first concealed her identity. led Judah to consider her a prostitute? The success of Tamar’s stratagem. detail in verse 14.9 The addition is absent in the Samaritan Pentateuch.“and he was unable to see her (face) and (therefore could not) recognize her (hrykhlw htw)rl lwky )lw).Codex Lugdunensis [Lyon] and the Latin text of Jubilees). Thus.“she covered her face so that he did not recognize her” . albeit in different ways and for different reasons. for she had covered her face and he did not recognize her. following the LXX. compare igitur ne cognoscatur.10 With the LXX. as described in unexpected. Presumably.Zeno. hinged upon two interrelated components: cover-up and location. The focus shifts from Tamar’s roadside guise when she encountered Judah to her reserved habit of dress while in . Bishop of Verona). . faciem velamine obscurat (“therefore. in their attempts to explain Judah’s perception of Tamar in verse 15.” 12 3. a number of targumim and midrashim.“because she was sitting at the crossroads”: hynp htsk yk . Prior to Rashi. Syriac. then what. one may ask. disassociate the veil from harlotry. the veil was not diagnostic of prostitution. and Targum Onqelos.

16 While the targum explicitly describes how Tamar covered herself with a veil and subsequently removed it (vv. apparently for the first time. Leaving aside this inconsistency. verse 14 states explicitly that she covered herself (hb tp+(t)w hdydrb tyyskw). it does not correlate the veil with the attire of a prostitute. caused him at this point (assuming of course that he recognized her when he saw her) to treat her as a common prostitute? A more plausible solution for the contextually problematic tsy(k may be textual corruption: instead of s(k “to be angry. and in his eyes he compared her to a harlot. because she was veiled (lit.13 Targum Neofiti adds: “. By contrast. “covered of face”) in the house of Judah and Judah had not known her. because she was of sullen[?] appearance in the house of Judah and Judah had not loved her.15 provides a reason for Judah’s inability to recognize Tamar.his house. but that he failed to recognize her because it was her custom to veil herself while in his house. Verse 15 of Neofiti implies that Judah did see Tamar’s face.14.thought her to be a prostitute.” others have suggested the verb ysk “to . 19). however.. but with that of a modestly dressed widow in his household.15 fails to explain the relevance of her change of clothing. while the gloss in v. formed while she lived in his house. or does the targumist wish to convey that Judah’s unfavorable attitude toward Tamar.. is not entirely consistent at this point. Are we to infer that prostitutes generally exhibited a sullen appearance (Nyp) tsy(k). the above rendering of v.”15 But this explanation makes little sense contextually (how does it account for Judah’s taking her to be a prostitute?) and is unique to PseudoJonathan. A somewhat different explanation is offered in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: “Judah saw her.”14 The translation.

cover. for our purpose it is significant that both Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan avoid the conclusion that Tamar’s donning of a veil was in some fashion indicative of her status as a prostitute. Genesis Rabbah (85.19 The second interpretation explains that Judah initially took no notice of Tamar since she had covered her face. The midrash cites the expansion as an object lesson: a man should acquaint himself with female relations so as to avoid unintentional incest. not a prostitute. Nevertheless. 4. Judah’s noble unwillingness is overcome by an angel of desire (hw)th l( hnwmm )wh#$ K)lm). On the contrary.”17 But even with the proposed emendation.8) provides two contrasting interpretations. she could not be a prostitute (hynp htsk#$ Nwyk xyg#$h )l hdwhy h)ryw )hmt) hynp hskm htyh hnwz htyh wly) rm)). thus. both assume. he thought to himself. that she was not veiled when she encountered Judah by the road.15. the targum’s meaning is by no means obvious. The gloss in this case highlights Judah’s guilt in the matter for not having done so.21 Judah’s character remains unblemished insofar as he initially resists communication with a modestly dressed woman.20 This explanation assumes that prostitutes by definition were not veiled and clashes with the unambiguous biblical statement that Judah considered her to be one. at least in v. who compels him to turn aside and proposition Tamar.22 As the midrash continues. thus .18 The first echoes Neofiti in commenting that Tamar was not recognized because she had covered her face while in her father-in-law’s house (hymx tybb )yh#$ d( hynp htsk yk).

25 In his comments on Gen. how could Judah have recognized her even if she had been unveiled? Therefore. with respect to the two key acts of Tamar mentioned above. Ramban (13th cent. Rather.23 Likewise. the views of Rashi and the midrash: given that Tamar covered her face while in his house (so the targumim and midrash). and widows. a more worthy ancestor than Selah (in Miqra’ot Gedolot sub )yh wtlk yk (dy )l yk). more to the point.insuring the birth of Perez and. each contributed to Judah’s inference of harlotry. the emergence of the Davidic line. the veil was not intended for concealment.26 The Py(c of . neither Luther nor Calvin saw the veil of Tamar as a telltale sign of prostitution. 5. it was the custom of prostitutes to take their place by the roadside with the face partly veiled (Mynph tcq hskm ). her veiled face and location. Sforno (15th-16th cent. 6. Spain) repeats. and. furthermore.24 Thus. while they did not mince words when it came to the proliferation of brothels in their time. the plain sense of the verse (+#$ph) dictates that Judah concluded she was a prostitute because of her veiled face. the virgin. If we move a bit further down to the Christian commentators of the Reformation period. but takes issue with. Italy) comments on 38:16 that Judah’s inability to recognize Tamar is a turn of events brought about by God in order that the righteous messiah might emerge from Judah. In his comments on 38:15. Luther explains the separate dress associated with the married woman. 38:14. according to Ramban. Ramban stands alone insofar as he accepts the diagnostic importance of both.

In his commentary on Genesis.” apparently in keeping with the festive time of year (following his earlier comments on 38:12). in this fashion. which was blind to all else. did Judah not recognize Tamar.28 So why then.Tamar is described by the reformer as a large cloth with which the woman would bind her hair and cover the head completely down to the shoulders. she was “adorned and decked out to excite Judah.” Luther then draws the reader’s attention to a contemporary parallel: “Even today.”27 In Genesis 38. Luther wonders. at least from her voice or the exposed eyes? He is somewhat puzzled by this and attributes it to the focused imagination of Judah. or to the miraculous intervention of God--or the work of the Devil. 7. unlike Tamar. Tamar exchanges her widow’s garments for more “festive garb. prevails in many places. at this day.” He implies that the whores of his day do not bother with a veil.” but not as a whore. in some parts of Germany. head coverings which veil the neck and the mouth so that only the eyes appear are in use. the same as that worn by Rebecca (Genesis 24) to signify her “reverence and modesty. who is fully aware of her sin and puts on a veil to hid her shame: “the veil of Tamar shows that fornication was not only a base and filthy thing in . She “not only covered her head with the honorable robe of a matron but also adorned her whole body elegantly and in festive manner”. Calvin contrasts the veil of Tamar with the dress of prostitutes of his time: “When it is said she veiled her face. for him the costume of Tamar plays no role in Judah’s perception of her as a prostitute. we hence infer that the license of fornication was not so unbridled as that which. Regardless.

In using the term veil.33 We of course . contemporary custom. for example. a brief word on the veil is necessary. Tamar) who have practised it. Luther). but that it has always been condemned. Thus far. that I now turn in a more sustained way with a brief historical survey of the veil’s usage and meaning--from Assyria to Arles--particularly as it relates to social status and prostitution. First. even by those (i. I do not assume that the face itself must necessarily have been covered. modern analogies suggest that veils could be manipulated.32 Moreover. I have highlighted some of the religious motivations behind the separation of the veil from prostitution (upholding Judah’s character. Calvin attributes this to the hand of God. moral exhortation). depending on the company or other circumstances. Such contextualization of the interpretive life of Genesis 38:15 illuminates possible reasons for the lack of correlation between Tamar’s veil and prostitution in the exegetical tradition. whether one wished simply to cover the top of the head. exegetical considerations (LXX) or contemporary practice (Ramban..31 Some veils were transparent (silk).30 8.the sight of God and the angels. one finds evidence for a wide variety of veils or coverings.e. It is to the last of these. or all or a part of the face (note already Ramban or Luther above). while others masked the identity of the wearer. conceal the hair.”29 As for Judah’s inability to recognize Tamar. and have touched upon other factors that appear to have influenced the above interpretations. 9. Over the centuries. and thus concealed little.

raises the issue of identification: how did one determine that a particular woman was illegally veiled? Lerner assumes that the veil must have covered the face. As mentioned above.). would have hidden any visible distinguishing marks. and unmarried hierodules from appearing unveiled in not know how ancient readers or hearers of the Genesis story would have envisioned the veil of Tamar. This. the text also leads the reader to assume that Tamar retained some type of covering during intercourse. but others . head. pierced ears with thread drawn behind the back etc. Those who do so are subject to severe punishments.36 The punishments are equally harsh for those men who fail to take the appropriate action against violators (fifty blows. 10. sexually serving one man and under his protection. concubines unaccompanied by their mistress. and figure. serves to institutionalize class distinction for women.”35 Likewise. Middle Assyrian law prohibits prostitutes. and the cutting off of one’s ears. but the text implies that it was substantial enough to conceal her identity. van der Toorn has identified appurtenance as the primary symbolic meaning associated with veiling.34 The law. however. women not under one man’s protection and sexual control are designated as ‘public women. slave women. Additionally. given Judah remained unaware of her identity until it was too late. including fifty blows. pitch poured over the head. here distinguished via their “sexual activities”: “Domestic women. are here designated as ‘respectable’ by being veiled. and thus. as Lerner observes (building on the conclusions of Miles and Driver).’ hence unveiled. in the case of the female slave and slave concubine.

Outside Mesopotamia. the veil (krh/demnon) signified sexual chastity and purity. possibly hairstyle (thus no veil). is signaled by their nudity and pose.42 12. at least as depicted on a recently published New Kingdom papyrus (perhaps portraying scenes from a brothel) and ostraca (Deir el-Medina). mention must be made of the numerous examples of heteraia. for example spinning or washing. the paintings depict heteraia engaged in various domestic activities. prostitutes were recognized by their see-through garments.37 Regardless. usually naked. in fact. particularly Homer.38 11. ornaments on the ankles or feet. precisely the opposite is the case. where not obvious with clients. Other than catering to their male clients. Women were not veiled in ancient Egypt and prostitutes.41 Needless to say. veiling. or even messages such as “follow me” imprinted on the soles of their sandals. not more. wear little to nothing at all. plays no role in identification. and location. or covering or any sort for that matter. we have little evidence for the distinctive dress of prostitutes in the ancient Near East prior to the Greco-Roman period.43 The available evidence indicates that .40 With regard to the latter. the Mesopotamian prostitute would have been recognized by her dress.maintain that the veil in the ancient Near East only partially covered the face. In Greco-Roman Egypt. Egyptian artistic convention represents them as covering less. Their status as heteraia.39 In Greek literary tradition. depicted on red-figure vase paintings and drinking cups (6th-5th centuries BCE). traits obviously not associated with the celebrated heteraia of literature or art.

13.46 The lex Iulia also addressed the problem of matrons appearing in public without their stolae. The juxtaposition of matrona/meretrix. the LXX expansion to Genesis 38:15 could reflect as well the translators’ knowledge of current practice in that veils were not a part of the prostitute’s dress.47 Later.. Plautus.45 The lex Iulia equates the status of the adulterous woman to that of a prostitute. and possibly the repentant prostitute as well. 18 BCE).48 In . drawn also in literary contexts (e. in the 6th century Code of Justinian (Corpus iuris civilis). and the translators of the Greek Genesis were probably not oblivious to their presence or appearance. who were compelled to put on a veil. a distinction reinforced in Roman law by way of the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis of Augustus (ca.g. without disputing the exegetical motivations isolated by Wevers (see note 10 above).44 Thus. Those women convicted as adulterers were required to don the toga in order to differentiate them from respectable women. In Roman society. therefore. focused especially on garments as markers of the respective positions. the social standing of the respectable and morally upright woman--the mater familias or matrona--stood in stark contrast to that of the disreputable prostitute (meretrix). Cicero. we find a type of “enforced chastity” for the adulteress. while the prostitute wore a toga. The matrona was identified by her stola (a long outer dress with decorated hem) and vittae (ribbons or bands worn in the hair). Horace). or even dressing outright as prostitutes.Alexandria in particular was a major center for prostitutes in the Roman east. it was necessary to clarify that Tamar’s veil was required only for concealment.

50 In his treatise on veiling (De virginibus velandis).the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. albeit often with different justification.51 Likewise. without greeting one another. not prostitution. If they were not simply following the LXX at that point. sufficient evidence exists to show that women generally were veiled in public and could be divorced or punished if they appeared otherwise.) exhorted virgins to let their “face be veiled and downcast” in their encounter with others.) recommended that all Christian women be fully veiled. the early Church father Tertullian (2d3d cent. for them a symbol of purity and chastity. Rabbinic tradition offers no specific law stipulating that women should be veiled outside the home. For .52 In his Apostolic Tradition. but the rabbis appeal to traditional practice of the time. Christianity as well followed current practice.53 These few representative citations allow us to place the expansions in the Vetus Latina and Vulgate in some perspective. 15. felt the need to offer various theological reasons for the practice. not simply to accommodate custom.49 14.) advised that men and women be segregated while in church. like others to follow. and that the head of the women be covered completely. Hippolytus (4th cent. Paul’s oft-cited admonition that women cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) was in keeping with his own tradition. Jerome and the early translators could have been motivated by the need to clarify for their readers Tamar’s use of a veil. Athanasius (4th cent. but he. their Espoused. but because it is the will of Christ.

could reflect as well his knowledge of local custom in northern France of the 11th century. both east and west (Medieval manuscript illuminations. Rashi explains )mwnyh (M. 17b) as “a veil on the woman’s head which covers her eyes just as is done in these parts. a violation of Jewish practice (M. both refer to the dress of their time. Ishmael) and. not the sign of a prostitute. We saw above Ramban’s opinion that the prostitute sat at the roadside . from uneasiness with the implication that Tamar’s veil signaled anything other than a properly attired widow under the protection of her father-in-law. 72a). but also to align the verse with contemporary practice.1 with gemara in Bab. As for Rashi and Ramban. the question is raised as to whether or not the prohibition is based on the Torah (implied in Numbers 5:18 according to the school of R. although the former does not do so within the context of Genesis. Ketubot 7. Ket. the reason then for the appeal to Jewish practice alone. and echoed in Genesis Rabbah) may have derived. Other passages in the Talmud reinforce the importance of women going out with heads covered and we have no reason to doubt that the custom was prevalent in Jewish society. if so.54 In the light of this. as a rule depict Jewish women with their heads covered). 2.). his comments on Tamar’s veil as a means of concealment.example. the targumic expansion (Neofiti.6. a husband may divorce his wife if she appears in public unveiled. Pseudo-Jonathan. Ket. Ket.”55 Thus. from the 13th to the 16th centuries. in part. a widow whose modesty caused her to remain veiled even while not in public. In the gemara (Bab. In his commentary on the Talmud. The second interpretation in Genesis Rabbah--Judah did not consider her a prostitute because of her veil–appears to be an attempt not only to redeem Judah’s character.

etc. buttons. regulating furs. gesticulating with the eyes and lips. jewelry. France. platform shoes.60 A survey of sumptuary laws in countries such as Italy. décolletage. types of fabrics. catching him and kissing him. belts. and Germany reveals a variety of restrictions (e. Now since she would speak to the by-passer in an impudent manner. colors. and baring the front of the throat and neck.57 16. The larger context of his description is instructive: “The reason for the covering of the face is that it was the way of the harlot to sit at the crossroads wrapped up in a veil. openings or slits in garments.). often religiously sanctioned. the purpose of these laws was to provide clear demarcation of status. his later comments regarding male prostitutes who still veil their faces in his day confirm this impression. with part of the face and hair uncovered. particular statutes were aimed at regulating the dress of the well-to-do prostitute. use of gold and silver in ornaments. imposed on Jewry under Christianity and Islam. to address the issue of “women out of place. England. These parallel similar requirements. The institutional and civic need to maintain proper distance between classes via restrictions on dress arguably reached its zenith with the sumptuary laws in late Medieval and Renaissance Europe.. silk linings. indeed. and. Spain.with face partly veiled.”56 One suspects that Ramban has in mind contemporary practice.”59 While applicable only to that segment of society that could afford such luxury items. pretending to be what they are not.58 As with the Middle Assyrian and Roman legislation.g.61 Prostitutes in particular were required to wear . she therefore veiled part of the face.

Ferrara). the above necessarily brief overview of the veil’s usage nevertheless highlights a number of recurring themes regarding its meaning and symbolism. the Assyrian laws constitute the beginning of. Siena. special ornaments. . striped hoods. a socio-legal tradition that endures. Authorities feared that the anonymity afforded by these could hide or encourage inappropriate behavior. ownership.). etc. the prostitute would have been recognized as such by the color of or marking on her veil. or modesty. if covered at all.64 In fact. but the garment in and of itself does not emerge as a sign of the profession. decency. a cord or silk belt. a sleeve of different color/material or with a specific marking.g.63 It is not that one never encounters isolated cases where prostitutes could be veiled. mutatis mutandis. While the evidence is chronologically and geographically sporadic.65 What is lacking is a clear or decisive link between the veil and the prostitute. but they were certainly not alone in this. into the modern era wherein veiling may denote social status. chastity. In some cases (Arles. 17. or at least attest to. Rather. a neckband or cloak of a particular color..62 These laws varied widely from one region to the next.certain garments or distinctive markings on their clothing as a means of identification (e. Venice. bells. This is not to say that prostitutes did not at various times or places wear veils. depending on local preference and the evolving styles of dress. specific laws were enacted which banned the more elaborate and less transparent veils.

they avoided linking the veil to her guise as a prostitute. but compare its reflexive sense in Jonah 3:6 (q#$ skyw. Play the Harlot. 235 . with and Introduction to Narrative Literature (FTOL 1. but his mistaking her for a harlot”).. D. Clark. Genesis. see Emanuel Tov. I believe. George W. Endnotes For MT sktw (Piel). Coats. 2 1 For examples of this interpretation. the familiar interpretation of Tamar’s tactics--Judah believed her to be a prostitute because of the veil--should. Edwards. esp. Wead. not Judah’s failure to recognize her. 274. While their answers to these questions differed. “Harlot. the separation of shroud from profession in the exegetical tradition (long before the discovery of and current appeal to Assyrian law) and the absence of a link historically between the veil and prostitute provide compelling historical precedent for the reading that Tamar’s shroud was not decisive for Judah’s perception of her as a prostitute.616. be reconsidered. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress and Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. This interpretive tendency accords well with our conclusions regarding the veil and prostitution. Rather.18. it is significant that in all but one case (Ramban). 1992] 235). In other words. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1930). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (2d ed. 453 (“She [Tamar] assumes the garb of a common prostitute” and further he explains the second half of the verse as follows: “This explains. “Dress and Ornamentation. Thus. 1983). Edinburgh: T. see also Gen 24:65).” ISBE 2.” ABD 2. BHS suggests emendation to skttw (with some versional support. & T. Douglas R.232-38. see John Skinner. We have observed how a number of ancient translators and later commentators puzzled over the events of 38:15--why didn’t Judah know it was Tamar and what led him to believe she was a prostitute?--and sought to clarify the verse via expansion or commentary. W. the veil of Tamar concealed more than it revealed.

. Fokkelman. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress. and Israel. or the deception of Jacob in Genesis 29. “The Significance of the Veil in the Ancient Near East. consisted not in what she wore but in her displaying herself publicly by the wayside as a woman available for commerce”).2 (1986): 236-54. Culture. “Women in Ancient Israel. which could not have succeeded had Leah not been veiled (a point made by Menn. Esther Marie Menn. 1995). 43-45.” citing Genesis 38:14-15. compare. Gen. David Noel Freedman. 1997). New York: Doubleday. L. 257. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (2d ed. Song of Songs (AB 7C. In the Wake of the Goddesses. Compare Bird. Wright. and Gerda Lerner. 1977). Family Religion in Babylonia. Leiden and New York: Brill. 1977). R. Elaine Goodfriend. 1965).” ABD 5. 247 (“it cannot be the veiling that led Judah to assume that she was a prostitute”). “Prostitution. Joan G. A ¶40. Sarna. Leiden: Brill. idem. See Middle Assyrian Laws. and Political Perspectives. and Michael V. 204. 331. Qadištu. Syria. Bird. esp. Ancient Israel. and Karel van der Toorn. de Waard. Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (New York: Doubleday. 247-52. “Significance of the Veil. Fokkelman (Assen: Van Gorcum and Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ed. esp. esp. Nahum Sarna. see Roland de Vaux. 63-64. 152-187.” 247.” in her Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress.(“Women used veils. esp. Athalya Brenner. Bruce Vawter. and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Roth. 1985). 1998). Grace I. “Sacred Prostitution.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 11. 5 . Studies in Biblical. 3334. 243 (“The only item of clothing that seems to have marked the prostitute was a heavy veil (sacip. 229 (“she trades her prostitute’s veil for her widow’s garb”). J. Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. “Tamar. 1997). n. Fox. among others). Tikva Frymer-Kensky. Westenholz. Women. 1992).. in Martha T. for example.” in The World of Ancient Israel: Social. E. for example. on the contrary. Prov 7:10)”). Volume 1: Social Institutions (New York: McGraw Hill. 268 (“From verses 15 and 19 it is clear that Tamar was not normally veiled and that she simply wanted to conceal her identity”). 7:10. 82 (“She [the prostitute] covers her face. Law. 1993). 167-68. 1989). eds. but to hide her identity so that Judah would not recognize her”).” HTR 82 (1989): 245-65. The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in Biblical Narrative (The Biblical Seminar 2. 2000). 387 (prostitutes are “recognizable by their dress (Gen 38:15.197-218. Doubleday. eds. Goodfriend. and J. On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City. SBL Writings from the Ancient World 6. “The Harlot as Heroine. n. “Prostitution (OT).6. cover their faces on wedding days or if they were prostitutes. James Barr. 19). n. Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7. Jan P. Susan Ackerman. “The Origin of Prostitution in Ancient Mesopotamia. 397-98 (“Tamar’s ‘disguise’ as a harlot. Rebecca in Gen 24:65.Pope.5 and 203. Westenholz. Westenholz. “Genesis 37 and 38 at the Interface of Structural Analysis and Hermeneutics. “The Harlot as Heroine: Narrative and Social Presupposition in Three Old Testament Texts.” 506. David P. Atlanta: Scholars Press. For veiled brides in Israel and the ancient Near East. 1996). Menn. Emmerson. Jewish. de Regt. and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Seductress. Marvin H.” in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 200. Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis. P. so that she is recognized for what she is by her attire.” 330-36. n. 1989). 506. esp. and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia. Qd‘š~.. 1996). Dancer. NY. esp. Phyllis A. 4 3 For cases where the veil does not indicate harlotry. Warrior. and Near Eastern Ritual.” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells. 327-39.15. 330 (I thank Gary Rendsburg for calling my attention to this article). Study in Literary Form and Hermeneutics (JSJSupp 51.” here citing Genesis 38 and Prov. and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Macmillan. Clements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. J. 73. Judah and Tamar. 170 (“The veil is probably a sign of the profession”). Anthropological. 38:14)”). 73-74. Proverbs 1-9 (AB 18A: New York: Doubleday.” 200. although the latter does not specify what type of dress). See.38 (“The purpose of the veil in the Tamar story was not to identify her as a prostitute. 371-94. 1997). van der Toorn.

569. see J. and note interpretation of 38:14-15 in The Testament of Judah (12. Leipzig: Verlag von S. and notes that this interpretation is supported by the LXX and Vulgate (August Dillmann. 16-20. and his “The Interpretive Character and Significance of the Septuagint Version. Wevers. Compare the similar interpretation of Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir).” 329. 10. Francis I. 225.15. KHAT 11. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt und herausgegeben von der Erzabtei Beuron. A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. 210).” 204 n. 11 12 See Miqra’ot Gedolot sub Rashi on 38:15. 1. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35. 380). 2.14 (contrast the more common #$bl when she changes back in v. I. 1980). Emerton.15 is consistent with the type of leveling that Wevers has isolated as characteristic of the Greek Genesis. For the problematic Ennaim. But by inserting the statement at this point in v. Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2d/3d edition. I am assuming that the addition in LXX and Vulgate is exegetical and does not reflect a Hebrew Vorlage different from MT (the Syro-Hexaplar indicates its lack in the Hebrew text). Ezek 16:31 (Krd-lk #$)rb). 1949-54). also earlier reference cited in van der Toorn. seeing that Tamar veils herself when playing the part of an hetæra (Gen.2) where Tamar is dressed as a bride. Die Genesis [4th ed.” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation. 38. the LXX addition (Genesis. Johs Pedersen. The impression of concealment or covering is reenforced in the use of the verbs hsk and Pl( with reference to Tamar’s change of clothing in v. 1993). see Ronald S. Wevers. this being the privilege of the married women. 397. but see versions).. 44-45. esp. 84-107. See John W. The expansion in v. übersetzt und erklärt. Volume I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). 1926). esp. “The Harlot as Heroine. compare Jer 3:2 (prostitute encountered Mykrd-l(). but does not discuss. . Otto Procksch.19). that Judah did not know she was his daughter-in-law. 8 For these and similar variants. 1882]. esp. 1924]. 10 9 Although one cannot rule out the possibility. 7 6 Skinner notes. 453). The Text of Genesis I-II: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. but sits in public like a prostitute. New York: Doubleday. here with kai\ ou)k e)pe/gnw au)th/n echoing what is stated explicitly in the next verse. For a different estimation of the value of the Greek Genesis. “Significance of the Veil. Dillmann. n. Bonifatius Fischer (Freiburg: Herder. Hendel. states that the veil was not the reason for Judah’s thinking her to be a prostitute. and Ira Robinson. its Life and Culture I-II (London: Geoffrey Cumberlege and Copenhagen: Branner og Korch. 95-107. 365.14 lacks reference to actions characteristic of women who assume the role elsewhere in biblical texts (painting the face or ornaments). the description of Tamar’s transformation in v. Die Genesis. 1998). Genesis. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.15)”. As for location in 38:14 (MT’s Krd-l( r#$). the LXX explains as well the purpose of the veil. commenting on Pl(ttw in 38:14: hdwhy hnryky )l#$ hy np htsk . 639-40. ed. Israel. Hirzel. John W. 1974). Furthermore. 1996). it is not likely that this has been the case in Israel. “Some Problems in Genesis XXXVIII” VT 25 (1975): 338-61. [KAT Bd. Pedersen was aware of the Assyrian evidence. Leipzig and Erlangen: A. see Vetus Latina. ed. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum.17. Procksch cites both LXX and Vulgate and comments that the veil covered the face and made Tamar unrecognizable (D. Andersen and David Noel Freedman. thus in Assyria they are not allowed to go about veiled. 341-43. Hosea (AB 24. 205. “bepetah cnayim in Genesis 38:14" JBL 96 (1977). but dismissed its relevance for the biblical text: “The Babylonians and Assyrians had definite rules for them [prostitutes] in the laws. Atlanta: Scholars Press. the most significant exception.See Bird.

Targum PseudoJonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken. instead of Mkx). 1968) 253. 1:150). For the text. p. 306).s. One should probably understand Mkx here in the sexual sense (see the end of v. suspect. contrast Michael Sokoloff. 292-310).. Rewriting the Bible: The Text and Language of the PseudoJonathan Targum (Ph.2). Sokoloff comments: “The general state of preservation of the text of PsJ known only from one manuscript [BM Aramaic Additional MS 27031] is very poor and contains a large number of corruptions. 47. 128. also Michael L. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 1B. Midrash Bereshit Rabba. 18 17 16 15 14 In her analysis of Genesis Rabbah’s portrayal of Judah in Genesis 38. For the full text. Los Angeles.) in construct form. more generally. G. University of California. see Alejandro Díez Macho. 303). and his Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (2 vols. 26. Judah and Tamar. 128 n. 19 20 . Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College. “and he did not know her again”[p. For these reasons. in general. Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary (Reprint with additional corrections by Albeck. hty Myxr hdwhy hwh )lw hdwhyd hytybb twh Nyp) tsy(k Mwr) )rb. see Judah Theodor and Hanoch Albeck. For the text. The FragmentTargums. This interpretation is also present in Yalqut Shim`oni (Gen. My parenthetical translation follows Golomb in reading tyysk as a passive participle (f.D. Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (reprint. Madrid and Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. M. Indices and Introductory Essays (Analecta Biblica 76. 13). Judah and Tamar. 38:15) and Tanhuma (Wayyesheb 9:17. 1985] 156. 20. see E. Heb. Sokoloff. hty Mkx hdwhy hwh )lw hdwhyd hytyybb twwh Nyp) tyysk Mwr) rb. 1972). Pseudo-Jonathan. She illustrates this phenomenon by way of two case studies focusing on Gen. Golomb. 656. The translation follows Michael Maher. n. as opposed to multiple occurrences of ysk (Clarke. Talmud Babli. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books. the verse is nearly identical to that of Neofiti above. Chico: Scholars Press. 1992). Dictionary of the Targumim. MN: The Liturgical Press. E 43).13 See also the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah 10b and Sota 10b). the sullenness of Tamar accounts for why Judah did not love her (Mxr. 1980) 151 (MS Vatican Ebr. Klein. A Grammar of Targum Neofiti [HSM 34. for example. 1965). 440). NJ: KTAV. Clarke. and their inclusion in this dictionary would add more uncertainty than solid lexical material” (Dictionary. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to their Extant Sources.): hhp) tmcmc Mwr) (Klein. 1986). Note that s(k occurs only here in Pseudo-Jonathan (see Concordance in Clarke. 1. Tomo I: Génesis (Textos y Estudios 7. See further E. For Maher (Pseudo-Jonathan. 1990] 256). Cook. Menn identifies a “basic bifurcation between Judah the guilty and Judah the innocent” (Menn. 266). 255]). If one reads the verb ysk (as passive participle?). 301-2 and. 38:25-26 and 38:15-16a. dissertation. Dictionary. This I believe best accounts for the otherwise problematic twwh that follows (see David M. 1986) 1:99. see Menn. 1984). lines 2-3 (Ms E = Bodleian Ms. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period [Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University. Collegeville. New York: Judaica Press. Note the variant rendering in the fragment targums (MS Vatican Ebr.1041-42. Volume I: Texts. See. Marcus Jastrow. In justifying his exclusion of the targum from his dictionary. the unique words to be found are.

165. Chapters 38–44 (Luther’s Works 7. Judah and Tamar. 238. 295-308. considered the “tools of the Devil. 24 25 For brothels in Luther’s time and Reformation attempts to eradicate them. esp. 20. ed. “Luther and Women: The Death of Two Marys. See his commentary in Miqra’ot Gedolot on Genesis 38:15. idem. 1995). 25-31. 31 32 Diane Owen Hughes. 292. “Regulating Women’s Fashion. as he deserved. 2:108-111. Lyndal Roper. 123-24. 1990. 129-30. Genesis (trans. see Alfred Rubens.” in Disciplines of Faith: Studies in Religion. pls. 1982).” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World. comments following hnw zl hb#$xy w. 160. John L. John Bossy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ed. A History of Jewish Costume (rev. 100 children of good people. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 186. Genesis. esp 82. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House. and enlarged ed. “Hij~b. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust. Silences of the Middle Ages. 110. 146.” in A History of Women in the West. 1983). esp. John King. 1987). II. from Italian. 148. ed. 26. 113. 1992). . 318. Esposito (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jim Obelkevich. Lectures. n. 157-58.” are “stinking.” 301). 45).” in Disputes and Settlements: Law and Human Relations in the West. 138.121. 22 23 For royal and messianic themes in Genesis Rabbah’s commentary on chapter 38. 26 27 28 29 30 Calvin. For the summary that follows. 306. and is therefore to be considered a murderer. 301-2 (prostitutes. 306. Politics and Patriarchy. 285 (“indeed there is no doubt that God blinded Judah. London: Peter Owen Limited. syphilitic. see Lyndal Roper. see the excellent analysis of Menn. with which he had been long familiar?”). 1989). seedy and nasty. and Raphael Samuel (London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. n. 189. John Calvin. eds.21 Menn speculates that this more favorable view of Judah derives from a deliberate alteration of the text whereby hnw zl is read as hnw z )l (Judah and Tamar. see Martin Luther. The Holy Household: Women and Morals in Reformation Augsburg (Oxford: Clarendon. and his attitude toward prostitutes in Merry Wiesner. Lectures. 242. For pictorial evidence and discussion. “Sumptuary Law and Social Relations in Renaissance Italy. and Thérèse and Mendel Metzger. ed. scabby. Jewish Life in the Middle Ages: Illuminated Hebrew Manuscripts of the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Centuries (New York: Alpine Fine Arts Collection. knowledge of which he has obtained second hand from travelers there (25-26). 42-46. 150-51. Here following Menn. for how did it happen that he did not know the voice of his daughter-in-law. worse than a poisoner. 169. Judah and Tamar. 26. 1973). Fadwa El Guindi. examples in plates 35. and pp. 30. esp. 87-111. Jaroslav Pelikan. 284. 1965). Luther. 69-99. Luther also compares the veil of Genesis to the student hoods of his day and to Turkish custom. Christiane Klapisch-Zuber (trans.. 1965).44. Such a whore can poison 10. Note that Luther refrains from using the Judah/Tamar episode as a springboard for a diatribe against prostitutes. Lectures on Genesis. 310-54. 349-50.

Cameron and A. 127-57. and the Gods (trans. 44 .” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70 (1984): 92-105. Tom Rasmussen and Nigel Spivey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. “Der Papyrus 55001 und seine satirisch-erotischen Zeichnungen und Inschriften” (Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino. 233 (fig. also general remarks in Christopher J. 40 39 For Homer. esp. 29.” 248. esp. 1992). “women who have had the greatest number of lovers wear an ornamental ankle ring as a token of their exalted profession” (Outlines of Pyrrhonism. for dress and hairstyle. “Significance of the Veil. Omlin. and brief discussion in Anne Carson. 10.OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 6.) For Alexandria. “Crime and Adultery in Ancient Egypt. 1991).6 of a matron). See Dyfri Williams. and Desire. John J. Sextus Empiricus remarks on prostitutes in Egypt. and Froma I. David M. for Deir el Medina ostraca. 154. and Women in the Classical World: Image and Text. 168-69. esp. Spontaneity and Tradition: A Study in the Oral Art of Homer (Berkeley: University of California.1). 1994). eds. 117-18. 3. van der Toorn. from French.” in Looking at Greek Vases. 130. Kuhrt (Detroit: Wayne State University. Sex and Society. 159-67 and photo on 127. Sex and Society in Græco-Roman Egypt (London and New York: Kegan Paul International. Pesahim 113b). Law Collections. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Halperin. Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. contrast Van der Toorn. 92-106.” 250-51. see Montserrat. “Women on Athenian Vases: Problems of Interpretation.” 332-34. Lambert. esp. 159-69. Winkler. 1992). eds. Reasoning. 1986). Roth. III. Lila Abu-Lughod. Hanina and Oshaia in Israel) who lived and worked as cobblers in an area of town populated by prostitutes (Bab. 189-90. Joseph A. 1987). 1996). 12-20. 1992). 12-35. see the superb study of Michael N. 1990). 7.” in Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Eugen Strouhal. “Prostitution. Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt (London and New York: Kegan Paul International. 43 42 41 For the evidence.” 328-29. 1983). Lerner.” in Images of Women in Antiquity. and Mary Beard. eds. translation from Montserrat. Elaine Fantham et al. 129-31. Nagler. 26. “Origin of Prostitution. G. 115-118.201. “Significance of the Veil. 96. Turino: Edizione d’Arte Fratelli Pozzo. A. Dirt.33 See.160-64. 45-61. n. 1973). Compare in this regard the talmudic story of two rabbis (R. ed.” in Aussenseiter und Randgruppen: Beiträge zu einer Sozialgeschichte des Alten Orients. 1974). for example. Mesopotamia: Writing. Van der Toorn. Family Religion in Babylonia. “Adopting an Approach II. Zeitlin (Princeton: Princeton University Press. Women in the Classical World. vol. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34 35 36 37 38 Jean Bottero. 47-48. Life of the Ancient Egyptians (Norman. Volkert Haas (Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz. 1987. “Origin of Prostitution. esp. see W. The story extols their virtue at not allowing themselves to be tempted by the women. see Dominic Montserrat. see Lise Manniche. eds. 338-39.130-32. and 281 (fig. Eyre. Lerner. “Putting Her in Her Place: Woman. 120-23.

30b. scarf. 1998).” Historia 29 (1980): 208-18. in order that they may be more readily approached.” in A History of Women in the West.6. “Authority on her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor. XI. See also M. 227-30. 4. 1990. 1982). Origen. 1974). see illustrations throughout Metzger. Prostitution.” in Studi in onore di Giuseppe Grosso (vol. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. Sexuality. San. According to MacMullen. 55-76. 1956]. 325. See Marna D. 46 The problem is described by Tertullian: “The motivation for this was that certain women had diligently promoted the disuse of garments that serve as the tokens and guardians of social and moral rank. Minucius Felix. . 6. eds. see analysis in Fausto Goria. 33135. Sexuality. 148. Rashi: The Man and His World (New York: Sepher-Hermon. Turin: G. and hat. But now in prostituting themselves. Brundage.45 For what follows. Prostitution. esp. 134. 2089. 1983). I draw upon the excellent study of Thomas A. 49 48 47 Ramsey MacMullen.8 with Bab. McGinn. One does find exceptions. esp.6. “Early Christian Women. Monique Alexandre. “La Nov. Commodian. and 116 for quote. translation from McGinn. Gittin 90a-b. The translation is from Esra Shereshevsky.10. Part Fourth. For legislation regarding sexuality in Justinian’s Code. perhaps in imitation of changes in style at the imperial court in Rome (“Women in Public.” 171. and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago and London: University of Chicago. 161. to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face” (The Anti-Nicene Fathers. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad. so entirely. esp. Parts First and Second. I. From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints. Prostitution. Jewish Life. on contemporary women’s dress. and the Law in Ancient Rome (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 409-44. Sexuality. shoes. ed. See Gillian Clark. 209. Bab.. Volume IV: Tertullian. n.” (Pallio 4. 169. “Women in Public in the Roman Empire. 1993). “who cover not only the head.” New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64): 410-16. from Italian. J. M. McGinn. 106-118. Ned. James A. McGinn. but the face also. and comments on 146. 140-71. Bab. Shabbat 6. with one eye free. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza.” 217-18). see generally. those more wealthy women who assumed a public role in society were apparently not always veiled. 58-61. 12 di Giustiniano e l’assunzione coattiva dell’abito monastico. esp. inasmuch as they are a hindrance to promiscuity. Sexuality. Nedarim 3. Hooker. Giappichelli. Sex. Pauline S. Baba Qamma 8. largely from his Talmud commentary. also 167-72 for a useful collection of passages. Law. 161).9. 52 53 54 55 Italics added. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Pantel (trans. Prostitution. For manuscript evidence.10. Translations of The Writings of the Fathers down to A. 113-23.D. 51 50 Tertullian cites the example of women in Arabia.. 58b. that they are content. 433. 1992). they have sworn off their stola. 37). and M. Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Life-styles (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1987).” 166.

Oxford: Blackwell. idem. From Italian. 20-22. 91-92. 56-59. 21.56 From the Miqra’ot Gedolot. “Sumptuary Law. 117-18. esp. The veiling. 1996). Church. “Regulating Women’s Fashion. 1980).” 92). and Franciscan Rhetoric in the Italian Renaissance City. Hughes (“Distinguishing Signs.” 82. “Women’s Fashion. Genesis (New York: Shilo Publishing House. 1971). 39. “Distinguishing Signs. Common Women. the sign of a respectable woman. online at http://www. In Siena. Hughes. 177.” Classics Ireland 3 [1996].” 150-51. p. Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah. 186. This contrasts with our general lack of knowledge of the appearance of prostitutes in the Byzantine world (see Claudine Dauphin. Jacques Rossiaud. 1988).” 136-58. their purpose was to protect the honor and modesty of the wearer. 143-46. where prostitutes were excluded: “Veils that masked perverted the function of normal headcoverings. prostitutes were prohibited from wearing a veil. and Hughes. commentary on 38:15. 80.4 (1975-6): 825-45. 91. “Prostitution and the Question of Sexual Identity in Medieval Europe.” Journal of Women’s History 11. 34. 62 Brundage “Sumptuary Laws. 60 61 Brundage “Sumptuary Laws. Stillman. Norman A. 179-80. Baths and Babes: Prostitution in the Byzantine Holy Land. 63 .” 346-50.16-24 and 29-30 (on Jews and prostitutes). Chavel (trans. allowed them to remain anonymous when they returned home. 59 58 Ruth Mazo Karras.” 164). Jews. translation follows Charles B. 1985).164. Ruth Mazo Karras. and Ruth Mazo Karras. women who lived outside the usual social categories” (Hughes. allowed a freedom akin to licence. 80-100 and Appendix 2 (“Extracts from Jewish Sumptuary Laws and Dress Regulations”). The mask on the other hand. “Distinguishing Signs: Ear-Rings. . and Hughes. Metzger. “Brothels. A Papal Bull of 1257 (Avignon) specified that Jewish women were to wear a veil with two blue according to Ramban. and anyone who saw an ‘immoral’ woman wearing one had the right and. “Sumptuary Law”. Jewish Life in the Middle Ages. “Sumptuary Law. The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. see Index sub “sumptuary laws”. . Jewish Life. Leah Lydia Otis.ucd.2 (1999):159-77. Jewish Costume. NJ: Behrman House.” 22) also refers to a yellow veil required for Jews. 64. Jewish Costume.” 82-93. Prostitution in Medieval Society: The History of an Urban Institution in Languedoc (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. “Sumptuary Law.” Journal of Medieval History 13 (1987): 343-55.” Past and Present 112 (1986): 3-59. and pl. which were commonly worn by women . idem. Rubens. 1984. idem. Metzger. Compare this with 13th century Siena. idem. James A.” 351-52. Robert Chazan. 195. 121. I am indebted to my colleague Zeff Bjerken for this reference. and Jew in the Middle Ages (West Orange. Hughes. “Sumptuary Law. State. idem. Common Women: Prostitution and Sexuality in Medieval England (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 81. high platform shoes and veils fixed over the face to mask it were allowed only to one class of women–to prostitutes. indeed. “Prostitution and the Question of Sexual Identity” (“In twelfth-century Arles.146). idem. 200. 114.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1.” 147-51.” esp. “Sumptuary Laws and Prostitution in Late Medieval Italy. a requirement echoed by later Councils in Italy and Germany up to the mid-fifteenth century (Rubens. Brundage. “Prostitution in the Medieval Canon Law. Diane Owen Hughes. 57 Hebrew Myh Mg My#$dqh w#&(y Nk. “Regulating Women’s Fashion. the responsibility to take it from her. 1979).” 92-93. Medieval Prostitution (trans.html. 473. 189.).

Veiled Sentiments. sexuality. Gender.” 248. 4 (“Modesty. esp. see Abu-Lughod.64 See also Lerner. . 159-67. and status in a modern Egyptian Bedouin community. chap. and Sexuality”). 65 For a fascinating study of the complex relationship between veiling. “Origin of Prostitution.