in the Bible, a Re-evaluation (1) qjr In a recent article, Frank M. Cross interpreted three occurrences of qjr in the Hebrew Bible, as having a legal meaning similar to the withdrawal clause in the Elephantine legal documents (2). The withdrawal clause was recognized as a legal formula soon after the first Aramaic papyri came to light. Widely attested in the Semitic languages (3), the general meaning of the root qjr was never a mystery and its legal function in the Aramaic documents was promptly defined as a technical term for quittance. Cowley translated TAD B2.7:7 as “this house I give to you and I resign all claim to it (hnm tqjrw)” (4); and Kraeling rendered TAD B3.4:10-11 as: “we have sold and given (over) to thee and have removed from it (hnm ˆqjrw) from this day unto forever” (5). Later on, legal studies by Y. Muffs and R. Yaron (6) provided more precision regarding its specific function in different contexts within the Aramaic corpus, setting the actual standard interpretation of the withdrawal formula. As recently defined by B. Porten, “the technical term qjr indicates that the alienor had relinquished all rights to the object (…). Withdrawal was either from the alienee (…), from the object (…), or from both (…)” (7). The first passage discussed by F. M. Cross is Ezek 8,6: “He said to me, ‘Mortal, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? (yviDq]mi l['me hq;j’r:l]) Yet you will see still greater abominations’”. Cross deals here with the translation and interpretation of yviDq]mi l['me hq;j’r:l]. Considering that the sentence lacks a clear subject and object, the question we might ask is, who is far from the sanctuary? If we take the subject of the verb to be the (1) An alleged biblical legal attestation of qjr was proposed by F. RUNDGREN, “Über einen juristischen Terminus bei Esra 6,6”, ZAW 70 (1958) 209-215; and discussed by R. YARON, “Aramaic Deeds of Conveyance”, Bib 41 (1960) 385, who rightly concluded that the use of qjr in Ezra 6,6 “hardly admits the legalistic interpretation suggested by Rundgren”. (2) F.M. CROSS, “A Papyrus recording a Divine Legal Decision and the Root rh≥q in Biblical and Near Eastern Legal Usage”, Texts, Temples, and Traditions. A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. FOX et al.) (Winona Lake 1996) 311-320. (3) J. HOFTIJZER – K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden 1995) II, 1072-1074. (4) A.E. COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford 1923) 38. TAD B2.7 is a grant of a house to a daughter. TAD = B. PORTEN – A. YARDENI, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (Jerusalem 1989-1999). (5) E.G.H. KRAELING, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri; New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. From the Jewish Colony at Elephantine (New Haven 1953) 155. TAD B3.4 is sale of abandoned property. (6) Y. MUFFS, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (Leiden 1969) 24-25, 47-50, 118-120, 158-162; and YARON, “Aramaic Deeds of Conveyance”, 383-386. (7) B. PORTEN, The Elephantine Papyri in English. Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change (Leiden 1996) 185, n. 17. For a full discussion of the withdrawal clause see A.F. BOTTA, Interrelationships between the Aramaic and Demotic Legal Traditions. An Egyptological Approach to the Withdrawal Clause in the Elephantine Aramaic Documents” (Ph.D. diss.; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2001) 87-147.