Chullin 175

ואלו ואלו אין מטמאין

neither the one nor the other conveys uncleanness.

ושאר כל הטמאין בין קלין בין חמורין משקין היוצאין מהן כמשקה הנוגע בהן

As for all others that are unclean, whether they suffer light or grave uncleanness, the liquids that issue from them are like the liquids they touch: both are unclean in the first degree, excepting the liquid which is a primary source of uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. the semen of all men as well as the spittle, urine, and the discharge of a man that has a running issue.');">¹</span>

ואלו ואלו תחלה חוץ מן המשקה שהוא אב הטומאה

Now what is meant by 'light or grave uncleanness'?

מאי קלין ומאי חמורין

Presumably 'light uncleanness' means that of a [dead] reptile<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the urine found in a dead reptile. vtnuyv ,uct hct');">²</span>

מאי לאו קלין שרץ וזב וחמורין מת

or of a man that has a flux, and 'grave uncleanness' that of a corpse!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A corpse is regarded as the gravest form of uncleanness because it is the generator of a primary source of uncleanness, - 'the father of a primary source of uncleanness'. Now this Mishnah teaches that the liquid that issues from a corpse is unclean and conveys uncleanness, thus contrary to the previous teaching.');">³</span>

לא קלין שרץ וחמורין זב

- No; 'light uncleanness' is that of a reptile, and 'grave uncleanness' is that of a man that has a flux.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the liquids (excepting blood) that issue from a corpse are clean.');">⁴</span>

מאי שנא זב דגזרו ביה רבנן ומאי שנא מת דלא גזרו ביה רבנן

And why is it that [the liquids<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., , those that are not primary sources of uncleanness e.g., tears, blood from a wound, woman's milk.');">⁵</span>

זב דלא בדילי אינשי מיניה גזרו ביה רבנן

that issue from] a man that has a flux the Rabbis decreed [to be unclean] but [the liquids that issue from] a corpse the Rabbis did not decree [to be unclean]? - [The liquids that issue from] a man that has a flux, since people do not keep away from him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he is a living person and people may not know that he is suffering from a discharge.');">⁶</span>

מת דבדילי אינשי מיניה לא גזרו ביה רבנן:

the Rabbis decreed [to be unclean], but [the liquids that issue from] a corpse, since people keep away from it, the Rabbis did not decree [to be unclean].

דם הניתז ושעל הסכין [וכו']:

THE BLOOD THAT SPURTED OUT AND THAT WHICH IS UPON THE KNIFE etc. Our Rabbis taught: The expression.

תנו רבנן

And he shall cover it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 13.');">⁷</span>

וכסהו מלמד שדם הניתז ושעל הסכין חייב לכסות אמר רבי יהודה

teaches that the blood which spurted out and that which is upon the knife must be covered up.

אימתי

R'Judah said: When is this the case?

בזמן שאין שם דם אלא הוא אבל יש שם דם שלא הוא פטור מלכסות

When there is no other blood but that, but when there is other blood besides this, it need not be covered up.

תניא אידך

Another Baraitha taught: The expression.'

וכסהו מלמד שכל דמו חייב לכסות

And he shall cover it', teaches that the whole of the blood must be covered up; hence, they said, the blood which spurted out and that which remains about the sides [of the throat] must also be covered up.

מכאן אמרו

R'Simeon B'Gamaliel said: This is so only if he did not cover up the life blood, but if he covered up the life blood, th need not be covered.

דם הניתז ושעל אגפיים חייב לכסות

Wherein do they differ? - The Rabbis maintain that 'the blood thereof'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 13.');">⁷</span>

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל

means the whole of its blood; R'Judah maintains that 'the blood thereof' implies even part of its blood; and R'Simeon B'Gamaliel maintains that 'the blood thereof' means the vital<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'special', 'distinct'.');">⁸</span>

במה דברים אמורים שלא כסה דם הנפש אבל כסה דם הנפש פטור מלכסות

blood.

במאי קא מיפלגי

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>WITH WHAT MAY ONE COVER UP [THE BLOOD] AND WITH WHAT MAY ONE NOT COVER IT UP?

רבנן סברי

ONE MAY COVER IT UP WITH FINE DUNG, WITH FINE SAND, WITH LIME, WITH A POTSHERD OR A BRICK OR AN EARTHENWARE STOPPER [OF A CASK] THAT HAVE BEEN GROUND INTO POWDER'BUT ONE MAY NOT COVER IT UP WITH COARSE DUNG OR COARSE SAND, NOR WITH A BRICK OR AN EARTHENWARE STOPPER [OF A CASK] THAT HAVE NOT BEEN GROUND INTO POWDER; NOR MAY ONE TURN A VESSEL OVER IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah ed. Lowe there is added here: Nor cover it with stones.');">⁹</span>

דמו כל דמו ר' יהודה סבר

R'SIMEON B. GAMALIEL LAID DOWN THE RULE: ONE MAY COVER IT WITH ANYTHING IN WHICH PLANTS WOULD GROW; BUT ONE MAY NOT COVER IT WITH ANYTHING IN WHICH PLANTS WOULD NOT GROW.

דמו ואפילו מקצת דמו ורשב"ג סבר

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is meant by FINE SAND? - Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said in the name of R'Johanan.

דמו המיוחד:

Such as the potter does not need to crush.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> במה מכסין ובמה אין מכסין

Some there are who apply this statement to the second clause, viz. , BUT ONE MAY NOT COVER IT UP WITH COARSE DUNG OR COARSE SAND.

מכסין בזבל הדק ובחול הדק בסיד ובחרסית ובלבנה ובמגופה שכתשן

What is meant by COARSE SAND? - Rabbah B'Bar Hanah said in the name of R'Johanan.

אבל אין מכסין לא בזבל הגס ולא בחול הגס ולא בלבנה ובמגופה שלא כתשן ולא יכפה עליו את הכלי

Such as the potter needs to crush.

כלל אמר רשב"ג

What is the difference between these two versions? - Where it is not absolutely necessary [to crush it],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it needs and does not need (to be crushed) '. According to the first version since it does not require to be crushed because it crumbles with the hand, it may be used for covering; according to the second version since it must be crushed even if only with the hand it may not be used for covering.');">¹⁰</span>

דבר שמגדל בו צמחים מכסין בו ושאינו מגדל צמחים אין מכסין בו:

as it crumbles [with the hand].

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> היכי דמי חול הדק

Our Rabbis taught: 'And he shall cover it'.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן

I would have thought that he may cover it with stones or turn a vessel over it, the verse therefore adds 'with dust'.

כל שאין היוצר צריך לכתשו

Then I only know dust, whence would I know to include fine dung, fine sand, crushed stones, crushed potsherds, fine scraps of flax,

ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא

אבל אין מכסין לא בזבל הגס ולא בחול הגס

היכי דמי חול הגס

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן

כל שהיוצר צריך לכתשו

מאי בינייהו

איכא בינייהו דצריך ולא צריך דמיפריך איפרוכי:

תנו רבנן

וכסהו יכול יכסנו באבנים או יכפה עליו את הכלי

תלמוד לומר

בעפר

ואין לי אלא עפר מנין לרבות זבל הדק וחול הדק ושחיקת אבנים ושחיקת חרסית ונעורת פשתן דקה