Nedarim 37a: One who hires someone to babysit a child, to guard a cow or to guard a field of produce, may not pay him for Shabbos. Therefore, if a loss occurred on Shabbos, he is not liable. But if he was hired for the whole week, the whole month, the whole year or the whole seven years, one may pay him for Shabbos. In this case, if a loss occurred on Shabbos, he is liable.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 306:5: Some forbid hiring a chazzan for Shabbos, and some permit. Rema: If he was hired for a year or a month (and he sometimes leads the davening during the week) it is permitted according to all.

Mishnah Berurah: The Acharonim say that the custom is to be lenient and hire him just for Shabbos. If one wishes to be strict, [one can either use the Rema’s solution and hire him to daven sometimes during the week, or else] one can avoid quoting a price, and whatever he receives will be considered a gift.

נדרים לז ע”א: השוכר את הפועל לשמור את התינוק, לשמור את הפרה, לשמור את הזרעים ־ אין נותנין לו שכר שבת, לפיכך אם אבדו אינו חייב באחריותןֹ ואם היה שכיר שבת, שכיר חדש, שכיר שנה, שכיר שבוע ־ נותן לו שכר שבת, לפיכך אם אבדו חייב באחריותןִ.

או”ח ש”ו ס”ה: אסור לשכור חזנים להתפלל בשבת ויש מי שמתיר: הגה ואם שכרו לשנה או לחודש לכ״ע שרי (ד״ע) :

משנה ברורה: ויש מי שמתיר. ס״ל דבמקום מצוה לא גזרו רבנן על שכר שבת בזה ומ״מ אינו רואה סימן ברכה… ואם שכרו לשנה או לחודש לכולי עלמא שרי. פירוש, לשנה שיתפלל גם בימות החול ומשלם לו לחודש או לשבוע בבת אחת. ועיין באחרונים שכתבו שנוהגים להקל לשכור לשבתות לחוד והחושש לדברי האוסרין לא יקצוב בתחלה ומה שלוקח אח״כ י״ל שהוא דרך מתנה.

 או”ח תקפ”ה ס”ה: הנוטל שכר לתקוע בר״ה או כדי להתפלל או לתרגם בשבתות וי״ט אינו רואה מאותו שכר סימן ברכה.

Rabbi Moshe Heinemann related that when he was in yeshiva in Lakewood, there was a bochur with a unusually nice voice, and the main shul of Lakewood wanted to hire him as a chazzan. However, he did not want to take the job because his main responsibility would be leading the davening on Shabbos and Yom Tov, and Chazal say that if a person takes money for working on Shabbos and Yom Tov, he will not see a siman bracha from the money.

Rav Heinemann and his other friends pushed him to go and ask the shailah to the Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l. The Rosh Yeshiva said, “In Lakewood it is not easy to get a job. This is an easy job where you will daven on Shabbos and do an hour of choir practice during the week, with no strenuous work on your part. The Ribbono Shel Olam is giving you the opportunity to get married, have a parnassah, and sit and learn for many years. Since you will do it l’shem shamayim, you will see a siman bracha from it.”

But the bochur did not listen, because the Shulchan Aruch says you will not see a siman bracha from working on Shabbos and Yom Tov. He had a very hard time finding a shidduch. He sat and learned until age 28, and then he decided that if he had a job then it would be easier for him to find a shidduch. He did not really find such a great job. Eventually he got married in his thirties, did not have any children, and finally got divorced from his wife. He did not see any siman bracha.

Rabbi Heinemann concluded, “My Rosh Yeshiva told him to take the job and he would see siman bracha. This bochur did not listen because he thought he was smarter. When it comes to things that have to do with ruchniyus, halacha, or hashkafa, a person should not rely on himself. He should rely on people who are big experts, just as a person with a health question should go to a doctor rather than figure it out himself from a book. If he thinks he should exercise in a certain way because he read it in the book, while his doctor says he should not do that, otherwise he might get a heart attack, then he is not doing the right thing. The doctor is an expert in his field and says that the book does not apply to this person. A person should be guided by people that are greater than him, rather than thinking he is the smartest person in the world.”

[The two opinions cited by the Mechaber in 306 disagree over whether it is allowed to accept pay for chazzanus, but even the lenient opinion agrees that no siman bracha will come from it. It seems that Rav Aharon had two reasons for what he said: Firstly, the Mishnah Berurah says that the custom is to be lenient, and presumably that means that there will be siman bracha as well. Secondly, the Rema says that it is permitted (and presumably there will be siman bracha too) if one includes weekday work with Shabbos. Practicing with the choir was considered weekday work.

Perhaps the young man was hesitant to follow this psak because he thought that the choir practice was not independent work, but merely a preparation for Shabbos. Rav Aharon therefore assured him that because of his circumstances, he should not be strict, but rather accept the opportunity sent to him by Hashem.]

Nedarim 27a: If one was under duress in his failure to fulfill a vow, it is permitted. For example, if Reuven made Shimon swear that he would eat at his house, and then Shimon got sick, or his son got sick, or a river blocked his path – this is called duress.

Yoreh Deah 232:12, Rema: Some say that the exemption of duress applies only when he had to swear to avoid something bad happening to him, not if he merely swore to gain something.

נדרים כ ע”ב: ארבעה נדרים התירו חכמים: נדרי זרוזין, ונדרי הבאי, ונדרי שגגות, ונדרי אונסין. ושם כז ע”א: נדרי אונסין: הדירו חבירו שיאכל אצלו, וחלה הוא או שחלה בנו, או שעכבו נהר ־ הרי אלו נדרי אונסין.

יו”ד רל”ב,יב: נדרי אונסין כיצד, הדירו חבירו שיאכל אצלו וחלה או שחלה בנו או שעכבו נהר הרי אלו נדרי אונסין… רמ”א: ויש אומרים דלא מקרי אונס ולא מקרי אונס בשבועה אלא א״כ היה מגיע לו איזה רעה אם לא היה נשבע אבל אם לא היה מגיע לו טובה ונשבע כדי שיהיה לו טובה מזה אין מקרי אנוס בשבועה (מהרי״ק שורש קס״ז ופסקי מהרא״י סי׳ ע״ג).

Born in 1930 in Kaschau, Hungary, Rabbi Avraham Weinfeld was 14 years old when the Germans deported his entire town to Auschwitz. His parents, siblings and extended family were all killed immediately. Soon he was transferred to a labor camp and forced to work all winter in sub-freezing temperatures, wearing nothing but a thin prison shirt. For a time, he had typhus. He later wrote in the hakdama to his sefer Even Yechezkel that he took a vow while in the camp that if he survived, he would dedicate his entire life to learning and teaching Torah. This was in spite of the fact that he came from a family that was not particularly scholarly. His father and grandfather had owned a factory and were well-to-do people. The idea of dedicating his life to Torah was his own.

After the war, he came to America and learned under R’ Moshe Feinstein at MTJ. When he became engaged, he and his kallah went visit to the Satmar Rebbe, who asked him what he would be doing for a living. Reb Avraham responded that he was going to learn. “What are you going to live on?” asked the Rebbe. “I made a neder in the concentration camps that if I would survive, I would dedicate my life to learning Torah,” said Reb Avraham. The Rebbe made a dismissive gesture and said, “That’s nidrei onsin. You don’t have to keep it.” But Reb Avraham  did not give up.

He bought a newspaper, looked at the classifieds and chose an apartment in Harlem (unaware that, by that time, Harlem was no longer a thriving Jewish neighborhood). The first day of Sheva Brachos, he went to daven Mincha and Maariv in a local shul. After Mincha, a few old men approached him and asked him if he could give a shiur on Mishnayos. He agreed and gave the shiur. After Maariv, the shul members asked him if he would become their Rav. For ten dollars a month, he became the Rav of that shul. Eventually, another shul hired him, paying him twelve dollars a month; he alternated between the shuls and that was how he made a living.

In that first shul, the women’s balcony had no mechitzah, but no women really came to shul so there wasn’t much of an issue. As the high holidays approached and women were to come, he told the people in the shul that they needed a mechitzah. “This shul is a hundred years old,” the members responded, “and this is the way we’ve been davening for all these years. We’re not interested in a nineteen year old boy telling us how to daven.” “Well,” he said, “if there’s no mechitzah, I can’t daven here.” So they came up with a solution: they built a mechitzah just around Reb Avraham’s seat.

On Yom Kippur night, to his surprise, he saw everyone in the shul wearing leather shoes. During his drashah before Kol Nidrei, he spoke about the prohibition to wear shoes. They all listened to him and removed their shoes, except for the president of the shul, who refused. In the morning, Reb Avraham came back to shul and found that his mechitzah was gone. The president had taken it down. “The way you are living is not how people live today,” said the president. “No,” said Reb Avraham. “If a person lives according to the Torah, he lives, and if he not, it’s not a life.” He left the shul and walked, on Yom Kippur morning, from Harlem to Williamsburg to daven by the Klausenberger Rebbe.

When he came back home Motzaei Yom Kippur, he found all the people of the shul gathered in the hallway of his apartment. They told him that that morning, the president of the shul had dropped dead in the middle of davening. Terrified, they asked him for mechilah. Reb Avraham told them that it had nothing to do with him. He didn’t stay much longer in that position.

Source: https://ravweinfeld.com/posts/bo/#yartzeit-of-reb-avraham-weinfeld

[Based on the Mechaber and Rema, there are two conditions needed to be considered “nidrei onsin”: the vow was made due to fear of something bad happening, and the fulfillment of the vow became too difficult because of a new situation that arose, e.g. he got sick. In our case, the vow was made because the young Avraham Weinfeld was afraid of dying in the Holocaust, and he wanted Hashem’s protection, so the first condition is satisfied. But what was the new situation that arose? He knew all along that it would be difficult to sit and learn his whole life (although perhaps we could say that he didn’t know how exactly difficult it would be).

Furthermore, it’s not even clear that this is called “a vow taken to avoid something bad.” Perhaps it should be viewed the opposite way: most Jews did not survive the camps. In all probability, he would die too. He was asking Hashem for special protection, and in return he promised to sit and learn. Maybe this is similar to the Rema’s case of swearing in order to gain something.

Indeed, the Ramban on Vayikra 22:18 says:

כי הנדר הוא הבא על דבר שיפלא ממנו, שידור לה׳ בצר לו אם תעשה עמי להפליא להצילני מן הצרה הזאת אביא עולה או שלמים, כענין וידר יעקב נדר לאמר אם יהיה אלהים עמדי (בראשית כח כ) , וידר ישראל נדר לה׳ ויאמר אם נתון תתן (במדבר כא ב) , וידרו נדרים (יונה א טז(.

The word “yafli” is used in connection with a neder because a person usually makes a neder in order to merit help from Hashem in something that is too hard for him (“pele” means hidden, beyond, wondrous). He vows to Hashem in his time of trouble, “If you do wonders for me and save me from this danger, I will bring a korban olah or shlamim.” For example, “Yaakov vowed a neder saying, if G-d will be with me…” “Israel vowed and neder to Hashem and said, if You deliver this people into my hands…” And regarding the sailors on the ship with Yonah, it says, “They made vows.”

Is it conceivable if Yaakov Avinu, the Bnei Yisroel or the sailors had encountered some inconvenience, they would not have had to keep their vows?

On the issue of the mechitzah, it’s interesting that according to Reb Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe OC 1:39), the high balcony would have been sufficient, as it prevents mingling; preventing visibility is not required. This teshuva was written in 1946, before our story. Perhaps the case was that “balcony” was almost level with the main shul. Alternatively, although Reb Avraham Weinfeld had learned under Reb Moshe, he was more stringent regarding the requirement of mechitzah.

If Reb Avraham held that the mechitzah needed to block visibility, then why would a mechitzah just around his seat help? The rav may as well have put on a blindfold; the shul would still not be following the halachos of a shul because they didn’t have a kosher mechitzah, and one may not daven in such a shul. If a blindfold doesn’t help, why does a mechitzah around his seat help? The answer is that the mechitzah rendered his seat a different domain, not part of the shul at all. As to the rest of the shul, he was willing to let them follow Reb Moshe’s shitah.]

Nedarim 55b: Rabbi Yehuda says, everything depends on the context in which a person made a vow. For example, if he was carrying a load of wool or linen and as a result, he was sweating and smelling bad, and he said, “I vow that no wool or linen will come upon me,” he is allowed to cover himself with a wool blanket but forbidden to carry wool on his back.   

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 218:1: When someone takes a vow or an oath, we analyze the reason why he took it, we infer what his intention was, and we go by context, not by the actual meaning of his words. For example, if he was carrying a load of wool or linen…

נדרים נה ע”ב: ר׳ יהודה אומר: הכל לפי הנודר, טען והזיע והיה ריחו קשה, אמר קונם צמר ופשתים עולה עלי ־ מותר להתכסות ואסור להפשיל לאחוריו.

שו”ע יו”ד רי”ח ס”א: כל הנודר או הנשבע רואין דברים שבגללן נשבע או נדר ולומדים מהם לאיזה נתכוין והולכין אחר הענין ולא אחר משמעות הדיבור כיצד היה טעון משא של צמר או פשתים והזיע והיה ריחו קשה ונשבע או נדר שלא יעלה עליו צמר או פשתים לעולם הרי זה מותר ללבוש בגדי צמר או פשתים ולהתכסות ואינו אסור אלא להפשילן לאחוריו היה לבוש בגדי צמר ונצטער בלבישתו ונשבע או נדר שלא יעלה עליו צמר לעולם אסו׳ ללבוש ומות׳ לטעון עליו ומותר להתכסות בגיזי צמר שלא נתכוין זה אלא לבגד צמר וכן כל כיוצא בזה.

A shaila about an incident that began 12 years ago was recently asked to HaGaon HaRav Yitzchak Zilberstein, who printed the story and shaila in a booklet published by Kollel Beis Dovid in Holon.

The protagonist of the story wrote: “About 12 years ago, when I was 21 and I was having trouble finding a shidduch, my friend suggested that I request the bracha of a Gadol B’Yisrael whose brachos are known to be fulfilled. (The identity of this gadol has not been released.) I stood in a long line and when it was finally my turn, I asked to find my zivug quickly. The tzaddik gave me a bracha and said: ‘Your zivug is very close.’ My friend took photos and a video of the encounter.

“When I heard the unequivocal bracha from the tzaddik’s mouth, I was filled with joy, and I said that if the words of the tzadik come true, I’ll donate NIS 10,000 to a certain tzedaka.

“But months passed, and then a year, and then two years, and my zivug wasn’t even in sight. During that time, I grumbled to my friend – ‘what about the bracha of the tzaddik who said ‘your zivug is very close?”

“Many years after the bracha, at the age of 32, an 18-year-old girl from a good family was suggested to me. Baruch Hashem, despite my age, her parents agreed to the shidduch and after several dates, we got engaged. It was 11 years after the tzaddik’s bracha, a period that according to all opinions isn’t considered a ‘zivug b’karov.’

“The friend who convinced me to seek the tzaddik’s bracha is a relative of the kallah. One day, the subject of the bracha came up and the fact that I harbored a bit of grievance in my heart that the tzaddik said my zivug was close but it didn’t turn out to be. Of course, as it turned out, I couldn’t have gotten engaged earlier because the zivug that was set from Shamayim when the tzaddik gave me a bracha – was only seven years old at the time.

“The kallah, whose family is also close to the tzaddik, said that she must see the photos. My friend had saved the photos and video on his computer and my kallah and I sat down to watch the video. We watched as I stood in line and waited and I spoke with the tzaddik and he said: ‘Your zivug is very close.’

“Suddenly, my kallah jumped up from her chair and screamed: ‘This is unbelievable! I can’t believe this.’

“‘What happened?’ we said, and she replied: ‘Look at the video. The person standing behind you in line for a bracha is my father and the young girl who’s holding his hand is me…I was seven years old and I came with my father to get a bracha from the tzaddik!’

“Suddenly, retroactively, after 11 years of waiting and uncertainty, the tzaddik’s bracha that ‘your zivug is very close’ was proven to be true – close in a physical sense rather than in a timely sense.

“After we recovered from our shock and surprise, my friend told me: ‘One minute, didn’t you promise that if the tzaddik’s words were fulfilled, you would donate a large amount of money to tzedaka?’

“I replied: ‘Correct, I remember it like yesterday. But what does that have to do with anything? You know that I only found my zivug after 11 years.’

“But my friend claimed that I made a promise that if the tzaddik’s words came true that ‘your zivug is very close,’ I’ll donate a certain amount of money to tzedaka. And now it turns out that the tzaddik’s words came true – that my zivug was very close from a physical standpoint.

“However, I think that surely my intention was not that the tzaddik’s words would be fulfilled in this manner – but that it would come ‘soon’ -in a timely fashion.”

HaRav Zilberstein responded: “Surely Shamayim put the true words in the tzaddik’s mouth and if he would have said that the zivug was close in time, it wouldn’t have been good for the bochur, because it was decreed for him 40 days before his creation that there would be a difference of 14 years between him and his partner.”

“The wording of the neder was that if the words of the tzaddik came true, and it did turn out that the tzaddik’s words came true. But nevertheless, it seems that he is not obligated to pay his neder because nedarim aren’t based on the truth or the wording but on the intention of the one who made the vow. And like it’s ruled in the Shulchan Aruch that anyone who takes a vow – we see why he made the neder and then we learn what he intended. And we go after what he intended, and not the meaning of the words. And since here his intention was to give the tzedaka only if his zivug would be close in time – and not physically close to him – and although the shidduch occurred at the moment it was supposed to because it wasn’t possible beforehand because his kallah was not yet 18 – but nevertheless, since he didn’t make a neder on this [the physical closeness] and it wasn’t the intention of his neder, he is exempt from paying what he promised.”

Source: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/2178227/a-tzaddiks-bracha-after-11-yrs-he-realized-his-kallah-was-standing-next-to-him.html

Nedarim 41a: Said Rabbi Alexandri in the name of Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, and some say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: When the end of a person’s life comes, anything can overpower him, as Kayin said to Hashem, “Anyone who finds me will kill me” (Bereishis 4:14). Rav derived this from a different posuk: “They stood for Your judgment today, for all are your servants” (Tehillim 119:92).

The Mefaresh explains: Anything can overpower him – even a fly or a mosquito.

The Ran explains: Once the verdict of Your judgment is that the person’s time has come to die, all things are Your servants to carry out the sentence. 

נדרים מא ע”א: וא״ר אלכסנדרי א״ר חייא בר אבא, ואמרי לה אריב״ל: כיון שהגיע קיצו של אדם הכל מושלים בו, שנאמר: (בראשית ד) והיה כל מוצאי יהרגני. רב אמר, מן הדין קרא: (תהלים קיט) למשפטיך עמדו היום כי הכל עבדיך.

One maggid shiur explained this Gemara with the Mefaresh’s comment by saying that the fly or mosquito might bite him and infect him with a deadly disease. But one of the listeners spoke up and said, “I can explain it based on my own experience. I once set out in my car and said Tefilas Haderech, and as I said the words, ‘Save us from dangerous animals on the road,’ I wondered to myself, why do we still say these words nowadays? Usually we’re traveling inside a car and the animals, if there are any, pose no risk. About a half hour later, I got my answer. A small fly entered my eye as I was speeding down the highway, and I lost control of the car and crashed. Miraculous, I emerged with only minor injuries. Then I understood that sometimes, the ‘dangerous animals’ can mean flies. Probably that is the meaning of the Gemara in Nedarim too: when there is a decree of death upon a person, even a fly or a mosquito can overpower him.”

Source: Meoros Hadaf Hayomi, Nedarim 41a (v. 3 p. 160)

[The listener’s explanation seems more correct than the maggid shiur’s. The Gemara is saying that anyone can be Hashem’s messenger to carry out a death sentence, even those creatures who aren’t usually harmful. If the meaning is as the maggid shiur said – that a mosquito infects him with malaria – that is the usual way of getting malaria. That does not illustrate how Hashem uses an unusual messenger. According to the listener, however, flies do not usually cause car accidents, so his story shows that anything can kill if that is Hashem’s decree.

Why does the Gemara bring a proof from Kayin? Because when Kayin said, “Anyone who finds me will kill me,” he was not afraid of any human avenger. Hevel had no children, and Adam and Chava would not kill their own son. Clearly, Kayin meant an animal sent by Hashem, because he thought that Hashem had decreed death upon him.]

Nedarim 8a: Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav: One who says, ‘I will get up early tomorrow and learn this perek, or this masechta’ has vowed a great vow to the G-d of Israel.”

נדרים ח ע”א: ואמר רב גידל אמר רב: האומר אשכים ואשנה פרק זה, אשנה מסכתא זו ־ נדר גדול נדר לאלהי ישראל.

Rabbi Meir Shapiro proposed the Daf Yomi at the first Knessiah Gedolah of Agudath Israel, in Elul 5683 (1923). He had some trouble getting people to accept the idea. Before the opening session of the Knessiah, he presented the idea in a private meeting of the Moetzes. Some were concerned that people would not take it seriously, and would then have less respect for the Gedolei Yisroel after they proposed a revolutionary idea that was not accepted. Therefore they advised that Rabbi Meir Shapiro speak publicly and advance the idea himself.

Another one of the Moetzes members asked, “Suddenly every am haaretz is going to finish Shas and be considered a Shas Yid?” Reb Meir was caught off guard. He had not been expecting an objection like that. Luckily, Rabbi Menachem Ziemba spoke up in his defense and said, “A Yid who finishes Shas is already not called an am haaretz!”

Reb Meir still feared that as he was young and relatively unknown, people would not accept his idea. He met privately with the Chofetz Chaim and asked him to present the idea instead. The Chofetz Chaim replied, “No, you present it yourself. But I ask you to come to the session 20 minutes late.” When Reb Meir walked in, the hall was already packed. The Chofetz Chaim rose in his honor, and everyone else followed suit. After that unusual display of respect, everyone paid close attention to Reb Meir’s speech, and the Daf Yomi proposal was greeted with unexpected enthusiasm. It was decided that the Daf would begin with Berachos on Rosh Hashanah 5684 (1923).

There were many, however, who were afraid to start the Daf Yomi program because of the great responsibility of daily learning. What if they missed a day? Perhaps, they thought, starting the program would be considered a vow, as the Gemara says in Nedarim 8a, “Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav: One who says, ‘I will get up early tomorrow and learn this perek, or this masechta’ has vowed a great vow to the G-d of Israel.” Also, the Gemara says in Sanhedrin 26b, “Thoughts can prevent a person from learning Torah,” which Rashi explains (in his second pshat) to mean that if a person plans ahead too confidently, saying that by such-and-such a date I will finish these masechtas, the plan will likely be unsuccessful. Rather, these people argued, better to simply learn with no stated quota.

These misgivings continued until the first day of Rosh Hashanah arrived, and the Gerrer Rebbe, the Imrei Emes, left his beis medrash after davening, saying, “Now I am going to learn the Daf Yomi!” Following the Rebbe’s example, thousands of Chassidim took upon themselves the Daf Yomi schedule, and thousands more Jews from all over the world followed suit, then and in the 14 cycles since then.

Source: Mayim Chaim – Biography of Rabbi Chaim Kreiswirth, pp. 90-94   

[The question of why one who misses the Daf one day is not considered to be transgressing a neder was left unanswered. Perhaps we could suggest an answer based on the rule of בנדרים הלך אחר לשון בני אדם – “When it comes to Nedarim, follow the language of people.” (Nedarim 49a and many other places). The words of a person’s vow legally mean what most people use them to mean. When most people say they are learning Daf Yomi, they mean that once in a while, they might miss a daf and make it up later.

Therefore, if someone makes his own private resolution to get up early and learn a certain daf, that is a neder as the Gemara says. But if someone joins the Daf, they are joining it with the intent of doing what the other Daf learners typically do.  

Thus in Elul 1923, everyone was afraid to be the first to accept the Daf, because there would be no precedent to base themselves on, and perhaps it would be a neder to learn every single day. But after Rosh Hashanah 1923, once the Gerrer Rebbe and his close Chassidim accepted it, others could accept it too and their words would mean whatever the Rebbe’s words meant – to learn it on most days.

Alternatively, we could say that the Gerrer Rebbe certainly said “bli neder” when accepting it, so it became the standard that anyone accepting the Daf meant bli neder, although he may not have said so explicitly.

As to the second quote, from the Rashi in Sanhedrin 26b, we could say that Rashi means that one who boasts about exactly how much he will learn is punished either because of his arrogance, or because of ayin hora. But in the case of Daf Yomi, once it was already accepted by many people, one who announces that he is joining is not displaying arrogance, neither does it cause ayin hora.]

Nedarim 27a: Who is the Tanna of this baraisa that the Rabbis taught? “If one vowed not to benefit from five people, and he annulled the vow for one of them, all of them become annulled. But if he originally made the vow excluding one of them, he is permitted and the rest are forbidden.”

נדרים כז ע”א: מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן: נדר מחמשה בני אדם כאחד ־ הותר לאחד מהם הותרו כולן, חוץ מאחד מהן ־ הוא מותר והן אסורין.

Two boys in the Mirrer Yeshiva were sitting in the Beis Medrash, Gemaras open on their shtenders, but they were schmoozing and wasting time. Suddenly, Reb Nochum walked by. The boys quickly pretended to be learning, chanting loudly, “Tanu Rabanan…” Reb Nochum said, “I know you’re not learning, because there is no Tanu Rabanan anywhere in Nedarim!”

When this story was told to Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, he commented, “It’s true that there is no Tanu Rabanan, but there is one D’tanu Rabanan.”   

Source: FJJ March 25, 2022 p. 44

[There are only two masechtas where “Tanu Rabanan” does not appear: Nedarim and Tamid. Otherwise, it appears 1,979 times, which is on average once every 1.3 blatt. There is clearly a significant difference here. As Tosafos says (Nedarim 7a), Nedarim is written in a different style (לשון נדרים משונה). The Tiferes Yisroel on Avos 2:4, Boaz, writes about the virtues of chazarah and explains the Mishnah אל תאמר לכשאפנה אשנה as referring to chazarah. And an author must certainly check over his sefer to eliminate errors. Even the great Rav Ashi with his yeshiva went through Shas twice in his life, each time for 30 years, in order to compile and perfect it. The masechtas Nedarim, Nazir, Erechin, Krisos, Temurah, Me’ilah and Tamid, he proposes, have a different style because Rav Ashi didn’t get to edit them a second time. We can theorize that maybe in his second edition he decided to distinguish a certain kind of Baraisa from others using the code words “Tanu Rabanan”. Nedarim, since it is from the first edition, does not contain these words.]

Nedarim 62b: A Torah scholar is allowed to say, “I am a servant of fire and I will not pay taxes.” Why? He is just saying it to chase away the lion.

נדרים סב ע”ב: ואמר רבא: שרי ליה לצורבא מרבנן למימר עבדא דנורא אנא לא יהיבנא אכרגא, מ״ט? לאברוחי אריא מיניה קאמר. פירש הר”ן דהן סבורים לעבודת כוכבים והוא לבו לשמים כדכתיב ה’ א-להיך אש אוכלה הוא.

יו”ד קנ”ז ס”ב: אסור לאדם לומר שהוא עובד כוכבים כדי שלא יהרגוהו אבל אם כדי שלא יכירוהו שהוא יהודי משנה מלבושו בשעת הגזרה מותר כיון שאינו אומר שהוא עובד כוכבים: הגה…ואע״ג דאסור לומר שהוא עובד כוכבים מכ״מ יוכל לומר להם לשון דמשתמע לתרי אפין (נמוקי יוסף פ׳ הגוזל) והעובדי כוכבים יבינו שהוא אומר שהוא עובד כוכבים והוא יכוין לדבר אחר.

In the Kovna ghetto during the Holocaust, there lived a Jew who was exiled from Germany by the Nazi government. He did not have a Jewish appearance, and his name, printed on his German passport, sounded non-Jewish. As life in the ghetto became more and more difficult for the Jews, he decided to escape and try hiding among the non-Jewish population. In order to ensure that he not be suspected of being Jewish, he wanted to add the letters “RK” to his passport, standing for “Romisch-Katholische” (Roman Catholic), and he asked Rabbi Ephraim Oshry if this was allowed.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 157:2) says that a Jew is forbidden to say he is a non-Jew in order to avoid getting killed. However, he may wear non-Jewish clothing in order to make them believe he is a non-Jew.

The Rema adds that one may say words that can be understood in two ways, so that they will understand that he is a non-Jew, but he really means something else. His source is the Nimukei Yosef on Bava Kama 113a, who brings our Gemara in Nedarim 62b as a proof. Saying “I am a servant of fire” definitely implies that one is not Jewish. If one is allowed to say that to avoid taxes, certainly it is permitted to do so in order to save one’s life. 

There is a dispute about how to understand the words “servant of fire”. Some Rishonim (Tosafos quoted by the Nimukei Yosef, and Shitah Mekubetzes) explain it to mean a servant of the priests who worship fire. Others (Rosh and Rashi) say it means a servant of the fire idol itself. Either way, says the Nimukei Yosef, the implication is that he is not Jewish, yet it is permitted because he is not saying it directly; he is just misleading his killers.

Rabbi Oshry argues that according to the Rosh, who says one is allowed to say he is a servant of the idol itself, the only way it can be permitted is if the words have another meaning and he secretly has that meaning in mind. In the case of fire, the Rishonim explain that he can have in mind that he is a servant of Hashem, who is called fire as it says in the Torah, “Hashem your G-d is a consuming fire” (Devarim 4:24). He brings the Knesses Hagedolah who says this as well, and says this is the source of the Rema who says one may say words that can be understood in two ways.

Accordingly, it would seem that writing R.K. on the passport is forbidden, since that is saying he is a servant of the Catholic religion, and there is no other way to understand his words.

However, Rabbi Oshry ultimately argues that it is permitted for two reasons:

1. The halacha that a Jew may not say he is a non-Jew to save his life is similar to the halacha of Kiddush Hashem, that one may not pretend to believe in or accept idolatry to save his life, even if in his heart he does not believe it. The case is that the gentiles are trying to forcibly convert Jews who they are know are Jews, and they just want to squeeze out of them a conversion at the point of a sword. Therefore, to say “I am a non-Jew” or the equivalent is giving in the pressure. A Jew must give up his life for that. But here, the Nazis don’t know he is a Jew. They are out to kill all Jews, but if he can fool them into thinking he is a non-Jew, he is not giving in to shmad, so it is not a Kiddush Hashem situation.
2. The Rema permits a statement that could be understood two ways. The Toras Chaim on Avodah Zarah 17 tells the story of a great tzaddik who, during a murderous attack on the Jews in Germany, was asked if he was Jewish and replied, “Kein Jude” which in German means “not a Jew” but in Hebrew means, “yes a Jew”. If that is called “words that can be understood in two ways” then here too, he can write R.K. and have in mind that it means the Hebrew word “rak” as in “Only guard yourself and watch your life carefully” (Devarim 4:9).

One might object that the Shach (157:18) that says this heter to mislead them with words is only for a talmid chacham, but a simple Jew is forbidden to use it, lest he take it too far. The answer  is that as the Pischei Teshuva says, quoting Beis Yaakov, that is only true if he is avoiding taxes, because the simple Jew could really pay the tax, whereas a Torah scholar should really be exempt from taxes. But to save oneself from robbery, and all the more so from death, it is allowed for anyone to use this deception.  

(Source: Shailos Uteshuvos Mimaamakim 5:3)