Reference for Bava Batra 157:13
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'. ');"><sup>23</sup></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. ');"><sup>24</sup></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. ');"><sup>25</sup></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. ');"><sup>26</sup></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. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> does not accept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The views of R. Judah. ');"><sup>28</sup></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?'. ');"><sup>29</sup></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. ');"><sup>30</sup></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. ');"><sup>31</sup></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'. ');"><sup>32</sup></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. ');"><sup>33</sup></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. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>