חולין 88 — Soncino English Talmud

¹neither the one nor the other conveys uncleanness. As for all others that are unclean, whether they suffer light or grave uncleanness, the liquids that issue from them are like the liquids they touch: both are unclean in the first degree, excepting the liquid which is a primary source of uncleanness. Now what is meant by ‘light or grave uncleanness’? Presumably ‘light uncleanness’ means that of a [dead] reptile or of a man that has a flux, and ‘grave uncleanness’ that of a corpse! — No; ‘light uncleanness’ is that of a reptile, and ‘grave uncleanness’ is that of a man that has a flux. And why is it that [the liquids that issue from] a man that has a flux the Rabbis decreed [to be unclean] but [the liquids that issue from] a corpse the Rabbis did not decree [to be unclean]? — [The liquids that issue from] a man that has a flux, since people do not keep away from him, the Rabbis decreed [to be unclean], but [the liquids that issue from] a corpse, since people keep away from it, the Rabbis did not decree [to be unclean]. THE BLOOD THAT SPURTED OUT AND THAT WHICH IS UPON THE KNIFE etc. Our Rabbis taught: The expression. And he shall cover it, teaches that the blood which spurted out and that which is upon the knife must be covered up. R. Judah said: When is this the case? When there is no other blood but that, but when there is other blood besides this, it need not be covered up. Another Baraitha taught: The expression. ‘And he shall cover it’, teaches that the whole of the blood must be covered up; hence, they said, the blood which spurted out and that which remains about the sides [of the throat] must also be covered up. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: This is so only if he did not cover up the life blood, but if he covered up the life blood, this need not be covered. Wherein do they differ? — The Rabbis maintain that ‘the blood thereof’ means the whole of its blood; R. Judah maintains that ‘the blood thereof’ implies even part of its blood; and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel maintains that ‘the blood thereof’ means the vital blood. MISHNAH. WITH WHAT MAY ONE COVER UP [THE BLOOD] AND WITH WHAT MAY ONE NOT COVER IT UP? ONE MAY COVER IT UP WITH FINE DUNG, WITH FINE SAND, WITH LIME, WITH A POTSHERD OR A BRICK OR AN EARTHENWARE STOPPER [OF A CASK] THAT HAVE BEEN GROUND INTO POWDER. BUT ONE MAY NOT COVER IT UP WITH COARSE DUNG OR COARSE SAND, NOR WITH A BRICK OR AN EARTHENWARE STOPPER [OF A CASK] THAT HAVE NOT BEEN GROUND INTO POWDER; NOR MAY ONE TURN A VESSEL OVER IT. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL LAID DOWN THE RULE: ONE MAY COVER IT WITH ANYTHING IN WHICH PLANTS WOULD GROW; BUT ONE MAY NOT COVER IT WITH ANYTHING IN WHICH PLANTS WOULD NOT GROW. GEMARA. What is meant by FINE SAND? — Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan. Such as the potter does not need to crush. Some there are who apply this statement to the second clause, viz., BUT ONE MAY NOT COVER IT UP WITH COARSE DUNG OR COARSE SAND. What is meant by COARSE SAND? — Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan. Such as the potter needs to crush. What is the difference between these two versions? — Where it is not absolutely necessary [to crush it], as it crumbles [with the hand]. Our Rabbis taught: ‘And he shall cover it’. I would have thought that he may cover it with stones or turn a vessel over it, the verse therefore adds ‘with dust’. Then I only know dust, whence would I know to include fine dung, fine sand, crushed stones, crushed potsherds, fine scraps of flax,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ

^ᵃnote:E.g. the semen of all men as well as the spittle, urine, and the discharge of a man that has a running issue.
^ᵇnote:E.g., the urine found in a dead reptile.
^ᶜnote:A corpse is regarded as the gravest form of uncleanness because it is the generator of a primary source of uncleanness, vtnuyv ,uct hct — ‘the father of a primary source of uncleanness’. Now this Mishnah teaches that the liquid that issues from a corpse is unclean and conveys uncleanness, thus contrary to the previous teaching.
^ᵈnote:But the liquids (excepting blood) that issue from a corpse are clean.
^ᵉnote:I.e., , those that are not primary sources of uncleanness e.g., tears, blood from a wound, woman's milk.
^ᶠnote:For he is a living person and people may not know that he is suffering from a discharge.
^ᵍnote:Lev. XVII, 13.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘special’, ‘distinct’.
^ⁱnote:In the Mishnah ed. Lowe there is added here: Nor cover it with stones.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘it needs and does not need (to be crushed)’. According to the first version since it does not require to be crushed because it crumbles with the hand, it may be used for covering; according to the second version since it must be crushed even if only with the hand it may not be used for covering.

²fine sawdust, lime, or a potsherd or a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have been ground into powder? The text therefore says: ‘And he shall cover it’. Then I might also include even coarse dung, coarse sand, crushed metal vessels, or a brick or stopper that have not been ground into powder, or flour, bran or coarse bran. The text therefore says, ‘with dust’. And why do you prefer to include the one and exclude the other? Since the verse includes some and excludes others, I include those that are a kind of dust and exclude those that are not a kind of dust. Perhaps I should argue thus, ‘And he shall cover it’ is a general proposition, ‘dust’ is a specified particular, we thus have a general proposition followed by a specified particular, in which case the scope of the proposition is limited by the particular specified, that is, dust only but nothing else! — R. Mari replied. Here it is a general proposition complemented by a specified particular, and a general proposition complemented by a specified particular is not to be interpreted by the same rule as a general proposition followed by a specified particular. R. Nahman son of R. Hisda expounded. One may only cover up [the blood] with that which if sown would produce growth. Raba remarked: This is an absurdity! Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to Raba: Wherein lies its absurdity? I told it him, and l derived it from the following Baraitha: If a person was travelling through a desert and can find no dust wherewith to cover up [the blood], he may grind a golden denar to powder and cover it up therewith. If a person was travelling on a ship and has no dust wherewith to cover up [the blood], he may burn his garment and cover up with the ashes thereof. Now this is clear concerning the burning of a garment and covering up therewith, for we find that ashes are referred to as dust; but whence do we know this of a golden denar? — R. Zera answered: It is written: It hath dust of gold. Our Rabbis taught: One may cover up [the blood] only with dust: so Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel say. We find ashes referred to as dust, for it is written: And for the unclean they shall take of the dust of the burning [of the purification from sin]. Beth Shammai, however, say. It [sc., ashes] might be referred to as ‘the dust of the burning’ but it is never referred to as ‘dust’ simply. A Tanna taught: To these they added coal dust, stibium, stone dust. Some add, even orpiment. Raba said: As a reward for our father Abraham having said: I am but dust and ashes, his descendants were worthy to receive two commandments: the ashes of the [Red] Cow, and the dust [used in the ceremony] of a woman suspected of adultery. Why does he not reckon also the dust used for the covering up of the blood? — Because that is only the perfection of the commandment but it is of no advantage [to the performer]. Raba also said: As a reward for our father Abraham having said,^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵏnote:For these can in no wise be included within the term ‘dust’.
^ˡnote:For in all the former examples plants can grow, accordingly they are included in the term dust.
^ᵐnote:Lit., , ‘which needs the specified particular’. The general proposition of the verse is in itself insufficient, for it would even include a covering such as the turning of a vessel over the blood. Hence the specification was required to complement and thereby elucidate the implication of the general proposition by indicating that only such dust was intended for covering as mixes with blood and absorbs it. For another instance of the application of this principle of exegesis v. Bek. 19a.
^ⁿnote:This would exclude hard and dry earth which cannot produce any growth.
^ᵒnote:The fact that he must resort to such an expedient proves that the hard stony ground of the desert may not be used for covering.
^ᵖnote:Cf. Num. XIX, 17. The two Heb. terms rpt ‘ashes’ and rpg ‘dust’ are similar in sound and might very well be interchanged as in the verse referred to.
^ᵠnote:Job. XXVIII, 6.
^ʳnote:V. p. 495, n. 5.
^ˢnote:I.e., slag; or perhaps soot.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘the scraps from chiselling’.
^ᵘnote:Gen. XVIII, 27.
^ᵛnote:Cf. Num. V, 17.
^ʷnote:For the slaughtered animal is permitted even though the blood had not been covered up. In each of the other commandments there is a blessing and benefit bestowed: the dust used in the ceremony of a woman suspected of adultery serves to remove all suspicion and to restore peace and confidence between husband and wife, and the ashes of the Red Cow serve to cleanse the unclean (cf. Num. XIX).