Sanhedrin 44a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection: If so, according to Rabbi Nehemiah,

but ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

why was Achan punished?

Why were all Israel punished? For surely, they never punish those who did not sin for the hidden transgressions of others?!

And the Gemara answers:

Because his wife and sons knew about him.

For they indeed knew that he had violated the ban, and therefore this was not included within “hidden matters.”

From the fact that it is stated

“Israel has sinned”

and it is not stated, “the people have sinned,” it follows that the name of their sanctity still remains upon them.

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said:

We learn from here that an Israelite

even though he has sinned, is still an Israelite!

Rabbi Abba said: This is what people say: A myrtle that stands among willows—

a myrtle that grows among plants called “willows,” and is therefore inferior, nevertheless

it is called a myrtle;

its name still is “myrtle,”

and they call it a myrtle;

it is still called so by people.

It is stated there: “And the Lord said to Joshua, etc.: Israel has sinned

and they have also transgressed My covenant that I commanded them; they have also taken from the ban, they have also stolen, they have also denied, and they have also placed it among their vessels.”

Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Judah bar

Masparta: This teaches that Achan transgressed the five Books of the Torah.

For

indeed

five

times

“also” are stated.

And Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Judah bar Masparta: Achan was one who drew upon his foreskin.

He continually drew the skin of his organ until the skin covered the head of the organ, so that he would not appear circumcised.

For

it is written here

“and they have also transgressed My covenant,”

and it is written there [Genesis 17:14]

“he has violated My covenant.”

It follows that he transgressed the covenant of circumcision.

Отсюда следует, что он преступил завет обрезания.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is it obvious?!

For Rabbi Ila himself says that Achan transgressed the entire Torah, so what is the novelty in saying that he transgressed the covenant of circumcision?

And the Gemara answers:

It might have entered your mind to say: In the mitzva itself he was not irreverent,

that he did not abandon himself to such an extent as to disgrace the mitzva itself.

It teaches us

that he transgressed this as well.

It is further stated there concerning Achan:

“And because he committed an outrage in Israel.”

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said: This teaches that Achan came

upon a betrothed maiden.

It is written here

“and because he committed an outrage in Israel,”

and it is written there [Deuteronomy 22:21] concerning a betrothed maiden:

“because she committed an outrage in Israel.”

«Ибо совершила она мерзость в Израиле».

And the Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious,

for Achan transgressed the entire Torah?

And the Gemara answers:

It might have entered your mind to say: He did not abandon his soul to such an extent,

to become evil both toward Heaven and toward people, to disgrace her family and render her forbidden to her husband.

It teaches us otherwise.

Ravina said:

The comparison to a betrothed maiden is only to tell you that

his law [

they judged him ]

was like that of a betrothed maiden, which is by stoning.

The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: It is written

there:

“And Joshua took Achan son of Zerah, and the silver, and the robe, and the bar of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his ox, and his donkey, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that belonged to him.”

And the Exilarch understood that he killed them all, and the difficulty is:

If he sinned, what had his sons and daughters sinned?

He said to him,

Rav Huna:

In your view,

you maintain that he took them for execution,

if he sinned, what had all Israel sinned, as it is written

later in the verse:

“and all

Israel with him”?

Rather,

you must necessarily say that he took them in order

to discipline them,

so that they would see him when he was stoned and take care concerning themselves and no longer violate the ban.

So too,

his sons and daughters: he took them only

in order to discipline them.

It is further stated there: “And all Israel stoned him with a stone

and burned them with fire and stoned them with stones.”

And the difficulty is:

with two things—

why did they need both to burn them and to stone them?

And the Gemara answers:

Ravina said:

They did not perform both upon them; rather,

that which was fit for burning,

such as the silver, gold, and garments, was—

for burning.

And

that which was fit for stoning,

Achan himself and his animals, was—

for stoning.

It is further stated there that Achan confessed and said:

“And I saw among the spoil a beautiful Shinar robe, and two hundred shekels of silver.”

Rav and Samuel disagreed concerning the interpretation of “a Shinar robe.” —

Rav said:

It is

a garment of fine wool,

a garment made of clean wool, [with which they wrapped the lamb on the day it was born to protect its wool from becoming soiled].

And Samuel said:

It is

a garment of scarlet,

a garment dyed with an expensive dye.

It is stated there that they brought the silver and gold that had been taken by Achan before Joshua:

“And they cast them before the Lord.”

Rav Nahman said: Joshua came

and

struck them before the Omnipresent!

He said before Him: Master of the universe!

Is it because of these that

the majority of the Sanhedrin should be killed?!

As it is written

there:

“And the men of Ai struck down from them about thirty-six men.”

And it was taught in a beraita: Thirty-six literally, the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Nehemiah said to him: Were there thirty-six

literally

men?

Was it not stated merely

“about thirty-six men,”

with a kaf expressing approximation?

Rather, this was Jair son of Manasseh, who was equivalent to the majority of the Sanhedrin,

for only he was killed there.

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rav: What is the meaning of that which is written

[Proverbs 18:23]:

“The poor man speaks supplications, and the rich man answers harshly”?

“

The poor man speaks supplications”—

this is Moses, for when he needed to seek mercy for Israel, he spoke in gentle language.

“

And the rich man answers harshly”—this is

Joshua.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason

where do we find that Joshua spoke harshly before the Omnipresent?

If you say it is because it is written

“And they cast them before the Lord,”

and Rav Nahman said: He came and struck them before the Omnipresent?

Is that so? Did Phinehas not do this as well?

For Phinehas also did so?

As it is written

[Psalms 106:30]:

“And Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stopped.”

And Rabbi Elazar said: It does not say,

“and he prayed,” but rather

it says

“and he intervened”;

this teaches that

Phinehas

conducted a legal proceeding

[a judgment]

with his Creator!

He came and struck them

Zimri and Cozbi daughter of Zur

before the Omnipresent, and said before Him: Master of the universe! Because of these, twenty-four thousand from Israel should fall, as it is written

[Numbers 25:9]

“And those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand”?

For this is not considered harshness?

And the Gemara answers:

Rather, from here

we learn that Joshua spoke harshly, for he said to the Holy One, blessed is He, after Israel fell in the battle of Ai:

“Why have You brought, yes brought, this people across the Jordan?”

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Moses also said

[Exodus 5:22]:

“Why have You harmed this people”?

And the Gemara answers:

Rather, from here,

for Joshua said afterward in his words before the Holy One, blessed is He:

“If only we had been willing and had remained beyond the Jordan,”

which implies that it would have been better for us not to fulfill Your command, when You said to us, “Arise, cross the Jordan.”

It is stated there:

“And the Lord said to Joshua: Arise, go forth,”

why are you falling upon your face?

Rabbi Sheila expounded: The Holy One, blessed is He, said to him: Yours is more difficult than theirs!

For the word “go” implies that this came from you and from your hand, that they were punished also because of you, since you did not fulfill My words—

I said

[Deuteronomy 27:4]:

“And it shall be, when you cross the Jordan, you shall set up

these stones,” meaning that you should immediately take the stones,

but

you

moved them sixty mil.

For you set them up only on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, which are sixty mil distant from the Jordan.

After he went out,

after Rabbi Sheila left,

Rav appointed an interpreter over him,

he appointed a translator,

and expounded

this verse [Joshua 11:15]:

“As the Lord commanded Moses His servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he did not remove anything from all that the Lord had commanded Moses.”

Thus Joshua did not change anything from the command of the Lord, and Rabbi Sheila did not expound correctly.

If so, what is the meaning of

“Arise, go forth,”

which implies that Joshua caused the punishment to come upon them?

He said to him

the Holy One, blessed is He, to Joshua:

You caused it for them

by prohibiting for them the spoils of Jericho on your own initiative; it was not I who prohibited it for them.

And this is what He said to him

the Holy One, blessed is He, to Joshua:

“Ask,”

when he went out to war against Ai [there, 8:2]:

“And you shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king; only its spoil and its animals you shall plunder for yourselves.”

Do not ban the spoil again, as you did in Jericho.

It is stated there [5:13]:

“And it was, when Joshua was in Jericho, that he lifted his eyes and saw,”

and behold, a man was standing opposite him, with his sword drawn in his hand. Joshua went toward him and said to him: Are you for us or for our enemies?

And he said: No, for I am the commander of the army of the Lord; now I have come. And Joshua fell upon his face to the ground and bowed down.

And the Gemara discusses:

How did he do this?

How did Joshua bow to him at night? [For during the day he would not have asked him, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” since he certainly would have recognized whether he was one of Israel’s commanders or not.]

But Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden for a person to greet his fellow at night, lest he be a demon,

and it is forbidden to utter the Divine Name concerning the harmful being, and “peace” is a Divine Name; all the more so is it forbidden to bow to him, since it is forbidden to bow to demons. And the Gemara answers:

The case there is different, for he said to him

the man to Joshua:

“I am the commander of the army of the Lord; now I have come,”

and therefore Joshua did not fear bowing to him.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Perhaps

he was a demon, and

they lie.

For he lied by saying that he was the commander of the army of the Lord?

And the Gemara answers:

It is a received tradition

that we have received

that they do not utter

that demons do not utter

the Divine Name in vain,

and necessarily he was not a demon.