Study Bava Batra folio 79B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And if their dispute is referring to a field and a tree, why does R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, reverse his opinion? Rather, Rabba’s statement must be adjusted, and this is what Rabba said: This dispute between the first tanna and R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, applies only in the cases of a cistern
The Talmud asks: And in the cases of a cistern and a dovecote, where the cistern and the dovecote are empty, with regard to what matter do they disagree? And similarly, where the cistern and the dovecote are full, with regard to what do they disagree? The Talmud answers: In the cases of a cistern a
The first tanna and R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, disagree because the first tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: A person cannot transfer ownership of an object that has not yet come into the world, i.e., that one does not currently own. Therefore, one cannot consecrat
The Talmud raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: You can say that you heard R' Meir express this opinion in a case such as the fruit of palm trees, which are likely to come into existence, as the trees naturally produce fruit. But with regard to these doves and water, who can say that they
The Talmud asks: And in cases where the cistern and the dovecote are full, with regard to what matter do they disagree? Rava said: This dispute concerns a case where he consecrated a cistern without specification. And R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father,