Sanhedrin 42
וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לְהוּ: הָא לְמִיהְוֵי כִּי יִתְרָא, הָא לְמִיהְוֵי כִּי נָפְיָא.
The Gemara comments: And they both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that one can recite the blessing until the flaw of the moon is filled. The dispute is that this one, i.e., Rav Ya’akov bar Idi, who holds one can recite the blessing until seven days have passed, understands Rabbi Yoḥanan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like the string of a bow. Before that point the moon appeared merely as a bow, and after seven days it appears like a half-circle, like a bow that has a string. That one, i.e., the Sages of Neharde’a, who holds one can recite the blessing until sixteen days have passed, understands Rabbi Yoḥanan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like a sieve, i.e., a full circle.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: וְלִיבָרֵיךְ ״הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ כִּי חָסַר מִי מְבָרְכִינַן ״דַּיַּין הָאֱמֶת״, דִּלְבָרֵיךְ ״הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב״? וְלִיבָרְכִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּהַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ, לָא מְבָרְכִינַן.
§ Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: And they should bless the blessing of: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who is good and Who does good, for the benefit that people derive from the light of moon. Ravina said to him: Is that to say that when the moon is shrinking we bless, as we do for other disasters: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, the true Judge, so that we should conversely bless: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who is good and Who does good, when the moon is growing? Rav Aḥa of Difti said to him: You are correct, and we should say them both: The blessing of the true Judge, when the moon is waning, and the blessing of Who is good and Who does good, when the moon is waxing. Ravina answered him: Since this is its nature, we do not bless the moon. The waxing and waning of the moon is not an unexpected occurrence that requires these blessings.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמְבָרֵךְ עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ בִּזְמַנּוֹ כְּאִילּוּ מְקַבֵּל פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״. תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אִילְמָלֵא לֹא זָכוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא לְהַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם כָּל חֹדֶשׁ וָחֹדֶשׁ, דַּיָּים. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכָּךְ נֵימְרִינְהוּ מְעוּמָּד.
And Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to anyone who blesses the new month in its proper time, it is as if he greets the Face of the Divine Presence. Alluding to this, it is written here concerning the sanctification of the new month: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2), and it is written there, where the Jewish people encountered the Divine Presence at the splitting of the sea: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The term “this” is employed in both verses. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If the Jewish people merited to greet the Face of their Father in Heaven only one time each and every month, it would suffice for them, since in the blessing of the moon there is an aspect of greeting the Divine Presence. Abaye said: Therefore, we will say the blessing while standing, in honor of the Divine Presence.
מָרִימָר וּמָר זוּטְרָא מְכַתְּפִי אַהֲדָדֵי וּמְבָרְכִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: בְּמַעְרְבָא מְבָרְכִי ״בָּרוּךְ מְחַדֵּשׁ חֳדָשִׁים״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי נְשֵׁי דִּידַן נָמֵי מְבָרְכִי.
The Gemara relates: Mareimar and Mar Zutra would lean on one another’s shoulders and recite the blessing. Rav Aḥa said to Rav Ashi: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they recite the following blessing on the moon: Blessed is He Who renews the months. Rav Ashi said to him: Our women also recite that blessing, meaning that this is an abridged version for the unlettered.
אֶלָּא כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״בָּרוּךְ [וְכוּ׳] אֲשֶׁר בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ בָּרָא שְׁחָקֵים, וּבְרוּחַ פִּיו כׇּל צְבָאָם. חֹק וּזְמַן נָתַן לָהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנּוּ אֶת תַּפְקִידָם, שָׂשִׂים וּשְׂמֵחִים לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן קוֹנָם. פּוֹעֲלֵי אֱמֶת שֶׁפְּעוּלָּתָן אֱמֶת. וְלַלְּבָנָה אָמַר שֶׁתִּתְחַדֵּשׁ עֲטֶרֶת תִּפְאֶרֶת לַעֲמוּסֵי בָטֶן, שֶׁהֵן עֲתִידִין לְהִתְחַדֵּשׁ כְּמוֹתָהּ וּלְפָאֵר לְיוֹצְרָם עַל שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ מְחַדֵּשׁ חֳדָשִׁים״.
Rather, the full version of the blessing is the version of Rav Yehuda. As Rav Yehuda says: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who by His word created the heavens, and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts. He set for them a law and a time, that they should not deviate from their task. And they are joyous and glad to perform the will of their Owner; they are workers of truth whose work is truth. And to the moon He said that it should renew itself as a crown of beauty for those He carried from the womb, as they are destined to be renewed like it, and to praise their Creator for the name of His glorious kingdom. Blessed are You the Lord, Who renews the months.
כִּי בְתַחְבֻּלוֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה לְּךָ מִלְחָמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּמִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא מִלְחַמְתָּהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה? בְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ חֲבִילוֹת שֶׁל מִשְׁנָה. קָרֵי רַב יוֹסֵף אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ: ״וְרׇב תְּבוּאוֹת בְּכֹחַ שׁוֹר״.
The Gemara presents another statement, citing Rabbi Aḥa, citing Rabbi Asi, citing Rabbi Yoḥanan. The verse states: “For by wise advice you shall make your war” (Proverbs 24:6). Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In whom do you find the war, i.e., the ability to engage in disputes, of Torah? In one who has in his possession bundles, i.e., vast knowledge, of Mishna. One must first learn the primary sources before engaging in disputes of Torah. Rav Yosef would read concerning himself the verse: “And much produce comes by the strength of the ox” (Proverbs 14:4), i.e., one with great strength can bring a large yield. Rav Yosef was known to be particularly well-versed in tannaitic statements.
אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שָׁעוֹת, אֲבָל אֶחָד אוֹמֵר קוֹדֶם הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לְאַחַר הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה.
§ The mishna teaches that if one witness says that the event occurred at two hours, i.e., the second hour of the day from sunrise, and one witness says that the event occurred at three hours, their testimony stands. Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: This was taught only when there was a difference in the hours, but if one witness says that the event occurred before the sunrise, and one says that the event occurred after the sunrise, their testimony is void. Although this may be a smaller discrepancy in terms of time, the difference between before and after sunrise cannot be ascribed to an error.
פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא: אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״קוֹדֶם הָנֵץ״, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּתוֹךְ הָנֵץ״. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָא בְּגִילּוּיָא קָאֵי, וְזַהֲרוּרֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּחֲזָא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? There is a clear difference between darkness and light. Rather, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said as follows: If one witness says that the event occurred before the sunrise, and one says that the event occurred during the sunrise, their testimony is void. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this also obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this one who says: During the sunrise, was standing in an exposed place and saw a mere shine and thought he saw the sunrise, Rav Shimi bar Ashi teaches us the court does not assume this occurred, and deems the testimony incongruent.
וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין כּוּ׳. אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְתוּ לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו – לֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם, וְאִם אֵין מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו – אֵין יוֹרֵד כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא עֲלִיָּיתוֹ יְרִידָה לוֹ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תַּרְגּוּמַהּ אַאִם אֵין מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו.
§ The mishna teaches: And afterward they bring in the second witness and examine him. Later, the mishna states: But if one of the students said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, they raise him to the seat of the court and seat him among them, and he would not descend from there all day. The Gemara asks: That day and no more? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:3): If the statement of that student has substance he would never descend from there, as his statement demonstrates that he is capable of deliberating with the other judges. But if the statement of that student does not have substance, he would not descend from there the entire day, in order that his ascent should not be a descent for him, i.e., to avoid humiliating him. Abaye said: Interpret the mishna to be with regard to a case when the statement of that student does not have substance.
מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת כּוּ׳. יַיִן מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״וּלְרוֹזְנִים אֵי שֵׁכָר״ – הָעוֹסְקִין בְּרָזוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם אַל יִשְׁתַּכְּרוּ.
The mishna teaches that if the court found it fit to acquit the defendant during the deliberations, as all or a majority of them agree to acquit him, they excuse him. The mishna further teaches that the judges would not drink wine all day. The Gemara asks: What is the reason they did not drink wine? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that it is because the verse states: “It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes [rozenim] to say: Where is strong drink” (Proverbs 31:4). Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina explains: This is a directive to those who deal with the secret of the world [berazo shel olam], i.e., such stringent matters: Do not become drunk.
מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת כּוּ׳. לֹא רָאוּ, מַאי?
§ The mishna teaches: If the court found it fit to acquit him during the deliberations, as all or a majority of them agree to acquit him, they release him. It was further taught in the mishna that when the court cannot arrive at a verdict they add judges in pairs of two and deliberate until there is a clear verdict. If they added the maximum number of judges and still cannot reach a clear verdict, they discuss the matter until one of those who deems him liable sees the validity of the statements of those who acquit, and changes his position. The Gemara asks: If the judges do not change their position, as they do not see the validity of the position of those who acquit him, what is done?
אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא: פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְלִיפְטְרֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא! אָמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצְאוּ מִבֵּית דִּין מְעוּרְבָּבִין.
Rabbi Aḥa says: They release him, as he was not found liable. And likewise Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They release him. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But if they ultimately release him if the court is deadlocked, why do they attempt to convince each other at all when they should release him from the outset? Abaye said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The reason is so that they not leave the court confounded, without reaching some definite conclusion, as this would tarnish the reputation of the court.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וּלְמָה לִי יוֹסִיפוּ? לִיפְטְרֵיהּ מִבֵּי דִּינָא קַמָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קָאֵי כְּוָותָךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, כָּךְ אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה.
Some say that this is what Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But why do I need them to add judges at all when they should release him from the first court? Once the first court did not find him liable, they should release him. Why add judges? Abaye said to him: Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with your opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Just as the court does not add judges to a court of seventy-one, so too, the court does not add judges to a court of twenty-three. If the court of twenty-three cannot arrive at a verdict, they release him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹמֵר בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״, וְאֵין אוֹמֵר בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״.
The Sages taught: In cases of monetary law one says: The judgment has grown aged, i.e., this matter is very difficult and requires scrutiny, but in cases of capital law one does not say: The judgment has grown aged.
מַאי ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״? אִילֵּימָא קַשׁ דִּינָא, אִיפְּכָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: אֵיפוֹךְ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וּמַאי ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״ – חֲכַם דִּינָא.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The judgment has grown aged? If we say that the intention is: The judgment has aged, i.e., taken an extended amount of time but requires additional deliberations, if so, he should say the reverse, as it is more critical to extend deliberations in cases of capital law than in cases of monetary law. Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: Reverse the statement, and say that in cases of monetary law one does not say: The judgment has grown aged, but in cases of capital law one does say it. Rav Ashi said: Actually, do not reverse it. And what is the meaning of: The judgment has grown aged? It means that the judgment has grown wise, like an elder who has acquired wisdom. In other words, the deliberations have been exhausted, and it is time to vote on a verdict.
מֵיתִיבִי: גָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָּינִין אוֹמֵר ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲכַם דִּינָא, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר גָּדוֹל. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ קַשׁ דִּינָא, לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא אָמַר גָּדוֹל? כַּסּוֹפֵי הוּא דְּקָא מְיכַסֵּיף נַפְשֵׁיהּ?
The Gemara raises an objection to the first explanation from a baraita: In a situation where they did not reach a decision, the greatest among the judges says: The judgment has grown aged. The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, if you say this means: The judgment has grown wise, this would be why the baraita states that the greatest judge says this statement, as arriving at a verdict is an honor for the court, and consequently the greatest of the court should be the one to announce it. But if you say this means: The judgment has aged, is it not enough that the greatest among the judges in particular not say so? Must he humiliate himself by stating that they cannot reach a verdict?
אִין. אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵעַצְמוֹ, לְמִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵאֲחֵרִים.
The Gemara answers: Yes, the greatest of the judges must also announce that the court cannot reach a verdict. Being shamed by oneself is not comparable to being shamed by others. Therefore, it is preferable that the greatest of the judges state this conclusion, rather than having one of the more junior judges state it.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קַשׁ דִּינָא, הַיְינוּ דְּאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵעַצְמוֹ לְמִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵאֲחֵרִים. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ חֲכַם דִּינָא, גָּדוֹל אַשְׁבּוֹחֵי מַשְׁבַּח נַפְשֵׁיהּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״יְהַלֶּלְךָ זָר וְלֹא פִיךָ״!
Some say they raised an objection to the second explanation: Granted, if you say this means: The judgment has aged, this would be the reason that the greatest one states it, because being shamed by oneself is not comparable to being shamed by others. But if you say this means: The judgment has grown wise, should the greatest judge praise himself? But isn’t it written: “Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth, a stranger and not your own lips” (Proverbs 27:2)?
שָׁאנֵי מִילְּתָא דְּבֵי דִינָא, דְּאַגָּדוֹל רַמְיָא. כְּדִתְנַן: גָּמְרוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן. גָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָּינִין אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה זַכַּאי״, ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה חַיָּיב״.
The Gemara answers: A matter of the court is different, as its administration is incumbent upon the greatest judge. As we learned in a mishna (29a): When they finished deliberating the matter, they would bring in the litigants. The greatest of the judges would say: So-and-so, you are exempt from paying; or: So-and-so, you are liable to pay.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָיךְ הָיוּ בּוֹדְקִין
MISHNA: When the trial has ended in a guilty verdict and the condemned man has been sentenced to be stoned, he is taken out to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside the court and a little beyond it, as it is stated with regard to a blasphemer: “Take out him who has cursed to outside the camp, and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him” (Leviticus 24:14).
מַתְנִי׳ נִגְמַר הַדִּין, מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ לְסוֹקְלוֹ. בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל״.
One man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths [vehasudarin] in his hand, and another man sits on a horse at a distance from him but where he can still see him. If one of the judges says: I can teach a reason to acquit him, the other, i.e., the man with the cloths, waves the cloths as a signal to the man on the horse, and the horse races off after the court agents who are leading the condemned man to his execution, and he stops them, and they wait until the court determines whether or not the argument has substance. And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse, even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words.
אֶחָד עוֹמֵד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין, וְהַסּוּדָרִין בְּיָדוֹ, וְסוּס רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא רוֹאֵהוּ. אוֹמֵר אֶחָד: ״יֵשׁ לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת״, הַלָּה מֵנִיף בְּסוּדָרִין, וְהַסּוּס רָץ וּמַעֲמִידָן. וַאֲפִילּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת״, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ פְּעָמִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And was the place of stoning just outside the court and nothing more? Does it suffice that the place of execution is only a short distance from the court and no further? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The place of stoning was outside the distance that is equivalent to the length of the three camps in the wilderness: The camp of the Divine Presence, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Israelites. In Jerusalem there were three corresponding camps: The Temple with its courtyard, the Temple Mount, and the rest of the city. The distance in the wilderness outside of the three camps corresponds to a place outside the city walls and limits.
גְּמָ׳ וּבֵית הַסְּקִילָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין הֲוָה, וְתוּ לָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is as you said, that the place of stoning was outside the three camps. And the practical difference from the fact that the mishna teaches the halakha in this manner is that if it happened that the court went out and convened outside the three camps, even then the place of stoning is set up at a certain distance from the court, and not immediately adjacent to it, so that the court should not appear to be a court of killers. Alternatively, the reason the place of stoning must be distanced from the court is so that the condemned man might have a chance to be saved, i.e., so that during the time it takes for him to be taken from the court to the place of stoning someone will devise a claim in his favor.
אִין, כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ. וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי הָכִי, נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ דְּאִי נָפֵיק בֵּי דִינָא וְיָתֵיב חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת, עָבְדִינַן בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא מִיתְחֲזֵי בֵּית דִּין רוֹצְחִין. אִי נָמֵי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִיהְוֵי לֵיהּ הַצָּלָה.
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that the stoning is carried out outside the three camps? As the Sages taught a baraita with regard to the verse: “Take out him who has cursed to outside the camp” (Leviticus 24:14). This means: Outside the three camps, i.e., even outside the camp of the Israelites. Do you say that he is taken outside the three camps, or is he perhaps taken outside only one camp? Proof is brought that he must be taken outside the three camps: It is stated here that the condemned man is taken “outside the camp” and it is stated with regard to the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned that they must be burned “outside the camp” (Leviticus 4:12). Just as there, the bulls brought as sin-offerings are burned when outside the three camps, so too here, the condemned man is taken outside the three camps.
מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין ״חוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה״. מָה לְהַלָּן – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת, אַף כָּאן – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.
The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned, from where do we derive that they must be burned when outside all three camps? As the Sages taught in a baraita: It is stated about the bull brought as a sin-offering of the High Priest: “Even the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it” (Leviticus 4:12), meaning that he should take it outside the three camps. Do you say that he takes it outside the three camps, or is he required to take it outside only one camp?
וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהוֹצִיא אֶת כׇּל הַפָּר אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת?
When the verse states with regard to the bull brought as a communal sin-offering: “He shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull” (Leviticus 4:21), it requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state “outside the camp,” since it is already stated at the end of that same verse: “And burn it as he burned the first bull,” which indicates that all the halakhot of the bull brought as a sin-offering of a High Priest apply to the bull brought as a communal sin-offering. What then does the verse mean when it states “outside the camp”? To give it a second camp, i.e., it indicates that it must be removed not only from the camp of the Divine Presence, corresponding to the Temple, but also from the Levite camp, corresponding to the Temple Mount.
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ בְּפַר הָעֵדָה, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וְשָׂרַף אֹתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף אֵת הַפָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן״ – לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁנִיָּה.
And when another verse states with regard to the removal of the ash: “And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp to a clean place” (Leviticus 6:4), that verse also requires an explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it is already stated with regard to the bull brought as a sin-offering of a High Priest: “Even the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burned” (Leviticus 4:12). The repetition of “outside the camp” indicates that he is required to give it a third camp, i.e., teaching that it is burned when outside the Israelite camp, corresponding to the land outside Jerusalem’s walls.
וּכְשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אַל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ בְּדֶשֶׁן, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״עַל שֶׁפֶךְ הַדֶּשֶׁן יִשָּׂרֵף״ – לִיתֵּן לוֹ מַחֲנֶה שְׁלִישִׁית.
The Gemara challenges this derivation of the halakha governing one who is sentenced to be stoned from the halakha governing the burning of bulls brought as sin-offerings. Perhaps the place of stoning should be learned from the halakha governing offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, about which the verse also uses the expression “outside the camp” (see Leviticus 17:3). Just as there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, these words mean: Outside only one camp, the camp of the Divine Presence, corresponding to the Temple, as the next verse states: “And he did not bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:4), i.e., the camp of the Divine Presence, so too here, the condemned man should be stoned outside one camp.
וְלֵילַף מִשְּׁחוּטֵי חוּץ? מָה לְהַלָּן חוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת, אַף כָּאן חוּץ לְמַחֲנֶה אַחַת.
The Gemara answers: For three reasons it is reasonable to derive the halakha governing one who is sentenced to be stoned from the halakha governing bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִפָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף,
The Gemara explains: As with regard to the man to be stoned for blasphemy it states: “Take out [hotze] him who has cursed to outside the camp,” which is similar to what is stated about the sin bull-offerings: “Even the whole bull shall he carry [vehotzi] outside the camp,” whereas with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard it merely says: “Outside the camp.” Additionally, both in the case of stoning and in the case of the bulls brought as sin-offerings, going outside the camp renders the act fit, as the blasphemer may not be stoned and the bulls may not be burned inside the camp, in contrast to the case of the offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, where slaughtering them outside the camp renders the act forbidden. And additionally, both in the case of stoning and in the case of the bulls brought as sin-offerings, being outside the camp achieves atonement, as both capital punishment and sin-offerings atone for sin.
שֶׁכֵּן ״הוֹצֵא אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״, מַכְשִׁיר וּמְכַפֵּר.
The Gemara rejects this reasoning: On the contrary, the halakha governing one who is sentenced to be stoned should be derived from the halakha governing offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, for four reasons.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִשְּׁחוּטֵי חוּץ הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף,
The Gemara explains the four reasons: As in both cases it is a person who is outside, either the one who is taken outside for stoning, or the one who slaughters the offerings outside the Temple courtyard, whereas in the case of the bulls brought as sin-offerings, it is the bulls that are carried outside the camp. Additionally, both the blasphemer and the one who slaughters offerings outside the Temple courtyard have committed a sin, while the bull has not. Additionally, both the blasphemer and the one who slaughters offerings outside the Temple courtyard pay with their souls, as slaughtering an offering outside the Temple is punishable with karet. And lastly, both in the case of the blasphemer and in the case of offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, the halakha of disqualification of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] is not applicable, whereas this halakha is applicable to the bulls brought as sin-offerings.
שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם חוֹטֵא, בִּנְשָׁמָה, פִּיגּוּל.
The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, the baraita prefers to compare one case requiring going outside the camp to render an act fit and another case requiring going outside the camp to render an act fit, rather than comparing one case requiring going outside the camp to render an act fit and another case of going outside the camp that renders the act forbidden, as this is the most notable of the factors mentioned.
מַכְשִׁיר מִמַּכְשִׁיר עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.
Rav Pappa said: The matter of the location of the place of stoning can be derived from the verses themselves: Where was Moses sitting when the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? In the Levite camp, as he was a Levite, and it was there that the blasphemer was brought for trial. And the Merciful One said to Moses: “Take out him who has cursed to outside the camp,” indicating that he should be taken outside the Levite camp into the Israelite camp. And later it says: “And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and they brought him that had cursed out of the camp, and they stoned him with a stone. And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 24:23), teaching that he was taken outside the Israelite camp as well.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מֹשֶׁה הֵיכָא הֲוָה יָתֵיב? בְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּיה. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא: ״הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ – חוּץ לְמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּיה. ״וַיּוֹצִיאוּ אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ – חוּץ לְמַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The Gemara raises an objection: This additional verse is necessary to teach us about the implementation of God’s instructions, i.e., that the Jewish people did in fact carry out God’s command, but this verse should not be understood as referring to an additional camp. The Gemara answers: The implementation of God’s instructions is written explicitly, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse:
הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לַעֲשִׂיָּיה? עֲשִׂיָּיה בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיבָא:
