And they acted unfaithfully. Scripture informs us of two principles. 1] All Israel is bound together like a single body, so that each individual relates to the community as one limb relates to the entire organism. Just as disease or injury in one limb produces illness or defect in the whole body, so, because Achan took from the devoted property, it was regarded as though the entire people had acted unfaithfully. Thus it says, “The children of Israel acted unfaithfully,” followed by, “And Achan took.” 2] There is a distinction between punishment actively inflicted by Hashem and harm that comes through the withdrawal of His Providence. When Hashem actively administers punishment, He does not punish the innocent because of the sinner, as occurred afterward when Achan alone was stoned. This is not so, however, with harm arising incidentally because Hashem withdraws His Providence. Such harm affects the entire community: When sinners are among them, Hashem hides His face from them all, as it says below, “Did not Achan act unfaithfully concerning the devoted property, and wrath fell upon the entire congregation of Israel?” (22:20). They then all become exposed to chance and misfortune. Consequently, an innocent person who happens to be in a dangerous place may sometimes be struck, while the sinner, who is not present there, remains unharmed, as the same verse says, “And he was not the only man who perished because of his iniquity.” Thus, the anger of Hashem burned against the children of Israel means that He withdrew His Providence from them. Rabbi Isaac Abravanel likewise explains it this way.

The Questions (2–3) Why does Scripture elaborate by identifying the places near Ai? The words “He said to them, ‘Go up and spy’” appear superfluous, since we already know that spies are sent to spy. Joshua told them to spy out the land, but they spied out only Ai. The word “the men” is also superfluous. Why does he repeat, “Let not all the people go up,” and, “Do not weary all the people by sending them there”?

And he sent. Scripture relates how the hand of chance immediately gained power over them and caused their counsel to fail. Joshua sent spies from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth-aven. Scripture identifies the city’s surroundings to demonstrate that all Israel really should have gone there. Although Ai was a small city, it was close to Beth-aven and Bethel, and the inhabitants of Bethel and Beth-aven could easily come to its assistance. This is what actually happened during the second attack, as it says, “Not a man remained in Ai or Bethel who did not go out after the children of Israel” (8:17). Joshua had told them, Go up and spy out the land. He did not send them to spy out Ai alone, but the land—that is, the entire region, including Ai and the surrounding places. Had they carried out his command properly, they would have seen that several cities were situated nearby and would not have said, “Let not all the people go up.” But they altered his command: And the men went up—meaning on their own initiative—and spied out Ai alone, rather than the entire region. Therefore: (3) They returned and said, “Let not all the people go up.” They repeated their recommendation for two reasons: 1] As their report concerning the mission, they stated that the entire people did not need to go up. 2] As practical advice, they argued that since the entire people were unnecessary, it was improper to weary them for no purpose.

And they went up—and they fled. They did not even form ranks for battle; rather, they immediately began to flee. Although the people of Bethel did not assist Ai on this occasion, the Israelites fled before the men of Ai alone.

About thirty-six. The prefix kaf, meaning “about,” is used here in its literal sense. Our Sages, however, interpreted it as referring to Jair son of Manasseh, who was equivalent in worth to the majority of the Sanhedrin (Bava Batra 121b). That is, they struck down thirty-six men, and among them was one man whose worth was equivalent to that of about thirty-six fallen men.

And they pursued them. Their hearts were emboldened to pursue them as far as Shebarim, and the hearts of the people of Israel melted.

The Questions (7–9) This prayer appears disorderly. What did Joshua mean by saying, “If only we had been content”? And what is the meaning of “Please, my Hashem, what can I say after,” which the commentators struggled to explain?

And he tore his garments. Because of those who had been killed.

And he fell upon his face. In order to pray.

And they put dust upon their heads. As if to say: Behold, we are regarded as dust.

Alas, Hashem God. After Joshua saw that God had not gone forth with their armies but had abandoned them to wage war according to nature and chance, he argued from two perspectives. First, regarding the past: A people will go to possess lands that do not belong to it under one of two circumstances. Either they know with certainty that they will triumph because they are powerful, and they therefore go forth to conquer—even though they already possess an inhabited land—in order to enlarge their kingdom and extend their borders; or they have no land in which to dwell, and therefore risk battle, whether to conquer or be conquered. Accordingly, Joshua asked, Why did You bring this people across, etc., only to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites? Since You intended to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites—that is, to abandon us to chance and allow the battle to follow its natural course, in which the Amorites might also prevail and destroy us—why did You bring us across to this place and expose us to the dangers of war? Did we not already possess an inhabited land? If only we had been content—that is, we would have been satisfied to remain beyond the Jordan, and nothing compelled us to risk our lives in battle, since we already possessed a place in which to dwell there.

Please, my Hashem. He now presents his second argument, concerning the future. Even if You thought that we could triumph through natural means because we are stronger than the nations of the land—and that our defeat at Ai occurred only because merely three thousand men went out, while the sword devours one as well as another, so what significance is there in the loss of thirty-six men, since such is the way of war?—that reasoning was valid only until now. Our terror had fallen upon the inhabitants of the land, and no man retained the courage to array himself against us in battle; we could therefore have defeated them easily even through natural warfare. But this is no longer so. What can I now say after Israel has turned its back? Their fear of us has now departed, and their hearts will be emboldened to unite against us. Therefore, from this point onward:

The Canaanites will hear, etc., and surround us—all of them united together as one.

And they will cut off our name. That is, they will destroy the reputation for might that we have acquired until now. But if our name is cut off, Your great name will be profaned, for through the renown we attained, Your name became known as our mighty stronghold.

Arise, go. Why do you offer arguments? Since a cause has brought about the withdrawal of Divine Providence, you must remove that cause. And what is it?

Israel has sinned. He explains that the sin was twofold. 1] The nature of the sin itself: They also transgressed My covenant—this refers to desecrating the Sabbath, for they carried objects from the public domain into the private domain. The conquest of Jericho occurred on the Sabbath, and the Sabbath is called a covenant, as it says, “To observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant” (Exodus 31:16).

And they also took from the devoted property. They transgressed both the Sabbath and the ban upon property devoted to Heaven. 2] The manner of the sin: They also stole—they did not take it openly, but through theft and concealment. In doing so, they also denied Divine Providence, treating the Eye above as though it did not see. 3] The purpose of the sin: “Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry,” but Achan had no need to steal, for they also placed it among their possessions—he buried it in the ground, demonstrating that he had no immediate need for it.

The Questions (12–13) Why does He repeat, “They will be unable to stand,” etc., “because they have become subject to the ban,” and, “I will no longer be with you unless you destroy the devoted property”? And why did Joshua say only, “You will be unable to stand until you remove the devoted property,” without also saying that Hashem would not be among them until they destroyed it?

And they will not. Therefore, the children of Israel will be unable to stand before their enemies. He explains that this will result from two causes. They will not stand through natural strength, for they will turn their backs, because they have become subject to the ban. The intrinsic effect of devoted property is to place a curse upon their strength and weaken them even on the natural level. Nor will they stand through Divine Providence, for I will no longer be with you unless you destroy the devoted property. He further establishes two different conditions. For them to stand before their enemies—that is, for their natural strength to return—it is sufficient that the devoted property no longer remain among them, meaning that they burn what was stolen from it. Thus the following verse says, “You will be unable to stand before your enemies until you remove the devoted property.” But for Hashem to be with them, they must destroy the devoted thing from their midst—meaning that they must destroy the man who violated the ban. It is not enough for the stolen property itself to cease to exist; the person who transgressed the ban must be removed from the face of the earth.

You will be unable to stand until you remove the devoted property. He did not mention the second condition—that Hashem would not be among them until they destroyed the devoted thing, meaning the person who had violated the ban, as explained in the preceding verse. He did not want them to know that the offender would be liable to death, for then the sinner would be unwilling to confess. He therefore informed them only of the first condition described above.

He shall be burned with fire. Because he violated the ban upon property that was itself destined to be burned, his punishment was likewise burning.

For he has transgressed. That is, he sinned against God by violating His covenant, and against Israel by committing a disgraceful act among Israel, through which they were punished. Scripture explains that because he violated the ban, he deserved burning. Nevertheless, he was stoned because he had desecrated the Sabbath and was therefore liable to stoning. This accords with the law that one liable to two forms of judicial execution receives the more severe one. For this reason, they also stoned his ox and donkey, so that their manner of death would not be less severe than that of their owner.

The Questions (17) Scripture should have said, “He brought forward the tribe of Judah by its families,” as it does in all the other cases. Why does it say, “He selected the family of the Zerahites,” in the active form, whereas in all the other cases it says, “was selected,” using the passive form?

And he brought forward the family of Judah. Scripture does not say here, “He brought forward the tribe of Judah by its families,” as it does in the other cases. Likewise, in all the other cases it says, “was selected,” in the passive form, whereas here it says, “he selected,” in the active form. This is because all the preceding selections were made through the Ark. That is, Joshua brought forward Reuben, Simeon, and Levi, and Judah was selected by the Ark. He then did not bring forward the remaining tribes that followed Judah. Thus it says, “He brought Israel forward by its tribes”—meaning one tribe after another—for he did not finish bringing them all forward. The families were different: The family of the Zerahites came last, and Joshua brought forward all the other families of Judah, but the Ark did not select them. Since the family of the Zerahites alone remained at the end, there was no need to bring it before the Ark; the lot necessarily fell upon it, and Joshua himself selected it.

Please give glory to Hashem. Do not deny the lot, which was directed by Hashem, for doing so would profane His blessed glory.

And confess to Him. Confess your other transgressions as well. He then explains, corresponding to “Give glory to Hashem”:

Tell me what you have done. Corresponding to “And confess to Him,” he says, Do not conceal from me the other transgressions you have committed.

Indeed, I have sinned. By taking from this devoted property.

And such and such have I done. He had likewise taken from other devoted property in the days of Moses. He then sought to justify himself on several grounds: 1] He had already become accustomed to this transgression, so that it came to seem permissible to him. Thus he said, And such and such have I done.

2] And I saw among the spoil. He thought that since it was spoil, he was permitted to take it. Thus our Sages said (Tanchuma, Masei 5) that he relied upon the Torah’s words, “And you shall consume the spoil of your enemies” (Deuteronomy 20:14). 3] It was a Babylonian mantle belonging to the king of Babylon, who came from another country. He thought that Joshua had devoted only the property of Jericho to destruction, not the property of someone from another country. 4] It was beautiful, and his inclination enticed him to covet it. 5] There were two hundred shekels of silver and a bar of gold. He thought that metals were not included in the ban, since they were not destined to be burned but were to enter the treasury of Hashem, and that he had violated only the prohibition against misappropriating sacred property. 6] Behold, they are hidden in my tent. He had neither used nor benefited from them and therefore thought that he had not committed misappropriation, for in the case of gold, which is not diminished through use, one does not become liable for misappropriation until deriving benefit worth a perutah, as explained by Rambam (Laws of Misappropriation 6). Here he neither benefited from nor diminished them. Thus he says, “And the silver is beneath it”—covered beneath the mantle and left undiminished. From this statement we also see how Joshua justified punishing him without witnesses, for all the identifying signs were present: 1] The nature of the stolen property, which consisted of three kinds of objects. 2] Their weights—the specified weights of the gold and silver. 3] Their location—hidden in his tent. 4] Their arrangement—the silver beneath the mantle. The expression be’oholi, “in my tent,” combines a possessive suffix with the definite article. This indicates that Achan had a separate tent distinct from those of his household and that it contained two chambers, one larger and principal. The possessive suffix identifies it as his tent rather than that of his family, while the definite article identifies his well-known principal tent.