Question: If the animal is inside, obviously the people are Tehorim, like is proven from the entire Sugya!

Answer: It means as follows. Do we follow the majority only regarding the animal, but not regarding people?

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He asks about Tum'as Begadim of these who took it out.

Objection: Are the walls of the Azarah a Mikveh to be Metaher?! Once [the people and their Begadim] became Tamei, who will be Metaher them?!

Explanation #2: He asks about one who touches inside. Perhaps once they went outside, even though they returned, one who touches [them] inside is Tamei.

We conclude that he asks about when they carry it on poles. We discuss when he stands outside and holds the poles to take them out after they returned, like Rashi explained. This is a comment.

Explanation: The bulls and people left, and the bulls and people returned. What is the law? Obviously, the people and the garments that were on them are Tamei, and when they returned they did not become Tahor!

Rather, [we ask about] if other people entered the Azarah and engaged in taking them out, or the first people wore other garments. Are they Tamei through this activity before they leave the Azarah?

Since the bulls already left, it is considered as if they take them out of the opening of the Azarah and outside [even before they leave now]?

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara] says that if the matter depends only on taking out the bull, even though the people did not leave, if so, when they carry it on poles, once the bull left, and therefore the first ones are Tamei, if so also the ones inside became Tamei;

[It challenges] is this reasonable, that it depends only on the bull leaving? We require "afterwards he will enter the Machaneh"!

Rather, obviously we require also that the people leave with the bulls. Therefore, those inside are not Metamei (their garments);

Also in your question, about other people who never left, obviously they are Tehorim, or the initial people, if they wore different garments!

Conclusion: Rather, R. Elazar asks as follows. They held it on poles. The bulls left and returned, and other people came and stood outside the Azarah and take out the bulls in the Azarah with poles;

Do we say that since the bulls already left, and the people stand outside, it is considered as if they take them outside the opening of the Azarah, and they are Tamei;

Or, is it considered as if the bulls never left, and they are Tahor?

However, if new people entered inside, or the initial people in new clothes, since these never left, obviously they are Tehorim, even though the bulls already left.

Remark: What I explained (above, Explanation #2 in DH Oh Dilma Kivan) that he asked about one who touches inside is not clear. This is primary. This is from R. Baruch.

Question: If they are Metamei inside, if so they are Metamei the Eimurim! (How can we be Maktir the Eimurim?)

Answer: Something that needs to be cut, obviously it is like Mechusar Ma'aseh (so the Par is not Metamei them before they are removed);

And they do not become Tamei at the time they separate [from the Par], for we discuss when they are cut off with all his strength. (In such a case, they do not receive Tum'ah from their source - Kerisus 15b, Tosfos Chulin 72a-b.)

Citation (Yerushalmi): R. Eliezer asked, Parim ha'Nisrafim and Se'irim ha'Nisrafim, are they Metamei food without Hechsher and without Tum'ah, because in the end they will have severe Tum'ah?

Citation (cont.): R. Shmuel Kapudkiya answered if so, they would be Metamei the Eimurim! Rather, [he asked about] when (i.e. after the Eimurim) separated. And even if you will say that that they did not separate, Mei Chatas are not Metamei something to return and become Tamei from it. (Similarly, the bull is Metamei others, but it does not become Tamei.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since [the Mishnah] taught that it needs intent, and it does not need Hechsher, this shows that we discuss when he is holding it in his hand. If it were on the ground, why would it not need Hechsher?!

And if he is holding it in his mouth, why would it need intent? There is no greater intent than this!

And [the Mishnah] taught a k'Beitzah yes (it is Metamei), but a k'Zayis no.

Question: Since there is a k'Beitzah, even if it is on the ground, it is Metamei without Hechsher, for in the end it will have severe Tum'ah!

This is unlike what is Mechusar Yetzi'ah inside. It is not proper at all to be Metamei. This is why [R. Aba bar Mamal] did not ask according to Rabanan when he holds k'Beitzah in his hand (for obviously it is Metamei)!

Explanation #2: It seems that the reason why it connotes to him that we discuss when he is holding it in his hand is because then there is a Chidush, to teach that k'Beitzah is required. It is not considered that he holds it in his mouth;

However, when it is on the ground, obviously k'Beitzah is required.

Answer (to Question (b)): We can resolve Rashi like I explained above (105a DH Mechusar), that what was not cut is like Mechusar Ma'aseh. If also, also on the ground we can consider it to be Mechusar Ma'aseh.) This is primary.

Observation: He could have said ul'Taimech (this is difficult also for you), that the middle clause taught "one who eats Ever Min ha'Chai from it receives 40 lashes." This is unlike R. Meir, who holds that [Ever Min ha'Chai] applies only to Tahor animals, in Chulin (102b).

Note: The Dibur ha'Maschil shows that Tosfos had the text of Shitah Mekubetzes.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A half-k'Zayis of Neveilah is here, and a half-k'Zayis of Neveilah is here, and a liquid Tofe'ach (it can wet something else) is in the middle and touches both of them. It joins them to be Metamei food and drink that touch one of these halves.

It is not a connection for severe Tum'ah, to be Metamei people or Kelim. I do not know the reason.

Remark: He explained similarly in Menachos (24a) regarding "Tziruf of a Kli a connection of water - what is the law?"

Rashi explained there, i.e. half an Isaron became Tamei through Tziruf Kli. Can it be Metamei another through connection of water, e.g. if there are two half-Esronim in a Kli and they do not touch each other, and a half-Isaron outside the Kli...

And water, i.e. a flow or pipe, connects what is outside the Kli and [one] inside the Kli, and Tum'ah touched the one in the Kli that does not touch the water, and the other one [in the Kli] became Tamei due to Tziruf Kli. Is it Metamei the one outside due to connection of water?

Question #1: This is astounding, to say that liquid connects foods to receive Tum'ah or be Metamei others. Even skin does not join [meat attached to it], like it says in Chulin (117b)!

Question #2: Also, he explained that they are connected through a flow. Even water itself, we hold that a flow is not a connection for Tum'ah!

Explanation #2: It seems that we discuss when they dissolved through water and stuck together.

Support (for Explanation #1): There is a Mishnah like Rashi's Perush, in Taharos (8:8);

If a trough is inclined and a dough is above and a liquid Tofe'ach (there is enough to wet what touches it) is below and three pieces k'Beitzah (in all), they do not join. Two pieces join;

R. Yosi says, even two pieces join only if liquid is pressed between them. If liquid stands [not on an incline], even [tiny pieces like seeds of] mustard join.

The Tosefta (Uktzin 1:4) teaches that if an Esrog was split and a spindle or chip was inserted (to connect the parts), connection through man is not considered connection;

If a dough was kneaded with fruit juice, it is Tahor, for only the seven liquids connect food.

Question: This is astounding if kneading with fruit juice does not help to connect the flour! (Tzon Kodoshim asks that R. Akiva says so in Tevul Yom 3:4.)

Answer: Perhaps "kneaded" is not precise. [The Tosefta] discusses a common case, that when a person kneads with fruit juice, sometimes the fruit juice connects two half-Zeisim of dough through liquid that comes from one to the other.

Question: We know three Machanos for Par Yom Kipur only from a Hekesh "l'Par" - this is Par Yom Kipur, above (39a), like Rashi explained, and we are unsure whether something learned from a Hekesh returns to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah! (We should resolve from here that we can!)

Implied suggestion: Perhaps we learn [Par Yom Kipur] from an inclusion of "Chatas-Chatas", above (83a).

Rejection: Also that is a Hekesh!

Answer #1: Perhaps that is a Gezeirah Shavah. (We know that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah can return to teach through a Gezeirah Shavah.)

Answer #2: Parah [Adumah] is Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis. (This is like the opinion that it depends on the Lamed (the second matter we want to learn); only when it is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, we do not learn it from another Lamed. For this, Parah is like Chulin.)

Support: Now it is fine that [R. Eliezer] learns east of Yerushalayim [for Par Yom Kipur] from a Gezeirah Shavah, even though we learn burning Parah from its Haza'os below (113a. Since only one matter is Kodshei Mizbe'ach, all agree that we learn Lamed from Lamed - Shitah Mekubetzes 51a:1.)