Bava Batra 66a (סו.) — the Talmud in English

and it does not contract ritual impurity in its place,

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

And one who removes honey from it

from the hive

on Shabbat

when it is in its place, meaning the place where the honey grows

is liable to bring a sin-offering

like one who detaches something from the ground.

And the Sages say:

the hive

is not like the ground, and one may not write a prozbul on it,

because its attachment to the ground does not nullify its status as a vessel,

and it does contract ritual impurity in its place,

and the honey also contracts ritual impurity [as it does not require intention in order to contract ritual impurity, as explained in the next chapter, 80a]

and one who removes honey from it on Shabbat —

is exempt.

It is evident from this Mishna that according to Rabbi Eliezer, if something was a vessel before it was attached to the ground, once it is fixed in the ground it is considered like the ground [and for this reason the honey is considered like the ground]. Apparently, the beraita concerning a pipe cited above is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer's view here.

And we reject this: One cannot infer from the Mishna concerning a hive that Rabbi Eliezer holds that a vessel attached to the ground loses its status as a vessel and is considered like the ground, because

there

the reason Rabbi Eliezer considered a beehive like the ground is that there is a special derivation concerning a hive,

as Rabbi Elazar said in explaining the reason!

For Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer's opinion? 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 forest of honey.”

And this refers to honey that was in the place where it grows, and it is difficult: What connection is there between a forest and honey? Rather, Scripture called it a forest in order to derive:

Just as a forest —

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

is considered attached to the ground, even when the hive itself is not actually attached to the ground, and

one who removes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering,

like one who detaches something attached to the ground!

In contrast, with regard to a pipe that was made into a vessel and only afterward attached to the ground, Rabbi Eliezer may agree that it is considered a vessel and disqualifies the mikveh because of three log of drawn water, which disqualify the mikveh.

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

Rather,

one must say that this is learned from the statement of

Rabbi

Eliezer concerning the board.

As we learned: A board —

a board

of bakers

on which they arrange and knead their loaves of dough,

that they fixed in a wall

that they attached to the wall,

Rabbi Eliezer declares pure,

since anything attached to the ground is like the ground,

and the Sages declare impure,

because they hold that the board does not become subordinate to the ground: once it has been smoothed and prepared, it became a vessel capable of contracting ritual impurity, and its attachment to the ground does not nullify that status.

The fact that the Mishna does not distinguish between whether they smoothed the board before attaching it to the wall or after attaching it to the wall implies that there is no difference. According to Rabbi Eliezer, in either case, since the board is attached to the wall, it is considered like the ground and is pure; and according to the Sages, in either case, since the board was smoothed, it is considered a vessel capable of contracting ritual impurity.

If so,

whose opinion is it

that the beraita concerning the pipe that was hollowed out expresses? It is in accordance with neither Rabbi Eliezer nor the Sages.

For

if

it is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer,

then with regard to the board of bakers he holds that

even if they hollowed it out and only afterward fixed it

it becomes subordinate to the ground and is not considered a vessel, whereas the beraita concerning the pipe that was hollowed out states that if it was hollowed out before being attached to the ground, it does not lose its status as a vessel.

If

it is in accordance with the opinion of

the Sages,

then with regard to the board of bakers they hold that

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

it is considered a vessel capable of contracting ritual impurity, whereas the beraita states that a pipe hollowed out after it was attached to the ground is not considered a vessel, but rather a trench in the ground.

And from this Mishna concerning the board of bakers we learn that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages do not hold in accordance with the beraita concerning a pipe that was hollowed out.

This is difficult: In accordance with whose opinion was this beraita concerning a pipe that was hollowed out stated?

And we answer:

Actually,

it is possible to explain that it is the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer,

and he agrees with the beraita that a pipe hollowed out before it was attached to the ground and afterward attached to the ground retains its status as a vessel and does not become subordinate to the ground, and it disqualifies the mikveh because of three log of drawn water, which disqualify the mikveh.

This does not contradict Rabbi Eliezer's statement concerning the board of bakers, because with regard to the board of bakers, the discussion concerns a board made of simple wooden vessels that have no receptacle, and the reason Rabbi Eliezer declares the board pure is that,

but simple wooden vessels, their ritual impurity

even before they were attached to the wall is only

rabbinic,

and therefore Rabbi Eliezer was lenient once it was fixed in the wall.

In contrast, in the beraita concerning the pipe, the drawn water disqualifies the mikveh by Torah law, as we learned in the Sifra: One might have thought that if one filled a vessel with water on his shoulder and initially made a mikveh, it would be pure; therefore, the verse states [Leviticus 11:36]: “A spring”—just as a spring is supplied by Heaven, so too a mikveh must be supplied by Heaven. Therefore, with regard to a mikveh, Rabbi Eliezer agrees that the hollowed-out pipe disqualifies the mikveh, because attaching it to the ground does not nullify its status as a vessel, which it already possessed beforehand.

And we challenge this:

By inference

from the Gemara's answer one can learn

that the disqualification due to drawn water is by Torah law —

that the law that drawn water disqualifies a mikveh is a Torah law.