Sanhedrin 42b (מב:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Once the sentence has been concluded,

and the defendant has been sentenced to stoning,

they take him out

of the court in order

to stone him.

The stoning site was outside the court,

somewhat distant from it.

As it is stated [

Leviticus 24:14 ]: “

Take the blasphemer out.”

This indicates that he is not stoned at the place where the court sits, but outside it [for the blasphemer’s punishment is stoning].

When they were leading the defendant to be stoned, one man

would stand at the entrance to the court with cloths in his hand,

holding a cloth used as a signal,

and a horse would be stationed at a distance from him.

Another man, riding a horse, would stand ready near the stoning site, at a distance from the man standing at the entrance to the court,

so that he could see him,

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

And if

one of the judges

in the court

says: “I have a basis to acquit him,”

the defendant sentenced to stoning,

that man,

who is standing at the entrance to the court,

waves the cloths,

raises the cloth to signal to the rider on the horse,

and the horse runs

after those leading the defendant to the stoning site

and stops them,

until the court considers the words of that judge, to determine whether they are valid and the defendant should be acquitted.

And even

if the defendant

himself

does

say: “I have a basis to acquit myself,” they return him

to the court, so that they will reconsider his case.

And

even

if he says this

four or five times,

they return him again and again to the court.

Provided that

it is evident that

there is substance to his words,

that there is a basis for acquitting him.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses this:

And

is it true that

the stoning site

was only

outside the court, and no farther?

Was it not located at a greater distance?!

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

meaning that it was entirely outside Jerusalem [for the courtyard in the Temple 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, while the stoning site was outside all three camps, i.e., outside Jerusalem]? And the Gemara answers:

Yes, it is as you say,

indeed the stoning site was outside Jerusalem.

And the fact that it teaches this way,

that the Mishna says it was outside the court,

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

even if the court established its seat outside Jerusalem, then too

we make

the

stoning site outside the court,

far from it.

And the reason is

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

so that the court would not appear to be a place where lives are destroyed, for it is disgraceful for a court to execute people.

Alternatively,

the reason they distanced the stoning site from the court was

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

lest, in the meantime, before they reached the stoning site, one of the judges should find some basis for acquitting the person sentenced to stoning, and they would return him to the court, acquit him, and save him from stoning. And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

that the stoning site was outside the three camps derived?

And the Gemara answers:

As the Sages taught:

It is stated: “

Take the blasphemer out, outside the camp,”

meaning 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 it by means of a gzera shava:

Here it is stated,

“outside the camp,”

and it is stated concerning the bulls that are burned

in the passage of Leviticus concerning the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the bull of the anointed priest, which are sin-offerings that are not eaten but are entirely burned: “And he shall take the bull

outside the camp

and burn it.”

Just as there, it is outside the three camps, so too here, it is outside the three camps.

And the Gemara asks:

And from where do we know that there,

concerning the bulls that are burned themselves, that they are burned outside the three camps?

The Gemara answers:

As 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.”

This means that they 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 assembly [

the bull for an unwitting communal sin ],

which need not be stated,

for there was no need to state at all that the bull of the assembly is burned outside the camp,

as it is already stated

in that very verse: “

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

meaning, like the bull of the anointed priest mentioned earlier, concerning which it was already stated that it is burned outside the camp.

Why, then, is it stated here again?

Rather, it is in order

to give it a second camp,

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

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

And when it says, “

outside the camp,”

in

the removal of

the ashes

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

which need not be stated,

as it is superfluous,

as it is already stated

concerning the bull of the anointed priest: “

It shall be burned at the ash heap,”

meaning that the bull is burned at the place where the ashes are deposited. Since the bull of the anointed priest is burned outside the camp, we already know that the ashes are taken there.

Rather, it is written again in order

to give it a third camp,

meaning that the ashes are taken outside the three camps.

If so, the bull of the anointed priest and the bull for an unwitting communal sin are also burned outside the three camps, since they are all burned in the same place. The Gemara challenges this:

And let us derive

why we should not derive the case of the blasphemer by means of a gzera shava

from slaughter performed outside the permitted area,

where too it is stated, “or that slaughters it outside the camp.”

Just as there, it is 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 it was slaughtered only outside the courtyard,

so too here,

they should take the blasphemer

outside one camp

alone?

The Gemara answers:

It is more logical

that

it should have been derived from the bulls that are burned.

Because

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

a.

“Take out”:

In both cases, language of “taking out” is used, whereas in slaughter performed outside the permitted area, the language of “taking out” is not used.

b. And in both cases it says

“outside the camp,”

whereas concerning slaughter performed outside the permitted area it says only “outside the camp.”

c. And in both cases, going outside the camp

facilitates

the act, for the fulfillment of their mitzvot lies in the fact that the bulls are burned and the blasphemer is hanged outside the camp, whereas in slaughter performed outside the permitted area, going outside the camp is a transgression and does not facilitate the fulfillment of a mitzva.

d.

And effects atonement:

In both cases, going outside the camp effects atonement: hanging effects atonement for the blasphemer, and burning the bulls effects atonement for the sins for which the bulls are brought. By contrast, slaughtering a sacrifice outside the permitted area is not atonement but a sin.

The Gemara challenges:

On the contrary, it should have been derived from slaughter performed outside the permitted area,

the case of the blasphemer?

Because

the blasphemer resembles slaughter performed outside the permitted area in that:

a.

A person:

In both the case of the blasphemer and that of slaughter performed outside the permitted area, the going outside the camp is stated with regard to a person: the blasphemer is taken outside the camp, and a person is warned not to slaughter outside the camp. Whereas concerning the bulls that are burned, taking them 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,” but it does not say that the person goes outside the camp together 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 regard to a soul:

In both cases, going outside the camp involves taking a life: the blasphemer is killed there, and the one who slaughters outside kills the animal. Whereas the bulls that are burned have already been slaughtered before they are taken outside the camp.

d. In both cases, going outside the camp cannot result in

piggul,

whereas in the case of the bulls that are burned, if at the time of their slaughter he intends to burn their sacrificial portions outside the camp, it is piggul. And the Gemara answers: Nevertheless,

a facilitator derived from a facilitator is preferable to him:

the blasphemer and the bulls that are burned have this in common: the “outside the camp” stated with regard to them is the place where their obligation and the fulfillment of their mitzva require the act to take place. Therefore it is appropriate to derive one from the other. This is not so with slaughter performed outside the permitted area, since slaughter outside the camp is contrary to law and to the 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 the blasphemer outside the camp”

This indicates

outside the Levite camp,

where Moses was.

And afterward it is stated: “

And they took the blasphemer outside the camp”

And from the superfluity of the verse we derive that they should take him

outside the Israelite camp.

And the Gemara raises an objection: This verse is not superfluous, for

this

verse

is needed for the act,

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