1) THE "TUM'AH" CAUSED BY THE KORBANOS WHICH ARE TAKEN OUTSIDE OF THE BEIS HA'MIKDASH
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the laws unique to those who perform the Avodah of the Parim ha'Nisrafin, Parah Adumah, and Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. These are the three types of Korbanos which have some form of Avodah which must be done outside the Beis ha'Mikdash.
In the Beraisa, Rebbi Meir says that the clothes of the one who sends the Korban, burns the Korban, and takes the Korban out of the Beis ha'Mikdash become Tamei. The Korbanos themselves do not make clothes which they touch Tamei, but they do make food and drink which they touch Tamei (Tum'as Ochlin). The Chachamim argue that the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not make food and drink Tamei, since a living animal does not make food and drink Tamei.
In light of this Beraisa, the ruling of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Parah Adumah 5:7) is difficult to understand. The Rambam rules that anyone or anything which comes into contact with the Parim ha'Nisrafin or the Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach after they have been taken out of the Beis ha'Mikdash is Tahor, since these Korbanos are Metamei only the people who are involved with their Avodah. The Rambam seems to follow neither the ruling of Rebbi nor the ruling of the Chachamim, since both agree that the Parim ha'Nisrafin are Metamei food and drink which they touch. What is the source of the Rambam's ruling?
(a) The KESEF MISHNEH quotes the MAHARI KURKUS who answers that the Rambam rules like Rebbi Shimon in the Tosefta in Maseches Parah. Rebbi Shimon states that the Parah Adumah is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. Even though it is not meant to be eaten, it technically could be redeemed and eaten. The Parim ha'Nisrafin are not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, because there is never any moment at which they could be eaten. Rebbi Shimon's statement is the source for the Rambam's ruling that the Parim ha'Nisrafin do not make anything Tamei.
Why does the Rambam rule like an opinion mentioned in the Tosefta and not the opinions recorded in the main discussion of the subject in the Gemara here? The Mahari Kurkus explains that since Rebbi Shimon's opinion is quoted throughout the Gemara, the Rambam concludes that the Halachah follows his ruling.
(b) The Kesef Mishneh himself gives a different explanation elsewhere. The Rambam in Hilchos Avos ha'Tum'ah (3:3) writes that the Parah Adumah and the Se'irim ha'Nisrafin are Metamei Ochlin u'Mashkin only when someone has in mind that he will eat them and they then make contact with something Tamei. The Kesef Mishneh there explains the ruling of the Rambam based on the Chachamim in the Gemara here. He explains that the Parah Adumah really has no Tum'ah inherently; only when one intends to treat it as food, and it comes into contact with Tum'ah, can it be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. The Kesef Mishneh adds that the ruling of the Rambam in Hilchos Parah Adumah refers to a case in which no one thought of the Parim ha'Nisrafin as food and the Parah did not come into contact with anything Tamei. This approach clearly is not consistent with his earlier answer that the Rambam in Hilchos Parah Adumah rules like Rebbi Shimon. (See BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH at length.) (Y. MONTROSE)
2) "MI'CHUTZ LA'MACHANEH"
OPINIONS: The Mishnah earlier (104a) teaches that when the Avodah of the Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafin is done properly, they are burned in the Beis ha'Deshen which is outside all three Machanos of Bnei Yisrael. The Gemara seeks to explain the source of this Halachah, which is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. On the contrary, the verse says merely that the Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafin are taken "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" -- "outside of the camp" (Vayikra 16:27) to be burned, which implies outside of only one camp, namely the Machaneh Shechinah (the Beis ha'Mikdash).
There are several ways to understand the Gemara's explanation.
(a) RASHI (DH Hachi Garsinan) explains the Gemara as follows. The Beraisa notes that when the Torah discusses the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par He'elem Davar, it also says that they are burned "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (Vayikra 4:12 and 4:21). In that context, "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" cannot mean outside of just one Machaneh, because the verse says that the Par He'elem Davar is burned "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" and "Ka'asher Saraf Es ha'Par ha'Rishon" -- "like he burned the first Par" (Vayikra 4:21). Why does the verse add this extra phrase? It must be that the Torah wants to teach that this is more "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" than one might have thought. The Gemara quotes a similar teaching regarding the extra mention of the word "Deshen" (Vayikra 4:12). These extra words ("Ka'asher Saraf" and "Deshen") teach that the burning of these Korbanos is done outside all three Machanos (one Machaneh per extra phrase).
How does this explain the meaning of the phrase, "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh," written with regard to the Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafin of Yom Kippur (Vayikra 16:27)? Perhaps that phrase means simply outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, as the words imply. Rashi quotes two sources which teach that the Par of Yom Kippur is compared to the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par He'elem Davar. One teaching is recorded by the Gemara earlier in Zevachim (83a). The Gemara teaches that all Chata'os are compared to each other. Accordingly, the laws of one Chatas may be derived from the laws of another. The burning of the Par of Yom Kippur may be derived from the burning of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par He'elem Davar. Just as the latter are burned outside the three Machanos, the Par of Yom Kippur is burned outside the three Machanos.
Another source is the Gemara earlier (39a) which teaches that the word "la'Par" ("to the bull," referring to the Par He'elem Davar, Vayikra 4:20) includes the Par Yom ha'Kipurim and teaches that its status is similar to that of the Par He'elem Davar.
Why, though, does the Torah say "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" in all of these cases instead of saying explicitly that the Korbanos must be taken out of three Machanos? Rashi (DH Im Ken) explains that the Torah says "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" in proximity to the verse that commands the people who deal with the Parah to wash their clothes (since they become Tamei) in order to teach that the ones who carry the Parah must wash their clothes even after they have exited from one Machaneh with the Parah. According to Rashi, this is stated explicitly in the text of his Gemara.
(b) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) essentially agrees with Rashi, but does not have the last teaching of "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" in the Gemara. He therefore writes that the law that one must wash his clothes after taking the Parah out of the first Machaneh is a tradition not stated openly in any verse. The Chachamim taught that there is an Asmachta for this tradition based on the verse of "El mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" in the Parshah of Par He'elem Davar. The TOSFOS YOM TOV on the Mishnah apparently also had the text of the Rambam. (See RASHASH, who argues with the Tosfos Yom Tov that the correct text of the Rambam should read that there is an Asmachta from Par Kohen Mashi'ach, and not from Par He'elem Davar.) (Y. MONTROSE)