Collective Punishment for Akhan's Sin/2

Collective Punishment for Akhan's Sin

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Nation Punished for Own Sins

This story is not an example of collective punishment. Those who were killed were guilty of their own sins and punished for them.

Sources:R. Yosef Bekhor ShorDevarim 29:28About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, R"Y Fidanque, MalbimDevarim 27:10About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, Hoil MosheYehoshua 7:24About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

What was the sin?

• Forgetting Hashem – The people sinned in thinking that it was their own military power, rather than Hashem, which brought them victory in the battle against Yericho.¹  Akhan's taking of the spoils betrayed the same sentiment² and as such, all penalized parties were guilty of the same crime.³

• Taking of spoils – R"Y Bekhor Shor, R"Y Fidanque, and Hoil Moshe maintain that Yehoshua had warned the people to watch over the spoils to ensure that no one took of them, and to report to him if anyone had.⁴ The people either did not watch properly, failed to report the offender, or worse, actively helped Akhan to hide the spoils. As such, those punished had been accessories to Akhan's crime.
• Unknown sins – The people who died were each independently guilty of their own sins, unrelated to Akhan's actions or the battle at hand.⁵

Attribution of Sin to Israel – The attributing of sin to the nation is logical, since they, too, were guilty.  However, each of the variations of this approach reads the phrases, "וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם" and "'וְגַם לָקְחוּ מִן הַחֵרֶם וְגַם גָּנְבוּ וגו" slightly differently, in line with the sin they assume the nation committed:

• According to those who maintain that the people were accomplices to Akhan, the heading "וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם" is appropriate as the nation, too, participated in the trespassing.  The actions listed in verse 11, "לָקְחוּ מִן הַחֵרֶם וְגַם גָּנְבוּ וְגַם כִּחֲשׁוּ וְגַם שָׂמוּ בִכְלֵיהֶם" can similarly be attributed to all ("חָטָא יִשְׂרָאֵל"), since the people either condoned or abetted the theft.⁶  R. Fidanque and Hoil Moshe add that the verb "כִּחֲשׁוּ" (denied) supports that they tried to cover up for Akhan.
• According to the position that the people forgot Hashem, the plural language regarding trespassing, taking, stealing, and lying is more difficult since the people had nothing at all to do with these specific actions. This approach would respond that since Akhan's actions were representative and symbolic of the underlying sin of the entire nation,⁷ they are attributed to the nation as well.
• Those who claim that the people were guilty of individual crimes could suggest that the words "וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם" are simply a general opening for the chapter, not meant to implicate the nation as a whole, but rather the person mentioned immediately afterwards in the verse, Akhan.  Similarly, they might maintain that the opening verbs of verse 11 ("חָטָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגַם עָבְרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי") stand alone, and refer to the individual sins of the nation, while the rest of the verse ("לָקְחוּ מִן הַחֵרֶם") speaks only of Akhan.⁸

Singling Out of Akhan – Akhan is singled out, despite the fact that others sinned as well, since his deeds were the most severe, as he was the only one who actively took from the sanctified possessions.

Why was Akhan originally spared? These sources could suggest that since Akhan was the most culpable, his actions deserved a public punishment.  He needed to be made an example for others to learn from.

Collective punishment – According to this position, innocents are not punished for sins that they did not commit. However, condoning another's crime and turning a blind eye when wrongs are committed is itself considered sinful and can be punished.

Were Akhan's children killed? According to the Hoil Moshe, Akhan's children were killed together with him, as Hashem commanded, "וְהָיָה הַנִּלְכָּד בַּחֵרֶם יִשָּׂרֵף בָּאֵשׁ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ".‎⁹  He asserts that normally the Torah decrees, "Children shall not be killed for their parent's sins",‎¹⁰ but that this was an exceptional incident.

Nation Punished for Akhan's Sins

Despite the fact that only Akhan sinned, innocent people were also punished.  Sometimes Hashem collectively punishes the innocent for the crimes of others.

Sources:R. Shimon b. Lakish in Yerushalmi SotahSotah 7:5About the Yerushalmi, R. Yehuda in  Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 43b-44aAbout the Bavli, Tanchuma51About the Tanchuma, R. BachyaVayikra 26:37About R. Bachya b. Asher, R. Yosef ibn KaspiGvia HaKesef 20About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, RalbagYehoshua 7:1Yehoshua 5-8Yehoshua 7:24Yehoshua 22:18About R. Levi b. Gershom, Akeidat YitzchakTorah 78About R. Yitzchak Arama, AbarbanelYehoshua 7:4-5About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoShemot 23:21About R. Ovadyah Seforno, Keli YekarDevarim 28:15Devarim 29:9About R. Shelomo Ephraim Luntschitz, MalbimYehoshua 7:1Mishlei Beur HaInyan 11:21About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Collective punishment – These source all agree that collective punishment is part of Hashem's mode of justice and that sometimes innocent people suffer for the sins of others.

Evidence that the nation was punished for Akhan – Several verses might support that the nation was being punished for Akhan's sins rather than their own:

• In 7:1 and 7:18, it is Akhan who is singled out as having stolen from the consecrated items.
• In 7:12 Hashem promises that the nation won't be victorious until the sanctified items are removed, and it is only after the death of Akhan that His anger is appeased. 
• Moreover, Yehoshua tells Akhan, "מֶה עֲכַרְתָּנוּ" (why have you troubled us?), clearly blaming him for Israel's suffering. 
• Finally, in Yehoshua 22, when warning the two and half tribes that their actions might affect all of Israel, Pinchas reminds them, "Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass concerning the devoted thing, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel?"

Attribution of Sin to Israel – Malbim explains that since Akhan and the nation are part of one collective body, any action done by one member can be attributed to any other member or the collective as a whole.  Thus, the verse can say that all of Israel "trespassed" or "stole" even though in reality only Akhan had.

Justification for punishing of innocents

• Accepted collective responsibility – According to R. Shimon b. Lakish and R. Yehuda, after crossing the Jordan, the Israelites accepted upon themselves to be responsible for each other, even for sins done by others in secret that they would have no way of knowing about or preventing.¹¹
• Corporate body – Ralbag, Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel and Malbim explain that all members of the nation are connected, and constitute one body. Thus, it is only natural that if one "limb" sins, it will affect the rest.
• Leadership responsible for nation – The Keli Yekar assumes that those who died were heads of the nation.  Such leaders are sometimes punished for the sins of their generation since it is their responsibility to prevent such misdeeds and ensure proper conduct. If they fail they are partially to blame.
• Severity of case – Alternatively, it is possible that Hashem collectively punishes only for select sins which are extremely severe.  This position might suggest that  that Yericho held a status similar to that of an "עיר נדחת",‎¹² and that, in taking from its spoils, Akhan was violating the prohibition against benefiting from idolatry. The point of collective punishment in such a case might be to warn others not to act like the offender ("וְהַנִּשְׁאָרִים יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ").
  

How does collective punishment work?

• Removal of Divine Providence – According to Ralbag, Abarbanel and Malbim, collective punishment is not caused by active Divine intervention, but rather by the removal of Divine providence.  When someone's sin leads Hashem to hide his face from the nation, natural order takes over and can lead to the suffering of innocents.¹³
• Active Targeting of Collective – R. Shimon b. Lakish and R. Yehuda do not address the issue explicitly but might suggest that after the people took upon themselves to be guarantors of each others' conduct, Hashem might even actively target individuals when any member of the nation sins. 

Why were those 36 killed and not others?

• Natural course of battle – According to Ralbag, Abarbanel and Malbim, this was par for the course when natural order takes over in battle.  As those men, rather than others, happened to place themselves in danger, they were the ones who died.¹⁴
• Most responsible – Keli Yekar asserts that the thirty six men who died were the ones in leadership positions, and as such the people most responsible for Akhan.  According to R. Shimon b. Lakish and R. Yehuda, who assume that everyone was equally responsible, it is not clear how Hashem decided who should be punished.

Why was Akhan originally spared? Ralbag, Abarbanel, and Malbim would explain, as above, that this was the result of chance.  Since Akhan happened not to place himself in danger, he was not killed in battle.  The others might suggest that his sin was severe enough that he needed to be singled out and punished publicly.

Were Akhan's children killed? According to Ralbag and Abarbanel, Akhan's children were brought to witness their father's death and learn from it, but were not killed.¹⁵ As support, Abarbanel points to the singular language of "וַיִּרְגְּמוּ אֹתוֹ" and explains that the plural "וַיִּשְׂרְפוּ אֹתָם" refers to Akhan's possessions. Neither explains that this is simply an example of Hashem "visiting the sins of the fathers on the children" because according to each, that principle would not apply in this case.¹⁶ For elaboration, see Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?

¹ They were guilty of thinking, "כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי עָשָׂה לִי אֶת הַחַיִל הַזֶּה".  This is expressed in several aspects:

• While the spies who went to Yericho emphasize Hashem's role in the battle (כִּי נָתַן י"י בְּיָדֵנוּ אֶת כׇּל הָאָרֶץ), those who went to Ai do not mention Him at all, instead assuming that the battle hinges on the size of their fighting force.
• The battle of Ai is one of the only battles in Neviim Rishonim in which the people go to war without first communicating with Hashem. 

² Akhan took from the booty of battle because "to the victor goes the spoils" and he viewed the conquest as his own.  See Radak Yeshoahua 6:17 who compares the consecrating of Yericho to Hashem to the commandment of terumah.  The first fruits and the first conquest go to Hashem as a reminder that human success is really only due to Him.

³ This approach to the story is developed at length by Joshua Berman in his article, "Collective Responsibility and the Sin of Achan".

⁴ Such a warning is not explicit in the verses, but could easily have been given.

⁵ This position does not explain why the nation as a whole deserved to be defeated in battle, focusing only on the deaths of the thirty six men.  It might not view the initial defeat as a punishment at all since the people were ultimately victorious regardless.

⁶ According to this position, the opening verbs of the verse, "חָטָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגַם עָבְרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי" are explained by the ones that follow, "...לָקְחוּ מִן הַחֵרֶם וְגַם גָּנְבוּ וְגַם כִּחֲשׁוּ". 

⁷ Both groups had a distorted view of Hashem's role in the battles of conquest, and attributed victory to themselves rather than Him.  Though they expressed this belief differently, the underlying problem was the same.

⁸ In other words, this position rejects the possibility that the opening words of the verse are a heading which is then explained by the following verbs of the verse.  Such a reading would imply that all of the actions listed are being attributed to the nation as a whole. This approach, in contrast, assumes that there are two sets of sins listed, an anonymous one attributed to Israel, and the specified theft which was done by Akhan.

⁹ Though the verse opens by saying in singular, "and they stoned him", the Hoil Moshe points out that the rest of the verse has a plural object ("and they burned them..." ).  He notes that it is not unusual for Tanakh to switch from plural to singular and thus the reader need not learn that the singular language excludes the children.

¹⁰ See Devarim 24:16.  Hoil Moshe explains that though there is also a principle of "פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים" (visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons), this only means that children sometimes suffer as a natural consequence of their parents being punished. [For example, if a parent is fined and his property confiscated, his child will naturally be punished as well since he is forced to live a life of poverty.] However, Hashem does not usually actively target a child for punishment along with his parents.  For elaboration, see Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?

¹¹ This is learned from Devarim 29:28: הַנִּסְתָּרֹת לַי"י אֱלֹהֵינוּ וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָׄנׄוּׄ וּׄלְׄבָׄנֵׄיׄנׄוּׄ עַׄד עוֹלָם.  The dots over the words teach that although the people originally took responsibility only for their brother's revealed actions, afterwards they pledged responsibility even for deeds done in private.

¹² See Ralbag on Yehoshua 6:17 who suggests that Yericho's beliefs and practices were more depraved than those of other Canaanites. There are also many parallels between the descriptions of the fates of each city:

¹³ Malbim adds that in such cases Hashem might mete out punishment via a messenger who, given free reign, does not distinguish between righteous and wicked.

¹⁴ Ibn Kaspi suggests that perhaps Akhan had been the leader of the 3,000 men who went to fight.  Due to pangs of conscience over his misdeed he became fearful in battle, leading to his fleeing, the nation's defeat and the men's deaths.

¹⁵ They each also bring the possibility that Akhan's children were still young, and as such considered part of his property, and thus fell under the command to burn "he and all that belongs to him".

¹⁶ According to Ralbag, the principle only means that sometimes children suffer the natural consequences of their parent's punishments, but not that Hashem would actively target them as He does in this case. Abarbanel claims that Hashem only punishes children for their parents' deeds if they continue in their path, which Akhan's children did not do