## Bava Batra Daf 66a

###### Bava Batra 66a:1
[Bava Batra 66a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/66a:1)

וְאֵינָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 66a:2
[Bava Batra 66a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/66a:2)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ כַּקַּרְקַע – וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין עָלֶיהָ פְּרוֹזְבּוּל, וּמְקַבֶּלֶת טוּמְאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, וְהָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 66a:3
[Bava Batra 66a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/66a:3)

הָתָם – כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר טַעְמָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטְבֹּל אוֹתָהּ בְּיַעְרַת הַדְּבָשׁ״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Bava Batra 66a:4
[Bava Batra 66a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/66a:4)

מָה יַעַר – הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, אַף דְּבַשׁ – הָרוֹדֶה מִמֶּנּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב חַטָּאת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Bava Batra 66a:5
[Bava Batra 66a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/66a:5)

אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּדַף. דִּתְנַן: דַּף שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין שֶׁקְּבָעוֹ בַּכּוֹתֶל – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 66a:6
[Bava Batra 66a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/66a:6)

מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – אֲפִילּוּ חֲקָקוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף קְבָעוֹ! אִי רַבָּנַן – אֲפִילּוּ קְבָעוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף חֲקָקוֹ נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 66a:7
[Bava Batra 66a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/66a:7)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, וְשָׁאנֵי פְּשׁוּטֵי כְלֵי עֵץ – דְּטוּמְאָה דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 66a:8
[Bava Batra 66a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/66a:8)

מִכְּלָל דִּשְׁאִיבָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**