Joshua - Chapter 7

1. From what tribe does the violator of the instruction regarding the herem derive? Would one have expected it to have been from another tribe?

The transgressor came from the tribe of Judah. This is surprising, because both Jakob and Moses speak highly of the tribe of Judah in their respective blessings. Perhaps Simeon would have been more expected - since both Moses and Jakob castigated him in their blessings.

2. The number of casualties at Ai (verses 2 through 5) is 36. Some 3,000 were in the force. Does this seem disproportionate in terms of the "melting of the courage of the people" and their courage "turning to water"? Or does "shloshet alafim" possibly mean three contingents rather than 3,000 (from the term aluf) and might this have some significance in terms of numbering in various Biblical texts?

I think that even if 1 out of 3000 (or 3 contingents) had been killed, the response would have been the same. After destroying the most powerful city in the lab without a single casualty (let alone fatality) suffering any damage at the hands of a weaker city would certainly be enough make Israel feel that God was not with them.

3. Is the reaction of Joshua understandable in terms of the recent victory at Jericho? What is his stated reason for the overwhelming concern?

Joshua's concern was not with the fate of the nation, but for how the defeat of the Jews would affect peoples perception of Hashem. This reminds me of the verse we recite twice a week in Tachanun - "Do not tun us over to sadists. Why should the nations say 'Where is their G-d now'". Similar language was used by Moses to cool God anger at the Jews on several occasions.

4. What is the significance of the Divine response: "Why are you prostrate before Me?" To whom or what does Divinity direct Joshua's attention?

As always, God redirects fault back to the nation. Like a parents raising a child, God response to the nation is always based on the nations actions. One person disobeyed God's command not to take anything from Jericho. But surely others saw him transgress, or knew of it, and did nothing. That is why the entire nation was held accountable - clearly they did not treat God's word - spoken by his prophet Joshua - with the necessary gravity.

5. How is this a dialogue comparable to Moses calling out at the Reed Sea and the response of Divinity at this time? Is this consistent?

???

6. What is the solution to the "military problem" of the Israelites?

Since this conquest was a religious one, not a military one, the solution to the problem obviously lies in the religious realm. Correct the wrong done by Achan - repair the rift in the relationship between Israel and God that his actions caused - and the military problems will go away.

7. The closing refrain of the chapter indicates a sobering (to put it temperately) punishment not only to him who took from the herem but for his entire family. Does the punishment fit the crime?

The traditional interpretation of these verses is that while Achan was liable for the death penalty for his actions, his family was not. The family was taken to witness the punishment (as a deterrent), but was not harmed. The phrase which seems to imply the family also being killed (verse 25) is taken to mean "They pelted Achan, burned his belongings and stoned his animals.

Favourite Quote : "Indeed, I have sinned against Hashem, God of Israel." - Verse 20