יהושע, פרק ז׳, פסוק י״א

The sudden military defeat suffered by the Israelites was not a random tragedy, but a direct consequence of their own actions. The narrative presents a harsh, step-by-step indictment that exposes the deep layers of their transgression [ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Although only a single individual actually committed the crime, the blame falls squarely on the entire nation. Because the people failed to take responsibility and watch over one another, they are judged as if everyone participated in the sin [מצודת דוד].

The severity of the event is framed as a cascading chain of offenses, with each deliberate step amplifying the disgrace of the act [רד״ק]. The downfall begins with the breaking of a covenant. A covenant represents a permanent, binding commitment similar to an oath, meaning that violating the ban placed on the spoils is equivalent to breaking a sworn oath [מצודת דוד, מצודת ציון]. Commentators offer different perspectives on the exact nature of this broken covenant. One approach suggests it refers to the original commitment made at Mount Sinai to obey God and His prophets. Since Joshua commanded the ban, defying him meant defying the covenant itself [רד״ק]. Even though Joshua initiated this ban on his own accord, God retroactively approved and supported his decision [חומת אנך]. Another perspective argues that the broken covenant specifically refers to the Sabbath. Because the city of Jericho was conquered on the Sabbath day, carrying the spoils from the public domain into a private tent directly violated the laws of the Sabbath [מלבי״ם].

Following the breach of the covenant, the sin deepens through a series of deliberate actions. First, the banned property was taken, even though this wealth had been explicitly dedicated and was considered God's personal portion [מצודת דוד]. Furthermore, the theft was carried out in secret, which elevates the severity of the crime. Stealing in secret is viewed as worse than taking something openly, because the thief demonstrates a fear of other people by trying to hide the act, yet shows no fear of God. This behavior effectively denies divine providence, acting as though the Creator cannot see what happens in the dark [מצודת דוד, רד״ק, מלבי״ם].

The moral decline continues with an active denial of the crime. While an ordinary thief might eventually feel regret, confess, and return what was stolen, this situation involved a deliberate and active cover-up [מצודת דוד, רד״ק]. Finally, the stolen goods were hidden away among personal belongings [מצודת ציון, רד״ק]. This final detail seals the transgression and doubles its gravity. It proves that the theft was not driven by hunger or a desperate need to survive. Instead, the wealth was simply hoarded and concealed without any genuine necessity, highlighting the pure greed behind the act [מצודת דוד, מלבי״ם].