Mesorat%20hashas for Sanhedrin 84:15

רב פפא אמר משה היכא הוה יתיב במחנה לוייה ואמר ליה רחמנא (ויקרא כד, יד) הוצא את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה חוץ למחנה לוייה (ויקרא כד, יד) ויוציאו את המקלל אל מחוץ למחנה חוץ למחנה ישראל

sohere too, without one camp is meant! — It is logical to make the deductionfrom the bullocks that were [wholly] burned, since they have the followingpoints in common: [i] Bring forth … without the camp; [ii] [the bringingforth] is a necessary preliminary [to the act]; [iii]atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both these cases there is a positive command, Bring forth, etc. Whereas with references to sacrifices slaughtered outside the forecourt it is only stated, He that slaugthtered it outside the camp. Again, the bringing forth without the camp is a prerequisite for the fitting performance of the act; whereas in the case of sacrifices slaughtered outside the Temple court it is a transgression. Moreover, the burning of the bullock is an atonement for the High Priest and the whole Congregation (cf. Lev. IV, 20), and stoning likewise is an atonement for the malefactor; but that feature is absent in the case of sacrifices slaughtered without. ');">²⁸</span> On the contrary, it shouldrather be deduced from the sacrifices slaughtered without, since they havethe following in common; [i] human being; [ii] sinners; [iii] life is taken;and [iv] piggul?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Without the camp' in both these places refers to a human being; the blasphemer was to be taken 'without the camp', whilst it was a human being who slaughtered 'without the camp'; whereas, in connection with the burnt bullocks, this phrase relates to animals; they were to be taken 'without the camp'. Again, the blasphemer and the slaughterer without the camp are both sinners, whereas the bullock, in direct relation to which the phrase is stated, is not a sinner. Further, in both these cases, the leading 'without the camp' was in order to take life — that of the blasphemer and the sacrifice yet to be slaughtered; but the burnt bullocks were already slaughtered; and 'without the camp' is mentioned in connection with burning their carcases. And finally, the law of piggul is inapplicable to these two. [H], unfitness caused by an intention in the mind of the officiating priest to dispose of a sacrifice outside the legal limits of space or time. In both these cases the performance of the act outside does not involve this sin. In stoning it is, of course, not applicable, and sacrificing outside the prescribed area is not piggul, which implies instead a sacrificing outside the precincts but unlawful intentions about the sacrifice's subsequent disposal. Nor is piggul possible in the case of sacrifices slaughtered without. In the case of the bullocks to be wholly burned, an intention to burn them beyond their proper place makes the sacrifice in a sense piggul (v. Rashi). ');">²⁹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Sanhedrin 84:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.