The annual prayer of Kol Nidre – the original version and probable inspiration for the concept of Taqiyya in Islam – is an old and much-loved institution in Judaism. (1) It is chanted three times (2) (often in Aramaic) (3) at the beginning of the evening Yom Kippur (i.e., jewish new year) service. (4) In truth it is even a prayer but rather a legal formula. (5)
The meaning and purpose of the Kol Nidre is implicit in the name which simply translates to ‘All Vows’. (6) Its purpose is usually explained to be to render all vows for the coming year as null and void (7) which isn’t entirely true since the accepted purpose among those who adhere to the Ashkenazi branch of Judaism while the Sephardi and Mizrahi branches of Judaism hold to the old form of Kol Nidre which holds that it renders all vows made in the year that is about to end/has just ended to be null and void. (8)
This change occurred in either the eleventh century and is attributed by Birnbaum to Rabbi Meir ben Samuel – the son-in-law of Rashi – (9) while Nulman attributes it to Rabbeinu Tam (Rabbi Jacob ben Meir [the grandson of Rashi]) in the twelfth century (10) as does the Encyclopaedia Judaica. (11)
Ashkenazim can still have their past vows invalidated but this has to be done via a Beth Din (a jewish religious court roughly approximate to a Sharia or a Church court) (12) which is because Kol Nidre is an official act of Hatarat Nedarim (lit. ‘Absolution of Vows’) in Judaism; (13) hence the requirement for tallit to be worn during the Kol Nidre (14) and three representatives acting/forming a Beth Din to be present (15) with it further acting as a judicial declaration of forgiveness even for those jews who have been officially banned from the jewish community who are allowed to come back into the synagogue on Yom Kippur to recite the Kol Nidre. (16)
So even jews who have been banned from the synagogue for whatever reason and/or are apostates from Judaism are always welcomed into the synagogue to say the Kol Nidre. The only jewish denomination that doesn’t always recite the Kol Nidre is Reform Judaism which sometimes replaces it with the reading of a Psalm. (17)
However, this doesn’t get Reform off the hook since Reform’s conception of Hatarat Nedarim works on an individual’s own recognizance without need for formal rituals (18) so in essence Reform jews engage in their own personal form of Kol Nidre/Hatarat Nedarim as much – or as little – as they wish on their own recognizance not as a formal ritual in the same way that non-Reform Judaism does.
The basis for Kol Nidre is found in Folio 23b of Tractate Nedarim in the Babylonian Talmud, which states:
‘He who desires to have his vows, which he may make all year nullified, let him announce on Rosh Hashanah: ‘All pledges which I now make are null and void.’ (19)
The origins of the Kol Nidre are also open to significant debate since they are – in truth – unknown (20) or at least unclear (21) but this hasn’t stopped jews claiming to ‘know their precise origins’ with various theories having been fashionable at different times with Birnbaum writing that:
‘According to one theory, the ceremony of annulment of vows on the eve of Yom Kippur, known as the Kol Nidre, was instituted for the benefit of Spanish crypto-Jews, of Anusim, in order to absolve them from any promise for the observance of another religion in the following year. The initial reference to transgressors has been taken as a cryptic allusion to the Iberians, natives or inhabitants of Spain or Portugal. The pre-Kol Nidre declaration literally means: We declare it lawful to pray in the company of sinners.’ (22)
Alternatively, Gliksman claims that it goes back to ‘the Visigothic persecution of the jews’ (23) in seventh century Spain, (24) Bloch claims it originated in northern Europe as a reaction to apostates and non-observant jews being banned from the synagogue as it predates the first Marranos, (25) while Cohen, Kaploun and Posner think it either originated as a response to Karaite criticisms of rabbinical Judaism (probably between c. 800 A.D. to 1100 A.D.) (26) or as a way to ward off curses on the jewish community. (27)
All we know for sure is that the first probable mention of it occurs in the Babylonian Talmud which places it in eighth century Babylonia (28) and thus it may either reflect some custom/religious institution unique to the jewish community in Babylonia or just be the first mention we have of an older tradition.
That it may well be an older tradition is suggested by the fact that the scriptural anchor for the Kol Nidre in the Written Torah is – again depending on which jewish authorities you read – Deuteronomy 23:22-24 (29) or Numbers 30:3. (30)
Thus, the Kol Nidre may well just a newer version of a much older jewish custom that evolved into the Kol Nidre in rabbinic Judaism.
But the question comes: what is the charge made by opponents of jews about the Kol Nidre?
This is well answered by quoting Elizabeth Dilling’s 1953 book on Judaism titled ‘The Plot Against Christianity’ – which was later re-issued under the modified title of ‘The Jewish Religion; Its Influence Today’ – where she explains her case as follows:
‘The Bible teaches:
“And ye shall not swear by name falsely… neither lie one to another… I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:11,12, etc.).
One of the handiest devices provided by the Talmudic “Sages” to offset Moses’ laws against swearing falsely, is found in the Talmud book of Nedarim (Vows), and is put into practice yearly in every synagogue across the world as the “Kol Nidre” (all vows).
The text of the Kol Nidre may be found in the Jewish Encyclopaedia (not reproduced here). Three times the Cantor, to a tune that sounds like the melodious grief of all ages, pompously intones the words: “All vows, obligations, oaths… whether called ‘konam,’ ‘konas,’ or by any other name, which we may vow or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and avoid and made of no effect… The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.”
The confirming reply of the Congregation is typical of blasphemous Judaistic misuse of the Bible. Three times a verse from Numbers is chanted. It actually the duty of a congregation which has violated the laws of God, in ignorance, to repent, and states:
“And it shall be forgiven, all the congregation of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance.” (Numbers 15:26)
Here is a typical Talmudic situation: Knowingly, in advance, every shred of truth is to be cast away, with religious support. A Scriptural verse of no relevance whatsoever is used as justification.
With the Jewish Kol Nidre, not only is there no repentance involved, as in the Bible itself, but forthright blatant disavowal and annulment of solemn oaths an entire year in advance.
The text of Kol Nidre also appears in the Talmud, Book of Nedarim, 23a. (See Exhibits 171 and 172)
The Talmud Mishna states: “Every Vow Which I May Make In The Future Shall Be Null. His Vows Are Then Invalid Providing That He Remembers This At The Time Of The Vow.” The Kol Nidre is repeated on the following page. Discounting the irrelevant “filler” about a man eating with his friend (Exhibit 172):
“This may have provided supported for the custom of reciting the Kol Nidre (a formula for dispensation of vows) prior to the Evening Service of the Day of Atonement… But Kol Nidre as part of the ritual is later the Talmud… [as]… the law of revocation in advance was not made public.”
However, this advance disavowal of oaths, and sanction of perjury, did become known at various times. The Jewish Encyclopaedia account concerning Kol Nidre relates how practice of revoking vows to be made, a year in advance, was used in European countries to bar the oath of a Jew as of no value. Contemporaneously, however, as we have been in ignorance of the Kol Nidre and what it means, such oaths, no matter how valueless, are foolishly accepted in our Courts.’ (31)
We can already see that Dilling was a careful student of her jewish opponents in so far as she – rather unusually for the era – took the time and considerable expense to reproduce large numbers of photostats – early photographic reproductions – in her book to document her arguments against the jews (the ‘Exhibits’ mentioned in the quoted text) and she also clearly knows what she is talking about given her points mirror which I have already documented above from jewish sources.
The only points that Dilling is clearly unaware of are the facts that the Kol Nidre refers to the year just gone for Sephardim/Mizrahim and the year to come for Ashkenazi and she assumes that the Ashkenazi – the type of Judaism she would have been easily the most familiar with – was true of all forms of Judaism which is incorrect and that Reform Judaism sometimes chose to substitute the recitation of a Psalm for the Kol Nidre in their Yom Kippur services.
Reading Dilling’s text informs us that the crux of the argument however is what a ‘vow’ is to Judaism and Dilling is clearly assuming that an ‘oath’ and a ‘vow’ are the same thing in Judaism as they broadly mean the same thing in English. This is incorrect but while Dilling is incorrect in not understanding this subtle distinction – and jews themselves often don’t understand this and confuse and conflate the two so nor is it a valid reason to dismiss Dilling’s argument – (32) her conclusion that the Kol Nidre is (and has been) used (and understood) by jews to nullify oaths and vows made to others is actually correct.
To comprehend this, we need to understand what ‘oaths’ and ‘vows’ are in Judaism – and just for the record a vow is a ‘neder’ (plural is ‘nedarim’) and an oath is a ‘shevuah’ (plural is ‘shevot’)) – (33) which can be eluciated as follows:
An oath is imposed on a person; a vow is imposed on an object. (34)
For example: an oath is when you swear you will not drink wine, a vow is when you have banned yourself from drinking wine. (35)
Jews do not view breaking a religious oath as an ethical offense (36) and a vow has no binding force if it is not said verbally (37) while a vow that has been uttered verbally can only be nullified by a rabbinic sage or a Beth Din (38) because they are a ‘sacrifice to God’. (39) This is done when circumstances do prevent the fulfilment of a vow. (40)
The Kol Nidre is thus – as we have seen – a legal formula that ‘is about recognizing our best intentions go astray’ (41) and to allow the annulment of vows en masse without rabbinic action (42) – hence the need for three representatives of a Beth Din to be present when it is chanted three times as previously explained – but it can also be used to annul the ‘vows’ made by a whole community and does not just apply to ‘vows’ made by individual jews. (43)
This is expressed rather well by Birnbaum who writes that:
‘This was in consideration of the fragilities of human nature and the tragic results of promises too hastily made and pledges inadvertently undertaken.’ (44)
This is usually where jewish ‘counterarguments’ to the ‘anti-Semitic claims’ that are often blithely claimed to be ‘baseless’ (45) end but the problem is jews here are guilty of leaving out a key part of their own argument which is expressed by Gliksman in the following terms:
‘The formula for the rite of absolution of vows, known by the name “Kol Nidre” (All Vows), does not refer to oaths taken in obligations and promises assumed and made in regard to others or in a court of justice. The dispensation of vows refers only those oaths or vows which an individual voluntarily assumes for himself, alone, and in which no other persons or interests are involved. In other words, the formula is restricted to those vows which concern only the relation of man to his conscience or to his Heavenly Judge (see especially Tosefot to Nedarim 23b). No vow, promise or oath, however, which concerns another person, a court of justice or a community, is implied in “Kol Nidre.”’ (46)
What Gliksman is referring to here is the concept of the judicial oath which it is traditionally claimed that Kol Nidre doesn’t nullify, (47) but yet we also learn that the Kol Nidre does nullify religious oaths not ‘just vows’ (48) because the religious oath is actually understood to be a form of vow in Judaism. (49)
Jewish apologists for Kol Nidre are exploiting language here via weasel words to imply something is true when it actually isn’t in that a judicial oath in Judaism is an oath imposed in civil cases on parties in the dispute – usually the defendant – and involves jews holding a Sefer Torah (a Torah scroll) and swearing by God that a statement is true. (50) And while the fact is that some especially pious jews will refuse to take an oath and are prepared to lose a court case rather than invoke God’s name by swearing falsely; (51) the fact remains that a judicial oath is not what jewish apologists for Kol Nidre are trying to imply it is which is a testimonial oath.
A judicial oath is a jew swearing to God on a Sefer Torah that such and such a statement is true not that what they are about to testify is true. So, while a jew cannot in theory falsely confirm that a statement he had previously made is true when it is not (a judicial oath); a jew can swear that they will ‘tell the truth and nothing but the truth’ and then simply lie if they so wish (a testimonial oath).
This is because a testimonial oath is simply unknown in Judaism (52) and as such represents a large and significant grey area in which jews are able to lie under oath in a court – especially as non-jewish courts have functioned differentially from jewish courts for millennia and administer testimonial oaths a lot more than they do judicial oaths – so when Nulman claims that Kol Nidre ‘no way releases one from any juridical oaths or from any promise, vow, contract, or obligation affecting another person or person.’ (53)
She is being both completely honest – because this is true of judicial oaths – and dishonest at the same time – since she doesn’t mention the significant lacunae of the testimonial oath – in the same way that Bloch (54) and Klein (55) use similar verbiage to conceal this gap in how jewish oaths and vows work in practice.
Evidence for this gap being used comes from a famous jewish convert to Christianity in thirteenth century France named Nicholas Donin who pointed out that the Kol Nidre and jewish laws around oaths and vows gave his people a religious license to lie to and intentionally deceive non-jews, which meant that any oath made by a jew – Donin was referring to testimonial oaths commonly administered in medieval courts much as in modern ones – was inherently worthless even if it was made to God holding a Sefer Torah. (56)
Indeed, Nulman is apparently well-aware that Kol Nidre gives jews a license to lie since she qualifies slightly later by claiming that Kol Nidre doesn’t ‘work’ if a jew is planning to take advantage of this functionality. (57)
What an odd comment to make if jews weren’t doing just that in significant numbers as to warrant it being mentioned!
That rabbis have long been aware that jews have been using Kol Nidre as a religious excuse to lie and nullify all oaths as well as all vows – including those to third parties and dealing with transactions with others that it is supposedly not applicable to – is found as early as the medieval era – the same time that Donin is testifying that this was how his fellow jews understood jewish oaths and vows as well as what reciting the Kol Nidre actually meant and what its purpose was – with rabbis questioning its effectiveness and being clearly concerned that it gave jews a license to brazenly lie. (58)
Cohen, Kaploun and Posner even go as far as to state that rabbis have long been ‘sensitive to inherent ethical and judicial difficulties’ caused by the use of Kol Nidre – (59) and indeed go as far to heavily imply that early on in the life of Kol Nidre that it was also understood (and used to) to nullify judicial oaths – (60) because rabbis subsequently moved to put controls in the halakhic literature to stop this from happening. (61)
Bloch agrees and states there was a fear in the early period that Kol Nidre could be used (i.e., it was being actively used ergo the need to put controls on it in the halakhic literature) to nullify all religious vows as well as implies the same occurred concerning judicial oaths. (62)
That this was also true in Dilling’s day– is confirmed by Birnbaum – given he was writing circa a decade after Dilling – when he rather obliquely states that:
‘Kol Nidre (all vows) refers to vows assumed by an individual for himself alone, where no other persons or their interests are involved. Though the context of the Kol Nidre passage makes it perfectly obvious that no vows or obligations toward others are implied, there have been many who were misled into believing that by this formula all their vows and oaths are annulled.’ (63)
Or put in simpler terms: jews in Birnbaum’s day understood – and were using – the Kol Nidre to nullify all their oaths and vows and it was so common a problem that Birnbaum felt the need to comment on it in the same way that rabbis hundreds of years earlier felt the need to intervene to try to legislate against jews doing this in the halakhah.
Clearly it simply didn’t work and Dilling’s interpretation that Kol Nidre is understood (and used) by jews – however ‘unofficially’ – to nullify all oaths and vows they make – despite rabbinical pleas that it only deals with ‘unwitting vows’ made ‘without specific intent’ – (64) is quite accurate despite her confusing ‘oaths’ and ‘vows’ as being the same thing in Judaism.
Further what Dilling missed was that because testimonial oaths are unknown in Judaism it affords – as Donin first informed an alarmed medieval world in thirteenth century France – the jew to ability to ethically lie under oath in a court and not be seen as having done anything wrong in Judaism.
Hence the German folk saying attributed to Martin Luther:
‘Trust no wolf in wild heathland, also no Jew on his oath’
Because the Kol Nidre is indeed the jewish religious license to lie and to commit perjury in court.
References
(1) Abraham Bloch, 1980, ‘The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies’, 1st Edition, Ktav: New York, p. 174; Shalom Cohen, Uri Kaploun, Raphael Posner, 1975, ‘Jewish Liturgy: Prayer and Synagogue Service through the Ages’, 1st Edition, Keter: Jerusalem, pp. 176-177 ; Isaac Klein, 1979, ‘A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice’, 1st Edition, Jewish Theological Seminary of America: New York, p. 212
(2) Louis Jacobs, 1995, ‘The Jewish Religion: A Companion’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, p. 307; Michael Strassfeld, 1985, ‘The Jewish Holiday: A Guide and Commentary’, 1st Edition, Harper & Row: New York, p. 113; Klein, Op. Cit., p. 212
(3) Cohen, Kaploun, Posner, Op. Cit., p. 176; Klein, Op. Cit., p. 213
(4) Jacobs, Op. Cit., p. 307
(5) Strassfeld, Op. Cit., p. 113
(6) Jacobs, Op. Cit., p. 307
(7) Idem.
(8) Mary Nulman, 1993, ‘The Encycploedia of Jewish Prayer: Ashkenazic and Sephardic Rites’, 1st Edition, Jason Aronson: Northvale, p. 203
(9) Philip Birnbaum, 1964, ‘A Book of Jewish Concepts’, 1st Edition, Hebrew Publishing: New York, pp. 288-289
(10) Nulman, Op. Cit., p. 203
(11) Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Vol. 10, Keter: Jerusalem, Col. 1166-1169
(12) Bloch, Op. Cit., p. 172
(13) Ibid., p. 150; Nulman, Op. Cit., p. 204
(14) Cohen, Kaploun, Posner, Op. Cit., p. 176; Klein, Op. Cit., p. 211
(15) Nulman, Op. Cit., p. 204
(16) Bloch, Op. Cit., p. 171
(17) Jacobs, Op. Cit., p. 307
(18) For example, see: https://reformjudaism.org/learning/torah-study/torah-commentary/broken-and-made
(19) Quoted in Bloch, Op. Cit., p. 172
(20) Encyclopaedia, Vol. 10, Op. Cit., Col. 1166-1169; Klein, Op. Cit. p. 213
(21) Cf. Moshe Benovitz, 1998, ‘Kol Nidre: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Institutions’, 1st Edition, Scholars Press: Atlanta
(22) Birnbaum, Op. Cit., p. 49
(23) Shlomo Gliksman, 1939, ‘Forgeries and Falsifications in the Anti-Semitic Literature and My Lawsuit Against Julius Streicher & Co.’, 1st Edition, People’s Institute for Dissemination of Biblical and Talmudic Jurisprudence: New York, pp. 61-64
(24) For the history of these ‘persecutions’ – which were actually a reaction to jewish behaviour and not in any way irrational – see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-the-28-jew-laws-of
(25) Bloch, Op. Cit., p. 172
(26) Cohen, Kaploun, Posner, Op. Cit., p. 177
(27) Ibid.; also Encyclopaedia, Vol. 10, Op. Cit., Col. 1166-1169
(28) Encyclopaedia, Vol. 10, Op. Cit., Col. 1166-1169
(29) Birnbaum, Op. Cit., pp. 287-288; Gliksman, Op. Cit., p. 58
(30) Jacobs, Op. Cit., p. 581
(31) Elizabeth Dilling, 1983, ‘The Jewish Religion; Its Influence Today’, 4th Edition, Noontide Press: Torrance, pp. 19-20; Klein, Op. Cit., pp. 213-214 agrees with the summation of the charges made by ‘anti-Semites’ offered by Dilling.
(32) Birnbaum, Op. Cit., p. 287
(33) Jacobs, Op. Cit., p. 368
(34) Idem.
(35) Ibid., pp. 368; 581
(36) Ibid., p. 581
(37) Idem.
(38) Idem.; Encyclopaedia, Vol. 10, Op. Cit., Col. 1166-1169
(39) Jacobs, Op. Cit., p. 581
(40) Idem.; Bloch, Op. Cit., p. 173
(41) Strassfeld, Op. Cit., p. 113
(42) Bloch, Op. Cit., p. 151
(43) Encyclopaedia, Vol. 10, Op. Cit., Col. 1166-1169
(44) Birnbaum, Op. Cit., pp. 288-289
(45) Bloch, Op. Cit., p. 174
(46) Gliksman, Op. Cit., pp. 58-59 ; Jacobs, Op. Cit., pp. 307; 368 makes more or less the same argument/points as Gliksman does.
(47) Encyclopaedia, Vol. 10, Op. Cit., Col. 1166-1169
(48) Jacobs, Op. Cit., p. 368
(49) Idem.
(50) Idem.
(51) Idem.; ; Klein, Op. Cit., p. 214
(52) Jacobs, Op. Cit., p. 368
(53) Nulman, Op. Cit., p. 202
(54) Bloch, Op. Cit., pp. 150-151
(55) Klein, Op. Cit., p. 213
(56) Encyclopaedia, Vol. 10, Op. Cit., Col. 1166-1169; Cohen, Kaploun, Posner, Op. Cit., p. 177; Nulman, Op. Cit., p. 203
(57) Nulman, Op. Cit., p. 204
(58) Jacobs, Op. Cit., p. 307
(59) Cohen, Kaploun, Posner, Op. Cit., p. 177
(60) Idem.
(61) Idem.
(62) Bloch, Op. Cit., p. 173
(63) Birnbaum, Op. Cit., p. 287
(64) Jacobs, Op. Cit., pp. 307; 581; Cohen, Kaploun, Posner, Op. Cit., p. 176
Karl’s SubstackRead More
T1
