Chullin 88a — the Talmud in English

And both these and those,

both the liquids issuing from it and the liquids touched by the tevul yom,

do not defile

others, because a tevul yom does not defile one who touches him.

But as for all the other impure persons, whether

impure persons

of lesser

or

of greater severity,

the

liquids issuing from them

have the status

of a liquid touching them.

And both these and those,

the liquids issuing from them and the liquids touching them, are

“first,”

a first degree of impurity, and they defile others! For a liquid that touched impurity always becomes [by rabbinic decree] a first degree of impurity, even if only a second degree of impurity touched it. [And a liquid that issued from the other impure persons is not impure because of its touching an impure person; rather, the Sages decreed concerning them that they should be a first degree of impurity, as follows]].

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

For there are liquids issuing from an impure person that are more severe, which are a primary source of impurity, and they are: zov, saliva, and the urine of a zav.

And we analyze:

What are “of lesser severity” and what are “of greater severity”

that we learned in this Mishna?

Does “of lesser severity” not mean

namely,

a creeping creature and a zav

[for there are also liquids issuing from a creeping creature, such as its urine], and

“of greater severity”

namely,

a corpse,

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

And we answer:

No! “Of lesser severity”

namely

a creeping creature, and “of greater severity”

namely

a zav

[which is more severe than a creeping creature, since it defiles through lying and sitting], and in reality the liquid of a corpse is pure!

We inquire about this:

What is different with regard to a zav, concerning which the Sages decreed

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

and what is different with regard to a corpse, concerning which the Sages did not decree

at all that the liquids issuing from it should become impure?

And we answer:

A zav, from whom people do not separate,

because he is alive and it is also not apparent upon him that he is impure—

the Sages decreed concerning him

regarding the liquids issuing from him, in order that people distance themselves from him!

A corpse, from whom people do separate—

the Sages did not decree concerning him!

We learned in the Mishna:

the blood that splashes and that which is on the knife

is obligated in covering.

The Sages taught:

It is written

“and he shall cover it,” teaching that the blood that splashes and that which is on the knife is obligated in covering.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this so? When there is no blood there other than it. But if there is blood there that is not it—

he is exempt from covering it!

It was taught in another beraita: “And he shall cover it,” teaching that all of his blood is subject to covering.

From here they said: The blood that splashes and that which is on the flanks

[the walls of the slaughterhouse]—

is obligated in covering!

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case are these matters stated,

that the blood that splashes and that which is on the flanks is obligated in covering? When he

did not cover

all

the blood of the soul.

That is, the blood that splashes and that which is on the flanks is from the blood of the soul, and therefore he must cover it,

but

if he

covered

all

the blood of the soul,

and the blood that splashed and that which is on the flanks is not from the 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 is already covered.

And we explain:

Over what do these tannaim disagree

?

The Sages hold: “His blood,” which is written concerning covering—

all of his blood

is indicated!

Rabbi Yehuda holds: “His blood”—

even part of his blood

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

And Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds: “His blood”—

the distinctive

is indicated, namely, the blood of the soul, all of which is obligated in covering.

Three opinions emerge 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 from the 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 covers with fine manure, with fine sand, with lime, and with harsit

[crushed pottery],

and with a brick and with a pot-cover

[a covering of a barrel made of pottery]

that he crushed

until they became like soil.

But one does not cover with coarse manure, nor with coarse sand, nor with a brick or a pot-cover that he did not crush.

And he may not place over it

over the blood,

the vessel. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel stated a general principle: An object in which plants grow—

one covers with it, and one in which plants do not grow—

one does not cover with it!

Gemara:

And we inquire:

What are the circumstances of fine sand,

that is, what is the measure of its fineness?

And we explain:

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Any [sand] for which the potter

who uses sand to make pots

does not need to crush it.

And there are those who teach it

that the statement of Rabba bar bar Hana refers

to the conclusion

of the Mishna, where we learned:

But one does not cover with coarse manure or with coarse sand.

And we inquire:

What are the circumstances of coarse sand,

what is the measure of its coarseness? And concerning this

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Any [sand] that the potter needs to crush.

And we inquire:

What is the difference between them

these two formulations? And we answer:

There is a difference between them

in a case

that he needs

the potter to crush it

but does not need

to crush it. That is,

it crumbles into crumbs,

it is not crushed, but it crumbles easily in the hand. According to the first formulation, which says, “Any [sand] for which the potter does not need to crush it,” this sand too is included in fine sand, since he does not need to crush it, as it can be crumbled by hand. But according to the latter formulation, which says, “Any [sand] that the potter needs to crush,” it implies that even if he needs any amount of crushing, such as this sand, which must be crumbled by hand, it is included in coarse sand.

The Sages taught: If it had been stated only

“and he shall cover it,” one might have said: Shall he cover it with stones, or place over it the vessel?—

The verse states: “with soil.” 8.

And I have only that it is possible to cover with

The verse therefore states: “With earth” 8 .

soil. From where is it derived to include fine manure, fine sand, the dust of stones, and the dust of harsit

and fine flax tow,

only earth. From where do we include fine manure, fine sand, crushed stones, and crushed earthen material

and fine flax fibers?