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.

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.

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).

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.