1)

(a)Rebbi Elazar asked what the Din will be if those who took the Parim ha'Nisrafin out of the Azarah took it back - whether their clothes are still Tamei, or perhaps not (because it is considered as if they had not left the Azarah [see Tosfos DH 'O Dilma').

(b)We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah, which renders Tahor those carriers who have not yet left the Azarah - which we assume is because, if those who left become Tahor once they return, how much more so those who have not yet left

(c)What leads us to this assumption is the Pasuk (in connection with Kibus Begadim of the Parah Adumah) "Yotzi el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (which seems to attribute the Tum'ah to the fact that the Parim [rather than the cariers] have left the camp).

(d)Ravina (or Rava) refutes this proof (as well as the current version of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah), by quoting the Pasuk "va'Achar Yavo el ha'Machaneh" - implying that Tum'ah depends on the person himself having left the camp.

(e)Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah must therefore refer to a case - where after returning the Parim ha'Nisrafin ... , others standing outside held on to the animal with sticks (or ropes) to pull it back outside again. And the question is whether the bull, having left the Azarah, is Metamei, or not, since it is has now returned to the Azarah.

2)

(a)The Beraisa rules that ...

1. ... the one who burns the Parah Adumah and the Parim ha'Nisrafin, those who take it out from the Azarah, and the one who takes out the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach - are Metamei the clothes that they are wearing ...

2. ... whereas the Parah Adumah, the Parim ha'Nisrafin and the Sa'ir themselves - are not.

(b)According to Rebbi Meir, all three are Metamei food and drink. The Chachamim agree with regard to the Parah and the Parim, but not with regard to the Sa'ir ...

(c)... because it is alive, and live animals are not subject (even) to Tum'ah Kalah.

(d)The Din of Metam'in Begadim is written explicitly by the Parah Adumah and by the Par of Yom Kipur. From the two superfluous words "Chatas" (in the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'es Par ha'Chatas ve'es Se'ir ha'Chatas ... "), in connection with the Par ve'Sa'ir of Yom-Kipur we learn - that it extends to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par ha'Eidah.

3)

(a)We establish Rebbi Meir like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who Darshens the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Hechsher Tum'ah) "Al Kol Zera Zeru'a .. ", which he restricts to things which will not be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah. Tum'ah ...

1. ... Kalah is - Ochlin u'Mashkin

2. ... Chamurah is - Adam ve'Keilim.

(b)And he then learns from there that ...

1. ... Nivlas Of Tahor - which will be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, does not require Hechsher Lekabel Tum'ah ...

2. ... and neither do Parah, Parim and Sa'ir ...

(c)... which will then be unique - inasmuch as they will be the only live animals to be subject to Tum'ah.

(d)The Kashya this poses on the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir is - that Mah Nafshach, if they learn like Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, then the Sa'ir ought to be Metamei Ochlin u'Mashkin too, whereas if they don't, then why do they agree with Rebbi Meir regarding Parah and Parim.

(e)So we amend Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael from 'Tz'richin Hechsher' to 'Tz'richin Hechsher Tum'ah mi'Makom Acher', meaning - that even though things that will be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah do not need 'Hechsher' (for Tum'ah Kalah), they do however, need to be fit to become Tamei (to preclude when they are alive), automatically precluding the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach from Tum'ah Kalah.

4)

(a)Rebbi Elazar asked whether Parim and Se'irim ha'Hisrafin are Metamei food and drink (Tum'ah Kalah) whilst they are still inside the Azarah. Bearing in mind that they are not yet Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah, the She'eilah is - whether the fact that they still need to be taken outside (to be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah) is considered 'Mechusar Ma'aseh', or not.

(b)He concludes - that 'Mechusar Yetzi'ah ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami' (in which case food touched by the Parim inside the Azarah remains Tahor).

(c)In similar vein, Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asked Rebbi Chiya bar Aba whether a k'Zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor is Metamei. What makes this She'eilah similar to the previous one is - the fact that Nivlas Of Tahor is only Metamei Begadim once a person has eaten it and it is in his throat. Consequently, prior to that, it might be considered Mechusar Ma'aseh.

(d)This She'eilah is confined to the opinion of Rebbi Meir - who declares that a live Sa'ir is Metamei Ochlin u'Mashkin, but according to the Rabbanan, who require the Metamei to be Ra'uy Lekabel Tum'ah, a K'zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor is not Ra'uy (because Tum'as Ochlin requires a k'Beitzah).

5)

(a)Rebbi Aba bar Mamal added that his She'eilah does not pertain to a case where the Nivlas Of Tahor was either lying on the floor or already in the mouth of the person eating it (which contained other Tahor food) - because neither is 'Sofo' Letamei Tum'ah Chamurah' ...

1. ... the former, because he might not place it in his mouth.

2. ... the latter, because it is already in place to be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah.

(b)The case therefore is - where as he is holding the Nivlas Of Tahor in his hand, ready to place it in his mouth, it touches another piece of food.

(c)And his She'eilah is - whether 'Mechusar K'reivah (where it still needs to be brought to his throat) ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami, or not.

(d)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba replied - 'Mechusar K'reivah La'av ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami'.

6)

(a)When the Beraisa presents one of the thirteen things said in connection with Nivlas Of Tamei as 'Tzerichah Machshavah ve'Einah Tzerichah Hechsher', it means - that in order to combine with less than a k'Beitzah of food to make up the Shi'ur, the owner must have the intention of eating it, though it does not require Hechsher (through contact with water or with a Sheretz).

(b)The Tana must be speaking where the person is holding the bird in his hand - because if it was lying on the floor, it would require Hechsher, and if it was in the owner's mouth, it would not require Machshavah.

(c)The Tana adds 'u'Metam'in Tum'as Ochlin - bi'k'Beitzah'.

7)

(a)Based on the assumption that the author is Rebbi Meir, we try to prove from Seifa of this Beraisa - that he holds 'Mechusar K'reivah ki'Mechusar Ma'aseh Dami' (and the Nivlas Of Tahor requires a k'Beitzah and not a k'Zayis) ...

(b)... a Kashya on Rebbi Chiya bar Aba.

(c)We ...

1. ... initially prove that the author of the Seifa is in fact Rebbi Meir, and not the Rabbanan, from the Reisha - 'Tz'richah Machshavah ... ', which is the opinion of Rebbi Meir (see Gilyon ha'Shas), so we assume that the Seifa is too.

2. ... refute that proof however, with the statement - 'Ha ke'd'Isa, ve'Ha k'd'Isa' (There is no reason why the author of the Reisha should not be Rebbi Meir, and the Seifa, the Rabbanan.

(d)We query this further from the continuation of the Beraisa 'Shechitasah u'Melikasah Metaheres Tereifasah mi'Tum'asah', which, as we already learned in the seventh Perek, is the opinion of Rebbi Meir, by asking 'Reisha ve'Seifa Rebbi Meir, u'Metzi'asa, Rabbanan?'

(e)To which we reply - that this too is acceptable.

8)

(a)When Rav Hamnuna asked Rebbi Zeira whether Rishon le'Tum'ah and Sheini le'Tum'ah apply to Nivlas Of Tahor, he added - that he should refrain from sitting down until he has given him a reply.

(b)Rav Zeira replied that Rishon and Sheini le'Tum'ah only apply to something that is Metamei through touching - which he learns from Tum'as Sheretz (in Parshas Shemini), the Torah's source for the Din of Rishon and Sheini.

(c)Consequently, someone who swallows a k'Zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor will become Tamei, but will not render Tamei (even) food.

9)

(a)The Mishnah in Taharos rules - that two half k'Zeisim of Neveilah which are joined by liquid - that is 'Tofe'ach' (enough to wet the hand that touches it sufficiently to make other things wet) combine to be Metamei Tum'ah Kalah (i.e. Tum'as Ochlin) but mot Tum'ah Chamurah (people and vessels).

(b)Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Avin bar Chiya (or Rebbi Avin bar Kahana) about food or drink that touched one of the half-k'Zeisim - whether food that touches one of the halves is subject to Rishon and Sheini le'Tum'ah.

(c)Rebbi Avin bar Chiya replied - that only food that can be Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah can make a Rishon that can make a Sheini, but not one that can only render Tamei Tum'ah Kalah.

10)

(a)Bearing in mind that the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Par Kohen ha'Mashi'ach) "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", and then compares the Par ha'Eidah to it, when it writes "Ka'asher Saraf es ha'Par ha'Rishon", the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra ...

1. ... (written in connection with the latter) "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - that we need to add a second Machaneh to the location where they are burned.

2. ... (written in connection with the Terumas ha'Deshen) "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - that we need to add even a third Machaneh.

(b)This latter Pasuk is superfluous - because the Torah has already written "al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref".

(c)Bearing in mind that the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur also belong to the above category, another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", implying 'outside the first Machaneh' (i.e. as soon as they leave Machaneh Shechinah) - that that is when those who are carrying them together with the clothes they are wearing become Tamei.

11)

(a)The problem we now have with Rebbi Shimon (in our Mishnah), who does not declare those dealing with the animals Tamei until they have been burned is - what does he learn from "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (by Yom Kipur)?

(b)We therefore establish Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Eliezer in yet a third Beraisa, who learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Chutz la'Machaneh" (by Yom Kipur) and "Chutz la'Machaneh" (by the burning of the Parah Adumah). We learn ...

1. ... from the Par ve'Sa'ir of Yom Kipur - that the Parah Adumah must be burned outside the three camps.

2. ... from Parah Adumah - that the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur are burned on the east side of Yerushalayim ...

(c)... which we know - from the fact that the Torah instructs the Kohen who burns it to sprinkle some of the ashes towards the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed, which was on the east side of the Beis ha'Mikdash.