Assertion: It seems that the reason is because it connotes "I and my property are Mudar from you and your property";

Therefore, since his property is included in "I", you are forced to say that also his friend is forbidden;

If not, [how could we explain the Isur on the Noder's property?] His property does not get Hana'ah from his friend!

Gemara - Mishnah: "I am Cherem upon you" - the Mudar is forbidden, but the Madir is not.

Question: What is the reason? We should say that 'upon you' includes his friend and his property. Therefore, even the Madir should be forbidden. If not, (what is the Isur on his friend's property)? His friend's property does not benefit from him!

Gemara: 'You are Cherem upon me', the Noder is forbidden, but the Mudar is not.

Question: What is the reason? We should say that 'upon me' includes him and his property. The Mudar should be forbidden. If not, (what is the Isur on his property)? His property does not benefit from him (his friend)!

Explanation: "Lecha" connotes to you, i.e. my property is forbidden to you, and it connotes yours (your property is forbidden to me), unlike Heimach, which does not connote this.

Assertion: It seems to me that it means that as follows. We are thinking now that Shmuel infers like this from our Mishnah, since it taught "he is forbidden" only once. Surely, it teaches one case;

Since it teaches one case, you are forced to say that "Heimach" in the Reisha is not precise. The same applies to Lecha;

Since he concluded his words and said "she'Ani Ochel", even if he said Lecha, it does not connote that both of them are forbidden. Rather, he is forbidden and his friend is permitted.

This is why Shmuel said that the Tana taught about Mudrani, that whether he said Heimach or Lecha he is forbidden and his friend is permitted, is only when he said she'Ani Ochel or she'Ani To'em;

However, if he did not say so, Heimach and Lecha are not the same. When he said Lecha, both of them are forbidden.

Explanation: The Gemara is not pleased with this [above answer], for it says Heimach in our Mishnah.

Implied question: Surely, Shmuel said the truth, that the Tana of our Mishnah does not distinguish between Heimach and Lecha, since he concluded she'Ani Ochel Lecha!

Answer: In any case, Shmuel should not have said his words Stam, which connotes that he refers to the words that the Tana explicitly taught, i.e. Heimach, and says that both of them are forbidden [if he did not conclude she'Ani Ochel Lecha]. So it seems to me.

Gemara: Rather, from the beginning, Shmuel taught as follows...

Explanation: However, Mudrani Mimecha is forbidden even Hana'ah. I.e. ambiguous Yadayim are [valid] Yadayim. Therefore, he is forbidden even Hana'ah.

Explanation: How can Shmuel say that it is only if he said [she'Ani Ochel Lecha]? This connotes that if he did not say it, he is not forbidden;

Just the contrary! If he did not say it, he is forbidden more! He should have explained and said so.

Implied question: Also above, when we said that through Mudrani alone, both of them are forbidden, he should have asked this!

Answer: He asked better, and said that the law itself is not true.

Remark: There is another text here, but it is not correct.

Explanation: Really, it is like we said initially. When he did not say she'Ochel Lecha", it is permitted. The reason is because it does not connote that he forbids;

These are Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos. They are not Yadayim, for perhaps Mudrani Heimach means that he will not talk with him.

Explanation #1: He is not even forbidden to speak with him, since we do not know whether he intended to forbid Hana'ah, or speaking. For each of these, it is a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach.

Consequence: Since Shmuel's reason is because he holds that Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is not a Yad, we cannot challenge him from the Beraisa;

Since Tana'im argue about whether or not it is a Yad, we can say that the Tana of the Beraisa holds that it is a Yad, and Shmuel derived from the Mishnah that it is not a Yad.

Implied question: Above, why did we ask from the Beraisa?

Answer: We thought that it is not even a Yad [she'Eino Mochi'ach].

Explanation #2: Some say that when he said Mudrani Heimach, even Shmuel forbids speaking with him, and when he said "I am separated" he may not do business with him, and when he said "I am distanced from you" he may not stand in his four Amos;

This is the meaning of "he is forbidden" in the Beraisa;

Shmuel discusses eating. He teaches that he is not forbidden to eat unless he said she'Ani Ochel Lecha or she'Ani To'em Lecha.

Gemara: Let us say that Shmuel holds that... Indeed, Shmuel establishes our Mishnah like R. Yehudah.

Explanation: I.e. yes, surely Shmuel holds [like this], for he establishes our Mishnah like R. Yehudah.

Gemara: The essential part of a Get is 'you are permitted to every man.'

Explanation: He need not write 'v'Dein. Even without 'v'Dein...', it implies that he divorces her via this Get [and not via mere speech, e.g. via telling her 'you are divorced' at the time he gives the Get to her], and it is he who divorces her, for ambiguous Yadayim are Yadayim.

Note: The word 'v'Dein (and this is)' by itself does nothing. R. Yehudah adds 'v'Dein Dihavi Leichi Minai Sefer Tiruchin... (and this will be for you, from me, a document of cutting...)'; Rabanan do not require it. Below (6a, DH v'Rava), the Ran brings from Gitin 85b that R. Yehudah needs it to show that he divorces via the Get. Here it says that he needs it to show that he divorces. Each Sugya mentioned one matter that they argue about. (PF)

Explanation: If he did not write "v'Dein...", it is a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, for perhaps he divorces her through speech, like we say below;

Since we say "Shmuel holds" this connotes that Shmuel himself holds like this. He does not merely come to explain our Mishnah.

Question: If so, how did we ask "what forced Shmuel to establish our Mishnah like R. Yehudah? We should say that it is because he holds like this!

Answer: This is not difficult. Had Shmuel not inferred that our Mishnah is like R. Yehudah, he would not abandon Rabanan and do (hold) like R. Yehudah.

Proof: It says in Kidushin (5b) that Shmuel himself holds like this. We say there that one who says to a woman "you are Mekudeshes" or "you are Me'ureses", she is Mekudeshes;

Citation (5b): The same applies to divorce. [If he wrote] "you are Megureshes. You are permitted to every man", she is divorced.

The Gemara asks there "this implies that Shmuel holds that Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is a Yad. I.e. since he said that she is Mekudeshes, even though [the man] did not say "to me"...

Citation (cont.) Contradiction: A Mishnah says if one said "I will be", he is a Nazir. We asked, perhaps he says that he will be in a fast! Shmuel answered that a Nazir passed in front of him;

Inference: If not, it is a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, which is not a Yad.

Citation (cont.) Answer: The case is, he said to her "to me."

Inference: Shmuel himself holds that a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is not a Yad.

Question: It says in Gitin (26a) about the Mishnah of one who writes the Tofes (form, the standard text without the details that vary from case to case, i.e. the dates, names, city...) of a Gei must leave room for the name of the man (he must write it only after the husband commands him);

Citation (26a - Shmuel): He must leave room for "you are permitted to every man" (it must be written Lishmah, i.e. with intent for the woman who will be divorced through this Get).

Inference: He did not say that he must leave room for "v'Dein..." This shows that Shmuel holds that one does not need v'Dein (for ambiguous Yadayim are valid)!

Answer #1: Perhaps Shmuel holds that even the one who holds that ambiguous Yadayim are invalid, regarding Gitin one does not need v'Dein;

Even without v'Dein, it is [a Yad] Mochi'ach, for a man cannot divorce another man's wife, like it says below in our Sugya.

Proof: There in Kidushin, regarding Shmuel's teaching of one who says to a woman "you are Mekudeshes"... and similarly regarding divorce "you are divorced", [the Gemara] answers "what is the case? He told her "to me."

Explanation: He said to her "you are Mekudeshes to me." We did not answer at all about divorce. We should have said also about divorce, that he said to her "from me"!

Inference: Rather, this shows that regarding divorce, since a man cannot divorce another man's wife, even if he did not say to her "from me", it is a Yad Mochi'ach.

Implied question: Why did it say there "and similarly regarding divorce"? (Divorce is unlike Kidushin!)

Answer: This is not regarding the need to say "to me" or "from me." Rather, they are equated there regarding the end of his words, i.e. "I am not your husband."

Answer #2: Shmuel holds that even regarding divorce, he must say to her "from me."

Implied question: When we answered there that he said to her "[you are Mekudeshes] to me [we should have said similarly regarding divorce]!

Answer: Indeed, similarly regarding divorce, he said to her "from me." The Gemara mentioned one case, i.e. the Reisha, and the same applies to the Seifa.

Implied question: Why didn't [Shmuel] say in Gitin that he must leave room for "v'Dein..."?

Answer: There, Shmuel did not want to enter himself into the argument of R. Yehudah and Rabanan. He said according to everyone that one must leave room for "you are permitted to every man";

Similarly, according to R. Yehudah, and Shmuel himself, who holds like him, one must leave room also for v'Dein...

Explanation: Had it taught so without "Lecha", we would have learned that a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach is a Yad.

Implied question: He already said Mudrani Mimcha, for Shmuel holds that the Mishnah teaches one case!

Answer: Even so, she'Ani Ochel without "Lecha" is a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, for we could say that he means "I am Mudar from you, that I will not speak with you if I eat today, or until day Ploni";

Therefore, he taught in our Mishnah Lecha, to teach that it is because he said Lecha;

Inference: Had he said Mudrani Mimcha she'Ani Ochel, the Neder would not take effect at all, for it is a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, which is not a Yad.

Ruling: If he said Mudrani Mimcha alone, he is not forbidden.

Consequence: Therefore, R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina's teaching 'when he said Mudrani Lecha, both of them are forbidden, but if he said Mudrani Mimcha, he is forbidden and his friend is permitted' - the case is, he said Mudrani Lecha from eating;

Inference: If he said Stam [Mudrani Lecha or Mimcha], it does not connote that he forbids, for this is a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, which is not a Yad, for we hold like Rava, who says so below.

Support: The Ramban said so in his Halachos (printed with the Rif).

Gemara: It was said - ambiguous Yados... [The verse] equates Yados Nezirus to Nezirus.

Explanation: We learn Yados from Lehazir (above, 3a).

Explanation - Citation (Nazir 32b - R. Tarfon): If Ploni saw his friend and said "I am a Nazir if he is a Nazir", and he did not know at the time that he is a Nazir, even if he found out afterwards that he is a Nazir, Nezirus does not take effect on Ploni;

This is because at the time he accepts Nezirus, we require Hafla'ah (explicitness), and this was lacking. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)