Bava Batra 79a — the Talmud in English

"And it burns" [

wording of fire]

"until volume" —

wait

until there comes a fire

of Gehinnom

that does not require blowing

with a bellows.

"Until Midvava" —

wait

until it causes distress

the fire and torments

their souls

of the wicked.

And some say [

there are those who interpret]: “until Midvava,” that is,

until He does

the Holy One, blessed is He,

whatever He wishes,

what He wishes to do with the wicked in the World to Come, for in this world the way of the wicked prospers, in order to drive them away in the World to Come.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: Anyone who separates himself from words of Torah, fire consumes him, as it is stated [

Ezekiel 15:7]:

“I shall set My face against them; from the fire they went forth, and the fire shall consume them,”

meaning, they went forth and separated from the Torah, which is fire, and their punishment will be measure for measure: the fire shall consume them.

When Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Jonathan: Anyone who separates

— separates and distinguishes

himself from words of Torah —

falls into Gehinnom. As it is stated [

Proverbs 21:16]:

“A man who strays from the way of understanding shall rest in the assembly of the shades,”

a man who strays on his way and separates from the way of Torah, which is the way of wisdom and uprightness, will ultimately deteriorate and fall day by day, and will rest only upon his death, when he will be among the assembly of the congregation of “shades” — the people of Gehinnom.

And “shades” means none other than Gehinnom, as it is stated [

Proverbs 9:18]:

“But he does not know that shades are there, in the depths of the Pit, her invited ones,”

one who follows his desire and sins does not imagine that his way will bring him to Gehinnom, for there — the place of those who follow desire — are “shades,” Gehinnom, and those invited and summoned for desires will descend to the depth of the “Pit” — Gehinnom.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who sells a refuse heap sells its manure,”

one who sells a pit sells its water; one who sells a dovecote sells its doves; one who sells a pigeon house sells its pigeons.

The Gemara brings a Mishna in tractate Meila [13a] and discusses its words, since at the end of the sugya it raises an objection from our Mishna.

A. It is forbidden for an ordinary person to derive benefit from the sacred property of the Name, whether from things offered upon the altar, or from sacred property for the maintenance of the Temple — both those that are themselves fit for an offering and for the needs of constructing the Temple, and those that were consecrated in order to be sold and to purchase with their proceeds offerings or building needs,

B. Anyone who derives benefit worth a peruta from the sacred property of the Name has committed meila. One who commits meila intentionally is flogged and pays what he diminished from the consecrated property; one who commits meila unintentionally pays what he benefited from, adds a fifth, and brings a ram worth two sela and offers it as a guilt-offering, and atones for himself. This is what is called: “the guilt-offering for meilot.”

We learned there [

in Meila 13a]:

Every

thing

that is fit for

offering upon the

altar, but is not

fit

for the maintenance of the Temple,

such as unblemished oxen, sheep, and goats, turtledoves and young doves that are fit for an offering, and likewise fine flour, wine, and oil that are fit for meal-offerings and libations; all these are not fit to be burned in construction. If he consecrated them for the altar, one commits meila with them. And anything fit

for the maintenance of the Temple, but is not

fit

for the altar,

such as gold, silver, and precious stones, if he consecrated them for the maintenance of the Temple, for the needs of constructing the Temple, one commits meila with them.

And even if their bodies are

not

fit

for

offering upon the

altar, and not

for being placed itself

for the maintenance of the Temple,

such as milk, cheese, refuse, and grasses, if he consecrated them in order to sell them and purchase with their proceeds an animal for an offering or the needs of the maintenance of the Temple, one commits meila with them.

And not only if he consecrated them themselves, but even if he consecrated things that have objects inside them, they are consecrated, and so too what is inside them, and

one commits meila with them and with what is inside them.

How so?

A. If he

consecrated a pit,

and at the time of the consecration the pit was

full of water.

The pit itself is therefore sacred for its value, and likewise the water inside it became sacred, and one commits meila with the pit and with the water inside it.

B. And likewise, if he consecrated

refuse heaps full of manure,

they are sacred for their value, and one commits meila with them and with what is inside them.

C. And likewise, if he consecrated

a pigeon house full of pigeons,

the pigeon house itself is sacred for its value, and the pigeons are offered upon the altar, and one commits meila with the pigeon house and with the pigeons inside it.

D. And likewise, if he consecrated

a field full of grasses,

they are sacred for their value.

E. And likewise, if he consecrated

a laden tree,

bearing

fruit,

they are sacred for their value, and

one commits meila with them and with what is inside them.

And specifically if they were full at the time of the consecration,

but

if he consecrated them when they were empty, and afterward they became full, one commits meila with them, but one does not commit meila with what is inside them.

How?

1. If

he consecrated a pit and afterward it became filled

the pit

with water.

The pit is consecrated and one commits misuse with it, but the water is not consecrated. 2. And likewise, if he consecrated

a refuse pit

empty

and afterward it became filled

the refuse pit

with dung,

the refuse pit is consecrated and one commits misuse with it, but the dung is not consecrated.

3. And likewise, if he consecrated

a dovecote

empty

and afterward it became filled

the dovecote

with pigeons,

the dovecote is consecrated and one commits misuse with it, but the pigeons are not consecrated.

4. And likewise, if he consecrated

a tree

without fruit

and afterward the tree bore

the tree

fruit.

5. And likewise, if he consecrated

a field

empty, and

afterward it became filled

the field

with grass,

the tree and the field are consecrated, and

one commits misuse with them, but one does not commit misuse with what is inside them,

since the fruit that grew on the tree and the grass in the field were not consecrated,

these are

the words of Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds: There is no misuse with growths of consecrated property, even though the consecrated property caused the fruit and the grass to grow.

Rabbi Yose

disagrees and

says: One who consecrates the field

and afterward the field becomes filled with grass,

and

likewise, one who consecrates

the tree, one commits misuse with them and with their growths, because they are growths of consecrated property,

and since they come from the body of the consecrated property, they are consecrated like it.

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Yehuda appear

who says: If he consecrated them empty and they became filled, one commits misuse with them but not with what is inside them—

in the case of a pit and a dovecote.

And

the words appear

of Rabbi Yose

who says: If he consecrated them empty and they became filled, one commits misuse with them and with what is inside them—

in the case of a field and a tree,

and the Gemara explains it shortly.

It enters our mind: What Rabbi said, “the words appear,” means, “the words appear to me.” Rabbi said that the words of Rabbi Yehuda in the case of a pit and a dovecote appear and are reasonable to him, while, on the other hand, the view of Rabbi Yose in the case of a tree and a field is reasonable.

And we raise an objection:

What is this?

For it is impossible to say this.

For

granted

what Rabbi said:

The words of Rabbi Yehuda appear in the case of a pit and a dovecote,

this can indeed be understood.

For this wording implies that specifically in the case of a pit and a dovecote the words of Rabbi Yehuda appear,

from this it follows [

it is implied ]

that he disagrees

Rabbi Yehuda also

with regard to a field and a tree,

that one does not commit misuse with what is inside them, and concerning this Rabbi said that his words do not appear.

Rather,

what Rabbi said:

The words of Rabbi Yose appear in the case of a field and a tree; from this it follows,

it is implied

that he disagrees

Rabbi Yose with Rabbi Yehuda also

in the case of a pit and a dovecote.

And

this is not correct, for

Rabbi Yose

in

the case of a field and a tree said

that one commits misuse with what is inside them, but in the case of a pit and a dovecote Rabbi Yose never disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda!?

And if Rabbi intended to establish the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yose, he should have said: “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yose,” and no more; and automatically we would have understood that one commits misuse with the growths of the field and the tree, but one does not commit misuse with what is inside the pit and the dovecote,

And if you would say:

Rabbi Yose disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda even in the case of a pit and a dovecote, but his view was not mentioned in the Mishna of Me'ila.

And what Rabbi Yose said in the Mishna,

he said according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda:

I hold that in all the cases one commits misuse with what is inside them; but according to your words, that you do not concede to me concerning what came to them from outside, concede to me at least in the case of a field and a tree, whose growths are consecrated property.

Therefore Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Yose in the case of a field and a tree appear to me, because in the case of a pit and a dovecote the words of Rabbi Yehuda, and not the words of Rabbi Yose, appear to Rabbi:

And

this too cannot be said, for

behold

indeed

it was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Yose said: I do not accept the words of Rabbi Yehuda in the case of a field and a tree,

and in my view, the fruit of the tree and the grass of the field are consecrated,

because they are growths of consecrated property.

It is implied:

It is specifically in the case of a field and a tree that

Rabbi Yose said that he

does not accept

the words of Rabbi Yehuda,

but in the case of a pit and a dovecote he accepts

Rabbi Yose’s words and concedes to him.

If so, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi say, “The words of Rabbi Yose appear in the case of a field and a tree,” implying that Rabbi Yose also disagrees in the case of a pit and a dovecote, when from the beraita it is to be learned that Rabbi Yose did not disagree in the case of a pit and a dovecote!? And we answer: “The words appear,” which Rabbi said, does not mean, “The words appear to me,” but rather

this is what he is saying: The words of Rabbi Yehuda appear to Rabbi Yose in the case of a pit and a dovecote, for Rabbi Yose too disagreed with him only in the case of a field and a tree, but in the case of a pit and a dovecote

Rabbi Yose concedes to Rabbi Yehuda.

The Sages taught:

If he consecrated them empty and afterward they became filled—

one commits misuse with them, but one does not commit misuse with what is inside them,

because the consecration takes effect upon what exists at the time of the consecration, and not upon what comes there afterward.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

disagrees and

says: One also commits misuse with what is inside them,

and below the Gemara explains concerning what the first tan and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon disagreed.

He said,

he explained,

Rabba: The disagreement

between the Sages and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon is

in the case of a field and a tree

that he consecrated empty and grass and fruit grew in them.

For the first tan holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says: One does not commit misuse with growths of consecrated property; therefore one does not commit misuse with the grass and the fruit.

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with Rabbi Yose,

who says: One commits misuse with growths of consecrated property; therefore one commits misuse with them and with what is inside them.

But in the case of a pit and a dovecote

that he consecrated and afterward they became filled,

according to everyone,

both the Sages and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon hold:

one commits misuse with them, but one does not commit misuse with what is inside them,

because the consecration cannot take effect upon the water and the pigeons, which were not yet in the owner’s possession at the time of the consecration, and consecrated property also does not acquire what comes into its domain through acquisition by a courtyard.

He said,

he asked,

Abaye asked him

Rabba:

But,

according to your words,

what is the meaning of that which was taught

in the latter clause of this beraita:

If

he consecrated them full, one commits misuse with them and

also

with what is inside them.

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon reverses

his position and says: Even though if he consecrated them empty I am stringent and hold that one commits misuse with what is inside them, when he consecrated them full I am lenient and hold that one does not commit misuse with what is inside them.