דף 66

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?