King Solomon Solves the Case of the Two Prostitutes

So why aren’t we told which mother actually stole the baby?

Dr.

Hilary Lipka

Dr.

Hilary Lipka

Categories:

Vayigash

King Solomon Solves the Case of the Two Prostitutes

Shortly after securing the throne, Solomon goes to the shrine at Gibeon to make a large sacrificial offering. There, God appears to him at night in a dream and Solomon requests that God grant him great wisdom:

‏^{מלכים א ג:ט} וְנָתַתָּ לְעַבְדְּךָ לֵב שֹׁמֵעַ לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת עַמְּךָ לְהָבִין בֵּין טוֹב לְרָע כִּי מִי יוּכַל לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת עַמְּךָ הַכָּבֵד הַזֶּה.

^{1 Kgs 3:9} Grant, then, Your servant an understanding mind^[1] to judge Your people, to distinguish between good and bad; for who can judge this vast people of Yours?”^[2]

God is so pleased with Solomon’s request that He rewards him not only with what he requested, but also with riches and glory (vv. 11–13).^[3] In the next account, Solomon uses his great, divinely granted wisdom and discernment to provide a just ruling in an emotionally fraught case.^[4]

King Solomon and the Prostitutes

Two prostitutes come to King Solomon’s court:

‏^{מלכים א ג:טז} אָז תָּבֹאנָה שְׁתַּיִם נָשִׁים זֹנוֹת אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה לְפָנָיו.

^{1 Kgs 3:16} Later two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him.^[5]

The women are described as נָשִׁים זֹנוֹת (nashim zonot; sg. אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה [ʾishah zonah]). This Qal feminine participle form of the root ז.נ.ה/י, which means “to engage in sexual relations outside of or apart from marriage,” denotes the occupation of prostitute.^[6]

Recognizing a Prostitute

Though the story identifies the women as prostitutes, it does not indicate how they would be recognized as such. Dress may have been an indication, as suggested in the description of a married woman attempting to seduce a young man in Proverbs:

‏^{משׁלי ז:י} וְהִנֵּה אִשָּׁה לִקְרָאתוֹ שִׁית זוֹנָה וּנְצֻרַת לֵב.

^{Prov 7:10} A woman comes toward him, dressed like a prostitute, with set purpose.

The comparison might indicate that sex workers had some form of distinctive dress, or it could be a colloquial expression, indicating she is scantily clad or in some other way dressed to entice. Tamar covers her face with a veil as part of her plan to trick Judah into having intercourse with her (Gen 38:14–15). Thus, her garb does not necessarily reflect the outfits customarily worn by sex workers, but Judah’s engagement with her may indicate that it was not unusual for them to be veiled, perhaps to hide their identity.^[7]

The women’s occupation as prostitutes sharing a household provides the necessary circumstances for their case. The first woman to speak opens with a respectful address, בִּי אֲדֹנִי, “Please my lord!”:^[8]

^{מלכים א ג:יז} וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הָאַחַת בִּי אֲדֹנִי אֲנִי וְהָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת יֹשְׁבֹת בְּבַיִת אֶחָד וָאֵלֵד עִמָּהּ בַּבָּיִת. ^ג:יח וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְלִדְתִּי וַתֵּלֶד גַּם הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת וַאֲנַחְנוּ יַחְדָּו אֵין זָר אִתָּנוּ בַּבַּיִת זוּלָתִי שְׁתַּיִם אֲנַחְנוּ בַּבָּיִת.

^{1 Kgs 3:17} The first woman said, “Please, my lord! This woman and I live in the same house; and I gave birth while she was in the house. ^3:18 On the third day^[9] after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth. We were alone; there was no one else with us in the house. Just the two of us were in the house.

Since the women live on their own, there are no witnesses to the events at issue in the case, and there are also no husbands or, apparently, male kin to either defend the claims of the women or arbitrate between them.

Prostitutes’ Housing

This description of the situation is consistent with the living conditions for prostitutes described in Jeremiah, which refers to a house of a prostitute, indicating some sex workers probably had their own homes in which they served clients:

‏^{ירמיה ה:ז} אֵי לָזֹאת אֶסְלַוח לָךְ בָּנַיִךְ עֲזָבוּנִי וַיִּשָּׁבְעוּ בְּלֹא אֱלֹהִים וָאַשְׂבִּעַ אוֹתָם וַיִּנְאָפוּ וּבֵית זוֹנָה יִתְגֹּדָדוּ.

^{Jer 5:7} Why should I forgive you? Your children have forsaken Me and sworn by no-gods. When I fed them their fill, they committed adultery and went trooping to the house of a prostitute.

Rahab, the zonah who assists the Israelite spies when they are scouting the land of Canaan, also has her own house (Josh 2:1).^[10] She lives independently, apart from her family (vv. 18–19), and she appears to have also been an innkeeper, since the Israelite spies plan to spend the night there.

The Case

Having explained the background to their dispute, the first woman relates the details:

^{מלכים א ג:יט} וַיָּמָת בֶּן הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָיְלָה אֲשֶׁר שָׁכְבָה עָלָיו. ^ג:כ וַתָּקָם בְּתוֹךְ הַלַּיְלָה וַתִּקַּח אֶת בְּנִי מֵאֶצְלִי וַאֲמָתְךָ יְשֵׁנָה וַתַּשְׁכִּיבֵהוּ בְּחֵיקָהּ וְאֶת בְּנָהּ הַמֵּת הִשְׁכִּיבָה בְחֵיקִי. ^ג:כא וָאָקֻם בַּבֹּקֶר לְהֵינִיק אֶת בְּנִי וְהִנֵּה מֵת וָאֶתְבּוֹנֵן אֵלָיו בַּבֹּקֶר וְהִנֵּה לֹא הָיָה בְנִי אֲשֶׁר יָלָדְתִּי.

^{1 Kgs 3:19} This woman’s son died in the night because she lay on him. ^3:20 She arose in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while your maidservant was asleep, and laid him in her bosom, and she laid her dead son in my bosom. ^3:21 When I arose in the morning to nurse my son, there he was, dead; but when I looked at him closely in the morning, it was not the son I had borne.”

Some commentators view the testimony of this first woman (often referred to as the plaintiff) as clear, coherent, and providing a logical explanation for what happened that night. Thus, they contend that she is the true mother.^[11]

Other commentators detect inconsistencies in her testimony. After all, if she was sleeping, how could she know what happened over the course of the night? Therefore, they contend that the second woman (often referred to as the defendant) is the real mother.

When she does speak, the second woman adds little information about the case:

‏^{מלכים א ג:כב} וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הָאַחֶרֶת לֹא כִי בְּנִי הַחַי וּבְנֵךְ הַמֵּת וְזֹאת אֹמֶרֶת לֹא כִי בְּנֵךְ הַמֵּת וּבְנִי הֶחָי וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.

^{1 Kgs 3:22} The other woman spoke up, “No, the live one is my son, and the dead one is yours!” But the first insisted, “No, the dead boy is yours; mine is the live one!” And they went on arguing before the king.

Perhaps she has no counter-explanation to offer or she is afraid that if she says more she will trip up and give herself away. Her focus on the living child being hers, in contrast to the first woman, who insists more firmly that the dead child is not hers, is cited as further evidence that the second woman is the true mother.^[12]

Solomon’s Judgment

Both sets of arguments are compelling, which ironically provides some evidence that this case is intended to be unsolvable by traditional judicial means. Solomon himself, in summarizing each woman’s arguments, makes no distinction between them or their claims, presenting the testimony of the two women as indistinguishable:

^{מלכים א ג:כג} וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ זֹאת אֹמֶרֶת זֶה בְּנִי הַחַי וּבְנֵךְ הַמֵּת וְזֹאת אֹמֶרֶת לֹא כִי בְּנֵךְ הַמֵּת וּבְנִי הֶחָי.

^{1 Kgs 3:23} The king said, “One says, ‘This is my son, the live one, and the dead one is yours’; and the other says, ‘No, the dead boy is yours, mine is the live one.’”

While some commentators contend that Solomon is able to determine who the true mother of the living child is based on the women’s testimony and the way they present themselves,^[13] the ambiguous evidence just cited seems to indicate that he cannot tell which one was telling the truth. Thus, this is the perfect case to demonstrate that Solomon possesses divinely given wisdom.^[14]

One other significant factor contributes to the difficulty of the case: The only testimony available is that of two prostitutes.

The Stigma of Prostitution

Biblical references to sex work reflect a society in which the practice was licit and tolerated, because women who work as prostitutes appear to be without husbands or male guardians, and thus they are not violating the rights or honor of any male by having sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage.

At the same time, there was a stigma attached to prostitution. Simeon and Levi’s retort to Jacob after they disrupt his plan to arrange an undesirable marriage for their sister Dinah makes this clear:

^{בראשׁית לד:לא} וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַכְזוֹנָה יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת אֲחוֹתֵנוּ.

^{Gen 34:31} But they answered, “Should our sister be treated like a prostitute?”^[15]

Deuteronomy prohibits using payment from prostitution to pay off a vow (23:19).^[16]Leviticus includes prostitutes among the categories of women that priests may not marry (21:7). Not surprisingly, the high priest also can not marry a prostitute (Lev 21:14).^[17]

Prostitutes are also associated with deception, mercenary attitudes, shamelessness, and lack of trustworthiness. Rahab, for example, saves the Israelite spies (and her own family) through her act of deception and betrayal of her own people (Josh 2:1–21; 6:17–25). Proverbs associates prostitutes with a mercenary attitude and a dangerous allure, equating the risks involved in keeping company with prostitutes to romantic entanglement with a “strange woman” (נָכְרִיָּה), likely referring to an adulteress:

‏^{משׁלי כג:כז} כִּי שׁוּחָה עֲמֻקָּה זוֹנָה וּבְאֵר צָרָה נָכְרִיָּה. ^כג:כח אַף הִיא כְּחֶתֶף תֶּאֱרֹב וּבוֹגְדִים בְּאָדָם תּוֹסִף.

^{Prov 23:27} A prostitute is a deep pit; a forbidden woman is a narrow well. ^23:28 She too lies in wait as if for prey, and destroys the unfaithful among men.^[18]

Phyllis Bird points out these attitudes and beliefs about prostitutes contribute to the difficulty of the case for Solomon:

Thus it is a case of one woman’s word against another and, more specifically, one harlot’s word against another, that is, the words of women whose word cannot be trusted. For the harlot is characterized in the ruling stereotype as a woman of smooth and self-serving speech. One does not expect truth from such as these. And so the case that is presented to Solomon is a case to test the wisest judge. The harlot plaintiffs assure that.”^[19]

How Solomon Solves the Case

Since prostitutes could not be trusted, Solomon does not bother with cross-examining the first woman, even though her account of what happened should have raised questions about how she could know the circumstances of the first child’s death if she was herself asleep. He also does not bother looking for character witnesses or anyone who might possibly be able to shed light on the case. Bird correctly contends:

[The story] does not reveal a generally accepting attitude towards harlots…but depends, rather, on their marginal status and their reputation for lying and self-interest. It is these commonly shared presuppositions about the harlot that make this case an ideal test, one by which extraordinary wisdom might be demonstrated.^[20]

Absent credible witnesses, Solomon must instead rely on a dangerous ruse—threatening the child’s life—to determine which of the women is the child’s mother:

^{מלכים א ג:כד} וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ קְחוּ לִי חָרֶב וַיָּבִאוּ הַחֶרֶב לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ. ^ג:כג וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ גִּזְרוּ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד הַחַי לִשְׁנָיִם וּתְנוּ אֶת הַחֲצִי לְאַחַת וְאֶת הַחֲצִי לְאֶחָת.

^{1 Kgs 3:24} So the king said, “Fetch me a sword,” and they brought the sword before the king, ^3:25 And the king said, “Cut the live child in two, and give half to one and half to the other.”

Seeing her child threatened, one of the women relinquishes her claim on the boy, while the other woman is content with Solomon’s plan:

‏^{מלכים א ג:כו} וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר בְּנָהּ הַחַי אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי נִכְמְרוּ רַחֲמֶיהָ עַל בְּנָהּ וַתֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי תְּנוּ לָהּ אֶת הַיָּלוּד הַחַי וְהָמֵת אַל תְּמִיתֻהוּ וְזֹאת אֹמֶרֶת גַּם לִי גַם לָךְ לֹא יִהְיֶה גְּזֹרוּ.

^{1 Kgs 3:26} But the woman whose son was the live one pleaded with the king, for she was overcome with compassion for her son. “Please, my lord,” she cried, “give her the live child; only don’t kill it!” The other insisted, “It shall be neither yours nor mine; cut it in two!”

Notably, the text does not indicate whether the woman who concedes is the first or the second woman. Her speech pattern, however, is similar to the first woman’s (appealing to the king with a polite, respectful בִּי אֲדֹנִי ‘‘Please, my lord”; cf. v. 17), which some take as further evidence that the first woman is the real mother.^[21]

Solomon’s wisdom is in discerning that the real mother of the living child will reveal herself if she believes that her baby’s life is in immediate danger, since he knows that her maternal instincts will cause her to do whatever is necessary to save her child. Thus, he is able to make his judgment in the case:

‏^{מלכים א ג:כז} וַיַּעַן הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר תְּנוּ לָהּ אֶת הַיָּלוּד הַחַי וְהָמֵת לֹא תְמִיתֻהוּ הִיא אִמּוֹ.

^{1 Kgs 3:27} Then the king spoke up. “Give the live child to her,” he said, “and do not put it to death; she is its mother.”

Bird notes:

[T]he audience is meant to see only two prostitutes, but Solomon in his wisdom sees what is hidden by that stereotype, namely, a mother. In this case two counter-images operate, which are normally distinct but are here combined in a single figure. The case is built on the one and resolved on the other.^[22]

Bird observes that this resolution is typical of biblical narratives in which prostitutes are briefly “lifted” from their marginalized status and are then returned to their place at the margins of society.^[23]

Why Is the True Mother Not Identified?

Prostitutes in biblical texts are often liminal figures: Both their physical and social location is on the outskirts of society. Rahab’s house is on the edge of the city, adjacent to the city wall (Josh 2:15). Tamar sits at a crossroads outside of town (Gen 38:14–15). Many of the other prostitutes who appear in biblical texts are not fully developed characters: They are nameless and speechless, qualities often correlated with low status, marginalization, and lack of agency.^[24]

In this story, the prostitutes only matter insofar as their case provides an opportunity to demonstrate Solomon’s great wisdom and discernment, and that regardless of status and social class, everyone had access to justice and a fair hearing from the king.^[25] Once they have served that narrative purpose, the two prostitutes are not given another thought.

It would have been easy for the author to indicate which woman was the mother of the living child, but the identity of the “real” mother is not revealed.^[26] For purposes of this episode, identifying for the audience the real mother of the live child does not matter. The point is to show that God’s promise of great wisdom to Solomon was fulfilled. Thus, the episode concludes with a statement about Solomon’s wisdom:

^{מלכים א ג:כח} וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר שָׁפַט הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּרְאוּ מִפְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי רָאוּ כִּי חָכְמַת אֱלֹהִים בְּקִרְבּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט.

^{1 Kgs 3:28} When all Israel heard the decision that the king had rendered, they stood in awe of the king; for they saw that he possessed divine wisdom to execute justice.

The next verse states that “Solomon was king over all of Israel” (14:1), linking Solomon’s display of great wisdom and discernment with his ability to rule.^[27] The narrative that follows (chs. 4–10) shows how God’s other promises to Solomon of riches, glory, and long life are also fulfilled, reflecting God’s support of Solomon as king.

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Published

December 21, 2023

Last Updated

April 10, 2024

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

Footnotes

View Footnotes

Published

December 21, 2023

Last Updated

April 10, 2024

[1] Literally, “a listening heart.”

[2] Unless otherwise indicated, translations of the biblical text follow RJPS with modifications.

[3] For more on this episode in 1 Kings 3:4–15, see Dr. Ruth Fidler, “Solomon’s Divine Wisdom: Legitimizing His Kingship,” TheTorah (2021).

[4] Several additional textual clues indicate the close relationship between the dream episode in 3:4–15 and the episode that follows in v. 16–28. The episode in v. 16–28 opens with the particle אָז followed by the imperfect verb, which, as Craig Evan Anderson, “The Sword of Solomon: The Subversive Underbelly of Solomon’s Judgment of the Two Prostitutes,” in Partners with God: Theological and Critical Readings of the Bible in Honor of Marvin A. Sweeney, ed. Shelley L. Birdsong and Serge Frolov (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2017), 73–81 [at 74, note 2], comments, indicates a correlation between the two; this unit is intended to illuminate the previous one. Moshe Garsiel, “Revealing and Concealing as a Narrative Strategy in Solomon’s Judgment (1 Kings 3:16–28),” CBQ 64.2 (2002): 229–247 [at 235], observes that the two narratives are linked by vocabulary as well. The verbs בּוֹא (come) and עָמַד (stand before) occur in both 1 Kings 3:15 and 16. In verse 15, Solomon comes and stands before the Ark, while in verse 16, the two prostitutes come and stand before the king. He notes both narratives use the verb שָׁמַע (“to hear,” vv. 9, 28) and the noun מִשְׁפָּט (“justice,” vv. 11, 28) and both have וְהִנֵּה, ‘‘and behold/look’’ (vv. 15, 21).

[5] In the Bible, terms for sex work most often derive from the root ז.נ.ה/י. Phyllis Bird, “To Play the Harlot: An Inquiry into an Old Testament Metaphor,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. Peggy Day (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 76. Quasi-marital relationships such as concubinage and the acquisition of slave “wives” fall under the umbrella of marriage in relation to usages of the term זנה .זנה is sometimes paired with נאף, “to commit adultery” (i.e., to violate a husband’s exclusive sexual right to his wife), but זנה is a more general and inclusive term, covering all instances of sexual intercourse in which there is an absence of a marriage bond between otherwise acceptable partners, including adultery, premarital sex by a daughter who is still part of her father’s household,and the sexual activities of a prostitute. Bird, “To Play the Harlot,” 76–77. Bird (90, note 13) also notes that for this reason, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality are not covered by זנה .זנה is also used figuratively to denote religious or political infidelity against God, in which those who commit it are unfaithful with other gods or nations (see e.g., Lev 17:7; 20:5; Deut 31:16; Judg 2:17; and 1 Chr 5:25). Those who engage in such behavior are often depicted metaphorically in prophetic texts as God’s promiscuous, unfaithful wife. (See, e.g., Jer 3:1–5; Ezek 16:15–34; Ezek 23:1–21; and Hos 1–3. נאף is used in a similar way in Isa 57:3 and Jer 23:10. נאף and זנה are paired in such metaphors in Jer 3:8–9; 13:27; Hos 2:4; 4:13–14.)

[6] זוֹנָה without אִשָּׁה carries the same meaning. The terms appear to be interchangeable, given that Rahab is referred to as a זוֹנָה in Joshua 6:17 and 6:25 an אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה in Joshua 2:1 and 6:22. (On אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה as an apposition of specificity, see Paul Joüon and Tamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 3^rd reprint of 2^nd ed. with corrections, Subsidia Biblica 27 [Roma: G&B press, 2011], 131b.) The nominal construction of זוֹנָה is the same as that used to denote occupations such as a guard (שומר), shepherd (רועה) or a priest (כוהן). In the Bible, זונה occurs exclusively in the feminine singular and plural forms. (See, e.g., Gen 38:15; Lev 21:7, 14; Deut 23:19; Josh 2:1; 6:17, 22, 25; Prov 6:26; 7:10; 29:3.) For more on the usage of this nominal pattern in biblical Hebrew to denote occupations, see Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, “Semantic Aspects of the Pattern qôṭēl,” HAR 1 (1977): 158, 164–165. Though זוֹנָה formally denotes a sex worker, it may also have been used more broadly to refer to women who are not actual sex workers but are viewed as being “loose” in relation to sexual mores, much as the term “whore” is used today both to refer to a sex worker and as a derogatory term for a woman considered by the speaker to be sexually promiscuous. The context does not always make clear which sense of the term is intended (see, e.g., Judg 11:1–3, 16:1). In addition, in some cases, זוֹנָה may refer to a woman who lives independently and may reflect a cultural assumption that such women were open to being propositioned. This observation has been made by several scholars, including Athalya Brenner, The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and ‘Sexuality’ in the Hebrew Bible, Biblical Interpretation Series 26 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), 150–151; Phyllis Bird, “Prostitution in the Social World and the Religious Rhetoric of Ancient Israel,” in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, ed. Christopher A. Faraone and Laura McClure (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006), 40–58 [at 44–48]; and M.L. Garcia Bachman, Women at Work in the Deuteronomistic History (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 274–277. Thus, texts in which a woman is called a זוֹנָה should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they refer to literal sex work.

[7] For a discussion of the use of veils in ancient Israel, see Karel van der Toorn, “The Significance of the Veil in the Ancient Near East,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 327–339.

[8] Mordechai Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 193–194, observes that the women are referred to as prostitutes only at the beginning of the episode. He suggests that this term was used mostly to set up a situation where circumstances like those in the case could occur, as well as showing that all subjects had access to justice from the king. Their occupation has no bearing on the rest of the story, and they are referred to simply as women after that.

[9] This may not be intended literally. Cogan, I Kings, 194, points out that this expression בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, “on the third day,” indicates “an indefinite measure of time, an element common in storytelling meaning, ‘after a few days, shortly thereafter.’” (See, e.g., Gen 22:4; Josh 9:17; 1 Sam 30:1; and Est 5:1.)

[10] See further Joshua 2:3; 6:17–23. The זוֹנָה Samson visits in Judges 16:1–3 also appears to have her own house.

[11] This tendency goes back as far as Josephus (see Antiquities 8:27, 32). Ranaan Eichler, “Solomon’s Judgment: The Meta-Riddle,” Biblica 102 (2021): 30–44 [at 33–34], observes that Josephus in his retelling of the story changes several details of the biblical account, eliminating all doubt about who the mother of the living child is. Eichler also notes that several medieval commentators, including R. Joseph Ibn Kaspi, R. Isaac Abrabanel, R. David ibn Zimra (Radbaz), and R. Moses Alshekh also believed that the first woman is the mother of the live child.

[12] See, e.g., Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Guilty Party in 1 Kings III 16–28,” VT 48 (1998): 534–541, who also contends that if you look closely at the way each woman is referred to in the text, you can tell which one asks to spare the child, and which one says cut it in half. Eichler, “Solomon’s Judgment: The Meta-Riddle,” 35–36, notes that the earliest Jewish commentators to argue that the second woman was the mother of the live child were R. Hayyim Josef David Azulai (Chida) and R. Meir Leibush Weisser (Malbim).

[13] Among those who believe Solomon already knows who the mother of the live child is before he asks for the sword are R. Joseph Kara, R. Isaac Abrabanel, and R. Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal (Malbim). See the discussion in Angel, “Cut the Baby in Half,” 190–192.

[14] Among those who contend that there is no way for Solomon (or the reader) to identify the mother of the living child are Stuart Lasine, “The Riddle of Solomon’s Judgment and the Riddle of Human Nature in the Hebrew Bible,” JSOT 45 (1989): 61–86; Ellen van Wolde, “Who Guides Whom? Embeddedness as Perspective in Biblical Hebrew and in 1 Kings 3:16–28,” JBL 114 (1995): 623–642 [at 638]; and Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987), 166–170.

[15] A low estimation of the value of prostitutes is also reflected Proverbs 6:26 and Joel 4:3. The stigma may also have attached to the prostitute’s clients, as suggested by Judah’s reluctance to continue searching for Tamar to retrieve his staff, seal, and cord, which he had given her in pledge (Gen 38:18) to guarantee that he would pay her for her services. Nor were the prostitute’s children immune to the stigma, if the introduction of Jephthah as בֶּן אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה, “the son of a prostitute,” refers to an actual prostitute and not simply a promiscuous woman (Judg 11:1). Bachman, Women at Work in the Deuteronomistic History, 319–320, makes a solid case that זוֹנָה in this context likely does not refer to an actual prostitute, since if she were a prostitute, Gilead would have no way of knowing the child was his, and the certainty of his paternity is taken for granted by the text. It is more likely that Gilead impregnated Jephthah’s mother out of wedlock, and then accepted the child into his home. This would explain why Jephthah and his mother had a lower status among his brothers and why she is referred to as a זוֹנָה.

[16]

^{דברים כג:יט} לֹא תָבִיא אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר כֶּלֶב בֵּית יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְכָל נֶדֶר כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם.

^{Deut 23:19} You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the pay of a dog into the house of YHWH your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both are abhorrent to YHWH your God.

The association of כֶּלֶב with prostitution is based on this one text. The term כֶּלֶב generally means dog in the Bible. References to dogs tend to reflect an attitude of disdain and sometimes disgust towards them (see, e.g., Exod 22:30; 1 Kgs 14:11; 16:4; 21:19, 23–24; 22:38; 2 Kgs 9:10, 36; and Prov 26:11). There are also a few instances in which כֶּלֶב is used in reference to a person, either as a sign of self-abasement (2 Sam 9:8; 2 Kgs 8:13) or, when referring to someone else, to indicate scorn (2 Sam 16:9). Because מְחִיר כֶּלֶב is paired with אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה in Deuteronomy 23:19 and there are references to the קָדֵשׁ and קְדֵשָׁה (the so called “sacred prostitutes”) in the previous verse, the most common understanding of כֶּלֶב in this verse has been that it refers to a secular male prostitute. However, Elaine Adler Goodfriend, “Could keleb in Deuteronomy 23:19 Actually Refer to a Canine?,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 381–397, has made a strong case for understanding מְחִיר כֶּלֶב as referring to the price of an actual dog. Phyllis A. Bird, “Of Whores and Hounds: A New Interpretation of The Subject of Deuteronomy,” VT 65 (2015): 352–364, building upon this, provides an intriguing argument for this reading, noting that כֶּלֶב and זוֹנָה are also paired in 1 Kings 22:38, where כֶּלֶב clearly means dog. She contends that אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה and מְחִיר כֶּלֶב should be understood as formulaic expressions used idiomatically to denote something cheap, of low regard and of little or questionable value, perhaps in Deuteronomy 23:18 denoting something inadequate or unworthy of donating to the temple as a payment in fulfillment of one’s vow. The prohibition, then, concerns financial ethics—making an inadequate, insufficient, or cheap offering. If Bird is correct, the usage of this idiom (as well as their being paired with dogs twice in biblical texts) tells us something about how prostitutes were viewed: of low regard and of little value.

[17] That this restriction was deemed necessary indicates that some members of the general population probably did in fact marry prostitutes, just as they married the other categories of women prohibited for priests to marry. Thus, while there was a stigma, being a prostitute did not necessarily mean a woman would never be able to find a husband. Presumably if she married, the woman would stop practicing her trade, since otherwise she would be committing adultery.

[18] See also Proverbs 29:3. Isaiah’s metaphoric image of Jerusalem as a זוֹנָה in a complaint about thievery, deception, and bribe-taking in the city also reflects the stereotype of prostitutes as mercenary (1:21–23). The association of prostitutes with shamelessness is further reflected in a passage that describes a married woman intent on seducing a young man while her husband is away as impersonating a prostitute and brazenly seeking out men on the street and in the market, lurking at every corner (Prov 7:10–13). See the discussion in Bird, “Prostitution in the Social World and the Religious Rhetoric of Ancient Israel,” 45–48, and Claudia Camp, “1 and 2 Kings,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. C.A. Newsom and Sharon Ringe (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 100.

[19] Phyllis Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine: Narrative Art and Social Presupposition in Three Old Testament Texts,” in Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader, ed. Alice Bach (New York: Routledge, 1999), 110.

[20] Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 110.

[21] See, e.g., Garsiel, “Revealing and Concealing as a Narrative Strategy,” 235–247, who adds that the second woman is referred to as “the other woman,” which he contends in biblical texts is always derogatory (pp. 240–241). The belief that the plaintiff is the mother of the living child is reflected in some translations. The NRSV, for example, renders תְּנוּ לָהּ אֶת הַיָּלוּד הַחַי in verse 27 as “Give the first woman the living boy.” The translations in the NIV, ESV, and NASB are similar.

[22] Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 110.

[23] Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 111. Similarly, Bird, “Prostitution in the Social World and the Religious Rhetoric of Ancient Israel,” 48–49.

[24] Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel, The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 115–116; and Mieke Bal, Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 43–93.

[25] See, e.g., J. T. Walsh, 1 Kings (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 80; Richard Nelson, First and Second Kings (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1987), 39; and Hayyim Angel, “Cut the Baby in Half: Understanding Solomon’s Divinely Inspired Wisdom,” JBQ 39.3 (2011): 189–194 [at 193], who comments, “Prostitution is a lowly occupation in any society, but especially in a monotheistic theocracy where God's Temple is about to be built. The tenfold repetition of the term ‘the king’ in contrast to these prostitutes, then, is striking. It appears that a primary message of this narrative is that anyone could gain an audience with Solomon and receive a fair hearing…. That prostitutes could gain an audience with Solomon and that he would listen so attentively to their arguments that he could solve their case with no witnesses demonstrate Solomon's true wisdom.”

[26] Some contend that even though the case was unsolvable for Solomon without the ruse and the identity of the “real” mother of the living child is never explicitly stated in the text, there are subtle clues in the narrative to help the reader deduce the real mother of the living child. See, e.g. Rendsburg, “The Guilty Party In 1 Kings III 16–28,” 534–541.

[27] See the discussion in Garsiel, “Revealing and Concealing as a Narrative Strategy,” 231, on the relationship between Solomon’s request for judicial wisdom, the case of the two women, and Solomon’s recognition as king over all Israel.