Daf Ditty: Pesachim 90:‫ְמַמֶנּה זוָֹנה‬

Erotic scene found in Pompeii. Lupanar.

While prostitution was legal in ancient Rome, it was similar to modern times in that prostitutes
were not looked upon well. Prostitution was looked upon as a shameful profession. though,
unlike today, the prostitution was looked down upon for a different reason.

In ancient Rome, prostitutes were looked down on because they used their body to make money.

For the same reason, gladiators, actors and musicians were all viewed as shameful professions.1

1
https://womeninantiquity.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/ancient-roman-prostitues/

1
A mishna and baraita that the Gemara cites later on in the discussion teach that, logically, were it
not for a verse teaching otherwise, the prohibition against using as an offering an animal given as
payment for a prostitute’s services should apply even in a case where the animal had already been
consecrated as an offering before being given as payment. Abaye said: If not that Rabbi Oshaya
established that that mishna is referring to a case of one who registers a prostitute for his
Paschal lamb as her payment, and this position is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi

2
Yehuda HaNasi, whom Rabbi Oshaya apparently understood and who holds that a person retains
monetary rights to his Paschal lamb even after consecration, which is why one is able to register
the prostitute for it, I would have established that mishna as referring only to offerings of lesser
sanctity and claimed it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said:
Offerings of lesser sanctity are the monetary property of their owners, and therefore it is
possible for the owner to use them as payment for a prostitute.

RASHI

3
Abaye continues his line of thinking: And that mishna that Rabbi Oshaya established as being
in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, I would not establish it as being in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. According to him, when designating a
Paschal lamb, a person does not limit its consecration from fully taking effect, and therefore he
retains monetary rights to the lamb; whereas with regard to money, a person does limit its
consecration, for when one originally designates it, he designates it with this intent.

Abaye admits that there is a problem with explaining the baraita in this way: However, this, the
baraita we are addressing, cannot be established in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei,
for it also teaches in a different clause that one who sells his burnt-offering and peace-offerings
has not done anything. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yosei maintains that a peace-offering is one’s personal
property, and therefore if one sells it the sale is valid.

Nevertheless, now that Rabbi Oshaya has established that mishna as referring to one who
registers a prostitute for his Paschal lamb, and he established that it is in accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that even with
regard to one’s Paschal lamb, a person restricts its consecration. Should someone wish to
purchase a portion of it, he will be able to do so. In such a case, from the outset that portion was
not considered consecrated. This will answer the question raised by Ulla as to how the sanctity of
the money can be transferred to a Paschal lamb that was already consecrated. In such a case,
according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one does not fully consecrate the animal from the outset.
Therefore, the animal is considered non-sacred for this purpose, and the sanctity may be transferred
from the money to the animal.

What is this teaching of Rabbi Oshaya that Abaye alluded to? Rabbi Oshaya’s teaching concerns
the following mishna in Temura: As we learned in a mishna: If one gave animals consecrated as

4
offerings for a prostitute’s payment, they are nevertheless permitted to be sacrificed. Although
generally, animals given to a prostitute as payment are disqualified for use as offerings, this
disqualification does not apply to an animal that was consecrated beforehand.

The Gemara analyzes the assumption of this baraita: But the only reason consecrated animals are
disqualified is that the Torah writes the word vow; but if not for that I would have said that
even with regard to consecrated animals, the prohibition of a prostitute’s payment takes effect
upon them. The Gemara questions this assumption: But there is the following established
principle: A person cannot make forbidden something that is not his. A consecrated animal is
considered to be the property of the Temple and no longer of the individual who consecrated it. If
so, how can one make it forbidden by giving it to a prostitute?

Rabbi Oshaya said: The mishna and baraita are referring to one who registers a prostitute for
his Paschal lamb, giving her a portion in it as payment for her services, and the mishna and
baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that a Paschal
lamb is considered a person’s personal property for the purposes of allowing additional people to
register for it.

What is this teaching of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that Abaye alluded to? As it was taught in a
baraita: The verse states:

--‫ ִמְהיוֹת ִמֶשּׂה‬,‫ ִיְמַﬠט ַהַבּ ִית‬-‫ד ְוִאם‬
,‫ֵבּיתוֹ‬-‫ְוָלַקח הוּא וְּשֵׁכנוֹ ַהָקֹּרב ֶאל‬
‫ ָתֹּכסּוּ‬,‫ ִאישׁ ְלִפי ָאְכלוֹ‬:‫ְבִּמְכַסת ְנָפֹשׁת‬
.‫ַהֶשּׂה‬-‫ַﬠל‬
4 and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he
and his neighbour next unto his house take one according to
the number of the souls; according to every man's eating ye
shall make your count for the lamb.
Ex 12:4

“And if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbor next to his house
take one”

5
The phrase “if the household be too little” is taken to mean the household cannot afford the basic
necessities of the Festival. Continuing this interpretation, the phrase “for a lamb [miheyot miseh]”
is then taken to mean sustain him [haḥayeihu] from the lamb, i.e., he may use the Paschal lamb
as a means of supporting himself. He takes money from his neighbor in return for registering his
neighbor for a portion of his Paschal lamb and then uses that money to purchase his needs.
However, this applies only if one lacks sufficient means to purchase food to eat, but not if he
lacks only sufficient means to purchase other items.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It applies even if one lacks sufficient means to purchase other
necessary items, for if he does not have sufficient funds, he may register another person with
him for his Paschal lamb and for his Festival peace-offering. And the money in his hand that
he receives for registering that person is non-sacred, for it is on this condition that the Jewish
people consecrate their Paschal lambs.

SUMMARY
The Gemara discusses the case of a person who gives Kodshim to a harlot in exchange for her
services.

If he gives her a share in an animal dedicated to be a Korban, the animal is still permitted to be
offered. If he gives her a share in a bird offering, it is prohibited to be offered. (This law is derived
from various verses.)

If a person gives a prostitute animals that were dedicated to be brought as korbanos, they may still
be brought. The Torah states that an animal given to a prostitute in exchange for her services cannot
be brought as a korban.

However, our Gemora quotes a Mishna that says that if the animal had already been dedicated to
be a specific korban, it can still be brought as that korban. This is derived from the verse, “For any
vow,” which excludes animals that a vow had already been made upon (that they were dedicated
to be a korban).

Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai

‫מכילתא דרבי שמעון בר יוחאי‬

6
Chapter 12

..If the house is too small [to be for a lamb] –

It teaches that they may decrease themselves in number continuously, provided that one from the
fellowship remains, those are the words of R. Yehudah.

Rabbi Yosi says: whether from the first or second fellowships, and provided that they do not leave
behind any quantity of the Passover [sacrifice], the text says: '[being] for a lamb' - that is, [for
maintaining it alive] for eating, and not for acquiring.

7
Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi] says: even for acquiring since if he does not have, he appoints others for
his place, and [selects] coins for non-holy [purposes] that were taken at the outset only for this.
"And he will take" - this teaches that each and every fellowship takes for itself, from here they said
'we do not slaughter the Passover [sacrifice] for an individual from the outset, as it is written:

‫ ְבַּאַחד‬,‫ַהָפַּסח‬-‫ ִלְזֹבַּח ֶאת‬,‫ ה ל ֹא תוַּכל‬5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover-offering within any
.ƒ‫ ְיהָוה ֱא•ֶהי~ ֹנֵתן ָל‬-‫ ֲאֶשׁר‬,~‫ְשָׁﬠֶרי‬ of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee;
Deut 16:5

"You are not to slaughter the Passover [sacrifice] in/for one….” these are the words of Rabbi
Yehudah. Rabbi Yosi says: there are moments when he is only one, and we do slaughter for him,
there are times when they are ten and we do not slaughter for them.

How is it possible? If he is one, and is able to eat it all, we slaughter it for him; ten, and they cannot
eat it all, we do not slaughter for them so that they won't invalidate the Passover [sacrifice].

"And his neighbor" - Ben Bag Bag says: [from this] I only understand [lit. hear] his neighbor in
the fields, from where [do I derive] his neighbor under the same roofs? The text says "close to his
house": door [next] to door.

Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi] says - three are spoken of: 'his neighbor' - this is his neighbor in the
fields; 'and his neighbor' - this is his neighbor under the roof; 'close' this is the neighbor close to
his house, next to the door. [In] The Egyptian Passover his neighbor [was] close to his house, and
in the Passover for the other generations, his neighbor is not close to his house.

Rabbi Shimeon says: Even in the Passover for the generations his neighbor is [defined as] close to
his house, and the Torah only said this due to the ways of peace, so that a person would not settle
one's friends, and one's close neighbors, and one's acquaintances, and one's more distant
acquaintances, and one of the dwellers of his town, and then goes and does his Passover with other
people so as to fulfill what is written: 'a close neighbor is better than a distant brother' (Ecclesiastes
27:10). "In proportion" [quota] - the only 'proportion' is a minian, and so He says, "and the quota
[levy] for Adonai thirty-two people [lit. souls]' (Numbers 31:30).

Is it possible that it is a mitzvah to slaughter to his minian and if he did not slaughter it to his
minian he transgressed but it is still kosher? (No,) the text says "proportion" "you shall apportion"
- the text teaches regarding him that (if he does this) it is pasul (contrary of kosher). From the fact
that the text states "man" I only a male, from where do we include women and minors? The text
says "persons [lit. souls]".

If that is the case, why does the text say "man"? Just as a man is able to eat an olive size (of the
sacrifice) so too a minor [is only considered a minor] if he is able to eat an olive size (of the
sacrifice).

Rabbi Yehudah says: 'just as a man knows to differentiate food, so too a minor (is only considered
a minor) if he is able to differentiate food. And what is to differentiate food? Anyone to whom we

8
give an egg, and s/he keeps it; a stone, and s/he throws it. "Proportion" "you shall apportion" - this
teaches that we are counted, and we count for the minian. From here they said 'the participants in
a fellowship that counted others for their portion, have the permission to do so. If they want to
continue and count others in their portion, they have the permission to do so. One of the
participants in a fellowship that counted another person for his portion, he has the permission to
do so.

If he wants to continue and count others in his portion, he has the permission to do so. "According
to what each will eat" - this excludes a person who is sick, an uncircumcised and one whose ritual
status is 'impure'. "On the lamb" - Ben Bag Bag says: I understand [lit. I hear] a live lamb or a
slaughtered one, you make the decision. Here (v.4) it says, "a lamb" and there it says, "a lamb"
(v.3), just as the lamb said there is alive and not slaughtered, here, too, it is alive. From here they
said 'we always apportion according to the Passover sacrifice, and we prevent [lit. hold their hands
back] them (from apportioning) until it is slaughtered.

GIVING A PERSON A SHARE IN A KORBAN PESACH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2
The Beraisa (89b) states that when one pays for a share in someone else's Korban Pesach, the money
which the seller receives becomes Chulin. The Gemara explores the reason for this. Logically, the
money should remain Hekdesh, because the buyer designated the money to be used for the Korban
Pesach and thereby made it Hekdesh, and he gave the money in exchange for a share in another
person's Korban Pesach, which obviously was Hekdesh. There is no object of Chulin in the
transaction onto which the Kedushah of the money can be transferred.

Abaye explains that the Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi according to Rebbi Oshiyah's
understanding, who maintains that when a person sanctifies the Korban Pesach, he does not sanctify
the entire animal, but he leaves part of it as Chulin. It is that part of the animal onto which the
Kedushah of the money is transferred.

The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Temurah that says that the prohibition of an Esnan of a Zonah
takes effect on any object of Hekdesh that is given to the Zonah as her wage. Rebbi Oshiyah says
that the Mishnah there is in accordance with the view of Rebbi, who maintains that when a person
sanctifies his Korban Pesach, he leaves over a portion which is not sanctified. It is that portion which,
when given to a Zonah, becomes prohibited. Abaye says that if not for Rebbi Oshiyah's explanation
of the Mishnah in Temurah in accordance with the view of Rebbi (wherein Rebbi Oshiyah shows
that Rebbi maintains that part of the Korban Pesach is not sanctified), Abaye would have explained
that the Mishnah there is in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili (who says that an object
of Kodshim Kalim belongs to the owner and not to Shamayim).

According to the explanation that Abaye would have offered, the Beraisa here would have followed
the view of Rebbi but for a different reason. The money becomes Chulin not because the animal is

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-090.htm

9
not fully sanctified, but because the buyer originally stipulated that if the animal in which he acquires
a share is already sanctified, then the money should not be sanctified. The Beraisa here cannot be in
accordance with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, because the Beraisa also says that a Korban Shelamim cannot
be sold, but Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that a Shelamim can be sold (it is "Mamon Ba'alim," the
property of its owner).

According to the Beraisa itself that says that a Korban Shelamim cannot be sold, how can a share in
a Korban Pesach be sold? The Beraisa maintains that one cannot sell or conduct any transaction with
a Korban Shelamim, because it is not considered to belong to him (but rather to Shamayim). Even if
the "sale" is conducted by having the owner give to the "buyer" a share in the Korban as a gift, and
the "buyer" in return gives money to the owner as a gift, so that no actual sale is conducted, why is
the owner of the Korban Pesach entitled to give a share of the Korban as a gift? He is not considered
the owner of the animal anymore!

If, for some reason, the Korban Pesach differs from a Shelamim and has a special allowance to be
bought and sold, then it should also become forbidden when given to a Zonah as payment even when
no portion of the animal was left over as Chulin.

'‫תוס' ד"ה וזה הפריש מעות לפסחו כו‬

Tosfos establishes the Sugya by Chulin money, and then explains on what grounds the owner can
include others on the Korban after he has declared it Hekdesh.

.‫ כיון דשרי למנות אחרים על פסחו‬,‫ דלית לן למיקנסיה כמו בסיפא‬,‫ פשיטא שהן חולין‬,‫ מאי קמ"ל‬,‫דאי במעות חולין‬

Because if it was Chulin money, what is it coming to teach us? It is obvious that it remains Chulin,
because, seeing as it is permitted to appoint others on his Pesach, there is no reason to penalize him
like in the Seifa?

‫ כיון דסבר דאפילו במעות לא‬,‫ מכל מקום איך יכול למנות אחרים אחר שהקדישו‬,‫ אפילו אי הוו מעות חולין מעיקרא‬,‫וא"ת‬
... ‫ וכ"ש בפסח דלא משייר‬,‫משייר‬

Even if the money was Chulin to begin with, how can he appoint others on it after he has declared it
Hekdesh? Now that even by money he leaves nothing over, how much more so by the Korban Pesach
...
?'‫מדקשיא ליה 'אין הקדש חל על הקדש‬

Since he asks that Hekdesh should not take effect on Hekdesh?

... ‫ על דעת כן מקדישו שיצאו כל אשר ימנה עליו‬,‫ דאע"ג דלא משייר ביה מידי‬,‫וי"ל‬

Even though he does not leave anything over, he declares the animal Hekdesh having in mind that
whoever is appointed on it should be Yotzei ...

‫ משום דדעת‬,‫ משמע דבכל ענין אפילו הקדישו כבר‬,"‫ וכתיב ביה )שם( "תכוסו‬,"‫דקרא כתיב )שמות יב( "ולקח הוא ושכנו‬
.‫האדם כן‬

10
And so, the Pasuk writes in Ex 12:4 "And he and his neighbor shall take ... ", and in the same
connection the Torah writes (there) "Tachosu", implying under all conditions, even though the owner
has already declared it Hekdesh, since that is his intention.

TOSFOS (89b, DH v'Zeh) above, answers that the Gemara (89a) derives from a verse that a person
may designate others ("Menuyim") to eat from his Korban Pesach until it is slaughtered. The Gemara
implies that the designating of others as owners of a Korban Pesach ("Minuy") does not need to be
done at the time one sanctifies the animal. The Torah allows it to be done even after the animal has
been sanctified.

Tosfos explains that the mechanism behind this Gezeiras ha'Kasuv is that at the moment that a person
sanctifies an animal as a Korban Pesach, he has in mind that whoever will join him later will be
included among the owners of this Korban, and thus he sanctifies it for them as well at that moment.
It becomes the Korban of the others who join later, retroactively from the time that he sanctified the
animal.

If one gives a share in the animal to a Zonah, he does not give it in exchange for services rendered,
but rather he sanctifies it for the purpose of her fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Korban Pesach.

Similarly, when one appoints others to be included in his Korban Pesach, he gives them their shares
as a gift. Any money that they pay in return for their shares is not money of a "Kinyan" (acquisition),
because they already own their shares in the Korban from the time that the owner sanctified it. Rather,
the money they give him is a gift.

(If, as Tosfos writes, there is a logical basis for why the owner can transfer shares of his Korban
Pesach to others (i.e., because he had those people in mind at the moment, he sanctified the Korban),
then why does Tosfos call it a "Gezeiras ha'Kasuv"?

The answer is that without a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv in the Torah, such a condition at the moment of
sanctification of the animal would not work, because the Halachah is "Ein Bereirah." Even according
to the opinion that maintains "Yesh Bereirah," the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv is necessary, because without
it we would not know that every person who sanctifies an animal as a Korban Pesach has this
condition in mind.)

Using Passover Registration Money for One’s Needs

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The passage in the Torah that is the source for people joining together into groups in order to bring
the korban Pesah says that if a house is too small for an animal, he should take it together with his

3
https://steinsaltz.org/glossary/torah/

11
neighbor, according to the number of people in each family (see Ex 12:4). This pasuk is
understood by our Gemara to teach other halakhot, as well.

As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if the household be too little for a lamb,
then shall he and his neighbor next to his house take one” (Exodus 12:4). The phrase “if the
household be too little” is taken to mean the household cannot afford the basic necessities of the
Festival. Continuing this interpretation, the phrase “for a lamb [miheyot miseh]” is then taken to
mean sustain him [hahayeihu] from the lamb, i.e., he may use the Paschal lamb as a means of
supporting himself. He takes money from his neighbor in return for registering his neighbor for a
portion of his Paschal lamb and then uses that money to purchase his needs. However, this applies
only if one lacks sufficient means to purchase food to eat, but not if he lacks only sufficient
means to purchase other items.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi [Rabbi] says: It applies even if one lacks sufficient means to
purchase other necessary items, for if he does not have sufficient funds, he may register
another person with him for his Paschal lamb and for his Festival peace-offering. And the
money in his hand that he receives for registering that person is non-sacred, for it is on this
condition that the Jewish people consecrate their Paschal lambs.

The discussion in the Gemara is: what else is considered an inherent part of the sacrifice that the
money can go toward it?

Will the purchase of wood for roasting the sacrifice be appropriate use of
the korban Pesah money? In this case, everyone agrees that the korban Pesah needs to be roasted
and that the wood is an integral part of the sacrifice.

Will the purchase of matza and maror be permitted with this money? According to one opinion,
the passage (Shmot 12:8) which connects the eating of the sacrifice with matza and maror proves
that they are considered as one, and can therefore be purchased with money that was set aside for
the korban Pesah.

How about the purchase of clothing that would be appropriate for the holiday? In this case
the Hakhamim argue that clothing is totally separate from the korban and cannot be purchased.
Rabbi, however, points to the expression mi-heyot miseh (see Shmot 12:4), which, relying on a
switch of pronunciation from a letter heh to a het, he understands to mean that a person is permitted
to support himself, to give himself life from the korban, and even for this use it would be permitted.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:4

When the Israelites were first commanded about the paschal sacrificein Egypt, they were told that
it should be slaughtered and consumed by each individual family. As today, some people had large
families, others had smaller families, and some didn’t have families at all. Given this, the Torah
informs us that: If the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor nearby take
one. (Exodus 12:4)

4
Myjewishlearning.com

12
In other words, families and individuals were permitted to join together for the paschal offering.

A paschal lamb doesn’t come cheap! In a pre-industrial world both the animal and the fuel for the
fire were dear. Given this, we are taught in today’s daf that those who joined with another family
for the paschal offering would make a financial contribution in order to be legally considered as
part of the offering and also to cover some of the costs.

Still, the rabbis were concerned that selling parts of a paschal offering might become an
inappropriate money-making business. Given this, they limited the funds that one family could
receive for the paschal offering to those items directly related to the sacrifice (such as wood to
roast it on the fire). This leads to a fascinating debate regarding how we define “items directly
related” to the offering.

We are taught (Exodus 12:8) that the paschal lamb was to be accompanied by matzah (unleavened
bread) and maror (bitter herbs). Are these “items directly related” to the offering? One Amoraic
view in the Gemara holds that opinion is divided:

The Rabbis hold that this is considered a different eating.

But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that since it facilitates the consumption of the paschal lamb,
it is like the paschal lamb itself.

According to this opinion in the Gemara, the rabbis felt that someone who had purchased a paschal
lamb (along with matzah and maror) could not ask for a financial contribution for the matzah and
maror by arguing that these were “items directly related” to the paschal offering, while Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi disagrees and says that this may be done.

However, according to a different Amoraic opinion, all agree that it is reasonable to ask
participants to make a financial contribution to the matzah and maror. Instead, the real point of
disagreement between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the extent to which the owner of
the paschal lamb can personally gain from those contributions:

The rabbis hold that the Torah stated “If the household is too small miheyot miseh (for a
lamb)” meaning “sustain the lamb” (hachayeihu leseh).

But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it means “sustain yourself from the lamb” (hachayei
atzmekha miseh).

What this teaches us is that while the rabbis acknowledged that contributions could be sought for
all paschal related costs but nothing more, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi argued that the costs involved in
a paschal offering include the costs relating to the basic needs of the person bringing it.

Taking care of that person is, ultimately, considered to be among the “items directly related” to
the paschal offering. This leads us to consider how far we take such a ruling. Does it show
sensitivity for the needs of those who bring the paschal lamb? Or does it open the door to possible
profiteering? What do you think?

13
RAMBAM Issurei Mizbeiach - Chapter 3:14

Only the actual physical substance of [the article given] is forbidden as "the present [of
a harlot]" or "the exchange [for a dog]." Therefore [these prohibitions] apply only to
articles that are [in essence] fit to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., a kosher animal, turtle
doves, small doves, wine, oil, and fine flour. If he gave her money and she bought a
sacrifice with it, it is acceptable.

Prostitution is the practice of indiscriminate sexual intercourse for payment or

for religious purposes. Prostitution was practiced by male and female
prostitutes. The Hebrew word zenut, applied to both common and sacred
prostitution, is also often used metaphorically.5

Prostitution6

Biblical

The prostitute was an accepted though deprecated member of the Israelite society, both in urban
and rural life (Gen. 38:14; Josh. 2:1ff.; I Kings 3:16–27). The Bible refers to Tamar's temporary

5
M.G. May, in: AJSLL, 48 (1931–32), 73–98; B.A. Brooks, in: JBL, 60 (1941), 227–53; R. Patai, Sex and Family in the Bible and
the Middle East (1959), 145–52; L.M. Epstein, Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism (1948), 152–78. J. Baskin, Midrashic
Women (2002), 113–14, 154–60; Y. Assis, "Sexual Behavior in Medieval Hispano-Jewish Society," in: A. Rapaport-Albert and S.
Zipperstein (eds.), Jewish History (1998), 25–59; A. Grossman, Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe (2004),
133–47; E. Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight against White Slavery 1870–1939 (1983); R. Gershuni,
"Trafficking in Persons for the Purpose of Prostitution: The Israeli Experience," in: Mediterranean Quarterly (Fall 2004), 133–46;
N. Glickman, The Jewish White Slave Trade and the Untold Story of Raquel Liberman (2000); R. Rosen, The Lost Sisterhood:
Prostitution in America, 1900–1918 (1982).
6
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/prostitution-2

14
harlotry and to the professional harlotry of Rahab without passing any moral judgment. The visits
of Samson to the harlot of Gaza (Judg. 16:1) are not condemned, but conform with his picaresque
life. Harlots had access to the king's tribunal, as other people (I Kings 3:16ff.). Nevertheless,
harlotry was a shameful profession, and to treat an Israelite girl like a prostitute was considered a
grave offense (Gen. 34:31).

The Israelites were warned against prostituting their daughters (Lev. 19:29), and priests were not
allowed to marry prostitutes (21:7). The punishment of a priest's daughter who became a prostitute,
thus degrading her father, was death through fire (Lev. 21:9).

According to the talmudic sages, however, this law applies only to the priest's daughter who is
married or at least betrothed (Sanh. 50b–51a). Prostitutes might be encountered in the streets and
squares, and on street corners, calling out to passersby (Prov. 7:10–23); they sang and played the
harp (Isa. 23:16), and bathed in public pools (I Kings 22:38). Their glances and smooth talk were
dangers against which the immature were warned (Jer. 3:3, Prov. 2:16; 5:3, 6:24–25, 7:5, et al.).
In the Ancient Near East, temple women, of whom one class was called qadištu, probably served
as sacred prostitutes. Sometimes dedicated by their fathers to the deity, they had special statutes,
and provisions were made for them by law (Code of Hammurapi, 178–82). Customs connected
with them are likely to underlie Herodotus' lurid and misleading statement that in Babylon every
woman was to serve once as a sacred prostitute before getting married, thus sacrificing her virginity
to the goddess Mylitta (Ishtar; 1:199). In Israel the sacred prostitutes were condemned for their
connection with idolatry. Deuteronomy 23:18–19 forbids Israelites, men and women alike, to
become sacred prostitutes, and states that their wages must not be used for paying vows.

It has been supposed that "the women who performed tasks at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting,"
mentioned in I Samuel 2:22, were sacred prostitutes – though this hardly suits their other
occurrence in Exodus 38:8. There were male and female prostitutes in Israel and Judah during the
monarchy, and in Judah they were, from time to time, the object of royal decrees of expulsion
(cf. I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; II Kings 23:7; Hos. 4:14). Sacred prostitution, because of its
association with idolatry, was the object of numerous attacks in the Bible, especially in the
historical and prophetic books (cf., e.g., II Kings 23:4–14; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 23:37ff.). Terms
connected with harlotry are used figuratively to characterize unfaithfulness toward the Lord (Num.
25:1–2; Judg. 2:17; 8:27, 33; Jer. 3:6; Ezek. 6:9; Hos. 4:12; et al.).

Post-Biblical

The many warnings of Ben Sira against prostitution are evidence that it was widespread in the
Hellenistic period. According to II Maccabees 6:4, Antiochus Epiphanes introduced sacred
prostitutes into the Temple. Throughout the whole of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical
literature, in the Damascus Document, in the documents of the Dead Sea sects (Serekh ha-Yahad
1:6), in Josephus (Ant. 4:206), and by Philo (Jos. 43, Spec. 3:51), prostitution is vigorously
denounced.

In Talmud and Halakhah

15
Different opinions are expressed in the Talmud with regard to the prostitute of the Bible, both
concerning her hire and her marriage to a priest. Some were of the opinion that these references
apply only to a professional prostitute, but there were also other opinions. With regard to her
hire (Deut. 23:19) the halakhah was decided in accordance with the opinion of R. Judah ha-
Nasi that it was not forbidden except to those for whom "cohabitation is a transgression"
(Tosef., Tem. 4:8; see Prohibited Marriage). With regard to the unmarried woman who engages in
prostitution, however, "her wage is permitted" (i.e., for use in the Temple; Maim. Yad, Issurei ha-
Mizbe'ah 4:8). Some were of the opinion that her wage is forbidden only with regard to such
reward "the like of which can be offered on the altar," but not to money (Tem. 6:4; but Philo refers
explicitly to a prohibition on money). The term be'ilat zenut ("intercourse of prostitution") was,
however, applied not only to those relations forbidden in the strict legal sense (see also Yev. 8:5)
but also to any intercourse not expressly for the purpose of marriage (TJ, Git. 7:448d; Git. 81b),
and even to a marriage not celebrated in accordance with the halakhah.

The halakhah imposed a general prohibition on the professional prostitute, and the term came to
include any woman who abandoned herself to any man even if not for pay, and states that
"Whoever hands his unmarried daughter [to a man] not for the purposes of matrimony," as well as
the woman who delivers herself not for the purposes of matrimony, could lead to the whole world
being filled with mamzerim since "from his consorting with many women and not knowing with
whom, or if she has had intercourse with many men and does not know with whom – he could
marry his own daughter, or marry her to his son" (see Mamzer; Sifra, Kedoshim 7, 1–5). The ruling
is based on the verse "Profane not thy daughter, to make her a harlot" (Lev. 19:29), as well as the
verse "There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel" (Deut. 23:18; kedeshah being taken as
referring to every prostitute (Sanh. 82a)). The penalty for both parties is flogging (Maim. Yad,
Ishut 1:4; Na'arah Betulah 2:17). Abraham b. David of Posquières in his gloss (ibid.) stressed that
this law applies only to the woman "who is ready to prostitute herself to every man," and he makes
an express exception in the case of a woman "who gives herself solely to one man without benefit
of marriage."

The rabbis were eloquent in their condemnation of the prostitute and her like, but in most cases
their strictures apply to every kind of licentiousness. They warned particularly against approaching
a harlot's door (Ber. 32a; Av. Zar. 17a) and passing through a "harlots' market" (ARN1 2, 14;
ARN2 3, 13), such as were to be found in large cities (Pes. 113b; Ket. 64b), especially in Ereẓ
Israel, where the Romans "built marketplaces in which to set harlots" (Shab. 33b). Sometimes inns
served as brothels. The Targum gives pundekita ("woman innkeeper") as the translation of the
"harlot" of the Bible (also Yev. 122a). After the destruction of the Temple and during the Hadrianic
persecutions, the Romans placed Jewish women in brothels (ARN1 8, 37; Av. Zar. 17–18), and
even men were taken captive for shameful purposes (Lam. R. 1:16, no. 45; cf. Or. Sibyll. 3:184–
6, and 5:387–9). Some succeeded in maintaining their virtue and were ransomed; others committed
suicide to avoid being forced into prostitution (Git. 57b). But there were also Jewish women who
willingly engaged in prostitution (TJ, Ta'an. 4, 8, 69a) and Jews who were pimps (ibid. 1:4). There
are even stories in the aggadah about sons of scholars who were very dissolute (BM 85a).
The halakhot of ritual purity and impurity mention several garments which were peculiar to
prostitutes: a "net" for the hair and a harlot's shift made like net work (Kel. 24:16, 28:9). The sages,
who realized that the urge to prostitution is greater than that to idolatry (Song R. 7:8), considered

16
it one of the important causes of the destruction of the Temple, and its spread as a sign of the
advent of the Messiah (Sot. 9:13, 15).

But there are also stories about prostitutes who repented completely (Av. Zar. 17a; SEZ 22), as
well as about a gentile prostitute who converted to Judaism out of conviction (Sif. Num. 115; Men.
44a). Extensive aggadic material about the biblical Rahab portrays both her dissolute behavior as
a harlot and her complete spiritual and social transformation when she accepted the truth of Jewish
beliefs (Zev. 116a–b; Sif. Num. 78).

Post-Talmudic

Jews in the pre-modern world lived, with few exceptions, in Jewish communities and under the
yoke of Jewish tradition and halakhah. This affected every aspect of their lives, including sexual
relations. As stated above, every sexual act between a man and woman outside marital relations
was considered as coming within the definition of prostitution (be'ilat zenut), and the rabbis
strongly condemned manifestations of sexual license in the Jewish community. Many regulations
were issued by the various communities to fight prostitution in all its forms. Relations between
Jews and gentiles were regarded as especially dangerous, because in most places they were against
the laws of the land and the Church, and were therefore apt to evoke an undesirable reaction by
non-Jews and involve the whole community.

Jewish communities were never reconciled to the existence of prostitution among them, especially
organized prostitution on a commercial basis. They reacted energetically to every attempt to
maintain a brothel in the Jewish quarter. There is mention of brothels actually being closed down
by order of the communities in various German and French cities in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Heavy fines were imposed on landlords who rented their houses for the purpose of prostitution.
Anybody who knew of such a case was obliged to report it to the community. The Jews did not
always manage to prevent brothels being opened within their neighborhoods, although protests
against their establishment sometimes brought about their removal. In many places the laws of the
country forbade their being maintained in the cities, so that they were relegated to the outskirts.
Sometimes they were located in the vicinity of the Jewish quarter merely by chance, but in some
cases, they were established there deliberately, out of contempt for the Jews. At times the rabbis
closed their eyes to the visits of unmarried men of the community to the brothels, in order to
prevent other forms of lewdness.

There is evidence in the responsa literature that Jewish women engaged in prostitution, and no
doubt there were also Jews who lived on pimping, but there is no data to the extent.
The halakhah literature in the Middle Ages mentions several regulations against Jewish prostitutes
and against Jews who frequented gentile prostitutes, but the prostitute was entitled to claim her fee
(Rema). At the end of the Middle Ages, it was laid down that a married man who frequented
prostitutes was obliged to give his wife a divorce.

Modern Period

Prostitution is known to increase in times of chaos and upheaval, and this was certainly true for
East European Jews at the end of the 19th century. Violence and other forms of antisemitism,

17
economic deprivation, and massive emigration led to various forms of significant Jewish
involvement in the white slave trade, a euphemism for the trafficking of women across
international borders for the purpose of prostitution.

Drastic impoverishment had always led some Jewish women, especially widows or abandoned
wives, to occasional or part-time prostitution. The sexual mores of the Jewish community also
meant that young women who had been seduced or had chosen to have premarital sexual relations,
as well as unmarried older women, often had difficulty finding marriage partners. As it was nearly
impossible for an uneducated single woman to support herself by other means, prostitution was
often the only viable option. With the increasingly difficult situation in Eastern Europe in the late
19th century, and the large and mostly unregulated movement of population, it was particularly
easy for profiteers to induce or entrap Jewish women to travel abroad and serve as prostitutes.

Traffickers used local agents to point them to young widows, abandoned wives, spinsters, or
"ruined women," who were offered an escape from their poverty and shame and the promise of
riches in distant lands. The procurers would then rely on a string of colleagues to obtain papers
and tickets, arrange passage through borders, and accompany the women to their destinations.
Upon arrival the women were usually placed in brothels where they had to work, initially without
pay in order to pay back all of the fees incurred through their travels. Some professional procurers
courted and married attractive women from poor families with promises of a prosperous new life
abroad. The "groom" would then consummate the marriage and bring his "bride" to a large city
before disclosing her fate. Procurers would often comb entire regions, collecting brides and
depositing them with an agent in a larger city before transport abroad. The young women, even
when not physically forced to serve as prostitutes, were often too ashamed to return to their homes
and had no other alternative. Other procurers specialized in wooing and seducing young domestic
servants working far from their families. Some Jewish women became prostitutes of their own
volition to escape the drudgery of factory or domestic work or the grinding poverty of family life.

Jews neither controlled nor dominated the white slave trade but they did oversee the large and
lucrative traffic in Jewish women. By the turn of the 20th century Jewish criminal gangs managed
a complex system of routes, personnel, brothels, and corrupt officials. Obtaining accurate statistics
on Jewish prostitution is nearly impossible. Although prostitution was legal in most European
states in the late 19th century, it carried a social stigma and legal consequences, such as the need
to submit to regular medical examinations. Additionally, many women engaged in prostitution
only on an occasional basis. Nonetheless it is estimated that the proportion of Jews among
prostitutes was never, even at its height, greater than the proportion of Jews in the population.

Jewish women from Europe were sent as far as southern Africa and the Far East, with England
and Constantinople serving as major transit points, but one of the main destinations was South
America. South American countries were eager to attract European immigrants and imported
thousands of young men to serve in their growing economies. Open borders and underdeveloped
law enforcement capacities led to rampant prostitution. In 1900, shortly after having been excluded
by the local burial society, the Polish Jewish pimps of Buenos Aires chartered a mutual aid society
and obtained their own cemetery. The groups that came to be known as the Zwi Migdal Society
later had a synagogue as well. This was only the most infamous of a series of Jewish communal
institutions established by and for criminal elements around the world.

18
America was another destination of the white slave trade, as well as a recruiting ground. Crowded
and poor immigrant neighborhoods in cities across the United States provided ideal conditions.
Polly Adler, a prominent brothel-keeper in the first half of the 20th century, described in her
memoirs (A House Is Not a Home, 1950) how her rape by a co-worker, the extreme privations of
working-class existence, and her attraction to the trappings of success led her gradually toward a
career as a madam.

The uneasy alliance between official toleration of prostitution and public discomfort with its
visible aspects began to deteriorate as prostitution, and especially large-scale trafficking, grew
across Europe and the United States. Yiddish literature of the early 20th century contains a number
of powerful portrayals of the social and personal costs of widespread prostitution including Sholem
Asch 's God of Vengeance and Perets Hirschbein 's Miriam. A 1908 performance of the latter in
Buenos Aires led to a bloody public riot.

Already in the 1880s outraged individuals involved in social purity movements in Britain and the
United States had begun to sound the alarm about the problems of the white slave trade. By the
beginning of the 20th century, the public began to listen. Sensational press stories about
kidnappings of young girls contributed to raising public ire. Much of the press coverage focused
on Jewish involvement. While major news outlets published unfounded reports of salacious deeds
and hinted that Jews masterminded these events, the antisemitic press went even further in
exploiting the association between Jews and the white slave trade. These antisemitic polemics gave
the impression that Jewish men were raping and stealing Christian girls in a modern version of the
ancient blood libel. In fact, although Jewish involvement in the white slave trade is not in question,
Jewish traffickers dealt almost exclusively in Jewish women. The trade in non-Jewish women was
generally over-seen by their own countrymen and coreligionists.

Public opinion, however, was not limited to placing blame, and Jewish and non-Jewish
organizations began to form to combat the white slave trade. In 1899, Britain's fiery evangelical
campaigner William Coote toured Europe trying to raise awareness about the need to regulate
cross-border traffic and protect women. His trip was financed in part by the Rothschild family.
Only several years previously the formation of the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls
and Women had created a central agency for British Jewish action. The group was ably and
energetically run by Arthur Moro for the next several decades.

In Germany, Bertha Pappenheim tirelessly fought for the rights of women. Combating the trade in
women was one of the central platforms of her Juedischer Frauenbund , established in 1904. Hers
and other voluntary association across Europe established travelers aid stations at major terminals
and worked to have laws changed to prevent the free movement of human traffic. Equally
important, they established international communication lines. The National Council of Jewish
Women in the United States undertook similar initiatives in the American immigrant community.
Although these networks were never as sophisticated as those of the traffickers, they were still able
to cause disruptions by sending advance warning to law enforcement and other voluntary societies
around the world. The Jewish community in South America was particularly grateful for the
monetary and informational support of their coreligionists in Europe. At times Jewish and non-

19
Jewish groups worked together on such projects but often their relations were soured by
antisemitism.

In the early 20th century, the success of social work and legal activism in Western Europe, and the
awareness that the root of the problem lay further east, led to calls to treat the blight of prostitution
at its source. In 1913 a group of Jewish social workers and nurses were preparing to travel to
Galicia and Romania to establish institutions to help Jewish women avoid the snares of poverty
and the white slave trade. This work, however, ended as Europe descended into war.

The onset of World War I meant a severe deterioration in Jewish life in Europe, as well as the
closure of escape routes. Both increased presence of soldiers and failing economic conditions led
to an increase in non-professional prostitution among Jews and non-Jews on the continent. At the
same time the international white slave trade routes were interrupted, and would never fully
recover. World War I essentially put an end to the period of major Jewish involvement in
prostitution. Jewish prostitution, and even small scale procuring and trafficking continued, but the
conditions were no longer ripe for large-scale activities as emigration slowed down and Jews in
western countries increasingly moved up the economic ladder.

Prostitution once again came to the fore in Jewish communal concerns following the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the large-scale immigration of former Soviet citizens to Israel in the 1990s.
Among the many immigrants was a small minority of individuals involved in a variety of criminal
activities, including trafficking and prostitution. The relatively open immigration policies
contained in the Law of Return made Israel a useful hub for international criminal enterprise.
Vulnerable women from all ethnic groups in the former Soviet Union were brought into Israel
either voluntarily, or in some cases by deception, to serve as prostitutes in Israel or to be shipped
elsewhere. Following time-tested methods, many of the women were forced to serve their
procurers for lengthy periods to repay the cost of their travel. Others had their personal papers
confiscated and were imprisoned in brothels or intimidated through the use of violence.

Judaism on Prostitution

Most traditional Jewish sources condemn trafficking and prostitution, but some of the
messages are mixed.

NAOMI GRAETZ WRITES:7

Today, sexual trafficking — and prostitution in general — is widely condemned by Jewish leaders,
as it violates the basic moral mandate of viewing each human being as an end and never as a means.

Most traditional Jewish sources also condemn trafficking and prostitution, although some place
the blame on the poor character of the “fallen woman” and the moral fabric of society, or point to
adverse economic conditions as its root cause. In addition, some texts seem to apply different

7
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-on-prostitution/

20
standards to Jewish and non-Jewish women and are tolerant of Jewish men patronizing non-Jewish
prostitutes.

Both the narrative and legal parts of the Bible offer mixed messages when it comes to the sexual
use of women. In Genesis, Abraham essentially pimps his wife to protect himself ( Genesis 12:10-
20 and 20), and later, Jacob’s sons respond to their sister Dinah’s rape with a violent act of
vengeance, though their anger may be less out of sympathy for Dinah than concern that their own
honor has been violated ( Genesis 34 ). In Genesis 38 , Judah’s daughter-in-law, Tamar, is praised
for disguising herself as a harlot so that her father-in-law will meet her on the road and deposit his
seed in her.

Judah and Tamar, by Aert de Gelder, 1667

The legal sections of the Bible make it clear that you cannot prostitute your daughter: “Do not
degrade your daughter and make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled
with depravity” ( Leviticus 19:29 ). Yet the law allows male soldiers to rape foreign captive
woman ( Deuteronomy 21:10-14 ) and permits slavery, calling for differential treatment based on
the slave’s religious or cultural origin.

In the case of the Eshet yefat toar (the beautiful captive woman) in Deuteronomy 21 , we see a
more nuanced approach to the “other”. In contrast to the widespread and systematic rape of girls
in many war zones around the world today, Deuteronomy 21:10–14 regulates rape on the
battlefield.

The law surrounding the beautiful captive woman forces the warrior to be aware of his
responsibility for his actions. The soldier who returns home with an enemy woman as booty cannot
do whatever he wants with her. Instead, he must follow certain rules, and if for some reason the

21
soldier does not want the woman after marrying her, she cannot be treated as a slave, or passed on
to someone else, but must be released as a free person. Thus, the text simultaneously condones,
yet regulates, rape.

Later in the Bible, in the Book of Esther, women are gathered up from all over the king’s realm,
brought to him for his inspection and use and after one night with him they are sent back to the
harem as used goods, deprived of their freedom and presumably unavailable to other men. The
text does not appear to criticize this practice, and when Esther becomes queen, her cousin Mordecai
tells her to initiate sex with the king in order to save her people.

Like the Bible, the Talmud offers mixed messages on prostitution. A text about prostitution and
the frequenting of prostitutes by Jewish men allows that it is “Better that a man secretly transgress
and not publicly profane God’s name so that no one learns from his actions” and that “If a man
sees that his [evil] inclination [yetzer or urge] overwhelms him, he should go to a place where he
is unknown, wear black clothing and cover himself with black [perhaps to subdue his lust], and do
what his heart desires, so that he does not publicly profane God’s name” (B. Kiddushin 40a ).

In the discussion concerning this text, it is understood that this policy is meant as a preventive
measure and not as blanket permission. Yet this text has been used as an excuse for religiously
observant Jewish men to patronize prostitutes, something that while not considered ideal, is viewed
as preferable to masturbation and the resultant wasting of seed. This text does not address the
question of whether the prostitute is impregnated or whether an out-of-wedlock child is considered
a better outcome than wasted seed.

Of course, not all prostitution involves trafficking, a form of sexual slavery, and some women
choose to work in the sex trade, although how much this is a genuine choice rather than lack of
better options, is up for debate. Some activists have argued that prostitution is an important
economic option for impoverished women and that advancing the rights of “sex workers” is the
way to combat the trafficking of women.

In 21st-century Israel, prostitution is legal, and sexual trafficking of women not uncommon. In the
past decade, approximately 25,000 women, nearly all from the Former Soviet Union, were
smuggled into Israel via the Egyptian border to be brutalized as sex slaves. Once in Israel, victims
were repeatedly sold and resold to pimps and brothel owners.

In confronting this issue, religious leaders advocating on behalf of trafficked women generally
take a human rights approach and disavow or ignore the problematic biblical and rabbinic texts.
They point instead to Jewish sources that can be interpreted as compassionate and proactive, such
as the case of the “Canaanite slave,” the gentile slave of a Jew, who enjoyed better conditions than
other slaves throughout the world and offers a model for a compassionate approach to trafficked
women. In fighting trafficking, rabbis also often quote Proverbs 24 .

For almost 15 years the Task Force on Human Trafficking and Prostitution, a joint initiative of
the Israeli NGO ATZUM-Justice Works and the Kabiri-Nevo-Keidar law firm has pressed for
measures to eradicate trafficking and slavery within Israel’s borders. Partly because of their
ongoing lobbying the Israeli government has responded. Some brothels have been closed and
many women forced into prostitution have been rescued.

22
In addition, the U.S. State Department’s annual “Trafficking in Persons Report” in 2012 raised
Israel to Tier 1, placing it among 35 other countries worldwide, including Canada, the U.K. and
Germany, that have “acknowledged the existence of human trafficking” and “made efforts to
address the problem.” As of 2016, Israel has continued to be in the Tier 1 category.

Of course, trafficking has not been eliminated altogether and remains a problem worldwide — and
not all prostitution is a result of international trafficking.

Prostitution is commonly referred to as “the world’s oldest profession,” one that has endured to
the present day, and although the Jewish response to it has been mixed, Judaism offers some
powerful moral arguments in the fight against global trafficking.

Sources for further reading:

Naomi Graetz, “Jewish Sources and Trafficking in Women,” in Global Perspectives on Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Africa,
Asia, Middle East, and Oceania edited by Rochelle L. Dalla, Lynda M. Baker, John DeFrain and Celia Williamson (Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books, 2011): 183-202.

Naomi Graetz and Julie Cwikel, “Trafficking and Prostitution: Lessons from Jewish Sources,” The Australian Journal of Jewish
Studies, Vol. XX 2006: 25-58.

Donna Hughes, “The ‘Natasha’ Trade: The Transnational Shadow Market of Trafficking in Women,” Journal of International
Affairs 53(2) 2000: 625– 651.

A Guide to The Term “Zonah”

SHOSHANA ROZENBERG WRITES:8

It is a general assumption that when the word “zonah” appears throughout Tanach it is in reference
to a prostitute. Whenever the word is used the association made is one of negativity. This isn’t so
fair when, just as with a lot of other words in Hebrew and throughout Tanach, there is more than
one accurate translation. In fact, it is more prevalent throughout Navi that when the word “zonah”
is used it is not in reference to a prostitute at all. In this essay we shall take a look at a few instances
of the term through Tanach and attempt to gain a better understanding of what it really means.

“Zonah” In Chumash

The first time “zonah” is used in the Torah is in Parshas Emor in the context of listing the laws of
a Kohen, specifically who he is and is not allowed to marry. Rashi there defines “zonah” as
someone who has been with a man that is prohibited to her (Vayikra 21:7). It is interesting to note
that Rashi isn’t saying that she is a prostitute who sells her body for money or that she is willing
to be with anyone and everyone. Rather, he delineates three examples of people classifying the
type of man that she may have been with: someone who is obligated in kares, a netin, or
a mamzer (Vayikra 21:7). Ibn Ezra there also explains that zonah does not always mean what it
sounds like.

8
https://dafaleph.com/home/2016/6/1/a-guide-to-the-term-zonah

23
Of course, there are numerous times when the word “zonah” does mean exactly what we assume
it means, namely a prostitute. In Devarim, for instance, the Torah discusses that being
a zonah means being a prostitute for money. Further, in Yoel the passuk describes “boys [that]
were sold for a zonah’s fee” (4:3). All of the mefarshim agree that this mashal is referring to a real
prostitute.

“Zonah” In Navi

Things get particularly interesting once the word “zonah” begins to be used throughout Navi. The
word is first used to describe Rachav in Sefer Yehoshua when the spies go to scout out Yericho.
The passuk describes that the two spies went to “the house of an isha zonah and her name is
Rachav” (Yehoshua 2:1). Upon first glance, this would seem strange. Why would two upstanding
Jewish individuals go to the house of a prostitute (as the word “zonah” is classically translated)?
Rashi clears up this quandary. He quotes Targum Yonatan who explains that zonah here means
“pundekita”, or someone who sells food. This can mean either a grocer or an innkeeper. The latter
explanation obviously makes more sense in this case, as the spies went to stay at her
home. Metzudat Tzion also simply explains that Rachav was a seller of food. Radak, however,
doesn't take a side in the prostitute/grocer debate. Rather, he explains that zonah means either what
it sounds like — a prostitute — or a seller of food. It could also be that she’s both, a prostitute
grocer, who has in her mind to be a zonah and abandon herself to all.

It is clear from the story of Rachav that the word “zonah” could have both positive and negative
denotations. In the case of Rachav it seems that, based on Radak’s synthesis of the two
interpretations, either way the word “zonah” in the context of Rachav would have a negative
connotation. However, it is still important to recognize that the classification of zonah could mean
something other than what we generally assume it to mean. This is important to keep in mind
especially when looking at the next place the word “zonah” is used in Tanach.

“Zonah” in Shoftim

While the times of the shoftim were filled with a negative cycle of sinning, punishment, and
repentance — and while it is known that many of the leaders weren't necessarily top notch — some
of the shoftim were indeed of a higher caliber. Though Yiftach is called “a mighty man of valor”
(Shoftim 11:1) in the text, the Artscroll commentary explains that post-Yiftach, and through the
rest of Sefer Shoftim, HaShem didn't provide Bnei Yisrael with great leaders; they were all of a
lesser status and had lesser victories. However, they were still leaders. Yiftach may not have
measured up to the usual standards of the leaders prior to himself, but he was still chosen by God
to lead His people. The passuk first introduces Yiftach as “Yiftach ha’giladi… the son of a zonah”
(11:1). This is interesting; “son of a zonah” and leader of Israel. How could the son of a prostitute
be chosen to be the leader of Israel? Unless, of course, the word zonah doesn't necessarily mean
prostitute.

24
Metzudat David first explains that even though it says “zonah,” it was still clear that Yiftach’s
father was Gilad. This is already very telling because generally it is challenging to determine who
the father of a prostitute’s baby is. Radak therefore clarifies that she was a concubine, not a
prostitute. The passuk calls her a zonah to highlight the fact that she wasn't with her husband in
the context of a ketuba and kiddushin, thus creating a zonah-like situation. Because of this, she is
called a zonah even though she was never with another man. Malbim agrees with both Metzudat
David and Radak. Targum Yonatan translates zonah as pundekita (innkeeper who sells food) just
as he does by the story of Rachav. Even though she is called a zonah, there is absolutely
nothing halachically wrong with what Yiftach’s mother did. Ralbag actually explains that she is
called a zonah because she came from a different shevet, which was discouraged because
inheritance gets transferred from the woman’s shevet to the man’s. Most importantly, though, she
was never unfaithful.

The next incident of the word zonah being used is later on in Shoftim, when Shimshon arrived in
Gaza. The passuk says that “Shimshon went to Gaza and saw a zonah and came to her” (16:1).
Here, as with Gilad, it’s not so clear as to the nature of the zonah that Shimshon visited. Radak
and Ralbag explain that she was an innkeeper. Meam Loez, however, explains that he actually
came to live with a prostitute.

Though at times it isn't clear what the word zonah means, it is important to keep in mind that it
could mean more than one thing. We must make sure to always keep the edict of “judge thy fellow
men favorably,” even when learning Tanach.

Don’t Call Her That: The prohibition against a Kohein marrying

a “zonah”

Rabbi Jack Abramowitz writes:9

‫ ְוִאָשּׁה‬,‫ז ִאָשּׁה ֹזָנה ַוֲחָלָלה ל ֹא ִיָקּחוּ‬ 7 They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned;
‫ָקֹדשׁ‬-‫ ִכּי‬:‫ְגּרוָּשׁה ֵמִאיָשׁהּ ל ֹא ִיָקּחוּ‬ neither shall they take a woman put away from her
.‫ ֵלא•ָהיו‬,‫הוּא‬ husband; for he is holy unto his God.

Lev 21:7

A woman who is a “zonah”… (Leviticus 21:7)

9
https://outorah.org/p/6510/

25
A Kohein is not allowed to marry a “zonah,” though many people misunderstand what a zonah
really is. Like “mamzer,” the word is used as an insult in a manner separate from its actual, halachic
sense. People often use the word zonah to mean a woman of loose morals, a prostitute or a tramp.
Really, a zonah is a woman who has had intercourse with one of the forbidden sexual relationships
and the term has no bearing on whether or not she is promiscuous. A woman who has had relations
many times with multiple partners, all of whom would have been fit for her to marry, is not a
zonah. A woman who had a single incestuous liaison (for example) is considered a zonah because
she had relations with a person she cannot marry under Jewish law. So, the term is meant to reflect
a technical situation and does not deserve the stigma of the colloquial epithet. (See Talmud
Yevamos 61b for further clarification of the definition of a zonah.)
Only relations with an inherently-forbidden man disqualify a woman from marrying a Kohein. A
woman who had relations during her niddah period (with a man who is of a generally-permitted
nature) or a woman who had relations with an animal (which is not a man at all) may still marry a
Kohein. (Make no mistake – these are serious matters! Do not infer that they are permitted or
overlooked; we are only addressing what disqualifies a woman from marrying a Kohein according
to the parameters of this particular mitzvah.)
This mitzvah is not a reflection on the woman any more than a Kohein’s inability to attend a funeral
is a reflection on the deceased. The basis of this mitzvah is the Kohein’s enhanced level of sanctity,
which prohibits him from doing certain things that other Jews might do. Just as a Kohein cannot
attend a funeral except for his closest relatives, he may not marry as broad a spectrum of potential
mates as non-kohanim.
This mitzvah applies to male kohanim in all times and places. It is discussed in the Talmud in the
tractate of Yevamos (56a-b, 59a-61b) and codified in the Shulchan Aruch in Even Ha’ezer 6.10

Rahab the Faithful Harlot

Rahab is a Canaanite prostitute who becomes faithful to the God of Israel, hiding two Israelite
spies when the king of Jericho sends men to capture them. The rabbis imagine her as a
superhumanly seductive woman who knows the secrets of all the men in Jericho as well as the
ultimate example of repentance. The biblical story, however, suggests a more complex character,
who worked within the power structures around her.

10
It is #158 of the 365 negative mitzvos in the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvos and #138 of the 194 negative mitzvos that can be
observed today in the Chofetz Chaim’s Sefer HaMitzvos HaKatzar.

26
 Rahab the Faithful Harlot11

Amy Cooper Robertson writes:12

11
Dr. Amy Cooper Robertson is the Executive Director of Congregation Bet Haverim, a Reconstructionist synagogue in Atlanta.
She holds a Ph.D. in Religion in the area of Hebrew Bible from Emory University. Her dissertation, “He Kept the Measurements
in His Memory as a Treasure”: The Role of the Tabernacle Text in Religious Experience is available online through the Emory
library.
12
https://www.thetorah.com/article/rahab-the-faithful-harlot

27
 The Harlot of Jericho and the Two Spies,
James Tissot c. 1896-1902

A Canaanite Harlot Faithful to the God of Israel

When Joshua takes over as leader from Moses and prepares to cross the Jordan and attack the city
of Jericho, he first sends two spies to examine the city, who go to the home of a prostitute named
Rahab. Surprisingly, when the king of Jericho sends officers to her house to look for the Israelite
spies, Rahab hides them under straw on her roof. She later explains to the spies that she has heard
about the God of Israel, and proclaims both her faith in this God and her certitude that the
destruction of Jericho will be successful.

In exchange for her assistance, the spies promise that when they return to destroy the city, they
will spare her and her family. She is instructed to hang a scarlet rope from her window to mark her
home, and to take her family inside with her. Indeed, when the Israelite army returns and the city
is destroyed (ch. 6), her home is left safe and sound.
A Harlot?

28
The term harlot (‫ )זונה‬in the Bible can refer to a prostitute who is paid for sex, or more generally
to a promiscuous woman. In either case, the term is meant negatively. Rahab, however, is a positive
character, who shows great faithfulness in YHWH despite being Canaanite. For this reason, some
commentators have tried to avoid depicting her as a prostitute, and looked for alternative
translations for the term ‫זונה‬.

For example, Josephus (37–ca.100 C.E.) refers to Rahab as a keeper of an

inn, katagōgion (καταγώγιον; Ant. 5:7),[1] a translation that may be based on context or
alternatively, from a creative understanding of the word as deriving from the alternative root ‫נ‬.‫ו‬.‫ז‬,
meaning “to feed.” This same translation appears in the early to mid-1st millennium C.E. Aramaic
translation, Targum Jonathan, who describes Rahab as a pundakita (‫)פּוּ ְנְדִקיָתא‬, tavern-keeper, a
loanword from the Greek, pandokeuo (πανδοκεύω).[2]

This translation is quoted approvingly in the comments of the 12th century French glossators (ad
loc.), who also include yet another possible retranslation:

.‫ ויש אומרים שמזנה אחרים ביופיה‬.‫זונה – פונדקיתא שמוכרת מזונות ומכלכלת עוברים ושבים‬

“Zonah”—Innkeeper, who sells food (mezonot) and supports travelers and wayfarers. And there
are those who say [that it means] she nourished (mazneh) others with her beauty.[3]

The second interpretation still avoids saying that she is a sex-worker, claiming that men sought
only to contemplate her beauty. Nevertheless, the simple meaning of the term in the Bible is harlot,
and this is how the Bible introduces the hero of the story. In fact, her very name, meaning “wide,”
may be a rather crass reference to her sex work.[4]

Yet, this is not the story of a woman who had once been a harlot and now joins the community of
the faithful; rather Rahab proclaims her faith in the God of Israel while still working as a prostitute,
a profession that, despite its endurance through the millennia, is hardly honorable.

Upending of Power Structures Motif

On one level, the Rahab story is one in a long line of biblical stories of God working through the
“underdog” or the powerless. In Genesis, Jacob, the younger tent-dwelling son, becomes the
namesake of the people Israel, not his elder, warrior brother Esau. In fact, it was his mother
Rebekah, not his father Isaac, who favored Jacob and successfully pressed for his advancement,
despite living in a society in which men’s wishes were afforded greater attention.

Other examples abound in the Bible: Gideon is the youngest son of a small family when he is
chosen by the angel to be a leader (Judg 6:15); Jephthah is the son not of his father’s wife but of a
harlot (‫)ֶבּן ִאָשּׁה זוָֹנה‬, who had been exiled by his brothers (Judg 11:1–2); David was the youngest
son of Jesse, a small boy compared to his tall oldest brother, when Samuel chooses him as the next
leader (1 Sam 16:6–12); Solomon is the son of the woman with whom David committed adultery,
and he is not David’s oldest son. Again, and again, God chooses unlikely human instruments,

29
either flipping systems of social power or making it supremely clear that the true power belongs
to God alone, or both.

To be sure, Rahab represents such marginality in several ways: She is a woman – and a single,
childless woman at that. She is not part of Israel, but one of the people of a city that is about to be
conquered. And finally, of course, she is a prostitute.

Living in the wall that circles the city, she literally and symbolically inhabits the boundary of
society. Yet, despite her marginality, she is not depicted either by the text or by its interpreters as
lacking power: she is both powerful and marginal, both shameful and formidable. Indeed,
according to rabbinic exegesis, her work directly informs her ability to aid the Israelite spies, an
understanding which helps them deal with the gnawing question: Why do the spies go straight to
a brothel?

Knowledge is Power, Whatever the Source

Josephus, who as we saw earlier, understands Rahab as a simple tavernkeeper and not a prostitute,
embellishes the story with a description of all the spying the men did before they turned in for the
night at Rahab’s tavern (Ant. 5:5–7, Brill ed.):

For, initially undetected, they had inspected their entire city at their ease, noting which of the walls
were strong and which did not have this capacity for security, as well as which of the small gates
would be suitable, given their weakness, for entry by the army. Those who encountered them
ignored their looking about, attributing their careful examination of everything in the city to that
curiosity natural to foreigners, rather than to a hostile mindset. When evening came, they repaired
to a certain inn…

This addition has no basis in the text, which describes their appearance at Rahab’s house without
any intervening espionage:

ֻ ‫א ַו ִיְּשַׁלח ְיהוֹ‬:‫יהושע ב‬
‫שַׁﬠ ִבּן נוּן ִמן ַהִשִּׁטּים ְשַׁנ ִים ֲאָנִשׁים ְמ ַרְגִּלים ֶח ֶרשׁ ֵלאֹמר ְלכוּ ְראוּ ֶאת ָהָא ֶרץ ְוֶאת ְי ִריחוֹ ַוֵיְּלכוּ‬
.‫ַוָיֹּבאוּ ֵבּית ִאָשּׁה זוָֹנה וְּשָׁמהּ ָרָחב ַו ִיְּשְׁכּבוּ ָשָׁמּה‬
Josh 2:1
Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim, saying, “Go, reconnoiter the region
of Jericho.” So, they set out, and they came to the house of a harlot named Rahab and lodged there.

Some modern literary scholars understand the story as humorous, making the reader laugh at the
spies’ expense.[5] Moreover, the contrast highlights the surprising nature of Rahab’s piety: the
Israelites shirk their responsibilities and go to a pleasure house, only to meet a Canaanite prostitute
loyal to YHWH, who can quote from the Song of the Sea.[6]

Traditional commentaries, however, did not read the text as criticizing the spies, who are assumed
to have been pious individuals, uninterested in a physical liaison. Therefore, the need to explain
the spies’ “unorthodox” choice of destination for espionage emerged.

30
A Woman with Connections and Inside Knowledge

While society does not imbue prostitutes with traditional forms of social status or power, the rabbis
note that sex work can give a woman considerable practical power: she hears the stories and secrets
of the men who visit her, and sees powerful men in their most vulnerable moments.

One rabbinic midrash assumes that she had been plying her trade at this point for forty years, and
thus had an extremely broad client base (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek 3 [Yitro]):

…‫ וכל מ’ שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר זנתה‬,‫ רחב הזונה בת עשר שנים היתה כשיצאו ישראל ממצרים‬,‫אמרו‬

They said, Rahab the harlot was ten years old when Israel left Egypt, and she practiced her harlotry
for all forty years that Israel was in the wilderness…[7]

The rabbinic commentator, Malbim (Meir Leibush Ben Yehiel Michel, 1809–1879) assumes that
the Israelites were aware of Rahab’s important position in Jericho, and suggests that this explains
why Joshua’s two spies head straight for a brothel of all places:

‫ ולכן‬,‫ ואצלה יחקורו כל הנעשה בארץ‬.‫ נגלו לה סתרי גדולי הארץ וסודותיהם‬,‫מפורסמת בשמה אצל גדולי הארץ‬
”‫לא הלכו לשום מקום רק “וישכבו שמה‬

Her name was known to all of the great men in the land. They would reveal the secrets of the land
to her. If the spies stayed there, they would be able to find out about all of the aspects going on
around the land. Therefore, the spies did not go to any other place, they just “slept there” (Josh
2:1).

According to Malbim, it is only natural that the Israelite spies, men seeking knowledge about the
city, seek out Rahab: They know that she holds many secrets.[8] Thus, when the Canaanite king
hears in Joshua 2:2 that Israelite spies have come to his land, he immediately sends orders to Rahab
to produce these men. The king’s confidence that this is where the spies were to be found
underscores the assumption that all men of note pass through her home.

The Awe of the Harlot…

The assumption of Rahab’s strategic importance brought with it the concomitant desire to explain:
What made her so popular? Thus, the rabbis posit that she must have been unbelievably beautiful.
For example, the Babylonian Talmud (Meg 15a) states:
[9]
‫תנו רבנן ארבע נשים יפיפיות היו בעולם ואילו הן שרה רחב אביגיל ואסתר‬

Our rabbis taught: There were four women of extraordinary beauty in the world, and these are
they: Sarah, Rahab, Abigail, and Esther.

The other three are all pious Jewish women, from the first of the Jewish people to the heroine of
the Purim story. If this comparison seems rather tame, the text continues with a description of
Rahab’s beauty as bordering on the supernatural:

31
 ‫וא]מר[ ר’ יצחק כל האומר רחב רחב מיד נקרי‬

And Rabbi Isaac said: “Anyone who says ‘Rahab, Rahab’ immediately experiences a seminal
emission.”

This extreme physical reaction to even the mention of her name is ostensibly due to the arousal of
desire caused by Rahab’s great beauty.

In response to Rabbi Isaac’s statement, in a comment that I can only imagine happening during a
basement poker game,

‫אמ]ר[ ליה רב נחמן אנא אמינא ולא איכפת לי אמ]ר[ ליה כי קאמינא ביודעה ובמכירה ובמזכיר שמה‬

Rav Nachman said to him: “I have said it, and it does not affect me.” [Rav Isaac] responded: “I
was referring specifically to a man who saw her, knew her, and said her name.”[10]

Clearly Rahab’s sexual power—her ability to elicit from men a response that they cannot control
in a way they find both thrilling and terrifying—caught the imagination of rabbinic interpreters.
Even with R. Isaac’s commonsense caveat, this is quite some sexual power, almost god-like.
Nevertheless, Rahab’s sexual power is no match for the power of God.

…And the Fear of God

In Joshua 2:9–11, as Rahab explains to the spies why she saved them, and recounts what she has
learned about the God of Israel, she says that her people have heard of the feats accomplished by
God,

‫יא ַו ִנְּשַׁמע ַו ִיַּמּס ְלָבֵבנוּ ְול ֹא ָקָמה עוֹד רוַּח ְבִּאישׁ ִמְפֵּניֶכם‬:‫יהושע ב‬
Josh 2:11
When we heard about it, we lost heart, and no man’s spirit could stand anymore because
of you.
Joshua 5:1,

from three chapters later, relays a very similar fact. The kings of the Amorites have heard about
God’s many feats,

‫א ַו ִיַּמּס ְלָבָבם ְול ֹא ָהָיה ָבם עוֹד רוַּח ִמְפֵּני ְבֵּני ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬:‫יהושע ה‬
Josh 5:1
They lost heart, and no further spirit remained in them because of the Israelites.

The point is the same, but the word choice is different: Here it says that the no spirit remained, but
Rahab says than no spirit could stand or remain erect (‫מ‬.‫ו‬.‫)ק‬.

Rabbinic interpreters seize upon this to relate back to Rahab’s sexual encounters with men,
claiming that out of fear of the Israelites, the Canaanite men could no longer maintain an erection
(b. Zevachim 116a-b):

32
 [‫מאי שנא התם דכ]תב[ ולא היה עוד בם רוח ומאי שנא הכא דכ]תב[ ולא קמה עוד רוח באיש מפניכם דאפי]לו‬
[11]
‫אקשויי לא אקשו מנא ידעא דא]מר[ מר אין לך שר ונגיד שלא בא אצל רחב הזונה‬

What is different there that it says, “and they had no further spirit in them” and what is different
here that it says, “and no man’s spirit could stand anymore because of you”? That they could not
even maintain an erection [when visiting Rahab]. How did she know? For the master said: “There
was no minister or prince that did not pay a visit to Rahab the harlot.”

Reading these two rabbinic descriptions together, we learn that even a woman who can bring about
spontaneous emissions simply by the mention of her name is no match for the fear and awe that
accompany the retelling of God’s power.

Rahab as a Model of Teshuva (Repentance)

Rahab welcomes the wonders God does for Israel, and decides to join the Israelite camp. For the
rabbis, this meant that she converted to Judaism.[12] In fact, the rabbis claim that this once childless
harlot marries Joshua himself, and gives birth to a line of prophets and priests. Bavli Megillah 14b
lists 8 prophets as her descendants, with the possible addition of a 9th—Huldah the prophetess.[13]
This last suggestion may be a play off the name of Huldah’s mother Tikvah, which means “hope”
but is also the word for “cord,” calling to mind the cord Rahab is to tie upon her house to let the
Israelite invaders know that she is a friend and should not be harmed:

.‫שׁר הוֹ ַרְדֵתּנוּ בוֹ‬ ָ ‫יח ִהֵנּה ֲאַנְחנוּ ָבִאים ָבָּא ֶרץ ֶאת ִתְּקַות חוּט ַה‬:‫יהושע ב‬
ֶ ‫שּׁ ִני ַהֶזּה ִתְּקְשׁ ִרי ַבַּחלּוֹן ֲא‬
Josh 2:18
And it will be that when we invade the country, you tie this length of crimson cord to the
window through which you let us down.

Huldah is the child of the saving scarlet cord, a child of faith and a faithfully kept oath.

The Greater the Sin, the Greater the Repentance

By positing a completely new life for Rahab after her conversion, the rabbis reinforce a simple
story of the extremes of good and evil, portraying Rahab as a Canaanite prostitute who morphs
into an Israelite woman of valor (Midrash Mishlei 31:22).

In fact, Sifrei Zuta, (Beha’alotecha 10:29) begins its praise of Rahab by highlighting her depravity:

‫ר’ יהודה אומר ארבעה שמות של גנאי היה לה נקרא שמה רחב הזונה… שהיתה מזנה עם בני המדינה מבפנים‬
‫ועם הליסטים מבחוץ שנא’ כי ביתה בקיר החומה ובחומה היא יושבת‬

R. Judah says: “She had four disgraceful names. She was called Rahab the harlot… for she would
whore with the men from inside the city and with the brigands from outside, as it says (Josh 2:15),
“for her home was in the city wall, and she dwelt upon the wall.”

33
But the midrash’s intention here is not to simply insult Rahab but to emphasize the significance of
her righteous and repentant behavior:

‫ומה אם מי שהיתה מגויי הארץ וממשפחות האדמה על שעשתה מאהבה נתן לה המקום מאהבה על אחת כמה‬
.‫וכמה אלו היתה מישראל‬

If someone who was from the gentiles of the earth and the peoples of the land acted out of love,
God rewarded her out of love, how much more so if she had been an Israelite.

Taking this one step further, Pesikta Rabbati 40:3 uses Rahab to demonstrate that there is nobody
who is beyond God’s saving power. The text states that in the future, when God judges the world:

‫ והוא אומר לו וכי‬,‫ והוא אומר שהייתי רשע מוחלט והייתי מתבייש‬,‫אומר לאומות העולם למה לא קרבת אצלי‬
‫ וכשנתקרבה אצלי לא‬,‫יותר היית מרחב שהיה ביתה בקיר החומה והייתה מקבלת את הליסטים ומזנה מבפנים‬
?‫קיבלתיה והעמדתי ממנה נביאים וצדיקים‬

[God] will say to the nations of the world “Why did you not bring yourself closer to me?” and
they will respond “I was an utterly wicked person, and I was embarrassed.” [God] will then
reply: “Were you more wicked than Rahab, whose house was in the city wall and who received
robbers and prostituted with them within? Nevertheless, she drew near to me and did I not
welcome her and raise up prophets and righteous people from her?”

The gravity of Rahab’s sinful life and the fullness of her conversation is so stark that she becomes
a sort of a fortiori (kal v’chomer) example:[14] If Rahab can repent and be welcomed by God, the
thinking goes, certainly you can, too.

From One Extreme to Another

Rahab’s dual roles as the ultimate sinner/outsider and as the profoundly faithful ticket to Israelite
success make her short biblical story interesting to many interpreters – Jewish and Christian,
ancient and modern – each piecing together a character broad enough to contain all of these truths
in one way or another.

Ancient interpreters who see in her a model of teshuva – the hope that anyone can turn from an
ungodly path to a godly one – underscore the perceived shift from one extreme of being to another.
At the same time, this focus creates what we might call a “flat character” with very little complexity
–a character who serves primarily as an instrument to the plot or as a means to make a point.

Indeed, the rabbis seem to imagine that Rahab moves from one moral extreme to the other with
the proverbial flip of a switch – from a sinful life of sex work as a Canaanite woman, to a pious
life as the matriarch of prophets among the people Israel.

In this change from one type of woman to another, Rahab exemplifies, sequentially, a symbolic
embodiment of strangeness and folly, and a symbolic embodiment of goodness and wisdom, “part
of patriarchy’s perennial classification of all women as either all-good or all-evil” that is most

34
clearly exemplified in but not limited to Wisdom literature.[15] The overlap between the “bad” and
the “good” chapters of Rahab’s life is treated as irony.

Personal Change or Change of Circumstances?

But if we read this biblical story and the midrash that surrounds it with attention to Rahab herself,
in the context of her life as we can best imagine it, do we indeed witness a personal transformation
from sinful to good? Has Rahab herself changed, or does the arrival of the spies simply allow her
an opportunity to express the faith she seems already to have had, and formally throw in her lot
with those who share that faith? Put another way, is it Rahab who has changed, or the world around
her?

Reading Rahab in relation to the power structures around her enables us to envision a fuller, more
complex character who, in addition to being a Canaanite harlot, was also an intelligent woman
who seems to do the best she can with the power she had at any given time.

As explored above, rabbinic interpreters acknowledge Rahab’s power and how it shifts and
accumulates over time. She is shockingly beautiful, and this gift leads to her success in her
unseemly career. The rabbis write without any apparent discomfort that her harlotry began when
she was 10 years old.

Their point, of course, was that she was an “expert” in her career and had developed a wide network
of connections. But if we want to imagine the life story of Rahab, this conjecture has very different
impact. Are we to imagine that a 10-year-old becomes a sex worker because of a sinful nature, or
do we imagine that life circumstances pressed them into this path?

It is then from her harlotry that Rahab gains faith in the God of Israel. Though many others in
Jericho apparently know the story of the parting of the sea in Exodus – they are the ones who have
recounted it to her – it is Rahab alone, in this story, who proclaims faith in the God of Israel.

Working with Available Social Roles

Are we to imagine that she could have acted on this faith earlier, but chose not to? Could a 50-
year-old woman, a harlot of 40 years, have found a different role in Canaanite society if the social
order had not been overturned with the destruction of Jericho? On the contrary, it is more realistic
to imagine that, at her core, Rahab herself has changed very little. Instead, the world around her
changed – thanks in part to her savvy and bravery – and these changes meant she was no longer
stuck in her social role.

Modern readers who are attuned to the power structures at play in our own society may see a
reflection of our society in Rahab’s story, knowing that a person’s circumstances and relative
privilege (or lack thereof) have at least as much influence as our moral core on the life path we
walk. When an individual has few viable choices for livelihood, attaching moral judgment to what
seems an unseemly path can easily lead to inappropriate assessments of character.
Surely, Rahab illustrates that people’s stories can change over time.

35
The question is to what extent, for Rahab, that change became possible because of internal
changes as opposed external ones. It behooves us, as readers and citizens of the world, to
consider both.

Footnotes
1. Josephus’ Greek here does not follow the LXX translation, pornēs (πόρνης), “prostitute.” This Greek term is the source
for the English word pornography.
2. In fact, Josephus uses this very term to translate ‫ זונה‬in Lev 21:7, turning the prohibition for a priest to marry a harlot into
a prohibition for him to marry an innkeeper (Ant. 3:276).
3. Accessed at alhatorah.org ad loc.
4. The early church father Origen repurposed this understanding as a foreshadowing of the church. See William Lyons,
“Rahab in Rehab: Christian Interpretation of the Madame from Jericho,” in Women in the Biblical World: A Survey of
Old and New Testament Perspectives, ed., Elizabeth A. McCabe (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009), 31–
42. For comparative Christian and Jewish streams of interpretation, see Amy H.C. Robertson, “Rahab and Her
Interpreters,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed., Carol A. Newsom, Sharon H. Rindge, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012), 109-112.
5. See, e.g., Yair Zakovitch’s comments in the Olam HaTanakh commentary on Joshua (ad loc.).
6. Compare Rahab’s statement in Josh 2:11 with the Exod 15:14–16.
7. The midrash continues with a description of her repentance.
8. This, we’d imagine, is how she comes to know the story of the parting of the sea and the salvation of the Israelites – this
is how she has come to know and believe in the God of Israel, how she “heard how the Lord dried up the water of the
Red Sea before you.” Josephus (Ant. 5:12), however, relates that she comes to know about the God of Israel through
“signs from God,” perhaps implying that Rahab is herself a prophet.
9. Hebrew follows MS BM 400 [Harley 5508]
10. The last two words only appear in some of the manuscripts. See also the same anecdote in b. Taanit 5b.
11. Hebrew from MS Munich 95.
12. The rabbis even claim that she was a better convert even than Jethro and Naaman, because of her statement in Joshua
that “YHWH your is the only God in heaven above and on earth below” ( ‫ִהים ַבָּשַּׁמ ִים ִמַמַּﬠל ְוַﬠל ָהָאֶרץ‬ƒ‫ֵהיֶכם הוּא ֱא‬ƒ‫ִכּי ְי־הָוה ֱא‬
‫ ;ִמָתַּחת‬Joshua 2:11b). See Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:26. For more on Rahab as a repentant convert, including a comparison
with Jethro and a treatment of the midrashim discussed above, see David J. Zucker and Moshe Reiss, “Judaism’s First
Converts: A Pagan and a Prostitute,” TheTorah.com (2017).
13. Ruth Rabbah 2:1 lists 10 prophets and priests, and also adds Huldah as an 11th with this reasoning.
14. Sifrei Numbers 78:
‫והרי דברים ק”ו ומה מי שהיתה מעם שנ’ בו לא תחיה כל נשמה )דברים כ טז( על שקירבה עצמה כך קירבה המקום ישראל שעושים את התורה עאכ”ו‬

Is this matter not an a fortiori? If she, who came from a people of whom it is written “You shall not spare any soul” (Deut 20:16))
because she drew near, was thus drawn near by the Lord, then Israelites, who keep the Torah, how much the more so!
15. Claudia V. Camp, “Woman Wisdom: Bible,” Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia (2019). Carol
A. Newsom, “Woman and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: Proverbs 1-9,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient
Israel, ed., Peggy L. Day (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989), 142–160.

Framing the debate13

Newman and White in Women Power and Public Policy (2012) argue that feminist perspectives
on prostitution agree on three main points: “First, they condemn the current legal policy
enforcing criminal sanctions against women who offer sex in exchange for money. Second, they
agree that authentic consent is the none of legitimate sex, whether in commercial or non-

13
O’Neill, Maggie (2001). Prostitution and Feminism. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 14–16

36
commercial form. Third, all feminists recognize that commercial sex workers are subject to
economic coercion and are often victims of violence, and that little is done to address these
problems.”14
They go on to identify three main feminist views on the issue of prostitution. The sex work
perspective, the abolitionist perspective and the outlaw perspective.

The sex work perspective maintains that prostitution is a legitimate form of work for women
faced with the option of other bad jobs, therefore women ought to have the right to work in the sex
trade free of prosecution or the fear of it. The sex work perspective also argues that governments
should eliminate laws that criminalize voluntary prostitution. This, the sex work perspective
asserts, will allow prostitution to be regulated by governments and business codes, protect sex
trade workers, and improve the ability to prosecute people who hurt them.

The Abolitionist perspective holds that governments should work towards the elimination of
prostitution.

The Outlaw Perspective views work in the sex trade as a “steppingstone to a better career or an
expression of sexual freedom”

Legalization or decriminalization15
Feminists who support the legalization or decriminalization of prostitution argue that one of the
significant flaws with the radical anti-prostitution feminist view is that a majority of its arguments
are premised on the assumption that prostitution itself is inherently laced with sexism, classism
and other unbalanced power relations. The institution of prostitution itself is seen by abolitionists
as resting on these conditions and therefore they believe legalization or decriminalization will only
lead to the reinforcement of these conditions. Pro-sex-work feminists argue that this assumption
is flawed, and that while prostitution, as it currently exists in our society, can be misogynist or
degrading in some manifestations, there is a grave danger in attributing these conditions to
prostitution itself. They argue that targeting prostitution as a whole unduly focuses attention on
this single institution in our society, rather than looking at society at large and the social
institutions, laws and practices that lead to the subordination and oppression of women. There has
been much debate over the last few decades amongst feminists about how laws relating to
prostitution should be reformed. Most liberal feminists who look at prostitution from a capitalist
perspective support some form of either decriminalization or legalization.
Decriminalization is the removal of all penalties for prostitution itself and for all the activities
necessary for prostitutes to do their work, such as advertising, communicating with clients, etc. It
does not mean the reversal of all laws relating to prostitution, for example laws that exist against
forcing someone into prostitution. For the purposes of decriminalization, Feminists for Free

14
Newman and White (2012). Women Power and Public Policy. Oxford University Press.
15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution#cite_note-NewmanWhite-2012-3

37
Expression defines the word “prostitution” to mean any consensual sexual activity between adults
where compensation is involved; nonconsensual sex acts or sex acts perpetrated against minors are
not prostitution, in their view. Instead, they prefer the term "criminal sexual acts".
The term 'legalization', on the other hand, is usually used in the context of prostitution to refer to
the use of criminal laws to regulate prostitution by determining the legal conditions under which
prostitutes can operate. Legalization can mean anything from rigid controls under a state-
controlled system to merely defining the operation of a privatized sex industry. Legalization is
often accompanied by strict criminal penalties for anyone who operates outside the legally defined
framework. With legalization there may be rules about where prostitution can take place (for
example only in state licensed brothels), what prostitutes can do, mandatory registry/licensing and
frequent mandatory health exams.
Some pro-sex-worker feminists support decriminalization and some support legalization, for
different reasons. Proponents of decriminalization believe that all people, including sex workers,
are entitled to the same rights regarding safety, health and human rights, and that outdated criminal
laws need to be reformed in order to improve the living and working conditions of sex workers.
They argue that decriminalization is better for the workers than legalization and that both
criminalization and heavily regulated legalization infringe on the workers' safety and human rights.
Many feminists who support sex workers favor decriminalization because it allows prostitutes to
go into business for themselves and self-determination is a tenet of feminist politics.[65] They
believe decriminalization fosters responsibility, empowerment, self-esteem and self-care, all
important feminist values. The goal in decriminalizing sex work is that anyone doing any type of
sex work would be treated the same way, with the same rights and responsibilities, as any other
self-employed person. Whether they support decriminalization or some form of legalization, pro-
sex work feminists believe that the current laws that exist surrounding prostitution in many
countries need to be changed and are harmful to the people who work in the industry.
For Further Reading:

“Go and Enjoy Your Acquisition”: The Prostitute in The

Babylonian Talmud16
S. Fishbane writes17

16
https://brill.com/view/book/9789047420187/Bej.9789004158337.i-234_007.xml
17
Deviancy in Early Rabbinic Literature: A Collection of Socio-Anthropological Essays, Series: The Brill Reference Library
of Judaism, Volume: 27

38
39