ודין הוא ומה פכין קטנים שטהורין בזב טמאים במת מפץ שטמא בזב אינו דין שיהא טמא במת ואמאי הא לית ליה טהרה במקוה אמר ליה רבי חנינא שאני התם הואיל ואיכא במינו
And it is derived through an a fortiori inference: We know that small vessels do not become ritually impure through the impurity of a zav because they are not designated for sitting, and are too small for the zav to insert his finger into their airspace. If small earthenware pitchers remain pure and are not susceptible to the impurity of a zav, but they do become ritually impure from contact with a corpse; is it not logical that a reed mat, which contracts impurity from a zav, will become ritually impure from contact with a corpse? And why should the reed mat become impure? Isn’t it true that it does not have the possibility of purification in a ritual bath? Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: There, in the case of the mat, it is different because there is purification in other vessels of its kind, i.e., other wooden vessels that are made from materials that grow from the earth can be purified in a ritual bath.
אמר ליה רחמנא ליצלן מהאי דעתא אדרבה רחמנא ליצלן מדעתא דידך וטעמא מאי תרי קראי כתיבי כתיב ואיש אשר יגע במשכבו וכתיב וכל המשכב אשר ישכב עליו הזב יטמא הא כיצד יש במינו אף על גב דלית ליה טהרה במקוה אין במינו מקיש משכבו לו
Rabbi Ila said to Rabbi Ḥanina: May the all-Merciful save us from this opinion. Rabbi Ḥanina responded: On the contrary, may the all-Merciful save us from your opinion. And what is the reason that this is relevant? What is the significance of the fact that other vessels of its kind can be purified in a ritual bath if the vessel itself cannot be purified in a ritual bath? It is because two verses are written. In one verse it is written: “And whoever touches his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:5). The verse juxtaposes his bed to himself. Just as he has the possibility of purification through immersion in a ritual bath, so too, his bed has the possibility of purification in a ritual bath. This teaches that his bed has the same legal status as he does; in order for a bed on which a zav lies to be subject to the impurity imparted by lying, it must be immersible in a ritual bath. And in another verse it is written: “Every bed on which the zav lies shall be impure; and every vessel on which he sits shall be impure” (Leviticus 15:4). This verse includes all beds on which a zav might lie, even one that cannot be purified in a ritual bath. How can these two verses be reconciled? If there is purification in other vessels of its kind, even though it itself does not have purification in a ritual bath, it is subject to the impurity imparted by lying. However, if there is no purification in other vessels of its kind, the verse juxtaposes his bed to himself. Any vessel that is not like him in the sense that it cannot be purified in a ritual bath, is not subject to impurity imparted by lying.
רבא אמר מדרס כלי חרס טהור מהכא וכל כלי פתוח אשר אין צמיד פתיל עליו הא יש צמיד פתיל עליו טהור הוא מי לא עסקינן דיחדינהו לאשתו נדה וקאמר רחמנא טהור:
Rava said: The fact that with regard to impurity imparted by treading, an earthenware vessel is ritually pure is derived from here, as it is stated: “And any open vessel that does not have a sealed cover on it becomes impure” (Numbers 19:15). By inference, if there is a sealed cover on it, it is pure. Are we not dealing even with a case where one designated the vessel for use by his wife, when she has the status of a menstruating woman? And even so, the Torah states that it is ritually pure? Apparently, an earthenware vessel with a sealed cover is not subject to impurity from any source.
מתני׳ מנין לערוגה שהיא ששה על ששה טפחים שזורעין בתוכה חמשה זרעונין ארבעה על ארבע רוחות הערוגה ואחת באמצע שנאמר כי כארץ תוציא צמחה וכגנה זרועיה תצמיח זרעה לא נאמר אלא זרועיה:
MISHNA: The Gemara continues to discuss an additional halakha based on a biblical allusion. From where is it derived that in a garden bed that is six by six handbreadths, that one may plant five different types of seeds in it? He may do so without violating the prohibition of sowing a mixture of diverse kinds of seeds in the following manner. One sows four types of plants on each of the four sides of the garden bed and one in the middle. There is an allusion to this in the text, as it is stated: “For as the earth brings forth its growth, and as a garden causes its seeds to grow, so will the Lord God cause justice and praise to spring forth before all the nations” (Isaiah 61:11). Its seed, in the singular, is not stated; rather, its seeds, written in the plural. Apparently, it is possible that several seeds may be planted in a small garden.
גמ׳ מאי משמע אמר רב יהודה כי כארץ תוציא צמחה תוציא חד צמחה חד הרי תרי זרועיה תרי הא ארבע תצמיח חד הא חמשה
GEMARA: The Gemara questions this allusion: From where is it inferred that the verse refers to five types of seeds? Rav Yehuda said that it is derived as follows: “For as the earth brings forth its growth” indicates five types of seeds because “brings forth” represents one and “its vegetation” represents one, and that totals two. “Its seeds,” written in the plural, represents at least two, and that totals four. “Cause to grow” is one more. This verse includes terms connoting planting and seeds in a single garden bed that total five species of seeds.