We have finally arrived in the third chapter of Shevuot, which deals with the subject matter of this tractate — oaths. Oaths don’t come up frequently in modern Jewish life, and that’s because the rabbis preferred people not make them unless strictly necessary — since failing to fulfill them incurred serious consequences.
The Kol Nidrei prayer, recited in synagogue on the eve of Yom Kippur, likely dates in early form to the classical rabbinic period. Its entire purpose is to annul vows and oaths made in the coming year so we will not be punished for failing to fulfill them. The final line reads: “Our vows are no longer vows, our bonds are no longer bonds, our oaths are no longer oaths.” The Aramaic words for vows (nidrei), bonds (isarei) and oaths (shevuot) are the same words used in the Talmud.
On today’s daf, the rabbis unpack the difference between an oath and a bond, starting with this beraita:
The sages taught: … an isar (bond) is an oath (shevua). If you say that a bond is in fact an oath, then he is liable (for violating it). If you do not say it is an oath, then he is exempt.
With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
This beraita initially suggests that a bond is an oath — there is no material difference. But then the possibility is raised that they are substantively different. Obviously, we need some explanation.
Abaye said: This is what the beraita is saying: … a bond is the association of some object or action with a matter that has already been prohibited by an oath. What is the prohibition invoked by the word “bond”? If you say that creating an association with an oath is like explicitly expressing an oath with his own mouth then he is liable to bring an offering for unwittingly violating the oath and to receive lashes for doing so intentionally. But if it is not like stating an oath explicitly, he is exempt.
Now the beraita makes a bit more sense. According to Abaye, a bond is tangential to an oath. For example, if someone vows they will fast on their parent’s yahrzeit, and then adds, “… like I do on Tzom Gedalia,” (a public fast on the day after Rosh Hashanah), the second clause is a bond. Once the oath is uttered, the person who made it is liable for lashes if they do not fast on their parent’s yahrzeit — because they have broken an oath. But are they also liable for lashes if they eat on Tzom Gedalia? Is the bond like the oath in this case?
Rava said: … this is what the beraita is saying: … A bond can be an oath, but it is ambiguous … Therefore, if one expresses a bond with the language of a vow, it is a vow. If one expresses it with the language of an oath, it is an oath.
According to Rava, it comes down to wording. If formulated correctly, Rava says, it’s possible that a bond could have the power of an oath.
Breaking an oath is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, and therefore extremely serious. It is therefore important to know exactly what utterances count as an oath. In the modern age, we are often careful about what we write and sign, but perhaps less careful about what we say. For the rabbis, however, certain statements were every bit as binding as a piece of writing signed and notarized today. That’s why Kol Nidrei was codified in the first place — so that on the eve of Yom Kippur, a person can annul any oaths they might make in the future, even before they have a chance to be uttered, and thereby avoid a grave misdeed.
Read all of Shevuot 20 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on May 21, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
