12 
Indiana University Studies 
opening of the case, on the ground that the decision would 
permit the taking of tribal land from one tribe to another. 
The case was reopened and the decision modified so as to make 
the daughters marry within their own tribe. This decision 
established a new principle of Hebrew law which became a 
general rule and a precedent for other cases . 49 
Another case reported is one which came before Joshua. 
After the city of Jericho had fallen, the city and its inhabi- 
tants and the property contained therein, except silver, gold, 
brass, and iron for the treasury, were ordered destroyed, but 
one man at least, by the name of Achan, secretly appropriated 
some of the spoils. Joshua was informed that his order had 
not been obeyed and determined to bring the guilty party to 
justice. But instead of sending out detectives, or calling in 
witnesses for the purpose of discovering the criminal he de- 
cided to rely upon the method of lot. In this way the guilty 
tribe was found ; then the guilty family ; then the guilty house ; 
and finally the guilty member. The lot fell upon Achan, but 
before proceeding to administer punishment Joshua invited a 
confession and obtained it . 50 Messengers were then sent to 
recover the lost articles, which were found in Achan’s tent. 
Then the punishment was meted out. Achan and his children 
and all of his property were taken to the Valley of Achor (that 
is, outside of the camp) and he and his children were stoned 
to death and everything was burned. This method of execu- 
tion exemplifies both the patriarchal notion of the solidarity 
of the family which still obtained in Joshua’s day, the remorse- 
lessness of the principle of vengeance and the custom of put- 
ting a criminal to death only outside of the boundaries of a 
camp, or later of the town . 51 
The case of Boaz and Ruth involved many legal points, and 
the report of it in the book of Ruth gives us a wealth of his- 
torical legal material. Elimeleck, Ruth’s father-in-law, owned 
an estate of some sort in Bethlehem, and had a wife named 
Naomi and two sons. During a famine he left his estate and 
with his wife and sons went into Moab, where they lived until 
49 27 Num. 1-11; 36 Num. 1-13; 17 Josh. 1-6; there are some indications that this 
case was decided much later than Moses. The decision did not seem to become law until 
late in Hebrew history. 
50 It has been suggested that it was either known ahead of time that Achan was 
the real offender and that the casting of lot was resorted to only to overawe the people, 
or that the lot was resorted to in order to obtain a confession from the guilty person 
thru fear, or that most of the soldiers were guilty and one was selected so that an 
example might be made of him. 12 Green Bag 659. 
61 7 Josh. 1-26. 
