You have observed. The condition that Moses made with the children of Reuben and Gad required only that they march armed before their brethren until the conquest was completed. Moses, however, added a command that they remain there until after the division of the land as well, as explained above (1:13). Thus, Joshua said, “You have observed everything that Moses commanded you.” Second, “and you have obeyed my voice.” He now explains what he meant by “You have observed everything that Moses commanded you”: namely, that:

You have not forsaken your brethren these many days. That is, throughout the seven years of conquest and the seven years of division. The words “and you have obeyed my voice” mean, “and you have kept the charge of Hashem’s commandment.” Joshua had no authority to impose new commandments upon them beyond the Torah of Moses; he could only issue instructions that safeguarded the Torah’s commandments—that is, protective boundaries and safeguards. Thus, Scripture says, “You have kept the charge of Hashem’s commandment.” (4) And now Hashem has given rest. As stated, “until Hashem gives rest to your brethren as He has to you” (Deuteronomy 3:20). (5) Only. Since their territory was separated from the Land of Israel, they required greater vigilance there.

Questions (7–9) Why does Scripture repeat that Joshua sent them away and blessed them, and then again that he sent them away and blessed them? What relevance does the statement that Moses had given half of Manasseh an inheritance in Bashan have here, when this was already known? And why does it say that they departed from Shiloh? It should first have stated that Joshua summoned them to Shiloh.

And also when he sent them away. Since the tribe of Manasseh had been divided into two halves, they required an additional, separate blessing. (8) With abundant possessions. For the children of Reuben and Gad had possessed abundant livestock, but the half-tribe of Manasseh had not.

Divide it. That is, divide it with your brethren who remained behind to guard your cities, for only forty thousand of them crossed the Jordan (above, chapter 4), fewer than one-third of their number in the portion of Pinchas. Abarbanel explains that the spoils captured by the children of Israel were certainly divided among the tribes. The children of Reuben and Gad could therefore carry home the spoils they had acquired. The portion of the half-tribe of Manasseh, however, was intermingled with that of the tribe’s other half, so Joshua had to instruct them to divide the spoils with their brethren. This is why Scripture first states that Moses had given one half of the tribe of Manasseh an inheritance in Bashan, etc. Consequently, although Joshua had sent them away, etc., he nevertheless had to tell them: “Return with abundant possessions,” etc.; “divide the spoil of your enemies with your brethren”—that is, with the other half of the same tribe. These are Abarbanel’s words. Accordingly, the phrase “they returned and departed” may mean that because the half-tribe of Manasseh had to remain in Shiloh while the spoils were divided, the children of Reuben and Gad also waited for them; afterward, they all departed from there together.

And they returned. Joshua summoned them to his city, Timnath-serah, in the hill country of Ephraim, and sent them away from there. They did not proceed eastward from there to cross the Jordan; instead, they went to Shiloh, which lay at the northern edge of Joseph’s inheritance, to pray there at the Sanctuary of Hashem and to take leave of the Israelites assembled there. This demonstrated that their hearts had not withdrawn from the sanctity of Hashem’s Tabernacle or from the unity of the Rock of Israel—the opposite of what Israel later suspected concerning the altar. Therefore, Scripture precisely says, “from the children of Israel, from Shiloh.”

Questions (10–12) Why does Scripture redundantly say, “the region of the Jordan that is in the land of Canaan”? Likewise, why does it say, “opposite the land of Canaan, in the region of the Jordan, on the side belonging to the children of Israel”? And why does it state twice, “The children of Israel heard”?

Which is in the land of Canaan. Scripture relates that they built the altar on the Canaanite side, west of the Jordan. This testified that they did not intend to separate from Israel, for had that been their intention, they would have built it on the eastern side. Second, the altar’s structure testified that it had been built only for appearance, not for burnt offerings or sacrifices: it was exceedingly high and had no steps, demonstrating that its builders did not intend to offer sacrifices upon it, but only to make it a sign, memorial, and marker.

And they heard. The children of Israel heard and concluded that they had built an altar resembling the well-known altar at Shiloh—that is, patterned after it—and that they had built it opposite the land of Canaan in order to draw the hearts of the children of Israel on this side of the Jordan toward that altar as well.

And they heard. That is, because of this, they did not judge them favorably but accepted the accusation that judged them guilty. And they assembled for war. That is, they gathered an army in case it became necessary to fight; therefore, Scripture does not use the preposition “against.”

And they sent. To warn them first, in the hope that they might repent. Phinehas. Since their act appeared to involve both sacrilege against Hashem and treachery against Israel, they sent Phinehas to rebuke them concerning the offense against Hashem.

And ten leaders. To remonstrate with them concerning the offense against Israel.

Questions (16–20) What sin was there in this altar that caused Israel to prepare for war against them? The verses are repetitive: first they cite the sin of Peor as evidence, and afterward the sin of Achan. What did they intend by their great prolixity, multiplying words without end?

What is this trespass? Since they did not know whether the altar had been built for idolatry or for offering sacrifices to Hashem, they argued against both possibilities. First, if it was intended for idolatry, what is this trespass? It is surely a grievous trespass to turn away today from following Hashem—today, while all the signs and wonders He performed for you are still before your eyes. Nor have you merely turned away from Him passively; you have committed an overt act by building yourselves an altar for idolatry. This constitutes rebellion today against Hashem—open rebellion, transgression, and denial of Hashem.

Was it too little? They said: If you ask, “Why do you contend on Hashem’s behalf?” know that your act will bring harm upon the entire nation, just as the sin of Peor caused two forms of harm. First, it caused lasting harm for generations, from which we have not purified ourselves to this day. Second, it caused immediate harm, for the plague struck the congregation of Hashem, and those who had not sinned were punished because of those who had.

And you. Accordingly, if you turn away today from following Hashem and repeat this folly, the same two forms of harm will result. First, you will rebel today against Hashem, which is itself an immediate and exceedingly grave evil. Second, tomorrow He will be angry with the entire congregation of Israel: His anger will fall not upon you alone, but upon the whole congregation of Israel; nor will it last only today, but also “tomorrow”—that is, it will continue for a long time.

But. Second, they now argued against the other possibility—that the altar had been built for Hashem. If you say that the land of your possession is impure and therefore unfit for offering sacrifices, and that you consequently built this altar on the western side of the Jordan to offer sacrifices to Hashem upon it, this too constitutes rebellion: against Hashem, Who commanded that sacrifices be offered not upon a private altar but only at His Tabernacle; and against Israel, because it divides their collective unity, which requires them all to serve the one God together in one house rather than splitting into two groups with two altars. Thus, they said, “Cross over for yourselves into the land of Hashem’s possession, where Hashem’s Tabernacle dwells,” so that you may unite with us both in possessing the holy land and in worshiping Hashem at His Tabernacle and House.

Do not rebel against Hashem, and do not cause us to rebel. For this would constitute rebellion both against Hashem and against Israel. Abarbanel explains the passage similarly. Nowhere else is the verb “to rebel” joined to the direct-object marker et, except here, because rebellion ordinarily applies only to a servant rebelling against his master, not to one half of a nation rebelling against the other. This rebellion, however, would create a division affecting both sides, so that we too would be drawn into rebellion against Israel’s unity as the nation became divided. Since you would cause separation and rebellion on our side as well, Scripture says, “and do not cause us to rebel.”

Did not. If you ask, “Why do you contend on Hashem’s behalf?” know that this too will bring collective harm upon the entire nation, as experience demonstrated with Achan, who trespassed against the devoted property. He sinned against property consecrated to the Sanctuary, for the silver and gold he stole were sacred to the Sanctuary. This resembles your own sin, which is likewise directed against the Sanctuary. Consider what happened to us: wrath fell upon the entire congregation of Israel, and he was not the only man to perish for his sin. Because a single member of the nation sinned, wrath and the concealment of the Divine countenance came upon the entire nation, and Hashem’s Providence departed from them. Consequently, Achan was not the only one to die, because this was not a directly inflicted punishment, in which case only the sinner himself would have been punished; rather, it was the concealment of the Divine countenance from the entire community, as explained above (7:12–13). If one man caused the Divine countenance to be hidden from the entire community, how much more so now, when the sinners comprise two and a half tribes, will Hashem withdraw His Providence from the entire congregation.

Questions (21) Why did they not answer Phinehas?

And they spoke to the heads, etc. They did not respond directly to Phinehas, who had come to rebuke them for their presumed trespass against Hashem, because if they cleared themselves of the lesser accusation of treachery against Israel, the first and graver accusation would automatically fall away.

Questions (22–29) How, in their view, would this altar prevent the western tribes from saying in the future to their descendants, “You have no portion in Hashem”? On the contrary, just as this altar aroused suspicion against them now, it would arouse the same suspicion in future generations, who might cite it as proof that the eastern tribes had no portion in the altar at Shiloh. Why did they repeat, “God, Hashem—God, Hashem”? Why did they repeat both “if in rebellion” and “if in trespass”? And the entire lengthy statement, in which they repeated the matter several times, requires explanation.

God. In response to the suspicion that the altar was intended for idolatry, they declared, “God, God, Hashem”—there is no other besides Him. In response to the suspicion that it was intended for offering sacrifices to Hashem, they said: “God, God, Hashem—He knows” the truth already, and “Israel shall know” the truth when they see that we offer no sacrifices upon it. They then confirmed their words with an oath and an imprecation:

If in rebellion. That is, rebellion against the unity of Israel, corresponding to the second suspicion.

Or if in trespass against Hashem. Corresponding to the first suspicion.

May He not save us, etc. May He cast us away from His presence.

To build. This explains their words, “if in trespass against Hashem”: if we built ourselves an altar in order to turn away from Hashem—that is, to practice idolatry. Corresponding to “if in rebellion,” they explain: “if to offer upon it burnt offerings or meal offerings,” etc., thereby separating ourselves from the Tabernacle at Shiloh. In either case, may Hashem Himself exact punishment from anyone who has done such a thing.

But if not. The altar’s construction arose entirely from anxiety concerning a matter that we feared might confront us in the future. This also means that we were anxious about precisely the matter of which you now suspect us—separating ourselves from the congregation of Israel and from Hashem’s Tabernacle. The truth is exactly the opposite: we acted out of concern that this very separation might arise in the future, when your children will say to our children, etc., “You have no portion in Hashem.” Since the Jordan separates us from you, our territory is outside the Land of Israel, where many commandments do not apply. Such statements might influence our children’s hearts until they cease to fear Hashem.

Therefore we said. To prevent this:

Let us now make for ourselves. A marker and faithful sign that we, like you, are children of the living God, by building the altar—not for burnt offerings or sacrifices; that is, an altar whose structure was designed solely as a visible monument, not for offering burnt offerings or sacrifices, as stated in verse 10: “an altar great in appearance.”

For it is a witness. It will serve as a witness between us and you throughout all generations.

To perform the service of Hashem before Him with our burnt offerings, etc. This altar would testify that an altar standing outside Hashem’s Tabernacle is unfit for sacrifices, because Hashem’s service may be performed only before Him at His Tabernacle. Consequently, your children will not say tomorrow to our children, “You have no portion in Hashem,” as Scripture proceeds to explain.

And we said. That is, we declared immediately at the time of its construction:

And it shall be, if they say, etc., then we shall say: See the replica of Hashem’s altar that our fathers made. That is, observe its structure, which was fashioned in a manner demonstrating that it was intended solely for display, not for offering sacrifices upon it. Moreover, our fathers made it—meaning all Israel—because by not protesting its construction, they consented to it and thereby made it a witness between us and you.

Far be it from us. After explaining that their intention in constructing the altar was for it to serve as a witness for future generations, they added that there was even less reason to suspect them of wrongdoing, for this very altar made such an act far from them. That is, the altar itself—whose form showed that it was made only for display, not for sacrifice—made it far from us to rebel against Hashem. It would itself testify against us that sacrifices may be offered nowhere except upon the altar of Hashem our God before His Tabernacle.

Questions (31) The structure of the verse is exceedingly difficult. Before they built the altar, did Israel have any doubt that Hashem was among them?

Today we know. Phinehas began to reassure them, saying that he himself had never doubted the matter. Since they saw that Hashem dwelt among Israel and had not hidden His countenance from them, they knew that these tribes had not committed this trespass against Him. The verse should be understood as follows: “Today—because Hashem is among us—we know that you have not committed this trespass against Hashem.” The words “because Hashem is among us” form a parenthetical statement explaining that they knew the eastern tribes had not trespassed precisely because Hashem remained among them.

Then you would have removed. That is, had you committed such a grievous trespass, you would then have removed and separated the children of Israel from the hand of Hashem and His Providence. The expression derives from “God took away your father’s livestock” (Genesis 31:9). Since Hashem’s hand remains among us and performs wonders, we know today that you have not trespassed. Phinehas meant that he had never doubted them at all; they had come only to learn the reason for their action and to remove a potential stumbling block for future generations.

Questions (33) What is noteworthy about the fact that they no longer spoke of going up against them for war, once they had vindicated themselves and their innocence had become clear as daylight?

And the matter pleased, etc. Scripture informs us that their decision to march against them for war did not arise from any hatred, jealousy, or animosity in the hearts of the tribes of Hashem toward their brethren. On the contrary, it arose from their great love for them and their desire to turn them back from sin. Therefore, they rejoiced over the explanation and blessed God. Had they come against them out of hostility, they would not have rejoiced upon discovering that they now lacked any cause to fight them. Scripture further explains, “and they did not speak,” etc., “of destroying” the land: even when they first set out, they had neither said nor intended that they would destroy the land, but only that they would turn their brethren back from sin. They therefore rejoiced and blessed God when the tribes’ righteousness emerged as brightly as daylight.

And they called. The children of Reuben and Gad named the altar according to the purpose for which it had been built: to serve as a witness that Hashem alone is God, the one God besides Whom there is no other, and that they would never exchange the worship at His altar for worship in another place or of another god.