Pt2 The Confession, Punishment, and Atonement of Achan in Joshua 7 (Sanhedrin 43b-44b)
This is the second part of a three-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline for the series can be found at Part 1.
The Enduring Identity of Israel Despite Sin (Joshua 7:11)
God tells Joshua, “Israel has sinned” (Joshua 7:11 - using the national name “Israel” even while condemning their wrongdoing).
R' Abba bar Zavda draws a conclusion from this phrasing: despite their sin, the people retain their identity as “Israel.”
R' Abba reinforces this by quoting a folk saying: a myrtle (אסא) remains a myrtle even when growing among thorns.1
״חטא ישראל״.
אמר רבי אבא בר זבדא:
אף על פי שחטא,
ישראל הוא.
אמר רבי אבא:
היינו דאמרי אינשי:
אסא דקאי ביני חלפי,
אסא שמיה, ואסא קרו ליה.
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).
R' Abba bar Zavda says:
From here it may be inferred that even when the Jewish people have sinned,
they are still called “Israel.”
R' 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.
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
R' Ile’a, citing R' Yehuda bar Masparta, notes that the fivefold repetition of “also” (גם) in the verse about Achan implies that Achan violated all “Five Books of the Torah”.2
״וגם עברו את בריתי אשר צויתי אותם
גם לקחו מן החרם
גם גנבו
גם כחשו
גם שמו בכליהם״.
אמר רבי אילעא, משום רבי יהודה בר מספרתא:
מלמד:
שעבר עכן על חמשה חומשי תורה,
שנאמר חמשה ״גם״
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.”
R' Ile’a says in the name of R' Yehuda bar Masparta:
This teaches that
Achan also transgressed all five books of the Torah,
as the word “also” is stated here five times.
Achan's Circumcision Concealment (Genesis 17:14)
R' Ile’a adds that Achan would stretch his remaining foreskin.3
This is homiletically derived from the verse “They have also transgressed My covenant,” echoing Genesis 17:14’s phrase about one who “has violated My covenant” by rejecting circumcision.
ואמר רבי אילעא, משום רבי יהודה בר מספרתא:
עכן מושך בערלתו היה
כתיב הכא: ״וגם עברו את בריתי״,
וכתיב התם: ״את בריתי הפר״.
[...]
And R' Ile’a says further in the name of R' 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).
[...]
Achan's Sex with a Betrothed Virgin (Joshua 7:15; Deuteronomy 22:21)
R' Abba bar Zavda interprets the phrase “he has committed a wanton deed in Israel” (Joshua 7:15) as a euphemism for Achan's sexual offense (בעל) with a betrothed virgin.4
This phrase parallels Deuteronomy 22:21, which describes such an act as “committing a wanton deed in Israel.”
וכי עשה נבלה בישראל.
אמר רבי אבא בר זבדא:
מלמד:
שבעל עכן נערה המאורסה.
כתיב הכא ״וכי עשה נבלה״,
וכתיב התם ״כי עשתה נבלה בישראל״
[...]
With regard to Achan, the verse states: “And because he has committed a wanton deed in Israel” (Joshua 7:15).
R' 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).
[...]
Did Achan’s Family Deserve Punishment? A Dialogue on Collective Guilt (Joshua 7:24–25): The Exilarch’s Challenge and Rav Huna’s Response
The Exilarch questions the justice of the biblical account in which not only Achan but also his children and all his possessions (a long and comprehensive list of items are given) were punished by stoning and burning.
He asks Rav Huna: if Achan sinned, why were his sons and daughters also executed?
Rav Huna responds with a rhetorical counter-question: if Achan alone sinned, why does the verse say “all Israel with him”? Clearly not all of Israel sinned.
He thus interprets the verse as meaning that the people—including Achan’s family—were brought to witness the punishment in order to be chastised.5
אמר ליה ריש גלותא לרב הונא:
כתיב:
״ויקח יהושע
את עכן בן זרח
ואת הכסף
ואת האדרת
ואת לשון הזהב
ואת בניו
ואת בנתיו
ואת שורו
ואת חמרו
ואת צאנו
ואת אהלו
ואת כל אשר לו״.
אם הוא חטא, בניו ובנותיו מה חטאו?
אמר ליה:
וליטעמיך, אם הוא חטא – כל ישראל מה חטאו?
דכתיב: ״וכל ישראל עמו״.
אלא לרדותן. הכי נמי, כדי לרדותן.
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?
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.
Division of Punishment for Achan's Property (Joshua 7:25): burned and stoning
The verse states: “And they burned them with fire, and stoned them with stones.” The Talmud questions whether Achan received two punishments.
Ravina interprets that the punishments refer not to Achan himself but to different items: those suitable for burning (like clothing) were burned, and those suitable for stoning (like animals) were stoned.
״וישרפו אתם באש
ויסקלו אתם באבנים״.
בתרתי?
אמר רבינא:
הראוי לשריפה – לשריפה,
הראוי לסקילה – לסקילה.
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.
Spoils of Jericho: What Achan Took - Interpreting Achan’s “Mantle of Shinar” (Joshua 7:21)
Achan admits to stealing a “mantle (אדרת) of Shinar (שנער)” and silver from the spoils of war (thereby violating the ban on taking plunder from Jericho).
Rav identifies the “mantle of Shinar” as an “itztela”6 made from high-quality wool.7
Shmuel disagrees, interpreting it as a “sarabala8 dyed with alum”.9
״וארא בשלל:
אדרת שנער אחת טובה
ומאתים שקלים כסף״.
רב אמר: איצטלא דמילתא,
ושמואל אמר: סרבלא דצריפא.
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.
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
Rav Naḥman explains that Joshua threw (חבטם) the stolen spoils before God, questioning whether such minor items were worth the high cost in lives, rhetorically asking: “ because of these [minor items] the majority of the Sanhedrin were killed?!”
״ויציקום לפני ה׳״.
אמר רב נחמן:
בא וחבטם לפני המקום.
אמר לפניו:
רבונו של עולם!
על אלו תיהרג רובה של סנהדרין?!
With regard to the spoils that Achan took for himself, the verse states: “And they laid them out before YHWH” (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?!
R' Yehuda: literally 36 men died
Joshua laments that “about 36 men” were killed by their opposing forces at the Battle of Ai. A baraita records two interpretations of this number.
R' Yehuda reads the verse literally—36 men died.
דכתיב: ״ויכו מהם אנשי העי כשלשים וששה איש״.
ותניא:
שלשים וששה ממש,
דברי רבי יהודה.
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 R' Yehuda.
R' Neḥemya: Yair ben Menashe as the “Thirty-Six Men” (Joshua 7:5)
R' Neḥemya questions R' Yehuda’s literal reading of “thirty-six,” pointing out the verse says “like thirty-six.”
He proposes the verse refers not to a number, but to the death of Yair ben Menashe,10 whose importance was equal to 36 men, meaning that Yair was equivalent to the majority of a Sanhedrin (which is composed of 71 members).
אמר לו רבי נחמיה:
וכי שלשים וששה היו?!
והלא לא נאמר אלא ״כשלשים וששה איש״!
אלא זה יאיר בן מנשה
ששקול כנגד רובה של סנהדרין.
R' Neḥemya said to R' 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.
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)
Rav Naḥman cites Rav to interpret Proverbs 18:23: “The poor man speaks entreaties” refers to Moses, who prayed to God in a humble and conciliatory tone.
“But the rich man answers with impudence” refers to Joshua, who is described as speaking to God in a confrontational manner.
אמר רב נחמן, אמר רב:
מאי דכתיב:
״תחנונים ידבר רש
ועשיר יענה עזות״?
״תחנונים ידבר רש״ – זה משה,
״ועשיר יענה עזות״ – זה יהושע.
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.
Throwing Accusations Before God - Joshua vs. Pinehas
Throwing Spoils as Impudence
The Talmud considers whether Joshua is called impudent because he "laid them out before YHWH", which Rav Naḥman interprets (as quoted in the previous section) as “throwing” (חבטן) the spoils before God to protest.
מאי טעמא?
אילימא משום דכתיב ״ויציקום לפני ה׳״,
ואמר רב נחמן: בא וחבטן לפני המקום.
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 YHWH,”
and Rav Naḥman says that this means that Joshua came and cast the spoils down before God as part of his argument
Challenge from the Case of Pinehas (Psalms 106:30; Numbers 25:9)
This explanation is questioned by comparing it to Pinehas, who did something similar:
The verse in Psalms 106:3011 is understood to mean that Pinehas “threw” before God (as Joshua did, in the previous section) the sinners,12 demanding to know why 24,000 Israelites died because of them.
R' Elazar interprets that that verse in Psalms says "he executed judgment (ויפלל)" rather than "he prayed (ויתפלל)", implying Pinehas engaged in legal reasoning (פלילות) with God, not impudence.13
אטו פנחס לא עבד הכי?!
דכתיב:
״ויעמד פינחס
ויפלל
ותעצר המגפה״,
ואמר רבי אלעזר:
״ויתפלל״ לא נאמר, אלא ״ויפלל״,
מלמד:
שעשה פלילות עם קונו.
בא וחבטן לפני המקום,
אמר לפניו:
רבונו של עולם!
על אלו יפלו עשרים וארבעה אלף מישראל?!
דכתיב: ״ויהיו המתים במגפה ארבעה ועשרים אלף״.
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 R' 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).
Second Attempt: Joshua and Moses Rhetorically Questioning God's Actions (Joshua 7:7; Exodus 5:22)
The next candidate for impudence is Joshua's complaint: “Why have You brought this people over the Jordan?!”
Yet Moses made a similar complaint in Exodus 5:22: ““Why have You dealt ill with this people?!” (which was not viewed as impudent).
ואלא מהכא:
״למה העברת העביר את העם הזה את הירדן?!״
משה נמי מימר אמר:
״למה הרעתה לעם הזה?!״
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).
Final Proof: Joshua Longing for Transjordan (Joshua 7:7)
The definitive sign of Joshua’s impudence is identified in his wish that Israel had remained in the Transjordan.14
אלא מהכא:
״ולו הואלנו
ונשב בעבר הירדן״.
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).
חלפי - i.e. its essence and name are unchanged.
חמישה חומשי תורה – literally “five fifths of the Torah”; the standard literary term used in the Talmud to refer to the Five Books of Moses; hence known in Septuagint Greek as the Pentateuch (“Five Scrolls”).
מושך בערלתו - to appear uncircumcised.
I have an upcoming piece on “Foreskin Restoration in Classical History and in the Talmudic Sources“.
נערה המאורסה.
I have an upcoming piece on “The Major Sin of Sex with betrothed virgin in the Talmud“.
לרדותן - i.e. and to instill fear in them, but they weren’t in fact guilty and punished.
איצטלא - a “cloak”.
From Greek stolḗ.
Wikipedia, “Stola”:
The stola [...] was the traditional garment of Roman women, corresponding to the toga that was worn by men [...]
The stola was a long, pleated, sleeveless robe that could be worn by Roman wives (matronae).
And see also Wikipedia, “Stole (vestment)”:
The stole is a liturgical vestment of various Christian denominations, which symbolizes priestly authority [...]
מילתא - “meilta”.
צריפא - a specific, refined dyeing technique.
יאיר בן מנשה; see there section “בקרב העי”.
In the context of listing the sins of Israel in the Wilderness, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “תהילים ק"ו”, section “ו'-מ"ב”.
Therefore, clearly, throwing something before God isn't inherently impudent—Pinehas did so in a way that aligned with divine justice, unlike Joshua’s tone, which will be examined further.
Unlike Moses, Joshua’s statement implies regret for following God’s plan, thus crossing the line from protest to insolence.
The difference may be that the previous cases were cases of rhetorical questioning, while in this case, Joshua explicitly stated that they would have been better off staying in Transjordan.