Was the Tachash of Moses a Pure or Impure Creature

"And tachash skins." The tachash that existed in the days of Moses, was it pure or impure? Rav Yosef said: what is the question to him? For it was taught: nothing was fit for the work of Heaven except the hide of a pure animal alone, as it is said (Exodus 13:9), "so that the LORD's Torah may be in your mouth." Rabbi Abba objected: Rabbi Judah says there were two coverings, one of rams' skins dyed red and one of tachash skins. Rabbi Nehemiah says there was a single covering, resembling a kind of tela-ilan [a many-colored hide]. But the tela-ilan is impure! Rather, like a kind of tela-ilan and yet not a tela-ilan: like a tela-ilan in that it had many colors, but not a tela-ilan, for that one is impure and this one is pure. Rav Yosef said: if so, this explains why we render it in Aramaic as "sasgona," for it rejoiced [sas] in many colors [gevanin]. Rabbi Meir used to say: the tachash that existed in the days of Moses was a creature unto itself, and the sages did not decide concerning it whether it was a wild beast or a domestic animal. It had a single horn in its forehead. For that moment it presented itself to Moses, and he made the sanctuary's covering from it, and then it was hidden away. From the fact that he said "it had a single horn in its forehead," infer that it was pure, for Rav Judah said: the ox that Adam the first man offered had a single horn in its forehead, as it is said (Psalms 69:32), "and it shall please the LORD better than an ox, a bullock that has horns and hoofs." But let us then resolve that it was a domestic animal! Since there is the keresh, which is a wild beast and yet has but one horn, one may say it was a wild beast.