(79a:1)עד נפח עד שתבא אש שאינה צריכה ניפוח עד מידבא עד שתדאיב נשמתן ואמרי לה עד דעביד מאי דבעי
(79a:1)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.
(79a:2)אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל הפורש מדברי תורה אש אוכלתו שנאמר (יחזקאל טו, ז) ונתתי [את] פני בהם מהאש יצאו והאש תאכלם
(79a:2)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.
(79a:3)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:
(79a:3)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).
(79a:4)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
(79a:4)§ 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.
(79a:5)כיצד הקדיש בור מלאה מים אשפות מלאות זבל שובך מלא יונים שדה מלאה עשבים אילן נשוי פירות מועלין בהן ובמה שבתוכן
(79a:5)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.
(79a:6)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
(79a:6)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.
(79a:7)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
(79a:7)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.
(79a:8)אלא נראין דברי רבי יוסי בשדה ואילן מכלל דפליג בבור ושובך והא רבי יוסי שדה ואילן קאמר
(79a:8)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.
(79a:9)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
(79a:9)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.
(79a:10)הכי קאמר נראין דברי רבי יהודה לרבי יוסי בבור ושובך שאף רבי יוסי לא נחלק עליו אלא בשדה ואילן אבל בבור ושובך מודי ליה
(79a:10)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.
(79a:11)תנו רבנן הקדישן ריקנין ואח"כ נתמלאו מועלין בהן ואין מועלין במה שבתוכן רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר אף מועלין במה שבתוכן
(79a:11)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.
(79a:12)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
(79a:12)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.
(79a:13)א"ל אביי ואלא הא דתניא הקדישן מלאין מועלין בהן ובמה שבתוכן ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מחליף
(79a:13)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.
(79b:1)ואי בשדה ואילן אמאי מחליף אלא אמר רבה מחלוקת בבור ושובך אבל בשדה ואילן דברי הכל מועלין בהן ובמה שבתוכן
(79b:1)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.
(79b:2)ובבור ושובך בריקנין במאי פליגי ובמלאין במאי פליגי בריקנין פליגי בפלוגתא דרבי מאיר ורבנן
(79b:2)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.
(79b:3)דתנא קמא סבר לה כרבנן דאמרי אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם ור"א ברבי שמעון סבר כר"מ דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם
(79b:3)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.
(79b:4)אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר כגון פירות דקל דעבידי דאתו הני מי יימר דאתו אמר רבא משכחת לה במים הבאין דרך חצרו לבור ויונים הבאין דרך שובכו לשובך
(79b:4)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.
(79b:5)ובמלאים במאי פליגי אמר רבא כגון שהקדיש בור סתם ור' אלעזר ברבי שמעון סבר לה כאבוה דאמר דנין דין גבוה מדין הדיוט
(79b:5)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.
(79b:6)מה דין הדיוט מצי אמר בירא זביני לך מיא לא זביני לך אף דין גבוה בירא אקדיש מיא לא אקדיש (ות"ק סבר אין דנין דין גבוה מדין הדיוט)
(79b:6)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.
(79b:7)ודין הדיוט לא והתנן מכר בור מכר מימיו אמר רבא מתני' יחידאה היא דתניא מכר בור לא מכר מימיו ר' נתן אומר מכר בור מכר מימיו:
(79b:7)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.
