Kol Nidre Debate
Salvador Astucia and Steven Mock (Nizkor) debate the ancient Jewish prayer that encourages Jews to break their vows. Why was the Kol Nidre reinstated in 1945, at the end of the so-called Holocaust?
Introduction by Salvador Astucia, August 23, 2005
Over the past few days, I have been debating Steven Mock, a representative of Nizkor, regarding the controversial prayer, Kol Nidre. The English translation of Kol Nidre is "all vows," a prayer which is recited by Jews across the globe on the eve of Yom Kippur. The Kol Nidre is essentially a vow which nullifies all vows taken by Jews for the ensuing year, and must be renewed annually. I pointed out how the Kol Nidre had been banned within a certain segment of Judaism in the 19th Century because of its controversy, but the prayer was reinstated in 1945 just as the so-called Holocaust came to an end. I observed that such a prayer, particularly the timing of its reinstatement in 1945, tainted the veracity of first-hand accounts given by many Jewish survivors of Nazi work camps who described the horrors of the so-called Holocaust. How can such people be believed, I asked, if they take an annual vow which essentially encourages them to lie under oath by breaking their vows to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Consequently, the Kol Nidre prayer itself undercuts many things about the so-called Holocaust that Western culture has accepted as fact for the past sixty years. In the official Holocaust story, six million Jews died, and Nazi gas chambers were a primary tool of mass execution. Historical revisionists have questioned these two points for years, and understanding the Kol Nidre prayer helps understand how such a large-scale hoax might have been perpetrated for so long. As expected, Mr. Mock claimed my interpretation of the Kol Nidre prayer was extremely anti-Semitic. Mr. Mock started the debate by stating that a sinister description of the Kol Nidre, found in the Talmud (Nedarim, 23), did not even refer to the Kol Nidre. With that comment, a heated debate ensued.
Topic # 1: Does the Talmud's description of the Kol Nidre prayer (per Nedarim, 23) refer to the actual Kol Nidre prayer?
SALVADOR ASTUCIA - Are you saying
that the following Talmudic verbiage (from Nedarim, 23a) is not referring to
the Kol Nidre prayer?
"He who desires his friend to eat with him, and after urging him, imposes a
vow upon him, it is 'a vow of incitement' and hence invalid. And he who
desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him
stand at the beginning of the year and declare, "Every vow which I may make
in the future shall be null." HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID, PROVIDING THAT HE
REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW." (Caps in original.)
(Talmud, Nedarim, 23a)
Please respond directly to the question. Is the quoted verbiage from
Nedarim, 23a referring to the Kol Nidre prayer? Yes or No.
STEVEN MOCK - No, it is not. The Kol Nidre prayer may have grown out of this
verse, among others, but there is no logical way that this passage could be
referring to the Kol Nidre prayer as such. Hence your assumption that this
passage is the key to understanding the modern meaning of the prayer is
specious. I hope this clarifies matters. (To read
the full text of Mr. Mock's message, click here: Message # 1)
SALVADOR ASTUCIA - It clarifies your point of view anyway. I just happen to
have a copy of the Kol Nidre description from the 1906 edition of the Jewish
Encyclopedia. The description makes several references to the book of
Nedarim, the Talmud book from which I cited the prayer which encourages the
breaking of vows. The Jewish Encyclopedia description of the Kol Nidre
includes the ceremony, history, words, and music to the Kol Nidre. Just to
make life easy for you, Steven, I've posted the entire article below, care
of Carol Valentine's website. Happy reading.
[
http://www.come-and-hear.com/je/je_539.html ]
STEVEN MOCK - You're really not getting it. Obviously the text of Nedarim
has something to do with Kol Nidre. This does not mean that it is referring
to it specifically, or that the development and understanding of this prayer
stems from this verse exclusively. Your tactic - in this and every other
discussion we've got ourselves into - is to take one item of information,
burden it with your own interpretations, and then declare that item - and
the conclusions you draw from it - to be the only information necessary to
understanding the true nature of Jews. <snip> (To
read the full text of Mr. Mock's message, click here: Message # 2)
SALVADOR ASTUCIA - Before we discuss my so-called tactics, let's stay
focused on what you said before versus what you just said about the Kol
Nidre not being linked to Nedarim 23a. Earlier I asked you the following
question: "Is the quoted verbiage from Nedarim 23a referring to the Kol
Nidre prayer? Yes or No."
You replied: "No, it is not. The Kol Nidre prayer may have grown out of this
verse, among others, but there is no logical way that this passage could be
referring to the Kol Nidre prayer as such."
Then I posted a full description of the Kol Nidre from the Jewish
Encyclopedia (Vol. VII, pages 539), published in 1906, and you gave the
following response: "Obviously the text of Nedarim has something to do with
Kol Nidre. This does not mean that it is referring to it specifically, or
that the development and understanding of this prayer stems from this verse
exclusively."
Excuse me, Steven, but it seems like you've just flip-flopped. First you
said No, Nedarim 23a was not referring to the Kol Nidre. Then you said
"Obviously the text of Nedarim has something to do with Kol Nidre." Which is
it? Is Nedarim 23a referring to the Kol Nidre prayer or isn't it? At first
you said flat out it was not, then you softened a great deal after I quoted
from the 1906 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia. I'm curious to see how you
will get out the corner you've painted yourself into.
STEVEN MOCK - ...Clearly, I did not disavow *any* connection between this
passage and the Kol Nidre. Simply your implication that there was a direct
line between them. This is not contradicted by anything I said later, nor by
anything you have posted. Again, as is your usual pattern, you are seeing
only what fits with your existing prejudices and discarding the rest. <snip>
(To read the full text of Mr. Mock's message,
click here: Message # 3)
SALVADOR ASTUCIA - I don't mean to get into a harangue, but you're
backpedaling like mad. When asked whether the quoted verbiage from Nedarim
23a was referring to the Kol Nidre prayer, your response was clear: NO. Once
I quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia's explanation of the Kol Nidre, you
switched your initial NO to this: "Clearly, I did not disavow *any*
connection between this passage [Nedarim 23a] and the Kol Nidre." Then you
dodged the question even further, claiming I had implied "that there was a
direct line between them." I implied nothing; I asked you a direct question:
"Is the quoted verbiage from Nedarim 23a referring to the Kol Nidre prayer?
Yes or No." You said NO, then you took it back when given evidence to the
contrary. Sorry, but that sure looks like a flip-flop.
STEVEN MOCK - Clearly I'm not [backpedaling], as is evident to anyone who
can read what I actually wrote. <Snipped ad homonym attacks.>
(To read the full text of Mr. Mock's message, click
here: Message # 4)
SALVADOR ASTUCIA - That's the problem, Steven, we *have read what you
wrote,* and it is painfully clear that you switched positions. Initially you
were saying anything possible to sabotage the discussion about the Kol Nidre
prayer, particularly when I correctly mentioned that the controversial
prayer had been eliminated from the Reform Jewish liturgy in the 19th
century, but was reintroduced in 1945 in a revised form. At first you got
into a trivial game of semantics, claiming I had misled people about the
nature of the elimination of the prayer, even claimed I lied about it. Then
I quoted the exact wording of the ban from Encyclopedia Britannica.
Nevertheless, you continued to quibble over trivial minutia related to the
ban. Then you challenged the nature of the Kol Nidre prayer itself,
insinuating it was not particularly controversial when factions of the
Jewish religion itself thought otherwise, at least enough to eliminate it
from the Reform Jewish liturgy in the 19th century. In response to your
claims that the Kol Nidre was just an innocent little prayer that doesn't
hurt anyone, I quoted directly from the Talmud, from Nedarim 23a, where it
became obvious that the Kol Nidre encouraged Jews to break *all vows,* not
just vows between man and God, but vows between human beings as well. You
then had the audacity to claim that Nedarim 23a was not referring to the Kol
Nidre, which by the way means "all vows" when translated to English. I then
quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906 edition, where the Kol Nidre was
defined in great detail, and Nedarim was mentioned several times. You then
began to backpedal and fast-talk your earlier claim that Nedarim 23a was not
referring to the Kol Nidre prayer. This is where we are now. You're stuck
between two opposing comments you've made, but you don't have enough class
to admit you were misleading people.
[NOTE: Steven Mock has complained about excessive snipping of his comments;
however, most of his remarks are ad homonym insults. Besides being rude,
such longwinded remarks are extremely boring.]
STEVEN MOCK - <snip> I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but nothing that I said
before is any different than what I am saying now: Nedarim 23 does not refer
specifically to Kol Nidre. It cannot, as it predates it by some 200 years,
at least. Rather, it is but one of many sources from which this prayer and
the ritual surrounding it evolved and came to be understood. That is what I
said before you posted that except from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, that
is what I said afterwards, and that is precisely the point that is asserted
and substatiated in abundance by this text. <snip>
(To read the full text of Mr. Mock's message, click
here: Message # 5)
SALVADOR ASTUCIA - I hate to break it to you, Steven, but the Jewish
Encyclopedia article (
http://www.come-and-hear.com/je/je_539.html ) about the Kol Nidre (from
1906) points directly to Nedarim 23 for some of the verbiage used in the
actual prayer. Consequently, there is no doubt that Nedarim 23 refers to the
Kol Nidre prayer, contrary to your belief. Regarding your "it predates it"
anomoly, you appear to be confused on that point, but I'll let you figure it
out yourself rather than attempt to correct you. Nevertheless, the 1906
Jewish Encyclopedia article says that Meir ben Samuel made several changes
to the wording of the Kol Nidre prayer which included verbiage from Nedarim
23b. Here is some of the text which deals with Mr. Samuel's changes:
==================
"The Version of Meir ben Samuel.
"An important alteration in the wording of the 'Kol Nidre' was made by
Rashi’s son-in-law, Meir 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. Meir ben
Samuel likewise added the words 'we do repent of them all' ([H]), 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 ('mumheh'). Meir 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.’ ' "
========= END OF EXCERPT =========
The Nedarim 23b verbiage cited in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article is a
slightly altered version of the verbiage found on Carol Valentine's website
(and on my Talmud CD). Obviously an earlier version of the Talmud was used
in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article.
Hopefully that will end the debate about the Kol Nidre, Steven, although I
suspect you will find yet another way of side-stepping the obvious.
STEVEN MOCK - <Snipped more ad homonym insults.> Here's what I said:
"(Nedarim) it is but one of many sources from which this prayer (Kol Nidre)
and the ritual surrounding it evolved and came to be understood."
(To read the full text of Mr. Mock's message, click
here: Message # 6)
SALVADOR ASTUCIA - Yes, you did say that, Steven. You've said several things
about the Kol Nidre. But initially you when I asked if you thought the
verbiage from Nedarim 23a was referring to the Kol Nidre prayer, you said
No. This is precisely what you said: "No, it is not. The Kol Nidre prayer
may have grown out of this verse, among others, but there is no logical way
that this passage could be referring to the Kol Nidre prayer as such." At
one point you said the following: "It cannot, as it predates it by some 200
years, at least." Your last statement was a turnaround because you then said
Yes, essentially, Nedarim 23a *was* referring to the Kol Nidre prayer.
That's a flip-flop. If I seem to be focusing on one point at the moment,
it's because this one point is very important. Nedarim 23a clearly indicates
that the Kol Nidre is used to nullify vows taken between human beings, not
between man and God as you and many Jews claim. Earlier, I pointed out that
it was quite a coincidence how the Kol Nidre was reintroduced in 1945, in a
revised form, after being eliminated from Reform Jewish liturgy in the 19th
century due to its controversial nature. I mentioned how it seemed awfully
convenient that the Kol Nidre was revived in 1945 of all years, just when
the so-called Holocaust ended. Having a large group of people willing to lie
under oath about events that may or may not have occurred in Nazi work camps
was a perfect way to push the propaganda that eventually became known as the
Holocaust. It's obvious, Steven, why you will never engage in a truthful
discussion about the Kol Nidre because there is simply too much is at stake.
At a minimum, you've got to push the fairy tale that the Kol Nidre is only
used to nullify vows between man and God, even though I have just
demonstrated that Nedarim 23a and the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia indicate
otherwise. Why? Because your primary objective is to support the myth that
six million Jews died during the so-called Holocaust even though there is no
evidence or known death count methodology to support a number that large.
Yes, many Jews died, but not nearly that many. And they died primarily from
disease, neglect and starvation, not mass murder. Your objective is also to
support the myth that Jews and other inmates at Nazi work camps were
murdered in large numbers using gas chambers. Again, no methodology or
reasonable evidence has been presented to show that such an event is even
possible, let alone actually happened. Finally, you need to continue pushing
the perverted opinion that Adolf Hitler was not really a human being, that
he was a devil, a monster with horns and a tail, similar to the barbarians
we saw throwing acid in the faces of Israeli soldiers when they tried to
remove the Jewish settlers from Gaza. The fanatic Jewish settlers in Gaza
were the closest thing we've seen to monsters in recent times. Yes, there's
a lot more at stake than losing a debate, Steven. Your career depends on
holding the line, even though it's an obvious lie.
STEVEN MOCK - I don't understand what you're getting at Mr. Astucia. Your
last few posts have consisted of nothing more that mass quantities of
reposted material from previous posts, followed by incontinent rants
declaring yourself right and attacking my character and motives. <snip>
(To read the full text of Mr. Mock's message, click
here: Message # 7)
SALVADOR ASTUCIA - I've simply been reposting the entire Kol Nidre
discussion so everyone can keep track of your previous statements. If you
would be more consistent and less deceptive, this would not be necessary.
CONCLUSION to Topic # 1: There is no doubt that Nedarim 23 (book in the Talmud) absolutely refers to the Kol Nidre prayer. In addition, Nedarim 23 clearly states that vows nullified by the Kol Nidre prayer include vows between human beings.
Topic # 2 (Aug. 24, 2005) - Was the Kol Nidre prayer banned within a faction of Judaism in the 19th Century, then reinstated in 1945, just as the so-called Holocaust ended?
(Topic to is open to other participants, not just Steven Mock.)
DOC TAVISH - As far as I know the Kol Nidre has always been a Jewish "tradition" since its inception without a break. (To read the full text of Doc Tavish's message, click here: Message # 8)
SALVADOR ASTUCIA - If you read the Kol Nidre article in the current edition
of Encyclopedia Britannica (2005), it contains the following sentence:
"Fears of misunderstanding led to the elimination of the Kol Nidre from the
Reform Jewish liturgy in the 19th century, but a revised form was
reintroduced in 1945." As Steven Mock has pointed out numerous times,
this means that the Kol Nidre was eliminated from only one faction
within worldwide Jewry. Consequently, all Jewish synagogues that did not use
Reform Jewish liturgy apparently continued reciting the Kol Nidre on the eve
of Yom Kippur, according to Britannica that is. As I mentioned before,
it's interesting that the Kol Nidre was reintroduced in 1945, right at the
end of the so-called Holocaust, obviously helping the burgeoning Holocaust
Industry a great deal.
Salvador Astucia has written two books, one about JFK's assassination, the other about John Lennon's assassination and the United State government's war on rock stars. To read online, or order books, click here: