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 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 Rabbi 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.

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.

§ Abaye said to Rav Dimi, who descended to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael: How do you explain this verse in the West, Eretz Yisrael: “Do not proceed hastily to litigation, lest you know not what to do in the end of it, when your neighbor has put you to shame. Debate your cause with your neighbor, and do not reveal the secret of another” (Proverbs 25:8–9)?

Rav Dimi explained as follows: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Ezekiel: Go say to Israel: “Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (Ezekiel 16:3), the spirit Paskonit, which is another name for the angel Gabriel, said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, were the patriarch Abraham and the matriarch Sarah to come now and stand before You, would you speak to them in such a manner and put them to shame? Is it not stated: “Debate your cause with your neighbor, and do not reveal the secret of another”?

The Gemara asks: But does the angel Gabriel have so much authority that he can reprove God in such a manner? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: He, the angel Gabriel, has three names: Piskon, Itmon, and Sigron. He is called Piskon because he splits [sheposek] words and argues with God on High. He is called Itmon because he conceals [she’otem] the sins of the Jewish people. And he is called Sigron because once he closes [shesoger] his arguments on behalf of the Jewish people, no one reopens the discussion.

The verse states: “Had you prepared your prayers, before your troubles came” (Job 36:19). Rabbi Elazar says: A person should always offer up prayer before trouble actually arrives, as had the patriarch Abraham not anticipated the trouble at Ai with the prayer he offered between Bethel and Ai, there would have been no remnant or refugee remaining among the enemies of Israel, a euphemism for Israel itself, as Israel suffered a defeat at Ai from which there is ordinarily no recovery. Reish Lakish says: The verse should be understood as follows: Anyone who concentrates himself and his energy in prayer in the world below will have no enemies in Heaven above causing him trouble. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse should be understood in a slightly different manner: A person should always pray for mercy that all heavenly beings should strengthen his power of prayer, and that he should have no enemies causing him trouble in Heaven above.

§ 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? The Lord 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. And elsewhere it is written: “And the sons of Zerah were Zimri and Ethan and Heman and Calcol 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.

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.

§ The mishna teaches that if the condemned man does not know how to confess, they say to him: Say simply: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins. Rabbi Yehuda says that if he knows that he was wrongfully convicted, he should say: Let my death be an atonement for all my sins except for this sin. The Sages counter that if such a confession is acceptable, anyone who is sentenced to execution would state it to clear himself in the eyes of the public. The Gemara challenges: Let them clear themselves. Why should the court intervene if the condemned man wishes to proclaim his innocence? The Gemara answers: They intervene so as not to cast aspersions on the courts and on the witnesses who testified against him.

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. 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.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he should be executed? Is it in his power to have his sentence overturned just because he says he is innocent? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state that the condemned man is executed even when the witnesses retracted their testimony.

The Gemara asks: Even if the witnesses retracted their testimony, what of it? It is still clear that the condemned man is to be executed, as the halakha is that once a witness has stated his testimony, he may not then state a revision of that testimony. In other words, a witness’s retraction of his testimony has no validity. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state that the condemned man is executed even when the witnesses retracted their testimony and gave an explanation for having lied in their initial statement. This is like that incident involving Ba’aya the tax collector, where it was discovered that witnesses had falsely accused the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ in revenge for the son’s having sentenced to death for sorcery the witnesses’ relatives.

MISHNA: When the condemned man is at a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning, they take off his clothes. They cover a man’s genitals in the front, and a woman is covered both in the front and in the back; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: A man is stoned naked, i.e., wearing only that cloth covering, but a woman is not stoned naked, but is stoned while clothed.