FIRST
PRAYER OF YOM KIPPUR - KOL NIDRE - BACKGROUND:
Kol Nidre
(Aramaic: כל נדרי) is a Jewish Prayer recited in the synagogue at
the beginning of the evening service on Yom Kippur, the Day of
Atonement. It is written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. Its name is taken from
the opening words, meaning "All vows".
Prayer recited in the synagogue at the beginning
of the evening service on the Day of Atonement;
the name is taken from the opening words. The "Kol
Nidre" has had a very eventful history, both in
itself and in its influence on the legal status
of the Jews. Introduced into the liturgy despite
the opposition of rabbinic authorities,
repeatedly attacked in the course of time by
many halakists, and in the nineteenth century
expunged from the prayer-book by many
communities of western Europe, it has often been
employed by Christians to support their
assertion that the oath of a Jew can not be
trusted.
Before
sunset on the eve of the Day of Atonement, when
the congregation has gathered in the synagogue,
the Ark is opened and two rabbis, or two leading
men in the community, take from it two
Torah-scrolls. Then they take their places, one
on each side of the ḥazzan, and the three recite
in concert a formula beginning with the words
,
which runs as follows:
"In the
tribunal of heaven and the tribunal of earth, by
the permission of God—blessed be He—and by the
permission of this holy congregation, we hold it
lawful to pray with the transgressors."
Thereupon the cantor chants the Aramaic prayer
beginning with the words "Kol Nidre," with its
marvelously plaintive and touching melody, and,
gradually increasing in volume from pianissimo
to fortissimo, repeats three times the following
words:
"All
vows [],
obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether
called 'ḳonam,' 'ḳonas,' 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 void, and made
of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have
power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned
vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory;
nor the oaths be oaths."
The
leader and the congregation then say together: (Num.
xv. 26).
"And it
shall be forgiven all the congregation of the
children of Israel, and the stranger that
sojourneth among them, seeing all the people
were in ignorance"
This
also is repeated three times. The ḥazzan then
closes with the benediction,
:
"Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the
Universe, who hast preserved us and hast brought
us to enjoy this season." In many congregations
Num. xiv. 19-20 is recited before this
benediction. After it the Torah-scrolls are
replaced, and the customary evening service
begins.
The
tendency to make vows was so strong in ancient
Israel that the Pentateuchal code found it
necessary to protest against the excessive
estimate of the religious value of such
obligations (Deut. xxiii. 23). Rash and frequent
vows inevitably involved in difficulties many
who had made them, and thus evoked an earnest
desire for dispensation from such
responsibilities. This gave rise to the rite of
absolution from a vow ("hattarat nedarim") which
might be performed only by a scholar ("talmid
ḥakam"), or an expert ("mumḥeh") on the one
hand, or by a board of three laymen on the
other. On account of the passionate nature of
the Jews and of Orientals in general, however,
and in view of their addiction to making vows,
it might easily happen that these obligations
would afterward be wholly forgotten and either
not be kept or be violated unintentionally (see
L. Löw, "Die Dispensation von Gelöbnissen," in "Gesammelte
Schriften," iii. 361 et seq.). The
religious consciousness, which felt oppressed at
the thought of the non-fulfilment of its solemn
vows, accordingly devised a general and
comprehensive formula of dispensation which was
repeated by the ḥazzan in the name of the
assembled congregation at the beginning of the
fast of Atonement. This declared that the
petitioners, whowere
seeking reconciliation with God, solemnly
retracted in His presence all vows and oaths
which they had taken during the period
intervening between the previous Day of
Atonement and the present one, and made them
null and void from the beginning, entreating in
their stead pardon and forgiveness from the
Heavenly Father.
This is
in accordance with the older text of the formula
as it is preserved in the "Siddur" of Amram Gaon
(ed. Warsaw, i. 47a) and in the "Liḳḳuṭe ha-Pardes"
(p. 12b). The "Kol Nidre" was thus evidently
developed from the longing for a clear
conscience on the part of those seeking
reconciliation with God. The date of the
composition of the prayer and its author are
alike unknown; but it was in existence at the
geonic period.
The
readiness with which vows were made and the
facility with which they were annulled by the
scribes gave the Karaites an opportunity to
attack the Rabbinites, and forced the Geonim to
minimize the power of dispensation. Yehudai Gaon
of Sura (760), author of the "Halakot Pesuḳot,"
went so far as to forbid any study whatsoever of
Nedarim, the Talmudic treatise on oaths (Alfasi
on Nedarim, end; L. Löw, l.c. p. 363).
Thus the "Kol Nidre" was discredited in both of
the Babylonian academies and was not accepted by
them (S. K. Stern, in "Ḳebuẓat Ḥakamim," ed.
Warnheim, 1861), as is affirmed by the geonim
Naṭronai (853-856) and Hai Bar Naḥshon (889-896;
Müller, "Mafteaḥ," p. 103; Cassel, "Teshubot
Geonim Ḳadmonim," p. 9; Zunz, "Ritus," p. 189;
Ṭur Oraḥ Ḥayyim, § 619; "Kol Bo," § 68). Amram
Gaon in his "Siddur" (l.c.) calls the
custom of reciting the "Kol Nidre" a foolish one
("minhag sheṭut"). According to Naṭronai,
however, it was customary to recite the formula
in various lands of the Jewish dispersion, and
it is clear likewise from Amram's "Siddur" (ii.
37a) that the usage was wide-spread as early as
his time in Spain. But the geonic practise of
not reciting the "Kol Nidre" was long prevalent;
it has never been adopted in the Catalonian or
in the Algerian ritual (Zunz, l.c. p.
106); and there were always many congregations
in lands where the Provençal and Spanish ritual
was used which did not recite it ("Orḥot Ḥayyim,"
p. 105d; comp. also RaN to Ned. 23b, where it is
said: "There are some congregations which
usually recite the 'Kol Nidre' on the Day of
Atonement").
Together with the "Kol Nidre" another custom was
developed, which is traced to Meïr of Rothenburg
(d. 1293; "Orḥot Ḥayyim," p. 106b). This is the
recital before the "Kol Nidre" of the formula
mentioned beginning "Bi-yeshibah shel ma'alah,"
which has been translated above, and which gives
permission to transgressors of the Law or to
those under a ban ("'abaryanim") "to pray with
the congregation" (ib.; "Kol Bo," § 68,
end), or, according to another version which is
now generally prevalent, to the congregation "to
pray with the transgressors of the Law." To
justify prayer on that day with such
transgressors and with persons under a ban, a
haggadic saying (Ker. 6b) was quoted to the
effect that a fast-day was to be counted as lost
unless "the wicked" were present (see Maḥzor
Vitry, ed. Hurwitz, p. 381; Zunz, l.c. p.
96).
From
Germany (Ṭur Oraḥ Ḥayyim, § 619) this custom
spread to southern France, Spain, Greece, and
probably to northern France, and was in time
generally adopted (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Yoreh De'ah,
619, 1; Zunz, l.c. p. 96). The assertion
that the "Kol Nidre" was introduced on account
of the Spanish Maranos (Mandelstamm [anon.], "Horæ
Talmudicæ," vol. ii.; "Reform in Judenthum," pp.
7 et seq., Berlin; comp. also "Ha-Ẓefirah,"
1885, p. 361; Liebersohn, in "Ha-Meliẓ," 1868,
p. 270) is incorrect, although the formula may
have been used in Spain with reference to them.
An
important alteration in the wording of the "Kol
Nidre" was made by Rashi's son-in-law, Meïr ben
Samuel, who changed the original phrase "from
the last Day of Atonement until this one" to
"from this Day of Atonement until the next."
Thus the dispensation of the "Kol Nidre" was not
as formerly a posteriori and concerned with
unfulfilled obligations of the past year, but a
priori and having reference to vows which one
might not be able to fulfil or might forget to
observe during the ensuing year. Meïr ben Samuel
likewise added the words "we do repent of them
all" (),
since, according to the Law, real repentance is
a condition of dispensation. The reasons
assigned for this change were that an "ex post
facto" annulment of a vow was meaningless, and
that, furthermore, no one might grant to himself
a dispensation, which might be given only by a
board of three laymen or by a competent judge ("mumḥeh").
Meïr ben Samuel cited further, in support of his
arguments, Ned. 23b, which reads: "Whoever
wishes all the vows he may make throughout the
year to be null and void shall come at the
beginning of the year and say: 'May all the vows
which I shall vow be annulled.'" This change
made by Meïr ben Samuel is given by Rabbenu Tam
in his "Sefer ha-Yashar" (ed. Venice, 1816, §
144), although it did not emanate from him, as
the old authorities incorrectly supposed (e.g.,
Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, "Or Zarua'," p. 126b;
Aaron ha-Kohen of Lunel, "Orḥot Ḥayyim," p.
106b; RoSH to Ned. 23b and Ṭur Oraḥ Ḥayyim, §
619).
It
appears to have been Rabbenu Tam, however, who
accounted for the alteration made by his father
as already stated, and who also tried to change
the perfects of the text, "which we have vowed,"
"have sworn," etc., to imperfects. Whether the
old text was already too deeply rooted, or
whether Rabbenu Tam did not correct these verbal
forms consistently and grammatically, the old
perfects are still retained at the beginning of
the formula, although a future meaning is given
to them. There has been much discussion
concerning the correct reading of the formula as
affecting the tenses, yet even men like Jacob
Emden (see "She'elat Yabeẓ," i., No. 135) and
Wolf Heidenheim (introduction to the Maḥzor, ed.
Hanover, 1837) did not venture to introduce the
change into the Maḥzor. Mordecai Jaffe, author
of the "Lebushim,"states
that he often tried to teach the ḥazzanim a more
correct form of the "Kol Nidre," but that as
often as they recited it in the synagogue they
lapsed into the old text to which the melody of
the hymn had accustomed them (Heidenheim,
l.c.).
The
alteration made by Meïr ben Samuel, which agreed
with Isaac ibn Ghayyat's view (see Isaac ben
Sheshet, Responsa, No. 394, end), was accepted
in the German, northern French, and Polish
rituals and in those dependent on them, but not
in the Spanish, Roman, and Provençal rituals
(see Zunz, "Die Ritus von Avignon," in "Allg.
Zeit. des Jud." 1838, p. 303). The old version
is, therefore, usually called the "Sephardic."
The old and the new versions are sometimes found
side by side (see Maḥzor of Aragon, Salonica,
1805). The change was bitterly opposed,
especially by the Italian Isaiah di Trani (in
1250), since the old text was known to all and
was in every Maḥzor ("Tanya," ed. Cremona, 1565,
p. 102b), and even in the places which adopted
the alteration there were always authorities who
preferred the old reading and rejected the new,
such as Jacob Landau ("Agur," ed. Sedilkow,
1834, p. 73b).
It
should be noted, furthermore, in regard to the
text of the "Kol Nidre," that in the "Siddur" of
Amram (l.c.) and in the Roman Maḥzor (Zunz,
"Ritus," p. 96) it is wholly in Hebrew, and
therefore begins "Kol Nedarim" (comp. also "Liḳḳuṭe
ha-Pardes," l.c.). The determination of
the time in both versions is Hebrew. The words
"as it is written in the teachings of Moses, thy
servant," which were said in the old form before
Num. xv. 26, were canceled by Meïr of Rothenburg
(Abudarham, p. 75b). In many places the "Kol
Nidre" was recited once only (see Rabbenu Tam,
l.c.); in others, twice, so that late comers
might hear it ("Liḳḳuṭe ha-Pardes," p. 12b); in
some congregations, however, it was said three
times. This last usage is justified by Rabbenu
Tam on the ground that there are many rabbinical
formulas which are repeated thrice, such as "Ḥaluẓ
ha-Na'al" in the "Ḥaliẓah" or "Muttar Lak" ("May
it be permitted thee") in the absolution from a
vow.
As to
the manner in which the ḥazzan is to recite the
"Kol Nidre," the Maḥzor Vitry (p. 388) gives the
following directions: "The first time he must
utter it very softly like one who hesitates to
enter the palace of the king to ask a gift of
him whom he fears to approach; the second time
he may speak somewhat louder; and the third time
more loudly still, as one who is accustomed to
dwell at court and to approach his sovereign as
a friend."
The
number of Torah-scrolls taken out for the "Kol
Nidre" varied greatly according to the different
"minhagim." In some places it was one; in
others, two, three, seven, or even all (see "Ḥayye
Abraham," p. 47a, Leghorn, 1861). The first
Torah-scroll taken out is called the "Sefer Kol
Nidre." The "Kol Nidre" should be recited before
sunset, since dispensation from a vow may not be
granted on the Sabbath or on a feast-day, unless
the vow refers to one of these days.
The "Kol
Nidre" has been one of the means widely used by
Jewish apostates and by enemies of the Jews to
cast suspicion on the trustworthiness of an oath
taken by a Jew (Wagenseil, "Tela Ignea,
Disputatio R. Jechielis," p. 23; Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes
Judenthum," vol. ii., ch. ix., pp. 489 et
seq., Königsberg, 1711; Bodenschatz, "Kirchliche
Verfassung der Heutigen Juden," part ii., ch.
v., § 10, Frankfort and Leipsic, 1748; Rohling,
"Der Talmudjude," pp. 80 et seq., Münster,
1877); so that many legislators considered it
necessary to have a special form of oath
administered to Jews ("Jew's oath"), and many
judges refused to allow them to take a
supplementary oath, basing their objections
chiefly on this prayer (Zunz, "G. S." ii. 244;
comp. pp. 246, 251). As early as 1240 Jehiel of
Paris was obliged to defend the "Kol Nidre"
against these charges. It can not be denied
that, according to the usual wording of the
formula, an unscrupulous man might think that it
offers a means of escape from the obligations
and promises which he had assumed and made in
regard to others.
The
teachers of the synagogues, however, have never
failed to point out to their cobelievers that
the dispensation from vows in the "Kol Nidre"
refers only to those which an individual
voluntarily assumes for himself alone (see RoSH
to Ned. 23b) and in which no other persons or
their 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 Tos. to Ned. 23b). In the opinion of
Jewish teachers, therefore, the object of the "Kol
Nidre" in declaring oaths null and void is to
give protection from divine punishment in case
of violation of the vow. No vow, promise, or
oath, however, which concerns another person, a
court of justice, or a community is implied in
the "Kol Nidre." It must be remembered,
moreover, that five geonim were against while
only one was in favor of reciting the prayer (Zunz,
"G. V." p. 390, note a), and furthermore that
even so early an authority as Saadia wished to
restrict it to those vows which were extorted
from the congregation in the synagogue in times
of persecution ("Kol Bo," l.c.); and he
declared explicitly that the "Kol Nidre" gave no
absolution from oaths which an individual had
taken during the year. Judah ben Barzillai, a
Spanish author of the twelfth century, in his
halakic work "Sefer ha-'Ittim," declares that
the custom of reciting the "Kol Nidre" was
unjustifiable and misleading, since many
ignorant persons believe that all their vows and
oaths are annulled through this formula, and
consequently they take such obligations on
themselves carelessly ("Orḥot Ḥayyim," p. 106a).
For the
same reason Jeroham ben Meshullam, who lived in
Provence about the middle of the fourteenth
century, inveighed against those fools who,
trusting to the "Kol Nidre," made vows
recklessly, and he declared them incapable of
giving testimony ("Toledot Adam we-Ḥawwah," ed.
1808, section 14, part iii., p. 88; see Zunz,
"G. V." p. 390). The Karaite Judah Hadassi, who
wrote the "Eshkol ha-Kofer" at Constantinople in
1148 (see Nos. 139,140 of that work), likewise protested against the "Kol Nidre."
Among other opponents of it in the Middle Ages
were Yom-Ṭob ben Abraham Isbili (d. 1350) in his
"Ḥiddushim"; Isaac ben Sheshet, rabbi in
Saragossa (d. 1406), Responsa, No. 394 (where is
also a reference to the preceding); the author
of the "Kol Bo" (15th cent.); and Leon of Modena
(d. 1648 [see N. S. Libowitz, "Leon Modena," p.
33, New York, 1901]). In addition, nearly all
printed maḥzorim contain expositions and
explanations of the "Kol Nidre" in the
restricted sense mentioned above.
Yielding to the numerous accusations and
complaints brought against the "Kol Nidre" in
the course of centuries, the rabbinical
conference held at Brunswick in 1844 decided
unanimously that the formula was not essential,
and that the members of the convention should
exert their influence toward securing its speedy
abolition ("Protocolle der Ersten Rabbiner
Versammlung," p. 41, Brunswick, 1844). At other
times and places during the nineteenth century
emphasis was frequently laid upon the fact that
"in the 'Kol Nidre' only those vows and
obligations are implied which are voluntarily
assumed, and which are, so to speak, taken
before God, thus being exclusively religious in
content; but that those obligations are in no
wise included which refer to other persons or to
non-religious relations" ("Allg. Zeit. des Jud."
1885, p. 396). The decision of the conference
was accepted by many congregations of western
Europe and in all the American Reform
congregations, which while retaining the melody
substituted for the formula a German hymn or a
Hebrew psalm, or changed the old text to the
words, "May all the vows arise to thee which the
sons of Israel vow unto thee, O Lord, . . . that
they will return to thee with all their heart,
and from this Day of Atonement until the next,"
etc. Naturally there were many Orthodox
opponents of this innovation, among whom M.
Lehmann, editor of the "Israelit," was
especially prominent (see ib. 1863, Nos.
25, 38). The principal factor which preserved
the great religious authority of the "Kol Nidre"
well into the nineteenth century, and which
continually raises up new defenders for it, is
doubtless its plaintive and appealing melody,
which made a deep impression even on Lenau (see
his remarks in "Der Israelit," 1864, No. 40, pp.
538 et seq.) and which was the favorite
melody of Moltke, who had the violinist Joachim
play it for him.
Bibliography:
JosephAub, Die Eingangsfeier des
Versöhnungstages, Mayence,
1863;
Z.Frankel, Die Eidesleistung der Juden,
pp. 84et seq.;
W.Heidenheim, Sefer Ḳerobot,
Hanover, 1837, Introduction;
Lampronti,
Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ, iv. 82b;
H.L.Strack, in Herzog-Hauck,
Real-Encyc.x. 653et seq.J.M.Sc.
Even more famous than the formula itself is the
melody traditionally attached to its rendition.
This is deservedly so much prized that even
where Reform has abolished the recital of the
Chaldaic text, the air is often preserved,
either in association with some other passage—e.g.,
Ps. ciii. or cxxx., or a series of versicles, or
a vernacular hymn such as "O Tag des Herrn, Du
Nahst!" or "Gott der Liebe und der
Barmherzigkeit"—or as an organ prelude to attune
the mind of the congregation to the solemnity of
the evening. And yet there are probably no two
synagogues in which the melody is chanted note
for note absolutely the same. So marked is the
variation in the details of the melody that a
critical examination of the variants shows an
approach toward agreement in the essentials of
the first strain only, with transformations of
the greatest diversity in the remaining strains.
These divergences, however, are not radical, and
they are no more than are inherent in a
composition not due to a single originator, but
built up and elaborated by many in turn, and
handed on by them in distinct lines of
tradition, along all of which the rhapsodical
method of the
Ḥazzanut has been
followed (see Music, Synagogal).
On a
critical investigation on comparative lines, the
structure of "Kol Nidre" is seen to be built
upon a very simple groundwork, the melody being
essentially an intermingling of simple
cantillation with rich figuration. The very
opening of "Kol Nidre" is what the masters of
the Catholic plain-song term a "pneuma," or soul
breath. Instead of announcing the opening words
in a monotone or in any of the familiar
declamatory phrases, some ancient ḥazzan of
South Germany prefixed a long, sighing tone,
falling to a lower note and rising again, as if
only sighs and sobs could find utterance before
the officiant could bring himself to inaugurate
the dread Day of Atonement.
Breslaur draws attention to the similarity of
these strains with the first five bars of
Beethoven's C sharp minor quartet, op. 131,
period 6, "adagio quasi un poco andante." An
older coincidence shows the original element
around which the whole of "Kol Nidre" has been
built up. The pneuma given in the Sarum and
Ratisbon antiphonaries (or Catholic ritual
music-books) as a typical passage in the first
Gregorian mode (or the notes in the natural
scale running from "d" to "d" ["re" to "re"]),
almost exactly outlines the figure which
prevails throughout the Hebrew air, in all its
variants, and reproduces one favorite strain
with still closer agreement. The original
pattern of these phrases seems to be the strain
of melody so frequently repeated in the modern
versions of "Kol Nidre" at the introduction of
each clause. Such a pattern phrase, indeed, is,
in the less elaborated Italian tradition (Consolo,
Nos. 3 and 6 in the following transcription),
repeated in its simple form five times
consecutively in the first sentence of the text,
and a little more elaborately four times in
succession from the words "nidrana lo nidre."
The northern traditions prefer at such points
first to utilize its complement in the second
ecclesiastical mode of the Church, which extends
below as well as above the fundamental "re." The
strain, in either form, must obviously date from
the early medieval period, anterior to the
eleventh century, when the practise and theory
of the singing-school at St. Gall, by which such
typical passages were evolved, influenced all
music in those French and German lands where the
melody of "Kol Nidre" took shape.
Thus, then, a typical phrase in the most
familiar Gregorian mode, such as was daily in
the ears of the Rhenish Jews, in secular as well
as in ecclesiastical music, was centuries ago
deemed suitable for the recitation of the
Absolution of Vows, and to it was afterward
prefixed an introductory intonation dependent on
the taste and capacity of the officiant. Many
times repeated, the figure of this central
phrase was sometimes sung on a higher degree of
the scale, sometimes on a lower. Then these
became associated; and so gradually the middle
section of the melody developed into the modern
forms.
But the
inspiration of a later ḥazzan was needed to
shape the closing section of the melody, in
which the end of the chant soars away into a
bold and triumphant strain, expressing
confidence and determination rather than the
humble sorrow of the older ending in the minor,
which still survives in the Italian tradition.
Now this bold closing phrase belongs, according
to the general tradition, also to
'Alenu (the words "kemishpeḥot
ha-adamah"). It would be quite in accordance
with the scheme of the ḥazzan's art if one such
officiant transferred the "'Alenu" phrase to "Kol
Nidre," with the determined aim of associating
the texts themselves in the minds of his
hearers. The speculation is ventured that this
was done about the year 1171, when thirty-four
men and seventeen women perished at the stake at
Blois, chanting the
"'Alenu," and when all the Rhenish Jews, as well
as those of France, were bewailing the martyrdom
as the encyclical of R. Tam reached their
congregations.
,
which runs as follows:
],
obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether
called 'ḳonam,' 'ḳonas,' 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 void, and made
of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have
power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned
vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory;
nor the oaths be oaths."
:
"Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the
Universe, who hast preserved us and hast brought
us to enjoy this season." In many congregations
Num. xiv. 19-20 is recited before this
benediction. After it the Torah-scrolls are
replaced, and the customary evening service
begins.
),
since, according to the Law, real repentance is
a condition of dispensation. The reasons
assigned for this change were that an "ex post
facto" annulment of a vow was meaningless, and
that, furthermore, no one might grant to himself
a dispensation, which might be given only by a
board of three laymen or by a competent judge ("mumḥeh").
Meïr ben Samuel cited further, in support of his
arguments, Ned. 23b, which reads: "Whoever
wishes all the vows he may make throughout the
year to be null and void shall come at the
beginning of the year and say: 'May all the vows
which I shall vow be annulled.'" This change
made by Meïr ben Samuel is given by Rabbenu Tam
in his "Sefer ha-Yashar" (ed. Venice, 1816, §
144), although it did not emanate from him, as
the old authorities incorrectly supposed (e.g.,
Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, "Or Zarua'," p. 126b;
Aaron ha-Kohen of Lunel, "Orḥot Ḥayyim," p.
106b; RoSH to Ned. 23b and Ṭur Oraḥ Ḥayyim, §
619).
