Chullin 88b — the Talmud in English

Flax fibers that fall out when it is beaten,

and sawdust of craftsmen

—carpenters—

fine, and lime and potsherds, a brick and a jar-lid that he crushed,

from where is it that all these may be used for covering

The Talmud says: “and he shall cover it”

Since it is not written, “and with earth he shall cover it,” which would have implied that he covers only with earth, but it is written, “and he shall cover it” before “with earth,” it implies that “and he shall cover it” is to be expounded independently, to teach that covering not with earth is also possible.

I might say that I include

from “and he shall cover it”

even coarse manure, coarse sand, and the filings of metal vessels

10, and a brick and a jar-lid that he did not crush, and flour, bran, and fine bran? The Talmud says: “with earth” 11.

Tosafot [on the passage beginning “Filings”] raised the difficulty that we find in Tractate Avoda Zara [43b] that metal filings are suitable for growing plants, since they serve as fertilizer for fields. They answer that they are not considered earth because they do not grow plants on their own and are suitable only as fertilizer. Rabbeinu Tam answered that there they burn the metal before filing it, and therefore it grows plants. And the Rashba in his abridged work Torat HaBayit wrote that if such materials were burned, they return to their earth-like state and may be used for covering. The Beit Yosef wrote that the same applies to anything burned that returns to its earth-like state. The Prisha wrote that the source is the statement below that all ash is called earth. This is also explained in Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishna: even ash from flesh or clothing is valid, because it is called earth. [However, the discussion in Avoda Zara proves only this regarding metal, which after being burned is suitable for growing plants, and not regarding every substance that is not suitable for growing plants.] The matter requires examination regarding something that was burned before it was made into a utensil: is it considered burned for purposes of covering after the utensil is smashed—for example, burned clay from which pottery is made and which is then ground?

And what did you see that you included these

listed above

and excluded these?

After Scripture included

from “and he shall cover it,”

and excluded

from “with earth,”

I include these, which are a kind of earth, and I exclude these, which are not

they

a kind of earth,

for all those that were included are “a kind of earth,” resembling earth in that they grow plants like earth.

And we raised the objection:

Let us say: “and he shall cover it”—

a general statement; “earth”—

a specific statement,

and everywhere that it is written

a general statement

and afterward

a specific statement,

we should expound that

the general statement contains only what is in the specific statement,

and learn from this that

earth—

yes; anything else—

no!

Even something resembling earth may not be used for covering, but only actual earth!?

And we answer:

Rav Mari

said: This general statement and specific statement differ from every general statement and specific statement.

Because it is a general statement that requires a specific statement!

For the specific statement explains the general statement. For the general statement “and he shall cover it” includes two meanings of covering that are not similar to one another: (a) covering with one whole object, such as placing a vessel over it; (b) covering with something fine, such as earth and the like. And the specific statement “with earth” comes to explain that the covering must be in a form in which the covering becomes mixed and blended with the blood .

And every general statement that requires a specific statement is not judged by “a general statement and a specific statement.”

Because the specific statement does not come to exclude completely, but to explain the general statement. And similarly in our matter, “with earth” did not come to exclude, saying that one covers only with it, but to explain that one may cover with anything resembling earth! [And where do we expound “the general statement contains only what is in the specific statement”? Where the fundamental meaning of the general statement is clear, but there are many particulars included within it, and the specific statement comes to exclude and say: only it, and not others] .

Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda expounded: One may cover only with something in which one sows and which grows!

And not with desert earth or with the earth of a salty land, for if one sows in it, it will not grow. [And this is the novelty in Rav Nahman’s statement: Even with desert earth one may not cover. For if the Mishna had stated only that it must grow plants, plants do indeed grow in the desert by themselves; rather, what is sown in it does not grow. And Rav Nahman taught that even earth that does not cause what one sows in it to grow is not fit for covering the blood] .

Rava said: This is nonsense!

Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda said something that is not correct.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said to Rava: What is the nonsense in it!?

But

I said it

to Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda.

And I said it to him from this beraita.

For it was taught:

If one was walking in the desert and had no earth with which to cover —

he grinds a gold dinar and covers! If one was traveling on a ship and had no earth with which to cover—

he burns his garment and covers

with its ash. Thus, desert earth may not be used for covering .

And we raised the objection:

Granted,

for that which it teaches,

“he burns his garment and covers

with ash,” it is understandable, for it is possible to cover with ash, since

we find that ash is called “earth,”

as it is written, “and they shall take for the impure one from the earth of the burning of the sin-offering.”

But

that which we learned, “he grinds a

gold dinar”—

from where do we know

that it is possible to cover with it!?

And we explain:

Rabbi Zeira

said: For it is written,

“and he has gold dust.”

Thus, gold too is called “earth” .

The Sages taught: One may cover only with earth, the words of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: We find ash that is called “earth,” as it is said, “

and they shall take for the impure one from the earth of the burning

of the sin-offering” .

And we explain:

And Beit Shammai

did not learn from the sin-offering that it is possible to cover also with ash, because the ash of the sin-offering is

called “earth

of burning”!

But

“earth” without qualification is not called [that]!

A tanna taught: They added to them,

to those enumerated in the beraita above, with which one may cover:

the black,

crushed charcoal,

and the blue, and the hollowings of the pestles,

earth that is scraped out from the millstones.

And some say: Also arsenic.

Rava said: In the merit of Abraham our father saying, “I am earth and ash,” his descendants merited two mitzvot

connected with earth and ash:

the ash of the cow and the earth of the woman suspected of adultery!

And we raised this difficulty:

And should he also count the earth for covering the blood?

And we answer:

There,

in covering the blood,

there is the fulfillment of a mitzva, but there is no benefit!

For a person derives no benefit from the mitzva of covering the blood, since it is permitted to eat the meat even if he did not cover the blood. This is not so with the ashes of the red heifer, for there is benefit in that they purify him from his impurity and atone for the deed of the calf. And the earth of the sota establishes peace between a man and his wife, for it clarifies her innocence, and afterward she is blessed with offspring: if she had given birth with suffering, she will give birth with ease, and the like .