Nedarim 27A

והיו בה בנות שוח, ואמר: ״אילו הייתי יודע שבנות שוח בתוכה, לא הייתי נודר״⁠ — הכלכלה אסורה, בנות שוח מותרות. עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד: נדר שהותר מקצתו ⁠— הותר כולו. מאי לאו, דאמר אילו הייתי יודע שבנות שוח בתוכה, הייתי אומר ״תאנים שחורות ולבנות אסורות, בנות שוח מותרות״, ורבי עקיבא היא, ופליגי רבנן?

and there were benot shuaḥ in it, and he said: Had I known that there were benot shuaḥ in it I would not have taken a vow, the basket and the remaining figs inside are forbidden, while the benot shuaḥ are permitted. This was the accepted ruling until R' Akiva came and taught: A vow which is dissolved partially is dissolved completely. Therefore, all of the produce is permitted. What, is it not referring to a case where one said: Had I known that benot shuaḥ were inside it, I would have said that black and white figs are forbidden, and benot shuaḥ are permitted, and this is the opinion of R' Akiva, and the Rabbis disagree with him? But according to Rava everyone agrees that all the produce is permitted in a case like this.

לא, באומר: אילו הייתי יודע שבנות שוח בתוכה, הייתי אומר: ״כל הכלכלה אסורה, ובנות שוח מותרות״.

The Talmud responds: No, it is possible to say that it is speaking of a case where he says: Had I known that there were benot shuaḥ in it I would have said that the entire basket is forbidden and the benot shuaḥ are permitted, which is the opinion of R' Akiva according to Rava.

מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן: נדר מחמשה בני אדם כאחד, הותר לאחד מהם ⁠— הותרו כולן. ״חוץ מאחד מהן״⁠ — הוא מותר, והן אסורין.

The Talmud asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which A baraita states: With regard to one who took a vow, in one utterance, prohibiting himself from deriving benefit from 5 people, if the vow is dissolved for one of them, then the vow concerning all of them is dissolved; but if he retracted and said: I am prohibited to derive benefit from all of these individuals except for one of them, then he, i.e., that individual who was excluded, is permitted and they, the others, are forbidden?