Repentance and Release

By Kay Lodge
List College

In a few weeks, Kol Nidre will be recited. It’s one of the pieces of liturgy most closely associated with Yom Kippur, and historically the connection is obvious. Kol Nidre has been recited as part of the Yom Kippur liturgy since the Geonic period, from 600 to 1000 AD. But theologically, that connection is not nearly as clear. Though often recited as an emotion laden prayer, Kol Nidre, when taken literally and as many scholars believe it was originally intended, is a legal formula. It annuls all vows likely to be made in the upcoming year or those made in the past year (depending, respectively, on whether one is Askenazi or Sephardi). The word "vow" and four of its synonyms are recited in the first sentence, as are "consecrate" and three of its synonyms. The rest of Kol Nidre contains similar levels of repetition, and the entire proclamation is repeated three times. Jewish text study does not take repetition lightly, and the repetition of and within Kol Nidre leaves no room for doubt that it is intended for completely annulling vows.

The juxtaposition of unambiguously releasing oneself from responsibility and asking forgiveness has always struck me as odd. Why would the holiest day of the year start with a legal formula and why atone when, according to Kol Nidre, no one has broken any vows?

The former is simpler to untangle. Judaism separates many things, but blurs the line between holy and secular, which is so revered by Americans. Amid the perennial discussion of whether Judaism is a culture or religion, one ought to consider whether Judaism is a political tradition before, after, or in between its claims as a culture or religion. Kol Nidre exemplifies Judaism’s place at the intersection of those three entities. Logically, a religiously transcendent day ought to be accompanied by a legally transcendent oath. When viewed within the context of Judaism, and particularly ancient Judaism, the legal framing of Yom Kippur makes perfect sense. However, a modern Westerner could easily be left wondering why one ought to atone.

All sins can be construed as broken vows. Many of those vows were implicit, but all are equally valid. And once that construction is made, where can atonement exist? Once again, the answer relies upon contextualization. When it was both a political organizing force and a religion, both legal and religious redemption were necessary.

But in modern Judaism, where the political aspect is dimmed, one must reevaluate Kol Nidre’s legalese and place it into a religious context. Otherwise, the prayer becomes meaningless (unless a Jewish political structure is revived). If all sins are broken vows, then reciting or hearing Kol Nidre last year and atoning this year are mutually exclusive, unless atonement and legal pardon pertain to different arenas. Perhaps modern Jews can consider Kol Nidre an annulling of any future or past vows between the person and God and the remainder of the Yom Kippur service can be seen as pleading for forgiveness for any broken vows a person made to himself or other people. As always, the relationship of a Jew to God is more clear cut than his relationship with himself or others. And that is precisely the reason for God.

Kay Lodge went to Huntington High School and Nativ. She is currently is a sophomore at List College in Manhattan.

[Posted 9/28/11]