Pt3 The Confession, Punishment, and Atonement of Achan in Joshua 7 (Sanhedrin 43b-44b)

This is the third and final part of a three-part series. Part 1 is here, Part 2 is here; the outline for the series can be found at Part 1.

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)

The verse “Get you up; why do you lie this way on your face?!” (Joshua 7:10) is interpreted by R' Sheila as God chastising Joshua for a personal failure worse than the people's:

Specifically, God had commanded the Israelites to erect stones upon crossing the Jordan (Deuteronomy 27:4), but despite traveling 60 mil (=Roman miles) inland, they had still not fulfilled the mitzva.

״ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע:

קום לך״.

דריש רבי שילא:

אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא:

שלך קשה משלהם

אני אמרתי: ״והיה בעברכם את הירדן תקימו״,

ואתם ריחקתם ששים מיל

With regard to the verse that states: “And YHWH said to Joshua:

Get you up; why do you lie this way on your face?!” (Joshua 7:10)

R' 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.

Rav's Defense of Joshua: Joshua omitted nothing of what Moses had commanded him (Joshua 11:15)

After R' Sheila’s lecture, Rav challenges the implication that Joshua sinned:

He cites Joshua 11:15, which praises Joshua for omitting nothing of what Moses had commanded him.¹

בתר דנפק,

אוקים רב אמורא עליה

ודרש:

״כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה עבדו

כן צוה משה את יהושע

וכן עשה יהושע

לא הסיר דבר מכל אשר צוה ה׳ את משה״.

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 YHWH commanded Moses His servant,

so did Moses command Joshua,

and so did Joshua;

he left nothing undone of all that YHWH 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.

Reframing the Blame (Joshua 8:2)

Rav resolves the contradiction by explaining that God's rebuke was not about neglecting the stones but rather Joshua’s policy decision at Jericho:

By banning the people from taking spoils, he created the conditions that led to Achan’s sin.

At Ai, God explicitly allows them to keep the spoils.²

אם כן, מה תלמוד לומר ״קום לך״?

אמר לו: אתה גרמת להם.

והיינו דקאמר ליה בעי:

״ועשית לעי ולמלכה

כאשר עשית ליריחו ולמלכה וגו׳״.

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.

The Encounter with the Mysterious Man (Joshua 5:13–14)

The verse states that Joshua meets a man at night with a drawn sword. Concerned, he asks: "Are you for us or for our enemies?"

The man replies that he is a “minister (שר) of the army (צבא - “host”) of YHWH”, and Joshua bows before him.

״ויהי

בהיות יהושע ביריחו

וישא עיניו וירא וגו׳

ויאמר:

לא כי אני שר צבא ה׳

עתה באתי

[ויפל יהושע אל פניו ארצה וישתחו]״.

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 YHWH;

I have now come.

And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down” (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 Talmud questions how Joshua could bow to a stranger at night, given R' Yoḥanan's statement that one should not greet an unrecognized person at night due to fear that the person might in fact be a demon (שד).

The Talmud answers that the figure identified himself as “captain of the host of YHWH” (i.e. he said explicitly that he isn’t a demon).

The Talmud asks that maybe the entity was lying (and in fact it was a demon, lying and saying it was an angel).

The Talmud answers that there is a tradition (גמירי) that demons do not use the name of Heaven in vain.³

היכי עביד הכי?

והאמר רבי יוחנן:

אסור לו לאדם שיתן שלום לחבירו בלילה,

חיישינן שמא שד הוא

שאני התם, דקאמר ליה: ״אני שר צבא ה׳ עתה באתי וגו׳״.

ודילמא משקרי?

גמירי

דלא מפקי שם שמים לבטלה.

The Gemara asks: How could Joshua do so, bowing down to a stranger at night?

But doesn’t R' 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?

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the stranger said to Joshua: “I am captain of the host of YHWH; 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.

The Angel's Rebuke: for missing the afternoon daily Tamid sacrifice, and for Bitul Torah

The angel rebukes Joshua for two failings: missing the afternoon Tamid animal sacrifice⁴ due to battle, and later neglecting Torah study.⁵

When Joshua asks which sin prompted the angel’s appearance, the angel replies: “I have now come” (i.e. for today’s sin: neglect of Torah study).

אמר ליה:

אמש ביטלתם תמיד של בין הערבים,

ועכשיו ביטלתם תלמוד תורה.

על איזה מהן באת?

אמר ליה: ״עתה באתי״.

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.

Joshua’s Atonement through Torah Study (Joshua 8:9, 13): Rectifying Bitul Torah; “Depth of Halakha”

Joshua, after realizing his failure to prioritize Torah study, took immediate corrective action by immersing himself in it.

The verse “And Joshua lodged that night… in the midst of the valley” (Joshua 8:9, 8:13) is interpreted homiletically.

R' Yoḥanan states that “the valley [ha’emek]” hints at “omek ha-halakhah” (“the depth of halakha”), indicating Joshua spent the night (לן) deeply engaged in legal study to atone for prior neglect.

מיד:

״וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא

בתוך העמק״,

ואמר רבי יוחנן:

מלמד:

שלן בעומקה של הלכה.

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 R' 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.

The Supremacy of Torah Study Over Animal Sacrifice

Shmuel bar Unya, citing Rav, concludes: Torah study is greater than even the daily Tamid animal sacrifice.

The phrase “I have now come” shows that neglecting Torah study is judged more harshly than neglecting sacrificial worship.

אמר שמואל בר איניא, משמיה דרב:

גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מהקרבת תמידין,

שנאמר: ״עתה באתי״

[...]

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.

[...]

Achan's Confession and His Atonement in the World-to-Come (Joshua 7:25): Confession as a Path to Atonement

The Mishnah asks how we know that Achan's confession brought him atonement.

A baraita supports this inquiry, citing Joshua 7:25, where Joshua declares that Achan is punished this day—implying he will not be punished in the World-to-Come (as stated earlier in the sugya).

מנין שכיפר לו וידויו וכו׳?

תנו רבנן:

מנין שכיפר לו וידויו?

שנאמר:

״ויאמר לו יהושע:

מה עכרתנו?!

יעכרך ה׳ היום הזה״.

היום הזה אתה עכור,

ואי אתה עכור לעולם הבא.

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?!

YHWH 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.

Zimri (Achan) and the World-to-Come (I Chronicles 2:6): Interpretation of “Five of Them in All”

The Talmud homiletically interprets Achan’s genealogy.⁶

The verse in I Chronicles 2:6 lists 5 sons of Zerah—Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dar(d)a—and ends the list of the 5 sons with the phrase “five of them in all”:

ובני זרח:

1. זמרי

2. ואיתן

3. והימן

4. וכלכל

5. ודרע

כלם חמשה

ובני כרמי:

עכר, עוכר ישראל

אשר מעל בחרם

The sons of Zerah:

1. Zimri,

2. Ethan,

3. Heman,

4. Calcol,

5. and Dara,

five in all.

The sons of Carmi:

Achar (עכר), the troubler (עוכר) of Israel⁷

who committed a trespass (מעל) against the proscribed thing (חרם - “herem”)

The Talmudic discussion questions the purpose of this seemingly redundant phrase.

The phrase is interpreted to mean that all 5 individuals are destined for a share in the World-to-Come, emphasizing their ultimate spiritual merit.⁸

וכתיב:

״ובני זרח:

1. זמרי

2. ואיתן

3. והימן

4. וכלכל

5. ודרדע

כלם חמשה״.

מאי ״כולם חמשה״?

כולן חמשה הן לעולם הבא.

And elsewhere it is written:

“And the sons of Zerah were:

1. Zimri

2. and Ethan

3. and Heman

4. and Calcol

5. 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.

Achan and Zimri: One Man, Two Names, Two Crimes (Joshua 7:24; I Chronicles 2:6)

In 1 Chronicles 2:6, one of Zerah’s sons is named Zimri, while in Joshua 7:24 the sinful figure is named Achan ben Zerah.

The Talmud records that Rav and Shmuel agree these refer to the same person but debate which was his actual name.

One opinion states his real name was Achan, and he was called Zimri because he behaved like Zimri.⁹

The other view claims his real name was Zimri, but he was called Achan because he “caused¹⁰ [the punishment of] Israel’s sins (עונותיהן)”.

כתיב ״זמרי״,

וכתיב ״עכן״.

רב ושמואל:

חד אמר:

עכן שמו,

ולמה נקרא שמו זמרי?

שעשה מעשה זמרי.

וחד אמר:

זמרי שמו,

ולמה נקרא שמו עכן?

שעיכן עונותיהן של ישראל.

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.

Appendix 1 - The Irrevocability of Verdicts and the Metaphorical Burden on False Witnesses

Sanhedrin.44b.11

Incident of a Condemned Man

A baraita recounts an incident where a man, led to execution, proclaimed his innocence.

He called for his death to atone only if he were truly guilty, and otherwise, for it to cleanse all his sins, exonerating (מנוקין) the court and the Jewish nation, but condemning the [false] witnesses.

תנו רבנן:

מעשה באדם אחד

שיצא ליהרג.

אמר:

• אם יש בי עון זה -- לא תהא מיתתי כפרה לכל עונותי.

• ואם אין בי עון זה -- תהא מיתתי כפרה לכל עונותי,

ובית דין וכל ישראל -- מנוקין,

והעדים -- לא תהא להם מחילה לעולם

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.

The Court's Powerlessness; Moral Responsibility

Upon hearing this declaration, the Sages responded that the court could not reopen the case, as the verdict had already been finalized.¹¹

“Rather, he shall be executed, and the ‘collar’ ¹² hangs around the necks of the witnesses.”

וכששמעו חכמים בדבר,

אמרו:

להחזירו אי אפשר,

שכבר נגזרה גזירה.

אלא יהרג,

ויהא קולר תלוי בצואר עדים.

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.

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

See Wikipedia, “Joshua 5”, section “Commander of the Lord's Army (5:13–15)”

• Interpretation: Joshua met a "man" with a drawn sword who identified himself as "captain of the host of YHWH."

• The Talmud questions how Joshua could bow to a stranger at night given the risk of demons. Answer: Demons never use God's name in vain, so Joshua could trust the figure's self-identification.

• The angel rebuked Joshua for two failings: missing the afternoon Tamid sacrifice due to battle, and neglecting Torah study.

• When Joshua asked which sin was worse, the angel replied "I have now come," indicating that neglecting Torah study was the greater offense.

Joshua 7:5 - The Defeat at Ai

See Wikipedia, “Joshua 7”, section “Defeat at Ai (7:1–15)”

• "And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty-six men"

• Two interpretations:

  • R' Yehuda: Literally 36 men died

  • R' Neḥemya: Only one man died - Yair ben Menashe, who was equivalent in importance to 36 men, namely: the majority of the Sanhedrin

Joshua 7:7 - Joshua's Complaint

• "Why have You brought this people over the Jordan?! Would that we had been content and had remained in the Transjordan"

• Interpreted as showing Joshua's impudence toward God (contrasted with Moses' humility)

• This statement, expressing regret for following God's plan by crossing the Jordan, was considered disrespectful

Joshua 7:10 - God's Rebuke

• "Get you up; why do you lie this way on your face?!"

• R' Sheila: God was rebuking Joshua for failing to erect memorial stones after crossing the Jordan as commanded

• Rav defended Joshua by citing Josh. 11:15, which states Joshua omitted nothing that Moses commanded

• Alternate interpretation: God was rebuking Joshua for his policy at Jericho (banning people from taking spoils)

Joshua 7:11 - Israel's Identity Despite Sin

• "Israel has sinned"

• R' Abba bar Zavda: Even when sinning, the people are still called "Israel" - their fundamental identity remains

• R' Abba adds a folk saying: "A myrtle remains a myrtle even when growing among thorns"

Joshua 7:11 - The Five Transgressions

• "They have also transgressed My covenant... and also taken... and also stolen... and also dissembled... and also put it among their own goods"

• R' Ile'a: The fivefold repetition of "also" (גם) implies Achan violated all five books of the Torah

• The phrase "transgressed My covenant" specifically indicates Achan stretched his foreskin to appear uncircumcised

Joshua 7:15 - Achan's Sexual Sin

• "And because he has committed a wanton deed in Israel"

• R' Abba bar Zavda: This euphemistic language parallels Deuteronomy 22:21, indicating Achan had sex with a betrothed virgin

Joshua 7:16-18 - The Casting of Lots

• Achan challenges the validity of identifying him by lot, noting that even righteous people could be randomly chosen

• Joshua pleads with him not to discredit lots since the entire land of Israel would later be apportioned by lot

Joshua 7:19-20 - Joshua's Call for Confession

• "My son! please give glory to YHWH, God of Israel, and make confession to Him"

• The gentle address "my son" shows Joshua's approach

• Ravina: Joshua "bribed him with words," tricking Achan by implying confession would lead to discharge

• Achan confesses: "Indeed I have sinned against YHWH, God of Israel, and like this and like that have I done"

Joshua 7:20-21 - Multiple Acts of Misappropriation

• "And like this and like that have I done"

• R' Ḥanina: Refers to 3 separate acts of misusing sacred property (2 during Moses' time, 1 under Joshua)

• R' Elazar ben R' Shimon: Refers to 5 acts of misuse (4 during Moses' time, 1 under Joshua)

Joshua 7:21 - The Stolen Items

• "And I saw among the spoil: a fine mantle of Shinar, and two hundred shekels of silver"

• Rav: The "mantle of Shinar" was a cloak of choice wool

• Shmuel: It was a garment dyed with alum

Joshua 7:23 - Displaying the Evidence

• "And they laid them out before YHWH"

• Rav Naḥman: Joshua threw the stolen items before God, questioning whether such minor items were worth the high cost in lives

Joshua 7:24-25 - The Punishment of Achan's Family

• The Exilarch questions why Achan's family was punished for his sin

• Rav Huna: They weren't actually punished but were brought to witness the punishment as a deterrent

Joshua 7:25 - Achan's Atonement

• "YHWH shall trouble you this day"

• The emphasis on "this day" implies temporal punishment only: Joshua is telling Achan his suffering is limited to this world, indicating his confession brought atonement for the World-to-Come

• Ravina: Items were punished differently - things suitable for burning were burned, things suitable for stoning were stoned

Joshua 8:2 - Changed Policy on Spoils

See Wikipedia, “Joshua 8”, section “Fall of Ai (8:1–29)”

• "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"

• God explicitly allows taking spoils at Ai, suggesting Joshua's strict ban at Jericho created conditions that led to Achan's sin

Joshua 8:9, 13 - Joshua's Torah Study

• "And Joshua lodged that night... in the midst of the valley"

R' Yoḥanan: "The valley" (ha'emek) refers to "the depth of halakha" - Joshua spent the night deeply studying Torah to atone for his prior neglect

1. This suggests Joshua was not personally negligent or culpable in any serious way.

Notably, from a broader historical perspective, the exchange between R' Sheila and Rav regarding Joshua's culpability reflect deeper tensions between these two significant Babylonian amoraim of the early 3rd century CE. Rav—founder of the Sura academy and progenitor of Babylonian Talmudic hegemony—is systematically found throughout the Talmud to challenge and come into conflict with R' Sheila.

See my piece “Pt2 “Endless Water”: Eight Stories of Uncertain Drowning of a Husband in the Context of Remarriage (Yevamot 121a-b)“, section “Story of someone who drowned in “the lake of Samkei”, and Rav Sheila allowed his wife to marry“, where I summarize:

In this story, Rav Sheila (1st generation Babylonian amora) initially allowed a woman to remarry based on the testimony of witnesses who saw her husband enter “the lake of Samkei” (אגמא דסמקי) and not return.

Concerned about the propriety of this decision, Rav proposed excommunicating (נשמתיה) Rav Sheila.

Shmuel, however, suggested they first seek clarification from Rav Sheila regarding his reasoning.

Upon inquiry, Rav Sheila acknowledged that the lake of Samkei was an "endless" body of water, where the edges are not visible from all sides, which halachically means the wife should not remarry.

Admitting his error in allowing the remarriage, Rav Sheila recognized his mistake in judgement.

And see my piece “Pt1 Tremendously Loud Sounds: Gabini's Cries, the Sun's Orbit, Rome's Crowds, and More (Yoma 20b-21a)“, section “Anecdote of R’ Sheila and Rav“, where I summarize:

Rav visited a place where R' Sheila was the prominent local Torah scholar, but Rav was not yet known there. Without a disseminator (אמורא - amora) for R' Sheila's lecture, Rav volunteered for the role. (The disseminator/amora acted as a kind of human loudspeaker.)

During the lecture, R' Sheila mentioned [the Mishnah’s] "keriat hagever," which Rav interpreted as "the call of the man." R' Sheila suggested it meant "the call of the rooster," prompting Rav to assert, using a folk saying, that R' Sheila lacked the sophistication to appreciate it.

Rav cited his experience with R' Ḥiyya, who did not challenge his interpretation.

Realizing Rav's identity, R' Sheila expressed that it was beneath Rav's dignity to serve as his disseminator.

Rav responded with another folk saying (אמרי אינשי - literally: “people say”), implying that one should complete any task they undertake, even the less pleasing aspects.

Alternatively, Rav argued that it was inappropriate for a lesser person to replace him in a role he had taken, as it would show disrespect for the Torah.

And see the extended Talmudic story about “R’ Sheila and the Man Who Had Sex With a Non-Jewish Woman”, which I discuss in my piece “Earthly and Divine Majesty: Encounters with Kings, Justice, and the Reflection of Heaven on Earth (Berakhot 58a)”, final part here. I summarize there:

R’ Sheila ordered that a man who had sex with a non-Jewish woman be whipped.

The man informed on him to the authorities, saying that R’ Sheila was deciding judgments (דינא) without royal authorization (הרמנא).

The king sent an officer. R’ Sheila justified the whipping by claiming the man had engaged in bestiality with a female donkey. When asked for witnesses, Elijah incarnated in human form and testified.

The officials then questioned why the man was not sentenced to death. R’ Sheila explained that since the Jewish exile (גלינן), they lacked the authority to execute (מקטל), leaving the final decision to the Persian authorities […]

R’ Sheila praised God for saving him and recited a verse from I Chronicles 29:11.9

When asked what he had said, he explained that he had blessed God (רחמנא) for establishing “earthly rule as a reflection of divine rule” and for granting dominion (שולטנא) and a love of justice (רחמי דינא).

Impressed by his respect for authority, they gave him a staff and told him to judge […]

As R' Sheila was leaving, the man accused him of being a liar unworthy of miracles.

R' Sheila rebuked him, calling him “evil [one]!" (רשע), and citing a verse comparing non-Jews to donkeys: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20).

Realizing the man intended to report him to the Persian authorities, R' Sheila deemed him a “pursuer” (rodef) and, following the principle “If one comes to kill you, kill him first,” struck and killed him with his staff […]

R' Sheila expounded the verse "Yours, YHWH, is the greatness..." from I Chronicles 29:11 (which he had quoted earlier), saying that “since a miracle was performed on my behalf with this verse that I cited, I will ‘interpret it homiletically’ (דרישנא ליה)”.

R’ Sheila linked each attribute to a biblical event—mainly past and future defeats of Israel's enemies—supported by a biblical prooftext […]

Interestingly, Rav is said to have had a paternal uncle named Sheila, see my “Rabbinic Roots: Unraveling the Family Tree of R' Ḥiyya and His Nephews (Sanhedrin 5a)“:

אמר מר:

1. איבו,

2. וחנה,

3. ושילא,

4. ומרתא,

5. ורבי חייא,

כולהו בני אבא בר אחא כרסלא מכפרי הוו

the Master says:

1. Aivu, Rav’s father,

2. and Ḥana,

3. and Sheila,

4. and Marta,

5. and R' Ḥiyya,

were all children of Abba bar Aḥa Karsala from Kafrei

See my extended discussion there on that passage.

2. Joshua 8:2 - showing that the original ban was not inherently necessary and that Joshua's severity indirectly triggered the offense.

3. מפקי שם שמים לבטלה. Since the figure invoked God’s name, Joshua could trust he was not a demon.

4. See Wikipedia, “Tamid”:

Tamid (Hebrew: תָמִיד, romanized: tāmiḏ, lit. 'daily offerings') is the ninth tractate in Kodashim, which is the fifth of the six orders of the Mishnah, Tosefta, and the Talmud.

The main subject of Tamid is the morning and evening burnt offerings (Exodus 29:38–42; Numbers 28:3–8), but it also deals with other Temple ceremonies […]

Chapter 4: The ritual for killing and dismembering the [daily] sacrificial lamb [=Tamid]; how the parts of the sacrifice were brought to the altar.

And see Hebrew Wikipedia, “קורבן התמיד“, my translation:

The Tamid Offering

The Tamid offering was a burnt offering (olah) brought as a communal [animal] sacrifice (korban), offered in the Temple twice each day — once in the morning and once in the afternoon.

The Tamid sacrifices marked the beginning and end of the Temple service each day: no other offerings were brought before the morning Tamid or after the afternoon Tamid […]

Source

The commandment regarding the Tamid offerings appears in the Torah twice — in Parashat Tetzaveh and in Parashat Pinchas:

“And you shall say to them:

This is the fire-offering that you shall offer to YHWH:

two year-old lambs without blemish each day,

as a regular (תמיד) burnt offering (עלה).

The one lamb you shall offer in the morning,

and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon

a regular burnt offering ordained at Mount Sinai,

a pleasing aroma,

a fire-offering to YHWH”

— Numbers 28:3-6

5. ביטלתם תלמוד תורה - on this as a major sin in the Talmud, see my previous piece, in a note.

6. See Achan’s family tree as per the Bible at Wikipedia, “Achan (biblical figure)”, section “Family tree”.

7. On this biblical expression, see Hebrew Wiktionary, “עוכר ישראל” section “מקור”.

As an aside, in modern Hebrew, this phrase has come to serve as a literary term for “anti-Semitism”.

8. The Talmud identifies Zimri with Achan, as stated in the next section. See also earlier in the sugya, for Pinehas in the context of the sin of Zimri and Cozbi.

Despite Achan’s grave sin, his confession is understood to have earned him atonement.

9. Zimri famously had illicit sex with Cozbi—a Midianite woman—as recounted in the Bible, see my previous footnote.

Achan, similarly, had intercourse with a betrothed young woman, as stated earlier in the sugya. See my previous installment.

10. עיכן.

See Jastrow:

עכן (cmp. עכב) to be curved, curled.

Pi[el] - עיכן

(c[ompare] עילה, סיבה end)

to bring about, to cause.

Snh. 44ᵇ

(play on עכן, Josh. VII, 24) זמרי … שעי׳ עוונותיהם וכ׳

his name was Zimri (I Chr. II, 6),

but he was named ʿAkhan (Circle),

because he caused the punishment of Israel’s sins.

On “Akhan” as meaning “snake, serpent, viper”, see Jastrow ibid., next entries, and see Hebrew Wiktionary, sense #1.

The rabbinic surname Hakinai (חכינאי) may be cognate.

See also there in the Wiktionary entry that the Greek “ékhis” meaning “snake” may be related.

11. נגזרה גזירה - literally: “the decree has already been decreed”.

The irreversible nature of a court ruling meant the execution had to proceed.

12. קולר - from Latin, referring to a slave’s collar; used here metaphorically to denote a burden or responsibility—specifically, accountability for his wrongful execution.

See the same metaphor/idiom in Sanhedrin.7b.3:

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי:

עשרה שיושבין בדין,

קולר תלוי בצואר כולן.

R’ Yehoshua ben Levi says:

If ten judges are sitting in judgment,

a prisoner’s collar [kolar], referring to responsibility for the consequences of an incorrect verdict, hangs around all of their necks.

And see my piece “Pt2 "Alas!": Thirteen Additional Stories Regarding the Reliability and Validity of Testimony About a Husband’s Death in the Context of Remarriage (Yevamot 121b-122b)“, section “Story of “Alas for the group of collared people, for they died, and I buried them!”“, where I summarize:

There was an incident involving a group of people who were taken captive and each was shackled with a collar around his neck (קולר של בני אדם - literally: “a collar of people”), being led to Antioch (אנטוכיא - a major Syrian city).

Later, a non-Jew came forward and reported that this group of collared individuals had died, and he had buried them.

Based on the non-Jew’s account, the Sages permitted the wives of these deceased individuals to remarry.

And see my piece here, in a note on section “Story: Geneiva's Encounter with Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda: A Discussion on the Four Winds“, where I summarize:

Geneiva, although a scholar, was infamous for causing significant trouble for the Babylonian rabbis and was eventually handled by non-Jewish government authorities, an outcome the rabbis perceived as divine intervention.

See earlier in the tractate (around 23 pages before), Gittin.7a.5-7, where Geneiva is described as someone who “tormented” Mar Ukva, the Exilarch. Mar Ukva considered turning him over to the authorities (מלכות), but ultimately, the government apprehended Geneiva without needing to be informed.

I then cite the climax of the Talmudic passage:

הדבר יצא מפי רבי אלעזר,

ונתנוהו לגניבא בקולר.

The matter emerged from the mouth of R’ Elazar,

and Geneiva, Mar Ukva’s tormentor, was placed in a neck iron [kolar], as one sentenced by the government.

And see in the extended aggadic sugya of dream interpretation, Berakhot.57a.15, inter alia, where the following symbols (despite their seemingly negative connotations) are interpreted positively as signs of (divine) protection (שמירה - presumably because slaveowners and soldiers closely guard their slaves and captives):

• being apprehended by a soldier

• being placed (נתנוהו) in a slave’s collar

The full passage:

הנתפס לסרדיוט —

שמירה נעשית לו.

נתנוהו בקולר —

הוסיפו לו שמירה על שמירתו.

One who dreams that he was apprehended (נתפס) by a soldier (סרדיוט - from Greek strătĭṓtēs: “soldier, warrior, mercenary“),

it is a sign that protection (שמירה) was provided him by heaven.

If he sees that he is wearing a [slave’s] collar (קולר),

it is a sign that they have increased his level of protection.

In general, on “collar” as a symbol of slavery, see Wiktionary, “collum“, sense #2:

A symbol of servitude

And see Wikipedia, “Representation of slavery in European art“, section “Iconographic aspects of slavery“:

Numerous portraits of high-class Europeans show them [=black Africans] in the company of black figures, often children, whose status may be advertised by the silver slave collar being worn.

A silver collar is usually worn in conjunction with luxurious clothes and other finery, which allowed the artist to show off his repertoire and the owner of the slave to show off his or her wealth.

In fact, in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was the fashion among some wealthy Europeans to have their black household slaves or servants wear silver collars; these were often inscribed with the name of the owner or employer.

The slave collar is seen in contemporary paintings.

Chains, fetters, manacles, slave collars are the familiar iconographic markers of slavery, with the broken chain being particularly useful [as a symbol] for dis-enslavement [=manumission].