1) WHAT IS CONSIDERED “YETZI’AH”

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna explained that R. Elazar’s question concerned people engaged in burning the Par:
1. Question: If five people were carrying the Par out, and three of them left and two are still inside (Rambam – half the Par is outside), what is the law? (Rashi and Rambam (and perhaps Tosfos) each explain this question like above.)
i. Perhaps since the majority of people left, it is as if the Par left;
ii. Or, perhaps (only) the majority of the animal is significant, not the majority of people. 2. This question is not resolved.
(b) Question (R. Elazar): If a Par or Se’ir ha’Nisrafim left the Azarah and returned, what is the law?
1. Version #1 (Rashi): Do we say, once it left, those who took it out became (and remain) Tamei?
2. Version #2 (Tosfos): Do we say, once it left (even though it returned), it is Metamei all who engage in taking it out, even before they leave? (end of Version #2)
3. Or, since it returned, it is as if it never left?
(c) Answer (R. Aba bar Mamal – Mishnah): If the animal was being carried out on poles, when the people in front have left the Azarah but not the people in back, those in front are Metamei Begadim, those in back are not Metamei Begadim until they leave.
1. Version #1 (Rashi): If returning has no effect, once the Par leaves, all of them should be Tamei! (Rather, we must say that if it returns, it is as if it never left, and similarly, if those carrying it returned (and all the more so, if they did not leave yet) they are not Metamei Begadim!
2. Version #2 (Tosfos): If returning has no effect, all of them should be Tamei, as if they took it out!
(d) Objection (Ravina): This is unreasonable – it says (he will immerse his clothes,) “V’Achar Yavo El ha’Machaneh”, this does not apply to someone who did not leave yet! (The Gemara cites Bamidbar (19:7), it refers to Parah Adumah, very similar verses (Vayikra 16:26 and 28) teach about Se’ir ha’Mishtale’ach and Parim and Se’irim ha’Nisrafim; the citation to Vayikra 14 is a mistake, that verse refers to a Metzora.)
(e) Question: If so, Tum’as Begadim cannot apply to one who never left – what was R. Elazar’s question?
(f) Answer: He asks about someone outside the Azarah using a stick to pull out a Par that left the Azarah and returned (is he Metamei Begadim?)
2) “SOFO LITAMEI TUM’AH CHAMURAH”
(a) (Beraisa – R. Meir): One who takes out, sends or burns Parim ha’Nisrafim, Parah Adumah or Se’ir ha’Mishtale’ach is Metamei Begadim, the animals themselves are not Metamei Begadim, but they are Metamei food and drink.
(b) Chachamim say, Parah (Adumah) and Parim (ha’Nisrafim) are Metamei food and drink, Se’ir (ha’Mishtale’ach) is not, for it is alive, and a living animal is never Metamei.
(c) Question: We understand R. Meir – he holds like R. Yishmael:
1. (Tana d’vei R. Yishmael): “Kol Zera Zeru’a (is not Mekabel Tum’ah unless it was Huchshar)” – Hechsher is needed only for things such as seeds, which will never have severe Tum’ah (to Metamei people or vessels);
i. This excludes Nivlas Of Tahor, for it is Metamei severe Tum’ah, (to one who eats it), it does not need Hechsher.
2. But if Chachamim hold like R. Yishmael, even Se’ir should be Metamei; if they do not hold like him, what is their source for Parah and Parim?
(d) Version #1 – Answer (Rav Dimi): They hold like R. Yishmael;
1. Version #1A (Rashi): However, even though something which will have severe Tum’ah does not need any Hechsher, it must be Muchshar (fitting) Lekabel Tum’ah from another source (i.e. it cannot be alive.)
2. Version #1B (Ra’avad): However, even though something which will have severe Tum’ah does not need Hechsher (Sheretz, i.e. to touch Tum’ah) it must be Muchshar Lekabel Tum’ah (water must come on it.)
(e) Version #2 – Ra’avad – Answer (Rav Dimi): They do not hold like R. Yishmael – the Parim are Metamei only if they were Huchshar (through water) and touched Tum’ah.
(f) Question (R. Elazar): Are Parim and Se’irim ha’Nisrafim Metamei food and drink before leaving the Azarah, just like after leaving?
(g) Answer (R. Elazar): Not having left is Mechushar Ma’aseh (they are not Metamei until an act is done), therefore they are not Metamei.
(h) Question (R. Aba bar Mamal): According to R. Meir, does a k’Zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor impart Tum’ah (to food and drink?)
1. Clearly, if it is on the ground, it is not Metamei (it is not destined for Tum’ah Chamurah (Tum’as Begadim of one who eats it), perhaps no one will eat it!)
2. Clearly, if it is in a Yisrael’s mouth, it is Metamei (other food and drink in his mouth, surely it will be swallowed and Metamei Tum’ah Chamurah.)
3. The question is, if it is in a Yisrael’s hand – is Mechushar Kereivah (he must put it in his mouth) like Mechushar Ma’aseh (so it is not Metamei), or not?
105b—————————————105b

(i) Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): Mechushar Kereivah is not like Mechushar Ma’aseh (it is Tamei immediately.)
(j) Question (Mishnah): There are 13 laws of Nivlas Of Tahor – it requires intent (to eat it, to join with other food to comprise a Shi’ur for Tum’as Ochlim), it does not require Hechsher, an egg’s worth is Metamei Tum’as Ochlim…
1. Suggestion: The Mishnah is like R. Meir.
(k) Answer: No, it is like Chachamim.
(l) Question: But the Reisha says, intent is needed, Hechsher is not needed – this is like R. Meir;
1. Since the Reisha is R. Meir, also the Seifa!
(m) Answer: No, the Reisha is like R. Meir, but the Seifa is like Chachamim.
(n) Question: But the Seifa says, slaughter or Melikah of a Treifah is Metaher it from becoming a Neveilah;
1. This is like R. Meir – can you say that the Reisha and Seifa are R. Meir, and the middle is Chachamim?!
(o) Answer: Yes, the Reisha and Seifa are R. Meir, the middle is Chachamim.
(p) Question (Rav Hamnuna): According to R. Meir, if Nivlas Of Tahor was Metamei a food, do we count degrees of Tum’ah (to call that food a Rishon, and what it touches is a Sheni…), or not (what it touches does not Metamei others)?
(q) Answer (R. Zeira): We count degrees of Tum’ah for precisely those Tum’os which Metamei a person through touching (Nivlas Of Tahor is not included.)
(r) Question (R. Zeira – Mishnah): If foods (that are Avos ha’Tum’ah, e.g. Neveilos) are joined through liquids, they are considered joined (to complete the Shi’ur) to Metamei food and drink, but not for Tum’ah Chamurah (Letamei people and vessels.)
1. Do we count degrees of Tum’ah?
(s) Answer (R. Ami bar Chiya): We count degrees of Tum’ah for precisely those Tum’os which Metamei a person through touching (and foods joined through liquids do not join.)
3) TAKING THE “PARIM” OUTSIDE THE “MACHANEH”
(a) (Mishnah): When all have left, (all are Metamei Begadim.)
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Beraisa) Question: The Torah teaches that Parim (of He’elam Davar or Chatas Kohen Gadol) are burned outside of three Machanos – but it mentions burning and Tum’as Begadim of Par Yom Kipur after leaving one Machaneh (and we know that all are burned in the same place!)
1. Answer: This teaches that Tum’as Begadim applies after leaving one Machaneh (the Azarah, but all the Parim are burned outside of three Machanos.)
2. Question: What is the source that Parim are burned outside of three Machanos?
3. Answer: “V’Hotzi Es Kol ha’Par (of a Kohen Gadol) El mi’Chutz la’Machaneh” – outside of three Machanos.
i. Suggestion: Perhaps it means, outside of one Machaneh!
ii. Rejection: Regarding Par He’elam Davar it says “Mi’Chutz la’Machaneh” – we already knew this, for it says “Ka’Asher Saraf Es ha’Par ha’Rishon”!
iii. Rather, the repetition teaches that Parim are burned outside a second Machaneh.
iv. Question: Regarding removing the ashes from the Mizbe’ach, it says “Mi’Chutz la’Machaneh” – we already knew this, for that is where the Parim are burned – “Al Shefech ha’Deshen Yisaref”!
v. Answer: The repetition teaches that Parim are burned outside three Machanos.
(d) Question: According to R. Shimon (Tum’as Begadim does not take effect (after leaving one Machaneh, rather,) until the animal catches fire -) how can we answer Question (c)?
(e) Answer: It teaches R. Eliezer’s law.
1. (Beraisa – R. Eliezer): It says here (regarding Par Yom Kipur) “Mi’Chutz la’Machaneh”, like it says there (regarding Parah Adumah) – just like here it is burned outside of three Machanos, also there.
2. Just like there it is burned to the east of Yerushalayim (for it faces Pesach Ohel Mo’ed), also here (also the other Parim ha’Nisrafim are like Par Yom Kipur.)
(f) Question: According to Chachamim (who do not use “Mi’Chutz la’Machaneh” for a Gezerah Shavah), where are Parim ha’Nisrafim burned?
(g) Answer: They are burned to the north of Yerushalayim (for Avodas Chatas is in the north), outside of three Machanos.