(R. Zerikan): R. Ze'irah asked, if Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim became Tamei, are they burned like their Mitzvah? (SEFER MASHBI'ACH - the text makes an abbreviation of "Amar Rebbi'', even though Amar refers 'above' to R. Zerikan, and Rebbi refers 'below' to R. Ze'irah.)

What does he ask about? He asks about when they became Tamei before Zerikah, but if they became Tamei after Zerikah, I apply to it [a Korban Tzibur is offered] "b'Mo'ado'', and even on Shabbos; "b'Mo'ado'', and even b'Tum'ah.

(R. Yosi): Edah (Par Helam Davar of the Tzibur), about which it is not written "b'Mo'ado'', you cannot learn anything (it is a question even if it became Tamei after Zerikah).

(R. Mana): Why did R. Yosi, my Rebbi, establish [R. Ze'irah's question even after Zerikah only for Par ha'Edah?] Why did he refrain from establishing it for Par Kohen Mashi'ach and ha'Edah? (HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA)

(R. Zerikan, to R. Yosi): R. Bun bar Chiya said that R. Elazar asked, if Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim, if the majority of a limb left [the Azarah], and the [entire] limb completes the majority [of the animal, do we consider that the entire limb left, so most of the animal left, and it is Metamei Begadim]?

Objection: [His question] shows that the matter depends on the majority! (Surely, since most of the animal is inside, it is not Metamei.)

[Also the following] is obvious. If the majority left, and afterwards left the majority of the limb that completes the majority (it was Metamei once the majority of the animal left. Even though most of a limb was inside, we do not consider the entire limb to be inside. We explained this like HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)

Answer: It is needed [to ask about] when the majority of limbs did not leave, and afterwards left the majority of the limb that completes the majority [of the number of limbs. Do we follow two majorities, and say that it is as if most of the limbs left, and this suffices, even though most of the volume of the animal is inside?] (SEFER NIR)

(R. Chiya bar Ba): R. Elazar asked, if Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim left and returned (are they Metamei Begadim)?

Question: Obviously, on the return [inside] they are not Metamei Begadim!

Answer: We ask whether it was Metamei Begadim of those who took it out (since it later returned inside, their action did not help).

Question (R. Ba - Mishnah): They would carry it on poles. When the first people left the wall of the Azarah, and the latter did not leave, the first ones are Metamei Begadim, and the latter are not Metamei Begadim until they leave. When they leave, both of them are Metamei Begadim. (He challenges R. Zerikan, who holds that it depends on the majority of the animal. If so, the first and last people should be the same!)

Answer (R. Yudan, father of R. Matanyah): There is different, for it says "v'Hotzi'' - until everyone carrying it out leaves his Reshus. (We explained the question and answer like SEFER NIR.)

(R. Yirmeyah): R. Lazar asked, do Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim become Pasul due to Yotzei? (Perhaps they do not, for they are destined to leave.)

Opinion #1: He asks according to Reish Lakish, but according to R. Yochanan, it is obvious;

They argue about the following. If one slaughtered a Todah inside and the bread was outside, the bread did not become Kadosh. R. Yochanan said, it was outside the wall of Yerushalayim. (We are not concerned if it is outside the Azarah, for it is destined to leave.) Reish Lakish said, it was outside the wall of the Azarah (even though it is destined to leave. However, perhaps inner Chata'os are different, for they must leave.)

Reish Lakish teaches like he taught elsewhere, for R. Ami said in the name of Reish Lakish that if meat of Shelamim left and later entered, and Zerikah was done for it, it already became Pasul due to Yotzei (even though it is destined to leave. We explained this like HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.)

Opinion #2 (R. Yosah): They argue even according to R. Yochanan. [He holds that bread becomes Kadosh within the wall of] Yerushalayim, even though it is not a Mechitzah for Kodshei Kodoshim, for it is a Mechitzah for Kodshim Kalim. Outside the wall of Yerushalayim is not a Mechitzah for Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim (so Yotzei applies. Or, since the Parim and Se'irim should be burned outside, Yotzei does not apply.)

Rebuttal (R. Mana): [The wall of Yerushalayim] is not a Mechitzah for [Kodshim Kalim. They need not be taken out of the Azarah. However, the Parim and Se'irim must be burned outside, so R. Yochanan would hold that Yotzei does not apply.]

Question (R. Lazar): Are Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim Metamei food and drink without [the animals receiving] Hechsher and without [receiving] Tum'ah, because in the end they will have severe Tum'ah?

Question (Shmuel Kapudkiya): If [you will say] so, they should be Metamei their Eimurim! (If so, we could not offer the Eimurim!)

Answer #1: [He asks about after the Eimurim] were removed. (Only then they are proper to be burned, and are Metamei.)

Answer #2: You can even say that they were not removed. This is like we say that Mei Chatas (even though it is Metamei one who carries it, it) is not Metamei something to return to become Tamei from it (for if so, there is never Kosher Mei Chatas. Likewise, inner Chata'os are not Metamei their Eimurim, for if so they never have Kosher Eimurim! - HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA)

Question (R. Yirmeyah): (What is the question? Surely they are like Nivlas Ohf Tahor!) Nivlas Ohf Tahor is Metamei Tum'as Ochlim without Hechsher and without Tum'ah, because in the end it will have severe Tum'ah.

Answer (R. Yosah): Nivlas Ohf Tahor [is different, for it] does not have a Mechitzah (within which it is not Metamei. Parim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim) have a Mechitzah (they are not Metamei until they leave the Azarah).

Question (R. Mana): Nivlas Ohf Tahor has a Mechitzah. Man is its Mechitzah (it is Tamei only in a person's gullet). If you would not say so, if one brought a dog, and clothed it and fed it Nivlas Ohf Tahor, perhaps it is Metam'ah Begadim b'Beis ha'Bli'ah (while it swallows it)?!

Answer (R. Lazar of the south): Nivlas Ohf Tahor, its Mechitzah is anywhere [that a person eats it. Inner Chata'os], their Mechitzah is outside Yerushalayim [according to R. Shimon, or outside the Azarah according to Rabanan].

(R. Lazar): Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim that one slaughtered [with intent] to throw their blood tomorrow, he was Mefagel. [If he intended] to be Maktir their Eimurim tomorrow, he was Mefagel. [If he intended] to burn their meat tomorrow, he was not Mefagel, for he did not intend for consumption of man or the Mizbe'ach.

Question (R. Shamai): If the Eimurim [of inner Chata'os] were lost, may one throw the blood for (in order to get the Mitzvah to burn) the meat?

Objection: (Why does he ask? Surely one may not!) Did he not hear R. Lazar say [that intent to burn the meat tomorrow is not Mefagel], for he did not intend for consumption of man or the Mizbe'ach?

(Beraisa - R. Zakai): If a Zar burned [inner Chata'os], he is Metamei Begadim.

Question: This is no Chidush (he is Kosher to burn them)! Rather, are they Kosher [to burn] at night?

Answer: A Kal v'Chomer teaches this! Haktaras Eimurim is not Kosher through a Zar, and it is Kosher at night. [Burning] these, which is Kosher through a Zar, all the more so it is Kosher at night!

Note: Shechitah is Kosher through a Zar, and Pasul at night, for we learn from b'Yom Zivchachem (Megilah 20b). This should refute the Kal v'Chomer! Shalom Yerushalayim (19a) answers that Shechitah is different, for it is a need of Avodas Penim.

"Veha'Soref'' [is Metamei Begadim], but not the one who lit the fire, and not the one who arranged the woodpile. Who is ha'Soref? It is one who helps at the time of burning.

Inference (R. Yosi): One who helps at the time of burning is Metamei Begadim.

Question (R. Ami citing R. Elazar): One who flips over a k'Zayis [to hasten its burning] is Metamei Begadim. I need not ask about this. Rather, if he was standing inside [Yerushalayim] with a beam in his hand and flipped over a k'Zayis, what is the law? (Perhaps only one who helps in the place of burning is Metamei Begadim.)

Answer #1: We learn from the following, "V'Hotzi... v'Saraf'' - just like one who takes [inner Chata'os] outside [is not Metamei Begadim] until he takes it (and himself goes) outside, also one who burns [is not Metamei Begadim] until he burns (and he himself is) outside.

Answer #2: There (Parah Adumah), Chizkiyah said "v'Tamei Ad ha'Arev'' includes one who burns [and even one who helps to burn from afar]. Also here [we can say] so! (PNEI MOSHE)

(Mishnah): They told the Kohen Gadol "the goat reached the Midbar.'' How did they know that the goat reached the Midbar? They made Didkiyos (this will be explained) and waved flags, and knew that the goat reached the Midbar;

R. Yehudah says, there was a great Siman! It was three Mil from Yerushalayim until Beis Choron (the start of the Midbar. People accompanying the Meshale'ach) go a Mil, return a Mil, and delay the time to walk a Mil, and they know that the goat reached the Midbar.

R. Yishmael says, there was a different Siman. A red strip was tied to the opening of the Heichal. When the goat reached the Midbar, the strip whitened - "Im Yihyu Chata'eichem ka'Shanim ka'Sheleg Yalbinu.''

(Gemara): What are Didkiyos? They are tall rocks.