Chullin 88a (פח.) — the Talmud in English

And both these and those,

both the liquids that issue from it and the liquids touched by a tevul yom,

do not render

others impure, since a tevul yom does not render impure one who touches him.

But with regard to all other impure persons, whether

impure persons

of lesser

or

of greater severity,

the

liquids that issue from them

have the status

of a liquid that touches them.

And both these and those,

the liquids that issue from them and the liquids that touch them, are

“first,”

a first degree of ritual impurity, and render others impure. For a liquid that touches impurity always becomes, by rabbinic decree, a first degree of ritual impurity, even if only a second degree of ritual impurity touched it. [And a liquid that issues from other impure persons is not impure because it touched an impure person; rather, the Sages decreed that these liquids should have the status of a first degree of ritual impurity, as will be explained below].

Except for a liquid that is a primary source of ritual impurity!

For there are liquids that issue from an impure person that are more severe: they are primary sources of ritual impurity, namely zav, saliva, and the urine of a zav.

And we analyze the Mishna:

What are the “lesser” and what are the “greater”

degrees of impurity mentioned in this Mishna?

Does “lesser” not mean

namely,

a creeping creature and a zav [

as there are also liquids that issue from a creeping creature, such as its urine ], and

“greater”

namely,

a corpse,

which is more severe than a creeping creature and a zav. They are primary sources of ritual impurity, whereas a corpse is the father of the fathers of ritual impurity. And since the Mishna teaches that, with regard to impure persons of lesser and greater severity, the liquids that issue from them have the status of a first degree of ritual impurity, it follows that liquids issuing from a corpse also render impure, whereas in the beraita in the Tosefta cited above we learned that liquids issuing from a corpse are pure!?

And we answer:

No! “Lesser”

means

a creeping creature, and “greater”

means

a zav [

which is more severe than a creeping creature, since it renders impure through lying and sitting surfaces]. But in fact, a liquid issuing from a corpse is pure!

We raise a difficulty:

What is different about a zav, that the Sages decreed

that liquids issuing from him should be a first degree of ritual impurity,

and what is different about a corpse, that the Sages did not decree

at all that liquids issuing from it should become impure?

And we answer:

In the case of a zav, from whom people do not distance themselves,

since he is alive and it is not apparent that he is impure,

the Sages decreed

with regard to liquids issuing from him, in order that people distance themselves from him.

In the case of a corpse, from which people do distance themselves—

the Sages did not decree!

We learned in the Mishna:

“Blood that spurted and blood on the knife”

must be covered.

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“And he shall cover it”—this teaches that blood that spurted and blood on the knife must be covered.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When does this apply? When there is no blood there except for that blood. But if there is blood there that is not that blood—

he is exempt from covering it!

It was taught in another beraita: “And he shall cover it”—this teaches that all of its blood must be covered.

From here they said: Blood that spurted and blood on the flanks

[the walls of the slaughterhouse]—

must be covered!

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: When are these words applicable,

that blood that spurted and blood on the flanks must be covered?

When he did not cover

all

the blood of the soul.

That is, the blood that spurted and the blood on the flanks is blood of the soul, and therefore it must be covered.

But

if he

covered

all

the blood of the soul,

and the blood that spurted and the blood on the flanks is not blood of the soul,

he is exempt from covering

it, since there is an obligation to cover only the blood of the soul, and all of it has already been covered .

And we explain:

With regard to what do

these tannaim disagree?

The Sages hold: “its blood,”

which is written concerning covering,

means all its blood,

as implied.

Rabbi Yehuda holds: “its blood”

even means part of its blood!

Since one covered part of the blood of the soul, he has fulfilled his obligation, and even if some uncovered blood of the soul remains, he is exempt from covering it. [For he exempts one from covering blood that spurted even if it is blood of the soul] .

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: “its blood”—

the distinctive

blood is implied, namely, the blood of the soul, all of which must be covered.

Thus, there are three opinions concerning this matter:

A.

According to the Sages, all the blood must be covered.

B.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, one is obligated to cover only part of the blood, provided that it is blood of the soul .

C.

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, one is obligated to cover all the blood of the soul, and no more.

Mishna:

With what may one cover, and with what may one not cover?

One may cover with fine dung, fine sand, lime, and crushed pottery

[shattered pottery],

and with a brick and a jar lid

[a clay cover made for a barrel]

that he crushed

until they became like dust.

But one may not cover with coarse dung, coarse sand, or with a brick or jar lid that he did not crush.

And he may not invert a vessel over it,

over the blood.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated a general principle: Anything in which plants grow—

one may cover with it; but anything in which plants do not grow—

one may not cover with it!

Gemara:

We raise a difficulty:

What is the definition of fine sand,

that is, what is the required degree of fineness?

And we explain:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any sand for which the potter

who uses sand to make pots

does not need to crush it.

And some teach it

as referring to the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana

with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna, which states:

“But one may not cover with coarse dung or coarse sand.”

We raise a difficulty:

What is the definition of coarse sand,

that is, what is the required degree of coarseness? Concerning this

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any sand that the potter needs to crush.

We raise a difficulty:

What is the practical difference between them,

these two versions? And we answer:

There is a practical difference

in a case

where the potter needs

to crush it

but does not need

to crush it. That is,

it crumbles readily,

it is not crushed, but it crumbles easily in one’s hand. According to the first version, which says, “Any sand for which the potter does not need to crush it,” this sand too is included in fine sand, since it does not need to be crushed; it can be crumbled by hand. But according to the latter version, which says, “Any sand that the potter needs to crush,” even if only minimal crushing is necessary—for example, sand of this kind, which needs to be crumbled by hand—it is included in coarse sand .

The Sages taught:

Had it stated only

“And he shall cover it,” one might have thought that he may cover it with stones or invert a vessel over it.

The verse therefore states: “With earth.” 8 .

And I know

that it is possible to cover with

only earth. From where do we include fine dung, fine sand, crushed stones, and crushed pottery

and fine flax tow?