According to what is stated in chapter 3:8, the Lord commanded the priests that as soon as they should have entered the Jordan they should halt, as it is said, "When ye are come to the brink of the water of Jordan, ye shall stand still in Jordan," and this until all Israel should have passed, as stated in verse 17. If so, it follows that the ark and the priests would have remained behind, how then does it appear that after they had passed over, the ark passed before the people? RECONCILIATION. In the Guemara of Sota1 and Rabot, our ancient Sages infer from this passage that on this occasion a great miracle was wrought, interpreting the verses in the following manner, saying, "When ye are come to the brink of the water of Jordan, ye shall stand still in Jordan," must be understood that as soon as they had entered the Jordan, near the water's edge, God commanded they should stand still, and "they remained accordingly until all the people had passed over," is in accordance with what is stated in chapter iv, verse 18; "And it came to pass, when the priests which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord were come up out of the midst of Jordan, and the soles of the priests' feet were lifted up unto the dry land:" thereby shewing that when the people had passed" over to the other side of Jordan," the priests landed at the same spot where they had entered, and the moment they had left the bed of the river the waters immediately returned to their level and flowed in their usual channel, by which the Israelites remained on one side of the river, and the priests on the other. The ancient Sages thus seeing the difficulty of the text, which says, that "when the people had ended passing over, the ark immediately passed before them," which, according to this construction, was impossible; they say that herein is covered a great miracle, which was, that as soon as Israel had crossed, the priests, who were with the ark on the other side, by virtue of it, were transported through the air over the Jordan and placed before the people. And as this miracle also occurred at the dividing of Jordan, Joshua says (in the plural) "To-morrow the Lord will do wonders among you," so that the ark bore those who carried it. They thus conciliate the text; and R. Samuel Laniado supports this opinion with many reasons. R. David Kimchi is, however, disinclined to adopt this solution; because if such had been the case, the Holy Scriptures would have explicitly mentioned the miracle; he therefore maintains that the priests entered with the ark, and walked until they reached the water's edge on the opposite side, according to the text, "When ye are come to the brink of Jordan," &c. that is, close to the part where they were to come out-there (he says) they stood until all Israel had passed, and when they had done so, the priests planted their feet on the dry bank, that is to say, they came into the Holy Land and there Israel stood until the ark was placed before them. And this the said author understands as the signification of the verse, "And it came to pass, when all the people had ended passing over, that the ark of the Lord passed over, and the priests before the people;" means that it was immediately placed in front, and always led the van. He also gives another and very easy solution, interpr Dr"in the presence of the people," that is, in Sota, c. 7; Bamidbar Raba, c. 4; Shemot Raba, c. 36. 3 Keli Hemda. words and this leaves no doubt, because it does not then say, that the ark passed before, but in sight of the people; which exposition is followed by R. Solomon Jarchi. R. Moses Alschech4 says, that in this verse nothing more is signified than the demonstration that, after the passage of Jordan by the people, they did not resume the same order of march they were accustomed to in the wilderness ; namely, two divisions in advance, and the ark in the centre, but as soon as the people had crossed over, the priests with the ark were always in advance, and this agrees with the text. It may also be said that as the people passed over Jordan first, in order that it might not be supposed that the ark was thenceforward to be carried in the rear as it was then; the verse states the contrary, but that it only was to be while they were crossing, when the priests with the ark immediately landed, and passed to the front of the people, and subsequently they marched in that order. The ark in advance, and the people in the rear, which solves the doubt. Josh. 5:13. QUESTION 4. And it came to pass, when Joshua was in Jericho, that he raised his eyes, &c. Josh. 6:1. Now Jericho was closely shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in. If Jericho was blockaded so that none could enter or leave it, and Joshua being on the outside, how does the first text say, that the angel appeared to him in Jericho ? RECONCILIATION. The ancient Sages1 infer from this text that the suburbs of a city have the same privilege as the city itself; and they, consequently, say that Joshua's being in the suburbs may be said to have been in the city. This interpretation is adopted by Rashi and R. David Kimchi. R. Levi ben Gershon says that a man is where his thoughts are, and as Joshua's mind was entirely occupied respecting Jericho, its conquest, and how he should anathematize all that should be found therein, it may consistently be said that he was in Jericho when the angel appeared to him. This appearance (according to the same author) was in a dream, it seeming unreasonable to him that a man being awake and in the use of all his bodily faculties could possibly comprehend an angelic creature. But Don Isaac Abarbanel understands the contrary, maintaining that the angel being invested with a corporeal covering, might be miraculously seen by a person while awake, and therefore says that on his being seen "with his sword drawn in his hand," Joshua, surprised at the vision, asked "Art thou for us, or for our adversaries ?" to which the angel replied that he was CC Captain of the host of the Lord," that is, Michael, Prince of Israel, and that he had "now come;" meaning, he had come again, having before appeared to Moses. He added, that the place was holy and therefore could not be conquered by human means, but only miraculously. The same author observes that the angel appeared to Moses in a flaming bush which did not consume, giving him to understand that, however weak the afflicted people 4 Marhot a Sobhot. 1 Yalcut, c. 2, art. 15, Guemara Hirubin. might appear, and however fierce the flame, if Pharaoh's persecution extended over dry branches, it would not reduce them to ashes. But to Joshua he appeared in the form of a warrior, demonstrating by the sword in his hand that his office then was to dispossess many kings. QUESTION 5. Joshua 6:1. Now Jericho was closely shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in. Joshua 24:11. And ye went over Jordan and came unto Jericho: and the chiefs of Jericho fought against you. The contradiction here is manifest; for if Jericho was so invested as to preclude ingress or egress, how could Joshua, in recounting the wonders the Lord had performed for the people, say, that they had fought with the chiefs of Jericho, since no such battle is mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. RECONCILIATION. Don Isaac Abarbanel understands these chiefs or lords of Jericho to be the five kings who afterwards fought with Joshua; for, as they took upon themselves the charge of avenging the injury and insult sustained by Jericho, they were considered as the lords of it. R. David Kimchi conjectures from this verse, that the chief men of Jericho went out by night to give information to the other kings of Canaan; and Jericho being taken in the interval, they joined the five kings, and, together with them, gave battle to Israel, when they were conquered and wonderfully defeated. R. Samuel Laniado adopts another mode of explanation, saying, that as Jericho was the key of all the Holy Land, and being a place of so much importance, all the kings aided the government and warriors that defended it; and in this manner, Joshua calls the five kings with whom he fought, Lords of Jericho. But R. Aaron aben Haim soars much higher, and, by the lords of Jericho who fought with Israel, he understands the seven planets, under whose influence it had been built; and he accordingly says, that, for this reason, it was encompassed seven times, thus destroying, at each circuit, the influence of one planet: with this allegorical explanation, the difficulty of the text is also removed. QUESTION 6. Joshua 7:5. And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men. Ezekiel 18:4. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. If, (as Ezekiel saith) the Lord never visits the sin of the father upon the child, nor causeth one to suffer for another, the difficulty here is great, because we find in this narrative, that, besides these thirty-six men dying for the sin of Achan, even Joshua, when punishing him, condemned his children also to death, as appears from ch. vii. 25. Such being the case, and a precept of Moses is, The fathers shall not die for the children, nor children for their fathers," what solution can be given to two such opposite passages? RECONCILIATION. In replying to the first difficulty, I agree with R. Levi ben Gershon and Don Isaac Abarbanel, that this smiting or death of the thirty-six men, must not be understood as consequent upon the sin committed by Achan, because punishment is inflicted on the guilty and not on the innocent. Nevertheless, Achan, by his sin, caused the withdrawal of God's providence from the whole community, whereupon, it became liable to the usual human casualties: by the same rule, as when any member of the human body is diseased, the whole becomes disordered, so, by any individual member of a community being contumacious, the whole is disarranged. Thus, when Achan sinned, he injured the whole body, and the union of the people; which, being thus deprived of the divine aid, became immediately exposed to accidents, from whence proceeded the loss of the thirty-six men stated, either for some preceding individual sins, the influence of their planets, or casual accidents. In this manner, the doubt is solved, because this loss was not in the nature of a punishment for the sin of Achan. And thus we find, that when the Lord commanded that the sin should be punished, he did not order that justice should be executed by the hand of Joshua, except upon the actual delinquent Achan; so that the death of the thirty-six men was entirely owing to the absence of the Divine Providence: as even the Lord says, "Neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you.' Thus as each individual is a member of the body politic, so was his sin considered as that of all Israel; and the Lord says, "Israel hath sinned:" and, in fact, before the discovery of an offender, every one of the community becomes. suspected. 991 Leaving this point, let us examine the second, concerning the death of the children of Achan for their father's sin: and for greater exactness, the text is quoted: "And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan, the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had; and they brought them to the valley of Achor. And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us; the Lord shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones."3 Some of the ancient sages, therefore, say, that the children of Achan did not die with their father, but only went out with the rest of Israel to witness the execution; and on attentive examination of the text, such seems to be the interpretation. Rashi adopts this reading; and expounds the verse in this manner: "And all Israel stoned him with stones," as alluding to Achan; "and burned them with fire," refers to the tent and moveables; "and stoned them with stones," applies to his oxen, beasts, and cattle so that the doubt is solved, and the children did not die, in opposition to the law for the sin of the father. This opinion is supported by Vasques.5 R. Levi ben Gershon, who is followed by Don Isaac Abarbanel, understands it in the same sense; as a literal exposition of the text is even corroborated by the singular number being used,—“And all Israel stoned him with stones;" and further on, "And they raised over him a great heap of stones,' " which 1 C.7:12. 3 C. 7:24, 25. Bamidbar Raba, c. 23. 6 C. 7:26. does not imply the death of any other person besides Achan; and what is said as to their burning them with fire, and stoning them with stones, alludes to the moveables and cattle. But others of the ancients 7 are of a different opinion, and hold, as a positive fact, that the children of Achan died also, because Achan profaned the Sabbath, the city of Jericho being captured on that day: this is collected from the verse which says, that on the compassing of the city on the seventh day, "the wall fell down flat,"-namely, the seventh according to the days of the week; and as on that day he committed the trespass, and carried it home, he deserved being stoned according to law: therefore he was stoned. But it was commanded by God, that any one included in the anathema, should be burnt; and, in virtue of this command, the text afterwards says, that "they burned them with fire;" using the repetition in order to include the father with the children. This opinion is followed by R. Aaron aben Haim, R. Moses Alschech, 10 Augustin," Basil, 12 Chrysostom,13 and others.14 9 The difficulty would yet remain, and it will be requisite to know, why the children died for the father's sin? being contrary to justice and the text of Ezekiel above cited. In reply to this, it is presumed, in the first place, according to R. Eliezer, in his "Pirqué," that the children were also accomplices in the offence, because they saw the crime, and did not denounce it, but, on the contrary, concealed it; whereby it may be said, that they did not die for the sin of their father, but for their own crime. : R. Levi ben Gershon also says, that if they did die, it was owing to their being of tender age, and as such are accounted members of their father's body, and as collected from various parts of the Talmud, are considered as a man's property therefore, R. Simon bar Semah maintains, that it is not repugnant to reason, to infer that, in the same manner as a man may be punished by the loss of property, he may also suffer by the loss of children when very young. This may be sufficiently proved by Scripture itself: for we find that God deprived of life the children who perished in the deluge, in Sodom, Midian, in the camp of Amalek, and other places, when he visited the sins of the fathers on the children; and the case of David also corroborates this, he having paid in kind for the adultery he had committed, by the death of the child which Bathsheba bare him and in this manner also the doubt is solved. : R. David Kimchi makes a distinction between this and the sons of Saul, who died on account of their father's sin, committed against the Gideonites: he says, that touching temporal punishments inflicted by the hand of God, in such, the father's sin may be visited on the son, in consequence of the supreme authority which the Creator has over the life and death of all men; but in respect of human judges, such licence was not accorded, nor does their power extend to deprive the descendant of life for the ancestor's offence. The texts are accordingly reconciled; because, where it says, "That the fathers shall not die for the children," must be understood by human judicature; but where it is seen that punishment is executed on one for the other, the divine decree is the cause. In the present case, Joshua slew the children of Achan by command of the Lord; which solves the doubt. And, although Nicholas de Lira 15 maintains that kings also may condemn children to death for their father's guilt, proving it from the Book of Judges, where it relates, that in the war of the Ten Tribes with that of Benjamin, they 11 9 Leb Aaron. 7 Yalcut, b. 2, art. 18. 8 Bereshit Raba. c. 47; Jer. Tal. Sabbath, c. 1. 10 Marhot a Sobhot. Augustin in Joshua, q. 8. 12 Basil on Sin, orat. 3. 13 Chrysostom on Isaiah, vol. i, b. 3, c. 1; on Providence, vol. v. 14 J. Lira and Masius, Joshua 7. 15 On Deut. 24. |