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
We noted that Targum Yonatan, Rashi, and the Radak all suggest that the words “ish zonah,” in reference to Rahab, might mean “innkeeper.” We also quoted the Talmud (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 Joshua and Rahab. We wondered how Joshua could marry Rahab if she was a member of one of the seven Canaanite nations.
* * * * *
Another difficulty with Joshua marrying Rahab is the following passage in the Talmud (Berachot 8b): “Rava said to his children, ‘When you cut meat, do not cut it upon your hand.’ Some say because of the danger; others say because he may ruin the meal [blood from a cut may ooze on the food, which will repulse those dining (Rashi ad loc.)].” He said further, “Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman.” The Gemara explains: “Some say this means, ‘Do not go to bed before first reciting Keriat Shema.’” Rashi (ad loc.) states that a bed on which one did not recite Keriat Shema is likened to the bed of an Aramean woman. Another explanation given is that he meant to tell his children not to marry a proselyte.
The Gemara offers no explanation for this instruction. Some suggest that Rava was a kohen, according to a statement found in Rosh Hashana 18a and Yevamot 105a. But Tosafot (s.v. “Rabbah VeAbaye” [Rosh Hashanah 18a] and s.v. “Rava VeAbaye” [Yevamot 105a]) dismisses this theory and explains that the Gemara refers to Rabbah, who was a kohen. But if, in fact, Rava was a kohen as well, one may wonder why he would instruct his sons not to marry converts when converts are already biblically forbidden to hohanim.
Based on another passage in the Talmud (Bava Batra 110a), though, we can properly understand Rava’s instruction. He meant that one who marries a woman must investigate her brothers, as the Torah states (Exodus 6:23), “Vayikach aharon et elisheva bat aminadav achot nachshon lo le’isha – Aaron took Elisheva, the daughter of Aminadav, the sister of Nachshon, for a wife.” Since it states “the daughter of Aminadav,” isn’t it obvious that she was the sister of Nachshon? What do these extra words in this verse teach us? The Gemara explains they teach us that one who takes a wife must investigate her brothers since most children resemble the mother’s brothers (Masechet Sofrim 15:10).
(We find similar instructions to those of Rava in Pesachim 112b where the Gemara identifies the instructions as being those R. Yehuda HaNasi gave to his sons.)
In sum, we have yet another difficulty with Joshua’s marriage to Rahab.