Bava Batra 79
עַד נֹפַח״ – עַד שֶׁתָּבֹא אֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה נִיפּוּחַ, ״עַד מֵידְבָא״ – עַד שֶׁתַּדְאִיב נִשְׁמָתָן. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: עַד דְּעָבֵיד מַאי דְּבָעֵי.
even until Nophah,” meaning until the fire comes that does not require fanning [nippuaḥ], i.e., the fire of Gehenna, which will consume them. “Until Medeba [Medeva]”; this means until their souls are pained [tadiv]. And some say an alternative explanation: It means until God does what He wishes [mai deva’ei] with them and punishes them as they deserve.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – אֵשׁ אוֹכַלְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתִּי [אֶת] פָּנַי בָּהֶם, מֵהָאֵשׁ יָצָאוּ וְהָאֵשׁ תֹּאכְלֵם״.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who separates himself from matters of Torah, a fire consumes him, as it is stated: “And I will set My face against them; out of the fire they come forth, and the fire shall devour them” (Ezekiel 15:7). The Torah is likened to fire in the verse: “Is not My word like fire?” (Jeremiah 23:29). The verse in Ezekiel teaches: “Out of the fire they come forth,” referring to those who separate themselves from the fire of Torah; “and the fire shall devour them,” i.e., they are consumed by the fire of Gehenna.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הַפּוֹרֵשׁ עַצְמוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָדָם תּוֹעֶה מִדֶּרֶךְ הַשְׂכֵּל, בִּקְהַל רְפָאִים יָנוּחַ״. וְאֵין רְפָאִים אֶלָּא גֵּיהִנָּם – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יָדַע כִּי רְפָאִים שָׁם, בְּעִמְקֵי שְׁאוֹל קְרֻאֶיהָ.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who separates himself from the matters of Torah falls into Gehenna. As it is stated: “The man who strays out of the way of understanding shall rest in the congregation of the spirits” (Proverbs 21:16). “The way of understanding” is the way of the Torah. And one who departs from the Torah arrives in the place of the spirits, which is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “But he does not know that the spirits are there; that those whom she has called are in the depths of the netherworld” (Proverbs 9:18).
מָכַר אַשְׁפָּה – מָכַר זִבְלָהּ וְכוּ׳. תְּנַן הָתָם: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת; לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וְלֹא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ; לֹא לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְלֹא לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.
§ The mishna teaches: One who sold a dunghill has sold its manure, and one who sold a cistern has sold its water. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Me’ila 12b): With regard to any item that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar but is not fit for Temple maintenance, or is fit for Temple maintenance but not for the altar, or items that are fit neither for the altar nor for Temple maintenance in their current state and are slated to be sold with the profit used for the Temple, in all these cases if one consecrates these items and then derives benefit from them or their contents for a non-sacred purpose, he thereby is liable for misuse of consecrated property and is obligated to bring an offering as atonement.
כֵּיצַד? הִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר מְלֵאָה מַיִם; אַשְׁפּוֹת מְלֵאוֹת זֶבֶל; שׁוֹבָךְ מָלֵא יוֹנִים; שָׂדֶה מְלֵאָה עֲשָׂבִים; אִילָן נָשׂוּי; פֵּירוֹת – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.
How so? One who consecrated a cistern filled with water, dunghills filled with manure, a dovecote filled with doves, a field filled with plants, or a tree bearing fruit, and subsequently derived benefit from them or their contents is liable for misuse of consecrated property.
אֲבָל הִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלֵּא מַיִם; אַשְׁפָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְּאָה זֶבֶל; שׁוֹבָךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלֵּא יוֹנִים; אִילָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָשָׂא פֵּירוֹת; שָׂדֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְּאָה עֲשָׂבִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֶת הָאִילָן – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְגִידּוּלֵיהֶם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
But with regard to one who consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dunghill and it was later filled with manure, a dovecote and it later was filled with doves, a tree and it later bore fruit, or a field and it was later filled with plants, if he derives benefit from them he is liable for misuse of consecrated property but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property by deriving benefit from its contents. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to one who consecrated a field or a tree, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from them or that which grows from them, because they are growths of consecrated property.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן. הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא ״נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ״ – מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג אַשָּׂדֶה וְאִילָן,
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, i.e., if one consecrated an empty cistern or dovecote, the water or doves that later fill it do not become consecrated. And the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears to be correct in the cases of a field and a tree. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Granted, when he says that the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, by inference this means that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Yosei in the cases of a field and a tree, and Rabbi Yehuda does explicitly disagree in those cases.
אֶלָּא ״נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן״ – מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיג בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ?! וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי ״שָׂדֶה וְאִילָן״ קָאָמַר!
But when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the statement of Rabbi Yosei appears to be correct in the cases of a field and a tree, this indicates by inference that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. But Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion solely in the cases of a field and a tree, as only plants and fruit grow directly from consecrated property, and this reasoning is not relevant in the case of a cistern or dovecote.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָאָמַר; וְהַתַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין אֲנִי רוֹאֶה דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גִּידּוּלֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ. בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה, הָא בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – רוֹאֶה!
And if you would say that Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas he himself holds that even the items found in a dovecote or a cistern are consecrated, this is difficult: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I do not see the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as correct in the cases of a field and a tree, because the plants and the fruit are the growths of consecrated property? Infer from here that it is in the cases of a field and a tree that Rabbi Yosei does not see and accept the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. But in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, he does see and accept his opinion.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – שֶׁאַף רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא נֶחְלַק עָלָיו אֶלָּא בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, אֲבָל בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to Rabbi Yosei to be correct in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. In other words, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying that even Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda only in the cases of a field and a tree. But in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, he concedes to him that the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property does not apply to items that were added afterward and were not present at the time of the consecration.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הִקְדִּישָׁן רֵיקָנִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַלְּאוּ – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.
The Sages taught: In the case of cisterns, with regard to one who consecrated them when they were empty and they were later filled, if one derives benefit from them he is liable for misuse of consecrated property, but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from their contents. This ruling will be clarified below. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One is liable for misuse of consecrated property even by deriving benefit from their contents.
אָמַר רַבָּה: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן – דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי; אֲבָל בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בְּמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.
Rabba says: This dispute in the baraita applies only in the cases of a field and a tree, as the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. But in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, everyone agrees that if one derives benefit from them he is liable for misuse of consecrated property but he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit from their contents.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הִקְדִּישָׁן מְלֵאִין – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַחְלִיף;
Abaye said to him: But consider that which is taught in the continuation of the baraita: If one consecrated them when they were full and then derives benefit from them or from their contents, he is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, reverses his previous ruling in this case and holds that if the items were consecrated when full their contents are not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.
וְאִי בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן, אַמַּאי מַחְלִיף? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ, אֲבָל בְּשָׂדֶה וְאִילָן – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן וּבְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן.
And if their dispute is referring to a field and a tree, why does Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, reverse his opinion? Rather, Rabba’s statement must be adjusted, and this is what Rabba said: This dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, applies only in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote. But in the cases of a field and a tree, everyone agrees that one is liable for misuse of consecrated property if one derives benefit from them or their contents.
וּבְבוֹר וְשׁוֹבָךְ – בְּרֵיקָנִין בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי, וּבִמְלֵאִין בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? בְּרֵיקָנִין – פְּלִיגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן;
The Gemara asks: And in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, where the cistern and the dovecote are empty, with regard to what matter do they disagree? And similarly, where the cistern and the dovecote are full, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: In the cases of a cistern and a dovecote that are empty, they disagree with regard to the matter that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis.
דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם.
The first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, disagree because the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A person cannot transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world, i.e., that one does not currently own. Therefore, one cannot consecrate water or doves that will enter the cistern or dovecote only in the future. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person can transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world.
אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – כְּגוֹן פֵּירוֹת דֶּקֶל, דַּעֲבִידִי דְּאָתוּ; הָנֵי – מִי יֵימַר דְּאָתוּ? אָמַר רָבָא: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּמַיִם הַבָּאִין דֶּרֶךְ חֲצֵרוֹ לַבּוֹר, וְיוֹנִים הַבָּאִין דֶּרֶךְ שׁוֹבָכוֹ לַשּׁוֹבָךְ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: You can say that you heard Rabbi Meir express this opinion in a case such as the fruit of palm trees, which are likely to come into existence, as the trees naturally produce fruit. But with regard to these doves and water, who can say that they will come? Rava said: You can find cases where one consecrates water or doves that are likely to arrive, e.g., in the case of water that comes by way of his courtyard into the cistern when it rains, so that he does not need to fill the cistern. And similarly with regard to doves that come by way of his other, full dovecote into this empty dovecote.
וּבִמְלֵאִים בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? אָמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ בּוֹר סְתָם; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כַּאֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: דָּנִין דִּין גָּבוֹהַּ מִדִּין הֶדְיוֹט,
The Gemara asks: And in cases where the cistern and the dovecote are full, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Rava said: This dispute concerns a case where he consecrated a cistern without specification. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, who says: One infers the halakha of consecration to the Most High from the halakha of transactions between one ordinary person [hedyot] and another.
מָה דִּין הֶדְיוֹט – מָצֵי אֲמַר: בֵּירָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ, מַיָּא לָא זַבֵּינִי לָךְ; אַף דִּין גָּבוֹהַּ – בֵּירָא אַקְדֵּישׁ, מַיָּא לָא אַקְדֵּישׁ. וְתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: אֵין דָּנִין דִּין גָּבוֹהַּ מִדִּין הֶדְיוֹט.
The Gemara elaborates: Just as the halakha with regard to transactions between one ordinary person and another is that one can say: I sold you the cistern but I did not sell you the water it contains, so too, the halakha in the case of consecration to the Most High is that one can say: I consecrated the cistern but I did not consecrate the water within it. And the first tanna holds that one does not infer the halakha of consecration to the Most High from the halakha of transactions between one ordinary person and another. Rather, one who consecrates property does so generously, i.e., the most expansive meaning is assumed for his vow of consecration, and therefore even if he did not say so explicitly, he consecrated the water together with the cistern.
וְדִין הֶדְיוֹט לָא?! וְהָתְנַן: מָכַר בּוֹר – מָכַר מֵימָיו! אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין יְחִידָאָה הִיא – דְּתַנְיָא: מָכַר בּוֹר – לֹא מָכַר מֵימָיו. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מָכַר בּוֹר – מָכַר מֵימָיו.
The Gemara asks: And does the halakha concerning a transaction with an ordinary person say that one does not sell the water along with the cistern? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (78b) that one who sold a cistern has sold its water? Rava said: The ruling in the mishna is an individual opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: One who sold a cistern has not sold its water. Rabbi Natan says: One who sold a cistern has sold its water.
