Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 29, 2017 | 讘壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 66

Study Guide Bava Batra 66. The gemara brings a braita聽relating to the difference in halacha between a tube created and attached to the ground or attached to the ground first and then hollowed out while attached to the ground. 聽If the former case, it is considered a vessel and therefore water can’t be passed through there to fill up a mikveh as it is considered mayim sheuvim.聽 In the latter case, it is considered attached to the ground and is not a vessel adn therefore one can fill up a mikveh through there. 聽The gemara聽asks a question – this doesn’t seem to match Rabbi Eliezer or the rabbis opinions. 聽First the gemara needs to establish which argument between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis is the question referring to and then it answers which opinion in that argument matches the braita.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 讜讛专讜讚讛 诪诪谞讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讜诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 讜讛专讜讚讛 诪诪谞讛 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专

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.

讛转诐 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讟讘诇 讗讜转讛 讘讬注专转 讛讚讘砖

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: 鈥淎nd he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb [ya鈥檃rat hadevash]鈥 (I聽Samuel 14:27).

诪讛 讬注专 讛转讜诇砖 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讚讘砖 讛专讜讚讛 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

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鈥檚 opinion with regard to the pipe in the baraita.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讚祝 讚转谞谉 讚祝 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬谉 砖拽讘注讜 讘讻讜转诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉

Rather, the reference with regard to the hollowed-out duct must be to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning a baker鈥檚 board on which he kneads the dough, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 15:2): With regard to a baker鈥檚 board [daf shel na岣omin] 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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞拽拽讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讘注讜 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞拽拽讜 谞诪讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 board was affixed to the wall.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讜砖讗谞讬 驻砖讜讟讬 讻诇讬 注抓 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚砖讗讬讘讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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?

讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜注讜讚 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讚祝 砖诇 诪转讻转 诪讞诇讜拽转

But this is difficult, as we maintain that the halakha that drawn water invalidates a ritual bath applies only by rabbinic decree. And furthermore, doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi 岣nina say that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is with regard to a board of metal, and a metal vessel, even if it is flat and lacks a receptacle, is susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law? This means that, according to Rabbi Eliezer, even a vessel that is susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law loses its status as a vessel when it is affixed to the ground. Consequently, the question returns: Whose opinion is cited in the baraita that states that if one first hollowed out a duct and afterward fixed it to the ground, it is still considered a vessel and water flowing through it invalidates a ritual bath, but if he first fixed it to the ground and afterward hollowed it out, the water flowing through it does not invalidate a ritual bath?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜砖讗谞讬 砖讗讬讘讛 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, one can explain that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem the baker鈥檚 metal board susceptible to ritual impurity even when it is fixed to a wall, but the halakha governing drawn water added to a deficient ritual bath is different, because drawn water invalidates a deficient ritual bath only by rabbinic law, and therefore the Rabbis were lenient.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞拽拽讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讘注讜 谞诪讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讘转诇讜砖

The Gemara asks: If so, then even if one first hollowed out the duct and only afterward fixed it to the ground, water flowing through it should not invalidate the ritual bath as well. The Gemara answers: It is different there, where the duct was hollowed out before being affixed to the ground, as the duct had the status of a vessel when it was still detached from the ground, and therefore the Rabbis were not willing to be lenient to such an extent and rule that water flowing through the duct does not invalidate a ritual bath.

讘注讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 诇讛讚讬讞 讗转 讛讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 诪讛讜 诇讝专注讬诐

Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: With regard to rainwater that was falling and the owner consciously desired that it should fall so that it would wash his immovable lower millstones, what is the halakha with regard to the seeds in the millstones? The verse 鈥淏ut if any water be put upon the seed鈥t shall be unclean to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38) teaches that seeds and other food become susceptible to ritual purity only after they have been detached from the ground, and water, or another of the seven liquids specified in the mishna (Makhshirin 6:4), has been put on them. The food must be exposed to the liquid willfully by the owner; that is, he must desire or at least be pleased that the food should become wet. Rav Yosef asks about a case where the owner wants the rain to fall on the millstones: Does that water make the seeds upon which it falls susceptible to ritual impurity?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽专拽注 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讜 讻拽专拽注 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara clarifies Rav Yosef鈥檚 question: Do not raise this dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Anything attached to the ground has the same legal status as the ground. Since the lower millstones are attached to the ground, they therefore have the same legal status as the ground, and water that falls on the ground, even if it is pleasing to the owner, does not make food susceptible to ritual impurity. When should you raise this dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: It does not have the same legal status as the ground. What is the halakha with respect to imparting susceptibility to ritual impurity? The Gemara concludes: An answer to this question was not found; therefore, the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讜讟讬 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讻讬 讗转讬讗 讛讱 讗讬转转讗 诇拽诪讱

Rav Ne岣mya, son of Rav Yosef, sent a message to Rabba son of Rav Huna the Short at Neharde鈥檃: When this woman bearing this letter comes before you,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 66

讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 讜讛专讜讚讛 诪诪谞讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讜诪拽讘诇转 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 讜讛专讜讚讛 诪诪谞讛 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专

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.

讛转诐 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讟讘诇 讗讜转讛 讘讬注专转 讛讚讘砖

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: 鈥淎nd he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb [ya鈥檃rat hadevash]鈥 (I聽Samuel 14:27).

诪讛 讬注专 讛转讜诇砖 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讚讘砖 讛专讜讚讛 诪诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

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鈥檚 opinion with regard to the pipe in the baraita.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讚祝 讚转谞谉 讚祝 砖诇 谞讞转讜诪讬谉 砖拽讘注讜 讘讻讜转诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讟讛专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉

Rather, the reference with regard to the hollowed-out duct must be to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning a baker鈥檚 board on which he kneads the dough, as we learned in a mishna (Kelim 15:2): With regard to a baker鈥檚 board [daf shel na岣omin] 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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞拽拽讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讘注讜 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讘注讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞拽拽讜 谞诪讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 board was affixed to the wall.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讜砖讗谞讬 驻砖讜讟讬 讻诇讬 注抓 讚讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讘谞谉

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚砖讗讬讘讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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?

讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚专讘谞谉 讜注讜讚 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讚祝 砖诇 诪转讻转 诪讞诇讜拽转

But this is difficult, as we maintain that the halakha that drawn water invalidates a ritual bath applies only by rabbinic decree. And furthermore, doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi 岣nina say that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is with regard to a board of metal, and a metal vessel, even if it is flat and lacks a receptacle, is susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law? This means that, according to Rabbi Eliezer, even a vessel that is susceptible to ritual impurity by Torah law loses its status as a vessel when it is affixed to the ground. Consequently, the question returns: Whose opinion is cited in the baraita that states that if one first hollowed out a duct and afterward fixed it to the ground, it is still considered a vessel and water flowing through it invalidates a ritual bath, but if he first fixed it to the ground and afterward hollowed it out, the water flowing through it does not invalidate a ritual bath?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜砖讗谞讬 砖讗讬讘讛 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, one can explain that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem the baker鈥檚 metal board susceptible to ritual impurity even when it is fixed to a wall, but the halakha governing drawn water added to a deficient ritual bath is different, because drawn water invalidates a deficient ritual bath only by rabbinic law, and therefore the Rabbis were lenient.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞拽拽讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 拽讘注讜 谞诪讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讘转诇讜砖

The Gemara asks: If so, then even if one first hollowed out the duct and only afterward fixed it to the ground, water flowing through it should not invalidate the ritual bath as well. The Gemara answers: It is different there, where the duct was hollowed out before being affixed to the ground, as the duct had the status of a vessel when it was still detached from the ground, and therefore the Rabbis were not willing to be lenient to such an extent and rule that water flowing through the duct does not invalidate a ritual bath.

讘注讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛诐 诇讛讚讬讞 讗转 讛讗讬爪讟专讜讘诇讬谉 诪讛讜 诇讝专注讬诐

Rav Yosef raises a dilemma: With regard to rainwater that was falling and the owner consciously desired that it should fall so that it would wash his immovable lower millstones, what is the halakha with regard to the seeds in the millstones? The verse 鈥淏ut if any water be put upon the seed鈥t shall be unclean to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38) teaches that seeds and other food become susceptible to ritual purity only after they have been detached from the ground, and water, or another of the seven liquids specified in the mishna (Makhshirin 6:4), has been put on them. The food must be exposed to the liquid willfully by the owner; that is, he must desire or at least be pleased that the food should become wet. Rav Yosef asks about a case where the owner wants the rain to fall on the millstones: Does that water make the seeds upon which it falls susceptible to ritual impurity?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽专拽注 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞讜 讻拽专拽注 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara clarifies Rav Yosef鈥檚 question: Do not raise this dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Anything attached to the ground has the same legal status as the ground. Since the lower millstones are attached to the ground, they therefore have the same legal status as the ground, and water that falls on the ground, even if it is pleasing to the owner, does not make food susceptible to ritual impurity. When should you raise this dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: It does not have the same legal status as the ground. What is the halakha with respect to imparting susceptibility to ritual impurity? The Gemara concludes: An answer to this question was not found; therefore, the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讜讟讬 诇谞讛专讚注讗 讻讬 讗转讬讗 讛讱 讗讬转转讗 诇拽诪讱

Rav Ne岣mya, son of Rav Yosef, sent a message to Rabba son of Rav Huna the Short at Neharde鈥檃: When this woman bearing this letter comes before you,

Scroll To Top