‘Wat Je Zegt Ben Je Zelf’
A view on tradition and modernity in the Yom Kippur liturgy of the
Dutch Movement for Progressive Judaism
Asjer Salomon Waterman - 10259236
Universiteit van Amsterdam
MA Hebrew and Jewish Studies (Middle Eastern Studies)
1
streader: prof. dr. I.E. Zwiep
2
ndreader: dr. B. T. Wallet
21.604 words
June 2017
Abstract
The reform movement started as a movement for liturgical renewal. Not only
had the prayer services to become shortened and more attractive to the
worshipper, but in time the liturgy had to be altered to fit the worshippers’
modern worldviews. This thesis tries to answer the question of how the Dutch
Union for Progressive Judaism dealt with the conflict between the traditional
liturgy and their changing worldviews, in their liturgies for Yom Kippur. This
thesis deals with four specific parts of the service: the Kol Nidre prayer, the
confession of sins (Viduy), the temple service (Seder Avodah) and the memorial
service (Yizkor), all of which could prove problematic for reform Jews. Each
chapter first provides a short history of the liturgical developments after which
the problematic parts of the liturgy is analyzed. The thesis challenges the
assumption that the choices which are made when compiling the liturgy are
indeed based on ideological views. Not only does the time in which liturgical
innovation was the main tool for reform Jews to deal with their religion seems
to have passed, it also seems that for the particular Dutch situation, other
motives may have had more influence on the choices than ideological
considerations. An answer is sought to the question of what that means for
reform Judaism. Can you still be considered a reform community when the
texts in your prayer books are more and more identical to the ones we find in
orthodox prayer books?
Inhoudsopgave
Introduction 6 Published mahzorim 8 1932 8 1933 9 1934 9 1939 9 1964 10 Einheitsgebetbuch 11 Handouts and paste-ins 11 New mahzor 12 Earlier research 12 Reform Judaism 14 Kol Nidre 21 introduction 21 Dutch liturgy 26 1932-1933 26 1964 28 Current practice 28 Overall conclusions 32 Viduy 33 introduction 33 Dutch liturgy 38 1932 38 1933 40 1934 41 1939 41 1964 42 Current practice 43 Overall conclusions 45 Avodah 47 Introduction 47 The Dutch liturgy 50 1932 50 1933 50 1934 and 1939 51 1964 52 Current practice 53 Overall conclusions 56 Yizkor 58 Introduction 58 Dutch liturgy 62 1932 62 1933 63 1934 64 1939 64 1964 64 Current practice 66 Overall conclusions 68Conclusion 71
Appendix A 74
Literature 76
Mahzorim 78
Introduction
The early history of Jewish liturgy is shrouded in mystery. Initially, the prayers people said were not written down1. This idea is also expressed in rabbinic literature: “Those who write down blessings are like those who burn the Torah”2. In the Geonic age however, rabbis got concerned that the oral transmission of the prayers led to changes in its recitation.3 Not writing down the prayers was deemed even more dangerous than writing them down, which led to the compilation of the first prayer books.4 This development is the first sign of standardization. The history of Jewish liturgy from than moment on, has always been one of addition, never of omission. Generations of Jews added their own experiences to the corpus of Jewish liturgy, but also respected the tradition which they were handed down.5 A change occurs with the emergence of reform Judaism. Jews in the modern age thought of their religion as being incompatible with enlightenment values. Their beliefs changed, and their religion had to change accordingly. How can we still pray for a return to Zion when we feel at home in Germany? Why do our prayers speak about bodily resurrection when that idea seems in conflict with modern scientific discoveries? The reformers came to believe that the words they said in their prayers should represent their modern worldview. The idea that reform Jews adapt their liturgy to fit their worldview is the basic assumption on which this thesis is build. Wat je zegt ben je zelf, probably best translated in English as: you are what you say.6 The initial idea for this thesis was to give an historical overview of the 1 Elbogen, Ismar, Studies in the Jewish Liturgy in: Jewish Quarterly Review vol. 18, no. 4 (1906) p. 587. 2 Talmud Bavli Shabat 115b 3 Saadya Gaon states that this was the reason for him to compile a prayer book. See: Ginzberg, Louis, Saadia’s Siddur (Philadelphia : 1942) p. 327. 4 The first prayer book for which permission was given in Babylon to use it, was a prayer book for Yom Kippur. The liturgy was deemed so complicated and long that, in order not to make mistakes, the person leading the prayer was permitted a written text. See: Posner, Raphael et al, Jewish liturgy : prayer and synagogue service through the ages (Jerusalem, Keter : 1975) p. 255. 5 Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) p. 23. 6 “wat je zegt ben je zelf” is a Ducth saying, which is in most cases used by children as a reply to another child saying something bad, as if to say: don’t talk bad about other people, you are what you say.ideological developments within the Dutch reform communities by the analysing the changes in their liturgy for Yom Kippur. Soon it became clear however, that these changes are minimal. It was in 1964 that the most recent Mahzor was published by the Dutch Union for Progressive Judaism. Right now, the union is working on a new Mahzor, the first part of which will be used during Yom Kippur 5778. Does that mean that there was so little change in the worldview of the members of the Union that no need was felt to change their liturgy? Or did they simply not alter their liturgy because they did not deem it important enough? The answer to both these questions is: no. In fact, the liturgy did change in some cases, but they were never published in a new Mahzor. Many communities have added to or deleted parts from the service. These changes are to be found in the personal Mahzorim of the rabbis of the communities, and in handouts which are distributed to the worshippers on Yom Kippur. I expect it to be in these omissions and additions that we can find the true issues the communities faced. For whatever reason not to publish a new Mahzor, may it be financial issues, lack of manpower or any other reason, the communities did not accept it as grounds not to alter at least parts of the liturgy. Not renewing the whole set of liturgies but only parts of it means making choices. Only the most important and pressing cases are being altered. I believe there to be one big drawback to using this material. These handouts and paste-ins which alter the existing liturgy are not well documented. Though I believe them to be of great worth for the study of liturgy, no institution makes it their priority to document these small liturgical changes. This makes the material which I found fragmentary and limited in scope. The fragmentary material makes it difficult to proceed with the initial plan, of providing an overview of the ideological development of the communities. But even if the material doesn’t enable us to provide a full overview, it does give a good view on the way the communities struggle with the existing liturgy. It is this struggle, the trade-off between tradition and modernity, on which I like to give a view in this thesis. In order to do so, I have restricted myself to 4 point of the Yom Kippur service in which I believe the tension between tradition and modernity become apparent. The first is the Kol Nidre prayer, which besides its already controversial history within traditional Judaism, was dismissed by the Brunswick rabbinical conference of 1844. The second is the confession of sins, which reflects a traditional theology of which the reformers could not approve. The
third is the Seder Avodah, problematic to the reform movement because of the movement’s will to distance itself from the ancient sacrificial cult and the special role of the priests in Judaic religion. The fourth and last point will be the Yizkor service, which was in a way invented by the reform movement and which proves troublesome because of the reform movements rejection of the doctrine of bodily resurrection. The relevance of each of these points in the service is accounted for in the introductions to each chapter. The material of which use is made for this thesis can be divided in three parts: the published Mahzorim of the Dutch Union for Progressive Judaism between 1932 and 1964, the unpublished hand-outs and paste-ins, and the yet unpublished Mahzor which is now being developed, of which some parts have been made available for use in this thesis. Published Mahzorim Between 1932 and 1964, five Mahzorim for Yom Kippur were published by the Dutch Union for Progressive Judaism.7 We will take a short look at all of them. 1932 The edition published in 1932 was one of the Union’s first liturgical publications. It was edited by the rabbi at that time, Dr. Joseph Norden with the help of Levi Levisson and Raphael Jesaja Spitz and consists of 59 pages.8 This Mahzor provides an evening service, a service for during the day and a closing service. The liturgy that is presented is not sufficient to hold the traditional 5 services during Yom Kippur, which leads us to believe that it was not the intention of the editors to have a service all day long. Norden, an experienced rabbi from a German einheitsgemeinde, was seen as a moderate reformer. The Dutch Spitz was a former student of the orthodox rabbinical seminary and a great translator.9 He would remain involved with all liturgical publications for Yom Kippur before the war. 7 Praag, Marianne van, Between Renewal and Tradition Liberal Jewish Liturgy in the Netherlands [unpublished] (Amsterdam, Levisson Instituut : 2008) p. 13-16. 8 Ibid. p. 13. 9 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 47-52.
1933 This edition, published in 1933 gives us a more extensive liturgy and consists of 98 pages. It was edited by the new rabbi, dr. Hans Hirschberg, a young man from Germany, who was however deemed to orthodox for the community, which is why he left very soon.10 Spitz was involved again as well.11 The introduction to the Mahzor does not give a clear answer as to why there was a need to publish a new Mahzor after only one year. Its increased length in comparison to the earlier edition combined with its resemblance to the earlier edition leads me to believe that the reason was for the community to have a longer service on Yom Kippur. 1934 If my assumption that the wish for a longer service prompted the publication of the 1933 edition is correct, the communities were note yet satisfied. In 1934, another edition was published, edited by Levisson and Spitz.12 The introduction now does give us a clear answer as to why the Mahzor was published. This booklet was to serve as an addition to the 1933 edition, additions which were requested by the members of the communities who wanted the service to last the whole day. Among the additions, we find a full Minha Torah reading, and a repetition of the Amidah. The additions were not only taken from Ashkenazi traditions, but from Sephardic traditions as well.13 1939 In 1939, the last pre-war Mahzor for Yom Kippur was published. Where the three publications up to now were published by the Union14, this Mahzor was published by the branch in The Hague.15 It contains only the morning service and consists of 42 pages. It was 10 Ibid. p. 56. 11 Praag, Marianne van, Between Renewal and Tradition Liberal Jewish Liturgy in the Netherlands [unpublished] (Amsterdam, Levisson Instituut : 2008) p. 14. 12 Ibid. p. 14. 13 Levisson Levi et al, Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag aanvullingen voor het gebedenboek uitgegeven in 5694-1933 (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1934) p. 2. 14 All publications have the name of the Union on their cover; Verbond van Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland. 15 Kerkgenootschap Liberaal Joodsche Gemeente ’S-Gravenhage.
edited by Rabbi Hans Andorn in cooperation with Spitz.16 Andorn was a German rabbi who fled from Germany after the Kristallnacht.17 He was the rabbi of the branch in The Hague, which was far more radical reform community than the branch in Amsterdam.18 1964 The last published Mahzor is the one from 1964, which has since been reprinted several times. It was compiled by Jacob Soetendorp and Bob Levisson.19 There is no introduction which states the reason for its publication, but considering the changes which the movement went through during those years, more of which will be explained later on in this introduction, we can assume that the changes initiated by Goudeket, Levisson and Soetendorp led to the compilation of this Mahzor. The Mahzor is more traditional than the earlier compilations, in that is consists of the 5 traditional services.20 Soetendorp has been described as a man whose emotions had a considerable influence on his decisions as a rabbi.21 It is hardly possible to label Soetendorp as either a radical reformer or a devoted traditionalist, because he seems to have had both of those elements. His own son has described him as being an orthodox-liberal and a liberal-orthodox.22 His position on the balance between tradition and modernity in the reform movement shall be explained further on in this introduction. 16 Praag, Marianne van, Between Renewal and Tradition Liberal Jewish Liturgy in the Netherlands [unpublished] (Amsterdam, Levisson Instituut : 2008) p. 14. 17 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 65-66. 18 Brasz, Chaya, Dutch progressive Jews and their unexpected key role in Europe in: European Judaism 49.1 (New York, Berghahn Books : 2016) 19 Praag, Marianne van, Between Renewal and Tradition Liberal Jewish Liturgy in the Netherlands [unpublished] (Amsterdam, Levisson Instituut : 2008 p. 15-16. 20 Soetendorp, Jacob Seder Tov Lehodot Gebeden voor Rosj Hasjana en Jom Kipoer ten gebruike in de Liberaal-Joodse Gemeenten in Nederland (Amsterdam, Verbond van Liberaal-Religieuze Joden in Nederland : 1964) 21 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 123. 22Jager, Karen de, 1954-1972: Jacob Soetendorp en de Liberaal Joodse Gemeente Amsterdam [unpublished] (Rotterdam, Erasmus Universiteit : 1991) p. 63.
Einheitsgebetbuch If we are to study the liturgy of the Dutch Union for Progressive Judaism, we have to make mention of yet another Mahzor, though not compiled by leaders of the Dutch communities. This Mahzor is the second part of the so-called einheitsgebetbuch from 1929, a famous prayer book compiled by Seligmann, Vogelstein and Elbogen. This edition tried to combine the last 100 years of reform liturgical creativity in Germany into one prayer book, which could be used by all German congregations.23 In order to do so, the liturgy that was created was a fairly traditional Hebrew one, in which many alternative German options were incorporated for the communities to choose from.24 The German immigrants who came to the Netherlands in the 1930’s brought this prayer book with them, and introduced in to the services of the reform Jews in Amsterdam, to serve alongside the Dutch liturgy. The einhietsgebetbuch stayed in use also after the war, until the compilation of new liturgies by Soetendorp in the 1960’s.25 The einheitsgebetbuch also clearly influenced the Dutch liturgical publications.26 Handouts and paste-ins I have found various handouts and paste-ins form different people and locations, which can be divided in two parts. The first are handouts which are to supplement the pre-war editions, which I found in the copies that I used for this research. These copies were handed to me by the librarian of the Levisson institute, the rabbinical seminary of the Dutch Union for Progressive Judaism. These copies contain an ex-libris of Bob Levisson27, which supposes that the material found in these Mahzorim come from the community in The Hague of which Levisson was a member. We don’t know however when these handouts were placed in these specific copies. The handouts are also not dated, making it even more difficult to trace its origins. 23 Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) p. 205-206. 24 Hoffman, Lawernce A., The Liturgical State of the World Union for Progressive Judaism in: European Judaism: A Journal for the New Europe, vol. 24 no. 1 (Berghahn Books, New York - Oxford : 1991) p. 11. 25 Brasz, Chaya, Dutch progressive Jews and their unexpected key role in Europe in: European Judaism 49.1 (New York, Berghahn Books : 2016) p. 7-10. 26 Michman, Dan, Het Liberale Jodendom in Nederland (1929-1943) (Amsterdam, van Gennep : 1988) p. 126. 27 this concerns the 1933, 1934 and 1939 editions. The 1932 which I used is part of the collection of the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana.
The second part consists of paste-ins that I copied from the mahzorim of the rabbis of Amsterdam, Menno ten Brink and The Hague, Marianne van Praag and from material that was sent to me by various communities at my request. I send out a small questionnaire to the 9 communities of the Union28 in which I asked if, and if yes in what way they deviate from the liturgy in the 1964 Mahzor. Some of the communities supplied me with handouts they present to the worshippers during Yom Kippur, or of texts the rabbis use in addition or as a substitute for other texts, but which are not handed out. Other communities did not provide me with samples. New Mahzor At the moment, a new Mahzor is being compiled for the high holidays. An editorial team has been put together, consisting of five rabbis of the Union29. Additionally, a proofreading group consisting of members from the various communities of the Union has been asked to give their opinions on that which the editorial team has compiled. The translations are made by Prof. dr. Wout van Bekkum from the University of Groningen. Right now, the team focusses on the Kol Nidre service. Two of the four points in service discussed in this paper appear in the service for Kol Nidre, namely the Viduy and the Kol Nidre prayer.30 It is important to note that this mahzor is still being developed, the material that is used for this thesis is proposed material, there are no certainties yet on what exact shape the mahzor will take. Earlier research The Dutch Union for Progressive Judaism has had some scholarly attention in the past. Dr. Dan Michman published a book in 1988 on the history of liberal Judaism in the Netherlands before the second world war.31 In 2006 the historian dr. Chaya Brasz wrote a book on the 28 Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag, Brabant, Dieren, Northern-Netherlands, Flevoland, Twente and Utrecht. 29 Menno ten Brink (chairman), Tamarah Benima, Albert Ringer, Kine Sittig and Corrie Zeidler 30 The author of this thesis is one of the members of the reading group. The information on the new mahzor therefore comes from the author directly. 31 Michman, Dan, Het Liberale Jodendom in Nederland (1929-1943) (Amsterdam, van Gennep : 1988)
history of progressive Judaism in the Netherlands between 1931 and 2006.32 The influence of Jacob Soetendorp on the Dutch reform communities has been given attention in an unpublished master thesis in 1990 by drs. Karen de Jager.33 Some attention has also been given to the liturgy specifically. Most work in this field has been done by rabbi Marianne van Praag in 2008, who wrote a master thesis on the liturgical publications of the Union.34 Another article worth mentioning is the one by professor dr. Judith Frishman on the siddurim Tov Lehodot, published in 1964 and 2000.35 Van Praag sees a shift from a liturgy of the type of ‘independent reform’, to the type of ‘reform from within’, going from a more radical type of reform to a less radical and more traditionally Jewish one.36 Some references to the liturgy can also be found in the works of Michman, Brasz and de Jager. Michman mentions the influence of German reform on the earliest liturgies and mentions the 1934 mahzor in which more traditional texts were incorporated.37 Brasz describes a conflict between more moderate and more radical members of the community in Amsterdam which preceded the liturgical publications in the 1960’s38, more of which is explained below. In de Jager’s thesis we find a memory of Bob Levisson in which he says that the choices Soetendorp made in the compilation of the liturgy was mostly arbitrary.39 32 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) 33 Jager, Karen de, 1954-1972: Jacob Soetendorp en de Liberaal Joodse Gemeente Amsterdam [unpublished] (Rotterdam, Erasmus Universiteit : 1991) 34 Praag, Marianne van, Between Renewal and Tradition Liberal Jewish Liturgy in the Netherlands [unpublished] (Amsterdam, Levisson Instituut : 2008) 35 Frishman, Judith, Who We Say We Are in: Poorthuis M., Schwartz J., A Holy People? Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity no. 12 (Leiden, Brill : 2006) 36 Praag, Marianne van, Between Renewal and Tradition Liberal Jewish Liturgy in the Netherlands [unpublished] (Amsterdam, Levisson Instituut : 2008) p. 49. 37 Michman, Dan, Het Liberale Jodendom in Nederland (1929-1943) (Amsterdam, van Gennep : 1988) p. 126. 38 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 174-186. 39 “Als je mij nu zou vragen waarop Soetendorp zijn keuzes baseerde, dan kan ik daar geen antwoord op geven. […] volgens mij ging het vrij willekeurig. Bij de bestudering van het materiaal kon hij opeens heel hard gaan zingen en riep dan: dat moét er in!” Jager, Karen de, 1954-1972: Jacob Soetendorp en de Liberaal Joodse Gemeente Amsterdam [unpublished] (Rotterdam, Erasmus Universiteit : 1991) p. 71.
Reform Judaism Before we proceed to the analysis of the four points in service mentioned earlier, I will provide a short history of the Dutch Union for Progressive Judaism, in order to provide some historical context in which the developments we see can be placed. The late modern period in Western-Europe saw the emergence of different streams within Judaism. The changed social and political circumstances as a result of the enlightenment and the (prospect of) emancipation led Jews to re-evaluate their religion. The groups which we would nowadays label (neo-)Orthodox, Conservative and Reform each have their roots in this period in history, and each of them found a different way to cope with this new situation. All groups thought their religion had to be changed in some way, but for the orthodox these changes were restricted to changes in decorum. Reform Jews however, sought ways to modernize their religious concepts as well. They found many elements of the Jewish religion the be in conflict with their new worldview, based on enlightenment values. Though published in 1850 when the reform movement was already in existence for some decades, the document produced by the Israelite Supreme Council of Mecklenburg-Schwerin called “The Point of Difference Regarding Public Worship between the Various Religious Parties” in which six points of difference are being put forward, gives us a good impression of what element proved problematic for the early reformers: 1. Judaism does not permit, or even compel, its adherents to pray before the divine Throne of Judgment for Vengeance, and for the destruction of its enemies. 2. Prayers which presuppose conditions which have long since passed should not be recited. 3. The Pentateuch should be read in a triennial cycle. 4. The prayer for the restoration of animal sacrifices does not have a binding religious character for us. 5. We should omit prayers for a return to Palestine. 6. Prayer should be possible in the vernacular, not only in Hebrew.40 40 Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) p. XIII-XIV.
As also seems clear from the 6 points above, changing the liturgy was the main way in which these Jews sought to reform their religion.41 And much has been changed in the liturgy of progressive Jewish communities since the first days of reform Judaism. Liturgist professor Lawrence E. Hoffman, in an article published in 1991, divides the progressive Jewish liturgical developments in three stages42: Classical, Peoplehood and Personalist.43 The Classical
period, beginning roughly in the mid-19th century, is characterized by a universalist worldview, challenging the traditional religious concepts. Progressive Jews reshaped their own history, in which exile meant progress instead of punishment, and where God had given them the task to spread ethical monotheism to the world. Jews were no longer a nation, but a religious community which led them to deemphasize Jewish particularism. References to the Jews as a nation or a people were omitted, as were those passages that were not in line with the enlightenment ideas. However, the horrors of the Shoah (partly) made an end to this universal worldview. Although progressive Jews did not lose their hope in an ultimate messianic redemption in which the ethical messages of the prophets would be common good, Auschwitz made and end to the belief that this age was imminent. The experiences of the Shoah, together with the founding of the state of Israel brought about the Peoplehood stage from the 1960’s onwards. Not integration into the local culture but seeing the Jews a distinct people with a certain mission would bring about the prophetic visions. From the 1980’s onwards, Hoffman sees a tendency to give attention to the individual worshipper, which he calls the Personalist stage. Individual needs start being reflected in the liturgies, culminating for instance in the inclusion of women.44 The first reformers were German rabbis, and for a long time, Germany was the centre of Jewish reform. But reform Judaism spread to other European countries as well, and with the 41 Ibid.p. XI. 42 Three stages which do not necessarily follow up one another but can exist one next to the other. 43 Hoffman, Lawernce E., The Liturgical State of the World Union for Progressive Judaism in: European Judaism: A Journal for the New Europe, vol. 24 no. 1 (Berghahn Books, New York - Oxford : 1991) p. 10-22. 44 Ibid.
German immigration to the United States in the 19th century reform Judaism was soon to take root across the ocean as well.45 Free from governmental interference, Jewish reform in the United States was far less restricted than the communities in Europe. It was in America where the most fertile grounds for far-going reforms could be found. The reform ideology which was developed in Germany was now brought to a place where it could fully flourish and develop further.46 For many reasons, among which the early emancipation of the Jews, the lack of a public debate on the Jewish faith, minor reforms initiated by the orthodox rabbinate and the specific Dutch situation in which controversies were avoided at all costs, it took until the 1930’s for such a movement to arise in the Netherlands.47 Initially, the Dutch reaction to modernity was in line with the orthodox approach; changes in synagogues were restricted to decorum.48 In 1930, the “Genootschap voor de Joodsche Reformbeweging” was established in The Hague, and some months later in 1931, it was officially approved by royal decree. By calling the movement a reform movement instead of liberal, the founders sought a connection with the less radical stream within progressive Judaism, which in the United Kingdom was associated with the term reform. The chairman of the movement was Levie Levisson49, who 45 It does not serve the purpose of this thesis to give an elaborate description of the spread of reform Judaism to other countries. For more detailed information on this process see: Meyer, Michael A., A Response to Modernity (Detroit, Wayne State University Press: 1995) chapters 4-6. 46 Meyer, Michael A., A Response to Modernity (Detroit, Wayne State University Press: 1995) p. 225-226 47 Different scholars have tried to answer the question as to why it took so long for a Dutch Jewish reform movement to be established, see: Michman, Dan, Het Liberale Jodendom in Nederland (1929-1943) (Amsterdam, van Gennep : 1988) chapter 2 p. 27-34.; Meijer, Jaap, Balans der Ballingen. Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Joden in Nederland, VII: Mazzeltov in Mineur. Bij het Jubileum der NIHS 1635-1985 (Heemstede : 1985) p. 15.; Wallet, Bart, Nieuwe Nederlanders: de integratie van joden in Nederland (1814-1851) (Uitgeverij Bert Bakker (Promotheus), Amsterdam : 2007) p. 176. 48 Frishman, Judith, Gij, Vromen, Zijt Nederlanders! in: Studia Rosenthaliana 30 no. 1 (Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press : 1996) p. 137-150. 49 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 38.
also initiated the founding of a reform movement in Holland after being inspired by visiting reform services in the UK.50 Soon, a group of likeminded Jews sought to establish a branch in Amsterdam as well. Together with the branch in The Hague they formed the newly established “Verbond van Liberaal-religieuse Joden Nederland”, founded in 1931 and approved by the government in 1932.51 The first rabbi to serve the new community in The Hague was rabbi M.J. Lasker, an American rabbi with roots in Russia.52 However, within 6 months after the first service in December 1930, Lasker already returned to the states because of discontents from both the side of the new community and the rabbi himself. His inexperience and the fact that Lasker knew only English proved troublesome.53 The search went out for a new rabbi, but this time the Dutch preferred the rabbi to be a German one, which meant an end to the United Kingdom and the United States serving as the main source of inspiration for the movement.54 A temporary solution was found with the German rabbi J. Norden, who was to guide the young movement until a new rabbi would have been found. In the meantime, a lot had changed in the young movement, causing tendencies between more and less radical members of the movement. Amongst the founders of the Amsterdam branch were some German families, and when in 1933 German Jews sought refuge in Holland because of the rise of national-socialism in Germany, some of them joined the branch in Amsterdam. These German Jews were in general less radical then Dutch, and their increasing influence in the Amsterdam branch led to big differences between the more radical community in The Hague and the less radical community in Amsterdam.55 50 Ibid p. 22. 51 Ibid p. 49. 52 Michman, Dan, Het Liberale Jodendom in Nederland (1929-1943) (Amsterdam, van Gennep : 1988) p. 40. 53 Ibid. p. 45-46. 54 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 43. 55 Ibid. p. 54-56.
In 1933, rabbi Hans Hirschberg was brought to the community, but as rabbi Lasker, he also left after a few months. 56 Hirschberg was deemed too orthodox even for the less radical
branch in Amsterdam.57 Later came the appointment of rabbi Mehler in 193458 and rabbi Hans Andorn in 1938, who was specifically appointed to serve the community in The Hague.59 It seemed as if the second world war made an end to reform Judaism in the Netherlands. Most of the members were killed, as were both rabbis of the community.60 After the war, the survivors Levie Levisson and Mau Goudeket re-established the community. But when Goudeket moved to curacao in 1946 and Levisson died in 1948, most people had lost hope that reform Judaism in Holland would have a change to survive.61 However, the community continued to exist, although the activities were limited to maintaining the community.62 That was, until the instalment of rabbi Jacob (Jaap) Soetendorp63. Soetendorp, born to a poor family in Amsterdam, had studied at the orthodox seminary before the war and served as a pastoral worker for the orthodox community. After the war, he made Aliyah with his family, but returned to Holland in 1954.64 Initially, Soetendorp planned to work for the orthodox community, but being restricted because of his liberal views he soon took the pulpit of the LJG, and was officially ordained as a rabbi by Leo Baeck in 1955.65 56 Michman, Dan, Het Liberale Jodendom in Nederland (1929-1943) (Amsterdam, van Gennep : 1988) p. 118-119. 57 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 56. 58 Michman, Dan, Het Liberale Jodendom in Nederland (1929-1943) (Amsterdam, van Gennep : 1988) p. 120. 59 Ibid. p. 122. 60 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 79-80. 61 Ibid. 98. 62 Jager, Karen de, 1954-1972: Jacob Soetendorp en de Liberaal Joodse Gemeente Amsterdam [unpublished] (Rotterdam, Erasmus Universiteit : 1991) p. 60. 64 Ibid. p. 48-55. 65 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 114-115.
Under Soetendorp’s guidance, the LJG got back on track. He founded the community’s periodical Levend Joods Geloof, gave lessons to adults and children66 organized regular Friday night services and from 1957 regular services on Saturday morning as well67, and most important, membership grew with several dozen people each year after his arrival.68 Soetendorp introduced some minor changes like the use of the Israeli Hebrew pronunciation, the celebration of festivals like in Israel (without a second day of Yomtef), the abolition of the musaf prayer and the addition of some Dutch texts and a Dutch Torah translation.69 The limited influence of international developments in the field of progressive Judaism and the wish of the traumatized members who had experienced the services as they were before the war, and their wish to keep them that way, caused the community to be a very conservative one. Soetendorp himself described the community he served as being “so very orthodox”.70 This soon led to conflict with Soetendorp who sought change. A dispute in 1963 related to the question of minyan, in which the conservative fraction of the community seemed to have the upper hand, almost led Soetendorp to resign as a rabbi.71 Interestingly, Soetendorp also came in conflict with the board for, in their eyes, being too conservative.72 In 1960 Goudeket returned to the Netherlands from Curacao73, and in the 1960’s(?) Soetendorp and Goudeket, together with Bob Levisson74 from The Hague, took efforts to introduce some more radical reforms. One of these reforms was to give women, who up until that time were not counted as part of the minyan and could not be called up to the Torah, a more prominent place in the services. Brasz describes this transition as leaving 66 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 120. 67 Jager, Karen de, 1954-1972: Jacob Soetendorp en de Liberaal Joodse Gemeente Amsterdam (unpublished) p. 61. 68 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) p. 122. 69 Ibid. p. 175. 70 Ibid. p. 174. 71 Ibid. p. 180 72 Ibid. p. 178 73 Ibid. p. 158. 74 The son of Levie Levisson
behind the pre-war German Liberal Judaism, and turning to the more modern progressive Judaism of the United States.75 Soetendorp remained the rabbi of the community up until 1972, when he had to resign because of health issues. Soetendorp was succeeded by rabbi David Lilienthal, who started in 1971 as a junior rabbi next to Soetendorp, but soon was to become senior rabbi after Soetendorps resignation.76 As was in line with international developments, halakha became more important under Lilienthal’s guidance.77 Lilienthal wanted to make the community more recognizable as Jews78, as Lilienthal himself put it. The policy on kashrut became stricter and the Giyur process was revised.79 Lilienthal wanted in principle to follow tradition, and only deviated from tradition when there were good reasons not to do so.80 In 2003 Lilienthal was succeeded by Menno ten Brink, who had already been serving as a rabbi both in Amsterdam and in other places, since 1993.81 The years after the war also saw the emergence of several other communities throughout the Netherlands. Today we count 9 communities. Apart from the ones in Amsterdam and The Hague we find communities in Utrecht, Rotterdam, Dieren, Twente, Brabant, Flevoland and the Northern-Netherlands, most of which have their own rabbi.82 75 Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006)p. 182. 76 Ibid. p. 200. 77 Ibid. p. 208. 78 Ibid. p. 266. 79 Ibid. p. 266-267 80 Ibid. p. 269, 81 Ibid p. 212. 82 Brasz, Chaya, Dutch progressive Jews and their unexpected key role in Europe in: European Judaism 49.1 (New York, Berghahn Books : 2016) p. 14-15
Kol Nidre
introduction Kol Nidre is probably the best-known prayer from the Yom Kippur liturgy. It’s with Kol Nidre that the evening service of Yom Kippur starts, and it’s by this name that the evening service of Yom Kippur is known: Kol Nidre night. In fact, Kol Nidre is not really a prayer in the true sense of the word but a legal formula by which certain vows are being dissolved.83 We believe the tradition stems from a passage in the Gemara: “one who desires that his vows not be upheld for the entire year should stand up on Rosh Ha-Shana and say: Any vow [neder] that I take in the future should be void”84 and that in later times, the practice shifted from Rosh Hashana to Yom Kippur.85 Strictly speaking, Kol Nidre is not part of Yom Kippur. As a rabbinic annulment of vows cannot be done on Shabbat and festivals, the Kol Nidre prayer is said before nightfall, and therefore before the actual commencement of Yom Kippur.86 However, it remains unclear where the Kol Nidre formula originally initiated or when and why it became part of the Yom Kippur liturgy. Some believe it to have originated in Babylonia in the 9th century under the influence of Near Eastern cultures of that time.87 Moshe Benovitz established a theory according to which it should have originated in Palestine and that is stems from the practice of Hatarat Nedarim.88 Others believe in to be connected to the Babylonian practice of writing spells on clay bowls in order to get rid of evil demons.89 The renowned professor on Jewish Liturgy Lawrence Hoffman believes the origin to be Palestinian based on a legal responsum from Eretz Yisrael.90 Rabbi Hayyim Herman 83 Kieval, Herman, The Curious Case of Yom Kippur in: Commentary (London/Portland, Vallentine Mitchell : 1968) p. 53. 84 TB Nedarim 23b 85 Idelsohn, A.Z., Jewish Liturgy and its Development (New York, Dover : 1995) p. 226. 86 Bloch, Abraham P., The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies (New York, Ktav : 1980) p. 173. 87 Prosic, Tamara Kol Nidre Speaking of the Unspoken (of) in: The Bible and Critical Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 (Melbourne, Monash University : 2007) p. 2 88 see: Benovitz, Moshe, Kol Nidre: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Institutions (Atlanta, Scholars : 1998) 89 Marx, Dalia, What’s in a Bowl? In: Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) 90 Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) p. 9.Kieval however, doubts this theory and refutes Hoffman’s argument by showing that none of the Palestinian liturgies included anything like the Kol Nidre formula, and it was certainly not the prayer they started the Yom Kippur service with, which was psalm 130 or psalm 103.91 Apparently, a statement made by Israel Davidson92 in his much-cited article from 1924, in which he discusses the many theories on Kol Nidre’s provenance, still holds true; no theory can give us a clear answer as to where Kol Nidre originated. The first mention of a Kol Nidre formula is made in the works of the Geonim. The first reference is made in a work by Yehudai Gaon in the 8th century, followed by Natronai in the 9th century. The oldest version of a Kol Nidre text we know of, which is in Hebrew, can be found in the Seder Rav Amram by Rav Amram Gaon, who succeeded rav Natronai as the Gaon of Sura. All three Geonim forbade the recitation of Kol Nidre, as did one of the later Geonim, Rav Hai ben Gershon. It seems that the Geonim of the two cities Sura and Pumbedita differed in opinion regarding the recitation of Kol Nidre. Paltoi Gaon of Pumbedita is recorded as having said that Kol Nidre was recited in both Pumbedita and Sura. It remains unclear in which way this statement fits the earlier statements in which the Geonim of Sura opposed the practice. We do know however that by the time of Hai ben Sherira Gaon, at the end of the Geonic era, a Kol Nidre formula was accepted by both the academies.93 The version most communities use today is however not the above described Hebrew version, but an Aramaic version adapted by rabbi Meir ben Samuel in the 11th century. He changed the wording to read “from this Yom Kippur to the next Yom Kippur” instead of annulling vows made in the past as the earlier text did, thus solving a Halakhic objection to 91 Kieval, Hayyim Herman, The High Holy Days : A Commentary on the Prayerbook of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (Jerusalem, Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies : 2004) p. 269-270; Idelsohn, The Kol Nidre tune in: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 8/9 (Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College : 1931) p. 494. 92 Davidson, Israel, Kol Nidre in: The American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 25 (Philadelphia, JPS : 1924) p. 180-194. 93 Kieval, Hayyim Herman, The High Holy Days : A Commentary on the Prayerbook of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (Jerusalem, Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies : 2004) p.269-271.
the text,94 and added the words “we regret them all”95. Others also amended the text, like rabbi Meir of Rothenburg of the 13th century who omitted the words “as it is written in Thy Torah” and added the introduction to Kol Nidre called “Bi-yeshiva shel ma’alah”.96 All the above described changes, omissions and additions, were the result of objections raised to the recitation of this text. For next to the ones already mentioned, many rabbis had their objections to the recitation for various reasons, others being figures like Judah ben Barzilai, Jeroham ben Meshullam, Isaac ben Sheshet and Leon di Modena.97 The internal objections raised to the recitation of Kol Nidre can be divided in two categories: they were either based on legal, halakhic problems, like the one which led rabbi Meir ben Samuel to change the text to read “from this Yom Kippur to the next Yom Kippur”, or they were ethical problems. The whole idea of being able to annul your vows at will seemed problematic to many from within the Jewish community, and it also led to suspicion amongst the Jews’ Christian neighbours. As a result, before being able to witness in court, Jews were required to swear an oath in synagogue, called a more judaico, in which they promised that that their oath would not be annulled by the Kol Nidre formula on Yom Kippur.98 This denigrating practice, together with the aforementioned ethical objections99, led the rabbis of the Brunswick rabbinical conference of 1844 to decide that Kol Nidre was not an essential prayer and that efforts should be made to eliminate it from the services.100 94 Davidson, Israel, Kol Nidre in: The American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 25 (Philadelphia, JPS : 1924) p. 184 95 Prosic, Tamara Kol Nidre Speaking of the Unspoken (of) in: The Bible and Critical Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 (Melbourne, Monash University : 2007) p.3. 96 Davidson, Israel, Kol Nidre in: The American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 25 (Philadelphia, JPS : 1924) p. 190 97 Prosic, Tamara Kol Nidre Speaking of the Unspoken (of) in: The Bible and Critical Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 (Melbourne, Monash University : 2007) footnote 2. 98 Philipson, David, The Rabbinical Conferences 1844-6 in: The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 17, No. 4 (New York, Ktav : 1905) p. 674. 99 Boeckler, Annette M., The Magic of the Moment in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) p. 40. 100 Philipson, David, The Rabbinical Conferences 1844-6 in: The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 17, No. 4 (New York, Ktav : 1905) p. 675
Among those who decided not to recite Kol Nidre101 were not only the more radical reformers. Even Hirsch who later became associated with neo-orthodoxy decided to eliminate Kol Nidre as a Hora’at Sha’ah, a temporarily change used in emergency cases.102 But eliminating the ritual was not as simple as it may seem. Of course, there are Halakhic and ethical objections to reciting Kol Nidre, but there are also emotional objections to omitting the practice. Kol Nidre night is above all the service which is attended by Jews, religious and non-religious alike. And the melody, which has been used by the Ashkenazim since the 16th century, is considered an extraordinarily beautiful one.103 Psychoanalyst Theodor Reik believes Kol Nidre to “speak[…] to the collective Jewish unconsciousness of its deepest tribal memories”,104 and it is certain that many Jews, even many of those who do not identify as religious, feel emotionally attached to the practice. The decision to eradicate Kol Nidre from the Jewish liturgy led to many different solutions to the above described dilemma in which reason and emotion seem to oppose each other. Boeckler in an article on the reform reactions to Kol Nidre sets out 8 Different ways in which reform communities responded to the idea of abolishing the traditional Kol Nidre.105 We shall take a quick look at all of them. 1. A new text for reading – the example Boeckler gives us is the Berlin 1817 siddur106 in which the original Kol Nidre has been replaced with three Hebrew texts (the only Hebrew texts in the whole prayer book) based on Leviticus 16 which were to be read, not sung. The three texts resemble the three times Kol Nidre is sung. After each of them the congregation responds with venislach, as is the custom to recite after Kol 101 As we shall see below, indiviual communities already had done so for several decades 102 Weinberg Gershon, Stuart Kol Nidrei : Its Origin, development, and significance (Northvale, J. Aronson : 1994) p. 100. 103 Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) p. 6. 104 Kieval, Herman, The Curious Case of Yom Kippur in: Commentary (London/Portland, Vallentine Mitchell : 1968) p. 58. 105 Boeckler, Annette M., The Magic of the Moment in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) 106 Note that this is an example of a community where Kol Nidre was abolished even before the 1844 Brunswick conference.
Nidre. The choice was made to simply have other texts introduce the evening of Yom Kippur. 2. New melody and hymn – here the solution is to replace Kol Nidre with a German hymn which centres around themes as repentance and the day of judgment, thus serving as an opening to the day of Yom Kippur. The example is taken from the Hamburg prayer book of 1819. 3. New hymn – A solution in which a new text is composed, in the vernacular, which can be sung to the old Kol Nidre melody. Such was the case in the Hamburg congregation of rabbi Leopold Stein who composed the hymn “O Tag des Herrn” because his community was too emotionally attached to the music of Kol Nidre, which appeared in his “Gebetbuch für Israelitische Gemeinden” in 1860. The hymn became very popular. Lewandowski wrote a composition for it, and many prayer books in both the United States and Germany adopted it. English versions have also appeared, like the one in the American Union Prayer Book. 4. Free interpretative translation – In Ludwig Philippson’s prayer book of 1864 we find a free German translation of the Aramaic text, which results in a slightly apologetic text centred around the themes of forgiveness and guilt. 5. Imitative Hebrew text – another solution is to make a Hebrew text which in its forms and sounds resembles the traditional Aramaic text, and which can be sung to the traditional melody. Abraham Geiger was the first to compose such a text in 1854, and various variations have been written since, all focusing on different themes. 6. Psalms and traditional melody – some congregations decided to replace Kol Nidre with the recitation of psalms, sung to the traditional melody. Various psalms were used for this instance, but most popular became the recitation of psalm 130, which had also been the opening prayer for Kol Nidre in the Palestinian tradition107 and to which the composer Louis Lewandowski wrote a composition. This was a very popular solution in Germany, and especially in Berlin, but found its way into American prayer books as well, like the 1894 Union Prayer Book.108 107 Idelsohn, The Kol Nidre tune in: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 8/9 (Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College : 1931) p. 494. 108 Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) p. 100.
7. Melody without words – some prayer book, like the American 1948 Union Prayer Book and the British 1973 Gates of Repentance, do not provide a text at all to substitute Kol Nidre. Instead, only the melody is played during which one has time to meditate. Some congregations chose to play the famous composition of Max Bruch based on the Kol Nidre melody. 8. Traditional text and melody with explanation – From 1978 and onwards, the traditional Aramaic text began to re-appear in the prayer books of reform communities which is most of the times accompanied by an apologetic explanation of the text. 109 We see here a few different ways of dealing with Kol Nidre, in which different themes serve as an introduction to Yom Kippur. In most cases the choice has been made to depart from the original theme which opened Yom Kippur, namely the vows which the individual worshippers were not able to keep. Because of emotional reasons however, a connection was sought with the dismissed custom. We can see a change in that since the last few decades, some communities have decided to return to the traditional text. Apparently, the objections which led the 1844 Brunswick conference to come to its decision are of less importance nowadays. Dutch liturgy 1932-1933 But in what way did the Dutch reform movement deal with the difficulties surrounding Yom Kippur? Two of the pre-war liturgical publications by the Union for Yom Kippur contain an evening service, the 1932 and 1933 editions, and thus deal with the Kol Nidre issue. These publications were made in the early, maybe more radical days of the movement. In both cases, the choice was made to have a Hebrew text resembling the words of the traditional Kol Nidre, which can be sung to the traditional melody. The text, both the Hebrew as the Dutch translation, is the same in both editions. It was taken from the Einheitsgebetbuch110 and serves as an introduction to Yom Kippur. It this version the 109 Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) p. 41-66 110 Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) p. 346.
worshippers state that the vows they make before God today are truthful and sincere, and they ask Him to accept their confessions. It speaks of the sins they have committed and asks for forgiveness. The Dutch translation is, as is also explained in the preface to the Mahzor111, not a literal translation but does give a truthful translation, in the sense that it is in no way concealing of the ideas expressed in the Hebrew prayer. That would also not be necessary in this case, the chosen Hebrew text does not touch on any controversial themes. The initial theme of Kol Nidre, the annulment of vows, has been replaced by a theme which centred on the worshippers’ wishes that their prayers be heard by God on this Yom Kippur, thus changing the theme by which Yom Kippur begins. Earlier we noted that some communities decided have a psalm introduce the evening of Yom Kippur as a substitute to Kol Nidre. The pre-war liturgies do include Kol Nidre, but also include psalm 130. In the 1932 edition the Kol Nidre is immediately followed by a Dutch adaptation to psalm 130 after which follows the Hebrew text. The Kol Nidre prayer is traditionally followed by the verses elecha nesu’ot enenu, venislach and selach na after which the shehecheyanu is said. The 1932 edition places these verses after psalm 130, clearly making the psalm a part of the introduction to Yom Kippur. The 1933 edition also includes psalm 130, but places it right after the recitation of Elohai Netzor112, which is traditionally recited right after the Amidah. A comment is made in which is said that the text is to be sung to the Kol Nidre melody. Placing the text after the Amidah makes it a part of the evening service, instead of a part of the introduction to the evening service as it did in the 1932 edition. It seems as if the editor, Hirschberg, wanted to state that this psalm is not the right substitute, or rather not the right addition to the alternative Kol Nidre text, but did want to include the prayer, sung to the Kol Nidre tune. Perhaps the custom of singing psalm 130 to the Kol Nidre tune had become so connected to the Kol Nidre evening for many that it felt wrong to omit the prayer entirely. But it seems clear that the editor, by removing it from the introductory prayers, tried to make a point, namely that the psalm did not belong there. Interestingly, one of the stencils I found which supplement the Mahzor, instructs the 111 Hirschberg, H. et. al, Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1933) 112 Ibid. p. 12.
worshippers to skip psalm 130. It has been impossible to date this stencil, but is makes it clear that at some point, the recitation of psalm 130 was not customary anymore. 1964 The Kol Nidre in the Mahzor of 1964 can be placed in the same category as the one from the pre-war editions. Again, it’s a text which tries to imitate the traditional Kol Nidre and which is sung to the same melody. The text however, is an older text than that of the pre-war editions, and talks about other themes. It was taken from a Mahzor first published in Munich in 1899, and is based on a text used in Hanover, first published in 1870.113 The text does not use the vocabulary associated with Yom Kippur as does the other edition. No mention is made of having sinned (chatanu) or of confession (Viduy). Instead, it uses more concealing language and speaks about returning to God and renewing the worshippers’ spirits so that they will depart from their evil ways.114 Psalm 130 has entirely disappeared from the Kol Nidre service in this edition. According to Boeckler, it is this version of Kol Nidre that became most popular within the reform movement and which has been used by many congregations worldwide, but especially by those in western-Europe.115 One of the reasons for this popularity according to Boeckler, is the fact that Lewandowski published a composition using this specific text.116 Current practice The version of the 1964 Mahzor can still be regarded the most popular version in Holland, though a change in opinion can also be seen. Seven out of nine communities that responded to my questions use the 1964 version in their services. Two communities, the LJG Rotterdam and the LJG Twente, make use of the traditional Aramaic text for Kol Nidre instead of the text from the 1964 edition. In the LJG Twente, it is preceded by the traditional bi-yeshivah shel ma’alah, Rotterdam leaves this part out, and supplies an explanatory text. The bi-yeshivah shel ma’alah can also be found as a paste-in to the Mahzor of rabbi Menno ten 113 Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) p. 56. 114 Soetendorp, Jacob Seder Tov Lehodot Gebeden voor Rosj Hasjana en Jom Kipoer ten gebruike in de Liberaal-Joodse Gemeenten in Nederland (Amsterdam, Verbond van Liberaal-Religieuze Joden in Nederland : 1964) p. 163. 115 Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) p. 56. 116 Ibid. p. 244 note 48.
Brink, but is only sometimes recited.117 The explanatory text of the Rotterdam community states that the origins of the text are unknown, but makes no mention of the controversial history of Kol Nidre. Explaining the choice to incorporate this version, we read that the text seems like a formal document or contract but that in reality it’s a text that speaks of promises that we were unable to keep, and that to understand this is the first step to take on Yom Kippur. In the new Mahzor which is currently being developed, and which all questioned communities intend to make use of in the future, the same choice is made to give the traditional Aramaic text including the bi-yeshivah shel ma’alah, though the 1964 version will also be included alongside explanatory texts (still to be written) in which both the history of the texts and the motivations for the choice to return to the traditional Aramaic text will be provided. It is interesting to note that not all rabbis intend to return to the old text. Rabbi Marianne van Praag from the Hague has already said to retain the 1964 version in her services, because that is the version her congregants are used to recite on Yom Kippur.118 The 19th century German reform rabbi Leopold Stein once wrote the following comment, which by Petuchowski has been labelled “characteristic of the whole reform approach to Kol Nidre”: “That much though, is certain, and cannot be denied by anyone: that the formula is by no means suited to introduce the holiest of days, and that it would have been more suitable for any occasion but that of the eve of the exalted Day of Atonement.”119 Apparently, so much has changed since Petuchowski wrote his comment in 1968. For the choice the Union makes to return to the traditional Aramaic text does not stand by itself, but is part of a trend that can be seen in the international reform movement as well. The first to do so, re-introducing the old Aramaic text, was the American Gates of Repentance in 1978,120 soon to be followed by others like the British Forms of Prayer for Jewish Prayer in 1985, the German Seder haTefillot in 1997 and the Swiss Mahzor Sefat Hanechamah Yom 117 Conversation between rabbi ten Brink and the author 118 conversation between rabbi Marianne van Praag and the author 119 Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) p. 339. 120 Boeckler, Annette M., The Magic of the Moment in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) p. 40.
Kippur in 2002. However, Dr. Anette Boeckler traces the practice to recite the old Aramaic text even earlier, based on photocopies which amended the printed mahzorim.121 The question as to why communities worldwide, and specifically in Holland, choose to reinstitute the old text is puzzling. Most of the objections to the Kol Nidre text have not disappeared. True, the social and political circumstances for Jews around the world has changed drastically since the 19th century. Jews are less occupied with justifying their religion to their non-Jewish surroundings. We can assume that, would rabbi Hirsch have lived in the present-day Germany, he would have felt no need to use a different text for Kol Nidre because of what non-Jews would think of the text. But the other, internal objections are not really influenced by this change of political and social circumstances. On top of that one could argue that the reform movement has somehow created its own tradition since the 19th century, in which the traditional Aramaic text doesn’t really have a place. Generations of reform Jews have grown up reciting one of the alternative texts, possibly not even aware of the fact that this is not the traditional text. Why return to the old text when it seems that there is so little to win, and so much to lose? On top of that, to include an Aramaic text instead of a Hebrew one seems conflicting with a classical reform principle, the principle that people should be able to understand the words from their prayers. Though many people in the communities don’t know Hebrew, the amount of people that know Aramaic is even lower. If there was a chance that people understand the Hebrew Kol Nidre text, that chance has become almost zero with the choice for the old Aramaic text. I believe one of the answers to this question to have been given by Leon A. Morris in his article: “The End of Liturgical Reform as We Know It: Creative Retrieval as a New Paradigm”122, published in 2013. Morris asks us the questions “Does our prayer book really need to be consistent with our theology? Must we believe literally the words we recite?”. He believes that in modern times, the answer to these questions is no. Morris argues that if the 121 Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) p. 240-141 footnote 2. 122 Morris, Leon A., The End of Liturgical Reform as We Know It: Creative Retrieval as a New Paradigm in: CCAR Journal 60, no. 3 (New York, CCAR : 2013) p. 29–33.
old approach to the liturgy was one of revision, the current approach is one of interpretation. An increase of text-studies and a renewed interest in traditional, sometimes problematic texts combined with a society in which absolute truths are considered to be less conclusive has led to a period in which, what has been coined as “creative retrieval” or “ressourcement”, is regarded as the leading principle. This means a return to the classical texts and to have the worshippers themselves find the relevancy for modern-day society. The return to the old Aramaic version of Kol Nidre, especially if accompanied by explanatory texts, seems to fit this theory perfectly. The same can be said of the practice of the LJG Twente to include the bi-yeshivah shel ma’alah. In line with this reasoning is the comment made by rabbi Barnett R. Brickler as a response to Dr. Kaplan, founder of the reconstructionist movement, who had substituted Kol Nidre with psalm 130. Brickler wrote that: “The Kol Nidre gives every Jew who hears it, a thrill, and makes him feel that he is at one with all Israel … The Kaddish prayer is also couched in Aramaic, and when translated, does not begin to have the significance that the people read into the prayer. Yet the Kaddish has become one of the most important parts of our ritual service and helps to bring people not only back to religion, but back to the Synagogue, because of the associations and meanings which have become associated with the prayer in these many year, Would Dr. Kaplan suggest that we eliminate the Kaddish and substitute a psalm for it? I fully appreciate Dr. Kaplan’s efforts, but I fear me that he is making … the same mistake that the early Reformers made–the mistake of overrationalizing and undrestimating sentiment, not sentimentality. Kol Nidre should have a place in our Yom Kinpur ritual, because of the beautiful sentiment which our people have associated throughout the ages, with the prayer.123 Though one could argue that the beautiful sentiment is not lost by having an alternative text sung to the traditional Kol Nidre tune, I believe this statement to be exemplary of the union’s attitude towards Kol Nidre. In all cases the choice has been made to retain the traditional melody which the worshippers cherish so dearly. It seems to me that the union, in the case of Kol Nidre, saw the dangers of and never made the mistake to overrationalize. I believe the choice that has been made for the new 123 Beickner Barnett M., Champions Kol Nidre Tekst in: Jewish Daily Bulletin october 16th 1927 (New Yoork, Jewish Daily Bulletin, 1927)
Mahzor, in which the old Aramaic text becomes the standard but in which the alternative text with which generations of worshippers have become accustomed and which they have become emotionally attached to is also provided, to fit this idea as well. Overall conclusions All together we can conclude that, if we look at the way in which the different reform communities in Holland have dealt with, and deal with Kol Nidre in present times that, in line with developments in the international reform movement, a return to more traditional texts can be seen. What seems apparent throughout the history of Kol Nidre is the role of emotion. The immense popularity of Kol Nidre from the side of the worshippers had a big influence on its history. From the time of the Geonim who were not able to convince the public that its recitation was wrong, to the reform rabbis who had to come up with creative solutions to strike a balance between their interests and the wishes of their communities. In modern times, nostalgia seems to have taken the upper hand at the cost reform principles. It is interesting to see that altering the liturgy, which was seen as the progressive rabbis’ main tool for reform, has made place for another tool: the inclusion of commentaries to the traditional texts. It would be interesting to see if this trend can be seen in the other parts of the services discussed in this paper as well.
