Nedarim page 2. See Rav Shach Laws of Vows chapter 1. halacha 1.

To all Rishonim [authorities from the Middle Ages] except the Rambam, the main vow is by attaching the vow to a sacrifice. I.e., he says “This is forbidden to me like a sacrifice.” If he leaves out the words “like a sacrifice” it is still forbidden because of Yad leNeder (a handle on a vow). (A vow that wass not stated clearly and yet is still valid because of extension of the vow.) The opinion of the Ran however seems at first glance to be contradictory as to the point whether a vow needs to be attached to a sacrifice. Rav Shach explains that to the Ran (Rabainu Nisim ben Reuven), the main vow is without hatfasa (extension) [like the Rambam], but for it to be valid one needs the words “like a sacrifice.” Without those words, it sounds like he is saying something untrue, not that he is actively making something forbidden to himself. However, there is something here that seems difficult in this answer of Rav Shach. he says to the Ran the words like a sacrifice are for clarification, not because of a yad leneder. but I seem to recall that in one of the several places where the Ran brings his opinion, he does bring the idea of a Yad leNeder. [The places are in Nedraim page 2, top and bottom of the page, page 14 and in Shavuot. Later I saw that the place the Ran brings the idea of yad neder (lit. hand of a vow)]. Now onto a different point. The point of Rav Shach is that saying “this is forbidden to me” does not imply a neder but rather a statement that seems untrue. this is how he explains the Ran. However the same point ought to be applied to the Rambam. The Rambam says “the main vow is the statement ‘this is forbidden to me.’” This is valid not because of a yad, but for clarity, (but if he says like a sacrifice there is an added degree of stringency because then meila applies). However even without that still the main neder is the simple statement. but don’t we need to pronounce with one lips"? How could the Rambam escape from this conundrum>? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ I see I wrote about this already but I think I ought to repeat the basic points in a clearer exposition. To all ראשונים except the רמב’’ם, the main vow is by attaching the vow to a sacrifice. I.e., he says “This is forbidden to me like a sacrifice.” If he leaves out the words “like a sacrifice” it is still forbidden because of יד לנדר (a handle on a vow). (A vow that was not stated clearly and yet is still valid because of extension of the vow.) The opinion of the ר''ן however seems at first glance to be contradictory as to the point whether a vow needs to be attached to a sacrifice. רב שך explains that to the ר''ן, the main vow is without התפסה (extension) [like the רמב’’ם], but for it to be valid one needs the words “like a sacrifice.” Without those words, it sounds like he is saying something untrue, not that he is actively making something forbidden to himself. However, there is something here that seems difficult in this answer of רב שך. He says to the ר''ן the words "like a sacrifice" are for clarification, not because of a יד לנדר. But I seem to recall that in one of the several places where the ר''ן brings his opinion, he does bring the idea of a יד לנדר. [The places are in נדרים page 2, top and bottom of the page, דף י''ד 14 and in שבועות]. Now onto a different point. The point of רב שך is that saying “this is forbidden to me” does not imply a נדר but rather a statement that seems untrue. this is how he explains the ר''ן. However the same point ought to be applied to the רמב’’ם. The רמב’’ם says “the main vow is the statement ‘this is forbidden to me.’” This is valid not because of a יד לנדר for clarity, (but if he says like a sacrifice there is an added degree of stringency because then מעילה applies). However, even without that, still the main נדר is the simple statement. but don’t we need to לבטא בשפתיים? How could the רמב’’ם escape from this conundrum?

za91 C Minor midi file za91 C minor nwc file

ישנה מה שנראה כמו סתירה בחוק בסוכה דף ד' ובעירובין דף פ''ט. בסוכה, רב נחמן אמר שאנו רואים את הקירות כאילו משתרעים כלפי מעלה במקרה של ארבעה מוטות המונחים על צידי הגג. (גוד אסיק מחיצתא.) והרמב"ם פסק זאת כדין כפי שהוא כותב שתקע ארבעה מוטות בפינות הגג, ושם עליהם כיסוי של עלים, הסוכה תקפה, ואנו רואים את הקירות התחתונים כאילו הם משתרעים כלפי מעלה עד לפינות כיסוי העלים (סיכוך). אולם בעירובין, אמרו חכמים שכאשר יש גגות מחוברים, כולם נחשבים כרשות אחת. הגמרא אומרת שזהו הדין. אך שם איננו אומרים שקירות הבניינים שמתחת לגגות המחוברים נחשבים כאילו משתרעים כלפי מעלה. אני חושב שההבדל ברור ורמוז גם בתוספות. במקרה של גגות, הקירות התחתונים של הבניינים מוסתרים לחלוטין על ידי גגות והם בהחלט לא נראים. אבל בסוכה, לפחות קיר הבית נראה מבחוץ

Suka page 4 and Eruvin page 89b. there is what looks like a contradiction in law. In Suka Rav Nachman said we say see the walls as extending upwards in the case of a four poles put on the sides of a roof. And the Rambam decided this as the law as he writes one stuck four poles on the corners of the roof, and put sa covering of leaves over them, the suka is valid, and we see the lower walls as if they extended upwards until the corners of the covering of leaves. However in Eruvin, the sages said the when you have joining roof tops that they are all considered as one domain. The Gemara says that is the law. Yet there we do not say the walls of the buildings under the joined roof tops are considered to extend upwards. The difference I think is clear and also hinted at in Tosphot. In the case of the roof tops, the lower walls of the buildings are completely obscured by the roof tops and they are definitely not seen. But we the suka the wall of the house is at least seen from the outside._______________________________________________There is what looks like a contradiction in law סוכה page 4 and עירובין page 89b. In סוכה,רב נחמן said we say see the walls as extending upwards in the case of a four poles put on the sides of a roof. And the רמב''ם decided this as the law as he writes one stuck four poles on the corners of the roof, and put a covering of leaves over them, the סוכה is valid, and we see the lower walls as if they extended upwards until the corners of the covering of leaves (סיכוך) . However in עירובין, the sages said the when you have joining roof tops that they are all considered as one domain. The גמרא says that is the law. Yet there we do not say the walls of the buildings under the joined roof tops are considered to extend upwards. The difference I think is clear and also hinted at in תוספות. In the case of the roof tops, the lower walls of the buildings are completely obscured by the roof tops and they are definitely not seen. But we the סוכה the wall of the house is at least seen from the outside.

za90 E minor midi file za90 E Minor nwc file

גיטין ס''ז ע''ב. המשנה אומרת, "אם אומר אדם לשני אנשים 'תנו גט לאשתי' או לשלושה אנשים 'כתובו ותנו גט לאשתי', הם כותבים אותו ונותנים אותו. אבל הם לא יכולים להגיד לאף אחד אחר לעשות זאת. אבל אם אמר לשלושה אנשים פשוט "תנו גט לאשתי", אז לפי ר' מאיר הם יכולים להגיד לסופר לכתוב אותו ולעדים לחתום עליו והם נותנים אותו לאשתו. ר' יוסי חולק על כך ואומר שגם במצב האחרון הם חייבים לכתוב ולתת אותו בעצמם. שמואל אמר, "אם אומר אדם לשני אנשים 'כתובו ותנו גט לאשתי', הם צריכים לעשות זאת בעצמם. אם יאמרו לסופר לכתוב והם חתמו, הגט אינו תקף, אולם נושא זה עדיין דורש לימוד." הגמרא שואלת על משפט זה של שמואל. היא שואלת מדוע זה דורש לימוד? אולי משום שהוא יכול לחשוב שיש אפשרות שניתן למסור מילים לשליח. השאלה שיש לי על גמרא זו היא זו. הדעה שניתן למסור מילים לשליח היא ר' מאיר והוא מסכים במשנה שאם אדם אומר לשני אנשים לתת גט לאשתו, עליהם לעשות זאת בעצמם. (ואף על פי שמקרה של שמואל שונה מהמשנה, כי במקרה של שמואל הוא אמר "כתובו ותנו" בעוד שבמשנה הוא אמר רק "תנו", עדיין זה מחמיר את השאלה שלי, כי הוספת המילה "כתובו" אנו רואים במשנה שזה אפילו מחמיר יותר מאשר אם הוא רק אמר לתת. אם הוא גם אמר כתובו לשלשה, אז ר' מאיר מסכים שהם חייבים לכתוב את הגט בעצמם.) אז אפילו אם שמואל יכול להסכים עם ר' מאיר, עדיין לא אמור להיות ספק לגבי ההלכה. תשובה אפשרית לשאלה זו היא שאולי בנקודה זו הגמרא חושבת שר' מאיר עצמו יכול לחלוק אפילו על תחילת המשנה, לא רק בבא שנייה

Gitin 67b The Mishna says if one says to two people give a get to my wife or to three people write and give a get to my wife they write it and give it. But they can not tell anyone else to do so. But if he said to three people just give a get to his wife then according to r Meir they can tell a scribe to write it and to witnesses to sign it and they give it to his wife. R Jose disagrees with this and says even in this last situation they must write and give it themselves. Shmuel said if one says to two people write and give get to my wife they have to do it themselves. if they tell a scribe to write and they signed, it is not valid however this subject still requires study. The Gemara ask on this statement of Shmuel. It asks why does this need study? Perhaps because he might think that there is a possibility that words can be handed over to a messenger. The question I have on this gemara is this. The opinion that words can be handed to messenger is R Meir and he agrees in the Mishna that if one says to two people to give get to his wife that they must do it themselves.(And even though the case of Shmuel is different from the Mishna because in the case of Shmuel he said “write and give” while in the Mishna he said only “give” still this makes my question even stronger because adding the words "write" we see in the Mishna that that is even stricter that if he just said to give. If he also saidto three "write" , then R Meir agrees they must write it themselves.) So even if Shmuel might hold with R Meir there still should be no doubt and the law. A possible answer to thsi question is that perhaps at this point the gemara is thinking that R. Meir himself might disagree with even the beginning of the Mishna.---------------------------------------------------------------------גיטין ס''ז ע''ב The משנה says, "If one says to two people 'give a גט to my wife' or to three people, 'write and give a גט to my wife' they write it and give it. But they can not tell anyone else to do so. But if he said to three people just give a גט to his wife then according to ר’ מאירthey can tell a scribe to write it and to witnesses to sign it and they give it to his wife. ר' יוסי disagrees with this and says even in this last situation they must write and give it themselves. שמואל said, "If one says to two people write and give גט to my wife they have to do it themselves. If they tell a scribe tp write and they signed, it is not valid, however this subject still requires study." The גמרא ask on this statement of שמואל. It asks why does this need study? Perhaps because he might think that there is a possibility that words can be handed over to a messenger. The question I have on this גמרא is this. The opinion that words can be handed to messenger is ר’ מאירand he agrees in the Mishna that if one says to two people to give גט to his wife that they must do it themselves. [(And even though the case ofשמואל is different from the משנה because in the case of שמואל he said “write and give” while in the משנה he said to three only “give” tstill this makes my question even stronger because adding the word "write" we see in the משנה that that is even stricter that if he just said to give. If he also said to three "write" then ר' מאיר agrees they must write it themselves.)] So even if שמואל might hold with ר’ מאירthere still should be no doubt and the law. A possible answer to this question is that perhaps at this point the גמרא is thinking that R. Meir himself might disagree with even the beginning of the Mishna.