And he sent. This occurred when Joshua spoke to the Reubenites and Gadites, before Hashem spoke to him and before he proclaimed, “Prepare provisions for yourselves,” as I demonstrated (in the preceding chapter, verse 12). This resolves the commentators’ difficulty concerning the calculation of the three days, which does not accord with the time required for the spies’ journey and return. In fact, the spies had departed several days earlier.

And Joshua sent. He comes to answer the question that arises here: How could Joshua send spies after seeing the evil that resulted from the mission of the spies in the days of Moses? He answers that there were five differences between Joshua’s spies and those of Moses. 1] The spies sent by Moses were sent at the people’s request, as it says, “All of you approached me and said, ‘Let us send men ahead of us’” (Deuteronomy 1:22). Therefore, when they returned and brought back an evil report, the people relied upon them. Here, however, Joshua sent the spies on his own initiative, not at the people’s request. 2] Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran, which was far from the land, and they were uncertain about the nature of the land and their ability to conquer it. Joshua, however, sent them from Shittim, which was on the border of the land. He had no doubt whether they would enter it; he sought only to determine the most advantageous place from which to conquer it. 3] Moses sent twelve scouts, whereas Joshua sent two men as spies. By this I mean that I have already explained in my commentary on the Torah (in the portions of Miketz and Shelach) that there is a distinction between a scout and a spy. A scout seeks what is good—whether the land is good, whether its inhabitants are mighty, and similar matters—whereas a spy seeks the land’s vulnerable points, from which it may most readily be conquered. I also explained that there are two kinds of missions. If the people send scouts to determine whether the land is good or bad—meaning whether it is worthwhile to wage war for it—they send a leader from every tribe. They will not rely upon men of lesser standing, nor will one tribe rely upon the emissary of another tribe. Each tribe will send a man whom it trusts to determine whether the land is suited to that tribe and its occupations, according to whether its members are farmers, shepherds, merchants, or seafarers. It was for this purpose that Moses sent men to scout the land, not to spy it out. He therefore sent a leader from every tribe, and for this reason their mission led to that great calamity. But when a spy is sent—after the people have already resolved to conquer the land, merely to identify its vulnerable points and determine from which direction it may most easily be conquered—one or two ordinary men are sent. Such a mission is undertaken solely by the commander of the army, who wishes to know from where he should launch his attack. Joshua therefore sent only two men, not twelve; ordinary men rather than tribal leaders; and spies rather than scouts. There was consequently no possibility here of their bringing back an evil report. 4] He sent them secretly—that is, in silence, so that no one knew of the matter except Joshua himself. 5] Saying, “Go, inspect the land, and Jericho.” The principal object of their mission was Jericho and the surrounding territory, since they would enter by that route and wished to know how it could be conquered.

And they went. It was for this purpose that they went.

And they came to the house of a prostitute named Rahab. This involved a twofold strategy. 1] To prevent anyone from recognizing them as Israelites, they entered the house of a prostitute. The inhabitants of Canaan knew that Israel was a people that detested sexual immorality, so it would never occur to them that Israelite agents would assemble in a prostitute’s house. 2] Because her name was Rahab, and she was famous by name among the leaders of the land—as it says, “Rahab enticed through her name” (Megillah 15a)—the secrets and private affairs of the land’s leaders were revealed to her, and through her they could investigate everything occurring in the land. Therefore, they went nowhere else, but lodged there.

The Questions (2) How could Joshua tell them that they would cross within three days? Perhaps the spies would be delayed for many days; how did he know that they would return from scouting the land immediately? If we say, following Ralbag, that he sent the spies earlier, the order of the verses becomes difficult: After the officers made their proclamation, Joshua spoke to the Reubenites and Gadites, and afterward sent the spies. All the commentators also wondered about the matter itself: How could Joshua send spies, forgetting that in the days of his teacher the spies had caused weeping for generations? If Moses did not do this until the people pressed him and he consulted Hashem, how could Joshua, after the calamity that resulted, do so on his own initiative? Furthermore, how could the messengers abandon their assigned mission of investigating and searching the land, enter the house of a prostitute, and lodge there? And how could they have acted so unwisely that the king of Jericho discovered them immediately on the very first night?

Behold, men. They understood that the men were spies for three reasons. 1] They had entered the city even though it was tightly shut, with no one going out or coming in. Thus it says, Behold, men have come. 2] They knew that the purpose of their journey was confined to Jericho alone. Had they been merchants traveling from place to place, they would have lodged near the gate so that they could continue their journey at daybreak, since during the siege the city gates would not be opened until full daylight. Thus it says, They have come here. 3] They came at night, unlike ordinary travelers, who enter while the light is still good, especially in a time of danger. From this they concluded that the men were from the children of Israel and that the purpose of their arrival was to search out the land—to learn its secrets through the prostitute. There is a distinction between one who searches out the land and a scout or spy: one who searches investigates a single place deeply in order to discover people’s thoughts and secrets. These men likewise went only to search out one particular place.

The Questions (3) Why the repetition: “who came to you” and “who entered your house”?

Who came to you. That is, although they may tell you that they came to you for prostitution, know that the purpose for which they came was to enter your house, because they came to search out the entire land. They intend to investigate within your house the secrets and affairs of the whole land, which is the meaning of “searching out,” as explained above.

The Questions (4–6) Why does Scripture relate her concealment of them twice? And why does it first say, “She concealed him,” in the singular, and afterward, “She hid them,” in the plural?

And she took them and concealed each one. There is a distinction between concealing and hiding. One who is concealed stands in a place where the eye cannot see him—even though he is not covered by any covering or by earth, but merely stands off to the side. (This is the opposite of the verb “to look,” as some Hebrew roots can denote both a thing and its opposite.) One who is hidden, however, is covered from above by a covering or by earth. When the king’s messengers arrived unexpectedly, Rahab had no time to hide the men beneath the stalks of flax and cover them. She could only conceal them—that is, place them off to the side in secluded corners so that they would not immediately be seen. Nor could she place both of them in one spot, for if they were discovered together, the searchers would recognize them as the two spies. She therefore placed each man separately in his own corner. Even if they discovered one of them, they would not think he was one of the spies, since they knew that there were two spies; and in any event, the other man would escape. Realizing, however, that they would find the men if they searched the house, she acted cunningly and wrung her hands, declaring that spies had indeed been there but had just departed and fled, so that the messengers would hurry out of her house and pursue them. Thus she said, Indeed, the men came to me—that is, the matter is exactly as you say, and the men came in precisely the manner you described, for immediately upon arriving they questioned and investigated matters as spies do. As a second indication, she said, But I did not know where they were from. If known men sometimes came and inquired about the affairs of the land, one might attribute their inquiries to chance. But these were strangers whose origin was unknown; what reason could they have for investigating the affairs of this land? Moreover, the fact that they concealed their place of origin and did not reveal where they came from demonstrated that they were spies.

(Third proof) And it was time for the gate to be closed. They departed and disappeared just as the people were preparing to close the gate, behaving like fugitives. (Fourth proof) They went out in the darkness and gloom and did not carry a torch in their hands, for they fled to escape. (Fifth proof) I do not know where they went. Just as they concealed the place from which they came, so they concealed the place to which they were going. All these were clear signs that they were spies. Therefore, pursue them quickly, because: 1] It is proper to pursue them, since they are certainly spies. 2] You will certainly overtake them, and therefore you should not delay in pursuing and capturing them. (6) But she. After her cunning had succeeded in removing the messengers from her house, she feared that they might return to search for the men again. Therefore, she brought them up to the roof and hid them—“hiding” denotes covering something—by covering them with the stalks of flax that she had arranged there. They had already been laid out beforehand, so no one would suspect that men were concealed beneath them. The commentators explain “stalks of flax” as flax stalks, the expression being constructed like “crimson worm” and “worm of crimson.” It may also mean that the stalks had already been beaten but not yet combed, so that the flax fibers remained mixed with the woody stalks. Accordingly, Scripture uses the feminine form “arranged,” because “flax” is a feminine noun. Others explain that this was a kind of flax growing on trees, called “cotton” in the language of the Mishnah; ordinary flax, to which the prohibition of sha’atnez applies, grows from the ground, while cotton is called “tree flax.”

The Questions (7) The final word “after them” is superfluous, since she had already said, “Pursue them.” Furthermore, Scripture does not explain who closed the gate. If Rahab closed it, why did she lower them by a rope? She could simply have opened the gate for them.

And the men pursued. Meanwhile, they pursued after them, as they supposed, along the road to the Jordan.

And they closed the gate. The sense of the verse is: They closed the gate behind them, after the pursuers had gone out. The word “after them” is used as in, “And he closed the door behind him” (Genesis 19:6). After the pursuers went out, they closed the gate behind them from the other side, so that if the spies had not yet left the city, they would be unable to escape from it.

And she went up to them. For they were hidden beneath the flax, and she went up to them to remove the covering and speak with them.

The Questions (9–11) Why the repetition: “Terror of you has fallen upon us,” “all the inhabitants of the land have melted away,” “we have heard,” and “our hearts melted”?

I know. She first spoke generally: I know that Hashem has given you the land. She now explains how she knew this, based upon two things. 1] For terror of you has fallen upon us. The defining characteristic of “terror,” distinguishing it from other terms denoting fear and dread, is that terror always arises from one’s conception of the exalted stature and might of the object feared, not from the possibility of harm that it may cause. Thus, she means that terror of your greatness and exalted stature has fallen upon us. 2] And all the inhabitants of the land have also melted away from fear of the harm that you will bring upon them. She explains that her statement, “Terror of you has fallen upon us,” referring to awe of their exalted stature, was based upon this: (10) For we have heard how Hashem dried up the waters of the Sea of Reeds before you. Her statement, “All the inhabitants of the land have melted away,” was based upon hearing what you did to the two kings of the Amorites, whom you utterly destroyed, leaving no living soul.

And when we heard. Ordinarily, when a nation comes from the ends of the earth to destroy other lands, the inhabitants initially tremble and become afraid upon hearing reports of it. But when that nation approaches the border of their land, the inhabitants arouse themselves and encourage one another to fight against it. Here, however, this did not occur. Both when we heard, at which time our hearts melted because of the report, and even now, when you have approached the border of this land, no spirit of courage has arisen in any man to summon the people to arms, for they have all despaired of fighting. They know that Hashem your God is God in the heavens above and upon the earth below—and who can fight against and defeat such a mighty God?

The Questions (12–14) Why did she repeat, “with my father’s household, kindness,” and “give me a true sign”? And why did they say, “We will deal with you with kindness and truth”? What is the distinction between these expressions? Furthermore, regarding their statement, “If you do not reveal this matter of ours”: If, as the commentators explain, this refers to the sign of the scarlet cord, they had not yet given her that sign.

And now. She said: Although after you cross the Jordan you will not leave any soul alive, swear to me now, before you cross the Jordan, for at this stage they were permitted to accept converts who made peace with them. Thus our Sages said (Jerusalem Talmud, Shevi’it 6:1): “Joshua sent three proclamations,” etc.; whoever wished to make peace could do so. Moreover, she had converted and accepted the kingdom of Heaven, as indicated by her words, “For Hashem your God is God,” etc. She specified three elements in the required oath: 1] Swear to me—for an oath taken according to another person’s understanding cannot be annulled. 2] Swear by Hashem—this is a more solemn oath, since it is taken using the Explicit Name. 3] Since I have shown kindness to you—an oath taken according to another person’s understanding in return for a favor that person performed cannot be annulled.

And you shall show. That is, I request the oath primarily for my father’s household, for with them you will be acting with kindness, since you are under no obligation to repay them for any favor. But you are obligated to spare my life, and this is called not kindness but truth. I therefore ask only that you give me a true sign—a sign between you and me by which you will recognize my house at the time of the conquest. She now explains the kindness they are to show to her father’s household: Her father—?

And you shall keep my father alive. 1] They must spare them and not kill them. 2] And you shall deliver our lives from death—you are obligated to protect us so that others do not kill us. She also alluded to their saving their very souls from spiritual death by converting them.

Our lives. They told her that this, too, was an obligation imposed upon them by law: to surrender their own lives to death in place of theirs.

If you do not reveal this matter of ours. That is, because you did not reveal our matter—although we informed you that we were spies, you did not report us to the royal palace. Therefore, saving your lives falls under the category of truth, as the repayment of an obligation. And it shall be, when Hashem gives us the land, that we will deal with you with kindness and truth—with truth by preserving your lives, and with kindness by granting you abundant gifts and honor.

For her house was in the wall of the city. That is, it stood outside the city wall, with the wall itself forming one wall of her house. Therefore, it says that “her house was in the wall, within the city wall.” Her house was also recessed into the wall, so that the wall surrounded it on three sides, while she had a window opening freely toward the outside. Thus it says, “She dwelt in the wall.” This explains why her house did not collapse when the wall fell, as will be explained below (6:20), for they then lived in a house attached to the city wall but situated outside it.

And afterward, go on your way. That is, you will not need to take a circuitous route; simply descend from the mountain to the direct road and continue along it.

The Questions (17–20) This entire statement should have been spoken to her privately upon the roof, at the time of the oath, rather than after she had lowered them through the window, when there was a danger that their words might be overheard—for walls have ears. Furthermore, what did they mean by saying, “We are free from this oath of yours,” which indicates that the oath was not binding upon them? How could this be, seeing that they had initially sworn without any condition? How could they subsequently attach a condition to their oath? Moreover, according to the commentators’ interpretation, they should have said, “We wish to be free from the oath,” rather than making the categorical statement that they were free, which implies that the oath had never taken effect at all.

We are free. Since their original oath had been made without any conditions, if her family were to mingle with the inhabitants of the city, they would be obligated to save everyone in the city. They therefore told her: Know that we are free from your original oath, which you made us swear. That is, the oath was imposed upon us under compulsion, since we were in your power, and an oath taken under duress is not binding. Nevertheless, we now swear to you a second time—when we are no longer under compulsion—but conditionally: the oath will apply only to the members of your family who are found inside your house and do not go outside. If anyone goes outside, we are free of responsibility. It will also apply only if you bind the cord of scarlet thread, so that we can identify the house by that sign, and only if you do not disclose the sign; otherwise, everyone might bind a scarlet cord to his house. Thus, we are free from the first oath, which was unconditional, because you made us swear while we were under compulsion, as explained above. At first they said, “If you do not reveal this matter of ours,” in the plural, because this included the members of her household, who knew that they were spies but did not report them to the royal palace. Here, however, they refer to revealing the sign, which she alone knew, and therefore say, “If you do not reveal,” in the singular. We have explained that elevated language commonly denotes forceful entities through masculine grammatical forms. Therefore, they said “this oath of yours,” using the masculine zeh rather than the feminine zot, and pronounced “you made us swear” with a kamatz rather than a ḥirik. This indicates that both the oath itself and the one imposing it acted upon them with force, compulsion, and necessity—qualities represented by the masculine form. They were therefore free from it under the law governing oaths taken under duress.

And she tied it. She did so immediately, lest they afterward notice anything suspicious.

What had befallen them. There is a distinction between korot, unforeseen occurrences, and motza’ot, natural outcomes. Something whose cause is unknown or unusual is called a chance occurrence, whereas something arising from an evident and immediate cause is called an outcome. Therefore, regarding Jacob it says, “They told him everything that had happened to them” (Genesis 42:29), using korot, because there was no apparent reason for them to have been accused of being spies. Here, however, Scripture uses motza’ot, because it is natural for spies searching out a land to be detected; what befell them had a readily apparent and understandable cause.

And they said. The conclusion of their report was that Hashem had given them the land, as demonstrated by His having miraculously delivered them.

And that all the inhabitants of the land had melted away before them. This was evident from their seeing how frightened the king of Jericho was and how diligently he searched for them, as well as from what they learned from Rahab.