Bava Batra 66b (סו:) — the Talmud in English

But we have established that

the disqualification of drawn water in a mikveh is only a

rabbinic law! As explained in tractate Yevamot, if there was a mikveh containing forty se'a , and one se'a of drawn water was added and one se'a was removed, it is valid according to Rabbi Yohanan until this is done with most of the water in the mikveh .

The explanation is that by Torah law, the mikveh must initially be made from gathered water without drawing, because a mikveh is compared to a spring. But if drawn water subsequently falls into the mikveh, it is nullified by the majority, or each quantity is nullified as it enters, and it disqualifies the mikveh only by rabbinic law .

And above, with regard to a channel that was hollowed out, the case concerned a mikveh that already existed, to which water was merely added through the channel. Therefore, the disqualification of the drawn water there is only rabbinic.

Furthermore,

even if we say that the Sages treated drawn water stringently as a Torah prohibition, with regard to the shelf of bakers as well, the case concerns a shelf that, when it is not attached to the wall, is susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law, as

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:

that

with regard to a metal shelf

was stated:

there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages, since simple wooden vessels are not susceptible to ritual impurity , whereas a metal shelf, although it has no receptacle, is susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law .

between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages, since plain wooden vessels are not susceptible to impurity, whereas a metal shelf, although it has no receptacle, is susceptible to impurity by Torah law.

If so, the beraita concerning a channel that was hollowed out is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. For with regard to a shelf, Rabbi Eliezer made no distinction between whether one made it into a vessel and afterward attached it to the ground, or attached it to the ground and afterward made it into a vessel. In either case, he maintains that its status as a vessel is annulled when it is attached to the ground, and it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Whereas with regard to a channel that was hollowed out, it is explained that if it had the status of a vessel before it was attached to the ground, its status as a vessel was not annulled when it was attached.

And we explain:

Actually,

the beraita concerning a channel that was hollowed out expresses the opinion of

the Sages;

the case of the shelf of bakers

is

and one cannot raise a difficulty from the fact that the Sages considered the shelf a vessel even if one attached it and only afterward made it into a vessel, whereas with regard to a channel they did not disqualify it for drawing water if one fixed it in place and only afterward hollowed it out, because

drawing water is different, as it is rabbinic.

Therefore, with regard to the channel, the Sages were lenient and said that it does not disqualify the water if one hollowed it out after fixing it in place. This is not so with regard to the shelf of bakers, where the case concerns a metal shelf whose susceptibility to ritual impurity is by Torah law: it is impure even if one fashioned the shelf only after fixing it in the wall, because the Sages maintain that anything attached to the ground does not become annulled to the ground, and its status as a vessel is not annulled.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

if this is what the Sages maintain—that whether one fixed it in place and afterward hollowed it out, or hollowed it out and afterward fixed it in place, it does not become annulled to the ground and is considered a complete vessel—and with regard to drawn water in a mikveh they were lenient and annulled a channel that one fixed in place and afterward hollowed out to the ground, then

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

they should have been lenient and ruled that it would not disqualify the mikveh, since it would become annulled by virtue of the ground.

And we answer:

There it is different,

with regard to a channel that one hollowed out and afterward fixed in place,

as it has the status of a vessel while detached,

and the Sages did not wish to be so lenient, for there is no greater instance of drawing water than this, since it had the status of a vessel before it was attached to the ground. If we did not consider this channel a vessel, the Sages’ decree concerning drawn water would be entirely nullified.

Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: Rainwater

that was falling,

with regard to which he had in mind

that it would be useful

to wash the millstones—

the bases of the millstones that are attached to the ground—

what is the halakha—

will that rain render

the seeds

inside the millstones susceptible to ritual impurity?

For seeds that have been detached from the ground are not susceptible to ritual impurity until one of the seven liquids—wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, or water—touches them, at which point they become prepared to become susceptible to ritual impurity. However, the liquid must be placed upon the seeds intentionally.

Any water that falls upon food with a person’s consent is considered like water that he deliberately poured, and this water renders the seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.

Even if the liquid that fell upon the food was desired only at the beginning of its descent and was not desired at the end, it renders the seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.

Here too, since the rainfall for the sake of washing the millstone was desired by him, even though its subsequent falling upon the seeds was not desired by him, it renders them susceptible to ritual impurity.

However, all this is on the condition that the millstone is considered detached from the ground. For his desire that the rain should fall does not render the seeds susceptible to ritual impurity unless he desired that it fall upon something detached from the ground, since it is expounded in the Torat Kohanim that the verse “when he places water upon seed” applies only when he desired that it fall upon something detached from the ground.

This millstone is an object that was detached and subsequently attached, and the question is whether it is considered detached or attached with regard to seeds. If it is considered detached, his desire that the rain wash the millstone renders the seeds that became wet from this rain susceptible to ritual impurity. But if the millstone is considered ground, his thought that the rain should wash the millstone is not a thought that renders the seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.

According to Rabbi Eliezer, who said

in the beraita above [65b]:

Anything attached to the ground is considered like the ground—

therefore, a fixed mortar, even though it had been hollowed out and had the status of a vessel before it was attached to the ground, has the status of ground and is sold together with the house.

You need not raise the dilemma

as to whether he certainly considers the millstone attached to the ground, since it resembles ground more than a mortar does. Certainly, his thought that the rain should wash the millstone is not a thought that renders the seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.

One cannot explain Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion as maintaining that a fixed mortar does not have the status of ground, but is nevertheless sold together with the house because a seller sells generously. For Rabbi Eliezer stated his words in the form of a general principle: Anything attached to the ground is considered like the ground. And with regard to the shelf of bakers as well, we find that he maintains that the shelf is considered like ground and is not susceptible to ritual impurity even if one fashioned it into a shelf and only afterward attached it to the ground.

Therefore, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the millstone is certainly considered ground.

And according to the Sages as well, there is no uncertainty based on the shelf of bakers. They certainly maintain that a millstone that was detached and subsequently attached is considered detached, just as they consider the shelf detached with regard to ritual impurity even when it was fixed in place and only afterward fashioned into a shelf.

The dilemma is

as to whom one should be uncertain regarding his opinion—

according to the Sages

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a fixed mortar,

who say

that a fixed mortar

is not like ground—what is the halakha?

Is their opinion with regard to the mortar based on their maintaining that anything detached and subsequently attached is considered detached, and therefore the fixed mortar is not included in the sale of the house? If so, the same would apply to the millstone with regard to rendering seeds susceptible to ritual impurity: It is considered detached.

Even though according to the Sages the millstone is included in the sale of the house, this is not because it is considered attached to the ground, for the mortar is also like the millstone—it was detached and subsequently attached—and is considered detached. Rather, the reason the millstone is included in the sale of the house is that it is primarily made to remain fixed in the ground, more so than the mortar. Therefore, it is considered part of the house with regard to the sale of the house, just as the walls of a house are considered detached with regard to rendering seeds susceptible to ritual impurity, whereas with regard to a sale they are considered part of the house and like the ground of the house.

Or perhaps the Sages’ opinion with regard to the mortar is based on the principle that a seller sells begrudgingly, but with regard to rendering seeds susceptible to ritual impurity, perhaps they agree with Rabbi Eliezer that it is considered ground.

No answer was found to this question, and therefore

it remains unresolved;

the question shall stand.

Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, sent to Rabba, son of Rav Huna the Younger, in Nehardea

a letter in which the following was written:

When this woman comes before you,

when this woman with whom I sent this letter comes to you,