Nedarim 5A

אבל אמר ״מודרני הימך״ לחודיה ⁠— שניהן אסורין. כי הא דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא: ״מודרני הימך״⁠ — שניהן אסורין.

However, if he said only: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited from deriving benefit from one another. This is like that which R' Yosei, son of R' Ḥanina, said: If one says: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited.

תנן: ״הריני עליך חרם״⁠ — המודר אסור, אבל מדיר לא. כגון דפריש: ״ואת עלי לא״.

The Talmud asks: We learned in a Mishnah (47b) that if one says to another: I am hereby to you like an item dedicated to the Temple, the one to whom the vow was said is prohibited from deriving benefit from the one who made the vow, but the one who made the vow is not prohibited from deriving benefit from the one with regard to whom the vow was said. However, according to Shmuel, both should be prohibited. The Talmud answers: It is referring to a case where he specified this by saying: And you are not like an item dedicated to the Temple for me.

״את עלי חרם״⁠ — הנודר אסור, אבל מודר לא. כגון דפריש: ״ואנא עלך לא״.

The Talmud asks: That Mishnah also taught that if one says: You are to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, the one who makes the vow is prohibited to derive benefit from the other, but the one to whom the vow was said is not prohibited from deriving benefit from the one who makes the vow. However, according to Shmuel, both should be prohibited. The Talmud answers: Here too, it is referring to a case where he specified this by saying: And I am not like an item dedicated to the Temple for you.

אבל סתמא מאי? שניהן אסורים. הא מדקתני סיפא: ״הריני עליך ואת עלי״, שניהן אסורים, הדין הוא דשניהם אסורין, הא סתמא ⁠— הוא אסור וחברו מותר!

The Talmud asks: But if he stated his vow in an unspecified manner, what, are they both prohibited from deriving benefit from each other? From the fact that it teaches in the latter clause that if one says to another: I am hereby to you, and you are to me, like an item dedicated to the Temple, they are both prohibited from deriving benefit from each other, it can be derived that it is in this case both are prohibited, but if one stated his vow in an unspecified manner, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other individual and the other is permitted to derive benefit from him. This is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.