Resources for Nedarim 5
1. The גמרא says that according to שמואל if someone says מודרני ממך without adding the words שאני טועם לך we consider it to be ידים שאינם מוכיחות. The reason is that the person may have meant that they just don’t want to talk to them. There is an interesting מחלוקת if we assume that ים שאינם מוכיחות don’t work as to if the person is at least אסור to speak to the מודר? It would seem that the words מודרני ממך couldn’t mean less than that! The ר"ן brings two possibilities: according to one צד the person is indeed forbidden to speak to the מודר. According to the second צד the person is not אסור at all to the second guy since its not מוכח whether you wanted to make an איסור הנאה or just an איסור דיבור so you’re left with nothing. The ריטב"א agrees with the second צד of the ר"ן that the נדר is not valid for anything but for a totally different reason. He says that the נדר doesn’t work because not speaking with someone is a דבר שאין בו ממש and a נדר isn’t חל on a דבר שאין בו ממש. The מאירי, however, holds like the first צד of the ר"ן and disagrees with the ריטב"א’s claim that it is a דבר שאין בו ממש . The reason is that when a person says מודרני ממך he is making his whole body אסור on the person and speech is simply the part associated with the mouth. The רמב"ם in הלכות נדרים פּרק א׳ הל׳ כ"ג has a לשון that ר"א מן ההר understands to mean that the רמב"ם holds that מדאורייתא it isn’t a נדר but מדרבנן it is a נדר and the נודר can’t speak with the מודר due to בל יחל מדרבנן.
2. תוספות says in the name of the ר"י that if someone says “שאני אוכל לך” without saying “מודרני ממך” first it is still considered a valid נדר. The reason is that only מודרני ממך is considered ambiguous as to what his intention. However, שאני אוכל לך cannot be interpreted any way except I will not eat from you so it is considered ידים מוכיחות. He then brings from the ריצב"א who asks that people can’t function like that! It would mean that every time they happen to say to their friend אני אוכל לך they will have made a נדר not to eat by a person via an apparent יד מוכיח! He answers that it’s the letter “ש” that makes all the difference. It’s only שאני אוכל לך that is a נדר but not אני אוכל לך. The קהילת יעקב in סימן ו points out a fascinating idea: we see from the ריצב"א’s question that we don’t care what you are actually thinking. As long as your words seem to indicate something, even if you tell us you never meant that at all, we would still say it’s a נדר since דברים שבלב אינם דברים. He says that this is against the ריטב"א on דף ב that says when we are dealing with a יד לנדר we take into account what you are thinking. Therefore, if someone makes a נדר using a יד and says he never meant it then we would say the נדר is not binding. This מחלוקת would seem to be תלוי on the famous חקירה about how ידות work: is it that the חידוש of ידות is that the תורה tells us that we are allowed to finish your words for you or is the Torah telling us that we are allowed to be מצטרף your מחשבה to the few words you said? The ריטב"א who allows you to explain yourself seems to hold that your thoughts are part of the equation whereas the ריצב"א seems to hold like the other ראשונים who say a יד is simply a way of explaining your words but it is all about the words and not connected to your thoughts.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya