Bava Batra 66b — the Talmud in English

And it is established for us

that the disqualification of drawn water in a mikveh is only a rabbinic law

! As explained in tractate Yevamot, if there was a mikveh of forty seahs and one added one seah of drawn water and removed one seah, it is valid according to Rabbi Yohanan until he does so for the majority of the water in the mikveh.

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

And above, concerning a channel that was hollowed out, it speaks of a case in which there was already a mikveh and water was merely added to it from 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 prohibition by Torah law, then also concerning the shelf of bakers it speaks of a shelf which, when it is not attached to the wall, is susceptible to impurity by Torah law, for

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Hanina said:

that

with a metal shelf

was stated

the dispute

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 according to Rabbi Eliezer. For concerning the shelf, Rabbi Eliezer made no distinction at all between whether he made it into a vessel and afterward attached it to the ground, or whether he attached it and afterward made it into a vessel. In either case, he holds that its status as a vessel is nullified by its attachment to the ground, and it is not susceptible to impurity. Whereas concerning a channel that was hollowed out, it is explained that if it had the status of a vessel before its attachment to the ground, its status as a vessel was not nullified by its attachment.

And we explain:

In fact,

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

the Rabbis

concerning the shelf of bakers;

it is,

and one cannot object from the fact that the Sages considered the shelf a vessel even if he attached it and only afterward made it into a vessel, whereas concerning the channel they did not disqualify it for drawing water if he fixed it and afterward hollowed it out, because

drawing is rabbinic,

and therefore concerning the channel the Rabbis were lenient and said that it does not disqualify [the mikveh] if he hollowed it out after he fixed it. This is not so concerning the shelf of bakers, which speaks of a metal shelf whose impurity is by Torah law: it is impure even if he fashioned the shelf after he fixed it in the wall, because the Sages hold that everything attached to the ground is not nullified to the ground, and its status as a vessel is not nullified.

And we object:

If so,

if this is what the Rabbis hold—that whether he fixed it and afterward hollowed it out, or hollowed it out and afterward fixed it, its status is not nullified to the ground and it is considered a complete vessel, while concerning drawn water in a mikveh they were lenient and nullified the channel that he fixed and afterward hollowed out to the ground—if so,

even if he hollowed it out and ultimately fixed it, also

they should have been lenient, so that it would not disqualify the mikveh, and it would be nullified by virtue of the ground.

And we answer:

There it is different,

in the case of a channel that he hollowed out and afterward fixed,

for it has the law of a vessel while detached,

and the Rabbis were unwilling to be lenient to that extent, because you have no greater drawing than this: since it had the status of a vessel before he attached it to the ground, if we do not consider this channel a vessel, the rabbinic decree concerning drawn water would be completely nullified.

Rabbi Yosef raised a question: Rainwater

that was falling,

concerning which he thought

that it would be useful

to wash the millstones—

the bases of the millstones attached to the ground—

what is [the law]—

will those rains render fit

for the seeds

inside the millstones?

For seeds that have been detached from the ground do not become susceptible to impurity until one of the seven liquids touches them [wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, water], and then they are rendered fit to become susceptible to impurity. But they must be placed upon the seeds intentionally.

And any water that falls upon food with a person’s consent is considered water that he poured intentionally from the outset, and this water renders the seeds fit to become susceptible to impurity.

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

And here too, since the descent of the rain for the purpose of the millstone was with his consent, even though when it subsequently descended upon the seeds it was not with his consent, it renders them fit to become susceptible to impurity.

However, all this is on condition that the millstone is considered detached from the ground. For his consent that the rain should descend does not render the seeds fit to become susceptible to impurity unless he desired that it descend upon something detached from the ground, since they expound in the Sifra that the verse “when he places water upon seed” does not apply unless he desired that it descend upon something detached.

And this millstone is something detached and afterward attached, and it must be considered whether it is regarded as detached or as attached with regard to seeds. For if it is considered detached, his consent that the rain should wash the millstone is effective to render the seeds that became wet from this rain fit to become susceptible to impurity. But if the millstone is considered ground, his thought that he thought concerning the rain that it should wash the millstone is not a thought that renders the seeds fit.

According to Rabbi Eliezer, who says

in the beraita above [65b]:

Everything attached to the ground is considered like the ground—

and 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 question for yourself,

for certainly he considers a millstone attached to the ground, since it resembles ground more than a mortar. And certainly his thought that he thought concerning the rain that it should wash the millstone is not a thought that renders the seeds fit.

And one cannot explain Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion as holding that the fixed mortar does not have the status of ground, and nevertheless it is sold together with the house because a seller sells generously. For Rabbi Eliezer stated his words in the language of a “general rule”: everything attached to the ground is considered like the ground. And also concerning the shelf of bakers we find that he holds that the shelf is considered like ground and is not susceptible to impurity even if he fashioned the shelf and only afterward attached it to the ground.

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

And also according to the Rabbis, there is no doubt from the shelf of bakers: they certainly hold concerning a millstone that is detached and afterward attached that it is considered detached, just as they consider the shelf detached with regard to impurity even in a case in which they fixed it and only afterward fashioned it into a shelf.

For if you raise the question

as to whom one should be uncertain concerning what he holds—

according to the Rabbis

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer concerning a fixed mortar,

who say

that the fixed mortar

is not like ground, what is [the law]?

Is their opinion concerning the mortar because they hold that everything detached and afterward attached is considered detached, and therefore the fixed mortar is not included in the sale of the house—and likewise the millstone, with regard to rendering seeds fit to become susceptible to impurity, is considered detached?

Or perhaps, the reason for the Sages’ opinion concerning the mortar is that a seller sells ungenerously, but with regard to rendering fit, perhaps they agree with Rabbi Eliezer that it is considered ground?

No answer was found for this question, and therefore

it stands,

the question shall remain in place.

Rabbi Nehemiah, son of Rabbi Yosef, sent to Rabbah, son of Rav Huna the Younger, in Nehardea

a letter, in which it was written as follows:

When this woman comes before you,

when this woman with whom I have sent this letter comes,

...