Chullin 88aחולין פ״ח א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 88a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
88aפ״ח א

ואלו ואלו אין מטמאין ושאר כל הטמאין בין קלין בין חמורין משקין היוצאין מהן כמשקה הנוגע בהן ואלו ואלו תחלה חוץ מן המשקה שהוא אב הטומאה

And both these and those, i.e., both liquids that issue from one who immersed himself that day and liquids he touches, do not impart ritual impurity. And with regard to all other sources of impurity, whether minor sources or major sources, liquids that issue from them have the same status as liquids that touch them, and both these and those have first-degree ritual impurity, since they touched a primary source of ritual impurity upon exiting the source. This is the halakha except for a liquid that is itself a primary source of ritual impurity.

מאי קלין ומאי חמורין מאי לאו קלין שרץ וזב וחמורין מת לא קלין שרץ וחמורין זב

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What is the meaning of minor sources and what is the meaning of major sources? What, is it not that the term: Minor sources, is referring to a creeping animal or a zav, and that the term: Major sources, is referring to a corpse? If so, the mishna teaches that all liquids that issue from a corpse are ritually impure, in contradiction to the baraita. The Gemara responds: No, the term: Minor sources, is referring to a creeping animal, e.g., urine found inside its body, which is not considered ritually impure, and the term: Major sources, is referring to a zav, concerning whom all liquids that issue from him are ritually impure. By contrast, liquids that issue from a corpse are ritually pure with the exception of blood.

מאי שנא זב דגזרו ביה רבנן ומאי שנא מת דלא גזרו ביה רבנן זב דלא בדילי אינשי מיניה גזרו ביה רבנן מת דבדילי אינשי מיניה לא גזרו ביה רבנן:

The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a zav, concerning whom the Sages decreed that liquids that issue from him are ritually impure, and what is different with regard to a corpse, concerning which the Sages did not decree that liquids that issue from it are ritually impure? The Gemara responds: In the case of a zav, since people do not naturally separate from him, the Sages decreed additional restrictions with regard to him in order to prevent others from contracting impurity from liquids that issue from a zav that are impure by Torah law. In the case of a corpse, since people naturally separate from it, the Sages did not decree additional restrictions with regard to it.

דם הניתז ושעל הסכין [וכו']: תנו רבנן וכסהו מלמד שדם הניתז ושעל הסכין חייב לכסות אמר רבי יהודה אימתי בזמן שאין שם דם אלא הוא אבל יש שם דם שלא הוא פטור מלכסות

§ The mishna teaches that one is obligated to cover blood that spurts outside the pit over which the animal was slaughtered, or onto the wall, and blood that remained on the slaughtering knife. With regard to this halakha, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall cover it” (Leviticus 17:13), which teaches that one is obligated to cover blood that spurted and blood that remained on the slaughtering knife. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this the halakha? When there is no blood except that blood. But if there is other blood that is not that blood, one is exempt from covering it.

תניא אידך וכסהו מלמד שכל דמו חייב לכסות מכאן אמרו דם הניתז ושעל אגפיים חייב לכסות אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים שלא כסה דם הנפש אבל כסה דם הנפש פטור מלכסות

It is taught in another baraita: The term: “And he shall cover it,” teaches that one is obligated to cover all of the blood. From here the Sages stated: With regard to blood that spurts out and blood that remains on the sides of the animal’s throat where it was slaughtered, one is obligated to cover it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where one did not already cover the blood of the soul, i.e., the blood that flows from the place of slaughter as the animal dies. But if one already covered the blood of the soul, he is exempt from the obligation to cover the blood that spurted out or the blood remaining on the sides of the animal’s neck in the area of slaughter.

במאי קא מיפלגי רבנן סברי דמו כל דמו ר' יהודה סבר דמו ואפילו מקצת דמו ורשב"ג סבר דמו המיוחד:

The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter do they disagree? The Gemara responds: The Rabbis hold that the expression: “Its blood” (Leviticus 17:13), indicates an obligation to cover all of its blood, even the blood that spurts out. Rabbi Yehuda holds that “its blood” indicates that one may fulfill the mitzva with any part of the blood, even with a small amount of its blood. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that “its blood” refers to the special blood, i.e., the blood of the soul.

מתני׳ במה מכסין ובמה אין מכסין מכסין בזבל הדק ובחול הדק בסיד ובחרסית ובלבנה ובמגופה שכתשן אבל אין מכסין לא בזבל הגס ולא בחול הגס ולא בלבנה ובמגופה שלא כתשן ולא יכפה עליו את הכלי כלל אמר רשב"ג דבר שמגדל בו צמחים מכסין בו ושאינו מגדל צמחים אין מכסין בו:

MISHNA: With what substances may one cover the blood and with what substances may one not cover the blood? One may cover the blood with fine granulated manure, with fine sand, with lime, with crushed potsherd, and with a brick or the lid of an earthenware barrel that one crushed. But one may not cover the blood with thick manure, nor with thick, clumped sand, nor with a brick or the lid of an earthenware barrel that one did not crush. Neither may one merely turn a vessel over the blood. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel stated a principle: With regard to a substance in which plants grow, one may cover blood with it; and with regard to a substance in which plants do not grow, one may not cover blood with it.

גמ׳ היכי דמי חול הדק אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל שאין היוצר צריך לכתשו 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

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may cover the blood with fine sand. The Gemara asks: What is considered fine sand? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is any sand that the pottery producer does not need to crush in order to use it. The Gemara notes: And some teach this statement in reference to the latter clause of the mishna, which states: But one may not cover the blood with thick manure, nor with thick sand. The Gemara asks: What is considered thick sand? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is any sand that the pottery producer must crush in order to use it.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דצריך ולא צריך דמיפריך איפרוכי:

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two versions? The Gemara responds: There is a difference between them with regard to sand that requires some crushing and sand that does not require full crushing, i.e., that crumbles in one’s hand and does not require a tool. According to the first version, as long as the sand does not require crushing it may be used to cover the blood. Therefore, sand that requires crumbling may be used since it is not considered sand that requires crushing. According to the second version, any sand that requires some crushing may not be used. Therefore, sand that requires crumbling may not be used to cover the blood.

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

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood: “And cover it” (Leviticus 17:13). One might have thought that he may cover the blood with stones or merely turn a vessel over it. Therefore, the verse states: “With earth.” Based on this expression I have derived only that earth may be used. From where does one derive to include fine manure, fine sand, crushed stones, crushed potsherd, fine chaff of flax,