Study Bava Metzia folio 57A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
This is Rava’s dilemma: What is the halakha? Is it permitted for one to take some of the kernels and eat from them? Is their legal status like that of kernels cast into a jug, and the sacrifice of the omer offering rendered their consumption permitted? Or perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and their legal status is that of seeds that did not take root, and they are therefore forbidden. The Talmud concludes: The dilemmas should stand unresolved.
אמר רבא: אמר רב חסא, בעי רבי אמי: אונאה אין להם, ביטול מקח יש להם או אין להן? אמר רב נחמן: הדר אמר רב חסא, פשיט רבי אמי: אונאה אין להם, ביטול מקח יש להם. רבי יונה אמר אהקדשות, רבי ירמיה אמר אקרקעות, ותרוייהו משמיה דרבי יוחנן אמרו: אונאה אין להם, ביטול מקח יש להן.
§ Rava said that Rav Ḥasa said that R' Ami raises a dilemma with regard to those matters that are not subject to the halakhot of exploitation: Is the halakha that they are not subject to exploitation where the disparity in the price is 1/6th, but they are subject to nullification of the transaction when it is greater than that? Or, perhaps they are not subject to nullification of the transaction either. Rav Naḥman said: Rav Ḥasa then said that R' Ami resolved this dilemma and said: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction. R' Yona said: This ruling applies to consecrated property. R' Yirmeya said: It applies to land. And both of them said it in the name of R' Yoḥanan: They are not subject to exploitation; they are subject to nullification of the transaction.
מאן דאמר אהקדשות, כל שכן אקרקעות. מאן דאמר אקרקעות, אבל אהקדשות לא. כדשמואל, דאמר שמואל: הקדש שוה מנה שחיללו על שוה פרוטה – מחולל.
The Talmud comments: The one who states that this ruling applies to consecrated property, all the more so does it apply to land. The one who states that this ruling applies to land states it only with regard to land, but it does not apply to consecrated property, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: Consecrated property worth 100 dinars that one desacralized upon a coin worth one peruta, is desacralized. Since consecrated property is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation at all, it is desacralized upon coins worth any sum.