Study Bava Batra folio 66B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
But this is difficult, as we maintain that the halakha that drawn water invalidates a mikveh applies only by rabbinic decree. And furthermore, doesn’t R' Yosei ben R' Ḥanina say that the dispute between R' Eliezer and the Rabbis is with regard to a board of metal, and a metal vessel, even if it is
The Talmud answers: Actually, one can explain that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who deem the baker’s metal board susceptible to ritual impurity even when it is fixed to a wall, but the halakha governing drawn water added to a deficient mikveh is different, because
The Talmud 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 mikveh as well. The Talmud answers: It is different there, where the duct was hollowed out before being affixed to the ground, as the
§ 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 “But if any water be put upon the seed…it sha
The Talmud clarifies Rav Yosef’s question: Do not raise this dilemma according to the opinion of R' 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 gro