As we Darshened the Pasuk in Emor "va'Yotzi'u es ha'Mekalel", so too, do we Darshen the the conclusion of the Pasuk "va'Yirgemu Oso Aven". We learn from ...

... "Oso" - that a person is stoned naked ("Oso", 've'Lo Kesuso').

... "Aven" - that if he died with one stone, it is not necessary to bring more.

Having written "Aven", the Torah nevertheless needs to write "u'Sekaltem Osam ba'Avanim" (in connection with the Mekoshesh Eitzim) - to teach us that if he did not die with one stone, then one hurls other stones at him until he does.

The Tana learned the three camps from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh"- on the assumption that there was no actual Pasuk from which to learn it ('Ilu Lo Ne'emar'). However, now that Rav Papa has divulged specific Pesukim from which to learn the three camps (which presumably, the Tana'im were aware of too), the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is no longer necessary.

Rav Ashi learns "Hotzei es ha'Mekalel" like Rav Papa (from the Machaneh Leviyah), only he learns Machaneh Yisrael from "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh". "Va'yotzi'u es ha'Mekalel", he says, comes to teach us 'Asiyah' (like we asked on Rav Papa). And we need a second Pasuk ("u'Venei Yisrael Asu") for Asiyah, according to him - to teach us that Yisrael carried out, not only the actual stoning, but also, leaning their hands on the culprit and pushing him off the cliff.

And we learn the obligation of pushing the culprit off the cliff - from the Pasuk in Yisro (in connection with someone who ascended Har Sinai at Matan Torah) - "O Yaroh Yiyareh".

The Rabbanan asked Rav Ashi what he (and Rav Papa) will do with the various Pesukim ("ve'Hotzi") mentioned in connection with Parim ha'Nisrafin - but he had no answer ('Kashya').

Rav Huna finds it obvious - that it is Beis-Din who must provide the stone that is used for Sekilah, the beam of wood on which he will later be hanged, the sword with which they will behead someone who is Chayav Hereg - and the cloth that is used to strangle someone who is Chayav Chenek ...

... because it is insensitive to ask a person to provide the weapon which will be used to kill him.

Rav Huna was not so sure however, about the cloths and the horse that are used to bring the accused back to Beis-Din. The onus to bring these may well lie with him, since they are for his benefit. On the other hand, it might be the Beis-Din who are obligated to bring them - seeing as the Torah has obligated them to try and save him from the death-penalty.

Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav Chisda learns from the Pasuk in Mishlei "T'nu Sheichar le'Oved, ve'Yayin le'Marei Nefesh" that - Beis-Din are obligated to give a man who is accused to death a cup of wine containing a grain of frankincense, before carrying out the death-penalty, in order to render him unaware of what is going on, to prevent him from worrying about his death and slowing down the death process.

According to the Beraisa - it was the precious women of Yerushalayim who used to provide the cup of wine containing a grain of frankincense.

Initially, Rav Huna's Safek extends to this item too. He has no problem resolving this She'eilah - due to the Lashon "T'nu" used by the Pasuk, even though the same She'eilah regarding the cloths and the horse remains unanswered.

Rav Acha bar Huna asked Rav Sheishes what the Din will be if a Talmid claims that he has something to say in favor of the accused, and is then struck dumb. The She'eilah was - whether, despite the fact that he is unable to give a reason for his statement, we assume that the other Chachamim would have accepted his argument, in which case Beis-Din are obligated to close the case, and bring new Dayanim, or not.

Rav Sheishes gave a wave of his hand - because in that case, he maintained, we may also assume that there is someone at the other end of the world who has something to say in favor of the accused, and bring in new Dayanim on that score.

The questioner however, differentiated between his case - where the Talmid actually declared that he had something to say, and someone at the end of the world, who did not.

Rav Sheishes extrapolated from Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who rules that if a Talmid raised a point in favor of the condemned man and died, when the court reconvenes on the following day, we assume that he would have abided by his previous statement that - we only act on a Talmid who gave his opinion and clarified it (Zikah, In'). Otherwise, it is as if he had said nothing ('Lo Zikah, Lo') ...

... to which Rav Acha bar Huna replied that - whereas Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina certainly said his Din by Zikah, his She'eilah was whether he meant Zikah Davka, or not ...

... because it is unusual to become dumb in the middle of is statement, but perhaps where he did, his (Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's) ruling will still apply.

We learned in our Mishnah that we return the accused to Beis-Din even four or five times, provided he has something to say. Rav Papa reconciles this with the Beraisa, which allows him to be returned to Beis-Din twice even if he has nothing substantial to say - by establishing our Mishnah from the third time and onwards.

Even though the Sheluchei Beis-Din who carry out the death-penalty are not necessarily Talmidei-Chachamim, one discovers whether his argument is substantial or not - says Abaye, by means of two Talmidei-Chachamim, whom Beis-Din send to accompany them from the third time and onwards.

We do not employ the same strategy the first two times as well - because we assume at that stage, that the accused has something serious to say, only due to the terror that grips him, he has difficulty in expressing himself.

If Beis-Din found a Z'chus, says the Mishnah, they would send him home. Otherwise, he is sent to the Beis ha'Sekilah, and a proclamation precedes him. The wording of the proclamation is - 'So-and-so is being taken out to be stoned for having transgressed such-and-such an Aveirah, and so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Will anyone who has something to say in his favor, kindly step forward and do so'.

Abaye adds to that - the day, the time and the place of the crime, to make it possible to bring witnesses to be Mazim the witnesses who testified against him.

We extrapolate from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'u'Keruz Yotzei lefanav' that - they only issue the proclamation as he is being taken out to be killed, but not before.

Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets the Pasuk in Tehilim ...

... "Zove'ach Todah Yechabdan'ni" (with its two 'Nunin') to mean that - if someone slaughters (conquers [see Agados Maharsha]) his Yeitzer-ha'Ra (by doing Teshuvah) and confesses to having sinned, it is as if he had honored Hash-m in both worlds.

... "Zivchei Elokim Ru'ach Nishbarah" to mean that - someone who is humble, it is as if he had brought all the sacrifices.

... "Leiv Nishbar ve'Nidkeh Elokim Lo Sivzeh" (the conclusion of the previous Pasuk) to mean that - his prayers will not be rejected.

Our Mishnah describes the last stages before the execution. When the condemned man arrives within ten Amos of the Beis ha'Sekilah - they instruct him to confess.

They explain to him - that anyone who confesses receives a portion in the World to Come.

And they quoted the episode with Achan, who began to mock the Goral (the lot that had declared him guilty), but Yehoshua said to him -"Give honor to Hash-m the G-d of Yisrael and confess!"

After he relented and confessed, Yehoshua responded with - "How you have 'blackened' us! Hash-m will 'blacken' you today', insinuating "today" but not in the World to Come.

If the condemned man is unable to confess (with regard to other sins which he knows he transgressed but which he cannot recall [Tif'eres Yisrael]), then he says - 'May my death atone for all my sins'.

According to Rebbi Yehudah, if the condemned man knows that his witnesses are false, then he precludes the sin for which he has been condemned from his confession. The Chachamim object however - because then every condemned man will do that in order to die with a good name.

Hash-m refused to divulge the culprit who had taken from the spoils of Yericho - because, He said 'I am not a Rachil (a tale-bearer)'.

When the subsequent lot picked out Achan he reacted - by mocking the lot. If one were to draw lots between Yehoshua and Elazar ha'Kohen, he argued, one of them would have to be picked, so what do lots prove?

Yehoshua responded - by requesting of him to refrain from mocking the lots, since that was the method by which Eretz Yisrael would be distributed to the tribes.

To extract the required confession - Yehoshua tricked Achan into believing that if he would confess, he would be Patur.

Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Chanina learns from the wording of Achan's confession "Chatasi la'Hashem Elokei Yisrael, ve'cha'Zos ve'cha'Zos Asisi" that Achan took forbidden spoil on two other occasions besides from Yericho - both in the time of Moshe; one during the war against the Cana'ani Melech Arad (Amalek), and the other, during one of the other battles that Moshe fought.

Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says ...

... with regard to the above that - Achan actually took forbidden spoil four times during the time of Moshe, and the reason ...

... that Yisrael were not punished until now for Achan's earlier transgressions was - because they were not punished for the unknown sins of the individual until after crossing the River Yarden (following the ceremony at Har Gerizim and Har Eival, where they accepted responsibility for one another). Note, that we will need to explain why Achan himself was not punished earlier (indeed it would have been better for all concerned if he had been!).

Rebbi Yochanan's latter statement concurs with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa, who interprets the Pasuk "ha'Nistaros la'Hashem Elokeinu, ve'ha'Niglos lanu u'Levaneinu" ...

... (before Darshening the dots on "lanu u'Levaneinu" and on the 'Ayin' of "ad") - literally, that they were punishable for the known sins of an individual, but not for the unknown ones.

... after Darshening them - that from the time they crossed the Yarden, they also became punishable for the unknown sins of the individual.

The dots appear on "lanu u'Levaneinu" and not on "la'Hashem Elokeinu", where they really belong - because it is not respectful to place dots on Hash-m's Name.

Now that the dots appear on "lanu u'Levaneinu", we explain the Pasuk to mean - that although initially, it was only the revealed sins that we and our children accepted responsibility for, and the unknown ones were carried by Hash-m, that would change once we crossed the Yarden, when "the hidden things would be carried by both Hash-m and by us and our children".

The dot on the 'Ayin' of "ad" signifies - that the present situation stands to change once we cross the Yarden, or (see Tosfos DH 'Melamed') to make up for the extra letter that "la'Hashem Elokeinu" has over "lanu u'le'Vaneinu".

According to Rebbi Nechemyah - the dots teach us that even for the revealed sins of the individual, Yisrael were only punished after crossing the Yarden, but not before.

As far as the Nistaros are concerned - he says, they were not punished at all (either before crossing the Yarden, or afterwards).

Nevertheless, Yisrael were punished for Achan's sins - because, due to the fact that his wife and children knew about them, they fell under the category of revealed sins.