ran's logic is that the mishna that is speaking of where its only assur to have the forbidden be brought through the husband but through others or through herself she can get the fruits. however shmuel's statement is that when one can't have benefit from an individual completely then shmuel holds that it's afflictive and can be revoked by the husband. i don't understand the ran's logic because this implies that its assur for the wife to get beenfit from the person voewd against comnpletely, evevn thorugh a third party. but i know that can't be becasue of for an individual, any benefit can be permitted when transfered through a third party as in nedarim 48a bottom mishna with story of beit choron...if it's so that one can transfer benefit from the mudar(vowed against taking taking from) and madir(vower) through a 3rd party. can you either reexlain the ran or explain the distinction between the mishna and shmuel so that the mishna isn't a contradiction to shmeul.
thnaks. i'm sorry if my question isn't so clear
The Mishnah earlier (48a) is clearly a b'Di'eved situation that is only permitted when, as the Mishnah states, he has nothing to eat. In general, this is not considered a practical solution and therefore is considered an afflictive vow according to Shmuel.
All the best,