Introduction: A Defeat After a Victory
Chapter 7 of Sefer Yehoshua is a chapter of downfall. Yericho had just fallen through a miracle, its walls collapsed, and the dread of Israel fell upon all the inhabitants of the land - and suddenly there comes a small, painful defeat in a little city called Ai. The entire chapter revolves around a single question: how does the sin of one man, Achan son of Carmi, drag the whole nation of Israel down with him. From this chapter we learn the principle of mutual responsibility, the difference between an active punishment and hester panim (the hiding of God's face), and the ways of justice through which the Holy One revealed the sinner.
"The Children of Israel Trespassed" - All Israel Is One Body
וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם וַיִּקַּח עָכָן בֶּן־כַּרְמִי בֶן־זַבְדִּי בֶן־זֶרַח לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה מִן־הַחֵרֶם וַיִּחַר־אַף יְהֹוָה בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And the children of Israel trespassed a trespass in the cherem, for Achan son of Carmi, son of Zavdi, son of Zerach, of the tribe of Yehudah, took from the cherem, and the anger of Hashem burned against the children of Israel.
The Malbim immediately addresses the difficulty. The verse opens in the plural - "and the children of Israel trespassed" - as though we would expect to hear of an entire community that trespassed in the cherem; yet immediately afterward it becomes clear that "Achan took" - a single man took. And if one man sinned, why did "the anger of Hashem burn against the children of Israel"? Is it not written, "Shall one man sin and You be angry with the entire congregation"?
Rather, the verse comes to teach us that all of Israel is considered as a single body. In the words of the Malbim: every man and woman relates to the whole as a single limb relates to the entire body. It is impossible to say of a man who has gangrene in his leg, "This is only the leg, it does not affect the rest of the body." Gangrene in the leg will ultimately poison the whole body and kill it. So too here: what Achan took from the cherem is considered as though the entire nation trespassed in the cherem, and therefore it says "the children of Israel trespassed" and afterward "Achan took."
Two Types of Punishment: An Active Blow and Hester Panim
The Malbim teaches here another great principle. There is a difference between a punishment that comes actively - a blow, damage, and the like - and a punishment that comes through the withdrawal of Divine providence. These are two types of heavenly punishment: there is "and Hashem struck a blow upon the people," and there is the punishment of the removal of providence. When the Holy One punishes actively, He does not punish one who did not sin but only the sinner himself. And as we will see in the chapter: Achan sinned and Achan was stoned, and no other people were stoned along with him.
Not so with the punishment of the removal of providence. This punishment is far harsher, for then "I will hide My face from them and they will be devoured" - in such a state all are devoured, and the blow falls upon the community. On account of individuals the Holy One hides His face, and then the enemy comes and strikes, and our Sages already said that once permission has been granted to the destroyer, it does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. Hester panim is a far more severe state.
From here, says the Malbim, Achan alone trespassed in the cherem, yet the anger was upon the entire congregation of Israel, because this was a state of hester panim. And this state explains a great wonder: Achan trespassed in the cherem, while those who fell in battle were other people who had gone out to fight against Ai. Where is the justice? The one who trespassed was not struck, and those who went out to war were the ones who were struck! But in hester panim it is precisely the one who is in the place of danger who is harmed, while one who is not presently in the place of danger - even though he is the cause of the whole matter - is not harmed. And this is the meaning of "the anger of Hashem burned against the children of Israel": that Hashem removed His providence from them, and therefore the harm fell upon the community.
Why Achan's Entire Lineage Is Listed
And why does the verse list his entire chain of lineage - "son of Carmi, son of Zavdi, son of Zerach, of the tribe of Yehudah"? To teach you that what brought him to sin was precisely his lofty lineage. "Of the tribe of Yehudah" - a family of kings, of princes and important men. Through the strength of his lofty lineage he became haughty, and through that arrogance he came to what he came to.
Furthermore: following the sin, prophecy departed from Yehoshua, and therefore he had no idea at all that someone had betrayed the ban. Yehoshua assumed that from now on they would have to conquer the land by natural means alone, and so he was certain that the battle would be a natural battle.
Sending the Spies to Ai
וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲנָשִׁים מִירִיחוֹ הָעַי אֲשֶׁר עִם־בֵּית אָוֶן מִקֶּדֶם לְבֵית־אֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ וְרַגְּלוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וַיַּעֲלוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיְרַגְּלוּ אֶת־הָעָי׃ - And Yehoshua sent men from Yericho to Ai, which is beside Beit Aven, to the east of Beit El, and he said to them, saying: Go up and spy out the land. And the men went up and spied out Ai.
The Malbim asks: why does the verse go on at length to inform us of the places near Ai, "which is beside Beit Aven, to the east of Beit El"? What need is there to mention Beit Aven and Beit El? And furthermore: Yehoshua told them "spy out the land," whereas they "spied out Ai" - a sign that they did not carry out precisely what they were commanded.
The Malbim explains: the verse comes to describe how the hand of chance took hold of them at once and cast down their plan. The moment providence was removed, which is the cause of all the harm, the mistakes begin immediately. When there is no providence, the mistakes begin.
And how so? In truth it would have been fitting for all of Israel to go up and fight there. For although Ai itself was a small city, near it were Beit Aven and Beit El, and had they paid attention to this they would have understood that the size of Ai was misleading: it had satellite cities that would join it in time of need, and therefore a large army was required. And so it indeed was, as it says later that not a man remained in Ai and in Beit El who did not go out after the children of Israel - when they came out to pursue Israel, the men of Beit El joined as well. This they did not take into account when they said: Ai is a small city, a few will suffice.
But Yehoshua did take this into account, and therefore his precision is wonderful: he told them "go up and spy out the land" - the land in general, all the surroundings of Ai, and not only the city. Had they spied out the land they would have seen that there were additional cities around it, Beit El and Beit Aven, and they would have determined that a large force was needed for this battle. But they did not heed his words, changed his command, and on their own initiative "spied out Ai" alone, and from this they reached the mistaken conclusion that the people were few and that all of Israel was not needed.
There was another reason for the mission: Yehoshua wanted to know whether kings had gathered there. For after the conquest of Yericho there was a concern that all the kings would come to defend the next city, since they understood that soon their turn would arrive. Therefore he sent the men to spy, in order to know whether kings had gathered there and to determine the manner of fighting accordingly.
The Spies' Advice and the Repetition in Their Words
וַיָּשֻׁבוּ אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אַל־יַעַל כָּל־הָעָם כְּאַלְפַּיִם אִישׁ אוֹ כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ יַעֲלוּ וְיַכּוּ אֶת־הָעָי אַל־תְּיַגַּע־שָׁמָּה אֶת־כָּל־הָעָם כִּי מְעַט הֵמָּה׃ - And they returned to Yehoshua and said to him: Let not all the people go up; about two thousand men or about three thousand men should go up and strike Ai. Do not weary all the people there, for they are few.
There is a repetition here: "let not all the people go up" - and again "do not weary all the people there." The Malbim explains that they repeat their words in two stages. First they respond to the mission: you sent us to see, and we say that there is no need for all the people to go up. Then they add by way of advice: since there is no need for so many, if you send many you will weary the people for nothing, and therefore "do not weary" - it is not worthwhile that they exert themselves in vain. In other words: first, based on what we saw there is no need for all the people to go up; and second, if you nevertheless wish to send more, our advice is that it is not worthwhile, for it is nothing but wearying for nothing.
The Flight Before the Men of Ai
וַיַּעֲלוּ מִן־הָעָם שָׁמָּה כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וַיָּנֻסוּ לִפְנֵי אַנְשֵׁי הָעָי׃ - About three thousand men of the people went up there, and they fled before the men of Ai.
The Malbim notes the precise wording: it does not say that they waged battle or war, it does not say "and the battle took place" face to face. They went up, and immediately fled. And even though this time neither the men of Beit El nor the men of Beit Aven came to help the men of Ai (Beit Aven did not help afterward either, while the men of Beit El did help in the next round), still he saw that Israel were fleeing before them.
וַיַּכּוּ מֵהֶם אַנְשֵׁי הָעַי כִּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה אִישׁ וַיִּרְדְּפוּם לִפְנֵי הַשַּׁעַר עַד־הַשְּׁבָרִים וַיַּכּוּם בַּמּוֹרָד וַיִּמַּס לְבַב־הָעָם וַיְהִי לְמָיִם׃ - And the men of Ai struck down about thirty six men of them, and chased them from before the gate as far as Shevarim, and struck them down at the descent; and the heart of the people melted and became like water.
Thirty six men, and the merit of Avraham Avinu
The Radak brings the words of Chazal that the merit of Avraham Avinu stood by them: after all, they were liable on account of the cherem, yet still the men of Ai struck down only thirty six of them. When Avraham Avinu pursued the kings, he reached that very place and built an altar there, "Beit El on the west and Ai on the east," "and he built there an altar to Hashem" - and this merit now stood by them, and the Holy One, blessed be He, remembered his merit.
And what is the meaning of "about thirty six," with the kaf of comparison? Some explain that the kaf of comparison is to be taken literally: approximately thirty six men. But others say that there were not thirty six at all, rather it was Yair ben Menashe, who was equal in worth to thirty six men, which is the majority of the Sanhedrin.
And why were they forced to explain it this way? When the kaf of comparison is used with large numbers, "about a thousand five hundred men," that is understandable, since it could be one thousand five hundred twenty two or one thousand five hundred and one. But when it speaks of precise details, of thirty six, one does not say "about thirty six"; if there were thirty seven, say thirty seven. You have already descended to the details, so what place is there for the kaf of comparison? From here the author of "Margaliyot HaYam" proves that the intent is not thirty six literally, but rather to one who was equal in worth to thirty six: Yair ben Menashe, whose wisdom was so great that one could rely on him just as one relies on the majority of the Sanhedrin.
The Malbim resolves that there is no contradiction between the derash and the plain meaning: indeed thirty six men were struck down, and one who was among them was equal in worth to the thirty six who fell. Thirty six were struck down, and one of them was equal in worth to the thirty six.
"You shall cause them to inherit" - Yehoshua remained in the camp
There is a derash that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Yehoshua "you shall cause them to inherit": you yourself must be with them and go out at the head of their armies. And here Yehoshua sent men and remained at home, and therefore they failed. And since the verse reveals further on that the defeat was on account of the sin of the cherem, the Radak says that there is no need to seek other reasons: the sin of the cherem suffices for us as an adequate cause for the defeat at Ai.
And what is the meaning of "and they chased them from before the gate as far as Shevarim"? The Metzudat Tzion explains that the place was named after the event: since they were broken (nishberu) there, the place was called "Shevarim." And the Malbim adds that the pursuit as far as Shevarim shows how greatly the men of Ai felt strength and might over them, and their hearts grew bold to pursue them all the way there. And through this "the heart of the people melted," for Israel made a calculation: if such a small city can prevail against us, what will we do against the cities greater than it, how will we fight them?
Yehoshua's prayer and dust upon the head
וַיִּקְרַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל־פָּנָיו אַרְצָה לִפְנֵי אֲרוֹן יְהֹוָה עַד־הָעֶרֶב הוּא וְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עָפָר עַל־רֹאשָׁם׃ - And Yehoshua tore his garments and fell to the ground upon his face before the Ark of Hashem until the evening, he and the elders of Israel, and they put dust upon their heads.
The Malbim explains: "And Yehoshua tore his garments" - over the slain; "and fell upon his face" - in prayer; "and they put dust upon their heads" - as if to say, we are considered as dust.
Our Sages said: A person is not permitted to fall on his face unless he is confident that he will be answered from Heaven, like Yehoshua bin Nun, because one who falls on his face must be prepared to give up his life to death. And when they were not answered, they placed dust on their heads, as if to say: Master of the world, if You do not answer us, then we are considered before You as the dead, for "for you are dust and to dust you shall return."
Moreover, they came through this to recall the merit of Avraham Avinu, who built an altar there - "an altar of earth you shall make for Me" - and prayed there that his children would not fall in battle. This is the meaning of "and he went on his journeys from the Negev even to Beit El, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beit El and Ai, to the place of the altar which he had made there at first, and Avram called there upon the name of Hashem" - that he prayed about this very battle of Ai. From here our Sages learned that a person must precede everything with prayer, for had Avraham not preceded his prayer there, not one of them would have remained in that battle.
There is another reason for the dust: to recall the merit of Avraham, who was humble and said "and I am dust and ashes." They place dust on their heads as if to say: not like us, who acted with arrogance - "they are few, we will defeat them, this is not a great city"; Avraham Avinu acted with humility, and now we retract our words.
Yehoshua's Two Arguments: From the Past and From the Future
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲהָהּ אֲדֹנָי יְהֹוִה לָמָה הֵעֲבַרְתָּ הַעֲבִיר אֶת־הָעָם הַזֶּה אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּן לָתֵת אֹתָנוּ בְּיַד הָאֱמֹרִי לְהַאֲבִידֵנוּ וְלוּ הוֹאַלְנוּ וַנֵּשֶׁב בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן׃ - And Yehoshua said: Alas, my Lord Hashem, why did You bring this people across the Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Emori to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell on the other side of the Jordan.
The Malbim says: After Yehoshua saw that God does not go forth with our armies - and the proof is the defeat - he understood that Hashem left them to nature and chance, and about this he came with two arguments: one from the standpoint of the past and one from the standpoint of the future.
The argument from the past: A people that goes out to conquer other lands goes out in one of two ways. Either it is confident that it is stronger than them and can prevail, and even though it has a place to dwell it wishes to expand the borders of its kingdom (in the way that Russia goes out against Ukraine, being confident that it is like a back yard and that in a lightning war of two weeks it will subdue it, not because it lacks territory or a place). Or they have no place of settlement at all, and then they go out to fight in order to conquer a place to dwell in, and then they truly go out to risk themselves: for one who has a place to dwell does not endanger himself if he is not obligated to, while one who has nowhere to dwell - it is a question of to be or not to be, and he enters into dangers in order to obtain with certainty a place of settlement.
Based on this Yehoshua argues: "Why did You bring this people across... to deliver us into the hand of the Emori" - Master of the world, if You devised plans to cast us into the hand of chance, so that if the Emori should be stronger than us he would win according to the array and fortune, then there is a possibility that the Emori will win and destroy us. And if so, why did You bring us across here to endanger ourselves in war? Do we not have a place to dwell? For "would that we had been content" - had we wished - "and dwelt on the other side of the Jordan," and what is lacking on the eastern side of the Jordan? We are not a nation that has nowhere to dwell, in which case we would say that they are fighting a battle of to be or not to be and are prepared to risk their lives. We had no compelling reason to endanger ourselves, while we have a place to dwell.
בִּי אֲדֹנָי מָה אֹמַר אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הָפַךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל עֹרֶף לִפְנֵי אֹיְבָיו׃ וְיִשְׁמְעוּ הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְכֹל יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ וְנָסַבּוּ עָלֵינוּ וְהִכְרִיתוּ אֶת־שְׁמֵנוּ מִן־הָאָרֶץ וּמַה־תַּעֲשֵׂה לְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל׃ - O my Lord, what shall I say after Israel has turned its back before its enemies? For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear, and will surround us and cut off our name from the earth. And what will You do for Your great name?
The prayer seems as though it is not orderly, and what is the point of "would that we had been content" and what is the point of "O my Lord"? The Malbim explains: Until here Yehoshua argued from the standpoint of the past, and from here he argues from the standpoint of the future. Even if You thought, Master of the world, that we could win in the natural way because we are stronger than them, and that our falling was only due to lack of planning, that we did not send enough men, that we relied on our strength and the like - this was true until now, when the dread of us fell upon the inhabitants of the land and no spirit rose in any man to wage war against us, and then we could win even a natural war. But now, after Israel has turned its back before its enemies, the enemies see that if they gather strength and make an effort they can prevail against us, and their fear of us has departed, and now they will all come and join together against us: "and the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear and surround us" - they will come as one band - "and cut off our name," for until now we had a name among the nations as mighty ones.
Rashi addresses the difficulty: it opens with "and they will cut off our name" and concludes with "and what will You do for Your great Name" - what is the connection between our name and Your Name? The answer is that the Name is shared within our own name, for we are called "Israel" (Yisrael), and the name of Kel is found within us. And according to the plain meaning: what will You do for the name of Your might that has already gone forth in the world, for people will say "His strength has weakened" - here at Yericho He still had power, and once He reached Ai apparently His arsenal ran out, His weaponry was spent, and He lost His strength. What a chillul Hashem there is in this.
And some say that Yehoshua thought the defeat came because of the sin of Shittim, the sin of harlotry with the daughters of Moav, and therefore he said: it would have been better for us to fall there than here. For when they fall here and do not understand why, it appears, as it were, that "the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment without judgment," whereas there they would have known why the defeat came.
"Arise for yourself" - Hashem's reply to Yehoshua
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קֻם לָךְ לָמָּה זֶּה אַתָּה נֹפֵל עַל־פָּנֶיךָ׃ - And Hashem said to Yehoshua: Arise for yourself, why do you fall upon your face?
Rashi notes precisely that the word is written "קֻם" without a vav, meaning "stood for you": what you prayed before Me and mentioned, that merit has stood for you. Another interpretation: you stood for yourself in the camp and did not go out with them, and I had said "who will lead them out and who will bring them in" - these were the threshold conditions that the Holy One, blessed be He, stated to Moshe in choosing a leader for Israel, and you did not meet them, for you did not go out at the head of their armies, since they were confident that they would conquer easily. And so it is said "for you shall bring the children of Israel and I will be with you" - and here you did not bring them, and therefore I will not be with you. "Arise for yourself" - you stood for yourself in the camp and stood there without acting, do not be surprised at the results. And this is what is said "for he shall pass over before this people and he shall give them their inheritance": if you go before them they will succeed, and if not - they will not succeed.
And a third explanation in Rashi: "Arise for yourself" - because of you this happened to them. I did not tell you to consecrate the spoil of the city. That is: you were punished for something you were not asked to do, and thereby you caused them to trespass regarding the cherem, and through this they fell at Ai.
"Israel has sinned" - the threefold sin
חָטָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגַם עָבְרוּ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אוֹתָם וְגַם לָקְחוּ מִן־הַחֵרֶם וְגַם גָּנְבוּ וְגַם כִּחֲשׁוּ וְגַם שָׂמוּ בִכְלֵיהֶם׃ - Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them, and they have also taken from the cherem, and they have also stolen, and they have also denied, and they have also placed it among their vessels.
The Malbim says that the sin here is doubled and redoubled. First, the essence of the sin: "they transgressed My covenant" - this is chillul Shabbat, for they conquered Yericho on Shabbat, and thus one carried from a private domain to a public domain and again brought it into a private domain. And this is alluded to in "they transgressed My covenant," for regarding Shabbat it is said "to make the Shabbat for their generations, an everlasting covenant." And that which is said "and they have also taken from the cherem" - they transgressed against the things banned by Heaven, and Shabbat is among the things banned by Heaven.
The second transgression is the manner of the sin: "and they have also stolen" - they did not take it openly but by stealth and concealment. And in this "and they have also denied," for one who takes by stealth and in secret acts as if to say that the eye above does not see. Unlike a robber who robs openly, the thief does it in secret and acts as if the eye above does not see, and in this they denied and rejected the Divine Providence.
And the third matter is the purpose and aim of the sin. "People do not despise a thief who steals to fill his soul when he is hungry" - when a thief steals because he has nothing to eat and he is hungry, and he steals only to satisfy his hunger, we do not say that he acted properly, but people do not despise him, for they understand that he is hungry. But if he had no need to steal and stole in order to grow rich, the transgression is more severe. And this is "and they have also placed it among their vessels" - they hid it in the ground, a sign that this was not for the survival of his soul but he went and concealed it, and it is a theft that was not necessary for the survival of his soul.
The sin of the individual and its impact upon the collective
This is a very fundamental pasuk, and on several occasions we have brought it in order to learn from it the Torah's attitude toward the sin of an individual and its effect on the community. Someone who reads the pasuk without knowing the background, what will he hear? "Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant, and they have also taken from the devoted things, and they have also stolen, and they have also deceived, and they have also placed it among their vessels." Were we to be asked what the sin was, we would say: at least a third to a half of the Jewish people went and stole. That is the language of the pasuk. And so too the continuation: "and the Children of Israel will not be able to stand before their enemies... for they have become devoted to destruction, I will no longer be with you" - it implies that large populations transgressed the ban, and the punishment is accordingly. But when one examines the matter, one discovers that there was only a single person here. If so, shall one man sin and You be angry with the entire congregation?
From here we see that we do not truly know the language of the Torah. According to the language of the Torah, even the sin of an individual reflects upon the community. An expression of this is found in the incident of the golden calf: "Go down, for your people whom you brought up from the land of Egypt have become corrupt, they have quickly turned aside from the way that I commanded them, they have made themselves a molten calf and bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and said, these are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt." And how many were there? Only three thousand men, out of about five million. Do the math: it is as if, out of all the Jews in the Land of Israel, we are speaking about a single neighborhood. And yet the Torah accuses all of Israel of having made the calf.
And why? Because all of Israel are responsible for one another. Just as when a person's hand or leg is severed we do not say that only the hand or the leg suffers, but rather the whole body suffers; and just as when a person has a problem with his heart or his breathing or any other place, the problem is not localized but affects the whole; and just as gangrene in one limb can bring about the death of the entire body - so too the Jewish people is a homogeneous nation, one single unit, and it is impossible to separate one part from another. Our Sages said that the Jewish people resemble a lamb, that when one of its limbs hurts, the whole of it hurts. And this is also the parable in the Zohar about one who sits in a boat and drills a hole in it beneath his own place, and when they rebuke him he says, "What do you care what I do in my own space, do not interfere in my affairs" - and he does not understand that he is drowning everyone.
The Community Is Not Entirely Clean
And there is here an additional aspect, a deeper one, which we learned in the Michtav MeEliyahu of Rav Dessler: had the community been entirely clean of the sin, the individual too would not have stumbled in it. If we see that the individual was able to fall, it is a sign that the community too was not entirely clean of the sin. And the intention is not that they too took a little, but rather it is enough that it arose in their minds even as a mere theoretical possibility, some passing thought, and by this they are already not entirely clean.
The Jewish people resemble a chain: when in the upper part of the chain there is a slight descent, its lower part already reaches the very ground. Rabbi Yisrael Salanter once said: if a young man slackens in his study in the yeshiva in Vilna or in Lithuania or anywhere, know that at that very hour there is a student in France who has decided to convert out of his religion. For if at the top of the chain they descend a little, the one who is at the bottom already reaches the very edge of the abyss. And so too in our case: if Achan is capable of embezzling from the devoted things, it is a sign that the general atmosphere was not an atmosphere of "woe and alas"; and had it been such, Achan too would not have been capable of embezzling from the ban.
We once told about Rav Shach, who was walking with his student on one side of Jabotinsky Street, and asked him: why is it that on this side it is Shabbat and on the other side it is a weekday? Bnei Brak and inward - Shabbat; Pardes Katz and outward - today, thank God, there is strengthening, but back then it was surely far from that, and there it was a weekday. What will you say, that observant people live here and not there? Rav Shach asked him: if so, why is it that on Yom Kippur even there no one drives a vehicle, and only on Shabbat do you see people driving? And he answered him: I will explain to you. If among us Shabbat were "oy oy oy" like Yom Kippur, this would influence Pardes Katz and Jabotinsky as well, and they would not drive there on Shabbat. But since among us Shabbat is not like Yom Kippur, there is no fear of God in it, therefore you see the influence on those who are lower, who are even capable of desecrating Shabbat.
"A Jew, even though he has sinned, is a Jew"
From "Israel has sinned" our Sages learned: from here you learn that a Jew, even though he has sinned, is a Jew. We have spoken several times about this matter: to rise to the level of Israel is always possible, for a gentile, if he wishes, can convert; but to descend from the level of Israel is impossible. A Jew who sins and commits the gravest transgressions and converts out of his religion and does whatever he does - nothing will change, he is a Jew and will remain so. However, the more he defiles himself and becomes soiled, the greater the rectification he will require, and in the end all will come to rectification; how much it will cost him and how much he will suffer until he reaches complete rectification, that God knows. But there is no reality of descending from the level of Israel, that a person should say "from now on I am a gentile." He can define himself thus, but nothing will change: the reality will remain that he is a Jew, that there is within him a portion of God from above, and this portion will forever remain within him.
Five Times "And Also" - The Five Books of the Torah
In the pasuk the word "and also" is stated five times: and also transgressed, and also taken, and also stolen, and also deceived, and also placed. Our Sages say: this teaches you that one who transgresses the ban is like one who transgresses the five books of the Torah. And there is a wonderful hint to this: if we take the five words that conclude the five books and compute the first and last letters of each, we arrive in gematria at 248, which is the numerical value of "cherem" (ban). And the words are: Mitzrayim, maseihem, Sinai, Yericho, Yisrael - the first letter and the last letter of each, and the total is "cherem." And one who transgresses the ban harms also his 248 limbs, and therefore these are the same letters.
Two Kinds of Failure and Two Paths of Rectification
וְלֹא יֻכְלוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָקוּם לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיהֶם עֹרֶף יִפְנוּ לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיהֶם כִּי הָיוּ לְחֵרֶם לֹא אוֹסִיף לִהְיוֹת עִמָּכֶם אִם־לֹא תַשְׁמִידוּ הַחֵרֶם מִקִּרְבְּכֶם׃ - And the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, they turned their backs before their enemies, for they had become subject to the ban; I will no longer be with you unless you destroy the banned thing from among you.
The Metzudat David explains "for they had become subject to the ban" - that they were aiding the one who transgressed the ban. In other words: if you do not act to root out this deed from among you, you fall into the category of those who assist it.
The Malbim asks: why the repetition? "They could not stand before their enemies, for they had become subject to the ban," and then "I will no longer be with you unless you destroy the ban" - is it not one and the same, that you cannot stand before the enemy because I am not with you? And there is a further difficulty: in the next verse it says "you cannot stand... until you remove the ban," and it does not say "until you destroy."
He explains: the inability to stand before the enemies stems from two causes. The first is natural, and this is "they turned their backs before their enemies, for they had become subject to the ban" - it is the nature of the banned thing to bring a curse and blight and to weaken them in a natural way, and the inability to stand before the enemy is a consequence derived from the very taking of the banned thing; a curse rests upon you by the very act of taking. The second is a providential punishment: "I will no longer be with you" - to watch over you and rescue you through miraculous salvation - unless you destroy the banned thing. Naturally you will fall, and you will also lack special providence.
From here the language of the verses is precise: in order for the natural strength to return to them, it is enough that the banned thing no longer be among them - take the banned thing and burn it, and since there is no banned thing among you the natural problem is resolved, for the banned thing itself impairs the capacity for natural triumph. This is "you cannot stand before your enemies until you remove the ban." But providence you will still not merit, and this is not sufficient: for Hashem to be with us the banned thing must be "destroyed," and it is not enough to take the objects and burn them, but the transgressor too must be destroyed, to root out the sinner from your midst. It is not enough that the banned thing no longer exist in reality, but the person who did the deed, Achan himself, must also be punished and rooted out - and then you will merit providence as well.
"Arise, sanctify the people" - without revealing the punishment
קֻם קַדֵּשׁ אֶת־הָעָם וְאָמַרְתָּ הִתְקַדְּשׁוּ לְמָחָר כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֵרֶם בְּקִרְבְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תוּכַל לָקוּם לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֶיךָ עַד־הֲסִירְכֶם הַחֵרֶם מִקִּרְבְּכֶם׃ - Arise, sanctify the people, and say: Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, for thus says Hashem, God of Israel: there is a banned thing in your midst, O Israel; you cannot stand before your enemies until you remove the ban from among you.
"Arise, sanctify the people" - meaning, summon them. And note that here it says only "until you remove the ban," and the second condition is not mentioned, that Hashem is not among them until they destroy the banned thing, which refers to destroying the one who transgressed, Achan himself. The Malbim explains: He did not want them to know that one who transgresses the ban is liable to death, for if they knew this they would not reveal who transgressed the ban, and the sinner would not want to admit it. Therefore from the outset He does not make known what the punishment will be, for had He said "and the sinner shall die," the sinner would have stubbornly refused to admit it to the very end - whereas here it was important that there be a confession, as will be explained below.
The lot: from the tribes down to the men
וְנִקְרַבְתֶּם בַּבֹּקֶר לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם וְהָיָה הַשֵּׁבֶט אֲשֶׁר־יִלְכְּדֶנּוּ יְהֹוָה יִקְרַב לַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת וְהַמִּשְׁפָּחָה אֲשֶׁר־יִלְכְּדֶנָּה יְהֹוָה תִּקְרַב לַבָּתִּים וְהַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר יִלְכְּדֶנּוּ יְהֹוָה יִקְרַב לַגְּבָרִים׃ - And you shall be brought near in the morning by your tribes, and it shall be that the tribe which Hashem seizes shall come near by families, and the family which Hashem seizes shall come near by households, and the household which Hashem seizes shall come near man by man.
To reveal the sinner they were asked to approach the Aron, and through it would be revealed who had taken from the banned thing. The matter proceeds in ever narrowing circles: first the tribes, and after the tribe became known - the families within it, and then the households of the fathers, until they reach the sinner himself. Some say that not the whole tribe came near but the prince of the tribe, and the moment one prince was caught they knew that the problem lay within that tribe.
And what is the meaning of "whom Hashem seizes"? The Metzudat David explains that he would stand before the Aron unable to move: they would pass them before the Aron, and whoever passed by would become stuck and could not continue walking - the Aron had seized him, a sign that within his tribe there was a problem. And Rashi explains that the Urim veTumim would light up, as we will see further on.
And why was this whole process necessary? Chazal said that Yehoshua asked the Holy One, blessed be He, to reveal to him who the sinner was: Master of the Universe, You say "Israel has sinned" and "they took from the cherem," reveal to me who it was. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Am I an informer to you? Am I a slanderer? If there is a problem, seek it out yourself, it is your duty to find the sinner; cast this lot and through it you will know.
And another reason: He wanted everyone to have thoughts of repentance about the matter, and therefore He had them all pass before the Aron. For as we said, if there is a sin in an individual, it is a sign that the community is flawed in some way, and as they all passed by the Aron they would all reflect on repentance. And furthermore: had Yehoshua said "it was transmitted to me through prophecy that it is so and so," the members of his family would have protested (as we will see later that this indeed happened, that they would not believe and did not want to accept it), and therefore it had to be done through a lot, so that they would see the matter came from Heaven. And furthermore: he did not want to shame the sinner, but rather gave him the opportunity to confess on his own.
"He shall be burned with fire" - Burning or Stoning
וְהָיָה הַנִּלְכָּד בַּחֵרֶם יִשָּׂרֵף בָּאֵשׁ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ כִּי עָבַר אֶת־בְּרִית יְהֹוָה וְכִי־עָשָׂה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And it shall be that the one caught with the cherem shall be burned with fire, he and all that is his, because he transgressed the covenant of Hashem and because he did an outrage in Israel.
This seems difficult: Achan's sentence was stoning, so why does it say here "he shall be burned with fire"? Rashi explains: "he shall be burned with fire" refers to the tent and the movable belongings; "he and all that is his" is according to the law stated below, that he and the animal are stoned. And thus the resolution of the verse: the one caught with the cherem, whoever is fit for burning shall be burned, and whoever is fit for stoning shall be stoned, and each has his own separate law.
The Radak asks why his sons were punished. And he answers: if his sons were adults, they are subject to punishment, because they were partners in the matter (it being known that they assisted, or that they saw and remained silent). And he had no wife; and if he did have one, we say she knew nothing, and therefore we do not see that she was punished.
And the Malbim explains: from the very fact that he transgressed the cherem, his sentence is burning, for the cherem itself is designated for burning and one who transgresses it is sentenced to burning. And he sinned in two respects: against the Holy One, blessed be He, "because he transgressed the covenant of Hashem," and against Israel, "and because he did an outrage in Israel," for it was he who caused the defeat at Ai, and through his guilt it came about. And why in the end was he stoned? Because although from the standpoint of transgressing the cherem he deserves burning, he also desecrated Shabbat, for it all took place on Shabbat, and one who desecrates Shabbat is stoned; and we know that one who is liable to two death penalties is judged with the more severe of them, kam lei b'derabbah minei. And therefore they stoned his ox and his donkey as well, so that their death would not be lighter than the death of their owner: if the owner is stoned, the ox and the donkey are also sentenced to stoning.
And although seemingly there were no witnesses and no warning here, since we know by the word of Hashem that his sentence is death, and since there was an additional sin for which he is liable to death, and since the king has the power to put to death even not according to the rules written in the Torah (as we find with David HaMelech, "the man deserves to die and he shall repay the ewe fourfold," for we have no such law in the Torah that one who steals a ewe from his fellow deserves death and pays fourfold, but rather the king has the power to establish a fence and apply laws), and especially since these laws are in accordance with the Torah, for he desecrated Shabbat, therefore by law his sentence is stoning.
The Presenting of the Tribes and the Families
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁבָטָיו וַיִּלָּכֵד שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה׃ - And Yehoshua rose early in the morning and brought Israel near by its tribes, and the tribe of Yehudah was caught.
Rashi explains "and he brought Israel near by its tribes" - he brought them near before the choshen, to the place where the names of the tribes are written. And the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him a sign that the tribe which sinned, its stone would grow dim, and the stone of Yehudah grew dim, and they knew that the sin was found in Yehudah. And according to the Metzudat David, as we saw above, he had them pass before the Aron, and whoever the Aron seized, they knew that he was the one guilty of the cherem.
וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת־מִשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה וַיִּלְכֹּד אֵת מִשְׁפַּחַת הַזַּרְחִי וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת־מִשְׁפַּחַת הַזַּרְחִי לַגְּבָרִים וַיִּלָּכֵד זַבְדִּי׃ - And he brought near the family of Yehudah, and he caught the family of the Zarchi; and he brought near the family of the Zarchi man by man, and Zavdi was caught.
The Malbim asks two questions. First: why does it say "and he brought near the family of Yehuda," when it should have said "and he brought near the tribe of Yehuda by its families," in the manner of "and he brought Israel near by its tribes"? And second: why here does it say "and he caught the family of the Zarchi" in the active voice, while in all the others it says "and he was caught" - and the tribe of Yehuda was caught, and Zavdi was caught, and Achan was caught?
He explains: all those about whom it says "was caught" in the passive voice - the Aron caught them. How so? He brings near Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehuda is caught, and he need not continue and bring the rest near. Once Yehuda was caught in the middle of the list, he does not bring Yissachar, Zevulun, Dan, Naftali, Gad and Asher near, but releases them all, for it is already known to him that there is no problem among them. That is why in all of these the letter lamed appears: "and he brought Israel near by its tribes" - meaning from among its tribes, and not all of them; "and he brought the family of the Zarchi near by the men" - and not all the men, for once one is caught in the middle they do not continue; "and he brought his household near by the men, and he caught Achan." Wherever the lamed appears, it is a sign that he did not bring all of them near, but from among them.
But with the tribe of Yehuda it was different, for it says "and he brought near the family of Yehuda, and he caught the family of the Zarchi." And what was the difference? That here he brought them all near, and the Zarchi remained last, and therefore there was no need for the Aron to catch it. For if there were ten families and I brought nine near and none was caught, I need not bring the tenth near: it is clear that it is the one caught. This is like one who tosses a coin and says "heads or tails": if heads came up for you, I need not check what came up for me, since there is no other possibility. Therefore here it does not say "by the families of Yehuda" with a lamed, for the lamed teaches that there is another after him, and here he was last; and therefore it says "and he caught" in the active voice, for Yehoshua himself caught and seized him, and not the Aron. Truly wonderful.
"Give honor now to Hashem" - Achan's confession
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל־עָכָן בְּנִי שִׂים־נָא כָבוֹד לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתֶן־לוֹ תוֹדָה וְהַגֶּד־נָא לִי מֶה עָשִׂיתָ אַל־תְּכַחֵד מִמֶּנִּי׃ - And Yehoshua said to Achan: My son, give now honor to Hashem, the God of Israel, and give Him praise, and tell me now what you have done, do not conceal it from me.
The Radak says that Yehoshua asked him to confess his sin for two reasons. The first - to atone for the sin, so that his death would be his atonement, and so too all those put to death confess. From here we see that his sin would be atoned through the confession, for if not, what would be the point of his confessing. This is derived from what is said "Hashem will trouble you on this day": Chazal expounded - on this day he is troubled, but not in the World to Come. That is, all the judgment is here in this world, and in the World to Come he is purified through the punishment he received and through the confession he made.
And the second reason, says the Radak: so that Israel would acknowledge that the lot, or the Aron's identification, is true. For otherwise they would say: who says this is true? Perhaps it is a fabrication, perhaps some scheme was arranged here through which the Aron supposedly identified him. It was necessary for them to acknowledge this, and how? Through his himself confessing and saying: it is true, I am the one who sinned - and then it becomes clear that what the Aron showed is true.
And Chazal said that at first Achan tried to evade. He said to him: Yehoshua, are you coming against me by lot? (This does not mean that they actually cast a lot, but through the Aron or through the stones of the Choshen.) After all, you and Elazar the Kohen, the two greatest of the generation, if I were to cast a lot upon you - it would fall on one of you! And what an argument he raised: if I were to cast a lot on the two of you, one of you would certainly be caught, and does that mean he is a criminal? And furthermore he said to him: Moshe your teacher said in the Torah "by the mouth of two witnesses shall the one who is to die be put to death," and you come to kill me without witnesses but by a lot?
To this Chazal say that Yehoshua said to him: I beg of you, do not cast aspersions on the lots, for the Land of Israel is destined to be divided by lot. And if you now cast aspersions on the lots, when the inheritances are divided everyone will say "why did he receive this and why did I receive that," and what chaos would come out of that - and you would be the cause of it, having cast doubt on the matter of the lot and on the division by the Aron. Therefore he said to him "and give Him praise" - give acknowledgment, and through this they will believe in the lot that is by the Aron, and there will be no desecration of the honor of Heaven, as if the Aron had not revealed the correct person.
וַיַּעַן עָכָן אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמַר אָמְנָה אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָזֹאת וְכָזֹאת עָשִׂיתִי׃ - And Achan answered Yehoshua and said: Truly I have sinned against Hashem, the God of Israel, and thus and thus I have done.
וָאֵרֶא בַשָּׁלָל אַדֶּרֶת שִׁנְעָר אַחַת טוֹבָה וּמָאתַיִם שְׁקָלִים כֶּסֶף וּלְשׁוֹן זָהָב אֶחָד חֲמִשִּׁים שְׁקָלִים מִשְׁקָלוֹ וָאֶחְמְדֵם וָאֶקָּחֵם וְהִנָּם טְמוּנִים בָּאָרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ הָאָהֳלִי וְהַכֶּסֶף תַּחְתֶּיהָ׃ - And I saw among the spoil a fine mantle of Shinar, and two hundred shekels of silver, and one tongue of gold, fifty shekels its weight, and I coveted them and took them, and behold they are hidden in the ground inside my tent, with the silver beneath it.
The mantle of Shinar
What is an "adderes Shinar"? Rashi explains: a fine cloak of wool, and there is a version reading "a Babylonian cloak" - a cloak that came from Bavel. Rashi adds: any king who did not acquire for himself a palace in the Land of Israel felt his reign was incomplete, as it says, "and I gave you a desirable land, the finest heritage of the hosts of nations." The king of Bavel had a palace in Yericho, and when he would come there he would wear it. Metzudas Tzion explains that the adderes is an important cloak, and the term "adderes" is from the word adir (mighty), and "Shinar" is Bavel. And "a tongue of gold" is a long, drawn out piece made of gold, shaped like a tongue.
Achan's Justifications
The Malbim shows that Achan continues with his justifications, listing claim after claim in his words. The first: "and I saw among the spoil" - the word "spoil" was said in his favor, for the Torah says, "and you shall eat the spoil of your enemies," and if so, this is the spoil of our enemies and it is coming to us, and I thought that since this is spoil, it is permitted.
The second: "adderes Shinar" - this belonged to the king of Bavel, coming from another country. I thought that perhaps Yehoshua declared cherem only on the wealth of Yericho and not on wealth that came from elsewhere, and wealth that came from elsewhere is not included in the cherem. Just as we find regarding "you shall not let any soul live," which was said about those settled and dwelling in the land, but a visitor who came from another land, when they came and conquered the land, is not included in "you shall not let any soul live," for he is not among the inhabitants of the land and not among the Canaanites. So too I thought regarding wealth that came from elsewhere - that a cloak coming from Shinar is not included in the cherem.
The third: "good" - meaning he had a great evil inclination, for it was very enticing, and therefore I coveted it.
The fourth: "and two hundred shekels of silver and a tongue of gold" - he was certain that the metals were not included in the prohibition, for the metals are not designated for burning but rather pass into the treasury of Hashem. And if so, what did I transgress? Me'ilah (misappropriation) - that something meant to reach the Mishkan reached me; I transgressed me'ilah but not the cherem, since apparently they burn only garments and the like and not metals.
The fifth: "and behold, they are hidden in the ground inside my tent" - meaning, see that I did not benefit from it and did not use it, and if so I did not even commit me'ilah. For with gold, which is not damaged by the very act of using it, me'ilah applies only when one benefits to the value of a perutah, and he says to them: I did not even benefit, here it is still hidden. I neither benefited nor damaged it. "and the silver beneath it" - beneath the cloak, for the cloak covers over it, so it too was not damaged but preserved. All of this was meant to minimize his sin - justifications indeed, which remind us of our own ways.
"Inside my tent" - with a Hei
And why does it say "inside my tent (ha'oholi)" with a hei, and not "be'oholi"? The Malbim explains that he had a special tent, separate from the rest of his household, and in the tent there were two rooms: one large and primary, and one smaller than it. He wishes to say that it was his tent and not that of his household, and the hei adds that it was in the larger and more prominent part, in the primary room.
Implements of Idolatry and the Enactment of "Al Ken Nekaveh"
And some say that everything he took was from the implements of idolatry. The tongue of gold was what they would place in the mouth of the terafim, which would speak through sorcery, and in this he transgressed what the Torah said, "you shall not covet the silver and gold that is on them and take it for yourself." And this is what the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant" - the reference is to idolatry.
And Chazal said that after Achan confessed, it was he who established the text of "Al Ken Nekaveh Lecha" - "Al Ken Nekaveh" being the initial letters of Achan. And there he says, "and the idols shall be utterly cut off" - corresponding to what he took from the idolatry.
Running to the tent
וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַלְאָכִים וַיָּרֻצוּ הָאֹהֱלָה וְהִנֵּה טְמוּנָה בְּאָהֳלוֹ וְהַכֶּסֶף תַּחְתֶּיהָ׃ - And Yehoshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent, and behold, it was hidden in his tent, and the silver was under it.
Why did they run? Rashi says: so that the men of the tribe of Yehudah would not get there first, blur the evidence and hide the facts, for they would want to shield a member of their own tribe. Therefore they ran there in order to find the objects. The Radak says: "and they ran to the tent" out of joy, for it was now revealed openly upon whom the ban rested, and that Israel was innocent. The running was out of joy that the guilty one had been found, that not all of us are guilty but there is one here upon whom the main guilt rests.
וַיִּקָּחוּם מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל וַיְבִאוּם אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְאֶל כָּל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּצִּקֻם לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה׃ - And they took them from within the tent and brought them to Yehoshua and to all the children of Israel, and they laid them out before Hashem.
What is "and they laid them out"? The Radak says: they set them up before Hashem, so that all Israel would see them and know how severe a matter the ban is, and take care not to covet or take anything of the ban. The Ralbag explains that "they would know" means they would know that the matter was true, that Achan confessed to a deed he actually did, and not that we should say he was forced to confess to something he did not do.
I once told you that Gorbachev's watch went missing, and he immediately turned to the KGB to open an investigation. An investigation was held, and after an hour Gorbachev calls them and says: you can close the investigation, I found it, I had forgotten the watch in the bathroom. They said to him: that is impossible, we already have three who confessed. If so, in our case people might come and say: well, Achan confessed, he had no choice, he was forced, who knows what they did to him that he had to confess. Therefore the verse tells you "and they took them from within the tent and brought them to Yehoshua... and laid them out before Hashem" - so that it would be clear to all that the confession Achan gave was about actual facts, and this is proof, as the Malbim explained, that what Achan said was true, and that he confessed to a deed he actually did.
The Valley of Achor
וַיִּקַּח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עָכָן בֶּן־זֶרַח וְאֶת־הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶת־הָאַדֶּרֶת וְאֶת־לְשׁוֹן הַזָּהָב וְאֶת־בָּנָיו וְאֶת־בְּנֹתָיו וְאֶת־שׁוֹרוֹ וְאֶת־חֲמֹרוֹ וְאֶת־צֹאנוֹ וְאֶת־אָהֳלוֹ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמּוֹ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֹתָם עֵמֶק עָכוֹר׃ - And Yehoshua took Achan son of Zerach, and the silver, and the cloak, and the wedge of gold, and his sons and his daughters, and his ox and his donkey and his sheep, and his tent and all that he had, and all Israel with him, and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor.
Why did he take them all? Rashi explains that his taking his sons and all Israel was so that they would see his execution and be chastened not to do as he did. That is, his sons were not put to death here, but only came to witness his punishment, similar to the matter of "and all the women shall be chastened": when the sotah is brought to the Temple, women are brought to see and take the lesson not to act as she did. And we already saw another explanation, that his sons assisted in taking from the ban, and according to that this was the reason for their death. As for his ox and his donkey, here all agree that the intent was to destroy them, as it is said "and he who is taken with the ban shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has," and they certainly go to their death.
The Radak explains that it says "Achan son of Zerach" and not "son of Karmi son of Zavdi son of Zerach" because it attributed him to his great grandfather, skipping two generations for brevity, since Zerach was the head of the family, and therefore it used a shorter expression without mentioning the whole chain again. The Radak also asks: what is "and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor" - one goes down to a valley, not up to it? He answers that apparently a mountain separated them, and they went up the mountain in order to descend from it into the valley.
They stoned, they burned, they pelted
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מֶה עֲכַרְתָּנוּ יַעְכָּרְךָ יְהֹוָה בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה וַיִּרְגְּמוּ אֹתוֹ כָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶבֶן וַיִּשְׂרְפוּ אֹתָם בָּאֵשׁ וַיִּסְקְלוּ אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים׃ - And Yehoshua said: Why have you brought trouble upon us? Hashem will bring trouble upon you this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and they burned them with fire, and they pelted them with stones.
There is a threefold set of punishments here: they stoned, they burned, and they stoned again. Rashi explains: "and they stoned him with stones" - because he desecrated the Shabbat, for the misappropriation of the cherem took place on Shabbat, and one who desecrates Shabbat is judged by stoning. "and they burned them" - refers to the tent and the movables, to Achan's belongings. "and they stoned them" - refers to the ox and the animal, for we saw that their law is stoning, like the person being judged.
The Radak brings in the name of his father a different explanation: their sentence was burning, for that was the warning stated from the outset - "he shall be burned with fire, he and all that is his" - and this was the judgment of Heaven. And what is "and they stoned him"? That they were leading him to the burning, and along the way the people pelted him with stones out of their great anger at him: see what you have caused, see what you have done. And afterward, when they reached the Valley of Achor, they burned him and all that was his. And what is "and they stoned them with stones" a second time, after the stoning had already been mentioned? The Radak's father explains that after they burned them they raised over him a heap of stones, and this is "and they stoned them with stones" - that they piled stones over the place where he was burned and made a heap there. According to this it is understood that there were three stages here: his sentence was burning, and when they led him to be burned they pelted him with stones, and after he was burned they made over him a heap of stones.
The Ralbag raises a difficulty as to why his sons and daughters were punished when they did not sin in this, and we have already mentioned this matter above. The Ralbag says: one may answer that they were young, and then they are included in "the sum of his possessions" that Hashem said would be destroyed. And especially since when they are young they are seized for the sin of their father, as Chazal said that at the standing at Mount Sinai the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them "bring guarantors," and they said "our children shall be guarantors for us." And that which is stated "fathers shall not be put to death for sons, and sons shall not be put to death for fathers" - this is when they are subject to punishment, when they are grown; but with young children, the Gemara counts many reasons why a person's children die when they are young, and this is a sign that a matter of punishment does indeed apply to them. A second possibility: that they were brought there only to witness the judgment and to be admonished, as we mentioned. And a third possibility: that they were partners in the crime and covered for their father, if we say they were grown, and therefore they were punished as partners in the sin.
וַיָּקִימוּ עָלָיו גַּל־אֲבָנִים גָּדוֹל עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וַיָּשָׁב יְהֹוָה מֵחֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ עַל־כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא עֵמֶק עָכוֹר עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃ - And they raised over him a great heap of stones to this day, and Hashem turned back from His fierce anger; therefore the name of that place was called the Valley of Achor to this day.
"the Valley of Achor" - named after what Yehoshua said to him, "why have you brought trouble upon us." And the meaning of "achor" is like turbid waters: you brought the people of Israel to a state of turbidity. Until now they were pure and clean, and now they are made turbid by their sin, for the sin muddied them.
Achan and Chiel of Beit HaEli
The Rama of Fano says that Achan is Chiel of Beit HaEli, for Chiel is the reincarnation of Achan. Since Achan misappropriated from the cherem of Yericho, he is the one who came back and corrupted matters and ultimately rebuilt Yericho - "with his firstborn he laid its foundation, and with his youngest he set up its gates." And afterward it is brought that he is the one who was hidden beneath the altar in order to provide fire for the prophets of Baal, as Chazal said that Chiel of Beit HaEli is the one who was hidden there in the episode of Eliyahu at Mount Carmel, and was hidden beneath the altar of the Baal worshipers in order to kindle the fire at the right moment, so that they would say "fire came down from Heaven." And in the end a snake came and bit him and he died. According to this they say that "Achan" is a term of "achna," achnai, a snake: since Chiel of Beit HaEli is Achan, an achnai came and exacted payment from him for what he did. And especially since we know that "one who breaches a fence, a snake shall bite him," and he breached the fence of Yehoshua and went and misappropriated from the cherem, and therefore a snake bit him.
In summary:
Chapter 7 opens with the sin of one man and ends with a heap of stones in the Valley of Achor, and within this it teaches the foundations of mutual responsibility: all of Israel are one body, and decay in one limb endangers the whole body. We learned the difference between an actual punishment, which strikes only the sinner, and the hiding of the face, in which whoever is present in the place of danger is harmed, even if he is not the sinner. We saw how the moment providence was removed the errors began: the spies scouted the Ai and not the land, they did not take into account Beit El and Beit Aven, Yehoshua did not go out at the head of the army - and the defeat came. We saw the prayer of Yehoshua with its two arguments, from the past and from the future, and the merit of Avraham and the dust upon the head, and the way of the lot which was intended both for repentant reflection by the community and for strengthening trust in lots for the future. And we learned the three faces of Achan's sin - its essence, its form, and its purpose - and the justifications by which he tried to lessen his sin, and against them his confession that restored the honor of Heaven and served him as atonement: "on this day" he was troubled, and not in the World to Come. And above all there remains in our hands the great lesson: "a Jew, even though he has sinned, is a Jew," except that if with the individual the sin could occur, it is a sign that the community too was not entirely clean, and the responsibility for repair rests upon us all.