Chullin

fine 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,1 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 dust2 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,3 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.4 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.5 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;6 but whence do we know this of a golden denar? — R. Zera answered: It is written: It hath dust of gold. 7 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].8 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,9 stibium, stone dust.10 Some add, even orpiment. Raba said: As a reward for our father Abraham having said: I am but dust and ashes,11 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.12 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].13 Raba also said: As a reward for our father Abraham having said, 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. covering. interchanged as in the verse referred to. 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).