Shabbat 95b (צה:) — the Talmud in English

And he raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says: There is no difference between a perforated and an unperforated

flowerpot except with regard to rendering seeds susceptible to impurity.

An unperforated flowerpot has the status of something detached, and the seeds within it become susceptible through water; for if water falls upon them, they are fit to contract impurity.

But the seeds in a perforated flowerpot have the status of something attached to the ground and do not become susceptible.

It follows that even according to Rabbi Shimon there is a difference between a perforated and an unperforated flowerpot!

[ID omitted: source segment translation begins here] He said to him: For every matter

indeed,

Rabbi Shimon considers a perforated flowerpot detached

such as with regard to reaping, for which one is not liable on Shabbat; with regard to its acquisition, which is effected by pulling, as with movable property, and not by payment, as with land; and with regard to the fact that one does not write a prosbul concerning it [for a prosbul is written only when the borrower owns land].

But with regard to impurity it is different, as the Torah extended the laws of purity in the case of seeds.

Even if they are attached only to the slightest degree, they have the status of something attached and do not become susceptible. Although in essence they are completely detached.

As it is stated

with regard to rendering seeds susceptible: “And if any of their carcass falls

upon any sowing seed that is to be sown

it is pure” [meaning that it does not contract impurity, since it has not been rendered susceptible through water]. The phrase “that is to be sown” indicates the manner in which a person removes something for sowing, namely, that it is detached. But if it is attached, even rendering it susceptible will not avail. And since the Torah repeatedly wrote expressions of “sowing,” we learn that it includes even something attached to the slightest degree, such as a perforated flowerpot, which likewise has the status of something attached.

A certain elder asked Rabbi Zeira:

If the

root

of the plant sown in the perforated flowerpot

was aligned with

the

hole—

what did Rabbi Shimon say?

Would he concede that in this case the root is considered attached to the ground, and that one is liable for detaching the plant on Shabbat?

Rabbi Zeira was silent

and

did not say anything to him.

On one occasion,

once,

he found

that same elder Rabbi Zeira

sitting and saying: And Rabbi Shimon concedes that if the flowerpot was perforated

the flowerpot

to the measure that renders it pure,

meaning that the hole is so large that through it the vessel is rendered pure of its impurity—for a hole made in a vessel used for food, measuring “large enough for an olive to emerge” [so that an olive placed in the vessel would fall through that hole], renders the vessel pure, like breakage that renders it pure—then certainly all the plants growing in the perforated flowerpot are considered attached, since the flowerpot is no longer a vessel.

He said to him,

that elder:

Now, when I asked you about a root aligned with the hole, you did not say anything to me.

If it was perforated to the measure that renders it pure—

is it necessary to ask?!

All the more so should you have been uncertain about those plants in the flowerpot whose roots are not aligned with the hole.

Abaye said: And if this statement of Rabbi Zeira was stated—

this is how it was stated,

for it is only in this manner that one can say that Rabbi Shimon concedes:

And Rabbi Shimon concedes that if it was perforated below the measure of a quarter-log,

meaning that the hole in the flowerpot is located at a point below which the flowerpot cannot contain a quarter-log, then it has the status of something attached to the ground. Since, because of the hole, the vessel cannot serve even for a quarter-log, it is no longer a vessel.

An earthenware vessel that became impure is rendered pure only through breakage; likewise, a pure earthenware vessel that broke has no shards that are susceptible to impurity.

If, after breaking, it still has the use of a shard of a vessel, called a gistera, then although it now serves for a purpose different from that for which the vessel was originally fit, it remains susceptible to impurity until even the designation gistera has been removed from it.

Rava said: Five measures

were stated

for the

purity of

an earthenware vessel,

through perforation:

a.

If it was perforated enough for liquid to emerge.

A very fine hole, through which only liquid can emerge—

it is pure with regard to rendering a gistera impure.

If a shard of a vessel was in a condition in which it was still fit to contract impurity [see Rashi], and it was perforated again enough for liquid to emerge, it no longer contracts impurity as a gistera [a shard of a vessel], since a shard of a vessel is not sufficiently important to a person for him to put it away after it has been perforated and bring another shard of a vessel to place beneath it to receive the drops. But in the case of an intact vessel perforated enough for liquid to emerge, he brings another shard of a vessel and places it beneath it.

And it is still a vessel for sanctifying the water of the purification ritual.

That is to say, in the case of an intact vessel perforated enough for liquid to emerge, all the laws of a vessel still apply to it, even that it may be used to sanctify the water of the purification ritual with the ashes of the red heifer [as the water must be sanctified specifically in a vessel]; all the more so is it susceptible to impurity.

b.

If it was perforated enough for water to enter

meaning that the hole is somewhat wider, so that if the vessel is placed upon water, the water will enter it—

it is pure with regard to sanctifying the water of the purification ritual [

not specifically “pure,” but rather in the sense of “its day has become pure,” meaning that it has lost its status as a vessel with regard to the water of the purification ritual, even when the hole is in an intact vessel].

And it is still a vessel for rendering seeds susceptible through it so that it is still considered an unperforated flowerpot, and the seeds within it become susceptible to contracting impurity, because through this hole it cannot absorb the moisture of the ground and is therefore like an unperforated flowerpot.

c.

If it was perforated like a small root

which is larger than a hole through which water can enter—

it is pure with regard to rendering seeds susceptible through it

since it is a perforated flowerpot.

And it is still a vessel for holding olives

meaning that it is still susceptible to impurity, because it can hold olives, which is the standard measure for an earthenware vessel made for food: as long as the hole does not allow olives to emerge, it remains susceptible to impurity.

d.

If it was perforated enough for olives to emerge—

it is pure with regard to holding olives.

That is, it can no longer contract impurity as an ordinary earthenware vessel, and even if it had previously contracted impurity, it is rendered pure through this perforation.

And it is still a vessel for holding pomegranates

so that if from now on he designates it for holding pomegranates, it becomes susceptible to impurity from that point onward; or, if it was originally designated for pomegranates, it is not rendered pure by this perforation.

e.

If it was perforated enough for pomegranates to emerge—

it is pure with regard to everything .

And if it was sealed with a tight-fitting cover

it is pure with regard to everything .

meaning that the vessel was in a tent containing a corpse and was closed with a cover, impurity does not enter it even through a hole large enough for pomegranates to emerge,

until most of it is breached

so that it no longer has the status of a vessel. This is because it is stated: “And every open vessel … it is impure,” indicating that impurity enters it only through its opening and not through its holes.

so that it no longer has the status of a vessel. This is because it is stated: “And every open vessel … is impure,” which indicates that impurity enters it only through its opening, and not through its perforations.

Rav Asi said: I heard: The measure of an earthenware vessel

for its status as a vessel to be nullified

is enough for a pomegranate to emerge.

Rava said to him: Perhaps you heard this only with regard to one sealed with a tight-fitting cover,

where impurity enters it only through a hole large enough for a pomegranate to emerge. But with regard to susceptibility to impurity, even when it has a hole large enough for an olive to emerge it is pure [in the case of an ordinary earthenware vessel that was not designated for pomegranates; Tosafot].

And we raise an objection:

But Rava himself said: One sealed with a tight-fitting cover remains so until most of it is breached,

and it is not sufficient for it to have a hole large enough for a pomegranate to emerge?