Chullin 88b (פח:) — the Talmud in English

The fibers that fall from flax when it is beaten,

and sawdust from carpenters

—fine

sawdust, lime and gypsum, a brick and a roof tile that one crushed,

from where do we know that all these may be used for covering?

The verse states: “And he shall cover it,”

for since it is not written, “And with dust he shall cover it,” which would have implied that one covers only with dust, but rather it is written, “And he shall cover it” before “with dust,” this indicates that “and he shall cover it” is to be expounded independently, teaching that covering may also be performed with something other than dust.

One might say that I should include

from “and he shall cover it”

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

10, as well as an uncrushed brick and roof tile, flour, bran, and fine bran? The verse states: “With dust,” 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 led you to include these

listed above

and exclude these?

Once Scripture included

from “and he shall cover it,”

and excluded

from “with dust,”

I include these, which are a type of dust, and exclude those, which are not

a

type of dust,

for all those that were included are a “type of dust,” as they resemble dust in that they cause plants to grow, like dust.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Let us say that “and he shall cover it” is a

generalization, and “dust” is a

particularization,

and wherever

a generalization

is written followed by

a particularization,

we should expound

that the generalization includes only what is stated in the particularization,

and derive from this that

dust

—yes, but anything else

—no!

And even something resembling dust may not be used for covering; only actual dust may be used!?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Mari said:

This generalization and particularization differs from other instances of a generalization and particularization.

Because it is a generalization that requires a particularization!

The particularization explains the generalization. The generalization “and he shall cover it” includes two types 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 a fine substance, such as dust and the like. The particularization “with dust” comes to explain that the covering must be of a kind that mixes and becomes blended with the blood.

And with regard to every generalization that requires a particularization, one does not expound it according to the rule of “generalization and particularization.”

This is because the particularization does not come to exclude entirely, but rather to explain the generalization. So too in our case, “with dust” does not come to exclude all substances except dust, but rather to explain that anything resembling dust may be used for covering! [And where do we expound that the generalization includes only what is stated in the particularization? Where the basic meaning of the generalization is clear, but it includes many particulars, and the particularization comes to exclude them and say that only it, and not others, is included] .

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda expounded: One may cover only with something in which one sows and which causes plants to grow!

One may not use desert soil or the soil of salty land, for if one sows in it, it will not produce growth. [This is the innovation in Rav Naḥman’s statement: even desert soil may not be used for covering. For although the Mishna states only that the substance must cause plants to grow, and plants do in fact grow spontaneously in the desert, what one sows there does not grow, Rav Naḥman teaches that even soil that does not cause what one sows in it to grow is unsuitable for covering the blood] .

Rava said: This is nonsense!

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda said something incorrect.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What is the nonsense in his statement!?

But

I was the one who said it

to Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda.

And I said it to him on the basis of this beraita.

As it is taught:

If one was traveling in the desert and had no dust with which to cover —

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

he burns his garment and covers

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted,

the teaching that

he burns his garment and covers

with its ash is understandable, since one may cover with ash, as

we find that ash is called “dust,”

as it is written: “And they shall take for the impure person from the dust of the burning of the sin-offering.”

But

with regard to what we learned, “he grinds a

gold dinar”—

from where do we know

that one may cover with it!?

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Zeira said:

As it is written:

“And he has dust of gold.”

Thus, gold too is called “dust” .

The Sages taught: One may cover only with dust; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: We find that ash is called “dust,” as it is stated: “

And they shall take for the impure person from the dust of the burning

of the sin-offering” .

The Gemara explains:

And Beit Shammai

did not derive from the sin-offering that one may also cover with ordinary ash, because the ash of the sin-offering

is called “dust

of burning”!

But

it is not simply called “dust”!

A tanna taught: They added to them,

to those listed in the beraita above as substances with which one may cover:

black,

crushed charcoal;

blue, and the dust of millstone carving,

the dust chipped from millstones.

And some say: also arsenic.

Rava said: In reward for Abraham our forefather saying, “I am dust and ashes,” his descendants merited two mitzvot

associated with dust and ash:

the ash of the red heifer and the dust of the sotah!

And we raised an objection:

And why not also count the dust used for the covering of the blood?

And we answer:

There,

in the mitzva of 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, since there is benefit in that they purify him from his ritual impurity and atone for the sin of the Golden Calf. And the dust used in the sota ritual establishes peace between a man and his wife, since it clarifies her innocence, after which she is blessed with offspring: if she had previously given birth with pain, she will give birth with ease, and the like.