Shabbat 95b — the Talmud in English

And they raised an objection:

it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says: There is no difference between a perforated [flowerpot] and one that is not perforated except ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

for rendering seeds fit only.

The halakha of a flowerpot that is not perforated is like that of something detached, and the seeds within it receive preparation through water, for if water fell upon them, they are fit to receive impurity.

But the halakha of the seeds in a perforated flowerpot is like that of something attached, and they do not receive preparation.

It follows that even according to Rabbi Shimon there is a difference between a perforated [flowerpot] and one that is not perforated!

He said to him: For every matter

indeed

Rabbi Shimon considers the perforated [flowerpot] detached, such as with regard to reaping, for which one is not liable on its account on Shabbat; and with regard to its being acquired through pulling, like movable property, and not through money, like land; and with regard to the fact that one does not write a prozbul concerning it [for only if the borrower possesses land does one write a prozbul for the lender].

for example, with regard to harvesting, for which one is not liable on Shabbat; with regard to its acquisition through pulling, like movable property, rather than through payment, like land; and with regard to the fact that one may not write a prozbul for it—for a prozbul may be written only when the borrower owns land.

But the matter is different with regard to impurity, for the Torah extended purity in the case of seeds.

For even if it is attached only to the slightest degree, its halakha is like that of something attached, and it does not receive preparation. And although in essence it is completely detached.

As it is stated

with regard to the preparation of seeds: “And if there falls from their carcass

upon any sowing seed that is sown,

“it is pure” [the meaning being that it does not receive impurity since it was not prepared through water]. And “that is sown” implies in the manner in which a person takes it out for sowing, that is, detached. But if it is attached, even preparation will not be effective for it. And since the Torah wrote many expressions of “sowing,” we learn to include that even something attached to the slightest degree, such as a perforated flowerpot, likewise has the halakha of something attached.

A certain elder asked Rabbi Zeira:

Was the

root

of the plant sown in the perforated flowerpot

opposite the

the

hole—

what did Rabbi Shimon say to me?

Would he concede that here the root is considered attached to the ground, and that one is liable for uprooting the plant on Shabbat?

Rabbi Zeira was silent

Rabbi Zeira

and did not say anything to him.

On one occasion,

once,

that elder found

that certain elder Rabbi Zeira

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

the flowerpot

to the measure of its purification,

meaning that the hole is so large that through it the vessel becomes purified from its impurity—for a hole made in a food vessel with the measure “large enough for an olive to pass out” [so that an olive placed in the vessel would fall through this hole] purifies the vessel, like breakage that purifies—then certainly all the plants growing in the perforated flowerpot are considered attached, since the flowerpot is no longer a vessel.

The elder said to him

that certain elder:

Now, I asked you about a root opposite the hole, and you did not say anything to me;

if it was perforated to the measure of its purification—

is there a question?!

All the more so, you should have been uncertain concerning those plants in the flowerpot whose roots are not directed opposite the hole.

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

this is how it was stated,

for only in this manner is it possible to 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 formed in the flowerpot is at a place below which the flowerpot does not contain a quarter-log, in which case its halakha is like that of something attached to the ground; since, because of the hole, the vessel does not serve even for a quarter-log, it is not a vessel.

An earthenware vessel that became impure is purified only through breakage, and likewise a pure earthenware vessel that broke—its fragments do not receive impurity.

And if after it broke it still has the use of a fragment of a vessel, called a gistera, then although now it serves for a different purpose from that for which the vessel was previously fit, it receives impurity until even the designation gistera is removed from it.

Rava said: Five measures

were stated

in

the purification of

earthenware vessels,

through breakage by means of a hole:

a.

If it was perforated enough for liquid to pass out.

A very fine hole through which only liquid passes—

it is pure with regard to rendering a gistera impure.

For if it was a fragment of a vessel in such a manner that it was still fit to receive impurity [see Rashi], and it was again perforated enough for liquid to pass out, it no longer receives impurity in the status of a gistera [a fragment of a vessel], because a fragment of a vessel is not important to a person enough that he would put it away after it was perforated and bring another fragment of a vessel and place it beneath it to receive the drops; but a whole vessel that was perforated enough for liquid to pass out—he brings another fragment of a vessel and places it beneath it.

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

That is, in the case of a whole vessel perforated enough for liquid to pass out, all the laws of a vessel still apply to it, even for sanctifying in it the water of purification with the ashes of the red cow [for it is required that he sanctify it specifically inside a vessel], and all the more so it receives impurity.

b.

If it was perforated enough for liquid to enter,

meaning that the hole is somewhat wider, so that if the vessel is set upon water, the water enters inside it—

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

not specifically “pure,” but like “the day became pure,” that is, its status as a vessel is annulled with regard to the water of purification, even when the hole is in a whole vessel].

And it is still a vessel for preparing seeds in it

for it is still considered a flowerpot that is not perforated, and the seeds within it receive preparation for receiving impurity, because through this hole it is not fit to absorb the moisture of the ground, and it is like one that is not perforated.

c.

If it was perforated to the measure of a small root,

which is greater than “enough for liquid to enter”—

it is pure with regard to preparing seeds in it,

for it is a perforated flowerpot.

And it is still a vessel for receiving olives in it

that is, it still receives impurity because it receives olives, which is the measure of an ordinary earthenware vessel made for food; as long as the hole does not allow olives to pass out, it still receives impurity.

d.

If it was perforated enough for olives to pass out—

it is pure with regard to receiving olives in it.

That is, it no longer receives impurity as an ordinary earthenware vessel, and even if impurity had previously been upon it, it is purified through this.

And it is still a vessel for receiving pomegranates in it

for if from now on he designates it to serve for receiving pomegranates, it receives impurity from then onward; or if from the outset it was designated for pomegranates, it is not purified through this hole.

e.

If it was perforated enough for pomegranates to pass out—

And if it was sealed with a tight-fitting cover

it is pure from everything .

And if it was surrounded with a tightly closed cover

meaning that the vessel was in the tent of the dead and sealed with a cover, impurity does not enter it even through a hole large enough for pomegranates to pass out,

until most of it is diminished

so that it no longer bears the designation of a vessel. For it is stated: “And every open vessel ... it is impure,” implying that impurity enters it only through its opening and not through its holes.

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

for its status as a vessel to be annulled—

is enough for a pomegranate to pass out.

Rava said to him: Perhaps you heard this only with regard to one surrounded with a tightly closed cover,

where impurity enters it only through a hole large enough for a pomegranate to pass out. But with regard to receiving impurity, even with a hole large enough for an olive to pass out it is pure [in the case of an ordinary earthenware vessel not designated for pomegranates, Tosafot, commentary beginning “Perhaps”].

And we raise an objection:

But it is Rava who said: One surrounded with a tightly closed cover [remains protected] until most of it is diminished,

and it is not sufficient that a pomegranate can pass out?