ח מכלל דשאיבה דאורייתא
8 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. ');"><sup>8</sup></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. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> if it is the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sages. ');"><sup>10</sup></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'. ');"><sup>11</sup></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. ');"><sup>12</sup></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].] ');"><sup>13</sup></span>