95 ‘EYES HEAR’ : NEHEMIAH 1,6 TO by being a signal, it did not require further language— even somebody who could not communicate directly with Nehemiah would see that he was in mourning. Second, since it is a conventional response, it provides an anchor in a turbulent and difficult moment. Third, sitting and weeping prepares for action. It is interesting to note that Neh 1,4 already describes the activity using participles, which seem to denote here continuous action. “ Fasting ” and “praying” are to be done when one is sitting and weeping and mourning. While the first is a “non-action” (or, perhaps better, a negative action), i.e., the lack of eating, which marks mourning rites in the ANE and Israel 16, the second involves specific action and — more importantly — words 17. Prayer can be part and parcel of cyclical (or calendarical) rituals (e.g., prayers during specific processions or feasts), but in the specific context of Neh 1 it is triggered by a specific need. In this sense, Nehemiah’s prayer stands outside the regular cycle of ritual action of a Jew living in the Diaspora, a characteristic shared by other rituals often associated with special feasts, which move their participants from the known of daily life to the unknown, which is outside of the regular life experience 18. The biblical text does not provide specific information about time and place of this “reactive” prayer. The only time reference in 1,4 is μym: “ days ” iy Compare X.H. THI PHAM, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the 16 Hebrew Bible (JSOTSS 302; Sheffield 1999) and G.A. ANDERSON, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance. The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion (University Park, PA 1991); S.M. OLYAN, “The Biblical Prohibition of the Mourning Rites of Shaving and Laceration: Several Proposals”, “A Wise and Discerning Mind”. Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long (eds. S.M. OLYAN – R.C. CULLEY (BJS 325; Providence, RI 2000) 181-189. For prayer in Nehemiah or other motifs that are relevant in the context of 17 Nehemiah’s prayer, see TALSTRA, “The Discourse of Praying”, 219-236; W. GROSS, “Bedrohliche Gottesnähe als Gebetsmotiv”, Gottes Nähe im Alten Testament (eds. G. EBERHARDT – K. LIESS) (SBS 202; Stuttgart 2004) 65-83; J.H. NEWMAN, “Nehemiah 9 and the Scripturalization of Prayer in the Second Temple Period”, The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (eds. C.A. EVANS – J.A. SANDERS) (JSNTSS 154. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 6; Sheffield 1998) 112-123; and M.J. BODA, “Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9”, TynBul 48 (1997) 179-182. On the “Handerhebungsgebete” in cuneiform texts and the importance of action in the performance of prayer cf. A . ZGOLL , D i e Kunst des Betens. Form und Funktion, Theologie und Psychogogik in babylonisch-assyrischen Handerhebungsgebeten an Istar ˇ (AOAT 308; Münster 2003). See the discussion in B. JANOWSKI – E. ZENGER, “Jenseits des Alltags: 18 Fest und Opfer als religiöse Kontrapunkte zur Alltagswelt im alten Israel”, Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 18 (2003) 63-102.