Welcome to Judaism Demystified, a podcast for the perplexed.
We are joined by Rabbi Michael Hatton.
Rabbi Hatton is a Master Teacher of Tanakh at the Partis
Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem and serves as a
director of the Bait Me Josh for the Party Center for Jewish
Educators. He started for rabbinic
coordination at Ushivatar Etzion and holds a professional degree
in architecture from the University of Toronto.
Michael is the author of Passages, Text and
Transformation in the Parsha and a number of series on the Israel
Koshitsky Virtual Bait Me Josh. He has served as Scholar in
Residence in many communities in North America and Europe and
lives in Alon Chevut with his wife Rifka and their five
children. Without further ado, Rabbi
Hatton, thank you for joining the Judaism Demystified podcast.
So, Rabbi Haddon, it's a pleasure to have you on.
We're huge fans and we'd like to 1st hear a little bit about you
and how you got involved with this amazing series on on
Yoshua. Thank you.
I studied at the Ishibat Harvezion in my youth when I
made aliyah with my wife. It's actually been exactly 25
years. I went back to the Ishiba.
I learned in color for Smifa. And the Yeshiva has a very
special approach in general to Talmu Torah.
It is incisive, it is insightful, it is rational, it's
careful, and it includes a broad range of texts.
It's obviously focused on Kamara, but there's also a lot
of attention given to Tana and given to Halaka.
And I really think that it was in the Yeshiva and my exposure
to certain Rabaim that very much began to shape my own approach
to Tana. And since leaving the yeshiva
and being involved in the world of Jewish education, I have
taken that with me and and hopefully developed it in a good
direction. Out of curiosity, you know, I
have one son, he's two years old.
And I dream for him to go to Hartzio.
No, I'm serious. I dream for him to go.
So I'm kind of just doing my own little research here.
But I'm just wondering the the Tanaka, it's so everyone knows
about Hartzio and and it's approached the Tanaka and you
know the the the unique style that it employs.
I wonder when it comes to Gamara, is there anything
different about the way Hartzio learns Gamara from how you would
maybe consider different types of the more mainstream style?
I'm just wondering. The Shiva has a special there a
special way of learning and Kamara as well.
I think there is overlap actually in terms of you know, I
have to knock his approach and hug my raz approached.
So the short answer is yes, definitely has an approach.
OK, so I'll look at. So there's.
OK, Cool. Very cool.
The sad. So even though you know my my
years in Shiva, really, you know, formally ended a long time
ago, I feel like I've taken what I've.
What I've learned there and taken it forward to the other
places that I've gone to. Fantastic.
Amazing. So each book in Tanaka carries
an overarching theme or message. If you were to select a main
theme for the Book of Yoshua, what would it be?
Additionally, could you provide examples from the text that
demonstrates this theme? Okay, that's a that's a big
question. So I'm going to try and address
it by mentioning a couple of points.
I think Safer Yohoshua fundamentally is about a theme
of succession, which is to say, obviously Moshe is no more and
Yohoshua now has to step into that leadership role.
And whenever we have a succession there are going to be
challenges. Some of those challenges will be
foreseen. Many of them will be unforeseen.
That's true of Yohoshua stepping into the role of Moshe.
It's true of the people of Israel entering the land.
It's true of Khalev. We meet him in the book.
He makes a cameo appearance and will meet his daughter Aksa, who
in some way will be succeeding him, along with her new husband
Otniel Benknaz, who will ultimately succeed Yohoshua.
So I think it's fair to say that it's a theme.
Unless I said whenever we have succession, that means you're
confronting challenges, you're overcoming failures, setbacks.
Sometimes there are ghosts from the past that you have to face
down. And maybe most importantly, and
this is a related theme but very much tied in with the succession
is a theme of taking initiative that's safe for Yohoshua.
Yohoshua, as as a leader, is a man who takes initiative.
And he's got to bring the people into the land and they have to
take initiative as well. When I say taking initiative,
what I mean is my faith is in God.
I trust in Hashem's assurance, but I actually have to do the
planning and I have to do the hard work in order to create the
success. So I'm I'm almost tempted to say
succession. Yeah, success, because they're
sort of intertwined in this particular book.
If I were to give an example, is that like appropriate?
OK, so if I were to give an example of this theme in the
book, if we follow the course of the warfare, the battles, it's
absolutely clear to me that the people Yohoshua are taking more
initiative as those battles progress.
And Hashem is, as it were, stepping into the background in
order to allow that to happen. So for instance.
The first battle against Urifo against Jericho, Empiric Vov,
Chapter 6. Basically, Hashem is responsible
for the victory. All you have to do is follow the
iron, follow the arc, circle the city sound, the chauffeur rot
and the walls will come tumbling down.
There's no initiative that the people are really taking in
terms of warfare, except following Hashem's lead, the
next series of battles, which is against.
The Southern kings, they're going to have to take more
initiative. And they do.
And when God intervenes in the story, it will only be when
those kings are in retreat. But the battle itself is
actually fought by the Naysail. And when they when they battle,
the Northern Kings and Perricade Oliphant, Chapter 11, Hashem as
it were, will retreat completely into the background.
So the victory will be theirs and the battle will be won by
the Naysail. So on the one hand, it's it's
sort of a doubleedged sword, because as soon as we have
triumph and success, which is a function of our own efforts, the
Torah tells us there's always a danger.
Kohiva otsemia dia salia Takhail has it.
I'm responsible for my success. No, the Torah says don't forget
hashemma lo quefa who ha notain the hako aklaso trial.
God gives us the strength. In order to succeed, but
embedded in, there is some sort of an idea that we have to take.
The initiative, so it's interesting, so it didn't happen
like in one swoop, but in in a sense like Yoshua and Hashem are
sort of kind of slowly, slowly allowing that reality to unfold,
battle for battle for battle, more and more and more
initiative, kind of gently allowing that that reality to to
come in. Listen, you are, you know, you
are lovers of Rumbum, so I would say it's following.
It's following a rumba model, which is to say that Hashem
moves us in a particular direction incrementally, because
to try and transform in a single swoop often will be unsuccessful
and sometimes destructive. So, but they used to ill, you
know, and his version of it have to be in the meat bar for 40
years. Because that's going to be their
opportunity to grow into the role of actually entering the
land, embracing their destiny, taking the initiative and being
successful. Amazing.
OK, so we want to talk about the beginning parts of Ushua
regarding the sending of the spies.
The Ushua's decision to send the spies to send spies to the land
before their conquest might surprise some.
Given the past failure of the spies in the Book of Bhami Bar,
could you explain Ushua's rationale behind sending the
spies? What comparisons and contrasts
can we draw between the earlier account of most most spies and
the mission led by Ushua? And how did these differences
help the second mission avoid the pitfalls faced by the spies
in the Book of Numbers? Was Rakhav's and also was
Rakhav's involvement part of the plan from the outset?
OK, that's a great series of questions.
I'll just begin by pointing out that Yohoshua was part of the
original mission. He was one of those 12 spies.
So that is an important point in terms of reflecting upon how he
chooses to do things differently.
Remember that Moshe spies, There were twelve of them.
The Torah described them as Rashe Venesa Al Hema.
They were leaders of the people. There was a public send off when
they returned. They return to Moshe a Haron and
call a dot, Benesweil, all of the people of Israel with their
report. Now that's a dangerous move
because if they return with a negative report, Moshe will not
be able to do damage control because it's already out there
and all the people of Israel know about it.
And that's precisely what happens.
The people lose the resolve. They lose their faith.
And they say we cannot possibly enter the land and be
successful. I'll point out Yohoshua spies.
There were only two of them. It's a small group.
We'll never find out their names.
They remain anonymous. Their mission is a limited
mission to spy out our it's the ETI reho, but they really only
go to U reho. And I would argue, really what
they're trying to ascertain is what is the mood of the people
on the eve of the Israelite entry into the land?
And that would explain, by the way, this is a question, Okay
Did they go to Rahav intentionally?
Was that going to be their base of operations or was it a
coincidence that's where they ended up and the story unfolded
from there. So I'd like to argue that
Yohoshua actually planned to send them there very
deliberately. Number one, because it affords
them anonymity. You go to the House of a harlot,
people are not going to be asking too many questions.
Nobody's going to be revealing their identity.
And there's probably also a lot of intelligence they that that
they can actually acquire in that place because people talk.
There's a whole bunch of different individuals that
probably pass through there and if they are listening carefully,
they can find out an awful lot. Which is precisely what happens,
because when Rahab reports on the mood of the people, she
makes it very clear we have lost our spirit, we've lost our
resolve. So that's what they needed to
hear. And here's sort of like the most
striking contrast of all, I would say.
Moshe spies spy out the land for 40 days.
They go from north to South. They obviously encounter
Canaanites. And in spite of that, we don't
explicitly hear of them ever being threatened.
Now in the Mead rush, it does come out rush.
He mentions in Mead rush where the spies are sort of regarded
as being, you know, ants in the vineyards in the eyes of the
Canaanites. But in terms of the shuts, at
least we don't hear about any sort of threatening, any any
sort of threatening episodes during the course of their
mission. And in spite of that, they come
back with this absolute sense that we cannot possibly succeed
in entering the land, right? Lo nukhala allot al haam kihazak
ho mimen take the spies of Yahushua, who basically are like
one step away from being captured and probably executed.
And yet, when they return to Yahushua, they don't even
mention that. What do they say?
Kinatan, Hashem, BIA de Nueta, Aretz.
God has given us the land and they've all melted away.
So how do we interpret that? I would say what that really
points to is the transformation that the people of Israel have
undergone during the course of the 40 years in the meat bar.
They now have the confidence, the selfconfidence, the trust in
Hashem that they can succeed and even when they are confronted.
With threats or challenges, they will not be derailed and they'll
say we can do this. Most of spies between you and
me, are basically freed slaves. They don't have that same kind
of emotional wherewithal, that same kind of psychological
strength, and as soon as anything emerges which is a
threat, then they immediately lose resolve.
There's no way we can possibly possibly succeed, so I would say
Yoshu is very careful to not repeat the mistakes of the past.
When those two spies return, they report exclusively to him
and to no one else, and then he can decide how to proceed based
on the report that they have. And he probably, based on what
you were saying, you should also has a pulse of the people and he
understands that. These were not the freed slaves
that Moshe had that that that, you know, with that was what
Moshe had to deal with was freed slaves and people that had
probably psychologically a lot of a lot of trauma, right.
You sure probably had a pulse of the people that he was leading
in and felt that it would, it would, you know, they had the
inner strength to be able to handle it.
And they did. And they did.
And by the way, you know, Yohoshua and Kaleb were part of
that original mission. So it's not always the case,
even if people experience trauma that they can't overcome it.
But it typically takes a special kind of person with special
resilience and most of us perhaps are not, are not sort of
like constructed with that kind of ability.
So obviously, and this is again coming back to the Rumbum.
This is how the Rumbum ultimately understands the 40
years in the ME bar. It's not a punishment.
For Haitamara Glim, it's an opportunity for the people of
Israel to grow into their role and to acquire the confidence to
actually enter the land when the time comes.
The actions of the spies just showed that they were just not
ready. Simple as that.
Correct. Amazing.
And what I find so interesting about what you pointed out is
that the resolve of the people on either side is so critical to
their success that you know our own like it's not even just our
resolve, it's it's the enemy's resolve that matter that that
kind of is important. So when they hear that, it's
like okay, we got this, you know, I find that to be very
interesting. It's.
Yeah, it's an excellent point because obviously it's sort of a
two way St. here and you know there's a there's a beautiful
Ebenezer. I'll just point it out because I
think it, I think it's part of this idea, Ebenezer says.
You know, at the young Souf. The people of Israel were faced
down by by Pharaoh's Chariots. There were 600 Chariots, OK?
And there's a there's a serious fighting force.
But Vinaysville #600,000 men of military age, even as you says,
in spite of that, we didn't hear a single voice saying let's
fight the Egyptians, Vinaysville said.
We don't stand a chance. Why did you take us out of
Mitraim? In order to die, right.
Even as it says that that's that highlights the fact that that
they have what he calls Nephesh Shifala.
We'd call it an English, a slave mentality.
That's what the names for LR when they leave me trying, and
I'm not blaming them, obviously that's appropriate for where
they are in their development. So they're not able to even
imagine fighting the Egyptians. What a transformation now that
the nays will have prepared to enter the land, right?
And yes, that's being reflected and how their enemies are also
relating and reacting to them. Beautiful.
So I want to switch gears. I don't actually want to go back
to Rakhav. So Rakhav, obviously that the
gamar famously says she's one of the most beautiful women who
ever lived and she was, you know, she married Yoshua.
Everyone's familiar with those, you know, tales.
But the story of Rakhav in the book of Yoshua is also, you
know, just the shot is very well known and your analysis of
Yoshua, you delve deeply into various aspects of the story.
Was Rakhav truly a harlot? And why does the text not pass
judgment on her profession? If it is indeed accurate?
What might Rakhav have been thinking throughout this entire
ordeal, and did she go? Did she undergo some form of
transformation during this experience?
So it's very interesting that you know throughout Tana to be a
Zona or is Newt is never looked upon favorably and often when
benei so else straight from Hashem that's the imagery that's
employed. So this is a striking anomaly
where we have this woman who is who is identified from the get
go as a zona and the shot is a prostitute.
That's the shot. I know the mid rush will say
she's an innkeeper and it'll actually be based on a clever
rereading of the root of the word.
You have zana and you have a zone right?
And they kind of look similar. So she's a Zona.
Maybe that's related to mazon, which is in keeping or providing
food, but the shot is, and Rashi himself acknowledges this, that
she is in fact a prostitute and often keepers were also played
the dual role of being you're offering them as or not, but
also being the the zona good. So there might be a connection
on that level as well. So I think it actually you know
if. If and when we read Rahab has
has or not as Rahab the prostitute, that's when the
story actually is meaningful, as what it's offering us is one of
the most important ideas in Safe with Yoshua, which is that
transformation is possible, right?
We've seen this idea of succession, right?
Succession comes along ideally with some sort of a
transformation, whatever that whatever it is that I am growing
into. Indicates that I'm leaving
something behind and I'm great. I'm embracing something else in
its place. And I think Rahab absolutely
illustrates that point. Maybe it's not the absolute
shot, but it's certainly appropriate to read between the
lines that that's in fact what's taking place.
Why does she choose to betray her people, betray her king, and
embrace the enemy? So you might say, well she's
making a calculation. She figures Benet Stroller going
to win, so she'll be on the winning side.
And I think that's definitely part of it.
But the way she expresses it indicates that there's something
else which is taking place. And I'll just point out that
when she speaks of God, it's in contrast to the gods of Yuri Ho,
she speaks of God as being the God of Hashemayim.
The quote is Ki Hashema lo queheim Hua lo Kim Bashamayim
Mima Hal the al Haaretz Mitaha. Your God is the God in heavens
above and on the earth below. I would argue two more words.
She's quoting Moshe Rabenu, which is ain't odd.
There is no more. That's how we say it in Alainu,
that verse from sacred Devarim. But she is basically saying
something about how the God of Israel is different than the
gods that she's familiar with. I would argue in the text
reports that Rahab dwells in the Huma in the wall of the city.
That's also a statement about her marginalization.
Because whoever dwells on the outskirts of a city, especially
coast close to the wall, which means when the enemy attacks,
they're going to be in the first line of defense.
Typically, those are the people that are the weak and the
vulnerable and the marginalized. And that's what she is.
Because every prostitute is that even today in our modern
societies who tends to be involved in that profession,
Very few people will do it as a function of choice.
They are somehow abused, or they're addicted, or they are
manipulated and they get into that place and there's no way
out. And Rahab knows very well she
can turn in those spies and be a hero for a day.
When that day is over, her life is not going to change.
The only way her life can change is if in fact there's something
other than the gods of Urico, because the gods of Urico look
on her a basement, and they don't have a problem with it,
typically in and. And we're sort of not.
We're not sensitive to this. In idolatry, especially in the
ancient Near East, justice and kindness and compassion are not
values. There might be some gods out
there that care, but by and large they're not enough to win
the day. In the entire corpus of the
ancient Near Eastern literature, there is nothing which remotely
resembles what we call a serata. Dibrut Thou shalt not murder.
How is that possible? Because an apolytheistic system,
There's no such thing. There's a God of good.
There's a God of bad. There's a God of night.
There's a God of day. There's a God of evil.
There's a God of good. There's a God of the sea.
There's a God of the sky. Whatever, do what you want.
There are gods out there that are going to be on your side.
So we never hear the pantheon, the Canaanite pantheon saying,
guess what, people oppression. Oppression is wrong.
Marginalizing the vulnerable is wrong.
Forcing a woman into this profession is wrong.
You'll never hear that. You can't.
Now Rahhab meets these curious visitors who represent the
different God. What sort of a God is it?
It's a God who cares about the orphan, the widow, the
vulnerable, the oppressed. And she says to herself, wow,
maybe that means that somebody cares about me.
So I would argue what she actually experiences in the
course of her conversation with these Israelite spies is, for
the first time in her life, the possibility that her life could
be something else. And that's also part of her
embrace. It's not just the calculation
that the Israelites will win and the people of Yuriko will lose.
It's that if I join this people and their God, then I can leave
my life behind and become something else.
By the way, this is how Hazel read her, interpreted her.
It might be me drastic, but it's also the shut in the Mihilta.
Hazel tell us there's sort of this August group of converts in
our tradition. Yeetra was one of them.
Now Aman is one of them. But Hazel say Rahab surpasses
all of them. Rahab Hazona ho da Otan
Viyotare. She acknowledged God to a
greater degree than any of the other converts.
And the the verse that I quoted earlier, Hashema lo Kehem
Huelokim Bashamai Mima al the al Haaretz Mitaha.
So I think in many ways Rahab becomes a paradigm for us.
We can also transform. Everyone can transform and
everyone has challenges, everyone has difficulties,
everyone has things that they want to change and it's never
easy, It's never easy, but it's possible.
I think also what it teaches us is that, you know, you shouldn't
judge a book by its cover. Because in the ancient world, if
you're a, you know, a single mother or whatever it is, or
just a woman who's divorced or widowed, chances are you're
going to have to end up in Harlow Tree.
So she she's in this world, but at the same time, this.
This story is showcasing her integrity that she actually has,
you know, she actually has good, yeah, she has words, she has
good qualities. And Hashem listens to the voice
of people who are, you know, the downtrodden in society.
And that is I think, a very, you mentioned in ancient Near East.
That is a stark difference from what you see in in the other,
you know, stories where usually the greatest heroes are like
demigods. But here, the hero of the story,
the me, Josh mentioned that she marries Yoshua, I think to point
out the fact that, look, how great of an achievement a person
can make if they have this kind of integrity.
And not only does she have integrity, but she put her trust
in in these two random people with the Crimson string.
And you know, how does she know that they're not going to just
okay, We got what we wanted and we're going to kill everybody
anyway. And again, those two spies have
to get that information to Yoshua and make sure that all
these soldiers are gonna be fall in line, protected and
protected. That is an extra layer of
integrity that she has. Beautiful.
I'll go. I'm gonna build on what you
said. She also saves her family.
Yes, not just about herself. She saves her siblings.
She saves her parents, right? So clearly she has some kind of
nobility associated with her. I I honestly think you mentioned
the Crimson cord. It's a powerful image.
Basically what you have, you have some sort of a portal and
you have this Crimson cord which is hanging in it, and that's
going to be the source of her survival.
That sounds to me like an exodus story, right?
You place the blood on the lintel and on the doorposts,
right? And Hashem will sweep through
and will preserve you. And when you cross that
threshold, you will be entering a new chapter in your life.
So it's almost like it's a personal you'd see it's trying,
so to speak, for a Havazona, or it's yet to be home.
Maybe would be a better way to characterize it.
Yeah. And the red kind of represents
their, you know, this security, the safety net that they have.
In both in both stories and I always wondered like you know
the red string ladies in the near the hotel like if that's
where the origin of that comes from even obviously we we don't
believe that it's has any religious significance.
But it's interesting that that also is like a protective thing,
and it probably builds off of that Crimson court.
Just thought about it as an anecdote.
This is very this was a very enlightening chapter and
amazing. This whole Rahav story is just.
Unbelievable. It was.
It was your chapters on Rahab in the book that when I got it,
when I started reading that, I was like, I was like, whoa,
wait, wait, wait, like this. Like you, you like you got my
attention. It was it was it was really well
done. Thank you for that one.
In Yehushua 513 to six one, it recounts the appearance of the
Angel of the Lord to Yoshua. What similarities does this
encounter share with previous previous occurrences in the
Torah? What overarching lesson or
message could this Angel have been conveying to Ushua, and by
extension to the people of Israel?
So I think in context, you know the 1st 5 chapters of Uhoshua
are about the succession theme. They're about confronting some
of the traumas of the past and overcoming them.
They're almost like preparation, but the story of the kibosh of
the Conquest actually will begin with Chapter 6.
The appearance of this malach is the bridge between the two.
The image is very similar to the Angel that appears to Moshe at
the Sneh, at the burning Bush in Safer Schmuck, and in both
situations the malach or Hashem speaking through the malach says
Shalna Alekha. May al Raglekha remove your
footwear because you're standing on holy ground.
So that's a way of teeing us in to the connection between the
stories. You might say.
Both of these moments are moments where the leader will
now take on the mission that they have been assigned for
Moshe Sitsy at Mitsraim. For Yoshua, it's bringing the
people into the land. But that's also a study.
In contrast, because Moshe was absolutely reluctant to do so,
he went through a whole series of arguments why he's not the
right person for the job. In the end, Hashem sent him
anyways. We don't hear any of that
reluctance with Yohoshua. Yohoshua embraces the mission
and he's going to take it out. So that's like 1 fundamental
difference I think. Additionally, when Mache goes to
the mid bar to the wilderness and encounters this Malak Hashem
at the snap, he's a shepherd and that means that his tool of
trade is the Matek, the staff. That's what he's going to use by
the way, to do all of the autota, all of the signs and the
wonders. When the people are in Egypt and
he is doing the miracles and the plagues in order to free them,
the mate will always be the the symbol of that divine
intervention when you who sure meets the malach.
The Malach is holding a sword, the Harbosha Lufabiado.
When Yohoshua fights battles later on in the story, he will
be holding a key done, which is a spear.
That's also a fundamental difference.
Moshe holds a matte. Yohoshua holds a weapon because
that speaks to their different missions.
Moshe's mission is to take the people out of me, so I'm to lead
them out like a shepherd leading the flock.
Yohoshua's mission is to bring them into the land, which means
that they're going to have to fight.
By the way, Sartsva Hashem was originally announced in the
Torah itself in Safer Schmutt. Hashem told Moshe Hine Anokhisho
Dekh Malakh Lefanerha vishmor haba dera Vilha via ha El Hama
comma shera he NT. So many of the commentary say
that's precisely who appears at this moment at the end of
Perricade, the beginning of chapter 6, the eve of the
conquest of Yuri Ho. Because we are now at that point
in the story, it's been a 40 year delay, but we're now at
that point of actually engaging the Kaname in battle, and
therefore the assurance that we need is that in fact victory
will belong to Benestra Hill if they can only find the inner
strength and the reliance on Hashem.
One last difference I would say the idea of of removing one's
shoes when Moshe or sandals when Moshe is told Shalda Alejami al
Ragleja. Presumably it's because he is
encountering Hashem's presence. It's Giluish Fina, even though
it's in the wilderness. Yoshi is now about to enter
Eritsistril, engage in conquering air.
It's Israel that's a different kind of chidusha, that's a
different kind of holiness. So the removal of the of the of
his footwear here is both an acknowledgement of the fact that
this being is somehow an emissary of God, as well as
saying something, I think, about the holiness of the land that
they are about to be conquering and settling.
You know what's also interesting about this vision of Yoshua
seeing a man in armor is that there seems to be like a common
thread whenever anybody's having a vision of an Angel that
they're seeing a kind of getting.
It's a reflection of their subconscious mind.
And everything they've experienced through their own
framework. So for example you have Abraham
with, you know, the the angels who come to visit the sick.
They're they're they're angels of hesset.
And he's a man of hesset. And then you have even to Ishai
Yahoo, you have a man on a throne which is really
reflecting his you know, job working in the palace.
They're they're they're seeing things from their own
perspective because that's how they experience in that.
You mentioned the same thing. This the story of of.
Every Navi is unique. Every Navi is unique and also
like brings to mind the the encounter between Yakov and the
Angel who's described as the Angel of Essab, because that's
what he was. He was about to face off with
his brother, but he's been living in his brother's shadow
his whole life. And this story, in a way, like
you said, shows the contrast between Moshe and and Yoshua.
One is a shepherd and one is okay.
This is the new age. Now we need to fight.
Now we need to be warriors. So I think that's in, you know,
a very interesting idea that you see with prophecy.
So I want to get into the next question, which is in Yoshua 627
to 726. It narrates Israel's initial
setback during Yoshua's leadership in the incident
involving Akhan's transgression. And in your insightful analysis
of the narrative, you explore the failure of the I ambush
Yoshua's profound despondency, God's revelation of a wrongdoer
in the in their midst as a the cause, and Akhan's tragic fate.
Could you highlight some of the subtleties within this narrative
and elucidate the ultimate lesson we should derive from
this tragic chapter in an otherwise positive book up to
this point? Wow.
So let's not forget that the the, the command ringing in the
ears of Bene Swel after the triumph over Jericho is do not
take from the spoils. That's like absolutely critical.
Do not take from the spoils. Because the way to interpret
that is it's Hashem's victory. Benesville didn't fight.
It was the Iran that was responsible for the conquest of
the city. So we acknowledge that by not
taking from the spoils that otherwise would have been taken
by the armies that defeated the enemy, but instead they're
turned over to God. That's the backdrop.
They go on to the eye, which is now moving from the Jordan
Valley into the Hill Country. And by the way, that's a
strategic move on Yohoshua's part.
He's intending to divide the Hill Country in half to split
the north from the South so he can take on these Canaanite
kings, not as a unified front, but as somewhat broken up into
more manageable parts. They get to the eye and as you
pointed out, there is a set back.
They are defeated in the initial battle and Yoshua's reaction is
is overwhelming. He can't believe what's going
on. We should have remained on the
other side of the Arden. So obviously that's a way of
saying Yoshua was absolutely not expecting this to happen.
As it turns out, we will discover that Ahan is
responsible. How so?
He took from the spoils of Yuri home.
The way the text phrases this though is very, very
significant. When God tells you Hoshua that
the Ney Israel are responsible, he doesn't say Ahan took from
the spoils. He says Khattai Israel, the
people of Israel took from the spoils.
They took from the Pharam from that which was banned, the gum
gun avu, the gum kikhashu, the gum samu be shlehem.
They took. They denied.
They placed it with their possessions and they will not be
victorious until this forbidden matter, this karem, is removed
from their mitts. And then we go through this
whole lengthy process of singling out who the perpetrator
is. 1st we will designate the tribe by lot, and then we'll
designate the batea vote and the mishpakha.
And finally, after, like a whole series of winnowing effects, we
will arrive at the perpetrator, who is Akhan, and then he's
punished. What's that all about?
Why do we have to go through this elaborate selection of
Akhan in which we start from the large group and we basically
narrow it down until we get to him?
So the book I think is presenting us with the really
important idea, which Hakhanem expressed in a different context
using different words. They said call Ystrael or Ravim
Zebazar, all of Benestrael are coresponsible for each other.
We have some sort of a collective destiny, which means
when Akhan makes a decision, even though he thinks he's only
acting for a Han, that decision is going to impact on all of the
people around him. It's going to impact on his
family and on this tribe and on the people of Israel at large.
And especially that is true when you're dealing with some sort of
a military context and literally your life as a warrior depends
on the warriors around you. You can't make a personal
decision because if you make a personal decision, you're
jeopardizing everybody else. So we're beginning these wars of
conquering the land. Part of that is you need.
Absolute discipline in the ranks.
So Akhan takes from the spoils. It's not just him, but it's the
people. They're the ones that actually
suffer the the consequence of that decision.
And ultimately that's the process by which we will
separate him out. Because we want to show a Shem
wants to show that the safer wants to show that all of
NASRAEL are intertwined and there's no such thing as one
person making a decision in a context like that and it not
having an impact on everyone else.
I think even another way of looking at it would be that it's
giving an opportunity for Tishuva because it it's not like
he was outed immediately and fact is when he came forward it
was too late. It was like okay, you've been
busted already. So what does it mean?
Doesn't mean anything your your confession or you know it
doesn't. It's meaningless.
So I think what it's also giving him the opportunity to step
forward. Would that have made a
difference, Do you think? You're going through every okay.
Which one of you people did it and which one of you people,
It's a process that they're going through that he had that
chance to kind of change his destiny.
Would it have the? We'll never know.
I like to think that it would have, in the sense that it's
it's always best to to come forward rather than to be, like
you said, outed, right. It's interesting that there's a
Mahloka, there's a disagreement among the commentaries.
What was the fate of his children?
Were they also destroyed as he was or were they only present in
order to witness it? And part of that perhaps has to
do with what, what exactly was their role in terms of being
accomplices? Because it's true that Ahan took
from the spoils, but you can't just sort of like, do that
without people around knowing about it, without family knowing
about it. He hit it in his tent after all.
Right. So clearly there are other
people that perhaps are aware on some level of what's going on
and what's their responsibility. Really what I'm saying is
somebody makes a decision, There's like these concentric
circles that are going to be impacted.
And the closer you are to that decision maker making, the poor
decision, you might argue the greater responsibility is also
born by by the people that that are there, that are around and I
love. The point you made with how
they're now starting military conquests and and when you are
starting military conquest a person has to understand that
he's no longer an individual. You're only a group that that's
that you know till today. That's how it works.
No man gets us behind and. You know, and this is, it's
almost like besides from a moral standpoint, it's also
educational, right. Because they they have to
understand what it means to to be a unit and and going in and
conquering and fighting and wars.
It's not a joke. And they have to they have to
sort of grow up fast. You know what I mean?
That that little detail you added there with that just when
you said that I was like wow, you know that's a.
Yeah, we see an important subtle point over.
There we see that even with the. Modern.
It's also important. We see that even with modern day
Israel, where you know somebody, a soldier or some Jew, anywhere
in the world is in trouble, they'll do whatever it takes to
go after them, you know? And happy.
And it's it's an unbelievable thing that I think a lot most
nations wouldn't, you know, do whatever it takes to to remedy
the situation good. And of course that means that
there's a flip side right now. There's as much as we care that
that also means that we're going to suffer the consequences of
another Jews poor decisions. Yes, again, especially in the
military context. Yeah.
And I think what you're saying is it's a very practical take
because like you mentioned the. Did the sons, you know, pay the
consequences? But, you know, the Torah
famously says that no son will die for the sins of the father.
And. But what about when they're
accomplices? Right.
So, and it's, it's very illuminating to, you know, point
out that they may have been accomplices because we see also
with Cora and his sons that it's not the same situation.
So I thought that was a very important point that you made.
Listen, I think you know the the Kora contrast is fantastic
because of Nick Kora Lometu. So obviously they they made a
different decision and therefore their father's rebellion did not
impact on them. So it could work either way.
It's a great point. Lastly, and I wish we can, I
wish we had time to do the whole book, but that's not going to
happen. But lastly, what are your
reflections on the seemingly indiscriminate?
Slaughter of the Kanani inhabitants.
The moral complexity of these events challenges challenges us
in today's Westernized world. The common explanation tributes
these actions to the ancient, ancient rules of warfare,
characterized by harshness and brutality.
This was how things were done back then, right?
However, is this approach the accurate, accurate way to
address the moral dilemma? Great question, I think.
You know, especially as moderns, my experience has been in, in
teaching safety of ashua, that this is probably one of the most
challenging questions. So I want to point out a couple
of things, and I'm not sure we can fully resolve it or that
it's resolvable, But I want to point out a couple of things.
Number one, I think it's important to note that the war
against the Canaanites is not a is not an ethnic war.
It's an ideological war, which is to say the following The fate
of Yuri Ho is that Yuri Ho is slaughtered and the city is
banned, right? It becomes fair and nothing can
be enjoyed from the spoils, and it must remain destroyed until
the end of time. That's what's described and safe
for Yoshiwa, I'll just point out.
That's exactly what's described as the fate of what's called the
ear honey dahat. The Israelite city that succumbs
to idolatry suffers the same fate exactly.
Everyone is put to death, the city is burned.
No one is allowed to partake from the spoil.
So what does that really say? The issue is not whether you're
Israelite or Canaanite. The issue is where you is,
whether you're an idolater or not.
That's the issue. So I would say the war against
the Kanaanim was a war against idolatry, not a war against a
particular ethnic group. Which is why, by the way, Khazal
and the Rishonim, especially the Rambam and the Ramban both
understood that a Canaanite who accepts Sheva mitzvah penne
Noah, the seven Noah hide laws, this entire, this entire war of
destruction does not apply to them.
Lo takhaya Kona Shamma does not apply to Knanim who accepted
chef and meets what Beninova, the seven Noah hide laws.
Now again, is that the shot? Harder to say.
There are indications in the story clearly that not all the
Canaanites were put to death. I'll just point out there are 31
kings that are mentioned. Most of these kings are really
city states. That's the list in chapter 12 of
Safer Yohoshua. That leaves an awful lot of
towns and villages and cities which are not destroyed.
And we know that because in Safer shop theme, the kanaanim
will be very much around and their culture will be informing
the people of Israel. So on the one hand, I would
argue the goal was for the people of Israel to be able to
carve out some small place where they could actually achieve
their mission as monotheists, and at the same time, most of
the Canaanite population was not destroyed.
The battles in safety of Hoshiwa are primarily battles against
military coalitions. That's who's described as
fighting against them. The king of Kevron, and the king
of Yushalayim, and the king of Lakhish in the South, and a few
more, and the king of Hatsur and the king of various other places
in the north. And that's who they're fighting.
Which is another way of saying Yohoshua's wars are not against
the civilian population per se, but against the military
alliances. Now, it is true that some of
those cities are destroyed when their armies are destroyed.
That's true, but I'm not sure that that was necessarily the
point. The point was to defeat the
Canaanite armies first, and then whatever else is necessary in
order to be victorious. One other thing that I want to
point out, which as I think are very important.
First of all, yes, it's difficult to make a one to one
comparison from what's reported in Safer Yoshua to our own
experience today. But I'll just point out, as much
as we like to think that Modern Warfare is more humane, I'm not
sure that that's the case. Certainly in the 20th century,
10s of millions of civilians lost their lives.
America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, which incinerated
150,000 civilians. Now you might argue, yes, but
that prevented a larger casualty list, because if they would have
had to invade the Japanese and mainland, then there would have
been more casual Whatever. It's a calculation that's made.
But there's no such thing as a war in which civilians are
spared. They shouldn't be the deliberate
target, and I don't think they are in state for Yoshua.
But it's unrealistic to expect that somehow you're going to
defeat the enemy army and the civilians are going to be
unharmed. What does the Torah say?
The Torah says when you conquer a city, first you you you offer
a terms of peace. Does a Mahlok it does this apply
the to the kananim or not? Again, the Ramban will say that
it does. So the way the Ramban reads the
story, just like what happened with the Guibonim right?
There's an opportunity for them to be spared.
When we finally get to the list of the Canaanite kings that are
defeated, it's a list of 31 kings.
Chapter 12 of Se Priya Hoshua the the Hakamim call that Shira.
It is a song, but there's nothing in there which is
triumphalist. There's nothing in there which
is celebratory as much as safer. Yoshua describes the defeat of
the Kananim, it never celebrates it.
It's never some grotesque kind of gloating over the destruction
of the enemy. So I would say that's an
incredibly important point. If you know anything about
ancient literature, ancient mythology, it's full of
celebrating the defeat of the enemy, often in very grotesque
terms. Like brings to mind Ramseys the
seconds war against the battle of Khadish, right?
It's wanting and all that stuff, Absolutely.
I think that to add to your point, the Torah also speaks
very hyperbolically. Oftentimes, like the way we
would speak today, when a team in sports beats another team,
they say what they wiped the floor with them, you know, or
they they utterly destroyed them.
So a lot of times the tour will use that language because we
don't even know it might be using, you know, cultural, you
know, kind of like what it did with for example, Biyad Kazuka
was running to ya these a language that was used in that
time. So it would.
Kind of adopt that, and the Torah kind of exaggerates in
certain situations. So I think that's an important
point to make. When it comes to this utter
destruction of your recall, I don't think that it's
necessarily literal like you said.
So I thought that was something that I wanted to point out.
Excellent .1 thing that that maybe I'll just add is if we're
going to take it literally, which I suppose you could, then
I think it's only fair that we take the rest of it literally,
which is the Torah's constant refrain about the Canaanites
being willing to sacrifice their children to their gods.
And sort of the report of the kananim in the Torah is not a +1
okay. So whatever ideas they represent
obviously are not just threats to monotheism, but they're
threats to sort of what we might term moral living.
Okay does that Society, society. Yeah, we're gonna be living.
If we're gonna be living side by side with people who sacrifice
their children, that's gonna influence, that's gonna
influence the Jewish residents. And I think that this is.
Showing the difference between our nation and the other nations
is that the Torah was the first of any nation to actually
announce that we don't own our children, we don't sacrifice our
children to the gods. That Akadas famously is about
that. So the significance of that, I
think people today don't appreciate the historical
context of what was happening in those days.
You know, it's it's just brutality.
And people treated their their wives and their children like
cattle. So I think that is very you.
You point that out. It's a very important point to
make. Rob, I had and I wanted to just
say, you know, it's safe for Ushua.
It's kind of like the book that like people, kind of like, you
know, when you grow up and safe for ushua, some people might
find it boring a little bit. You know, there's more
interesting ones like you know show team is full of like, you
know, like war and you know well not that this doesn't have war
but like a little more brutality maybe played into the played
into the wars. And you have like Shmuel is like
the drama and then you have like you know Melahim with the kings
and and everything that goes on in the political, you know,
monarchy and splitting of the kingdoms.
I feel like you should kind of maybe gets a little bit in the
back burner, which is why I think that your book is so
incredible because you know, you have to start at the beginning.
Right, the beginning of setup of Yoshua and reading your book
really made the entire book of Yoshua meaningful, interesting,
engaging and I highly, highly suggest I don't.
Do we show the I highly, highly suggest The Book of Yoshua and
Shoftim that Robert Haddon brought out for my publishing.
It is an incredible read. And you speak so wonderfully as
well, so elegantly. Thank you so much.
We really appreciate it and what it by the way, do you have a, do
you have a project coming up soon?
Project coming up soon? I'm working on something, yes.
OK, so God willing, we'll get to do another podcast with you.
There's rata sham, There's rata sham all.
Right. Thank you very, very much.
We appreciate your time and your insights.
Thank you both very much and just keep up your good work.
Thank you. We appreciate it.
Thank you. All right.
I'm not so bad. Bye.
Hey guys, thanks so much for tuning into the Judas and
Demystified podcast. We really appreciate all your
support and your feedback. If you want to help us grow the
podcast, keep spreading the word.
Share it with your friends, family, or whoever you think
would be interested. We also opened a Patreon.
So you can become a patron, contribute any small amount
you'd like, which would really help us grow the show.
Our Patreon is www.patreon.com Judaism.
Pretty easy to remember. Thank you again and we hope to
keep putting out great shows for you guys.