레위기 4:12의 주석

אל מקום טהור [EVEN THE WHOLE BULLOCK SHALL HE BRING FORTH WITHOUT THE CAMP] UNTO A CLEAN PLACE — Because there was outside the city (Jerusalem) a place intended for depositing unclean things viz., to cast there the plague-stricken stones (cf. Leviticus 14:45) and to serve as a place of burial, Scripture was compelled to state regarding this term “without the camp” — which in the case of Jerusalem, is identical with: “without the city” — that the place where it was to be burnt shall be a clean one.

אל שפך הדשן, seeing that the Torah writes in Leviticus 6,4,והוציא את הדשן אל מחוץ למחנה “he shall take the ashes outside the encampment,” the Torah here had to tell us where the ash was stored.

אל שפך הדשן ישרף אותו, “on the place where the ash is poured and burn it.” The Torah commanded that the burning of this sin offering including its skin must be performed outside the precincts of the Temple so that it would be observed by the public at large. This would show the people that even a High Priest would acknowledge that he had sinned and ask G’d to forgive him.

Beyond the three. [Rashi knows this] from what is written here: “Encampment,” and later on in this section it is written (v. 20): “[The same] as he did to the sin-offering bullock, so he shall do to it,” and then it is written (v. 21): “He shall take the bullock outside, beyond the encampment.” Why is this needed? Obviously, it is extra, in order to derive from it one more encampment. [That it should be beyond] the third encampment is derived from what it is written in Parshas Tzav (6:4): “He shall take out the ashes beyond the encampment.” It should only say: “He should take out the ashes,” and I would know that it is beyond the encampment, because it is written in our section: “Beyond the encampment, to a pure [undefiled] place, where the ashes are thrown,” [thus,] this [the place where the ashes are thrown] is outside the encampment. Obviously, it is [also] extra, to derive from it another encampment. Thus, [we derive that he takes it out] beyond three encampments. The three encampments are: The encampment of the Divine Presence, from the entrance to the courtyard and within. From the entrance to the courtyard to the entrance to the Temple Mount is the Levites’ encampment, and from the entrance to the Temple Mount until the city gate is the third encampment. Beyond the city gate is outside of three encampments.

והוציא את כל הפר, “he is to remove the entire bull, etc.” this teaches that he has to do so before the animal has been cut up into pieces; in other words: the head with the legs need to be cut up of this animal outside the sacred precincts.

מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — i. e. without the three camps (מחנה שכינה, מחנה לויה ומחנה ישראל) ; and, in the case of the “House of Eternity” (the Temple), it was to be brought forth without the city, just as our Rabbis have explained it in Treatise Yoma 68a and in Treatise Sanhedrin 42b.

Outside the city. This raises a strong difficulty: There is no difference between the eternal house and Shilo, and the other places, for in every place where the Ark was located there were three encampments. The Gemara says [the same] clearly in Sanhedrin 42b, see there. The answer is: Perhaps it is a textual error and it should say “And in Jerusalem” (Nachalas Yaakov). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi reserve the verse’s order to explain first “to a pure place” and then, “beyond the encampment” — “beyond the three encampments”? [The answer is:] This is to say: How do we know that the explanation of “beyond the encampment” is “beyond the three encampments”? Therefore, Rashi explains [first] “to a pure place” — Since there is a place prepared for impurity outside in which they throw out stones stricken with plague, and that is certainly outside of three camps. This is because the stricken house was inside the city, and it was necessary to take it outside. If so, when it is written: “beyond [the encampments],” it means beyond the three encampments, which is outside the city (Gur Aryeh).

אל שפך הדשן means: to the place where the ashes that were removed from the altar were cast, as it is said (Leviticus 6:4) “and he shall bring out the ashes without the camp”.

A place. I.e., this does not refer to the ashes that were lifted from inner consumed parts, which are the ashes from “when the fire consumes the burnt-offering on the altar” (6:3) each day [i.e., the trumas hadeshen], for those ashes were not thrown out beyond the encampment. Rather, he would rake a full pan of ashes each day and place it in the courtyard on the ramp’s eastern side, as it is written (6:3): “And he shall separate the ashes...”

על שפך הדשן UPON THE PLACE FOR SHEDDING THE ASHES [SHALL IT BE BURNT] — This is something which need not have been stated (since it says immediately before, that it shall be brought forth to this spot), but it is intended to teach that even if at the time there happen to be no ashes there, the bullock shall nevertheless be burnt there (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 5 5; Pesachim 75b).

There are no ashes there. You might ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps the verse’s repetition is to [make it] an absolute requirement, that if there are no ashes there, it is invalid? (Re”m). The answer is: It should only say: “It shall be burnt upon the ashes.” Why [does it say:] “It shall be burned where the ashes are thrown”? Rather, it must be [that it teaches he burns the bullock] upon the place of the ashes although there are no ashes there at all.