web analytics
January 17, 2017 / 19 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Sandy Hart Via’

Q & A: Joshua Marries Rahab (Part II)

Wednesday, March 17th, 2004
QUESTION: I recently attended a lecture where the speaker discussed great Jewish women in history. He specifically singled out the biblical heroine Rahab who, he said, married the great leader and prophet Joshua.
I had previously heard that Rahab was a woman of ill repute, a harlot, who surely was not suitable for a righteous person like Joshua. Also, when Rahab is mentioned (Joshua ch. 2), there is no indication that she married Joshua. How do we know it?
Sandy Hart
(Via e-mail)
ANSWER: Last week we noted that Targum Yonatan, Rashi and Radak all mention that Rahab’s description as isha zona might refer to one who feeds people, an inkeeper.We also quoted Tractate Megilla (14b), where R. Nahman concludes from the juxtaposition of two sets of verses (in Joshua and in II Kings) that the prophetess Hulda was descended from both Joshua and Rahab.

We concluded with a question. Rahab was a member of one of the Seven Canaanite nations whom we were commanded to destroy. How was Joshua allowed to let her live, let alone marry her?

* * *

The prohibition against marrying someone from one of the seven Canaanite nations is found in Parashat VaEt’chanan (Deuteronomy 7:3): “Velo tit’chaten bam, bit’cha lo titen li[b]eno u[b]ito lo tikach li[b]necha – You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son.” That is what Moshe commanded the Children of Israel regarding the seven nations.

We find in the Gemara (Yevamot 76a) a discussion of the Mishna’s ruling that a petzua dakka (one with crushed testicles) or cherut shofcha (a severed member) may marry a convert or an emancipated slavewoman, and they are only prohibited from marrying within the congregation. R. Sheshet was asked: May a Kohen who is a petzua dakka marry a convert or an emancipated slavewoman (women whom a priest is forbidden to marry)? The issue is whether he retains his status of kehuna and therefore he may not marry them, or do we say that due to his condition he has lost that level of sanctity and may marry them?

R. Sheshet answered: It was taught in a baraita that an Israelite who is a petzua dakka may marry a netinah (a descendant of the Gibeonites – as Rashi s.v. netinah explains). If the petzua dakka retains his state of sanctity (as an Israelite), shouldn’t the prohibition of “lo tit’chaten bam” apply? Thus, this serves also as evidence that the Kohen does not retain his priestly sanctity.

Rava disagrees and says that we may not marry them, and if one does marry them he violates a commandment because of the possibility that he might beget a son who will worship idols. That would apply in situations of idol worshipping societies. This assumes that when they convert, they are biblically permitted to marry, but the Sages still decreed against marrying them even after they convert.

However, the Sages’ decree applied only to those who were able to beget children. Since the petzua dakka could not beget children, the Sages did not issue the decree against them.

The Gemara counters that if this is so, then a mamzer who is able to beget children should be prohibited from marrying a netinah as well. But didn’t we learn in a Mishna (Kiddushin 69a) that mamzerim and netinim are allowed to marry each other? Rava explains that the Sages’ decree applies only to Jews who are fit (kesherim), but to Jews who are unfit – such as mamzerim – the decree is not applicable.

This is the initial understanding of Rava, but the Gemara concludes that Rava later admitted that he was incorrect in stating that they can intermarry with us when they convert. Before they convert the marriage is invalid anyway. It is clear that a level of sanctity (whether of a Kohen or an Israelite) is lost with such a marriage, and therefore it is prohibited.

Rambam (Hilchot Isurei Biah 12:22-23), based on the Gemara’s (Yevamot 79a-b) conclusion, rules that “he or she who has converted from among the seven nations is not biblically forbidden to enter the congregation [through marriage]. It is well known that the only ones among them who converted were the Gibeonites, and Joshua decreed that the Gibeonites, both male and female, were forbidden from entering the congregation [through marriage].” Joshua had issued this decree because of their deception, having presented themselves as “foreigners” when they were in fact from the seven nations. Joshua and the elders had already made a covenant with them to let them live (Joshua ch. 9), and thus he had no alternative.

Rambam continues, “However, he only decreed so for the time that the Temple existed, as the verse states (Joshua 9:23), ‘Ve’ata arurim atem velo yikaret mikem eved vechotvei etzim vesho’avei mayim le[b]eit elokai – Now you are cursed, and there shall never cease from among you woodchoppers and waterdrawers for the House of my G-d.’ Thus he [Joshua] set the conditions of their being distanced [from the congregation] during the [existence of the] Temple.”

These people are called “netinim” because they were “given” over to the labor of the Temple.  However, David later decreed that they shall never enter the congregation for all generations, even when the Temple does not exist. We read in Ezra (8:20), “Umin hanetinim shenatan david vehasarim le’avodat halevi’im…. – And of the netinim, whom David and the officers gave over to the service of the Levites….” Thus we see that he did not make their exclusion from the congregation dependent on the existence of the Temple.

The Maggid Mishneh (Rambam loc. cit.) explains that Rambam follows the Gemara’s conclusion, which he sees as disputing Rava’s opinion. Thus, upon conversion there is no biblical prohibition, except for the decrees of Joshua and David. The Maggid Mishneh notes, however, the view of Ramban and Rashba, who concur with Rava’s ruling that they are biblically forbidden even upon their conversion.

R. Yechezkel Landau (Noda BiYehuda, Even HaEzer, Mahadura Kamma, Responsum 6) concurs with Rambam and explains that the Torah gives a reason for the prohibition (Deuteronomy 7:4), “Ki yasit et bincha me’acharai, ve’avdu elohim acherim. . . – For he [she] will cause your child to turn away from Me, and they will serve other gods.” Thus the prohibition would appear to apply to a society of idolaters who, when they convert, are no longer biblically prohibited; at that point the decrees of David and Joshua became the only prohibitions.

We are thus faced with two problems: your original question of how Joshua could marry a harlot, and how he could marry someone from the seven nations whom he was forbidden to marry according to his own decree.

(To be continued)

Rabbi Yaakov Klass

Q & A: Joshua Marries Rahab (Part I)

Wednesday, March 10th, 2004
QUESTION: I recently attended a lecture where the speaker discussed great Jewish women in history. He specifically singled out the biblical heroine Rahab who, he said, married the great leader and prophet Joshua.
I had previously heard that Rahab was a woman of ill repute, a harlot, who surely was not suitable for a righteous person like Joshua. Also, when Rahab is mentioned (Joshua ch. 2), there is no indication that she married Joshua. How do we know it?
Sandy Hart
(Via e-mail)
ANSWER: In order to answer your interesting question, let us review the text (Joshua 2:1): “Vayishlach yehoshua bin nun min hashittim shenayim anashim meraglim cheresh lemor, re’u et ha’aretz ve’et yericho, vayelchu vayavo’u beit isha zona u’shemah rachav vayishkevu shamah – Joshua b. Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, ‘Go view the land and Jericho.’ They went and came to the house of a harlot named Rahab and lodged there.”These were the spies Joshua sent before the conquest to enable him to get a clearer idea of the land and the city’s fortifications.

When we consider the word zona, which normally is translated as harlot, we find that Radak indeed translates the word this way, but offers another translation as well – as applying to one who prepares mazon, food, namely, an innkeeper.

Targum Yonatan and Rashi also translate the word zona as innkeeper. Still, Radak explains that pundeka’it, inkeeper, means harlot as well.

We find in Tractate Zevachim (116a-b) the explanation that Rahab was a harlot, as the Gemara explains that the great miracle of the splitting of the sea that G-d performed for His nation was known far and wide to the extent that even Rahab admitted that she had heard of it, as she stated to Joshua’s messengers (Joshua 2:10): “Ki shamanu et asher hovish Hashem et mei yam suf mipneichem betzeit’chem mimitzrayim, va’asher asitem li’shenei malchei ha’emori asher be’ever hayarden le’sichon u’le’og asher hecheramtem otam – For we heard how G-d dried up the waters of the Sea of Reeds before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you have done to the Emorite kings on the far side of the Jordan, Sichon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed.” Rahab continues (ibid.): “Vanishma vayimmas levavenu ve’lo kama od ruach be’ish mipneichem… – And we heard and our hearts melted, neither did there remain any spirit in any man, because of you…”

The Gemara infers that not only were they in great fear, but they even lost their virility. Rahab was intimately aware of this because of the relationships she had with these princes and rulers. The Gemara also relates that she was ten years old at the time of the Exodus, and she conducted her illicit relationships for the 40 years that Israel wandered in the desert. At age 50 she converted, saying, “Let me be forgiven as a reward for the rope, the window, and the flax.” Rashi cites a Mechilta (Parashat Yitro) that explains how she argued: “Let me be forgiven for the three things I have used in sinning.” The three things are the rope which her paramours used to climb up to her, the window they used for entry, and the flax stalks she used to hide them. These same three things served to hide Joshua’s messengers and enabled their escape.

As to the source that she married Joshua, we refer to Tractate Megilla (14b), where R. Nachman states that Hulda the prophetess was a descendant of Joshua, as we see from two verses. One verse referring to Hulda (II Kings 22:14) states, “The son of Har’has,” and another verse (Judges 2:9) states that Joshua was buried in “Timnat-Heres.”

The Gemara now cites an objection to R. Nahman’s interpretation: R. Ena Saba notes that “there were eight prophets who were descended from Rahab – Neriah, Baruch, Serayah, Mahseyah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanamel and Shalum.” R. Yehuda says that Hulda the prophetess was also a descendant of Rahab, as we see from a verse referring to Hulda (II Kings 22:14), “Hulda the prophetess, the wife of Shalum, son of Tikva (ben tikva),” and a verse (Joshua 2:18) referring to Rahab, “Et tikvat chut hashani – this cord of scarlet thread.” This would indicate that Hulda was Rahab’s descendant, not Joshua’s.

R. Nachman replied, exclaiming, “Ena Saba (some say he addressed him as patya uchma – black bowl – Maharsha ad loc. considers this a compliment), we can deduce from both our statements that Rahab converted and married Joshua.”

The Gemara also concludes that even though we have a Scriptural reference (I Chronicles 7:27), “Non beno, Yehoshua beno – Non [Nun] his son, Joshua his son,” which infers that the genealogy ended with Joshua, who had no descendants. But that applies only to male progeny; he did have daughters from whom Hulda the prophetess is descended.

Before we address your question, there is an even greater difficulty, as we find in Parashat Shoftim (Deuteronomy 20:16): “Rak me’arei ha’amim ha’eleh asher Hashem Elokecha noten lecha nachala lo techayyeh kol neshama – But of the cities of these nations which Hashem your G-d has given to you as an inheritance you shall not leave any soul alive.”

Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 5:4) cites this verse, which refers to the seven nations living in Canaan listed in the Torah, as a command to kill all souls from these nations, and one who has the opportunity and does not do so is in violation of a prohibitory command. In his Sefer HaMitzvot Rambam lists this command as mitzvat lo ta’aseh #49.

Rahab was a member of the Cannanite nation; so how was Joshua allowed to let her live, let alone marry her?

(To be continued)

Rabbi Yaakov Klass

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/ask-the-rabbi/q-a-joshua-marries-rahab-part-i/2004/03/10/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: