Who Receives Malkos? Shittas Rashi

Continuing the previous post.....

It would appear that Rashi holds like the Rambam that the madir receives malkos and not the mudar. But to prove this we need to travel alllll the way to EGG-LAND.

In Beitza [bottom of 39a] it says הריני עליך חרם מודר אסור הרי אתה עלי חרם הנודר אסור -
 If one says to his neighbor, Behold, I am cherem to you, he against whom the vow is made is forbidden; if he says Behold you are cherem to me - the vower is forbidden.

Explains Rashi - המודר אסור - מי שהוטל עליו הנדר אסור ליהנות מזה שנדר הנדר דהכי קאמר ממוני עליך הקדש
The one against whom the vow is made is forbidden because the vower was saying that his possessions are like hekdesh to the other person.
הרי אתה עלי חרם - הכי קאמר ליה הרי ממונך עלי כסתם חרמים שהן לבדק הבית הלכך הנודר
אסור ליה משל המודר דכתיב לא יחל דברו ורשאי הוא לאסור עצמו בממון חבירו
He is saying that your possessions are to me like cherem that go to the Beis Hamikash. Therefore, the vower is forbidden to receive benefit from the person about whom the vow was made as it says לא יחל דברו - Don't violate your word, and he is allowed to forbid himself to his friend's property. However, with respect to the mudar [in the first case] he never mentions the pasuk. It is clear then that the madir receives malkos but not the mudar.

The reason that the mudar is not allowed to derive benefit [even though he didn't make the neder] is because there are two separate laws regarding a neder. 1] There is  בל יחל- not to violate one's word, which devolves on the one who makes the neder. 2] There is an איסור and קדושה on the חפצא which prohibit the one about whom the neder was made [the mudar] from deriving benefit, as the gemara says later יש מעילה בקנמות - there is מעילה when it comes to nedarim and the object becomes forbidden.
That is why one who didn't even open his mouth is prohibited from deriving benefit from an object that someone else was נודר, even though there is no בל יחל. That is what Rashi meant when he said דהכי קאמר ממוני עליך הקדש - meaning that there is a מעילה problem here due to its hekdesh status but no בל יחל.

In the second instance, when he forbade himself to his friend's possessions, Rashi writes that there is a problem of בל יחל but omits the issue of מעילה. The reason is that the Mishna La-melech [Meila 4/9] considers the possibility that one does not have the power to create an איסור מעילה on someone elses property. Rashi agrees with this and thus writes that there is בל יחל but leaves out the מעילה issue. That is what Rashi means when he says ורשאי הוא לאסור עצמו בממון חבירו - He may forbid himself to derive benefit from his friend's possessions but does not create and איסור on the cheftza. [Based on the Nosson Piryo on Nedarim]