Shabbat 84b — the Talmud in English

And it is a logical inference,

from a kal va-chomer we learn that it becomes impure through corpse impurity:

And just as small flasks

of earthenware,

which are pure with regard to a zav

—for they do not become impure through any of the forms of impurity of a zav.

For they do not have impurity of midras, since they are not designated for sitting; furthermore, they are earthenware vessels.

And they also do not have impurity through contact, for an earthenware vessel does not receive impurity from its back, but only when the impurity enters inside its hollow. And the small flasks, because their mouths are narrow, do not allow the zav to insert even his finger into them.

Even so—

impure

they are

through

corpse

impurity.

For if they were in the tent of the corpse, they would become impure, since the impurity enters through the opening of the vessel, as it is written: “And every open vessel upon which there is no tightly fitting cover—it is impure.”

A kal va-chomer for

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

for everything fit for lying becomes impure through midras; if so, is it not logical that

it should be

the mat

impure through

corpse

impurity.

And Rabbi Ila concludes his objection:

But why

does the beraita teach that a mat becomes impure through a zav with impurity of midras? And

does it not lack purification in a ritual bath!?

For plain wooden vessels have no purification, since in all the places where immersion is mentioned in the Torah, the reference is to a receptacle, and not to plain wooden vessels.

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

with plain wooden vessels, which have impurity of midras,

since there is among its kind

of wooden vessel purification in a ritual bath.

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

This is unlike earthenware vessels, for there is no earthenware vessel whatsoever that has purification in a ritual bath; therefore, it does not have impurity of midras.

He said to him,

Rabbi Ila:

May the Merciful One save us from this opinion!

For it is not reasonable to say that the matter depends on its “kind,” but 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—

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Hanina’s words:

And the reason—

what is it?

Why did Rabbi Hanina hold that it is sufficient that there be purification in its kind? For the fact that it has purification in a ritual bath, we derive from its being compared to a zav; if so, it ought to resemble a zav, which itself has purification in a ritual bath, and not its kind.

Because

two verses are written.

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

to teach us to compare his bedding to him.

And

on the other hand,

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

shall be impure,”

and it is not written “his bedding,” which implies even bedding that does not resemble him.

How then

are the verses, which apparently contradict one another, to be reconciled?

Rather, the verse “every bedding” deals with something that

has among its kind

purification in a ritual bath, and therefore it is impure

even though it does not have

for the zav himself

purification in a ritual bath.

Whereas the comparison in the verse “And a man who touches his bedding” refers to something that

does not have among its kind

purification in a ritual bath, concerning which we say:

compare his bedding to him,

that if it does not have purification in a ritual bath, it is not impure with impurity of midras.

Rava said: The midras of an earthenware vessel

that is

pure—

we derive it

from here:

It is written concerning the tent of the corpse:

“And every open vessel upon which there is no tightly fitting cover

is impure.” And this verse is speaking of an earthenware vessel, whose corpse impurity enters through its opening.

And it implies:

Here,

if

there is a tightly fitting cover upon it,

that the cover is fastened tightly to it—

it is pure.

And

are we not dealing

in this verse even with a vessel

that he designated for his menstruant wife,

so that she would sit upon it constantly, and because of this it could become impure through midras?

And

nevertheless

the Merciful One says

that if there is a tightly fitting cover upon it,

it is pure

it.

And if an earthenware vessel could become impure through impurity of midras, how does the cover protect what is inside the vessel from becoming impure? For it is established for us that an impure object does not interpose before impurity?

Rather, certainly infer from this that an earthenware vessel does not have impurity of midras.

Mishna:

This Mishna, which deals with the laws of mixed species, was taught here as a continuation of the preceding Mishnayot, which begin with “From where?”

The prohibition against sowing or maintaining mixed species applies only when the two species appear to be growing in a mixture.

But if they appear to be growing separately, it is permitted to sow them and grow them one beside the other, even though we certainly know that they draw nourishment from the soil together.

When they do not appear to be growing separately, they must be distanced from one another by a distance such that they will not draw nourishment together from the ground.

The measure of the nourishment of seeds is a handbreadth and a half on all sides; therefore, the distance between two seeds must be three handbreadths.

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

it is possible to have

five different seeds sown within it,

and there is no prohibition of mixed species in this?

For example, that one sows

four

rows of seeds [in each row, different seeds]

along

the edge of

the four sides of the garden bed,

and leaves the four corners of the garden bed empty; through this, it is evident that the four rows are separate rows.

For each of the rows grows separately, in a direction perpendicular to the rows adjacent to it. And at the ends of the row, at the corner of the garden bed, there is an empty space, so that there is no connection between the different seeds.

And one,

one seed, is sown

in the middle,

at a distance of three handbreadths from the other seeds. Since it is not evident that it grows separately from them, it requires distancing so that it will not draw 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”

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

And we expound:

“Its seed” was not stated, but rather, “its plants.”

And the explanation of the proof is clarified in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And we deliberate concerning it:

What is the implication,

how is it implied from the verse that the matter concerns five seeds in a garden of 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.

Here are two.

“Its plants”—

two. Here are four ...

“Causes to sprout”—

one.

Here are five.