בתר רוב אבר שדינן ליה והא נפק ליה או דלמא בתר בהמה שדינן ליה תיקו
by casting it after the majority of that limb, and the majority of that limb did leave? Or perhaps we determine its status by casting it after the half of the animal, which did not leave the courtyard. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar shall stand unresolved.
רבה בר רב הונא מתני לה בגברי במתעסקין בו חמשה בני אדם ונפקו תלתא ופשו להו תרי מאי בתר רוב מתעסקין אזלינן או בתר בהמה אזלינן תיקו
Rabba bar Rav Huna teaches this dilemma with regard to people: In a case where five people are handling an offering and carrying it out to be burned, and three of them emerged and two of them remained in the Temple courtyard, such that the animal is partly inside and partly outside, what is the halakha? Do we follow the majority of the people handling the offering, who have left the courtyard, or do we follow the animal, the majority of which did not yet leave? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בעי רבי אלעזר פרים ושעירים הנשרפים שיצאו וחזרו מהו מי אמרינן כיון דנפקי להו איטמו להו או דלמא כיון דהדור הדור
Rabbi Elazar raises another dilemma: If bulls and goats that are burned left the Temple courtyard and returned, what is the halakha with regard to the garments of those who carry them inside the courtyard? Do we say: Once they left, they became impure? Or perhaps once they return, they return and do not render garments impure?
אמר ר' אבא בר ממל ת"ש היו סובלין אותן במוטות הראשונים יצאו חוץ לחומת העזרה והאחרונים לא יצאו הראשונים שיצאו חוץ לחומת העזרה מטמאין בגדים והאחרונים אין מטמאין בגדים עד שיצאו ואי ס"ד כיון דנפקי להו איטמו הנך דאיכא גואי ליטמא
Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: Come and hear the mishna: They would carry the bulls and the goats that are burned suspended on poles. When the first priests, carrying the front of the pole, emerged beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard and the latter ones did not yet emerge, the first ones, who emerged beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard, render their garments impure, but the latter ones do not render their garments impure until they emerge. Rabbi Abba bar Memel explains: And if it enters your mind to say that once they leave, they become impure, these latter ones mentioned in the mishna who are still inside should be rendered impure, since the offering itself has emerged. It follows that if the offering returns, their garments are not rendered impure.
אמר רבינא ותסברא הא בעינא (ויקרא יד, ח) ואחר יבא אל המחנה וליכא
Ravina said: And can you understand this as a proof? The reason that the latter ones’ garments are not rendered impure is that I require the fulfillment of the verse: “And he who burns them shall wash his garments, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he may come into the camp” (Leviticus 16:28). And since they have not yet left the camp, they cannot come into it, and therefore they do not contract the impurity described in the verse.
אלא רבי אלעזר היכי בעי לה כגון דנקיטי לה בבקולסי
The Gemara asks: But if they can become impure only after they leave, how did Rabbi Elazar raise this dilemma? The Gemara answers: He raised the dilemma with regard to a case where they take the offering with staffs [bevakulsei], i.e., after the offering is returned to the Temple courtyard, other people stand outside the courtyard and bring it out again using staffs. Does the offering render these people impure, even though they are standing outside the courtyard? The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar remains unresolved.
ת"ר פרים ופרה ושעיר המשתלח המשלח השורפן והמוציאן מטמא בגדים והן עצמן אין מטמאין בגדים אבל מטמאין אוכלין ומשקין דברי ר"מ וחכ"א פרה ופרים מטמאין אוכלין ומשקין שעיר המשתלח אינו מטמא שהוא חי והחי אינו מטמא אוכלין ומשקין
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to bulls that are burned, and a red heifer, and the scapegoat of the Yom Kippur service, the one who sends them, the one who burns them, and the one who takes them out of the Temple courtyard render their garments impure. And the animals themselves, after they emerge from the Temple courtyard, do not render garments that they touch impure, but they render food and drink that they touch impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: A red heifer and bulls that are burned render food and drink impure, but the scapegoat does not transmit impurity at all, as it is still alive when it leaves the Temple, and a living being does not render food and drink impure.
בשלמא לרבי מאיר כדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, לז) על כל זרע זרוע
The Gemara comments. Granted, according to Rabbi Meir there is no difficulty, as his opinion is in accordance with that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught in a baraita: The verse states that seeds can contract impurity from the carcass of a creeping animal only if they first come in contact with water: “And if any part of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it is pure. But if water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcass fall thereon, it is impure unto you” (Leviticus 11:37–38).
מה זרעים שאין סופן ליטמא טומאה חמורה וצריכין הכשר אף כל שאין סופן ליטמא טומאה חמורה צריכין הכשר יצתה נבלת עוף טהור שסופה ליטמא טומאה חמורה ואין צריכה הכשר
Just as is the case for seeds, which, like any food, can never contract impurity severe enough to transmit it to human beings, and they need exposure to liquid to be rendered susceptible to their less severe level of impurity, so too, all items that can never contract impurity severe enough to transmit it to human beings need exposure to liquid to be rendered susceptible to their less severe level of impurity and to transmit it. This serves to exclude the carcass of a kosher bird, which can contract impurity severe enough to be transmitted to a human being who swallows it, and therefore does not need to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity in order to transmit ritual impurity. According to this baraita, bulls that are burned, a red heifer, and a scapegoat, which are all sources of impurity for human beings, are able to transmit impurity to food and drink on their own, even if they have not been exposed to liquid and have not come in contact with any source of impurity. Rabbi Meir’s opinion accords with this principle.
אלא לרבנן אי אית להו דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אפילו שעיר המשתלח אי לית ליה אפי' פרה ופרים מנלן
But for the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir and say that a scapegoat does not transmit impurity to food and drink, this is difficult. If they accept that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, then even the scapegoat should transmit impurity to food and drink. And if they do not accept that statement, then from where do we derive that even a red heifer and bulls that are burned transmit impurity to food and drink?
כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא צריכין הכשר טומאה ממקום אחר
When Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said: The Sages in the West, Eretz Yisrael, say: The opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir is that bulls that are burned and a red heifer need to contract impurity from somewhere else to be able to transmit impurity to foods. Since the scapegoat cannot contract impurity, as it is alive, it cannot transmit impurity.
בעי רבי אלעזר פרים ושעירים הנשרפים מהו שיטמאו אוכלין ומשקין בפנים כבחוץ מחוסר יציאה כמחוסר מעשה דמי או לא
§ Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: With regard to bulls and goats that are burned, what is the halakha as to whether they can transmit impurity to food and drink inside the Temple courtyard, before they leave, as they do outside afterward? Is an offering that has not yet left the Temple considered as if it were an item for which a necessary action has not yet been performed, i.e., because it has not yet become a source of impurity to those who carry it, it also does not transmit impurity to food without being rendered susceptible by coming into contact with a liquid and then coming into contact with a source of impurity? Or perhaps no, because the offering will become a source of impurity to those who carry it once it leaves the Temple courtyard, it already transmits impurity to food without being rendered susceptible.
בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה מחוסר יציאה כמחוסר מעשה דמי
After Rabbi Elazar raised the dilemma, he then resolved it: An offering that has not yet left is considered as if it were an item for which a necessary action has not yet been performed, and it does not transmit impurity to food without being rendered susceptible.
בעא מיניה רבי אבא בר שמואל מרבי חייא בר אבא נבלת עוף טהור לר' מאיר מהו שיטמא בכזית
§ Rabbi Abba bar Shmuel posed another dilemma to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Food transmits impurity to other food or drink only if it is the volume of at least one egg-bulk and it is first rendered susceptible to impurity. The carcass of a kosher bird transmits impurity to a person who swallows it even if it is of the volume of at least one olive-bulk, and even if it has not been rendered susceptible to impurity. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that the carcass of a kosher bird transmits impurity to other food without first being rendered susceptible to impurity, what is the halakha as to the requisite measure? Does the carcass of a kosher bird transmit impurity to food even if it is of the volume of an olive-bulk, as it would to a person?
דמחתא לארעא לא תיבעי לך דנקיט בפומיה לא תיבעי לך כי תיבעי לך דנקיט ליה בידיה מחוסר קריבה כמחוסר מעשה דמי או לא
The Gemara clarifies: Do not raise the dilemma in a case where the carcass lies on the ground, as in that case it certainly must be of the volume of an egg-bulk, like any other impure food. And do not raise the dilemma in a case where a person holds the bird’s flesh in his mouth, as it may be swallowed and transmit impurity to him even if it is of the volume of only an olive-bulk; in this case it certainly transmits impurity to food in the same measure. When you raise the dilemma, raise it in a case where he holds the bird’s flesh in his hand. When the flesh has not yet been brought close to being swallowed, is it considered to be like an item for which a necessary action has not yet been performed, in which case it is considered a normal food and must be of the volume of an egg-bulk, or perhaps not?
(בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה)
After Abba bar Shmuel raised the dilemma, he then resolved it: