Bava Batra 157

עד נפח עד שתבא אש שאינה צריכה ניפוח עד מידבא עד שתדאיב נשמתן ואמרי לה עד דעביד מאי דבעי

<i>even unto Nophah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹</span> — until there comes a fire which requires no fanning;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nophah. root [H] 'blowing'. ');">²</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל הפורש מדברי תורה אש אוכלתו שנאמר (יחזקאל טו, ז) ונתתי [את] פני בהם מהאש יצאו והאש תאכלם

<i>unto Medebah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">³</span> — until it will melt their souls.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I. e., the souls of the wicked. [H] is here derived from the root [H] 'to melt'. ');">⁴</span>

כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יונתן כל הפורש עצמו מד"ת נופל בגיהנם שנאמר (משלי כא, טז) אדם תועה מדרך השכל בקהל רפאים ינוח ואין רפאים אלא גיהנם שנאמר (משלי ט, יח) ולא ידע כי רפאים שם בעמקי שאול קרואיה:

Others interpret: Until He had accomplished what he desired<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], is regarded as a contraction of [H] 'until he had done what he wanted'. ['Aleph and 'Ayin are interchangeable]. ');">⁵</span> [to do to the wicked].

מכר אשפה מכר זבלה וכו': תנן התם כל הראוי למזבח ולא לבדק הבית לבדק הבית ולא למזבח לא למזבח ולא לבדק הבית מועלין בהן ובמה שבתוכן

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Whosoever departs from the words of the Torah is consumed by fire; for it is said: <i>And I will set my face against them; out of the fire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fire is symbolic of the Torah. Cf. Jer. XXIII. 29 and Deut. XXXIII, 2. ');">⁶</span></i> are they come forth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They have departed from the words of the Torah which is compared to fire. ');">⁷</span>

כיצד הקדיש בור מלאה מים אשפות מלאות זבל שובך מלא יונים שדה מלאה עשבים אילן נשוי פירות מועלין בהן ובמה שבתוכן

and the fire shall devour them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XV, 7. ');">⁸</span> When R. Dimi came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylonia. ');">⁹</span>

אבל הקדיש בור ואחר כך נתמלא מים אשפה ואחר כך נתמלאה זבל שובך ואח"כ נתמלא יונים אילן ואחר כך נשא פירות שדה ואחר כך נתמלאה עשבים מועלין בהן ואין מועלין במה שבתוכן דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר המקדיש את השדה ואת האילן מועלין בהן ובגידוליהם מפני שהן גידולי הקדש

he said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whosoever departs from the words of the Torah falls into Gehenna, for it is said: <i>The man that strayeth out of the way of understanding shall rest in the congregation of the shades</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXI, 16. ');">¹⁰</span> and <i>the shades</i> must be synonymous with Gehenna for it is said: <i>But he knoweth not that the shades are there, that her guests are in the depths of Sheol</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IX, 18. She'ol = Gehenna, is a parallelism of Refaim = Shades. ');">¹¹</span>

תניא אמר רבי נראין דברי ר' יהודה בבור ושובך ודברי ר' יוסי בשדה ואילן האי מאי בשלמא נראין דברי ר' יהודה בבור ושובך מכלל דפליג אשדה ואילן

HE WHO SOLD A DUNGHILL HAS [ALSO] SOLD THE MANURE IN IT, etc. We learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Me'il. 13a. ');">¹²</span> [In the case of] all [objects which are] suitable for the altar and not for the Temple repair,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., unblemished cattle, flour or wine. ');">¹³</span>

אלא נראין דברי רבי יוסי בשדה ואילן מכלל דפליג בבור ושובך והא רבי יוסי שדה ואילן קאמר

[or] for Temple repair and not for the altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. gold, silver or precious stones. ');">¹⁴</span> [and also in the case of those which are suitable] neither for the altar nor for Temple repair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., milk, cheese or herbs which can only be sold and their proceeds used for the Temple or altar purposes. ');">¹⁵</span>

וכי תימא לדבריו דרבי יהודה קאמר והתניא אמר רבי יוסי אין אני רואה דבריו של ר' יהודה בשדה ואילן מפני שהן גידולי הקדש בשדה ואילן הוא דאינו רואה הא בבור ושובך רואה

they and their contents are subject to the law of <i>Me'ilah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [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, ');">¹⁶</span> 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 <i>Me'ilah</i> is applicable both to them and to their contents. [If,] however, one dedicated a cistern which was subsequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the dedication. ');">¹⁷</span>

הכי קאמר נראין דברי רבי יהודה לרבי יוסי בבור ושובך שאף רבי יוסי לא נחלק עליו אלא בשדה ואילן אבל בבור ושובך מודי ליה

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 <i>Me'ilah</i> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he who dedicates the field or the tree'. ');">¹⁸</span> they and their products are subject to the law of <i>Me'ilah</i>, because [the latter] are the growths of consecrated property.

תנו רבנן הקדישן ריקנין ואח"כ נתמלאו מועלין בהן ואין מועלין במה שבתוכן רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר אף מועלין במה שבתוכן

It has been taught: Rabbi said: The opinion of R. Judah is acceptable in [the case of] a cistern and a dove-cote,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the opinion that if these were filled subsequent to the dedication, their contents are not subject to the laws of Me'ilah. ');">¹⁹</span> and the opinion of R. Jose in [the case of] a field and a tree. How [do you understand] that?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi's statement. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר רבה מחלוקת בשדה ואילן דתנא קמא סבר לה כרבי יהודה ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סבר לה כר' יוסי אבל בבור ושובך דברי הכל מועלין בהן ואין מועלין במה שבתוכן

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Judah speaks not only of a cistern and a dove-cote but also of a field and a tree. ');">²¹</span> but [as regards the expression], 'the opinion of R. Jose is acceptable in [the case of] a field and a tree', which implies that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi. ');">²²</span>

א"ל אביי ואלא הא דתניא הקדישן מלאין מועלין בהן ובמה שבתוכן ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מחליף

disagrees [with him in [the case of] a cistern and a dove-cote, surely R. Jose speaks [only] of a field and a tree!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'. ');">²³</span> And if you would reply that [R. Jose] argues in accordance with the views of R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Demanding his agreement at least on field and tree. ');">²⁴</span> [and that he himself is in entire disagreement with them],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²⁵</span> surely it has been taught: R. Jose said: I do not accept R. Judah's views on a field and a tree, because these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the herbs and the fruit that grew after the dedication. ');">²⁶</span> are the products of consecrated objects. [This clearly proves that] only in the case of field and tree he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose. ');">²⁷</span> does not accept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The views of R. Judah. ');">²⁸</span> but in [the case of] cistern and dove-cote he does accept!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The views of R. Judah. How then, as previously asked, could Rabbi use the expression, 'the opinion of R. Jose is acceptable etc?'. ');">²⁹</span> — 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 them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara will explain what objects the pronoun represents. ');">³⁰</span> empty, and subsequently they were filled, the law of <i>Me'ilah</i> is applicable to them but not to their contents. R. Eleazar b. Simeon says: The law of <i>Me'ilah</i> is applicable to their contents also. Said Rabbah: The dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this last quoted Baraitha. ');">³¹</span> 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, both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'The words of all'. ');">³²</span> agree that the law of <i>Me'ilah</i> applies to them and not to their contents. Abaye said unto him: But surely it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What follows is a continuation of the Baraitha just quoted and discussed. ');">³³</span> If one dedicated them when full, <i>Me'ilah</i> is applicable to them and to their contents, and R. Eleazar b. Simeon reverses [his previous view].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">³⁴</span>