Bava Batra 66a — the Talmud in English

and it does not receive impurity in its place,

since the beehive is attached to the ground, the designation of a vessel is nullified from it, and it is considered like ground; and the honey inside it likewise does not receive impurity, because it is subordinate to the beehive. [But if it was removed from its place, the honey receives impurity].

and one who removes from it

honey from the beehive

on Shabbat

when it is in its place, that is, the place where the honey grows -

is liable for a sin-offering

like one who detaches from the ground .

And the Sages say:

the beehive

is not like ground, and one does not write a prozbul concerning it,

because attachment to the ground does not nullify the designation of a vessel from it,

and it receives impurity in its place,

and the honey likewise receives impurity [for it does not require intention in order to receive impurity, as explained in the next chapter, page 80a]

and one who removes from it on Shabbat -

is exempt.

It is explained in this Mishna that according to Rabbi Eliezer, if it was a vessel before he attached it to the ground, when he fixed it in the ground it is considered like ground [and for this reason the honey is considered like ground]. And seemingly, the beraita concerning a pipe above is not according to Rabbi Eliezer here.

And we reject this: one cannot learn from the Mishna concerning a beehive that Rabbi Eliezer’s view is that a vessel that one attached to the ground has its designation as a vessel nullified from it and is considered like ground, because

there

what Rabbi Eliezer considered a beehive like ground is because there is a special derivation concerning a beehive,

as Rabbi Elazar stated the reason!

For Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? As it is written

concerning Jonathan [I Samuel 14:27]: “And he extended the end of the staff that was in his hand

and dipped it into the honeycomb.”

And there it speaks of honey that was in the place where it grew , and it is difficult: What connection does a forest have with honey? Rather, Scripture called it a forest, in order to expound:

Just as a forest -

one who detaches from it on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering, so too honey

is considered attached to the ground, even if the beehive is not actually attached to the ground , and

one who removes from it on Shabbat is liable for a sin-offering,

like one who detaches from something attached to the ground!

This is not so concerning a pipe that he made into a vessel and afterward attached to the ground; it is possible that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that it is considered a vessel and disqualifies the ritual bath because of three log of drawn water, which disqualify the ritual bath.

If so, from where do we learn that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the beraita concerning a pipe?

Rather,

one must say that we learn this from the words of

Rabbi

Eliezer concerning a board.

For we learned in the Mishna: A board -

a shelf

of bakers

on which they arrange and knead the loaves of dough ,

that they fixed in a wall -

that they attached to a wall,

Rabbi Eliezer declares pure,

since everything attached to the ground is like ground ,

and the Sages declare impure,

since they hold that the shelf is not nullified to the ground, for when they smoothed and prepared the shelf, it became a vessel capable of receiving impurity, and it is not nullified by its attachment to the ground.

And from the fact that the Mishna did not distinguish between whether they smoothed the shelf before attaching it to the wall or after attaching it to the wall, it follows that there is no difference: according to Rabbi Eliezer, in either case, since the shelf is attached to the wall, it is considered like ground and is pure; and according to the Sages, in either case, since he smoothed the shelf, it is considered a vessel that receives impurity.

If so,

whose

is the beraita concerning a pipe that he hollowed out? It is neither according to Rabbi Eliezer nor according to the Rabbis.

For

if

according to the view of

Rabbi Eliezer,

he holds concerning the shelf of bakers that

even if he hollowed it out and afterward fixed it

it is nullified to the ground and is not considered a vessel, whereas in the beraita concerning a pipe that he hollowed out, it is explained that if he hollowed it out before attaching it to the ground, the designation of a vessel is not nullified from it.

If

according to the view of

the Rabbis,

they hold concerning the shelf of bakers that

even if they fixed it and afterward hollowed it out as well,

it is considered a vessel that receives impurity, whereas in the beraita it is explained that a pipe that he hollowed out after it had been attached to the ground is not considered a vessel, but rather a trench in the ground.

And from this Mishna concerning the shelf of bakers we learn that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not hold like the beraita concerning a pipe that he hollowed out.

And it is difficult: according to whose view is this beraita concerning a pipe that he hollowed out stated?

And we answer:

Actually,

it is possible to explain that the view of

Rabbi Eliezer is,

and he agrees with the words of the beraita that a pipe which he hollowed out before it was attached to the ground and afterward attached to the ground still has the designation of a vessel upon it, and is not nullified to the ground, and disqualifies the ritual bath because of three log of drawn water, which disqualify the ritual bath.

And this is not a contradiction to the words of Rabbi Eliezer concerning the shelf of bakers, for concerning the shelf of bakers, the discussion is of a shelf made of simple wooden vessels which has no receptacle; and the reason Rabbi Eliezer declares the shelf pure is that

but simple wooden vessels are different, for their impurity

even before he attached it to the wall is only

rabbinic ,

and therefore Rabbi Eliezer was lenient when he fixed it to the wall.

This is not so in the beraita concerning a pipe, for the drawn water disqualifies the ritual bath by Torah law, as we learned in the Sifra: Could it be that if he carried water on his shoulder and made a ritual bath initially, it would be pure? The verse states [Leviticus 11:36]: “A spring”—just as a spring is by Heaven, so too a ritual bath is by Heaven. Therefore, concerning a ritual bath, Rabbi Eliezer agrees that the hollowed-out pipe disqualifies the ritual bath, because by attaching it to the ground, the designation of a vessel that it had previously is not nullified from it.

And we raise an objection:

By implication,

from the Gemara’s answer one can learn

that drawn water is a Torah-law matter -

that this law—that drawn water disqualifies a ritual bath—is a Torah-law matter.