Question: I am a psychology professor at McGill University who is doing an MA in Jewish studies. My thesis topic is the history of interpretation of the story of Rachav Hazona. In the course of my research I was trying to understand how the Midrash derived that Rahab converted.
I am aware of the derivation in Megilla 14b but you also mentioned in a column you wrote in 2004 in The Jewish Press that some derived her conversion from the word “hecheya” (kept alive) in the text of the book of Joshua. As far as I understand, the Tosafot that you quoted deals with the legal issue of how Joshua could have married one of the forbidden nations, not the word “hecheya.” I’m wondering if you have another source for the interpretation of “hecheya” as the source for Rahab’s conversion. Thank you for your time.
Irv Binik
Montreal, QC
Last week we noted that Targum Yonatan, Rashi, and Radak all mention that Sefer Yehoshua’s description of Rahab as an “ishah zonah” might mean that she was an innkeeper. We also quoted Tractate Megillah (14b), where R. Nahman concludes from the juxtaposition of two sets of verses (in Joshua and 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 the seven Canaanite nations is found in Parashat VaEt’chanan (Deuteronomy 7:3): “Velo tit’chaten bam, bit’cha lo titen livno uvito lo tikach livnecha – 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 Mishnah’s ruling that a petzua dakka (one with crushed testicles) or cherut shofcha (a severed member) may marry a convert or an emancipated slavewoman, but not an ordinary Jew. R. Sheshet was asked: May a kohen who is a petzua dakka marry a convert or an emancipated slavewoman (women whom a priest is normally forbidden to marry)? In other words, do we say that due to his condition he has lost his kehunah sanctity level 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 explains). If the petzua dakka retains his state of sanctity (as an Israelite, in this case), shouldn’t the prohibition of “lo tit’chaten bam” apply? Obviously, then, he doesn’t. Thus, this halacha serves as evidence that a kohen who is a petzua dakka also does not retain his priestly sanctity.
Rava disagrees and says that he may not marry her, and if he does he violates a commandment because of the possibility that he might beget a son who will worship idols. This rule applies to women of idol worshipping societies. Although biblically one may marry them if they convert, the Sages decreed that we may not. But this decree only applies to a marriage that may produce children. Since a petzua dakka cannot beget children, the Sages’ decree does not apply to him.
The Gemara counters that if this is so, a mamzer who is able to beget children should be prohibited from marrying a netinah as well. But the Mishnah (Kiddushin 69a) clearly states that mamzerim and netinim are allowed to marry each other. Rava explains that the Sages’ decree applies only to Jews who are fit (kesherim); it doesn’t apply to Jews who are unfit, such as mamzerim.