Sanhedrin 44
עָכָן, מַאי טַעְמָא אִיעֲנוּשׁ? מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲווֹ יָדְעִי בֵּיהּ אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו.
what is the reason that in the case of Achan they were punished? The Gemara answers: Achan’s offense was not a hidden matter because his wife and children knew about it, and they did not protest.
״חָטָא יִשְׂרָאֵל״. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָטָא, יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: אָסָא דְּקָאֵי בֵּינֵי חִלְפֵי, אָסָא שְׁמֵיהּ, וְאָסָא קָרוּ לֵיהּ.
§ When God explained to Joshua the reason for the Jewish people’s defeat at the city of Ai, He said: “Israel has sinned” (Joshua 7:11). Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says: From here it may be inferred that even when the Jewish people have sinned, they are still called “Israel.” Rabbi Abba says: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: Even when a myrtle is found among thorns, its name is myrtle and people call it myrtle.
״וְגַם עָבְרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אוֹתָם גַּם לָקְחוּ מִן הַחֵרֶם גַּם גָּנְבוּ גַּם כִּחֲשׁוּ גַּם שָׂמוּ בִּכְלֵיהֶם״. אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר מַסְפַּרְתָּא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָבַר עָכָן עַל חֲמִשָּׁה חוּמְשֵׁי תוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר חֲמִשָּׁה ״גַּם״.
The verse in Joshua continues: “They have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them, and they have also taken of the dedicated property, and also stolen, and also dissembled, and also put it among their own goods.” Rabbi Ile’a says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Masparta: This teaches that Achan also transgressed all five books of the Torah, as the word “also” is stated here five times.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר מַסְפַּרְתָּא: עָכָן מוֹשֵׁךְ בְּעׇרְלָתוֹ הָיָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְגַם עָבְרוּ אֶת בְּרִיתִי״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי הֵפַר״.
And Rabbi Ile’a says further in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Masparta: Achan, in addition to his other evil actions, would stretch his remaining foreskin in order to conceal the fact that he was circumcised. An allusion to this offense is found in the wording of this verse. Here, with regard to Achan, it is written: “They have also transgressed My covenant,” and there, with regard to circumcision, it is written: “He has violated My covenant” (Genesis 17:14).
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: בְּמִצְוָה גּוּפֵיהּ לָא פְּקַר? קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he concealed his circumcision, as Rabbi Ile’a said that he transgressed all five books of the Torah? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that while Achan transgressed all five books of the Torah, with regard to a mitzva relating to his own body, such as circumcision, he did not act irreverently, Rabbi Ile’a teaches us that he sinned concerning this mitzva as well.
וְכִי עָשָׂה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבָּעַל עָכָן נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְכִי עָשָׂה נְבָלָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״כִּי עָשְׂתָה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל״.
With regard to Achan, the verse states: “And because he has committed a wanton deed in Israel” (Joshua 7:15). Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says: This teaches that Achan engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed young woman. This offense is also alluded to by the wording of the verse. Here, with regard to Achan, it is written: “And because he has committed a wanton deed,” and there, with regard to a betrothed young woman who committed adultery, it is written: “Because she has committed a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house” (Deuteronomy 22:21).
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא פְּקַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. רָבִינָא אָמַר: דִּינֵיהּ כְּנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה, דְּבִסְקִילָה.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious, as Achan transgressed the entire Torah? The Gemara similarly answers: Lest you say that he did not act irreverently to such an extent, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda teaches us that he paid no heed even to this prohibition. Ravina said: This verbal analogy does not teach what Achan’s offense was; rather, it teaches that his punishment was like that of a betrothed young woman who committed adultery, for which she is executed by stoning.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא לְרַב הוּנָא: כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת עָכָן בֶּן זֶרַח וְאֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶת הָאַדֶּרֶת וְאֶת לְשׁוֹן הַזָּהָב וְאֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנֹתָיו וְאֶת שׁוֹרוֹ וְאֶת חֲמֹרוֹ וְאֶת צֹאנוֹ וְאֶת אׇהֳלוֹ וְאֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״. אִם הוּא חָטָא, בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו מֶה חָטְאוּ?
§ The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: It is written: “And Joshua took Achan, son of Zerah, and the silver, and the mantle, 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 all Israel with him…and all Israel stoned him with stones; and they burned them with fire, and stoned them with stones” (Joshua 7:24–25). If Achan sinned, so that he was liable to be stoned, did his sons and daughters also sin, that they too should be stoned?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אִם הוּא חָטָא – כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מֶה חָטְאוּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמּוֹ״. אֶלָּא לִרְדּוֹתָן. הָכִי נָמֵי, כְּדֵי לִרְדּוֹתָן.
Rav Huna said to the Exilarch: And according to your reasoning that Achan’s family was also punished, if Achan sinned, did all of Israel sin? As it is written: “And all Israel with him.” Rather, Joshua took all of the people to the Valley of Achor not to stone them, but to chastise them and strike fear into their hearts by making them witness the stoning. So too, he took Achan’s household there in order to chastise them.
״וַיִּשְׂרְפוּ אֹתָם בָּאֵשׁ וַיִּסְקְלוּ אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים״. בְּתַרְתֵּי? אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָרָאוּי לִשְׂרֵיפָה – לִשְׂרֵיפָה, הָרָאוּי לִסְקִילָה – לִסְקִילָה.
With regard to Achan’s punishment, the verse states: “And they burned them with fire, and stoned them with stones.” The Gemara asks: Did they punish him with two punishments? Ravina says: That which was fit for burning, e.g., an item of clothing, was taken out for burning, and that which was fit for stoning, e.g., an animal, was taken out for stoning.
״וָאֵרֶא בַשָּׁלָל אַדֶּרֶת שִׁנְעָר אַחַת טוֹבָה וּמָאתַיִם שְׁקָלִים כֶּסֶף״. רַב אָמַר: אִיצְטְלָא דְּמֵילָתָא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: סַרְבָּלָא דִּצְרִיפָא.
§ In his confession, Achan states: “And I saw among the spoil a fine mantle of Shinar, and two hundred shekels of silver” (Joshua 7:21). Rav says: A mantle of Shinar is a cloak [itztela] of choice wool [demeilta], and Shmuel says: It is a garment [sarbela] dyed with alum.
״וַיַּצִּיקוּם לִפְנֵי ה׳״. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בָּא וַחֲבָטָם לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, עַל אֵלּוּ תֵּיהָרֵג רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל סַנְהֶדְרִין? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּכּוּ מֵהֶם אַנְשֵׁי הָעַי כִּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה אִישׁ״. וְתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מַמָּשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: וְכִי שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה הָיוּ? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״כִּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה אִישׁ״! אֶלָּא זֶה יָאִיר בֶּן מְנַשֶּׁה שֶׁשָּׁקוּל כְּנֶגֶד רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל סַנְהֶדְרִין.
With regard to the spoils that Achan took for himself, the verse states: “And they laid them out before the Lord” (Joshua 7:23). Rav Naḥman says: Joshua came and cast down the spoils before God. Joshua said to Him: Master of the Universe, was it because of these small items that the majority of the Sanhedrin were killed? As it is written: “And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty-six men” (Joshua 7:5), and it is taught in a baraita: Thirty-six men, literally, were killed; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Neḥemya said to Rabbi Yehuda: But were they precisely thirty-six men? Didn’t it state only: “About thirty-six men”? Rather, this is a reference to Yair, son of Manasseh, who was killed, and who was himself equivalent in importance to the majority of the Sanhedrin, i.e., thirty-six men.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״תַּחֲנוּנִים יְדַבֶּר רָשׁ וְעָשִׁיר יַעֲנֶה עַזּוֹת״? ״תַּחֲנוּנִים יְדַבֵּר רָשׁ״ – זֶה מֹשֶׁה, ״וְעָשִׁיר יַעֲנֶה עַזּוֹת״ – זֶה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
Rav Naḥman says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The poor man speaks entreaties, but the rich man answers with impudence” (Proverbs 18:23)? “The poor man speaks entreaties”; this is a reference to Moses, who addressed God in a tone of supplication and appeasement. “But the rich man answers with impudence”; this is a reference to Joshua, who spoke to God in a belligerent manner.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״וַיַּצִּיקוּם לִפְנֵי ה׳״, וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בָּא וַחֲבָטָן לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם. אַטּוּ פִּנְחָס לָא עֲבַד הָכִי? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד פִּינְחָס וַיְפַלֵּל וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״וַיְפַלֵּל״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָשָׂה פְּלִילוּת עִם קוֹנוֹ. בָּא וַחֲבָטָן לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, עַל אֵלּוּ יִפְּלוּ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה אֶלֶף מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיִהְיוּ הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים אָלֶף״.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Joshua is considered to have answered God with impudence? If we say that it is because it is written: “And he laid them out before the Lord,” and Rav Naḥman says that this means that Joshua came and cast the spoils down before God as part of his argument, this is difficult: Is that to say that Pinehas did not act the same way in the incident involving Zimri and Cozbi? As it is written: “Then stood up Pinehas, and executed judgment [vayefallel], and the plague was stayed” (Psalms 106:30), and Rabbi Elazar says: And he prayed [vayitpallel], is not stated; rather, “and he executed judgment [vayefallel]” is stated, which teaches that he entered into a judgment together with his Creator. How so? He came and cast Zimri and Cozbi down before God, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, was it because of these sinners that twenty-four thousand members of the Jewish people fell? As it is written: “And those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Numbers 25:9).
וְאֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״לָמָּה הֵעֲבַרְתָּ הַעֲבִיר אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן״. מֹשֶׁה נָמֵי מֵימָר אֲמַר: ״לְמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה״. אֶלָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וְלוּ הוֹאַלְנוּ וַנֵּשֶׁב בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן״.
Rather, Joshua’s belligerence is seen from this verse: “Why have You brought this people over the Jordan” (Joshua 7:7), as if he were complaining about God’s treatment of Israel. This too is difficult, as Moses also said a similar statement: “Why have You dealt ill with this people? Why is it that You have sent me?” (Exodus 5:22). Rather, Joshua’s belligerence is seen from here, from the continuation of the previously cited verse in Joshua: “Would that we had been content and had remained in the Transjordan” (Joshua 7:7).
״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קוּם לָךְ״. דָּרֵישׁ רַבִּי שֵׁילָא: אָמַר לֵיהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: שֶׁלְּךָ קָשָׁה מִשֶּׁלָּהֶם. אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי ״וְהָיָה בְּעׇבְרְכֶם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן תָּקִימוּ״, וְאַתֶּם רִיחַקְתֶּם שִׁשִּׁים מִיל.
§ With regard to the verse that states: “And the Lord said to Joshua: Get you up; why do you lie this way on your face?” (Joshua 7:10), Rabbi Sheila taught in a public lecture: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: Your own sin is even worse than that of the other Jews who sinned, as I said to the Jewish people: “And it shall be when you have gone over the Jordan, that you shall set up these stones” (Deuteronomy 27:4), and you have already distanced yourselves sixty mil from the Jordan River, and you have yet to fulfill the mitzva.
בָּתַר דִּנְפַק, אוֹקֵים רַב אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ וּדְרַשׁ: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ כֵּן צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכֵן עָשָׂה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֹא הֵסִיר דָּבָר מִכׇּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת מֹשֶׁה״.
After Rav Sheila finished his lecture and went out, Rav, who had been present but remained silent, placed an interpreter alongside him, who would repeat his lecture in a loud voice so that the public could hear it, and he taught: The verse states: “As the Lord commanded Moses His servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses” (Joshua 11:15). This indicates that Joshua could not have been guilty of a grave offense such as delaying in setting up the stones.
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״קוּם לָךְ״? אָמַר לוֹ: אַתָּה גָּרַמְתָּ לָהֶם. וְהַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ בְּעַי: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ לָעַי וּלְמַלְכָּהּ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ לִירִיחוֹ וּלְמַלְכָּהּ וְגוֹ׳״.
If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Get you up,” hinting that Joshua was in fact responsible for some transgression? The matter should be understood as follows: God said to Joshua: You caused the Jewish people to sin, as had you not dedicated all the spoils of Jericho to the Tabernacle treasury, the entire incident of Achan taking the spoils improperly would not have occurred. And this is what God said to him at Ai: “And you shall do to Ai and her king as you did to Jericho and her king; only its spoil and its cattle shall you take for a prey to yourselves” (Joshua 8:2), instructing Joshua that the Jewish people should keep the spoils.
״וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּירִיחוֹ וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְגוֹ׳ וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא כִּי אֲנִי שַׂר צְבָא ה׳ עַתָּה בָאתִי [וַיִּפֹּל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל פָּנָיו אַרְצָה וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ]״. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּתֵּן שָׁלוֹם לַחֲבֵירוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא שֵׁד הוּא!
The verse states: “And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, a man stood over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: And Joshua went to him and said to him, Are you for us or for our adversaries? And he said: No, but I am captain of the host of the Lord; I have now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down” (Joshua 5:13–14). The Gemara asks: How could Joshua do so, bowing down to a stranger at night? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: It is prohibited for a person to greet another whom he does not recognize at night, as we are concerned that perhaps the one he doesn’t recognize is a demon? Why was Joshua not concerned about this possibility?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״אֲנִי שַׂר צְבָא ה׳ עַתָּה בָאתִי וְגוֹ׳״. וְדִילְמָא מְשַׁקְּרִי? גְּמִירִי דְּלָא מַפְּקִי שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה.
The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the stranger said to Joshua: “I am captain of the host of the Lord; I have now come.” The Gemara asks: But perhaps he was in fact a demon and he was lying? The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that demons do not utter the name of Heaven in vain, and since this figure mentioned the name of Heaven, he must have been speaking the truth.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶמֶשׁ בִּיטַּלְתֶּם תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, וְעַכְשָׁיו בִּיטַּלְתֶּם תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן בָּאתָ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַתָּה בָּאתִי״.
The Gemara understands the words of the angel that Joshua encountered as a rebuke for some offense Joshua committed: The angel said to Joshua: Yesterday, in the afternoon, you neglected sacrificing the daily afternoon offering because you were engaged in warfare, and now, when it is dark, you neglected Torah study. Joshua asked him: For which of these sins have you come to reprove me? The angel said to him: “I have now come,” i.e., the fact that I did not come before, but waited until now, when it is dark, indicates that the sin of neglecting Torah study is the more severe one.
מִיָּד ״וַיָּלֶן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא בְּתוֹךְ הָעֵמֶק״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלָּן בְּעוּמְקָהּ שֶׁל הֲלָכָה.
Joshua immediately acted to rectify the matter by deciding that he must devote more time to Torah study, as it is stated: “And Joshua lodged that night” (Joshua 8:9) “into the midst of the valley [ha’emek]” (Joshua 8:13). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches that he lodged all night in the depth [be’omekah] of halakha, thereby atoning for his previous neglect of Torah study.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אִינְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: גָּדוֹל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מֵהַקְרָבַת תְּמִידִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַתָּה בָאתִי״.
Shmuel bar Unya says in the name of Rav: Torah study is greater than the sacrificing of the daily offerings, as it is stated: “I have now come,” demonstrating that the neglect of Torah study is a more serious offense than the neglect of the daily offerings.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: הַאי קְרָא בְּמַעְרְבָא בְּמַאי מוֹקְמִיתוּ לֵיהּ: ״אַל תֵּצֵא לָרִיב מַהֵר פֶּן מַה תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּאַחֲרִיתָהּ בְּהַכְלִים אֹתְךָ רֵעֶךָ. רִיבְךָ רִיב אֶת רֵעֶךָ וְסוֹד אַחֵר אַל תְּגָל״?
§ Abaye said to Rav Dimi, who descended to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael: How do you explain this verse in the West, Eretz Yisrael: “Do not proceed hastily to litigation, lest you know not what to do in the end of it, when your neighbor has put you to shame. Debate your cause with your neighbor, and do not reveal the secret of another” (Proverbs 25:8–9)?
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִיחֶזְקֵאל: לֵךְ אֱמוֹר לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל ״אָבִיךְ הָאֱמֹרִי וְאִמֵּךְ חִתִּית״, אָמְרָה רוּחַ פִּסְקוֹנִית לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אִם יָבוֹאוּ אַבְרָהָם וְשָׂרָה וְיַעַמְדוּ לְפָנֶיךָ, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם וּמַכְלִים אוֹתָם? ״רִיבְךָ רִיב אֶת רֵעֶךָ וְסוֹד אַחֵר אַל תְּגָל״!
Rav Dimi explained as follows: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Ezekiel: Go say to Israel: “Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (Ezekiel 16:3), the spirit Paskonit, which is another name for the angel Gabriel, said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, were the patriarch Abraham and the matriarch Sarah to come now and stand before You, would you speak to them in such a manner and put them to shame? Is it not stated: “Debate your cause with your neighbor, and do not reveal the secret of another”?
וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ רְשׁוּתָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי? אִין, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁלֹשׁ שֵׁמוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ – פִּיסְקוֹן, אִיטְמוֹן, סִיגְרוֹן. פִּיסְקוֹן – שֶׁפּוֹסֵק דְּבָרִים כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה, אִיטְמוֹן – שֶׁאוֹטֵם עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, סִיגְרוֹן – כֵּיוָן שֶׁסּוֹגֵר שׁוּב אֵינוֹ פּוֹתֵחַ.
The Gemara asks: But does the angel Gabriel have so much authority that he can reprove God in such a manner? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: He, the angel Gabriel, has three names: Piskon, Itmon, and Sigron. He is called Piskon because he splits [sheposek] words and argues with God on High. He is called Itmon because he conceals [she’otem] the sins of the Jewish people. And he is called Sigron because once he closes [shesoger] his arguments on behalf of the Jewish people, no one reopens the discussion.
״הֲיַעֲרֹךְ שׁוּעֲךָ לֹא בְצָר״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְעוֹלָם יַקְדִּים אָדָם תְּפִלָּה לַצָּרָה, שֶׁאִילְמָלֵא לֹא הִקְדִּים אַבְרָהָם תְּפִלָּה לַצָּרָה בֵּין בֵּית אֵל וּבֵין הָעַי, לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מִשּׂוֹנְאֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׂרִיד וּפָלִיט. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל הַמְאַמֵּץ עַצְמוֹ בִּתְפִלָּה מִלְּמַטָּה, אֵין לוֹ צָרִים מִלְּמַעְלָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם יְבַקֵּשׁ אָדָם רַחֲמִים שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּל מְאַמְּצִין אֶת כֹּחוֹ, וְאַל יְהוּ לוֹ צָרִים מִלְּמַעְלָה.
The verse states: “Had you prepared your prayers, before your troubles came” (Job 36:19). Rabbi Elazar says: A person should always offer up prayer before trouble actually arrives, as had the patriarch Abraham not anticipated the trouble at Ai with the prayer he offered between Bethel and Ai, there would have been no remnant or refugee remaining among the enemies of Israel, a euphemism for Israel itself, as Israel suffered a defeat at Ai from which there is ordinarily no recovery. Reish Lakish says: The verse should be understood as follows: Anyone who concentrates himself and his energy in prayer in the world below will have no enemies in Heaven above causing him trouble. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse should be understood in a slightly different manner: A person should always pray for mercy that all heavenly beings should strengthen his power of prayer, and that he should have no enemies causing him trouble in Heaven above.
מִנַּיִן שֶׁכִּיפֵּר לוֹ וִידּוּיוֹ וְכוּ׳? תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁכִּיפֵּר לוֹ וִידּוּיוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מֶה עֲכַרְתָּנוּ יַעְכֳּרְךָ ה׳ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה״. הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אַתָּה עָכוּר, וְאִי אַתָּה עָכוּר לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וּכְתִיב: ״וּבְנֵי זֶרַח זִמְרִי וְאֵיתָן וְהֵימָן וְכַלְכֹּל וְדַרְדַּע כֻּלָּם חֲמִשָּׁה״. מַאי ״כּוּלָּם חֲמִשָּׁה״? כּוּלָּן חֲמִשָּׁה הֵן לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
§ The mishna teaches: From where is it derived that Achan’s confession achieved atonement for him? The Sages taught likewise in a baraita: From where is it derived that Achan’s confession achieved atonement for him? As it is stated: “And Joshua said: Why have you brought trouble on us? The Lord shall trouble you this day” (Joshua 7:25). Joshua said to Achan: On this day of your judgment you are troubled, but you will not be troubled in the World-to-Come. And elsewhere it is written: “And the sons of Zerah were Zimri and Ethan and Heman and Calcol and Dara, five of them in all” (I Chronicles 2:6). What do the words “five of them in all” serve to teach? All five sons are destined to receive a share in the World-to-Come. According to the Sages, Zimri is Achan, son of Zerah, as will be explained. Since Achan has a share in the World-to-Come, his confession must have achieved atonement for him.
כְּתִיב ״זִמְרִי״, וּכְתִיב ״עָכָן״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר, עָכָן שְׁמוֹ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ זִמְרִי? שֶׁעָשָׂה מַעֲשֵׂה זִמְרִי. וְחַד אָמַר, זִמְרִי שְׁמוֹ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ עָכָן? שֶׁעִיכֵּן עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
In one place, among the five sons of Zerah, it is written: “Zimri,” without any mention of Achan (I Chronicles 2:6), and in another place it is written: “And Joshua took Achan, son of Zerah” (Joshua 7:24). Rav and Shmuel both say that Zimri and Achan are one and the same, but they disagree about his real name. One of them says: His real name was Achan. Why then was he called Zimri? He was called Zimri because he acted like Zimri, i.e., just as Zimri engaged in sexual intercourse with a Midianite woman, Achan engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman. And the other one says: His real name was Zimri. Why then was he called Achan? He was called Achan because he acted like a snake [she’iken] and caused the punishment of the sins of the Jewish people.
אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְוַודּוֹת כּוּ׳. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. לְנַקּוֹת עַצְמָן, וִינַקּוּ עַצְמָן! כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל בָּתֵּי דִינִין וְעַל הָעֵדִים.
§ The mishna teaches that if the condemned man does not know how to confess, they say to him: Say simply: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins. Rabbi Yehuda says that if he knows that he was wrongfully convicted, he should say: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins except for this sin. The Sages counter that if such a confession is acceptable, anyone who is sentenced to execution would state it to clear himself in the eyes of the public. The Gemara challenges: Let them clear themselves. Why should the court intervene if the condemned man wishes to proclaim his innocence? The Gemara answers: They intervene so as not to cast aspersions on the courts and on the witnesses who testified against him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁיָּצָא לֵיהָרֵג. אָמַר: אִם יֵשׁ בִּי עָוֹן זֶה, לֹא תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַּפָּרָה לְכׇל עֲוֹנוֹתַי. וְאִם אֵין בִּי עָוֹן זֶה, תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַּפָּרָה לְכׇל עֲוֹנוֹתַי, וּבֵית דִּין וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנוּקִּין, וְהָעֵדִים לֹא תְּהֵא לָהֶם מְחִילָה לְעוֹלָם. וּכְשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר, אָמְרוּ: לְהַחְזִירוֹ אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר נִגְזְרָה גְּזֵירָה. אֶלָּא יֵהָרֵג, וִיהֵא קוֹלָר תָּלוּי בְּצַוַּאר עֵדִים.
The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving a person who was being taken out to be executed after having been convicted by the court. He said: If I committed this sin for which I am being executed, let my death not be an atonement for all my sins; but if I did not commit this sin for which I am being put to death, let my death be an atonement for all my sins. And the court that convicted me and all the people of Israel are clear of responsibility, but the witnesses who testified falsely against me will never be forgiven. And when the Sages heard this, they said: It is impossible to bring him back to court and reconsider the verdict, as the decree has already been decreed. Rather, he shall be executed, and the chain of responsibility for his wrongful execution hangs around the necks of the witnesses.
פְּשִׁיטָא, כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ? לָא צְרִיכָא דְּקָא הָדְרִי בְּהוּ סָהֲדִי.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he should be executed? Is it in his power to have his sentence overturned just because he says he is innocent? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state that the condemned man is executed even when the witnesses retracted their testimony.
וְכִי הָדְרִי בְּהוּ, מַאי הָוֵי? כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיד, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמַגִּיד! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא יָהֲבִי טַעְמָא לְמִילְּתַיְיהוּ, כִּי הָהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּבַעְיָא מֹכְסָא.
The Gemara asks: Even if the witnesses retracted their testimony, what of it? It is still clear that the condemned man is to be executed, as the halakha is that once a witness has stated his testimony, he may not then state a revision of that testimony. In other words, a witness’s retraction of his testimony has no validity. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state that the condemned man is executed even when the witnesses retracted their testimony and gave an explanation for having lied in their initial statement. This is like that incident involving Ba’aya the tax collector, where it was discovered that witnesses had falsely accused the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ in revenge for the son’s having sentenced to death for sorcery the witnesses’ relatives.
מַתְנִי׳ הָיָה רָחוֹק מִבֵּית הַסְּקִילָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתוֹ אֶת בְּגָדָיו. הָאִישׁ מְכַסִּין אוֹתוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו, וְהָאִשָּׁה מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּמֵאַחֲרֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הָאִישׁ נִסְקָל עָרוֹם, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִסְקֶלֶת עֲרוּמָּה.
MISHNA: When the condemned man is at a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning, they take off his clothes. They cover a man’s genitals in the front, and a woman is covered both in the front and in the back; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: A man is stoned naked, i.e., wearing only that cloth covering, but a woman is not stoned naked, but is stoned while clothed.
