Shabbat 84b (פד:) — the Talmud in English

And the proof is:

we derive by means of a kal va-chomer that it becomes impure through corpse impurity:

And if small flasks

of earthenware,

which are pure with regard to a zav

as they do not become impure through any of the forms of impurity associated with a zav.

For they are not subject to impurity through lying, since they are not designated for sitting, and furthermore, they are earthenware vessels.

They are also not subject to impurity through contact, since an earthenware vessel does not contract impurity from its outside, but only when the impurity enters its interior. And because the small flasks have narrow openings, the zav cannot insert even his finger into them.

Nevertheless,

impure

they are

through

impurity

from a corpse.

If they were in the tent of the corpse, they would become impure, since the impurity enters through the vessel’s opening, as it is written: “And any open vessel that has no tightly fitted cover over it is impure.”

A kal va-chomer applies to

a mat, which is impure with regard to a zav,

since anything suitable for lying becomes impure through lying. If so,

is it not certainly the case that

the mat is

impure through

impurity

from a corpse.

Rabbi Ilaa concludes his objection:

But why

does the beraita state that a mat becomes impure through the zav’s causing impurity through lying?

But it has no purification in a ritual bath!?

For plain wooden objects have no purification, since everywhere that immersion is mentioned in the Torah, it refers to a receptacle and not to plain wooden objects.

Rabbi Hanina said to him: The situation there is different,

with regard to plain wooden objects, which are subject to impurity through lying

since there is, among its kind,

of wooden vessels, purification in a ritual bath.

For wooden vessels that have a receptacle do have purification in a ritual bath; therefore, all “kinds of wooden vessels” are considered to have purification in a ritual bath, and consequently they become impure through lying.

This is not so with earthenware vessels, since no earthenware vessel has purification in a ritual bath; therefore, they are not subject to impurity through lying.

Rabbi Ilaa said to him,

Rabbi Hanina:

May the Merciful One save us from this opinion!

There is no reason to say that the matter depends on its “kind”; rather, it depends only on the vessel itself.

Rabbi Hanina said to him:

On the contrary! May the Merciful One save us from your opinion!

And as we explain—

The Gemara explains Rabbi Hanina’s statement:

And the reason—

what is it?

Why did Rabbi Hanina hold that it is sufficient for there to be purification among its kind? After all, we derive that it has purification in a ritual bath from the fact that it is juxtaposed to a zav. If so, it should resemble the zav, who himself has purification in a ritual bath, and not its kind.

It is because

two verses are written.

It is written: “And a man who touches his bedding,”

teaching us that his bedding is to be likened to him.

And

on the other hand,

it is written: “And any bedding upon which the zav lies

shall be impure,”

and it does not say “his bedding,” which indicates that even bedding that does not resemble him is included.

How

are these apparently contradictory verses to be reconciled?

Rather, the verse “any bedding” is referring to an object that

has, among its kind,

purification in a ritual bath, and therefore it is impure

even though it does not have

the zav himself

purification in a ritual bath.

Whereas the juxtaposition in the verse “And a man who touches his bedding” refers to an object that

does not have, among its kind,

purification in a ritual bath. In that case we say:

his bedding is likened to him,

so that if it does not have purification in a ritual bath, it is not impure through lying.

Rava said: The derivation that lying impurity does not apply to an earthenware vessel

that is

pure—

we derive it

from here:

It is written with regard to the tent of a corpse:

“And any open vessel that has no tightly fitted cover over it

is impure.” This verse is speaking of an earthenware vessel, into which corpse impurity enters through its opening.

And it follows:

If

there

is a tightly fitted cover over it,

with the cover fastened securely to it,

it is pure.

And

are we not dealing

in this verse even with a vessel

that had been designated for his menstruating wife,

so that she would sit on it constantly, and for this reason it could become impure through lying?

And

nevertheless,

the Merciful One says

that if there is a tightly fitted cover over it,

it is pure

itself.

And if an earthenware vessel could become impure through lying, how could the cover protect what is inside the vessel from becoming impure? After all, we maintain that an impure object does not interpose before impurity.

Rather, it certainly follows that an earthenware vessel is not subject to impurity through lying.

Mishna:

This Mishna, which deals with the laws of diverse kinds, is taught here as a continuation of the preceding mishnayot, which begin with “From where?”

The prohibition against sowing or maintaining diverse kinds applies only when the two species appear to be growing intermingled.

But if they appear to be growing separately, it is permitted to sow them and grow them alongside one another, even though we are certain that they draw nourishment from the soil together.

When they do not appear to be growing separately, they must be kept at a distance sufficient to prevent them from drawing nourishment from the ground together.

The measure of the area from which seeds draw nourishment is one and a half handbreadths in every direction; therefore, the distance between two seeds must be three handbreadths.

From where is it derived concerning a garden bed, which is six by six handbreadths, that

it is possible to

sow five different seeds in it

without this constituting a prohibition of diverse kinds?

For example, one sows

four

rows of seeds [in each row, different seeds]

along

the edge of

the four sides of the garden bed,

leaving the four corners of the garden bed empty, thereby making it apparent that the four rows are separate rows.

For each of the rows grows separately, perpendicular to the rows adjacent to it. And at the ends of the row, in the corner of the garden bed, there is an empty space, so that the different seeds are not connected.

And one,

one seed, is sown

in the middle,

at a distance of three handbreadths from the other seeds. Since it is not apparent that it is growing separately from them, it requires a separation sufficient to prevent it from drawing nourishment together with them.

As it is stated [Isaiah 61]

“For as the earth brings forth its growth, and as a garden causes its seeds to sprout”

;

And we expound:

It does not say “its seed,” but rather “its seeds.”

The explanation of the proof is clarified in the Gemara.

Gemara:

The Gemara considers this:

What is the indication,

how is it indicated by the verse that the reference is to five seeds in a garden bed measuring six handbreadths by six handbreadths?

Rav Yehuda said:

This is how we expound it:

“For as the earth brings forth its growth.”

“Brings forth”—

one.

“Its growth”—

one.

That makes two.

“Its seeds”—

two. That makes four …

“Causes to sprout”—

one.

That makes five.