Rabah bar Rav Huna explained that R. Elazar asked about people engaged in burning the Par;

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.)

Since the majority of people left, it is as if the Par left;

Or, perhaps (only) the majority of the animal is significant, but not the majority of people.

This question is not resolved.

Question (R. Elazar): If a Par or Se'ir ha'Nisrafim left the Azarah and returned, what is the law?

Version #1 (Rashi): Once it left, those who took it out became (and remain) Tamei?

Version #2 (Tosfos): 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)

Or, perhaps since it returned, it is as if it never left?

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, but those in back are not Metamei Begadim until they leave.

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. Similarly, if those carrying it returned (and all the more so, if they did not leave yet) they are not Metamei Begadim!)

Version #2 (Tosfos): If returning has no effect, all of them should be Tamei, as if they took it out!

Objection (Ravina): This is unreasonable! "(He will immerse his clothes) v'Achar Yavo El ha'Machaneh" does not apply to one who did not leave yet! (The Gemara cites Bamidbar (19:7), which discusses Parah Adumah. Very similar verses (Vayikra 16:26 and 28) teach about Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (the goat sent to Azazel on Yom Kipur) and Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim. The citation to Vayikra 14 is a mistake, that verse refers to a Metzora.)

Question: If so, Tum'as Begadim cannot apply to one who never left - what was R. Elazar's question?

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?)

(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.

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.

Question: Granted, R. Meir holds like R. Yishmael;

(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Kol Zera Zeru'a (is not Mekabel Tum'ah unless it was Huchshar)" - Hechsher is needed only for things like seeds, which will never have severe Tum'ah (to be Metamei people or Kelim);

This excludes Nivlas Of Tahor, for it is Metamei (one who eats it) severe Tum'ah, so it does not need Hechsher.

However, if Chachamim hold like R. Yishmael, even the Se'ir should be Metamei. If they do not hold like him, what is their source for Parah and Parim?

Version #1 - Answer (Rav Dimi): They hold like R. Yishmael;

Version #1A (Rashi): However, even though something that will have severe Tum'ah does not need any Hechsher, it must be (properly) Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah from another source (i.e. it cannot be alive).

Version #1B (Ra'avad): However, even though something that 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.)

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. (end of Version #2)

Question (R. Elazar): Are Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim Metamei food and drink before leaving the Azarah, just like after leaving?

Answer (R. Elazar): Before they leave, they are Mechusar Ma'aseh (an action must be done), therefore they are not Metamei.

Question (R. Aba bar Shmuel): According to R. Meir, is a k'Zayis of Nivlas Of Tahor Metamei (food and drink)?

Clearly, if it is on the ground, it is not Metamei. (It is not destined for severe Tum'ah (Tum'as Begadim of one who eats it), for perhaps no one will eat it!)

Clearly, if it is in a Yisrael's mouth, it is Metamei (other food and drink in his mouth. Surely he will swallow it, and it will be Metamei severe Tum'ah.)

He asks about when it is in a Yisrael's hand. Is Mechusar Kereivah (he must put it in his mouth) like Mechusar Ma'aseh (so it is not Metamei), or not?

Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): Mechusar Kereivah is not like Mechusar Ma'aseh (it is Tamei immediately.)

Question (Mishnah): There are 13 laws of Nivlas Of Tahor. 1) It requires intent (to eat it, to join with other food to comprise a Shi'ur for Tum'as Ochlim). 2) It does not require Hechsher. 3) K'Beitzah (the volume of an egg) of it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlim...

Suggestion: The Mishnah is like R. Meir.

Answer: No, it is like Chachamim.

Question: The Reisha says that intent is needed, but Hechsher is not needed. This is like R. Meir; (R. Akiva Eiger and Mesoras ha'Shas question this, for we concluded that even Chachamim say so. They argue only about Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.)

Since the Reisha is R. Meir, also the Seifa (clause 3, that k'Beitzah of it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlim...) is!

Answer: No, the Reisha is like R. Meir, but the Seifa is like Chachamim.

Question (Seifa, i.e. a later clause): Shechitah or Melikah of a Treifah is Metaher it from becoming a Neveilah;

This is like R. Meir. Can you say that the Reisha and Seifa are R. Meir, and the middle (clause 3) is Chachamim?!

Answer: Yes, the Reisha and Seifa are R. Meir, but the middle is Chachamim.

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 (i.e. what it touches is not Metamei others)?

Answer (R. Zeira): We count degrees of Tum'ah for precisely those Tum'os that Metamei people through touching (e.g. a Sheretz, but not Nivlas Of Tahor).

Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa): 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 (to be people and Kelim.)

Do we count degrees of Tum'ah?

Answer (R. Ami bar Chiya): We count degrees of Tum'ah for precisely those Tum'os that Metamei people through touching (but foods joined through liquids do not join).

(Mishnah): When all have left, (all are Metamei Begadim).

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa) Question: The Torah teaches that Parim (of Helam 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)!

Answer #1: This teaches that Tum'as Begadim applies after leaving one Machaneh (the Azarah, but all the Parim are burned outside of three Machanos).

Question: What is the source that Parim are burned outside of three Machanos?

Answer: "V'Hotzi Es Kol ha'Par (of a Kohen Gadol) El mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - it is taken outside of three Machanos.

Suggestion: Perhaps it means outside of one Machaneh!

Rejection: Regarding Par Helam Davar it says "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh." We already knew this, for it says "ka'Asher Saraf Es ha'Par ha'Rishon"!

Rather, the repetition teaches that Parim are burned outside a second Machaneh.

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"!

Answer: The repetition teaches that Parim are burned outside three Machanos.

Question: Answer #1 is unlike R. Shimon. (He holds that there is no Tum'as Begadim (after leaving one Machaneh, rather,) until the animal catches fire.) How can he answer Question (c)?

Answer: It teaches R. Eliezer's law.

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): It says here (regarding Par Yom Kipur) "m'Chutz la'Machaneh", like it says there (regarding Parah Adumah). Just like here it is burned outside of three Machanos, also there.

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.)

Question: According to Chachamim (who do not use "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" for a Gezerah Shavah), where are Parim ha'Nisrafim burned?

Answer: They are burned to the north of Yerushalayim (for Avodas Chatas is in the north), outside of three Machanos.