Megillah, Daf Yod Daled, Part 6
אמר רב נחמן: חולדה מבני בניו של יהושע היתה.
כתיב הכא +מלכים ב‘ כ"ב+ בן חרחס וכתיב התם +יהושע כ"ד+ בתמנת חרס.
R. Nahman said: Hulda was a descendant of Joshua. It is written here [in connection with Hulda], "The son of Harhas" (II Kings 22:14) and it is written in another place [in connection with Joshua], "In Timnat-Heres" (Judges 2:9).
R. Nahman connects the word "Harhas" to the word "Heres" to conclude that Hulda was a descendent of Joshua.
איתיביה רב עינא סבא לרב נחמן: שמונה נביאים והם כהנים יצאו מרחב הזונה, ואלו הן: נריה, ברוך, ושריה, מחסיה, ירמיה, חלקיה, חנמאל, ושלום. רבי יהודה אומר: אף חולדה הנביאה מבני בניה של רחב הזונה היתה. כתיב הכא בן תקוה וכתיב התם +יהושע ב‘+ את תקות חוט השני!
R. Ena Saba objected to R. Nahman: Eight prophets who were also priests were descended from Rahav the harlot and they are: Neriah, Baruch, Serayah, Mahseyah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanamel and Shallum.
R. Judah says: Hulda the prophetess was also one of the descendants of Rahab the harlot. [We know this] because it is written here "The son of Tikvah" and it is written elsewhere [in connection with Rahab], "The line [tikvat] of scarlet thread" (Joshua 2:18).
R. Ena Saba (old R. Ena) uses a baraita to show that Hulda was the descendant of Rahab the prostitute, who helped Joshua conquer Jericho. So how could she be the descendant of Joshua.
אמר ליה: עינא סבא! ואמרי לה: פתיא אוכמא! מיני ומינך תסתיים שמעתא; דאיגיירא ונסבה יהושע.
He replied: Ena Saba, and some say, "Black bowl, the truth can be found by combining my statement and yours. She converted and Joshua married her.
R. Nahman resolves the difficulty Rahav converted to Judaism and Joshua married her. Hulda is the descendent of both.
ומי הוו ליה זרעא ליהושע? והכתיב +דברי הימים א‘ ז‘+ נון בנו יהושע בנו! – בני – לא הוו ליה, בנתן – הוו ליה.
But did Joshua have children? Is it not written, "Nun his son, Joshua his son" (I Chronicles 7:27). He had no sons, but he had daughters.
From the verse it seems that Joshua had no sons, this is why the book does not list them. So how could Hulda be a descendant of his? The answer is that he had only daughters, and Chronicles lists only sons.
בשלמא אינהו – מיפרשי, אלא אבהתייהו מנלן? – כדעולא. דאמר עולא: כל מקום ששמו ושם אביו בנביאות – בידוע שהוא נביא בן נביא. שמו ולא שם אביו – בידוע שהוא נביא ולא בן נביא. שמו ושם עירו מפורש – בידוע שהוא מאותה העיר, שמו ולא שם עירו – בידוע שהוא מירושלים.
We can understand that [some of] those [eight] mentioned above are expressly described [as prophets], but how do we know that their fathers [were prophets]?
From what Ulla said; for Ulla said: Wherever a man’s name is given along with that of his father as the author of a prophecy we know that he was a prophet son of a prophet. Where his own name is given but not that of his father, we know that he was a prophet but not the son of a prophet. Where his name and the name of his town are specified, we know that he came from that town. Where his name is given but not that of his town, we know that he was from Jerusalem.
Baruch, Serayah, Jeremiah and Hanamel were the sons of Neriah, Mahseya, Hilkiah and Shallum. We know that the sons were prophets because they are called prophets. But how do we know that the fathers were prophets as well? Ulla answers that whenever the verse lists the name of the father with the prophet, it is a sign that the father was a prophet as well. And whenever the verse does not list where a prophet was from, we can know that he was from Jerusalem.
במתניתא תנא: כל שמעשיו ומעשה אבותיו סתומין, ופרט לך הכתוב באחד מהן לשבח, כגון +צפניה א‘+ דבר ה‘ אשר היה אל צפניה בן כושי בן גדליה – בידוע שהוא צדיק בן צדיק. וכל שפרט לך הכתוב באחד מהן לגנאי, כגון +ירמיהו מ"א+ ויהי בחדש השביעי בא ישמעאל בן נתניה בן אלישמע, – בידוע שהוא רשע בן רשע.
In a baraita it was stated: If nothing is known about the character of a man or of his ancestors, and the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a praiseworthy action, as for instance, "The word of the Lord which came to Zephaniah son of Cushi son of Gedaliah" (Zephaniah 1:1) we may know that he was a righteous man son of a righteous man; and wherever the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a reprehensible action, as for instance, "And it came to pass in the seventh month that Ishmael the son [of Netanel] son of Elishama came" (Jeremiah 41:1) we may know that he was a wicked man son of a wicked man.
If a person is righteous, such as Zephaniah the prophet, and his father is mentioned as well, we can know that his father was righteous as well. This is why the verse mentions his father’s name to let you know that his righteousness was inherited from his parents. But if a person is wicked, like Ishmael son of Netanel, son of Elishama who killed Gedaliah, the last ruler of Judah after the destruction of the Temple, then we can know that his fathers were wicked as well. The prophet/scoundrel does not fall far from the tree!