GEMARA. The scholars propounded: They differ when they interdicted themselves by vow. But what if each imposed a vow upon the other? Do we say, they differ [only] in the former case, but that in the latter the Rabbis agree with R. Eliezer b. Jacob, since they are involuntarily prohibited; or perhaps the Rabbis dispute even in the latter case? Come and hear: IF [ONLY] ONE WAS FORBIDDEN BY VOW TO BENEFIT FROM THE OTHER … and the Rabbis dispute it! — Learn, forbade himself from his neighbour. This is logical too, for the second clause states: NOW, HE WHO THUS VOWED IS FORCED TO SELL HIS SHARE OF THE COURT. Now, this is reasonable if the vow was self-imposed: hence he is compelled. But if you say that a vow was imposed against him, why is he compelled. Seeing that the position is not of his making? Rabbah said in Ze'iri's name: