Difference between revisions of "Collective Punishment for Akhan's Sin/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<li>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.</li> | <li>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.</li> | ||
<li>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.  </li> | <li>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.  </li> | ||
| − | </ul></fn>  Akhan's taking of the spoils betrayed the same sentiment<fn>Akhan took from the booty of battle because "to the victor goes the spoils" and he viewed the conquest as his own.</fn> and as such, all penalized parties were guilty of the same crime.<fn>This | + | </ul></fn>  Akhan's taking of the spoils betrayed the same sentiment<fn>Akhan took from the booty of battle because "to the victor goes the spoils" and he viewed the conquest as his own.</fn> and as such, all penalized parties were guilty of the same crime.<fn>This approach to the story is developed at length by Joshua Berman in his article, <a href="http://www.academia.edu/7421836/Collective_Responsibility_and_the_Sin_of_Achan_Joshua_7_">"Collective Responsibility and the Sin of Achan"</a>.</fn></li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>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.<fn>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". </fn>  R. Fidanque and Hoil Moshe add that the verb "כִּחֲשׁוּ" (denied) supports that they tried to cover up for Akhan.</li> | <li>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.<fn>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". </fn>  R. Fidanque and Hoil Moshe add that the verb "כִּחֲשׁוּ" (denied) supports that they tried to cover up for Akhan.</li> | ||
| − | <li>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 actions. This approach would respond that since Akhan's actions were representative and symbolic of the underlying sin of the entire nation,<fn>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.</fn> they are attributed to the nation as well.</li> | + | <li>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,<fn>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.</fn> they are attributed to the nation as well.</li> |
<li>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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | <li>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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Singling Out of Akhan</b> – Akhan is singled out, despite the fact that others sinned as well, since his actions were the most severe, as he was the only one who actively took from the sanctified possessions.</point> | <point><b>Singling Out of Akhan</b> – Akhan is singled out, despite the fact that others sinned as well, since his actions were the most severe, as he was the only one who actively took from the sanctified possessions.</point> | ||
<point><b>Why was Akhan originally spared?</b> 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.</point> | <point><b>Why was Akhan originally spared?</b> 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.</point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Collective punishment</b> – 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 | + | <point><b>Collective punishment</b> – 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 s/he does wrong is itself considered sinful and can be punished.</point> |
| − | <point><b>Were Akhan's children killed?</b> 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".‎<fn>The verses detailing the killing are ambiguous.  Though both Akhan and his children are taken to the Valley of Akhor, it is unclear if both are killed.  The verse states in singular "and they stoned him" only to switch to plural, "and they burnt them and stoned them". The Hoil Moshe suggests that it is not unusual to switch from plural to singular and the reader need not learn that the singular language excludes the children.</fn> Even though the Torah decrees, "Children shall not be killed for their parent's sins",‎<fn>See <a href="Devarim24-16" data-aht="source">Devarim 24:16</a>.  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 | + | <point><b>Were Akhan's children killed?</b> 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".‎<fn>The verses detailing the killing are ambiguous.  Though both Akhan and his children are taken to the Valley of Akhor, it is unclear if both parties are killed.  The verse states in singular "and they stoned him" only to switch to plural, "and they burnt them and stoned them". The Hoil Moshe suggests that it is not unusual to switch from plural to singular and the reader need not learn that the singular language excludes the children.</fn> Even though the Torah decrees, "Children shall not be killed for their parent's sins",‎<fn>See <a href="Devarim24-16" data-aht="source">Devarim 24:16</a>.  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 <a href="Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins" data-aht="page">Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?</a></fn> and normally they are not, this was an exceptional incident.</point> |
</category> | </category> | ||
<category name="Punished for Akhan's Sins"> | <category name="Punished for Akhan's Sins"> | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
<li><b>Accepted collective responsibility</b> – 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.<fn>This is learned from <a href="Devarim29-21-28" data-aht="source">Devarim 29:28</a>: 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.</fn></li> | <li><b>Accepted collective responsibility</b> – 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.<fn>This is learned from <a href="Devarim29-21-28" data-aht="source">Devarim 29:28</a>: 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.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Corporate body</b> – 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.</li> | <li><b>Corporate body</b> – 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.</li> | ||
| − | <li><b>Leadership</b> – The Keli Yekar assumes that those who died were heads of the nation.  Such leaders are sometimes punished for the sins of | + | <li><b>Leadership responsible for nation</b> – 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.</li> |
| + | <li>Special case</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>How does it work?</b><ul> | <point><b>How does it work?</b><ul> | ||
| − | <li><b>Removal of Divine Providence</b> – According to Ralbag, Abarbanel and Malbim, collective punishment is not caused by active Divine intervention, but rather by the removal of Divine providence.  | + | <li><b>Removal of Divine Providence</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> |
| − | <li><b>Active Targeting of Collective</b> – 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 actively target individuals when any member of the nation sins.  </li> | + | <li><b>Active Targeting of Collective</b> – 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. </li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Why were those 36 killed and not others?</b><ul> | <point><b>Why were those 36 killed and not others?</b><ul> | ||
| − | <li><b>Natural course of battle</b> – According to Ralbag, Abarbanel and Malbim, this was par for the course when in war.  As those men happened to place themselves in danger, and no longer merited Hashem's protection, they were the ones who died.<fn>Ibn Kaspi suggests that perhaps Akhan had been the leader of the 3,00 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.</fn> </li> | + | <li><b>Natural course of battle</b> – According to Ralbag, Abarbanel and Malbim, this was par for the course when in war.  As those men happened to place themselves in danger, and no longer merited Hashem's protection, they were the ones who died.<fn>Ibn Kaspi suggests that perhaps Akhan had been the leader of the 3,00 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.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Most responsible</b> – Keli Yekar asserts that the thirty six men who died were the ones in leadership positions, and as such the only ones 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.</li> | <li><b>Most responsible</b> – Keli Yekar asserts that the thirty six men who died were the ones in leadership positions, and as such the only ones 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.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Why was Akhan originally spared?</b> 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.</point> | + | <point><b>Why was Akhan originally spared?</b> 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.</point> |
<point><b>Attribution of Sin to Israel</b> – 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" etc.</point> | <point><b>Attribution of Sin to Israel</b> – 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" etc.</point> | ||
<point><b>Were Akhan's children killed?</b> According to Ralbag and Abarbanel, Akhan's children were brought to witness their father's death and learn from it, but were not killed.<fn>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".</fn> 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.<fn>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</fn> For elaboration, see <a href="Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins" data-aht="page">Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?</a></point> | <point><b>Were Akhan's children killed?</b> According to Ralbag and Abarbanel, Akhan's children were brought to witness their father's death and learn from it, but were not killed.<fn>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".</fn> 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.<fn>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</fn> For elaboration, see <a href="Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins" data-aht="page">Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?</a></point> | ||
Version as of 12:00, 2 July 2016
Collective Punishment for Akhan's Sin
Exegetical Approaches
Nation Also Culpable
Those who were killed had sinned and were deserving of punishment.
What was their 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 "חָטָא יִשְׂרָאֵל... 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 actions 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 s/he does wrong 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 Even though the Torah decrees, "Children shall not be killed for their parent's sins",10 and normally they are not, this was an exceptional incident.
Nation Punished for Akhan's Sins
Despite the fact that only Akhan sinned, innocent people were also punished.
Sources:R. Shimon b. Lakish in Yerushalmi Sotah, R. Yehuda in Bavli Sanhedrin, Tanchuma, R. Bachya, R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, Ralbag, Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, Seforno, Keli Yekar, Malbim
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.
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.
- Special case
How does it 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.12
- 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 in war. As those men happened to place themselves in danger, and no longer merited Hashem's protection, they were the ones who died.13
- Most responsible – Keli Yekar asserts that the thirty six men who died were the ones in leadership positions, and as such the only ones 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.
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" etc.
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.14 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.15 For elaboration, see Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?
