Shabbat 95B

אלא להכשיר זרעים בלבד! אמר ליה: לכל מילי רבי שמעון כתלוש משוי ליה, ושאני לענין טומאה, דהתורה ריבתה טהרה אצל זרעים, שנאמר: ״על כל זרע זרוע אשר יזרע״.

is with regard to rendering seeds capable of becoming ritually impure. Seeds that are in a perforated pot have the legal status of seeds planted in the ground and, as such, cannot become ritually impure. Seeds that are in an imperforated pot are considered detached from the ground and can become ritually impure. Apparently, in other areas of halakha, R' Shimon holds that a plant in a perforated pot has the legal status of a plant in the ground (Me’iri). He said to him: With regard to all matters of halakha, R' Shimon equates the status of a perforated pot with that of being detached. However, the matter of impurity is different, as the Torah amplified purity with regard to seeds, as it is stated: “And if anything falls from their carcasses upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure” (Leviticus 11:37). The repetitive language: “Any sowing seed that is sown” teaches that any seed that can be characterized as sowing, including one growing in a perforated pot, remains pure. However, in other areas of halakha, the status of a perforated pot is equal to that of an imperforated pot.

בעא מיניה ההוא סבא מרבי זירא: שורש כנגד נקב מה לי אמר רבי שמעון? אישתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי. זימנא חדא אשכחיה דיתיב וקאמר: ומודה רבי שמעון שאם ניקב בכדי טהרתו. אמר ליה: השתא שורש כנגד נקב בעאי מינך ולא אמרת לי ולא מידי, ניקב בכדי טהרתו מיבעיא?!

A certain Elder raised a dilemma before R' Zeira: In a case where the root of a plant in a perforated pot is opposite the hole, what would R' Shimon say in terms of whether or not it is considered attached to the ground? He was silent and did not say anything to him. The Talmud relates that once the same Elder found R' Zeira, who was sitting and saying: And R' Shimon agrees that if the hole in the flowerpot is large enough to render it ritually pure, i.e., unable to hold olives, it is considered attached to the earth with regard to Shabbat. He said to him: Now, I raised a dilemma before you as to R' Shimon’s ruling in a case where the root is opposite the hole, and you did not say anything to me. With regard to a case where the root is not actually opposite the hole, but its hole is large enough to render it pure, do you need to tell me that the dilemma whether or not it is considered detached is unresolved? Rather, this must certainly be understood differently.