In two different treatments of the Nuzi contract HSS V 67, E. A. Speiser provided two different transliterations and translations of a key phrase without giving his reasons for the revision. It turns out that the text in question is damaged, rendering one particular cuneiform sign nearly unreadable. The significance of Speiser's revision for biblical studies is that, depending on which reading is taken, this text provides some legal background either for the concern that a full wife might send away the children of a secondary wife (as in Gen 21) or for the phenomenon of surrogate motherhood (i.e., the identification of the child of a secondary wife as in some way the child of the full wife; see Gen 16 and 30). Though some biblical scholars have noted Speiser's two translations, no one so far has engaged in a technical discussion of the primary text in order to understand the revision. Rather, scholars have sometimes simply chosen the reading that fits better with their purposes (usually Speiser's earlier reading). This article examines the original cuneiform text of HSS V 67 in order to ascertain, using orthographic and linguistic data, which of Speiser's two readings is the more likely. Speiser's revised reading proves to be the correct one, meaning that HSS V 67 does not provide a legal background for the concern that a full wife might send away the sons of a secondary wife (e.g., Gen 21).The phenomenon in Gen 16 and 30, in which Sarai, Rachel, and Leah give their handmaidens to their husbands as substitute mothers, has been convincingly situated within the larger context of ancient Near Eastern law, specifically in clauses found in numerous marriage contracts from all over Mesopotamia and from both the first and second millennia BCE. Even so, the situations in Genesis are not an exact match for any extant marriage contract. The nature of the relationship between the barren woman and her handmaiden's children, the status of the children, the rights of the wife over the handmaiden, and the role of the husband in all of this vary from contract to contract, such that we can only conclude that the general phenomenon of surrogate motherhood was in reality a flexible practice whose precise terms were dependent on each context.With regard to the relationship between mother and the handmaiden's children, E. A. Speiser depended heavily on texts from Nuzi for his interpretation (he was involved in the expedition, led by Edward Chiera, that discovered these texts). Speiser has been rightly criticized for overstressing the Nuzi parallels, but even so these texts remain an essential part of the textual data for reconstructing the ancient Near Eastern legal background for the Hebrew Bible and especially for Genesis.1Speiser's use of one text, HSS V 67,2 is of interest because he offers two different translations at different points in time but does not give his reason for changing his translation. In a 1930 monograph, he translates and discusses at length this text, which is moderately unusual in being a combination adoption and marriage contract.3 The situation is that one man, Shurihilu, is adopting his nephew, Shennima, and as part of the deal is giving to him as wife Gilimninu, who is probably Shurihilu's daughter.4 Lines 19-22 are the critical segment, and Speiser translates thus: And if does not bear, a woman of the Lullu as wife for Shennima shall take. As for the (the concubine's) offspring, shall [not] send (them) away. This would appear to provide some legal background for the events of Gen 21, when Sarah sends away Hagar and Ishmael (or, rather, demands that Abraham send them away-this distinction is not to be disregarded, but it is not the subject of the present article), as a witness that such action was not inconceivable in some parts of the ancient Near East.Later on, however, in his commentary on Genesis, Speiser translates line 22 differently: Gilimninu herself shall have authority over the offspring. …