Shevuot 22B

וחכמים אומרים: בין הוא ובין חבירו לא מעל, לפי שאין מעילה בקונמות.

And the Rabbis say: Both he and the other are not liable for misusing consecrated property, because there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property with regard to konamot.

איפוך: אחד זה ואחד זה לא מעל, לפי שאין מעילה בקונמות. דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים: הוא מעל, וחבירו לא מעל.

The Talmud responds: Reverse the opinions and say as follows: Both this one and that one are not liable for misusing consecrated property, because there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property with regard to konamot. This is the statement of R' Meir. And the Rabbis say: He is liable for misuse of consecrated property and the other is not liable for misuse of consecrated property.

אי הכי, רבי מאיר אומר קונמות כשבועות ⁠– אלא קונמות אצטרופי הוא דלא מצטרפי, הא מעילה אית בהו?! והאמר רבי מאיר: אין מעילה בקונמות כלל!

The Talmud asks: If so, how is it that R' Meir says in the previous baraita: Items forbidden by konamot are like those forbidden by oaths? Items forbidden by konamot do not combine to produce a full measure that renders one liable for misuse of consecrated property, but this indicates that misuse of consecrated property nevertheless applies to them. But doesn’t R' Meir say, according to the reversal of the opinions, that with regard to konamot, there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property at all?

לדבריהן דרבנן קאמר להו: לדידי ⁠– אין מעילה בקונמות כלל; לדידכו ⁠– אודו לי מיהת דקונמות כשבועות!

The Talmud answers: When R' Meir says that items forbidden by konamot do not combine to produce a full measure, he is saying this to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement, as follows: According to my opinion with regard to konamot, there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property at all. According to your opinion, at least admit to me that items forbidden by konamot are like items forbidden by oaths and do not combine to produce a full measure.