Resources for Nedarim 22

1.     The גמרא says that someone who makes a נדר is as if he built a במה and he is מקיים his נדר its as if he was מקריב a קרבן on it. The ר"ן explains that this refers to a במה that is built to bring קרבנות לה׳ at a time when במות are not allowed and we compare making a נדר to bringing a קרבן because נדרים are making something אסור to you like a קרבן and you are doing so inappropriately thinking it is a מצוה, similar to those who build במות who think they are doing a מצוה even though it is actually a terrible עברה of שחוטי חוץ. The מפרש explains that it is talking about someone who built a במה לעבודה זרה and if he isn’t שואל on it its as if he was מקריב a קרבן לע"ז. That is quite a statement. Why would making a נדר that you keep be so bad? In fact  רבי יהודהearlier on דף ט  said "טוב מזה ומזה נודר ומשלם". He seems to have no issue with נדרים  as long as you bring the קרבן  you said you would bring. Furthermore, our גמרא says in the name of שמואל that someone who makes a נדר and keeps it is called a רשע. However, the גמרא on דף ע"ז ע"ב quotes רב דימי calling the person a חוטא. The שולחן ערוך in סימן ר"ג סעיף א actually quotes both לשונות. The ט"ז there explains that if the person has a פּתח and doesn’t use it, he is called a רשע, but if he doesn’t use it he is called a חוטא. I would like to suggest a different פּשט  that would answer all these questions: it all depends on the type of נדר made. As to the מפרש’s characterization of the person as an עובד עבודה זרה, perhaps our גמרא is talking about someone who gets angry at his friend and makes a נדר to make him מודר הנאה  from his property. The גמרא in several places in  ש"סsays that someone who gets angry is considered an עובד ע"ז (e.g. כל השובר דבר בכעסו שאילו עובד ע"ז). Therefore, someone who would make an angry נדר would be like building a במה לע"ז and if he stayed angry enough that he isn’t שואל on that נדר is as if he was מקריב a קרבן לעבודה זרה on it. This flows well with the גמרא then going on to discuss anger in general. It also explains why שמואל calls this person a רשע, similar to someone who raises his hand against his friend is called a רשע. The גמרא on דף ע"ז ע"ב is talking about someone who makes something אסור on himself like saying he is נודר to not eat chicken. That person is called a חוטא as it says כל היושב בתענית נקרא חוטא since he is abstaining from the good of this world and לא דיך במה שאסרה תורה as the ר"ן quotes. The נדר that רבי יהודה was talking about on דף ט was donating a קרבן which is a positive and for that one simply needs to fulfill his נדר but has done nothing wrong at all.

2.     The גמרא tells a story of עולא who on his way to Israel and was accompanied by two people from חוזאי and one of them killed the other. When the murderer asked עולא what he thought about that he said good job "ופּרע ליה בית השחיטה". The רא"ש and the מפרש say that the בני חוזאי were Jewish. That makes the ופּרע ליה בית השחיטה very surprising. The רא"ש just says “out of fear he was מחזק and so he should die quickly”. The מנחת שלמה here in נדרים understood that to mean that עולא physically opened the wound larger so the victim would die quicker. That would be very surprising since we generally do not allow a person to even move a גוסס because he might die sooner and it would be considered רציחה. This is also known as "חיי שעה", and we pasken in שולחן ערוך in או"ח סימן שכ"ט that one can be מחלל שבת for חיי שעה. If so, how could עולא have hastened the person’s death? He leaves it צ"ע. The תפארת ישראל in the beginning of מסכת פּאה understand the רא"ש to mean that he simply told the murderer to be פורע בית השחיטה but did not do it himself. The תפארת ישראל learns from there that you are allowed to tell someone to murder someone else who is half dead to save yourself. His explanation is because the reason you can’t save your life by taking someone else’s is because who says your blood is redder than his. However, in this case where you will live and he anyway wont live, your blood is certainly redder. He doesn’t seem to allow actually killing him even though according to his logic one would think that would be allowed as well. The מנחת שלמה in חלק ב סימן פּ"ג אות י"א seems to understand that while someone could not kill a גוסס to save his life, he could do something to make him die more quickly to save his life. A נפקא מינה is that you still couldn’t do a heart transplant from someone who was brain dead if you hold brain death is not death since taking the heart would be actual murder. One would think that the תפארת שלמה would have allowed that if you didn’t do it yourself but simply asked someone else to do it. Obviously something to be worked out with a Rav.