Talk:Kol Nidre

talk / discussion[edit]

I'm a bit mindboggled by the sections on the source of the melody. The theory that it is a synthesis of dark-age plainsong is not presented impartially, but as if it were fact, with no scholarship or evidence to back it up. Our articles need to be well-sourced; our readers turn to the material for truth, not opinion. Jenniestein (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance we can get a midi or ogg file of this? maybe someone can record it next yom kipur and ask the cantor if he minds releasing it under a free lisence?

Heh. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no tape recorders in shul on Yom Kippur. Though in theory we could ask the cantor to sing it when it's not Yom Kippur, just so we could post it on here. I'm not going to do it right now though, my cantor's very busy. (My rabbi's leaving, long story...) Smartyshoe 11:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ¶ Plenty of videos of Kol Nidre on Youtube, include of cantors in vestments as if perform on Yom Kippur, a particularly touching example is the final scene of the 1939 Yiddish movie "Overture to GLory" with famous cantor Moyshe Oysher.Sussmanbern (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¶ A very considerable amount of the original Wikipedia article, before I started meddling with it, was lifted, almost verbatim from the 1904 Jewish Encyclopedia article. In fact, following some 2010 notations about "citation needed", I found the exact same wording in that article and provided the citation. I also corrected some of the too-unliteral English rendering of the liturgical text.Sussmanbern (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, the unattributed verbatim parts are still there in considerable portions of the article (see, e.g., the section on similarity to christian plainsong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.44.214 (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¶ I'd be very appreciative if someone who knew how to do these things would make the boxed texts - Aramaic and English - of Kol Nidrei look better. Sussmanbern (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How culturally relevant was this vow issue in post-Biblical times?[edit]

Did medieval Jews still do too much vowing? Also, so this formula preemptively annuls any such vow, right? Then why wasn't this coupled with an explicit prohibition of making vows of the type that this declaration annuls? 76.24.104.52 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any honest person has to question the true motive of this "vow" that was added to the Law of Moses and which should be considered an immoral and unlawful addition to the law from its very deliberate inception. The article says : "This rite declared that the petitioners, who were seeking reconciliation with God, solemnly retracted their vows and oaths they had made to God during the period intervening between the previous Day of Atonement and the present one". Only the entity to whom the promise is made to has the right retract responsibility from he who made the oath in the first place and who is indefinitely obliged to honour that oath. Whether that entity is human (eg. a judge) or God, he who made the oath has no right to retract it whatsoever.

Additionally one should ask oneself the true reason why the "vow" was changed from past to future tense. The reason implied in the article is that the vow is something which "one might not be able to fulfill during the next year" and that is why it was changed to future tense, but nowhere is this explanation made part of the official "vow" deliberately so that otherwise normally honest Jews are given the impression that it is ok to lie to non-Jews.

"All personal vows we are likely to make, all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."

To summarize : "ALL personal vows we are likely to make...we publicly renounce" Not some that we cannot keep, but ALL personal vows !!!

According to the already suitable Law of Moses, God allows for forgiveness even after a sin has been committed so there is no logical or moral reason one would ask God to forgive future sins, not that this "vow" even goes nearly that far to begin with !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.7.130.213 (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶ The sort of vowing that was envisioned in medieval times might not be so common today, but there are plenty of promises made to God ("get me through this medical/school test and in return I will ....") or using God as a witness ("I swear to God that I will stop smoking this year.") which are not kept, and these are admitted to be unkept and are atoned for by Kol Nidre. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

The Electric Prunes album Release of An Oath was, when it was new, more commonly referred to as the Kol Nidre, after the title of its first track. This first track is the most distinctive liturgical element of the work. Obviously it's not the same prayer, in fact I'm very interested in finding out exactly what the relationship is, but some form of disambiguation is called for IMO. See also Talk:Release of An Oath. Andrewa 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could list it with the cultural influences further down the article, together with Max Bruch. I would not put a disambig notice at the top. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky. People will come here looking for the album, and may not scroll down to cultural references, but more to the point they shouldn't need to scroll down, as it's an obvious disambig. On the other hand, I can see how Jewish people might be offended by giving space for a rock 'n' roll album with a tenuous (prehaps even offensive) connection to Judaism at the top of this article.

It's also a very significant album. I'll add the link you suggest. Andrewa 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility that occurs to me is to create a disambiguation page at Kol Nidre (disambiguation), to disambiguate between the album and this article. We wouldn't normally have a disambiguation page with only two entries, just a link from the top of the main article to the other one, but this seems to be a special case. The other possibility is if I can find enough material to justify an article at Kol Nidre (Christianity) or something similar, in which case a disambiguation page would make perfect sense. Andrewa 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no reference to use of any prayer called Kol Nidre in a Christian context prior to Release of An Oath. At the risk of arguing from silence, possibly the synthesis is original to composer/producer David Axelrod. Andrewa 00:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I was forgetting the Kol Nidre (Bruch) article. So we already have a three-way disambiguation. Is there any objection now to discretely linking to Kol Nidre (disambiguation) from the top of this page, as is our normal practice? Andrewa 00:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Origin of the future tense?[edit]

I was wondering what year Meïr ben Samuel (or others) invoked the future tense. anyone? ¶ Meir ben Samuel and his son Jacob (Rabbenu Tam) are 12th century. Cannot find more precise date.Sussmanbern (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Version of Meïr ben Samuel.[edit]

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).

from: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=K&artid=340

¶I do not know if this relates to Meir ben Samuel or anyone else significant, but SOME versions of the future provision say "until the next Yom Kippur, may it come with goodness" and OTHERS say "until the next Yom Kippur, may it come in peace". The Aramaic text differs on the last word, although obviously there's not an appreciable difference in meaning. Sussmanbern (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text of Kol Nidre[edit]

Is there a reason not to present the text of the Kol Nidre recitation?? I was thinking of the three column - Hebrew print, transliteration, and English translation - presentation of the text, perhaps with a few footnotes on variations of the text. If somebody wants it, I could try to work it up. Sussmanbern (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC) ¶ I would REALLY LIKE SOME FEEDBACK on this. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People (Gentiles) have a right to know the text of the Kol Nidre. Stop deleting the text from the article and from the Talk page.

The Kol Nidre asks that all unfulfilled vows to God be nullified and all transgressions be forgiven in the upcoming year.

Here is one English translation: "All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next, we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect: they shall not bind us nor have any power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligations; nor the oaths be oaths."

This has sometimes been interpreted by non-Jews as permission to lie, cheat or steal in the upcoming year. Perhaps some Jews (mis-)interpret the Kol Nidre this way as well. 192.40.24.4 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Shandafurdie[reply]

All this is treated in the article already, twice and explicitly, and we don't need it here again. And we don't need you to hand out commands here. Wikipedia is about community editing by a process of consensus forming. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tune[edit]

Could be have a picture of the tune in standard musical notation? This would be of immense help. Gingermint (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My efforts to find FREE sheet music on the web have failed. There are a number of sheet music vendors that offer a free glimpse of one or two sample pages but I doubt the ethics of posting one of those websites. However, almost any album of Jewish liturgical music should have it. Sussmanbern (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audio[edit]

As sublime and magnificent as kevakarat roe' edro may be, it is part of unesana tokef and not kol nidre. Therefore, as this article is about one specific piece of they Yom Kippur service and not the service in its entirety, unless I receive some feedback otherwise in the near future, I plan on getting rid of the audio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kol Nidre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hireq[edit]

I'm not really sure what you mean, @Zhomron. The first vowel of נדרי is a hireq. It's short (חסר) because it's unstressed and not followed by a yud. The convention is to pronounce these similar to a schwa. Modern/Sephardic accents obey slightly different rules, though they might also shorten the unstressed hireq at the start of a word. Unrelatedly, the yud at the end of נדרי does not affect pronunciation and so is not transcribed. The tsere in מראה (with a he following) or בורא (with an aleph) is pronounced exactly the same way. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonGlottal: Hiriq is never decelensed to anything even remotely resembling the sound of schwa in any Hebrew dialect. As per previous conversations we've had, this also butts against the standard transliteration scheme used by Wikipedia. There is no "i", there is only "ī". Hiriq male is not reflective. Likewise, tzere male is. Some transliterate terminal yudim. This is present on several other pages. Zhomron (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply misinformed, on several counts. First: open any relevant textbook and you'll find that this is the standard Tiberian scheme for hireqs. A modern Ashkenazic accent will actually shift even more hireqs into schwa-type, because more are unstressed. Try here for a contemporary example. Second: The phrase is in Aramaic, not Hebrew. You may find this chart (pg. 3), which I found by google, helpful on both counts.

As I've pointed out before: there is no standard Wikipedia scheme. Terminal yud is simply misleading -- it's not pronounced. It should not be used on any page.

You could avoid these mistakes by using an engine like this. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]