Chullin

neither 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.1 Now what is meant by ‘light or grave uncleanness’? Presumably ‘light uncleanness’ means that of a [dead] reptile2 or of a man that has a flux, and ‘grave uncleanness’ that of a corpse!3 — No; ‘light uncleanness’ is that of a reptile, and ‘grave uncleanness’ is that of a man that has a flux.4 And why is it that [the liquids5 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,6 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,7 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’7 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 vital8 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.9 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],10 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, 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. 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.