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 Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 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 Gemara asks: We learned in a mishna (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 Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he specified this by say ing: 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 Gemara asks: That mishna 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 Gemara answers: Here too, it is referring to a case where he specified this by say ing: 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 Gemara 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.

אלא הכי אתמר דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מודר אני לך שניהם אסורין מודרני הימך הוא אסור וחברו מותר

Rather, this is how the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, was stated: If one said to another: I am avowed to you, they are both prohibited from deriving benefit from one another. However, if he says: I am avowed from you, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other person and the other is permitted to derive benefit from him.

והא מתניתין דקתני הימך ואוקימנא למתניתין לשמואל בכולן עד שיאמר שאני טועם לך ושאני אוכל לך הוא דאסור וחברו מותר אבל במודרני הימך שניהם אסורין

The Gemara asks: But didn’t the mishna teach a case of one who declared: I am avowed from you, and yet we established the mishna, according to Shmuel, as teaching that in all these cases it is only if he says: That which I taste of yours, or: That which I eat of yours, that he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other person, and the other is permitted? However, if he merely says: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited. Consequently, Shmuel does not distinguish between the expressions: I am avowed from you, and: I am avowed to you.

אלא מעיקרא דשמואל הכי איתמר טעמא דאמר שאני אוכל לך ושאני טועם לך הוא דאין הוא אסור אלא באכילה הא מודרני ממך אסור אפילו בהנאה

Rather, this is how the opinion of Shmuel was originally stated: The reason is that he said: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours. It is for this reason that he is prohibited only from eating anything belonging to the other person. However, if he said: I am avowed from you, without further specification, he is prohibited even from deriving any form of benefit from the other.

אי הכי לימא שמואל הכי ואם לא אמר אלא שאני אוכל לך ושאני טועם לך אין אסור אלא באכילה

The Gemara asks: If so, let Shmuel say as follows: And if he said only: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, he is prohibited only from eating an item belonging to his fellow, but he is permitted to derive benefit from it.

אלא הכי איתמר טעמא דאמר שאני אוכל לך ושאני טועם לך הוא דאסור אבל אמר מודרני הימך לא משמע דאמר אסור מאי טעמא מודר אני ממך לא משתעינא בהדך משמע מופרשני ממך דלא עבידנא עמך משא ומתן משמע מרוחקני ממך דלא קאימנא בארבע אמות דילך משמע

Rather, this is how Shmuel’s opinion was stated: The reason is that he said: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours; it is in these cases that he is prohibited from eating any item belonging to his fellow. However, if he said simply: I am avowed from you, that statement does not indicate that he said he is prohibited from eating an item belonging to his fellow. What is the reason for this? The statement: I am avowed from you, indicates: I am not speaking with you. Similarly, the statement: I am separated from you, indicates: I am not doing business with you. The statement: I am distanced from you, indicates that I will not stand within four cubits of you.