In another unique testament (MDP 24, 379), a man named Gimil-Adad gives all his property, currently owned and whatever he may acquire in the future before he dies, to his wife and the mother of his children, Beltani. The main concern here is the wife’s well-being after her husband passes away. Codex Hammurabi §172 brought up one aspect of the problem: that when the father dies, the children may try to force the mother to move out of the paternal house in order to divide and take possession of their inheritance shares. The other aspect is the daily food and proper care that the children must provide for the ageing mother.  

In MDP 24, 379, lines 10-22, there are two sets of stipulations regarding her sons (one threatening and another gratifying): if they complain after the father has died, and object to the donation; they will be disinherited and literally “chased away” from what is now “her house.” The ungrateful son will not be allowed to enter her house, and will get no food provision from the mother (lines 10-18). However, the son who shows respect and takes care of his mother will be able to stay in her house and will inherit whatever she has at the end (lines 19-22). Here by the testator’s act, instead of the usufruct (life-long time right to use) described in Codex Hammurabi §172, full legal ownership is given to the wife. The father is also concerned about his young daughter, as in lines 23-25 he stipulates that his sons “will jointly give whatever silver (is required for dowry?) to their sister Ilša-hegal.” This probably refers to providing a dowry for a younger sister who has not married yet. 

In order to understand the proper context and terminology in the Susa documents, comparative study with Mesopotamia is necessary, but the benefits of such comparative method go both ways. Similar legal institutions stipulated that elder care was a familial duty to be provided by the sons. Inheritance was used to secure the care when parents faced ungrateful sons; in other words, if a son fails to do his duty towards his parents, inheritance can be used as an incentive and a threat. Daughters would sometimes be contracted to perform the service in return for getting the entire inheritance.  

If a couple did not have children, they could adopt a child and thus form a family together, an arrangement to make sure that the surviving spouse does not face destitution in the old age. We have also seen husbands making arrangements to secure elder care for their wives, either by creating life-time usufructs in which children can only inherit after the mother is gone, or by donating the entire property to the wife, as in the case of Gimil-Adad. And for the first time in the cuneiform record, there is a case (MDP 28 399) where the wife makes her husband her sole heir and stipulates that the child will only inherit if she properly takes care of the father as well as the mother.  

This is not a new legal institution but only a new aspect of the same rule, described above: that due to the insufficient inheritance laws, the couple had to make their own testamentary arrangements to make sure that the surviving spouse receives proper care in the old age. These types of arrangements remain familiar to us today.