2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

Today’s daf discusses “if I would have known” vows! It begins with “If I would have known father was here I would have prohibited everyone but father to eat!” and it ends with – onions!

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to Rava: The mishna (66a) states that if one says: Onions are konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste them, because onions are bad for the heart, and others said to him: But isn’t the kuferi onion good for the heart, the vow is dissolved with regard to kuferi onions, and not only with regard to kuferi onions is it dissolved, but with regard to all types of onions. The mishna relates that an incident of this kind occurred, and Rabbi Meir dissolved the vow with regard to all types of onions.

What, is it not speaking here of a case where that person said: Had I known that the kuferi onion is good for the heart I would have said: All onions are forbidden and the kuferi onion is permitted?

So, while the rabbis debate whether the person who, wrongly, believed onions are bad for the heart (they do give some people heartburn) can still eat this special kind of onion, or can really still eat all onions, I thought – Let’s find out if onions are good for your heart!

According to WebMD: Onions contain organic sulfur compounds. These compounds are the reason why onions have such a sharp, strong taste and smell. Organic sulfur compounds help reduce the level of cholesterol in your body and may also help break down blood clots, lowering your risk for heart disease and stroke! (And that’s all onions, not just “kuferi.”) And guess what else? They lower your risk of cancer, promote insulin production in diabetes patients, and have linked to lessen the occurrence of Alzheimers! They are packed with antioxidants, boost bone density and digestive health, have tons of nutrients and, let’s say the most important thing, they are delicious.

So, if you take one lesson from the daf, it’s that onions have many layers of benefits (see what I did there?) and they’re good for you. (Just maybe eat a mint or something after having them.)

I remember my sister once telling me that if I did something for her (maybe it was clean her room) that she would give me $100. So, I did what she asked and when it came time to pay she gave me . . . $100 of monopoly money. Today’s daf has people like my sister in mind . . .

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When the judges administer an oath to one who claims he paid a debt, they say to him: Know that we do not administer an oath to you based on a stipulation in your heart, i.e., you cannot claim that you are taking the oath based on a condition you have in mind. Rather, your oath is taken based on our understanding and on the understanding of the court.

Who are these tricky people who “speak truth” but are really completely deceptive? We get a case.

No, this warning comes to exclude a case similar to that cane of Rava, in which a person attempts to deceive the court but does not necessarily utilize his own terminology, as there was a certain man who claimed money from another. He came before Rava to adjudicate the case. The creditor said to the borrower: Go repay me your debt. The borrower said to him: I already repaid you. Rava said to him: If so, go take an oath to him that you repaid him.

The borrower went and brought a hollow cane, and placed the money inside it, and was leaning upon it, and went leaning upon it to the court. He said to the lender: Hold this cane in your hand so that I can take an oath while holding a Torah scroll. The borrower took the Torah scroll and swore that he had repaid the entire sum that had been in his possession.

That creditor then became angry upon hearing the borrower taking a false oath and broke that cane, and all of those coins placed inside fell to the ground. And it turned out that he had taken the oath in truth, since he had returned all the money at the time of the oath by giving him the cane with the money inside.

Wow! What a fabulous story of a deceiving person getting their comeuppance.

The moral? My sister was wrong. And all these politicians and lawyers who use prevarications, equivocations, and dissemblances (and big words to cover up their lies) are sinners – and that’s the truth.

Remember the movie “Antz” where Woody Allen plays a neurotic ant named Z who tries to change up society while trying to win the love of the princess? At the time, it seemed a revolutionary idea – to have bugs talking, to treat them like people . . . until “A Bugs Life” came out just a month later. Anyway, in the theme of there being nothing new under the sun, our daf might have inspired the movie:

Rava said: An oath of exaggeration is where he says: All the produce of the world shall be forbidden to me by an oath if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And perhaps this man saw an anthill and called them: Those who ascended from Egypt, because the quantity of ants was so numerous, and he took an oath properly.

Now, you should be picturing the scene of ants reenacting the Exodus from Egypt. . . kind of what happened in the movie. There are definitely parallels of Moses standing up to Pharaoh and Pharaoh making it worse for the Jews and Z standing up to the grasshoppers and the grasshoppers upping the anti for the ants. (Now, do you agree that this is the basis for the movie?)

Rav Ashi said to him: When he takes an oath, he takes an oath based on our understanding, which is that of an ordinary person, and we do not entertain the possibility in our mind that he is referring to ants [shumshemanei].

Back on Nedarim 20, the Mishna described four types of vows that can be automatically dissolved without needing a court 1) vows of exhortation (“come with me or I swear I won’t ever leave this chair”), 2) vows of exaggeration (“I am so hungry I could eat a horse!”), 3) vows made unintentionally, and 4) vows that cannot be fulfilled due to circumstances beyond one’s control (like your kid got sick).

Today the daf is discussing a vow based on a man seeing 600,000 souls on the street . . . is it an exaggeration? Is he referring to ants? Was a writer in Hollywood studying this daf when they got inspiration for the movie? I don’t know. But, like the rabbis, I will say this is all nonsense and that and we do not entertain the possibility in our mind that he is referring to ants.

The Origins of Kol Nidre

While many congregants do not attend Erev Rosh haShana services as their family meals run long and there is a home aspect to the evening, most come to Kol Nidre. Kol Nidre has a haunting tune and it doesn’t feel like Yom Kippur without it. But, did you realize we began Yom Kippur by annulling vows and oaths? Today’s daf shares with us:

And one who desires that his vows not be upheld for the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: Any vow that I take in the future should be void. And this statement is effective, provided that he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void.

Wait, is this Gemara the source for the recitation of Kol Nidre?

The RAN (Nissim ben Reuven 1320-1376) teaches in the name of Rabbeinu Tam (Jacob ben Meir 1100 – 1171) that this is the source for the recitation of Kol Nidre! This teaches us that, when we say Kol Nidre, we are referring to the future tense and not in the past tense meaning it is a declaration of annulment of the coming year’s vows and not the past year’s vows.

But the Rosh disagrees.

The Rosh (Asher ben Jehiel 1259 – 1327)(3:5) writes that the purpose of Kol Nidre is to annul vows made during the previous year. He proves this from the fact that it is recited three times, just as a Sage declares “Mutar Lach” three times when he annuls an individual’s vow. He cites further proof from the fact that it is followed by the recitation of the verse, “v’Nislach l’Chol Adat B’nei Yisrael…May it be forgiven for the entire congregation of the people of Israel…,” which implies a pardon of the transgressions of the past.

While saying he thinks Kol Nidre is dealign with the past, he points out that there are problems with the formula because annulling vows requires a Bet Din (Jewish court) and grounds for regret (our daf is full of trying to find these grounds in various cases). So, how does he defend his stance? The Rosh says that since everyone recites Kol Nidre together as a community, they all serve as the Bet Din required to annul each other’s vows. He further teaches that it is not necessary to find a cause for regret because it is assumed that everyone regrets the vows they have made.

Our daf clearly is referring to the future. But future or past, we might still wonder why anyone would start the year with a blanket annulment in either direction. Some explain that this procedure of revoking vows was chosen to begin the services of the holiest day of the year in order to inspire a spirit of repentance. Teshuvah (repentance) is unique in that it retroactively uproots the sins of one’s past. Teshuvah is a sign that we are growing and changing, that we are trying to better than we once were. Will we mess up again? Yes. We are human, but we strive to fail and fall uphill, becoming a little better all the time.

So, really, we should strive to begin the year by letting go of the regret for what we vowed in the past (as long as we grow from it) and begin the year already forgiving ourselves for the mistakes we will make (as long as we grow from it) – our rabbis recognized that we are only human, and will try to find any excuse for us to get out of our mistakes and broken promises.

Anger. Hemorrhoids. Angry hemorrhoids? On today’s daf we get a passage about the danger of giving in to anger . . .

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who gets angry, all kinds of Gehenna (hell) rule over him, because anger causes him to transgress all kinds of severe sins, as it is stated: “Therefore remove vexation from your heart and put away evil from your flesh” (Ecclesiastes 11:10), and the evil mentioned is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose and even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), which is interpreted to mean that ultimately the day of the evildoer in Gehenna will arrive – meaning this angry person will go to Hell (don’t worry, it’s Jewish Hell, meaning you are only there a short time and are likely to see friends 😉 ).

This is already interesting. Does it really mean we are sent to Hell for getting angry? Everyone experiences anger and feeling your emotions is a good and healthy thing. But anger is also a covering emotion. When we are angry there is always something under it. We should ask ourselves: Is it that I am jealous? that I feel left out? That I feel insulted? Reacting our of anger is NEVER a good thing, but recognition that we are feeling angry can lead us to digging and learning more about ourselves, what we want, and what matters to us. When we do this, we can actually become closer in a relationship rather than letting anger further sever the connection.

Now, a laugh:

And not only that, but also hemorrhoids will control him, as it is stated: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul” (Deuteronomy 28:65). Which is the matter of sickness that causes failing of the eyes in pain and causes languishing of the soul? You must say this is referring to hemorrhoids.

Yep! While this made me laugh, it is true that anger messes with our digestive track – it gives us an upset stomach. Now more gems:

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Anyone who gets angry, at that moment even the Divine Presence is not important to him, as it is stated: “The wicked, in the height of his anger says: He will not require; all his thoughts are: There is no God” (Psalms 10:4). Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: Anyone who gets angry forgets his learning and increases foolishness, as it is stated: “For anger rests in the bosom of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9), and it is written: “But a fool unfolds folly” (Proverbs 13:16).

What wonderful gems – when we are angry we forget God. One of my favorite understandings of this is that, when we are angry, we are usually centering ourselves: How could this person do that to ME? Say that to ME? We are putting ourselves as the center of our world and that space is reserved for God. Anger is a form of idolatry where we say I am so important how dare so-and-so treat me otherwise.

And anger makes us forget our learning. That one is very true for me. I read all these parenting books about the best way to give feedback to your kids and I read counseling books about couples and know, intellectually, how I should respond to my husband. But, alas, when I am angry I sometimes seem to forget all that learning.

Hope you have a mellow day with little anger (and certainly no hemorrhoids).

When I applied to Northwestern for college (not where I went), I remember that they said that they had a big rock that the students paint with important mottos, quotes, etc. and they asked what I would write on the rock. I remember writing, “Absolutely no regrets” which was a quote from . . . Madonna (now you know why I wasn’t accepted). While I was a bit immature and reckless at the time, I still think it’s a good line of wisdom – to not live with regret. The daf seems to agree:

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The halakhic authorities who dissolve the vow say to the person who vowed: Is this heart, i.e., this desire, still upon you? If he says no, they dissolve it. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: They say to the person who vowed: Had there been ten people who could have appeased you at the time, would you have made the vow? If he says no, they dissolve it. The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Asi to request dissolution of a vow. Rabbi Asi said to him: Do you have regret? He said to him rhetorically: No! Of course I regret it! In other words, certainly I have regret. And he dissolved the vow for him.

Living with regret is not a way to live.

Daniel Pink, in The Power of Regret, speaks about 4 core regrets: 1) Foundation regrets (I wish I had done the work to lay the foundation when I was younger), 2) Boldness regrets (If only I had taken the chance – courage), 3) Moral regrets (I wish I had done the right thing), and 4) Connection regrets (If only I had reached out).

It must be nice to have a Rabbi absolve you of regrets. What are yours? Or are you living, as the wise Madonna teaches, with “Absolutely no regrets”?

Today’s gem turns into the opposite of a gem – it’s pretty amazing.

It starts with some good advice:

It is taught in a baraita: Never be accustomed to taking vows, because ultimately you will disregard them, and you will even abuse oaths, which are more grave.

Yes! Don’t talk vows lightly, try to not make them at all . . .

And do not regularly be around an ignoramus, because ultimately he will feed you untithed produce, as he is not careful to tithe. Do not regularly be by an ignorant priest, because ultimately he will feed you teruma due to his close relationship with you, and teruma is forbidden to a non-priest.

Okay! More good advice, be careful who you hang out with because they might feed you food not kosher for you to eat . . .

And do not talk extensively with a woman, because ultimately you will come to adultery.

Here’s the turn – don’t talk to women or you will sleep with them. It gets better (or should I say worse).

Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, says: Anyone who watches women will ultimately come to sin, and anyone who looks at the heel of a woman will have indecent children as a punishment. Rav Yosef said: And this relates to all women, including his wife when she has the status of a menstruating woman. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The heel of a woman that is mentioned is not the heel of the foot, but the place of uncleanliness, i.e., the genitalia, and it is called a heel as a euphemism, as it is situated opposite the heel.

Sounds okay at the beginning – don’t be a lecherous pervert who stares sexually at women – but then vaginas get called places of uncleanliness and we are left wondering how this man is staring at women’s vaginas . . . and it gets so much worse (or should I say better):

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai said: The ministering angels told me four matters: For what reason do lame people come into existence? It is because their fathers overturn their tables, i.e., they engage in sexual intercourse in an atypical way. For what reason do mute people come into existence? It is because their fathers kiss that place of nakedness. For what reason do deaf people come into existence? It is because their parents converse while engaging in sexual intercourse. For what reason do blind people come into existence? It is because their fathers stare at that place.

Now that the rabbis have offended so many in the disabled community (which most of us will e part of at some point in our lives) and women and proven that they are bad in bed – all at the same time – it gets even better (actually better).

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is the statement of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. And likewise with regard to fish that come from the fisherman.

So, those were no angels saying those offensive things and what happens in the marital bedroom between two consenting adults is A-Okay.

Ever get in an argument with someone where you both insist you are right? It used to be that it would often escalate – maybe even lead to making wagers such as “If I am right, you have to carry my bag/tell everyone I am awesome (you fill in the blank). This happens on the daf today! And the winner? Get’s to be a Nazir for a month!

As it is taught in a baraita: If a number of people wager on the truth of a statement, and they stipulate that whoever is correct will be a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: None of them is a nazirite no matter who is correct, because naziriteship was given to take effect only through explicitness of intent.

Now, we may wonder why being a Nazir is the prize – but maybe not drinking, not shaving, and working in the Temple is as lovely a vacation as can be.

Today, we will just look up the answer on our phones, so these kinds of things do’t happen so much any more . . . oh, and people don’t really make Nazarite vows anymore either – so there is that.

Today’s daf continues to talk about the dangers of taking a vow on top of another vow as well as adding more details to the question of what to do when someone makes a vow that they have to break.

One gem from today is a comment from R. Aryeh Leib Heller in Avnei Milu’im where he points out a number of practical consequences to all this hard to follow conversation! One is that if a person is so ill that that the doctors have determined that he will die unless he eats Neveilah (a kosher animal that did not die through kosher slaughter). He is permitted to eat Neveilah, which in any other context is already forbidden to him. But – What if the guy previously made a vow (like the person on the daf) where he can’t eat Neveilah, even thought it’s already forbidden to him? Now, normally, the law of Piku’ach Nefesh (saving a life) would trump anything else and he would get to eat it, HOWEVER, if he made a vow not to eat this thing that is already forbidden (drum roll please) . . . he CAN’T eat it until his vow is annulled!

Message – promises are a big deal. Even when we think our promises are not a big deal, they have consequences.

The daf has been discussing the difference between a vow and an oath. Today, we get another:

There is a vow within a vow. It is possible to impose an additional prohibition, by means of a vow, on an item that is already forbidden by means of a vow. But there is no oath within an oath. If one takes an oath twice with regard to the same action, the second oath does not take effect.

Confused? Me too. But it seems the rabbis of the daf are as well, so we are in good company. Rav Huna tries to map it out clearly. Rav Huna explains that this means that a person who makes, at one time, two oaths to become a Nazir on two consecutive days must observe thirty days of being a Nazarite for his first oath, and when he finishes the first 30 days, he must observe another 30 days of being a Nazarite for his second oath! In contrast, when one makes two vows, a vow that he will not eat figs and then a vow that he will not eat figs and dates together, the second vow does not take effect since he is already prohibited from eating figs!

Is that more clear?

If not, you’re still in good company. Probably the best gem n the daf today is the comment קַשְׁיָא meaning: This is difficult!

Our take home? Be careful when you promise to do something. If you repeat that promise, you may be committing to fulfilling that promise more than once.