Sanhedrin

MISHNAH. WHEN THE TRIAL IS ENDED,HE [THE CONDEMNED] IS LED FORTH TO BE STONED.  THE PLACE OF STONING WAS WITHOUT THE COURT, EVEN AS IT IS WRITTEN, BRING FORTH HIM THAT HATH CURSED. A MAN WAS STATIONED AT THE DOOR OF THE COURT WITH THE SIGNALLING FLAG  IN HIS HAND, AND A HORSE-MAN WAS STATIONED AT THE DISTANCE YET WITHIN SIGHT OF HIM,  AND THEN IF ONE  SAYS, 'I HAVE SOMETHING [FURTHER] TO STATE IN HIS FAVOUR', HE [THE SIGNALLER] WAVES THE FLAG, AND THE HORSE-MAN RUNS AND STOPS THEM.  AND EVEN IF HE HIMSELF SAYS, 'I HAVE SOMETHING TO PLEAD IN MY OWN FAVOUR', HE IS BROUGHT BACK, EVEN FOUR OR FIVE TIMES, PROVIDING, HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS SUBSTANCE IN HIS ASSERTION. GEMARA. And was the place of stoning only just outside the court and no further? Has it not been taught: The place of stoning was outside the three encampments?  — True, it is even as you say, yet he teaches it thus, so that one may infer from it that if the Beth din went forth  and stationed itself outside the three encampments,  even so the place of stoning had to be without the court, in order that it [the court] should not appear murderously inclined, or that there might be a possibility of deliverance. Whence is this inferred?  From what our Rabbis taught: Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp:  i.e., without the three camps. You say, 'without the three camps:' but may it not mean simply outside one camp? — It is here stated, Without the camp; and in reference to the bulls that were [wholly] burned,  it is also said, without the camp:  Just as there, [it means] without the three camps, so here too. And whence is that derived there? — From what our Rabbis taught: The whole bullock shall he carry away without the camp  — i.e., without the three camps. You say, 'without the three camps;' but perhaps it simply means 'without one camp'?  — But when Scripture states further, with reference to the bull offered for the Community,  without the camp, which is unnecessary, for it has already been stated, And he shall burn it as he hath burned the first bullock,  its purpose is to add a second camp.  And when Scripture states further, with reference to the ashes,  without the camp,  which is also superfluous, since it has already been said, Where the ashes are poured out shall it be burned,  its purpose must be to add a third camp. But why not derive it  from the sacrifices slaughtered without [the legitimate precincts]?  Just as there, [the meaning is] without one camp,  so here too, without one camp is meant! — It is logical to make the deduction from the bullocks that were [wholly] burned, since they have the following points in common: [i] Bring forth … without the camp; [ii] [the bringing forth] is a necessary preliminary [to the act]; [iii] atonement.  On the contrary, it should rather be deduced from the sacrifices slaughtered without, since they have the following in common; [i] human being; [ii] sinners; [iii] life is taken; and [iv] piggul?  — It is preferable to deduce one necessary preliminary from another. R. Papa said:  Where did Moses reside? In the camp of the Levites.  And God said to him: Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp  — which therefore means, without the camp of the Levites. Hence, when it states, And they brought forth him that had cursed outside the camp, the camp of the Israelites [must be meant].  But surely, that is necessary to intimate the fulfilment [of the command]? — This fulfilment is expressly stated: