JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

Early Bronze IV, Middle Bronze II, Iron Age I–II. Destruction
levels found in the Iron Age levels at the site date from
the late 10th century B.C.E., late 9th century B.C.E., and the 7th
century B.C.E. Persian through to Mamluk strata were also
uncovered at the site.
Bibliography: Glueck, in: AASOR, 25–28 (1951), 367–71;
Abel, Geog, 2 (1938), 278; Press, Ereẓ, 1 (1951), 92–93; 3 (1952), appendix,
10. add. bibliography: M. Piccirillo, “A Church at Shunat
Nimrim,” in: Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 26
(1982); J.W. Flanagan, D.W. McCreer, and Kh. N. Yassine, “Preliminary
Report on the 1990 Excavation at Tell Nimrin,” in: Annual of the
Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 36 (1992).
[Michael Avi-Yonah / Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]
BET OREN (Heb. ןרֹא ֶ תי ּב; ֵ “House of Pine Tree”), kibbutz
on Mount Carmel, affiliated with Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥad.
Founded in 1939, the settlement was initially isolated and
had little land, so that its members had to work as hired laborers
in Haifa. During the Mandate regime Bet Oren served
as a clandestine training camp of *Haganah. After irrigable
land on the Carmel coast was allocated to Bet Oren, it raised
dairy and beef cattle, fodder, field crops, deciduous fruit, and
other products. The kibbutz had a large rest house amid the
natural pine and oak forests and nature reserves of the surrounding
area. In 1970 Bet Oren numbered 220 inhabitants;
in 2002, 299.
[Efraim Orni]
BET OVED (Heb. דֵ בֹ וע תי ּב), ֵ moshav in central Israel, southeast
of Nes Ẓiyyonah. Bet Oved, affiliated with Tenu’at Ha-
Moshavim, was founded in 1933 by workers from Russia. Its
economy was based on citrus plantations, garden crops, and
dairy cattle. In 1970 Bet Oved numbered 195 inhabitants, increasing
to 285 in the mid-1990s and 304 in 2002.
[Efraim Orni]
BET(H)-REHOB (Heb. בֹ וחר ְ תי ּב), ֵ biblical city, dynasty, or
district, that gave its name to one of the *Aramean states existing
at the time of David. In Num. 13:21 we have the phrase
“to Rehob at Lebo-Hamath.” The city Laish-Dan is placed
specifically in the “valley that belongs to Beth-Rehob” (Judg.
18:28) but its exact location remains unknown. The Arameans
of Beth-Rehob were among the mercenaries hired by the Ammonites
to fight Israel; they were thoroughly routed first by
Joab at Medeba and then by David (II Sam. 10:6ff.; I Chron.
19:6ff.). It has been assumed that *Aram-Zobah, which is
closely associated with Beth-Rehob/Rehob (II Sam. 10:6, 8;
and see II Sam. 8:3, 12), already held the other Aramean kingdoms
under its sway at that time; the period of Israelite control
was broken by *Damascus, who took the lead in revolting
against Solomon. The last appearance of Rehob may be in an
inscription of Shalmaneser III (853 B.C.E.), which mentions
a certain Ba’sa son of Ruhubi from Amana, in a list of Syrian-
Palestinian kings.
betrothal
Bibliography: EM, S.V.; Bright, Hist, 181. Add. Bibliography:
B. Levine, Numbers 1–20 (1993), 354; G. Herion, in: ABD, 1,
692; S. Bar-Efrat, II Samuel (Heb., 1996), 86.
[Michael Avi-Yonah / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]
BETROTHAL (Heb. ןי ִכּו ּדִׁ ש, shiddukhin).
Definition
In Jewish law shiddukhin is defined as the mutual promise
between a man and a woman to contract a marriage at some
future time and the formulations of the terms (tena’im, see
below) on which it shall take place. In general parlance, as
opposed to legal terminology, it is known as erusin (Kid. 63a,
Tos.), which is in fact part of the marriage ceremony proper
(see *Marriage, Ceremony of). The concept of shiddukhin can
entail either a promise by the intending parties themselves or
one made by their respective parents or other relatives on their
behalf (Kid. 9b; Sh. Ar., eh 50:4–6 and 51). The sages regarded
kiddushin (consecration; see *Marriage) without prior shiddukhin
as licentiousness and prescribed that “he who enters
into a marriage without shiddukhin is liable to be flogged” (TJ,
Kid. 3:10, 64b; TB, Kid. 12b; Maim. Yad, Ishut, 3:22 and Issurei
Bi’ah, 21:14; Sh. Ar., EH 26:4). Shiddukhin as such has no immediate
effect on the personal status of the parties – it being
only a promise to create a different personal status in the future
(Resp. Rosh 34:1; Beit Yosef EH 55). Nor does the promise
give either party the right to claim specific performance
from the other – since a marriage celebrated in pursuance of
a judgment requiring the defendant to marry the plaintiff is
repugnant to the basic principle that a marriage requires the
free will and consent of both the parties thereto.
Gifts
(Heb. תֹ ונֹ ולְ בִ ס, sivlonot). The Talmud (Kid. 50b) discusses
the question whether the bride’s acceptance of gifts from her
bridegroom is to be regarded as an indication that kiddushin
has already been celebrated between them – thus making
it necessary for her to receive a divorce, on the grounds of
“doubt,” in the event she does not marry him and wishes to
marry someone else. The halakhah was to the effect that the
matter be left dependent on local custom so that any “doubt”
as to whether or not kiddushin had already taken place would
depend on whether or not there was any custom in the particular
place where the parties resided to send such gifts before
or after kiddushin. From the time that it became the general
custom for parties to initiate their intended ties with each
other by way of shiddukhin (when the bridegroom would send
gifts to his bride) and for the kiddushin and nissu’in (the marriage
proper; see *Marriage) to take place simultaneously at
a later date, there would usually be no opportunity for the
bridegroom to send such gifts to the bride after the kiddushin
but before the nissu’in, so the halakhah was then to the effect
that the giving of gifts per se implied no suspicion of kiddushin
as mentioned above (Sh. Ar., eh 45:2; Arukh ha-Shulḥan
EH 45:16–18. See also *Minhag.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 539