Nedorim daf 5
The maskono of Shmuel is that the reason you need to say sheeyni ochel, is because otherwise it's yodayim sheeynom mochichos, e.g. when you say mudrani, you might mean, not to speak with the person, so you need to say sheeyni ochel.
The ran has 2 pshotim what would happen, lfi this man deomar, if you only said mudrani. 1 pshat is that you would not be ossur to him at all, even to speak with him is muttar, because it's not muchach whether you meant speech or eyni ochel, therefore we can't conclusions vely say that you are ossur in either.
The 2nd pshat of the ran says that you are ossur to speak with him, cos the loshon is not muchach that you meant sheeyni ochel, but the loshon is muchach that you meant speech.
I have a question on the 1st pshat of the ran.
The gemoro in 5a has a suggestion that Shmuel meant to say, that if you said mudrani without the sheeyni ochel, then you meant to assur hanooh, and not issue achila. (The gemoro is madche this because of Shmuel's loshon "AD sheomar..") The gemoro then suggests that Shmuel is saying, that if you only said mudrani it's yodayim that's not mochiach, because mudrani could mean speeking with him, mifreshani could mean masoh umaton, murchekani could mean staying in his 4 Amos.
But why did the gemoro have to come up with 3 new interpretations for the loshon neder, why couldn't the gemoro just say an extension of the previous answer as follows: mudrani is not muchach, because you might mean issur hanooh, not issur achila, until you say sheeyni ochel.
(Acc to the 2nd pshat of the ran, this is not problematic, because then if you didn't add the words sheeyni ochel then it would be chal the neder on hanooh instead, like the ran says, one of the interpretations of the neder is definitely chal, therefore the gemoro couldn't possibly fit that into the language of Shmuel.
But according to the 1st pshat of the ran the question still stands, ehy did the gemoro have to give 3 new interpretations for the eynom mochichos of the leshonos of the mishna, we already explained that it's not muchach cos it might refer to issur hanooh as opposed to achila)
Perhaps you could answer that, included within the interpretation of issur hanooh, is the issur achila. Therefore even the 1st peshat of the ran, (that anytime the neder is not completely muchach, it refers to nothing, since we don't know which interpretation he had in mind.) here the neder would be chal, cos bichlal issur hanooh is included the issur achila, on that there is no ambiguity, he definitely meant at minimum to assur achila on himself.
However I don't think this answer is true because, the gemoro later on 5b explains in shitas rovo, that the reason yodayim sheeynom mochichos don't work, is because it's missing haflooh. It wasnt clearly spoken what he meant, therefore here, even if issur hanooh includes issur achila, it was still not clear what his words meant, so therefore nothing should be chal?
Does anyone discuss this?
Avrumi hersh, London england
1) I am still thinking about this question, but my initial thought is that according to the first Peshat in the Ran (5a, DH Ela) he is not forbidden in anything, even speaking. That is why it is different from the Gemara on 5a, that it means to forbid Hana'ah, not Achilah, because there he clearly is Asur in Hana'ah. When the Gemara came up with three new interpretations for the Lashon Neder, all of these interpreations are lighter because they do not include either Achilah or Hana'ah.
2) I think that the key to this problem is that there is a flaw in what you wrote, R' Avrum, "you meant to assur hanooh, and not issur achila." That does not make sense, because something that is "Asur b'Hana'ah" is automatically Asur b'Achilah as well. In fact, you wrote this yourself, later on, that "Bichlal Issur Hanooh is included the issur achila," but you questioned this from the Gemara on 5b where Rava said that you need Hafla'ah, and when you say Isur Hana'ah it is not clear that this means Isur Achilah.
3) I contend that if one says that something is Asur b'Hana'ah, this automatically means clearly that it is Asur b'Achilah as well. Eating is one way of deriving benefit, Hana'ah, from an item, so if something is Asur b'Hana'ah, it follows that one must not eat it. The fact that it is Asur b'Hana'ah adds on to the prohibition of eating it, that one must also not sell it. So a Neveilah is Asur b'Achilah -- one may not eat it, but it is Mutar b'Hana'ah, so one is allowed to sell it to a Nochri. But Basar b'Chalav is stricter. It is not only that one is not allowed to eat meat and milk together, but if they did get cooked together b'Di'eved, one is also not allowed to sell the product of the cooking to a Nochri, because it is forbidden to derive benefit from Basar b'Chalav. So, when the Torah tells us that something is Asur b'Hana'ah, this is tantamount to the Torah writing explicilty that it is Asur b'Achilah as well.
(See also Rashi to Pesachim 21b, DH Lo Ye'achel, "Stam Hanahos come to Achilah, that one sells the item which is Asur b'Hana'ah, and with the proceeds he buys food.")
4) See also the Ran, on the last line of 16b, that if one says something is an Isur without specifying what kind of Isur, this automatically includes both Achilah and Hana'ah.
5) I want to strengthen what I wrote above. (I do not think that my very first reply is now relevant at all.)
a) The question was that when one made a Neder on Hana'ah, this did not include Achilah because we require Hafla'ah. The answer is that nothing is missing in terms of Hafla'ah when he makes a Neder on Hana'ah, because this very clearly, right from the beginning, includes Achilah.
b) This is not similar to the example of Hafla'ah that the Ran gives on the very last line of 5b. In that case, the person says, "I will be a Nazir if this person is a Nazir." He does not become a Nazir this way because he did not know, at the time that he made the Neder, whether or not the second person was a Nazir; he found out only later. This is not similar to the person who made a Neder on Hana'ah, who automatically knew right from the start that this includes Achilah, since any Isur Hana'ah automatically includes an Isur Achilah.
c) The Ran (end of 16b) and Rashi (Pesachim 21b) are not really directly relevant to this question. The Ran (16b) says that if one says that something is Asur to you, but does not state explicitly if it is Asur for Achilah or Hana'ah, we say that it creates an Isur both of Achilah and of Hana'ah. But the question we are discussing is simpler than this, because he said he was Asur in Hana'ah, and this automatically means Achilah also.
d) Rashi (Pesachim 21b, DH Lo Ye'achel) writes that even though the Torah writes only Achilah, because it writes it in a special way this can also include Hana'ah. Our question is simpler than this, because here he said Hana'ah and this automatically includes Achilah as well.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom