Rebbi Aba bar Zavda extrapolates from the Pasuk "Chata Yisrael la'Hashem" that - even when a Yisrael sins, he still remains a Yisrael (otherwise the Pasuk should have said "Chata ha'Am").

Rebbi Aba compares this to a Hadas (myrtle-tree) - which is called a Hadas even when it is growing among stinging-nettles.

Rav Ila'a in the name of Rebbi Yehudah bar Misparta learns from ...

... the five times "Gam" that appear in the same Pasuk ("ve'Gam Avru es B'risi ... Gam Lakchu min ha'Cherem ... ") that - Achan transgressed all five Books of the Torah (meaning most of the Mitzvos [see Agados Maharsha], since "B'risi" refers to Torah).

... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "B'risi" ("Avru es B'risi" [in Yehoshua) "B'risi" ("es B'risi Heifar" [in Lech-L'cha, in connection with the B'ris Milah]) - that he also recersed the B'ris Milah.

... the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Nevalah" ("ve'Chi Asah Nevalah be'Yisrael" [in Yehoshua]) "Nevalah" ("Ki As'sah Nevalah be'Yisrael" [in Ki Seitzei, in connection with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah]) - that he even had relations with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah.

In spite of having already taught us that Achan contravened all five Books of the Torah, Rav Ila'a deems it necessary to teach us that he also contravened ...

... the B'ris Milah too - because we would otherwise have thought that he would certainly not transgress such a fundamental Mitzvah (see also Hagahos Ya'avetz).

... the prohibition of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah - because we would otherwise have thought that he would never transgress such a terrible sin that is evil to both Hash-m and people, and which shames and stigmatizes the girl's family.

Ravina disagrees with the second D'rashah of Rav Ila'a. According to him, the Navi uses the same Lashon as the Torah uses by Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (not because Achan contravened that too, but) - because he was destined to receive the punishment of someone who contravened the sin of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (see Agados Maharsha).

Besides Achan and the money, the coat and the gold that he took as spoil, Yehoshua destroyed - all of Achan's sons, his daughters, his animals and his tent (see Seifer Margalis ha'Yam on this Sugya).

When the Resh Galusa asked Rav Huna why Achan's wife and children deserved to die because Achan sinned, the latter retorted - why for that matter, did Yisrael deserve to die because he sinned?

The answer to both questions is that - it was in order to chastise the people, to discourage them from emulating his example that they died (see also Seifer Y'fei Einayim).

We explain the Pasuk "va'Yisr'fu osam ba'Eish va'Yisk'lu osam ba'Avanim" to mean (not that they received both, but) - that each item received what was appropriate (the people and the animals were stoned, whereas the rest of his property was burned).

Among the spoil that Achan took was a coat from Shin'ar (Bavel). Rav translates it as a coat made from clean wool on the day that it was shorn (see Hagahos Maharshal). Shmuel translates it as - a coat that was dyed with alum (both extremely valuable items in those days).

When they dumped the articles that they found in Achan's tent before Hash-m, Yehoshua declared that - these few paltry articles hardly seemed worthwhile for the majority of the Sanhedrin to die on their account.

According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, thirty-six men fell in the battle with Ay. Rebbi Nechemyah however, explains that - it was only Ya'ir ben Menasheh, who was equal to the majority of the Sanhedrin, who died ...

... based on the "Kaf" in "ki'Sheloshim-ve'Shishah Ish" (implying but not really thirty-six).

Rav Nachman Amar Rav ascribes the Pasuk in Mishlei ...

... "Tachanunim Yedaber Rosh" - to Moshe (who did not enter Eretz Yisrael and) who spoke to Hash-m softly.

... "ve'Ashir Ya'aneh Azus" - to Yehoshua (who did and) who spoke tough words to Hash-m.

We reject the suggestion that the latter statement refers to ...

... the previous episode (where Yehoshua dumped the articles before Hash-m), by citing Pinchas, who did the same thing - when he dumped Zimri and Kozbi bas Tzur before Hash-m, and asked Him whether it was worthwhile for twenty-four thousand of Yisrael to die because of them.

... Yehoshua's question "Lamah He'avarta He'evir es ha'Am ha'Zeh es ha'Yarden" by citing a similar statement of Moshe Rabeinu - "Lamah Hare'oscha la'Am ha'Zeh?".

The first of the two previous D'rashos is based on the Pasuk "va'Ya'amod Pinchas va'Yefalel, va'Te'atzer ha'Magefah", which Rebbi Elazar interprets to mean that - Pinchas did wonders with His Creator (from he word 'Pele' [by doing what he did and stopping the plague]).

We conclude - that "ve'Ashir Ya'aneh Azus" refers to Yehoshua's statement (following Yisrael's defeat in Ay) "We wish we had remained on the other side of the Yarden" (a statement similar to the Resha'im of Yisrael after leaving Egypt).

According to Rebbi Shiloh, when Hash-m ordered Yehoshua "Kum lach", He was insinuating that his sin - of traveling sixty Mil (to Har Gerizim and Har Eival) before putting up the stones, that Moshe had ordered him to put up as soon as they crossed the Yarden), was worse than Yisrael's.

Rav objects to this explanation on the basis of the Pasuk - which describes Yehoshua as having fulfilled everything (down to the last detail) that Moshe had commanded him.

So Rav interprets the phrase "Kum lach", to mean that Yehoshua was held responsible for the defeat of Ay - because he should not have forbidden the people to take the spoils of Yericho (see Agados Maharsha).

Hash-m therefore commanded him - to take the spoils of Ay and of all subsequent cities that they defeated for themselves.

We query Yehoshua prostrating himself before the angel that appeared to him before the battle against Yericho - from the statement by Rebbi Yochanan forbidding greeting a person during the night, in case he is a demon.

Giving Shalom to a demon is prohibited - because Shalom is one of the Names of Hash-m (as we find in a Pasuk in Shoftim). And prostrating oneself to a demon is even worse - because it constitutes 'Mishtachaveh la'Se'irim' ('prostrating oneself to demons").

The episode with Yehoshua must have taken place at night-time - because otherwise, why would Yehoshua have needed to query the identity of the angel?

Yehoshua knew that it was not a demon however - because he called himself 'Sar Tz'va Hashem' (a title to which only an angel could lay claim).

Nor did he suspect the demon of lying - because a demon would not dare use Hash-m's Holy Name in vain.

The angel accused Yehoshua - a. of having nullified the Korban Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim on the previous afternoon, and - b. of currently laying siege to Yericho instead of studying Torah with the troops overnight. Because, since Yisrael were anyway not yet ready to fight until the following day, he should have remained in Gilgal, where he could have fulfilled both Mitzvos, and begun the siege of Yericho the following morning.

We know that the sin of Bitul Torah was the more prominent of the two - because when Yehoshua asked for which of the two sins he had come, he replied 'Ata Ba'si', implying for the current one (Bitul Torah).

Yehoshua's reaction to the angel's reproof lies in the words "va'Yalen Yehoshua ba'Laylah ha'hu be'Soch ha'Emek", implying that - he immediately settled down together with his troops, to a session of Torah-study in depth ('be'Omkah shel Halachah).

However, seeing as this Pasuk appears before the battle with Ay, not Yericho, we must amend the previous statement. Yehoshua did not begin to learn with his troops that same night - but he undertook to do so in future (an undertaking which he implemented by the second battle against Ay).

Shmuel bar Unya in the name of Rav extrapolates from this incident that - communal Talmud-Torah (see Sugya in Megilah 3b) is more important than bringing the Korban Tamid.

The Ru'ach Paskanis - the Angel Gavriel, deemed it necessary to give Hash-m Musar (Kevayachol) ...

... because, in a Pasuk in Yechezkel, He had referred to Yisrael's ancestors (Terach and his ancestors) as Emorim and Chitim.

Gavriel had the authority to speak to Hash-m in this way - by the very virtue of his name 'Piskun', meaning 'one who aims harsh words ('li'Fesok Devarim') at Hashem'.

The significance of his other name ...

... 'Itmun' is - that he blocks the sins of Yisrael.

... 'Sigrun' is - that, once he closes (has no more to say in Yisrael's defense), there is nothing more that can be said.

Rebbi Elazar comments on Avraham's Tefilah "between Beis-Eil and Ay" - regarding the Tzarah of Achan, that had he not Davened then, Yisrael would have been completely wiped out at the battle of Ay.

This explains the Pasuk (said to Iyov by his friends) "ha'Ya'aroch Shu'acha Lo ve'Tzar", which means that - had Iyov Davened in advance of his troubles, they would not have occurred (preventive Tefilah, like preventive medicine, is more effective than Tefilah after the stroke).

Rebbi Yochanan adds to Resh Lakish's statement 'If someone Davens deeply here, he will have no adversaries in Heaven' that - one needs to Daven for all the angels to act in his defense, and that none should act as his prosecutors.

The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "u'Venei Zerach, Zimri (alias Achan), ve'Eisan, ve'Heiman, ve'Chalkol va'Dara, Kulam Chamishah" - that Zimri (alias Achan), like his four brothers, received a portion in Olam ha'Ba.

Rav and Shmuel argue over Achan's two names. One says that his real name was Achan, and that he was called Zimri, because he behaved like the adulterer Zimri ben Salu. According to the other one - his real name was Zimri, and he was called Achan, because 'Ichan' (he rolled [brought on] the sins of Yisrael ...

... from the word 'Achna', a python, which curls round its victim).

The Chachamim in our Mishnah maintain that we do not allow the condemned man to preclude the sin for which he is being executed from his confession, because then everyone will take advantage of the opportunity to clear his name - thereby giving the witnesses and the Beis-Din a bad name.

The Beraisa tells a story of someone who was going out to be killed. He declared, that, in the event that he was guilty - his death should not atone for all his sins.

And he declare that, in the event that he was innocent ...

... his death - should atone for all his sins, that ...

... Beis-Din and all Yisrael - should be clean of sin, and that

... the witnesses - should never be pardoned.

Beis-Din commented that - the ruling could not be rescinded and that the chain would hang around the necks of the witnesses (that they would bear the guilt of his death).

Beis-Din could not rescind the death-penalty even though the witnesses retracted their testimony - due to the principle 'Keivan she'Higid, Shuv Eino Chozer u'Magid'.

We might have thought that they can - because the witnesses gave a reason for their initial testimony ...

... for example, that they hated the accused.

In connection with the above Beraisa, the Gemara alludes to the story of a wicked tax-collector being taken out to be buried, when his coffin got mixed-up with that of a Tzadik, who was being buried at the same time - due to robbers, who attacked the two processions.

Consequently, when the mourners returned, the children of the tax-collector picked up the tzadik's coffin and buried it in the grave that was designated for their father in disgrace ...

... in spite of the protestations of the Tzadik's Talmid, who had remained with his Rebbe's coffin the whole time.

The tax-collector's body - was buried in the grave that was designated for the Tzadik, in great Kavod.

The Tzadik showed his grieving Talmid in a dream how ...

... he was basking in the sunshine of Gan Eden.

... the hinges of the entrance to Gehinom, swiveled round the wicked tax-collector's ear.

He attributed the mix-up of the coffins - to one aatypical deed that each of them had performed. On the one hand ...

... he suffered such a shameful end - because he had once heard the denigration of a Talmid-Chacham and had done nothing about it, whilst on the other ...

... the tax-collector received an honorable burial - because he once distributed to the poor a feast that he had prepared for the mayor of the city when he failed to arrive.

He also explained to his Talmid that the Rasha was destined to suffer in Gehinom until Shimon ben Shetach died and took his place - because he allowed eighty witches to operate, despite the fact that witches are subject to the death penalty.

When the Talmid informed Shimon ben Shetach of his fate, he sprang into action. Paying the witches a visit at home, he convinced them that he was their superior - by demonstrating his ability to produce eighty tall young men (whom he had planted outside, with a cloak contained in a jar which each of them was holding) all wearing dry cloak in spite of the pouring rain.

Upon entering the room - each young man picked up a witch and held her up in the air, because as long as a witch's feet are off the ground, she cannot cast a spell.

Shimon ben Shetach subsequently - hanged them all. He did not kill them by stoning (their regular death-penalty) - presumably because they could not be put down as long as they were alive.

The families of the witches reacted to Shimon ben Shetach's justice - by hiring two false witnesses, who testified that his son had done something that rendered him Chayav Misah.

Our Mishnah then discusses the actual putting to death of the condemned man. After he has confessed - they remove his clothes.

According to Rebbi Yehudah, they cover a man in front and a woman at the back as well. The Chachamim say - 'ha'Ish Niskal Arum, ve'Ein ha'Ishah Niskeles Arumah' (the Machlokes will be explained later).