MESHA’S RYT IN THE CONTEXT OF MOABITE AND ISRAELITE BLOODLETTING Ziony Zevit American Jewish University e Moabites had no particular qualms about killing people ritually, because done properly as determined by tradition and convention, it proved eective. For example, Kings narrates what happened in Moab aer Mesha rebelled against Jehoram, Ahab’s son. According to this version of events, things went poorly for Moab and the king made a last stand in Kir-Hareseth, the modern El-Kerak, a city perched strategically atop a mountain. When he saw things going badly, he attempted to break through the lines of Judahite, Israelian, and Edomite forces with seven hundred soldiers, but failed. “So, he took his Þrst-born son who was to reign aer him, and oered him as an #olah on the wall; and a great wrath came over Israel, so they traveled away from him and went back to [their] land” (Kgs :). Two details in this verse are of signiÞcance. First, Mesha’s Þrst born son was presented as a holocaust oering, burnt completely, following the same ritual that Abraham almost performed in Gen :–. Abraham took his son to a designated mountain top and was prepared to oer him there as an #olah. Abraham’s reward for not withholding his son was the promise of progeny and what is more, a promise that “your seed will inherit the gate of his enemies” (Gen :). Second, Mesha, who likewise did not withhold his Þrst-born, saw his enemy withdraw as a result of some unleashed power—the import of the Hebrew remains unclear—and presumably hoped that another one of his sons might inherit the gate of his Israelite enemies. e narrative in Kings clearly assumes that Mesha knew that the drastic ritual act would be ecacious and, moreover, that the armies viewing his sacriÞce on the walls knew also that the apotropaism would prove eective against their force. e great “wrath” that came over Israel may have been anger at Mesha for not Þghting fairly or it may have been a great fear of what might happen to them should they attack. e Deuteronomistic historian reported the event matter-of-factly but did not comment on it or provide a theological explanation. is act of Mesha may be considered one involving payment in advance for services about to be rendered. e second case of blood-letting by Moabites that I wish to consider is reported in Mesha’s inscription on the Moabite Stone (KAI ).1 It reveals that Moabites were not only aware of the concept of herem, the utter destruction of an enemy that biblical texts associate with the conquest traditions,˙ but that they practiced it as well.2 In lines –, Mesha describes his campaign against Nebo, a town inhabited by Reubenites (according to Num :) designated “Israelites” by Mesha, presumably aer the name of the kingdom to which they were loyal (cf. Kgs :–): 1 For an attempt to conceptualize theological principles underlying the Moabite herem, see Philip. D. Stern, e Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience (Brown Judaic Studies ; Atlanta:˙ Scholars, ): –. 2 For a general treatment of violence and genocide in the Bible that draws historical conclusions about Israelite thought on the basis of the dates of sources, see Z. Zevit, “e Search for Violence in Israelite Culture and in the Bible,” in Religion and Violence: e Biblical Heritage (D. Bernat and J. Klawans, eds.; Sheeld: Sheeld Phoenix, ). ziony zevit () And Kemosh said to me, “Go seize Nebo from Israel” and I () went at night and fought against her from the rising of the morning star until noon and I () seized her and I killed (w"hrg) all of her, seven thousand men and young men and women and young wo()men and virgins, because for Ashtar-Kemosh I utterly destroyed her (hrmth). ˙ is killing o of Reubenites may be explained pragmatically. Having conquered Israelite clans settled by Omri in the heart of what he claimed as Moabite territory, Mesha would not allow potential enemies allied to Cisjordanian tribes in the kingdom of Israel to reside in his Moabite kingdom and it was not in his interest to have seven thousand resentful refugees camping a few hours walk from their former homes in his territory. e language of this Realpolitik justiÞcation is modern. Mesha described his actions in language indicating that the motivation was cultic. In line he explained that the killing, mentioned in line , was an act for the beneÞt of the goddess Ashtar-Kemosh. His herem here is to be understood as the ritual destruction of enemies whom he believed he could˙ not have vanquished without the assistance of the goddess. (I have no explanation for why the goddess is the beneÞciary of the herem.) Mesha himself observes that he undertook the campaign against Nebo only at the behest˙ of the god Kemosh. is is very much the same situation reported in the story of the conquest of Jericho where the miraculous intervention of the deity is manifested in the crumbling of the city walls without human intervention. e actual killing of its inhabitants—men and women, young and old—exactly as in Mesha, however, was Israel’s task (Josh :–, see v. ). Like Mesha, Joshua too was instructed by a divine being to take the city (Josh :–:). e underlying principle appears to have been that prisoners captured with divine aid could not be exploited by the captors, they belonged properly to the divine commander-in-chief. eir death constituted an acceptable acknowledgment of divine intervention, but was not necessarily viewed as a form of payment for services rendered. e human Þghters functioned as agents and were the beneÞciaries of the battle’s outcome in that they gained real estate, but not more than that. A third Moabite blood-letting, this time at the town of Ataroth inhabited by Gadites, whom Mesha mentions by their tribal designation, is referred to in lines – of his inscription, suggesting that it occurred before the herem at Nebo (see also Num :). ese lines describe a slaughter similar to the one at Nebo,˙ but the vocabulary is subtly dierent: () … and men of Gad dwelt in the land of Ataroth from of old; and the king of Israel () built Ataroth for himself; and I fought against the town and I seized her and I killed all the pe[ople from] () the town ryt for Kemosh and for Moab Although the reading ryt in line is to be considered certain thanks to new photographs, the meaning of the word, perhaps pronounced /rayat/, remains unclear.3 It could be adverbial, describing how the killing was done, or it could be a noun describing what the killing was: a gi, an oering, a grand gesture, a public spectacle. e variety of possible explanations based on conßicting proposed etymologies has le its translation unsettled.4 In view of this situation, I propose that whatever ryt denominates may be ascertained by considering the description of what it involved and by viewing it as a religious phenomenon even if its etymology remains unresolved. 3 For the reading, see A. Schade, “New Photographs Supporting the reading ryt in Line of the Mesha Inscription,” IEJ (): –. 4 See J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Volume I, Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, ): – or J. Hoijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Part Two (Leiden: Brill, ): for a summary of discussions and Stern, e Biblical Herem (n ): for a concise evaluation..