Sanhedrin 42b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

When the judgment has been concluded,

and a liability of stoning has been decreed upon the accused,

they take him out

from the court in order

to stone him.

The house of stoning was outside the court,

somewhat distant from it.

As it is stated

Leviticus 24:14] “

Take out the blasphemer.”

This indicates that they do not stone in the place where the court sits, but outside it [for the blasphemer’s punishment is stoning].

And when they would lead the accused to stoning, there was a man

standing at the entrance of the court, with the scarves in his hand,

holding a cloth that served as a signal,

and a horse at a distance from him,

another man who was riding a horse stood ready near the place of stoning, distant from the one standing at the entrance of the court,

so that he could see him,

at a distance at which he could still see him when he signaled to him with the cloth.

And if

one says,

of the judges in the court:

I have something to teach in his defense,

in defense of the accused for stoning, and to annul his sentence,

that one,

the one who was standing at the entrance of the court,

would wave the scarves,

raising the cloth to signal to the one riding the horse,

and the horse would run

after those leading the accused to the place of stoning

and stop them,

until the court deliberated upon the words of that judge, whether they were correct, so that the accused should be acquitted.

And even

if the accused

himself

says:

I have something to teach in my own defense, they bring him back

to the court, so that they may examine his case again.

And

even if he says this

he is brought back

four or five times,

they bring him back repeatedly to the court.

Provided that

they see that indeed

there is substance in his words,

that there is a basis for acquitting him.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

And

is it that

the house of stoning

only

was outside the court, and no farther?

Was it not farther away?!

But it was taught in a beraita: The house of stoning was outside the three camps,

that is, it was entirely outside Jerusalem [for the Temple courtyard is the camp of the Divine Presence, the Temple Mount is the camp of the Levites, and all of Jerusalem is the camp of Israel, and the house of stoning was outside all three camps, that is, outside Jerusalem]? And the Gemara answers:

Yes! It is as you said,

that in truth the house of stoning was outside Jerusalem.

And this that it teaches thus,

that which the Mishna says, that it was outside the court,

has a practical difference: For if the court went out and sat outside the three camps,

so that even if the court established its seat outside Jerusalem, even then

we make

the

house of stoning outside the court,

distant from it.

And the reason is

so that the court should not appear to be a court of murderers,

so that the court should not appear to be a place of taking lives, for it is disgraceful for a court that it kills people.

Alternatively,

that this is why they distanced the house of stoning from the court,

so that there might be a possibility of rescue for him,

perhaps in the meantime, before they reached the house of stoning, one of the judges would find some merit for this person who had been sentenced to stoning, and they would bring him back to the court, acquit him, and he would be saved from stoning. And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

known to us, that the house of stoning was outside the three camps?

And the Gemara answers:

For the Sages taught:

It is stated, “

Take out the blasphemer outside the camp,”

and its explanation is that they should take him

outside the three camps.

You say

that they take him

outside the three camps, or perhaps

they take him

only outside one camp,

alone? We derive a gzera shava:

It is stated here, “

outside the camp,”

and it is stated concerning the bulls that are burned,

in the portion of Leviticus concerning the bull for an unwitting matter of the community and the bull of the anointed priest, which are sin-offerings that are not eaten, but rather all their flesh is burned: “And he shall take the bull

outside the camp

and burn it.”

Just as there, outside the three camps, so here, outside the three camps.

And the Gemara asks:

And from where do we know that there,

with regard to the bulls that are burned themselves, they burn them outside the three camps?

And the Gemara answers:

For the Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the burning of the bull of the anointed priest,

“And he shall take the entire bull outside the camp.”

And its explanation is that they should take the bull outside the three camps.

You say: Outside the three camps, or perhaps only outside one camp

alone?

When it says

in the following passage, “And he shall take the bull

outside the camp,”

in

the burning of

the bull of the congregation

[the bull for an unwitting matter of the community],

which need not be stated,

for it was not necessary to state at all that the burning of the bull of the congregation is outside the camp,

since it was already stated

in that very verse, “

And he shall burn it as he burned the first bull,”

that is, like the bull of the anointed priest, which was mentioned previously, and there it was already stated that it is burned outside the camp.

And why is it stated here again?

Rather, it is in order

to give it a second camp,

to add another camp for it, meaning that it must be burned outside two camps.

And consequently, the bull of the anointed priest is also burned there, for both of them are burned in the same place.

And when it says “

outside the camp”

in

the taking out of

the ashes

of the altar at the beginning of the portion of Tzav, as it is stated, “And he shall take the ashes outside the camp,”

which need not be stated,

for it is superfluous,

since it was already stated

concerning the bull of the anointed priest, “

It shall be burned on the ash heap,”

that the burning of the bull will be in the place where the ashes are poured; and since the bull of the anointed priest is burned outside the camp, if so, we already know that the taking out of the ashes is there as well.

Rather, it was therefore written again, in order

to give it a third camp,

that the taking out of the ashes is outside the three camps.

And if so, the burning of the bull of the anointed priest and the bull for an unwitting matter is also outside the three camps, for all of them are in the same place. The Gemara raises an objection:

And let us learn

why should we not derive the blasphemer through a gzera shava

from slaughtering outside,

where it is also stated, “or which he slaughters outside the camp.”

Just as there, outside one camp

alone, for it is written there, “and they did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” indicating that they slaughtered it outside the courtyard alone,

so here

they should take out the blasphemer

outside one camp

alone?

And the Gemara answers:

It is logical that

from

the bulls that are burned it would have been preferable to learn.

For

the blasphemer resembles the bulls that are burned in several matters:

a.

Take out:

in both of them an expression of “taking out” is stated, whereas concerning slaughtering outside the expression “taking out” is not stated.

b. And in both of them it is stated, “

outside the camp,”

whereas concerning slaughtering outside it says only “outside the camp.”

c. And in both of them the going out outside the camp is

a qualification,

for the fulfillment of their mitzvot is that the bulls be burned and the blasphemer hanged outside the camp, whereas concerning slaughtering outside, the going out outside the camp is a transgression and not a qualification of a mitzva.

d.

And atones:

in both of them the going out outside the camp atones—the hanging atones for the blasphemer, and the burning of the bulls atones for the transgressions for which the bulls are brought—whereas the slaughtering outside of an offering is not atonement, but rather a sin.

The Gemara raises an objection:

On the contrary, it would have been preferable to learn from slaughtering outside

the case of the blasphemer?

For

the blasphemer resembles slaughtering outside in the following way:

a.

A person:

in both the blasphemer and slaughtering outside, the going out outside the camp is stated with regard to a person: they take the human blasphemer outside the camp, and a person is warned against slaughtering outside the camp. But concerning the bulls that are burned, the taking out outside the camp is stated with regard to the bulls and not with regard to the person taking them out, for it is written, “And he shall take the bull outside the camp,” and it is not written that the person goes outside the camp with the bulls.

b.

A sinner:

both are sinners—the blasphemer and the one who slaughters outside. But the one who burns the bull is not a sinner.

c.

With a soul:

in both of them, the going out outside the camp involves the taking of a life: the blasphemer is killed there, and the one who slaughters outside kills the animal. But concerning the bulls that are burned, they have already been slaughtered and are standing ready before their going out outside the camp.

d. In both of them, the going out outside the camp cannot bring about

pigul,

whereas concerning the bulls that are burned, if at the time of their slaughter he thinks that he is slaughtering them in order to offer their portions outside the camp, this is pigul. And the Gemara answers: Nevertheless,

a qualification from a qualification is preferable to him:

the blasphemer and the bulls that are burned—in both of them, the “outside the camp” stated concerning them is their obligation and the qualification of their mitzva, that it be done there; therefore it is fitting that they be learned from one another. This is not so with slaughtering outside, where slaughtering outside the camp is contrary to law and mitzva.

Rav Pappa said:

From here we learn that the place of stoning was outside the three camps, for

where was Moses sitting

where was Moses located?

In the Levite camp!

For he was a Levite.

And the Merciful One said to him

to Moses: “

Take out the blasphemer outside the camp”

This implies

outside the Levite camp

where Moses was.

And afterward it is said: “

And they took the blasphemer outside the camp”

And from the redundancy of the verse we expound that they should take him

outside the camp of Israel.

And the Gemara objects: This verse is not redundant. For

this

verse

is needed for the act,

to teach us that the Children of Israel did as they had been commanded and took the blasphemer outside the camp?