Bava Batra 66
וְאֵינָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
And such a beehive is not susceptible to ritual impurity as long as it is fixed in its place. And one who removes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he is likened to one who harvests produce attached to the ground.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ כַּקַּרְקַע – וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוּל, וּמְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת – פָּטוּר.
But the Rabbis say: Such a beehive is not like land, and therefore one may not write a prosbol based upon it, and it is susceptible to ritual impurity even when it is fixed in its place, and one who removes honey from it on Shabbat is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This mishna suggests that Rabbi Eliezer holds that a vessel that was affixed to the ground is considered like land for all purposes. This contradicts the baraita that states that if one hollowed out a pipe and then affixed it to the ground, it is still considered a vessel, and water flowing through it is considered drawn water that invalidates a ritual bath. This indicates that the baraita was not taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
הָתָם – כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר טַעְמָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטְבֹּל אוֹתָהּ בְּיַעְרַת הַדְּבָשׁ״;
The Gemara rejects this opinion, stating that there, in the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer treats the beehive like land for the reason that Rabbi Elazar stated, and not because he holds that all vessels that are affixed to the ground are considered like land. As Rabbi Elazar stated: What is the reasoning for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to one who removes honey from a beehive? His rationale is as it is written: “And he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb [ya’arat hadevash]” (I Samuel 14:27).
מָה יַעַר – הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, אַף דְּבַשׁ – הָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת!
Rabbi Eliezer understands that since the Hebrew words used here for honeycomb can also mean honey forest, the verse comes to teach that just as with regard to a forest, one who picks anything from a tree on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too, with regard to a beehive containing honey, one who removes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, as the beehive is treated like land. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer relies here on a special derivation, which does not necessarily apply to other vessels. Therefore, nothing can be learned from this about Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion with regard to the pipe in the baraita.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּדַף. דִּתְנַן: דַּף שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין שֶׁקְּבָעוֹ בַּכּוֹתֶל – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין.
Rather, the reference with regard to the hollowed-out duct must be to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning a baker’s board on which he kneads the dough, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 15:2): With regard to a baker’s board [daf shel naḥtomin] that was affixed to the wall, Rabbi Eliezer renders it not susceptible to ritual impurity, while the Rabbis render it susceptible to ritual impurity. This seems to indicate that, according to Rabbi Eliezer, anything that is affixed to the ground or to something else that is affixed to the ground is treated like land, and therefore it cannot become ritually impure.
מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – אֲפִילּוּ חֲקָקוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף קְבָעוֹ! אִי רַבָּנַן – אֲפִילּוּ קְבָעוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף חֲקָקוֹ נָמֵי!
Having concluded that this is the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis that was referred to previously, the Gemara repeats the question raised earlier about the ruling in the baraita with regard to a duct: Whose opinion is it? It appears to be neither that of Rabbi Eliezer nor that of the Rabbis. As if it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, then even if one hollowed out a duct and afterward he fixed it to the ground, water flowing through it should not be considered drawn water that invalidates a ritual bath, as according to Rabbi Eliezer, a baker’s board that was first a vessel, but then became fixed in a wall, is treated like land. And if it is the opinion of the Rabbis, then even if he first fixed the duct to the ground and only afterward he hollowed it out, the duct should also be treated like a vessel, and the water flowing through it should be considered drawn water, as the Rabbis do not differentiate with regard to the stage at which the baker’s board was affixed to the wall.
לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, וְשָׁאנֵי פְּשׁוּטֵי כְלֵי עֵץ – דְּטוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara responds: Actually, one can explain that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but the halakha governing flat wooden vessels without a receptacle, such as a baker’s board, is different, as they are vessels susceptible to ritual impurity only by rabbinic law, but by Torah law they are not vessels susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer agrees that when the baker’s board is affixed to the wall, it is no longer subject to the rabbinic decree. A hollowed-out duct, however, is a vessel susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law, and it remains so even if afterward it was affixed to the ground. Therefore, the water flowing through it invalidates a ritual bath.
מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁאִיבָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?!
The Gemara asks: By inference, from the fact that Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent in the case of the duct and distinguishes between a duct that was first hollowed out and only afterward affixed to the ground, and one that was first affixed to the ground and only afterward hollowed out, does it not follow that the halakha governing drawn water, i.e., that drawn water added to a ritual bath that does not already contain the necessary quantity of water invalidates it, applies by Torah law?
וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן: דְּרַבָּנַן! וְעוֹד, הָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בְּדַף שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת מַחְלוֹקֶת!
But this is difficult, as we maintain that the halakha that drawn water invalidates a ritual bath applies only by rabbinic decree. And furthermore, doesn’t Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina say that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is with regard to a board of metal, and a metal vessel, even if it is flat and lacks a receptacle, is susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law? This means that, according to Rabbi Eliezer, even a vessel that is susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law loses its status as a vessel when it is affixed to the ground. Consequently, the question returns: Whose opinion is cited in the baraita that states that if one first hollowed out a duct and afterward fixed it to the ground, it is still considered a vessel and water flowing through it invalidates a ritual bath, but if he first fixed it to the ground and afterward hollowed it out, the water flowing through it does not invalidate a ritual bath?
לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן הִיא, וְשָׁאנֵי שְׁאִיבָה דְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara answers: Actually, one can explain that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem the baker’s metal board susceptible to ritual impurity even when it is fixed to a wall, but the halakha governing drawn water added to a deficient ritual bath is different, because drawn water invalidates a deficient ritual bath only by rabbinic law, and therefore the Rabbis were lenient.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ חֲקָקוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף קְבָעוֹ נָמֵי! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיכָּא תּוֹרַת כְּלִי עָלָיו בְּתָלוּשׁ.
The Gemara asks: If so, then even if one first hollowed out the duct and only afterward fixed it to the ground, water flowing through it should not invalidate the ritual bath as well. The Gemara answers: It is different there, where the duct was hollowed out before being affixed to the ground, as the duct had the status of a vessel when it was still detached from the ground, and therefore the Rabbis were not willing to be lenient to such an extent and rule that water flowing through the duct does not invalidate a ritual bath.
בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: מֵי גְשָׁמִים שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עֲלֵיהֶם לְהַדִּיחַ אֶת הָאִיצְטְרוֹבְלִין, מַהוּ לִזְרָעִים?
§ Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: With regard to rainwater that was falling and the owner consciously desired that it should fall so that it would wash his immovable lower millstones, what is the halakha with regard to the seeds in the millstones? The verse “But if any water be put upon the seed…it shall be unclean to you” (Leviticus 11:38) teaches that seeds and other food become susceptible to ritual purity only after they have been detached from the ground, and water, or another of the seven liquids specified in the mishna (Makhshirin 6:4), has been put on them. The food must be exposed to the liquid willfully by the owner; that is, he must desire or at least be pleased that the food should become wet. Rav Yosef asks about a case where the owner wants the rain to fall on the millstones: Does that water make the seeds upon which it falls susceptible to ritual impurity?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע – הֲרֵי הוּא כַּקַּרְקַע, לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ; כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: אֵינוֹ כַּקַּרְקַע. מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara clarifies Rav Yosef’s question: Do not raise this dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Anything attached to the ground has the same legal status as the ground. Since the lower millstones are attached to the ground, they therefore have the same legal status as the ground, and water that falls on the ground, even if it is pleasing to the owner, does not make food susceptible to ritual impurity. When should you raise this dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: It does not have the same legal status as the ground. What is the halakha with respect to imparting susceptibility to ritual impurity? The Gemara concludes: An answer to this question was not found; therefore, the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא זוּטֵי, לִנְהַרְדְּעָא: כִּי אָתְיָא הָךְ אִיתְּתָא לְקַמָּךְ,
§ Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, sent a message to Rabba son of Rav Huna the Short at Neharde’a: When this woman bearing this letter comes before you,
