Bava Batra 131

ואינה מקבלת טומאה במקומה והרודה ממנה בשבת חייב חטאת

it is not liable to uncleanness where it is;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being a 'vessel'. ');">¹</span>

וחכמים אומרים אינה כקרקע ואין כותבין עליה פרוזבול ומקבלת טומאה במקומה והרודה ממנה בשבת פטור

and if one takes honey from it on Sabbath, he becomes liable for a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For having 'detached' something from the soil. ');">²</span>

התם כדאמר ר' אלעזר טעמא דאמר ר' אלעזר מ"ט דר' אליעזר דכתיב (שמואל א יד, כז) ויטבול אותה ביערת הדבש

The Sages, however, say that it is not on the same footing as the soil, that it cannot serve as a surety for a <i>prosbul</i>, that it can become unclean where it is, and that one who takes honey from it on Sabbath has not to bring a sin-offering'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Uk. III, 10, v. infra 80b. ');">³</span>

מה יער התולש ממנו בשבת חייב חטאת אף דבש הרודה ממנו בשבת חייב חטאת

— [It is not this statement either], for there [R. Eliezer's reason is] as reported by R. Eleazar, that we find written in the Scripture, And he dipped it in the honeycomb;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. XIV, 27. The Hebrew word is [H], lit., 'wood of honey'. ');">⁴</span>

אלא ר"א דדף דתנן דף של נחתומין שקבעו בכותל ר"א מטהר וחכמים מטמאין

[from which he reasoned that,] just as one who plucks anything from a wood on Sabbath becomes liable for a sin-offering, so one who takes honey from a comb on Sabbath becomes liable for a sin offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the comb is not fixed in the soil. Hence we cannot say that this statement of R. Eliezer is incompatible with the one about the pipe. ');">⁵</span>

מני אי רבי אליעזר אפילו חקקו ולבסוף קבעו אי רבנן אפילו קבעו ולבסוף חקקו נמי

It must be then the statement of R. Eliezer about the shelf, as we have learnt: 'If a baker's shelf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A flat board either for kneading on or for resting loaves on. ');">⁶</span>

לעולם רבי אליעזר היא ושאני פשוטי כלי עץ דטומאה דרבנן

is fixed in the wall, R. Eliezer says that it is not capable of becoming unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As not being a 'vessel'. ');">⁷</span>

מכלל דשאיבה דאורייתא

and the Sages say that it is.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the final provisions made after it is fixed in the wall to make it suitable for kneading or resting loaves, make it a vessel. Kel. XV, 2. ');">⁸</span> [We now ask again], which authority [does the statement adduced above follow]? If it is R. Eliezer, then even if the pipe was first hollowed and then fixed [the water from it should not render the mikweh unfit]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it becomes part and parcel of the ground, as the shelf of the wall. ');">⁹</span> if it is the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sages. ');">¹⁰</span> then even if it was first fixed and then hollowed, [it should still spoil the mikweh]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because here too the hollowing out after it is fixed should make it a 'vessel'. ');">¹¹</span> — It is in truth R. Eliezer, and he makes a difference in the case of flat wooden articles, because their uncleanness was decreed only by the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is deemed a 'vessel' for purposes of uncleanness only by the Rabbis. Hence when the board is affixed to the wall it loses the character of a 'vessel', but not so the pipe which is a real vessel, retaining the character of a vessel even after being attached to the ground. ');">¹²</span> It would follow from this [would it not], that [the rule about] 'drawn' water derives from the Scripture?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise why is R. Eliezer more particular about it than about the board? [That is, provided 'drawn water' constitutes the larger quantity in the mikweh (Rashb.), v. however Tosaf. s.v. [H].] ');">¹³</span>