Kol Nidrei marks the beginning of the Yom Kippur service. It is generally assumed to be a ritual that annuls the vows of all the congregants. This article will explore the efficacy of Kol Nidrei to annul a vow as well as an alternative understanding of Kol Nidrei.

The practice of reciting Kol Nidrei at the start of Yom Kippur is recorded in texts as early as the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon (ninth century). The text of the Kol Nidrei that was used at that time clearly indicated that Kol Nidrei served as an annulment of vows that individuals had accepted upon themselves during the previous year. Rabbeinu Tam (cited in Tosafot, Nedarim 23b s.v. V'At) notes this practice, and questions the efficacy of Kol Nidrei to serve as an annulment of vows for three reasons. First, in order to annul a vow, the one who took the vow must regret taking the vow. [These laws are discussed extensively in the ninth chapter of Nedarim.] The Kol Nidrei service makes no mention of any regret for the vows taken previously (our current text does include regret, but earlier texts did not). Second, the Gemara, Bechorot 36b, states that vows can only be annulled by a beit din consisting of three individuals or by a yachid mumcheh (an individual who is an expert in the laws of vows). The Kol Nidrei service does not represent a beit din proceeding. Third, the Gemara, Gittin 35a, quotes a dispute among the Amoraim as to whether one must specify the actual vows that were taken when annulling vows. The Halacha follows the opinion that one cannot annul a vow unless one specifies the vow in the annulment procedure. Kol Nidrei makes no reference to any specific vow. It is a generic annulment of all vows.

Rabbeinu Tam's Opinion

Based on these three objections, Rabbeinu Tam maintains that the Kol Nidrei service should be modified, and any reference to annulment of vows of the previous year should be eliminated. The purpose of the service should be to preempt future vows from taking place. The Mishna, Nedarim 23a (as per an emendation of the Gemara 23b), states that if one wishes to preempt his vows from taking effect that year, he should state on Rosh HaShanah "all vows that I take this year should be considered void." This is not considered an annulment of a vow, but rather a built-in stipulation to void in advance any vow that one takes in the future. Rabbeinu Tam suggests that this should be the role of Kol Nidrei. Although, the Mishna does say that this stipulation should be made on Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur is close enough to Rosh HaShanah to fulfill this condition. Furthermore, it is preferable to recite Kol Nidrei on Yom Kippur because more people attend the Yom Kippur service than that of the Rosh HaShanah service.

In order to accommodate this new understanding of Kol Nidrei, Rabbeinu Tam is forced to change the text of Kol Nidrei. Whereas the ancient text refers to vows "from the previous Yom Kippur until this Yom Kippur," Rabbeinu Tam's version refers to vows "from this Yom Kippur until next Yom Kippur." Rabbeinu Tam also changes the pronunciation of the words in order that they refer to the future tense rather than to the past tense.

Rabbeinu Asher, Yoma 8:28, defends the ancient version of Kol Nidrei from the questions of Rabbeinu Tam. He notes that although regret is integral to the annulment of vows, if there is clear regret on the part of the one annulling the vow, the regret does not have to be stated explicitly. Since the goal of annulling vows at Kol Nidrei is to remove transgressions for violating vows of the previous year, the regret is clear, and does not need to be stated. Regarding Rabbeinu Tam's objection that annulment of vows requires a beit din, Rabbeinu Asher contends that the congregation constitutes a beit din. Furthermore, the Chazan can serve as the yachid mumcheh. Regarding the objection that annulment of vows requires specificity, Rabbeinu Asher suggests that the requirement of specificity only applies to the type of vow where the beit din might discourage the individual from annulling the vow. Kol Nidrei, which primarily serves to annul vows that have already been violated, does not include vows that one might be encouraged to maintain.

Mishna Berurah 619:2, writes that the text of Kol Nidrei should follow the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and refer to vows "from this Yom Kippur until next Yom Kippur." However, some Siddurim try to satisfy both opinions by referring to vows "from the previous Yom Kippur until this Yom Kippur," and "from this Yom Kippur until next Yom Kippur." Additionally, the Hatarat Nedarim of Erev Rosh HaShanah specifically accomplishes the annulment of vows and a preemption of future vows.

The Limitation of Preempting Vows

There is one limitation in the ability to preempt one's vows by making a prior stipulation. The Gemara, Nedarim 23b, quotes a dispute between Abaye and Rava as to what that limitation is. Abaye is of the opinion that the stipulation is only valid if the stipulation was forgotten at the time of the vow. If the person is aware of the stipulation and vows anyway, it is assumed that his intent is to uproot the original stipulation. Rava understands the limitation in a different manner. Most Rishonim understand that Rava does not disagree fundamentally with Abaye, but rather interprets the Mishna differently. However, Ra'avad, Hilchot Nedarim 2:4, explains that Rava is of the opposite opinion. Rava maintains that the stipulation is only valid if the person taking the vow is reminded of the stipulation at the time of the vow. If he does not remember the stipulation, the vow takes effect.

Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 211:2, rules in accordance with the opinion of most Rishonim that the stipulation is valid as long as one does not remember the stipulation at the time of the vow. However, he quotes the opinion of Ra'avad that the stipulation only works if one remembers the stipulation at the time of the vow. Shulchan Aruch writes that it is proper to accept the stringencies of both opinions.

If one assumes the stringencies of both opinions, the entire stipulation is practically ineffective. For this reason, Rama, Yoreh Deah 211:1, writes that one cannot rely on Kol Nidrei as a means of voiding one's vows without consulting a competent halachic authority.

Nevertheless, contemporary Poskim (R. Shlomo Z. Auerbach, Minchat Shlomo 1:91 and R. Ovadia Yosef, Yabia Omer, Orach Chaim 2:30) write that there is one area of vows where the stipulation has practical significance. The Gemara, Nedarim 8a, states that if one accepts upon himself to learn a specific chapter or tractate of Talmud, that acceptance has the status of a vow. Ran ad loc., s.v. Alav, explains that anytime one accepts upon himself to perform a mitzvah, that acceptance is considered a vow even if there was no intent to create a vow. These vows are called nidrei mitzvah. R. Auerbach and R. Yosef note that if one stipulated at the beginning of the year that all vows should be voided in advance, the stipulation will certainly be effective for nidrei mitzvah. Their rationale is that since this type of vow involves no explicit acceptance of a vow, the stipulation can exert greater power in blocking the vow from taking effect. [According to R. Auerbach, the stipulation of Erev Rosh HaShanah is more effective than that of Kol Nidrei because the Hatarat Nedarim of Erev Rosh HaShanah specifically mentions nidrei mitzvah, whereas Kol Nidrei does not.] R. Yosef adds that since nidrei mitzvah are only rabbinic in nature, one does not have to be concerned with the opinion of Ra'avad. Therefore, the stipulation will be effective to prevent nidrei mitzvah from taking effect.