הָיוּ סוֹבְלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּמוֹטוֹת. יָצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים לֹא יָצְאוּ – הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים עַד שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ. יָצְאוּ – אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין עַד שֶׁיּוּצַּת הָאוּר בְּרוּבָּן. נִיתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – אֵין הַשּׂוֹרֵף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.

The priests would carry the bulls and the goats that are burned suspended on poles. When the first priests, carrying the front of the pole, emerged outside the wall of the Temple courtyard and the latter priests did not yet emerge, the first priests render their garments impure, and the latter priests do not render their garments impure until they emerge. When both these 
and those priests emerged, they render their garments impure. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not render their garments impure, as this halakha applies only to those who burn the offerings. And even then their garments do not become ritually impure until the fire is ignited in the majority of the offerings. Once the flesh is completely scorched, with no moisture remaining, one who then burns the remains does not render his garments impure.

גמ׳ מַאי ״בִּירָה״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם יֵשׁ בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, וּבִירָה שְׁמוֹ. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כָּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ קָרוּי בִּירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״(וְאֶל) הַבִּירָה אֲשֶׁר הֲכִינוֹתִי״.

The mishna teaches that if offerings of a type that are burned were disqualified, they are burned in a place of burning called the bira . The Gemara asks: What is the bira ? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a place on the Temple Mount, and its name is bira , and this is where they would burn these offerings. And Reish Lakish says: The entire Temple is called the bira , as it is stated in the prayer of David: “And give unto Solomon my son a whole heart, to keep Your commandments, Your testimonies, and Your statutes, and to do all this, and to build the Temple [ bira ] for which I have made provision” (I Chronicles 29:19).

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, שְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּית הַדְּשָׁנִין הֵן: בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן גָּדוֹל הָיָה בָּעֲזָרָה, שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה.

§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn 
the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they 
were disqualified prior to the sprinkling of the blood.

וּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן אַחֵר הָיָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל אַחַר זְרִיקָה. וּכְמִצְוָתָן – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.

And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified after the sprinkling of the blood. And the third place of the ashes was for the bulls and goats that were burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps, i.e., outside the walls of Jerusalem.

תָּנֵי לֵוִי: שְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּית הַדְּשָׁנִין הֵן: בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן גָּדוֹל הָיָה בָּעֲזָרָה, שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְאֵימוּרֵי קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל, בֵּין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה בֵּין לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה. וּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן אַחֵר הָיָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתָן. וּכְמִצְוָתָן – חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.

Levi teaches a different version of this baraita : There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn 
the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they 
were disqualified, whether prior to the sprinkling of the blood or after the sprinkling of the blood. And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they 
were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. And the third was for bulls and goats burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לִינָה מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּבִשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כִּי מְהַנְּיָא לִינָה – בְּבָשָׂר דְּבַר אֲכִילָה, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּלָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ – לָא. אוֹ דִּלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

§ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: The flesh of most offerings is disqualified by being left overnight. What is the halakha as to whether being left overnight is effective to disqualify bulls that are burned and goats that are burned? Given that their flesh is neither eaten nor burned on the altar, do we say: When being left overnight is effective to disqualify flesh, this is only in a case of flesh that is fit for consumption, either by the altar or by human beings; but in the case of these bulls and goats that are burned, which are not fit for consumption, being left overnight does not disqualify the flesh? Or perhaps this case is no different, and being left overnight disqualifies the flesh.

אֲמַר רָבָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אִיבַּעֲיָא לֵיהּ לְאַבַּיֵי, וּפְשַׁטְנָא לֵיהּ מֵהָא: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם חִישֵּׁב בַּאֲכִילַת פָּרִים וּבִשְׂרֵיפָתָן – שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. מַאי לָאו, מִדְּמַחֲשָׁבָה לָא פָּסְלָה, לִינָה נַמִי לָא פָּסְלָה?

Rava said: This matter, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma, was raised by Abaye, and I resolved it from this baraita : The mishna (43a) records a dispute as to whether the sacrificial portions of bulls 
that are burned are subject to disqualification by intent to burn them beyond their designated time [ piggul ]. But the disputants agree that if the priest intended for the consumption of the bulls’ meat and their burning to be beyond their designated time, he did nothing, as piggul applies only to flesh consumed by human beings or the altar. What, is it not the case that since the intention of burning after the designated time does not disqualify bulls that are burned, one can infer that being left overnight also does not disqualify bulls that are burned?

וְדִלְמָא מַחֲשָׁבָה הוּא דְּלָא פָּסְלָה, אֲבָל לִינָה פָּסְלָה!

The Gemara responds: But perhaps it is only improper intention that does not disqualify such offerings, but being left overnight does disqualify them.

תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה. מַאי לָאו לִינַת בָּשָׂר?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna ( Me’ila 9a): With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the time that they were consecrated. Once they have been slaughtered, they are susceptible to be rendered disqualified for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through being left overnight without the requirements of the offering having been fulfilled. What, is 
it not referring to the flesh of bulls, indicating that the flesh is disqualified if left overnight?

לָא, לִינַת אֵימוּרִין.

The Gemara responds: No, the mishna indicates only that the offerings’ sacrificial portions are disqualified if left overnight, since they must be burned on the altar.

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן עַד שֶׁיּוּתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר; מִדְּסֵיפָא בָּשָׂר – רֵישָׁא נַמִי בָּשָׂר! מִידֵי אִירְיָא? סֵיפָא בָּשָׂר רֵישָׁא אֵימוּרִין.

The Gemara responds: But evidence to the contrary can be ad-duced from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: In all of those cases, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit while they are burned in the place of the ashes, until the flesh is completely incinerated. The Gemara explains: From the fact that the latter clause is discussing flesh, infer that the first clause also discusses flesh, and not the sacrificial portions. The Gemara rejects this: Are the cases comparable? The latter clause discusses flesh, and the first clause discusses sacrificial portions.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתָן. מַאי לָאו לִינָה? לָא, פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה וּפְסוּל יְצִיאָה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita : There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to offerings disqualified by being left overnight? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity 
or disqualification by leaving the courtyard before the blood 
was sprinkled on the altar. The dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya stands unresolved.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: יְצִיאָה מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים?

§ Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: In general, the flesh of offer­-
ings is disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard. What is the halakha as to whether leaving is effective to disqualify bulls 
that are burned and goats that are burned?

מַאי קָמִיבָּעֲיָא לֵיהּ? אֲמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת;

The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? Here it is a mitzva to burn the flesh of these offerings outside the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rabbi Elazar raises 
his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of the one who 
says: With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, even though the flesh may be consumed anywhere in Jerusalem, nevertheless, if it emerges from the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, it is disqualified, because its time to leave from the Temple courtyard has not yet arrived. Perhaps the same halakha applies to bulls and goats that are burned: Even though the flesh must eventually leave the Temple, if it leaves before its designated time, it is disqualified.

מִי אָמְרִינַן: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – בָּשָׂר דְּאֵין סוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת חוֹבָה, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּסוֹפָן לָצֵאת חוֹבָה – לָא. אוֹ דִּלְמָא הָכָא נַמִי לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת?

The dilemma is: Do we say that this matter, disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard prematurely, applies only to flesh that need not eventually leave due to an obligation? One may consume the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity in the Temple courtyard if he wishes. But perhaps these bulls and goats that are burned, which must eventually leave due to an obligation, are not disqualified by emerging prematurely. Or perhaps here too the flesh is disqualified if its time to leave has not yet arrived.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתוֹ. מַאי לָאו פְּסוּל יְצִיאָה? לָא, פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה וּפְסוּל לִינָה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita : There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity or disqualification by being left overnight. The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar stands unresolved.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁיָּצָא רוּבּוֹ בְּמִיעוּט אֵבֶר, מַהוּ? הַךְ מִיעוּטָא דְּאֵבֶר בָּתַר רוּבָּא שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ – וְהָא לָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִּלְמָא בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּבְהֵמָה שָׁדֵינַן?

§ Rabbi Elazar raises another dilemma: With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, if the majority of the animal’s body emerged from the Temple courtyard, but it consists of a majority only by inclusion of the minority of a limb, the majority of which remains inside the courtyard, what is the halakha ? Do 
we determine the status of this minority of a limb by casting it 
after the majority of that limb, and the majority of that limb did not leave? Or perhaps we determine its status by casting it after 
the majority of the animal, and therefore a majority of the animal has left?

פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּלָא שָׁבְקִינַן רוּבָּא דִּבְהֵמָה וְאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּאֵבָרִים! אֶלָּא, שֶׁיָּצָא חֶצְיוֹ בְּרוֹב אֵבֶר; הַאי מִיעוּטָא דְּאֵבֶר

The Gemara clarifies: Isn’t it obvious that we do not disregard the majority of the animal and instead follow the majority of the limbs? Rather, Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma must be as follows: In a case where half of the animal emerged from the courtyard such that the majority of a certain limb emerged, halakha ? Do we determine the status of this minority of a limb