Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 79a

even unto Nophah,¹  — until there comes a fire which requires no fanning;²  unto Medebah³  — until it will melt their souls.⁴  Others interpret: Until He had accomplished what he desired⁵  [to do to the wicked].

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Whosoever departs from the words of the Torah is consumed by fire; for it is said: And I will set my face against them; out of the fire⁶  are they come forth⁷  and the fire shall devour them.⁸  When R. Dimi came⁹  he said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whosoever departs from the words of the Torah falls into Gehenna, for it is said: The man that strayeth out of the way of understanding shall rest in the congregation of the shades;¹⁰  and the shades must be synonymous with Gehenna for it is said: But he knoweth not that the shades are there, that her guests are in the depths of Sheol.¹¹

HE WHO SOLD A DUNGHILL HAS [ALSO] SOLD THE MANURE IN IT, etc. We learnt elsewhere:¹²  [In the case of] all [objects which are] suitable for the altar and not for the Temple repair,¹³  [or] for Temple repair and not for the altar¹⁴  [and also in the case of those which are suitable] neither for the altar nor for Temple repair.¹⁵  they and their contents are subject to the law of Me'ilah.¹⁶  How so? [If] one dedicated a cistern full of water, dunghills full of manure, a dove-cote full of doves, a field full of herbs [or] a tree bearing fruit, the law of Me'ilah is applicable both to them and to their contents. [If,] however, one dedicated a cistern which was subsequently¹⁷  filled with water, a dunghill which was subsequently filled with manure, a dove-cote, which was subsequently filled with doves, a tree which subsequently began to bear fruit [or] a field which was subsequently filled with herbs, [in all these cases] the law of Me'ilah is applicable to the objects but not to their contents. These are the words of R. Judah. R. Jose says: If fields or trees are dedicated,¹⁸  they and their products are subject to the law of Me'ilah, because [the latter] are the growths of consecrated property.

It has been taught: Rabbi said: The opinion of R. Judah is acceptable in [the case of] a cistern and a dove-cote,¹⁹  and the opinion of R. Jose in [the case of] a field and a tree. How [do you understand] that?²⁰  It is quite correct [for Rabbi to say that] 'the opinion of R. Judah is acceptable in [the case of] a cistern and a dove-cote' and thus to imply that he disagrees with him in [the case of] a field and a tree;²¹  but [as regards the expression], 'the opinion of R. Jose is acceptable in [the case of] a field and a tree', which implies that he²²  disagrees [with him in [the case of] a cistern and a dove-cote, surely R. Jose speaks [only] of a field and a tree!²³  And if you would reply that [R. Jose] argues in accordance with the views of R. Judah²⁴  [and that he himself is in entire disagreement with them],²⁵  surely it has been taught: R. Jose said: I do not accept R. Judah's views on a field and a tree, because these²⁶  are the products of consecrated objects. [This clearly proves that] only in the case of field and tree he²⁷  does not accept,²⁸  but in [the case of] cistern and dove-cote he does accept!²⁹  — This [is what Rabbi implied: The opinion of R. Judah is acceptable to R. Jose in [the case of] a cistern and a dove-cote, because even R. Jose disagreed with him only on field and tree, but on cistern and dovecote he agrees with him.

Our Rabbis taught: If one dedicated them³⁰  empty, and subsequently they were filled, the law of Me'ilah is applicable to them but not to their contents. R. Eleazar b. Simeon says: The law of Me'ilah is applicable to their contents also.

Said Rabbah: The dispute³¹  has reference to field and tree, for the first Tanna holds the same opinion as R. Judah, and R. Eleazar b. Simeon is of the same opinion as R. Jose; but in [the case of] cistern and dove-cote, both³²  agree that the law of Me'ilah applies to them and not to their contents. Abaye said unto him: But surely it has been taught:³³  If one dedicated them when full, Me'ilah is applicable to them and to their contents, and R. Eleazar b. Simeon reverses [his previous view].³⁴

1. Ibid.
2. Nophah. root [H] 'blowing'.
3. Ibid.
4. I. e., the souls of the wicked. [H] is here derived from the root [H] 'to melt'.
5. [H], is regarded as a contraction of [H] 'until he had done what he wanted'. ['Aleph and 'Ayin are interchangeable].
6. Fire is symbolic of the Torah. Cf. Jer. XXIII. 29 and Deut. XXXIII, 2.
7. They have departed from the words of the Torah which is compared to fire.
8. Ezek. XV, 7.
9. From Palestine to Babylonia.
10. Prov. XXI, 16.
11. Ibid. IX, 18. She'ol = Gehenna, is a parallelism of Refaim = Shades.
12. Me'il. 13a.
13. E.g., unblemished cattle, flour or wine.
14. E.g.. gold, silver or precious stones.
15. E.g., milk, cheese or herbs which can only be sold and their proceeds used for the Temple or altar purposes.
16. [H] (from root [H] 'to trespass' or 'to defraud'). The trespass offering prescribed for the inappropriate use of objects consecrated to the altar or Temple; v. Lev. v. 15ff,
17. After the dedication.
18. Lit., 'he who dedicates the field or the tree'.
19. Viz., the opinion that if these were filled subsequent to the dedication, their contents are not subject to the laws of Me'ilah.
20. Rabbi's statement.
21. Since R. Judah speaks not only of a cistern and a dove-cote but also of a field and a tree.
22. Rabbi.
23. But in the case of a cistern and a dove-cote R. Jose agrees with R. Judah! Rabbi's statement, therefore, should have read, either 'the opinion of R. Jose is acceptable' or 'the law is according to R. Jose'.
24. Demanding his agreement at least on field and tree.
25. I.e., as far as R. Jose himself is concerned he not only disputes R. Judah's opinion in the case of field and tree hut also in that of cistern and dove-cote. And, consequently, Rabbi's expression regarding R. Jose would also be correct.
26. I.e., the herbs and the fruit that grew after the dedication.
27. R. Jose.
28. The views of R. Judah.
29. The views of R. Judah. How then, as previously asked, could Rabbi use the expression, 'the opinion of R. Jose is acceptable etc?'.
30. The Gemara will explain what objects the pronoun represents.
31. In this last quoted Baraitha.
32. Lit., 'The words of all'.
33. What follows is a continuation of the Baraitha just quoted and discussed.
34. Though, if dedicated when empty. he subjects the contents (that were added later) to the law of Me'ilah; if dedicated when full, he exempts the contents from this law.

Now, if [the dispute has reference] to field and tree,¹  why does he reverse [his view]?²  Consequently³  Rabbah said: The dispute⁴  [has reference] to cistern and dove-cote, but [in the case of] field and tree both agree that they and their contents are subject to the law of Me'ilah. On what principle do they⁵  differ when the cistern and dove-cote are empty, and on what principle do they differ when the cistern and dove-cote are full? — When [the cistern and dove-cote are] empty, the dispute is analogous to that of R. Meir and the Rabbis. For the first Tanna is of the same opinion as the Rabbis who said no one can hand over possession of a thing that does not exist,⁶  while R. Eleazar b. Simeon is of the same opinion as R. Meir who said⁷  that one can hand over possession of a thing that does not exist.⁸  [But] say! where has R. Meir been heard [to express his view? Only in the case], for example, as that of fruits of a palm-tree, because they generally come up, but [as to] these,⁹  who can assert that they will come?¹⁰  — Raba said: It is possible¹¹  when water runs through his [own] courtyard into the cistern and when doves come through his dove-cote into the [dedicated] dove-cote. And in what case do they differ when [the cistern and dove-cote are] full? — Raba said: For example. when he dedicated a cistern without mentioning its contents; and R. Eleazar b. Simeon holds the same opinion as his father who said: We may infer the law concerning sacred property from the ordinary law.¹²  As [in the case of] ordinary¹³  law one can Say: 'I sold you a cistern, I did not sell you water so [in the case of] the law concerning sacred things [one can say]: 'I dedicated the cistern, I did not dedicate the water'.¹⁴  But [can it be said that in] the ordinary law [the water is] not [implicitly sold]? Surely we learnt: He who sold a cistern has also sold its water!¹⁵  Raba replied: This Mishnah represents an individual opinion;¹⁶  for it has been taught: He who sold a cistern has not sold its water. R. Nathan said: He who sold a cistern has sold its water.

1. Since the first part of the Baraitha speaks of field and tree, the second part obviously speaks of the same objects.
2. If he subjects to Me'ilah contents that were added after the dedication, how much more should he subject to Me'ilah the contents that were already there at the time of the dedication!
3. Lit., 'but'.
4. Between R. Eleazar b. Simeon and the first Tanna.
5. R. Eleazar and the first Tanna.
6. Lit., 'that has not come to the world'. Consequently the doves and the water, being non-existent at the time of the dedication, are not regarded as the property of the sanctuary, and the appropriation of them involves no trespass offering.
7. Cf. infra 127b, 131a, 157b; Yeb. 39a; Kid. 62b, 78b; Git. 23b, 42b; B.M., 16b, 33b.
8. V. supra n. 9.
9. Water and doves.
10. Unless he is himself to bring water to the cistern and doves to the cote. In such a case R. Meir will agree that one cannot hand over possession of a thing that does not exist and affords thus no support to R. Eleazar.
11. To make such an assertion.
12. V. supra 72a.
13. As opposed to sacred or divine.
14. And therefore he holds that where there was water in the cistern the water is not included in the dedication.
15. Supra 78b.
16. The opinion of R. Nathan who is in opposition to the accepted opinion expressed in the first clause of the following Baraitha.