Pt1 The Confession, Punishment, and Atonement of Achan in Joshua 7 (Sanhedrin 43b-44b)
This is the first part of a three-part series. The outline for the series is below.1
This sugya discusses Achan's confession and punishment as recounted in Joshua 7. The sugya serves as a focal point for exploring fundamental tensions in Jewish legal and theological thought: individual guilt versus collective responsibility, the power of confession to achieve atonement, and the judicial ethics of capital punishment.
The biblical narrative of Achan—who violated divine command by taking forbidden spoils—becomes a template through which the rabbis interrogate complex questions about sin and redemption. By parsing the language of Joshua's dialogue with Achan, the Talmud derives principles about confession's capacity to secure one's place in the World-to-Come, even for those justly executed for serious transgressions.
This sugya also probes the boundaries of leadership responsibility, contrasting Moses's humble supplication with Joshua's perceived impudence when confronting divine judgment. The rabbis use textual nuances to construct a multidimensional portrait of Achan's sins, expanding the biblical account to include violations spanning all “five books of the Torah” (חמשה חומשי תורה)—from foreskin restoration (מושך בערלתו) to sex with a betrothed virgin (נערה המאורסה).
The Talmud's treatment of deception in service of justice is particularly provocative, as Ravina explains that Joshua "bribed [Achan] with words" (שחודי שחדיה במילי) by falsely implying that confession would lead to discharge rather than execution. This raises questions about whether such tactics can be justified within an ethical framework of justice.
Particularly significant is the Talmud's wrestling with questions of collective punishment. When the Exilarch challenges Rav Huna about the apparent injustice of Achan's family suffering for his sin, we witness the rabbis' struggle to reconcile biblical narrative with ethical principles. Their interpretive move—suggesting that Achan's family was brought to witness punishment rather than receive it—reveals a hermeneutic flexibility that resists overly literal readings while preserving textual authority.
The overall discussion is a profound reflection on atonement, suggesting that despite Achan's grave transgressions, his honest confession secured him a place in the World-to-Come—a theological assertion that both upholds justice and affirms divine mercy.
Outline
Mishnah - Execution by stoning and Confession
Confession Before Execution and the World-to-Come: Encouragement to Confess; Reason for Confession
Confession as Glorification of God (Joshua 7:19–20): Joshua’s Plea for Confession; Achan’s Response
Achan’s Confession and Its Power to Atonement (Joshua 7:25): Joshua's Assurance
Standard Confession Formula For the Condemned; R' Yehuda’s Exception for the Innocent
Talmud - The Confession and the Atonement of Achan in Joshua 7 (Sanhedrin 43b-44b)
Joshua’s Supplication and the Refusal of Divine Informing (Joshua 7:11): Supplicatory Language Explained; God’s Refusal to Name the Sinner
Achan Challenges the Validity of Cleromancy (Joshua 7:16–18): Achan is Chosen by Cleromancy; Achan Questions the Evidence; Critique of Cleromancy's Reliability
Joshua Defends Cleromancy (Numbers 26:55): Joshua Pleads with Achan; Future Implications for undermining apportioning by lot in Eretz Yisrael
Joshua Tricks Achan Into Confessing (Joshua 7:19-20)
How Many Times Did Achan Misuse Consecrated Property? (Joshua 7:20–21): 3 or 5 acts of misuse
Why were the Jewish people not punished earlier for the sins of Achan?: Divine Punishment for Hidden Sins Begins After Jordan Crossing
The Enduring Identity of Israel Despite Sin (Joshua 7:11)
Achan’s Multiple Additional Major Transgressions and Their Scriptural Allusions (Joshua 7:11, 15)
Fivefold Use of “Also” as Allusion to Torah Violations: Achan's Covenant Violation
Achan's Circumcision Concealment (Genesis 17:14)
Achan's Sex with a Betrothed Virgin (Joshua 7:15; Deuteronomy 22:21)
Did Achan’s Family Deserve Punishment? A Dialogue on Collective Guilt (Joshua 7:24–25): The Exilarch’s Challenge and Rav Huna’s Response
Division of Punishment for Achan's Property (Joshua 7:25): burned and stoning
Spoils of Jericho: What Achan Took - Interpreting Achan’s “Mantle of Shinar” (Joshua 7:21)
The Loss of Yair and the Meaning of “Thirty-Six” in the Defeat at Ai (Joshua 7:5): Casting the Spoils Before God (Joshua 7:23); Questioning the Death Toll (Joshua 7:5); Literal vs. Symbolic Interpretation
Rav Naḥman
R' Yehuda: literally 36 men died
R' Neḥemya: Yair ben Menashe as the “Thirty-Six Men” (Joshua 7:5)
Contrasting the Supplication of Moses with the Impudence of Joshua
Moses as the Supplicating Poor Man vs. Joshua as the Belligerent Rich Man (Proverbs 18:23)
Throwing Accusations Before God - Joshua vs. Pinehas
Throwing Spoils as Impudence
Challenge from the Case of Pinehas (Psalms 106:30; Numbers 25:9)
Second Attempt: Joshua and Moses Rhetorically Questioning God's Actions (Joshua 7:7; Exodus 5:22)
Final Proof: Joshua Longing for Transjordan (Joshua 7:7)
Divine Rebuke and Human Responsibility: Joshua’s Role in the Sin of Achan
R' Sheila: God's Rebuke to Joshua (Joshua 7:10; Deuteronomy 27:4)
Rav's Defense of Joshua: Joshua omitted nothing of what Moses had commanded him (Joshua 11:15)
Reframing the Blame (Joshua 8:2)
The Encounter with the Mysterious Man (Joshua 5:13–14)
How Joshua Knew the Stranger Was Not a Demon: Suspicion of Demons at Night; Angel Identifies Himself; Verifying the Stranger’s Claim
The Angel's Rebuke: for missing the afternoon daily Tamid sacrifice, and for Bitul Torah
Joshua’s Atonement through Torah Study (Joshua 8:9, 13): Rectifying Bitul Torah; “Depth of Halakha”
The Supremacy of Torah Study Over Animal Sacrifice
Achan's Confession and His Atonement in the World-to-Come (Joshua 7:25): Confession as a Path to Atonement
Zimri (Achan) and the World-to-Come (I Chronicles 2:6): Interpretation of “Five of Them in All”
Achan and Zimri: One Man, Two Names, Two Crimes (Joshua 7:24; I Chronicles 2:6)
Appendix 1 - The Irrevocability of Verdicts and the Burden on False Witnesses
Incident of a Condemned Man
The Court's Powerlessness; Moral Responsibility
Appendix 2 - Homiletic Readings of Joshua Verses in the Talmudic Sugya on Achan: All the Joshua verses discussed in the text and their interpretations, organized in order by chapter and verse, with concise summary of each homiletic reading
Joshua 5:13-14 - Joshua's Encounter with the Angel
Joshua 7:5 - The Defeat at Ai
Joshua 7:7 - Joshua's Complaint
Joshua 7:10 - God's Rebuke
Joshua 7:11 - Israel's Identity Despite Sin
Joshua 7:11 - The Five Transgressions
Joshua 7:15 - Achan's Sexual Sin
Joshua 7:16-18 - The Casting of Lots
Joshua 7:19-20 - Joshua's Call for Confession
Joshua 7:20-21 - Multiple Acts of Misappropriation
Joshua 7:21 - The Stolen Items
Joshua 7:23 - Displaying the Evidence
Joshua 7:24-25 - The Punishment of Achan's Family
Joshua 7:25 - Achan's Atonement
Joshua 8:2 - Changed Policy on Spoils
Joshua 8:9, 13 - Joshua's Torah Study
The Passage
Mishnah - Execution by stoning and Confession
Confession Before Execution and the World-to-Come: Encouragement to Confess; Reason for Confession
When the condemned person reaches about 10 cubits from the stoning site, he is urged to confess his sins.
This is standard practice before execution,2 as confession secures the confessor a share in the World-to-Come.
היה רחוק מבית הסקילה כעשר אמות,
אומרים לו:
התודה,
שכן דרך כל המומתין מתודין.
שכל המתודה, יש לו חלק לעולם הבא
When the condemned man is at a distance of about ten cubits from the place of stoning,
they say to him:
Confess your transgressions,
as the way of all who are being executed is to confess.
As whoever confesses and regrets his transgressions has a portion in the World-to-Come.
Confession as Glorification of God (Joshua 7:19–20): Joshua’s Plea for Confession; Achan’s Response
Joshua addresses Achan gently as “my son” and urges him to give glory to God by confessing his sin.
Achan complies and confesses openly, admitting his guilt and describing his actions.
שכן מצינו בעכן
שאמר לו יהושע:
״בני!
שים נא כבוד לה׳ אלהי ישראל
ותן לו תודה״.
״ויען עכן את יהושע ויאמר:
אמנה אנכי חטאתי
וכזאת וכזאת וגו׳״.
For so we find with regard to Achan,
that Joshua said to him:
“My son!
please give glory to YHWH, God of Israel,
and make confession to Him” (Joshua 7:19).
And the next verse states: “And Achan answered Joshua, and said:
Indeed I have sinned
and like this and like that have I done.”
Achan’s Confession and Its Power to Atonement (Joshua 7:25): Joshua's Assurance
The Talmud derives that Achan’s confession achieved atonement from the verse in Joshua 7:25: “YHWH shall trouble you this day.”
The emphasis is on this day, implying temporal punishment: Joshua is telling Achan that his punishment3 is limited to this world—“this day”—and that he will not be punished in the World-to-Come (indicating that his confession and punishment bring him atonement).
ומנין שכיפר לו וידויו?
שנאמר:
״ויאמר יהושע:
מה עכרתנו?!
יעכרך ה׳ ביום הזה״.
"ביום" הזה אתה עכור,
ואי אתה עכור לעולם הבא.
And from where is it derived that Achan’s confession achieved atonement for him?
It is derived from here, as it is stated:
“And Joshua said:
Why have you brought trouble on us?!
YHWH shall trouble you this day” (Joshua 7:25).
Joshua said to Achan as follows:
On this day of your judgment you are troubled,
but you will not be troubled in the World-to-Come.
Standard Confession Formula For the Condemned; R' Yehuda’s Exception for the Innocent
If the condemned person is unable due to ignorance or confusion, he is prompted to say: “Let my death be an atonement for all my sins.”
R' Yehuda allows a person who knows that he was convicted by the testimony of “conspiring witnesses”4 to exclude that specific charge from his confession, saying: “Let my death be an atonement for all my sins except for this sin.”
The other Sages reject this approach, arguing that if such a statement were allowed, every person would claim innocence to preserve their reputation.5
ואם אינו יודע להתוודות,
אומרים לו:
אמור: ״תהא מיתתי כפרה על כל עונותי״.
רבי יהודה אומר:
אם היה יודע שהוא מזומם,
אומר:
״תהא מיתתי כפרה על כל עונותי,
חוץ מעון זה״.
אמרו לו:
אם כן,
יהו כל אדם אומרין כן
כדי לנקות עצמן.
And if the condemned man does not know how to confess, either from ignorance or out of confusion,
they say to him:
Say simply: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins.
R' Yehuda says:
If the condemned man knows that he was convicted by the testimony of conspiring witnesses, but in fact he is innocent,
he says:
Let my death be an atonement for all my sins
except for this sin.
The Sages who disagreed with R' Yehuda said to him:
If so,
every person who is being executed will say that,
to clear himself in the eyes of the public.
Therefore, if the condemned man does not make such a statement on his own, the court does not suggest it to him as an alternative.
Joshua’s Supplication and the Refusal of Divine Informing (Joshua 7:11): Supplicatory Language Explained; God’s Refusal to Name the Sinner
A baraita explains why Joshua used the term “na” (נא - a word of supplication) when confronting Achan. This term reflects a plea (בקשה - as opposed to a demand, highlighting Joshua's humility and restraint).
When God told Joshua, “Israel has sinned,” Joshua asked God to reveal the sinner.
God refused, responding rhetorically, “Am I an informer?!”6
Instead of directly naming Achan, God told Joshua to discover the culprit by casting lots (i.e. cleromancy).7
תנו רבנן:
״נא״ –
אין ״נא״ אלא לשון בקשה.
בשעה שאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא ליהושע: ״חטא ישראל״,
אמר לפניו:
רבונו של עולם!
מי חטא?
אמר ליה:
וכי דילטור אני?!
לך הפל גורלות.
Since the mishna referred to Achan’s sin, the Gemara cites several statements concerning that incident.
The Sages taught in a baraita:
Joshua said to Achan: “Please [na] give glory to YHWH, God of Israel, and make confession to Him.”
The word “na” is nothing other than an expression of supplication. Why would Joshua employ an expression of supplication when approaching Achan?
The baraita explains: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: “Israel has sinned” (Joshua 7:11),
Joshua said to Him:
Master of the Universe!
who is the one who has sinned?
God said to him:
Am I an informer [deilator]?!
Go cast lots and find out for yourself.
Achan Challenges the Validity of Cleromancy (Joshua 7:16–18): Achan is Chosen by Cleromancy; Achan Questions the Evidence; Critique of Cleromancy's Reliability
Joshua casts lots to identify the sinner responsible for Israel's defeat, and the lot falls on Achan.
Achan challenges Joshua, asking if he intends to punish him solely based on cleromancy, without any corroborating proof.
He points out that even the greatest people (גדולי הדור), like Joshua and Elazar the Priest, could in certain circumstances be chosen by lot.8
הלך והפיל גורלות,
ונפל הגורל על עכן.
אמר לו:
יהושע!
בגורל אתה בא עלי?!
אתה ואלעזר הכהן שני גדולי הדור אתם.
אם אני מפיל עליכם גורל,
על אחד מכם הוא נופל.
Joshua then went and cast lots, and the lot fell upon Achan.
Achan said to him:
Joshua!
do you come to execute me merely based on a lot, without any corroborating evidence?!
You and Elazar the priest are the two most distinguished leaders of the generation,
but if I cast a lot upon the two of you,
it will perforce fall upon one of you. What then can you prove from a lottery?
Joshua Defends Cleromancy (Numbers 26:55): Joshua Pleads with Achan; Future Implications for undermining apportioning by lot in Eretz Yisrael
Joshua begs Achan not to spread “slander”9 on the general validity of lots.
He explains that Eretz Yisrael will be apportioned by lot, citing Numbers 26:55 (and Achan’s skepticism could undermine future confidence in that process.)
אמר לו:
בבקשה ממך!
אל תוציא לעז על הגורלות,
שעתידה ארץ ישראל שתתחלק בגורל,
שנאמר: ״אך בגורל יחלק את הארץ״.
Joshua said to him:
I ask of you!
do not spread slander about the lots,
as Eretz Yisrael will one day be divided by lots,
as it is stated: “Nevertheless, the land shall be divided by lot” (Numbers 26:55).
Due to you the results of that lottery may be challenged. Therefore, Joshua used the word “na,” pleading with Achan to confess.
Joshua Tricks Achan Into Confessing (Joshua 7:19-20)
Joshua urges Achan to give glory to God by making a confession.
Ravina explains that Joshua tricked Achan,10 stating: “Make confession (תודה) to Him and be discharged (היפטר)”.
״תן תודה״.
אמר רבינא:
שחודי שחדיה במילי:
כלום נבקש ממך אלא הודאה?!
תן לו תודה, והיפטר.
מיד:
״ויען עכן את יהושע ויאמר:
אמנה אנכי חטאתי לה׳ אלהי ישראל
וכזאת וכזאת עשיתי״.
Joshua said to Achan: “Please give glory to YHWH, God of Israel, and make confession to Him.”
Ravina says:
Joshua won over Achan with his words, saying:
Do we ask anything of you but a confession?!
Make confession to Him and be discharged.
Thinking that if he confessed, he would be pardoned, Achan immediately responded:
“And Achan answered Joshua, and said:
Indeed I have sinned against YHWH, God of Israel,
and like this and like that have I done” (Joshua 7:20).
How Many Times Did Achan Misuse Consecrated Property? (Joshua 7:20–21): 3 or 5 acts of misuse
Rav Asi quotes R' Ḥanina, who interprets the phrase “And like this and like that have I done” as referring to 3 separate acts of misusing11 sacred property:12
2 during the wars in Moses' time and 1 under Joshua.
R' Yoḥanan, citing R' Elazar ben R' Shimon, expands the number to 5 acts of misuse:
4 during Moses' wars and 1 in Joshua’s time.
אמר רב אסי, אמר רבי חנינא:
מלמד:
שמעל עכן בשלשה חרמים:
שנים — בימי משה
ואחד — בימי יהושע,
שנאמר: ״כזאת וכזאת עשיתי״.
רבי יוחנן אמר, משום רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון:
חמשה:
ארבעה — בימי משה
ואחד — בימי יהושע,
שנאמר:
״אנכי חטאתי
וכזאת וכזאת עשיתי״.
With regard to the words “And like this and like that have I done,” Rav Asi says that R' Ḥanina says:
This teaches that
Achan misused consecrated property from three dedications, i.e., three groups of property that had been dedicated to YHWH:
Two were during wars waged in the days of Moses,
and one was in the days of Joshua,
as it is stated: “And like this and like that have I done,” indicating that he had already committed similar offenses twice before committing the offense in Jericho.
R' Yoḥanan says in the name of R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon:
Achan misused property from five dedications:
four during wars waged in the days of Moses,
and one in the days of Joshua,
as it is stated:
“I have sinned against YHWH, God of Israel,
and like this and like that have I done,”
with each “and” alluding to an additional prior offense.
Why were the Jewish people not punished earlier for the sins of Achan?: Divine Punishment for Hidden Sins Begins After Jordan Crossing
The Talmud asks why the Jewish people were not punished earlier for the sins of Achan.13
Answer by R' Yoḥanan in R' Elazar ben Shimon’s name: God only began punishing the community for private sins14 after they crossed the Jordan.15
ועד השתא, מאי טעמא לא איענוש?
אמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון:
לפי שלא ענש על הנסתרות
עד שעברו ישראל את הירדן
[...]
The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason that the Jewish people were not punished on Achan’s account until now?
R' Yoḥanan says in the name of R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon:
Because God did not punish the nation as a whole for hidden sins committed by individuals
until the Jewish people crossed the Jordan River.
[...]
At the conclusion of this series, there’s an Appendix where I’ve compiled a unique type of outline that I’ve never attempted before, which I believe is quite useful and interesting:
“Appendix 2 – Homiletic Readings of Joshua Verses in the Talmudic Sugya on Achan.”
It presents an outline of all the Joshua verses referenced in the discussion, along with their interpretations (a brief summary of the homiletic reading), arranged by chapter and verse.
“the way (דרך) of all who are being executed (מומתין - literally: “killed”) is to confess (מתודין)”.
עכור - “trouble”, playing on the verse’s עכרתנו / יעכרך.
מזומם - i.e. he is innocent, and was a victim of false testimony.
לנקות עצמן - “to clear themselves”.
דילטור - from Latin delator: “accuser, informer, informant, denouncer“.
See Wikipedia, “Delator“:
Delator (plural: delatores, feminine: delatrix) is Latin for a denouncer, one who indicates to a court another as having committed a punishable deed.
In Roman history, it was properly one who gave notice (deferre) to the treasury officials of monies that had become due to the imperial fiscus.
This special meaning was extended to those who lodged information as to punishable offences, and further, to those who brought a public accusation (whether true or not) against any person (especially with the object of getting money).
Although the word delator itself, for "common informer," is confined to imperial times, the right of public accusation had long existed […]
Under the Roman Empire the system became openly corrupt […]
Pliny the Elder and Martial mention instances of enormous fortunes amassed by professional delators […]
Compare the related Talmudic terms mesirah and halshana—and their respective agents, moser and malshin—both of which are used to denote an “informer.”
See Wikipedia, “Cleromancy“:
Cleromancy is a form of sortition (casting of lots) in which an outcome is determined by means that normally would be considered random, such as the rolling of dice (astragalomancy), but that are sometimes believed to reveal the will of a deity.
In ancient Rome fortunes were told through the casting of lots or sortes.
Casting of lots (Hebrew: גּוֹרָל, romanized: gōral, Greek: κλῆρος, romanized: klē̂ros) is mentioned 47 times in the Bible.
This section appears elsewhere in the Talmud as well, I quote it and discuss it my previous piece.
Meaning: even if everyone in a group is known to be innocent, casting lots will still single someone out. So how can the outcome of cleromancy be taken as proof of guilt?
לעז - i.e. cast doubt.
שחודי שחדיה במילי - literally: “bribed him with words”.
On this term to mean tricking, and for a very broad discussion of stories of deception in the Talmud, see my piece at my Academia page.
מעל. For the definition of this technical Talmudic term, see Jastrow:
to make inappropriate use of sacred property, to be guilty of transgressing, be amenable to, the law concerning מעילה
(Lev[iticus] 5:15, sq.).
Meil[a] 1:1
מועלים בהן
in using them inadvertently one commits m’ʿilah
(i.e. they retain their sacred character in spite of a mistake made at their slaughtering).
And see Wikipedia, “Me'ilah“:
Me'ilah (מְעִילָה; "misuse of property") is a tractate of Seder Kodashim in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Babylonian Talmud.
It deals chiefly with the exact provisions of the law (Lev. 5:15-16) concerning the trespass-offering and the reparation which must be made by one who has used and enjoyed a consecrated thing.
When took from the banned spoils of multiple wars, as the Talmud derived homiletically in the previous section.
נסתרות - “hidden things”.
Before that, hidden transgressions by individuals did not bring collective consequences.