Bava Batra

even unto Nophah,  — until there comes a fire which requires no fanning;  unto Medebah  — until it will melt their souls.  Others interpret: Until He had accomplished what he desired  [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 fire  are they come forth  and the fire shall devour them.  When R. Dimi came  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;  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. HE WHO SOLD A DUNGHILL HAS [ALSO] SOLD THE MANURE IN IT, etc. We learnt elsewhere:  [In the case of] all [objects which are] suitable for the altar and not for the Temple repair,  [or] for Temple repair and not for the altar  [and also in the case of those which are suitable] neither for the altar nor for Temple repair.  they and their contents are subject to the law of Me'ilah.  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 subsequently  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,  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,  and the opinion of R. Jose in [the case of] a field and a tree. How [do you understand] that?  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;  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  disagrees [with him in [the case of] a cistern and a dove-cote, surely R. Jose speaks [only] of a field and a tree!  And if you would reply that [R. Jose] argues in accordance with the views of R. Judah  [and that he himself is in entire disagreement with them],  surely it has been taught: R. Jose said: I do not accept R. Judah's views on a field and a tree, because these  are the products of consecrated objects. [This clearly proves that] only in the case of field and tree he  does not accept,  but in [the case of] cistern and dove-cote he does accept!  — 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  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 dispute  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  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:  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].