Kol Nidre is the Jewish doctrine of deception and is similar to Islamic Taqqiya

Today, October 8th, 2019 is the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, the "Day of Atonement". Most non-Jews have never heard of the Kol Nidre prayer, but it is a legal proxy from the Jewish Talmud which provides what even many Jews claim excuses Jews from telling the truth (lie), not just to non-Jews but even other Jews. The Kol Nidre prayer nullifies vows made in advance, Jews absolve themselves of all their vows for the coming year on Yom Kippur. This is similar to Islamic Taqqiya or the Mormon's "lying for the lord" and can be used to hide some of Judaism's less savory elements, especially the Talmud's hatred for non-Jews and how to circumvent them in legal cases. Every non-Jew should come to understand the Kol Nidre and how it may make Jews dishonest in personal and business dealings. 

I. Sanctification” and “Desecration of the Name”

Throughout the Talmud, the term “Sanctification” and “Desecration of the Name” comes up very often, especially when Jews are speaking about perhaps not being 100% honest with non-Jews.  The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia gives us half the story on “desecration of the name”; they say the phrase means Jews are not to do anything that will bring discredit to the Jewish Religion. However we will show below that this phrase often means you can do almost anything you want to non-Jews, just so long as you do not get caught!

“Terms denoting the highest positive and negative standards of Jewish ethics, the one indicating that everything within man’s power should be done to glorify the name of God before the world, the other that everything should be avoided which may reflect discredit upon the religion of Israel and thereby desecrate the name of God” -“Sanctification” and “Desecration of the Name”, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

II. Lie to win legal cases against Gentiles

According to the Talmud, in Baba Kamma 113b, Jews can deceive non-Jews to gain the upper hand in legal matters. The only time there is a prohibition against lying is if there is danger the non-Jew will discover the lie (“sanctification of the name”).  

“Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law;’ so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens, justify him and say to the other party: ‘This is your law;’ but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.”… “but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him!”  – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

III. The Kol Nidre – Jewish Doctrine of Deception

“All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called ‘ḳonam,’ ‘ḳonas,’ or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.” – Sung by World Jewry every year on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) 

In regards to lying to non-Jews, Jews are given a provision to break vows or make false vows via a proxy called “Kol Nidre” found in the Talmudic book of Nedarim 23a and further elaborated in 23b and 24a. Let’s investigate these Talmudic passages so that we can easily refute the possible lies about Kol Nidre heaped upon non-Jews today.

Nedarim 23a

1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud

1. Kol Nidre involves vows made to people, NOT GOD

Notice here that the Talmudic folio is speaking about being absolved for making vows one could not keep to other people (NOT GOD). This is very important to note because Jews often try to assert that the Kol Nidre is only meant to absolve Jews for broken promises they have made to their god and not to other people.  The example cited here is very innocuous, it simply explains that Jews are not responsible for oaths they broke for reasons not under their personal control, such as one’s wife or daughter not following instructions. However, the example does show we are talking about vows made to people and not god as many Jews try to assert. In fact, the entire book of Nedarim is about vows, Nedarim means “vows” and the Kol Nidre literally means “all vows”, not just vows to god.

Abaye’s wife had a daughter. He declared, ‘[She must marry] one of my relations,’ and she maintained, ‘one of mine’. So he said to her: ‘[All] benefit from me be forbidden to you if you disregard my wish and marry her to one of your relations.’ She went, ignored his desire, and married her to her relation. [Subsequently Abaye] went before R. Joseph [for absolution], who asked him: ‘Had you known that she would disregard your wish and marry her to her relation, would you have vowed?’ He answered, ‘No,’ and R. Joseph absolved him. But is such permitted?[6]  — Yes, and it was taught: A man once imposed a vow on his wife not to make the festival pilgrimage [to Jerusalem]; but she disregarded his wish, and did go. He went to R. Jose [for absolution], who said to him, ‘Had you known that she would disregard your wish and make the journey, would you have imposed the vow on her?’ He answered, ‘No,’ and R. Jose absolved him. – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 23a 

Footnote 6: The vow itself providing cause for absolution.

2. Confusing language of the Kol Nidre

The next passage is hard to make sense of, but the Rabbis will admit that this was done on purpose. How fitting that the very passage which provides a possible dispensation of truth for Jews is purposely written in a manner to “confuse”. Yet, we do get the sense that the Rabbis are talking about making a vow one has made to a friend null because it was a vow of “incitement”, and in order for the vow to be officially absolved, the Jew breaking the vow would have to remember something at the time they made the vow. What all this means is explained in the next folio of the Talmud.

MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID: ALSO HE[7]  WHO WISHES TO SUBJECT HIS FRIEND TO A VOW TO EAT WITH HIM, SHOULD 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. - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 23a 

GEMARA. But since he says, ‘Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null,’ he will surely not listen to him[8]  and not come to [eat with] him? —  

Footnote 7: The friend.
Footnote 8: This too is an example of a vow of incitement, v. Gemara.

Nedarim 23b

1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud

3. The Kol Nidre Explained

The Rabbis tell us the text is “defective”. In the next passage we will see that this was done deliberately rather than by accident.  But first they explain the meaning of the Kol Nidre to us.  If one imposes a vow on one’s friend (a person, not god)  to come to dinner and thus “incite” them to a vow they originally did not want to make, the friend is absolved when they  breaking this vow… just so long as they remembered the text of the Kol Nidre which was stated in the previous folio.  It would seem that this text would have been recited by the Jew at the beginning of the year for this very purpose, for nullifying his or her vows in advance. Indeed the Kol Nidre is refered to as as the “law of revocation in advance” and “a formula for the dispensation of vows” in footnote 1 to the same passage. As long as they remember the Kol Nidre at the time of making false vows, there is no obligation for a Jew to announce that their vow is false or will be unfulfilled.  Footnote 1 also clarifies that the only stipulation given is that the Jew cannot personally benefit from breaking the vow.

The text is defective, and this is what was taught: 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.[1]  [HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID,] PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW. But if he remembers, he has cancelled the declaration and confirmed the vow?[2]  — Abaye answered: Read: providing that it is not remembered at the time of the vow. Raba said, After all, it is as we said originally.[3]  Here the circumstances are e.g., that one stipulated at the beginning of the year, but does not know in reference to what. Now he vows. Hence, if he remembers [the stipulation] and he declares: ‘I vow in accordance with my original intention’, his vow has no reality. But if he does not declare thus, he has cancelled his stipulation and confirmed his vow. – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 23b   

FOOTNOTES:
Footnote 1. This may have provided a support for the custom of reciting Kol Nidre (a formula for dispensation of vows) prior to the Evening Service of the Day of Atonement (Ran.). The context makes it perfectly obvious that only vows, where the maker abjures benefit from aught. or imposes an interdict of his own property upon his neighbour, are referred to. V. J.E. s.v. Kol Nidre. Though the beginning of the year (New Year) is mentioned here, the Day of Atonement was probably chosen on account of its great solemnity. But Kol Nidre as part of the ritual is later than the Talmud, and, as seen from the following statement about R. Huna h. Hinena, the law of revocation in advance was not made public.
Footnote 2. Since, when vowing. he knows of his previous declaration, he obviously disregards it. as otherwise he would not vow at all.
Footnote 3. The received text is correct. 

4. The Kol Nidre is Purposely Deceiving

From the final passage of Nedarim 23b and footnote 4 we learn that the text of the Kol Nidre was purposely obscured so that oaths would not be taken too lightly if the Kol Nidre were taught publicly, indeed the Jewish Encyclopedia will show that even Jews have found it hard to trust one another because of the Kol Nidre.  So what does this purposefully confusing language mean?  It means the the Rabbis knew exactly what the Kol Nidre does, it absolves Jews from making false vows under incitement, but they don’t want non-Jews or even too many Jews to know this, so they purposely obscured the text.

R. Huna b. Hinena wished to lecture thereon [sc. anticipatory cancellation] at the public session. But Raba remonstrated with him: The Tanna has intentionally obscured the law,[4]  in order that vows should not be lightly treated, whilst you desire to teach it publicly!  

The scholars propounded: Do the Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer b. Jacob or not?[5]  And should you say that they differ, is the halachah like him or not?[6]  — Come and hear: For we learnt: If one says to his neighbour, - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 23b   

FOOTNOTES:
Footnote 4. By giving a defective text. This implies that here, at least, the lacuna is not accidental, due to faulty transmission, but deliberate; cf. p. 2, n. 3.
Footnote 5. But regard this as a binding vow.
 Footnote 6. Since the Mishnah teaches it as an individual opinion. 

Nedarim 24a

1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud

5. As long as the vow “Honors” 

“everything should be avoided which may reflect discredit upon the religion of Israel and thereby desecrate the name of God” - “Sanctification” and “Desecration of the Name”, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia 

Technical details about the Kol Nidre extend on into the book of Nedarim, but we will finish for now at Nedarim 24a where again we are given examples of vows made to humans and not god. Here, Jews can absolve themselves of vows without the help of a sage or rabbi as long as they broke their vow to “honour me” [aka the Jewish god, the Jewish Religion, and the Jews].  We are also reminded that incitement automatically makes a vow invalid. Jews may have to hide the darker elements of their ideology (such as the Noahide Laws) and so often feel under “incitement” to lie or break a vow of truth in regards to their beliefs.  So Jews can use Kol Nidre to prevent the “desecration of the name”, meaning they can break vows of honesty to non-Jews to keep them unaware of possible sinister intentions and devious undertakings.

‘Konam that I do not benefit from your if you do not accept for your son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine,’ — his neighbour may annul his vow without [recourse to] a Sage, by saying: ‘Did you vow for any other purpose but to honour me? This [nonacceptance] is my honour.’ Thus, it is only because he asserts, ‘This is my honour’; but otherwise, it is [a binding] vow. Whose view is this? If R. Eliezer b. Jacob’s, — it is a vow of incitement?[1]  Hence it must be the Rabbis,[2]  thus proving that they disagree with R. Eliezer! — [No.] After all, it may be R. Eliezer b. Jacob’s view: he admits that this is a [real] vow, for he [who makes it] says [in effect], ‘I am not a dog, that I should benefit from you without your benefiting from me.’ – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 24a 

Footnote1: Which is invalid in any case. 

Footnote 2:  The text is thus emended by BaH. 

REFUTING LIES ABOUT THE KOL NIDRE 

IV. Refuting lies about the Kol Nidre

The Jewish Encyclopedia attempts to assert that the Kol Nidre proxy only applies to vows made to god and not vows made to other people, and that the proxy is only part of a prayer made once a year on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) to absolve Jews of any vows they make that year to their god that they are unable to keep. This is an obvious lie and a use of Kol Nidre itself since according to footnote 1 in Nedarim 23b of the Talmud, the Kol Nidre is a legal proxy that exists outside of Yom Kippur and was not incorporated into the ritual of Yom Kippur until later, partially because the proxy was not made public. Kol Nidre is even referred to as “the law of revocation in advance” and “a formula for dispensation of vows”.

This may have provided a support for the custom of reciting Kol Nidre (a formula for dispensation of vows) prior to the Evening Service of the Day of Atonement (Ran.). The context makes it perfectly obvious that only vows, where the maker abjures benefit from aught. or imposes an interdict of his own property upon his neighbour, are referred to. V. J.E. s.v. Kol Nidre. Though the beginning of the year (New Year) is mentioned here, the Day of Atonement was probably chosen on account of its great solemnity. But Kol Nidre as part of the ritual is later than the Talmud, and, as seen from the following statement about R. Huna h. Hinena, the law of revocation in advance was not made public. – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 23b, Footnote 1

As we showed in the Talmud, all the stipulations of the Kol Nidre proxy deal with breaking vows one makes to other people, and not to god.  In addition, according to the proxy of the Kol Nidre, the Jew must only announce their vow as false if they do not remember the proxy of the Kol Nidre, which they had ritually stated at the beginning of the year, at the time they make the false vow. If the Jew remembers the Kol Nidre at the time they make the false vow then the Jew has no obligation to proclaim that their vow is false. Who would willingly try to deceive their omniscient god like this? Again, the most relevant application of Kol Nidre for Jews is to make false vows of truth so that they do not have to reveal the unsavory and outright dangerous elements of their ideology such as Noahide Law.

KOL NIDRE = All Vows

1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

1. Kol Nidre is not just a prayer

Under the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article entry on the Kol Nidre, the Jews try to make the Kol Nidre seem like a simple “prayer” said on the “Day of Atonement”, also known as Yom Kippur.  However, we are told this simple “prayer” has had an eventful history and has even had an influence over the legal status of Jews in non-Jewish nations. Indeed, in the past, non-Jews have become aware of the Kol Nidre and have made legislation to protect themselves against it: “Jew Oaths”.  Yes, indeed we are told that “Christians” have employed the Kol Nidre to assert that Jews cannot be trusted.

Prayer recited in the synagogue at the beginning of the evening service on the Day of Atonement; the name is taken from the opening words. The “Kol Nidre” has had a very eventful history, both in itself and in its influence on the legal status of the Jews. Introduced into the liturgy despite the opposition of rabbinic authorities, repeatedly attacked in the course of time by many halakists, and in the nineteenth century expunged from the prayer-book by many communities of western Europe, it has often been employed by Christians to support their assertion that the oath of a Jew can not be trusted. – KOL NIDRE, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

2. Kol Nidre is recited every year at Yom Kippur

Before continuing, take a moment to read the Kol Nidre as spoken by Jews once a year on Yom Kippur and see how detailed and literal a statement it is. The proxy states that “all vows” are absolved and annulled in advance; all vows, not just vows made to god:

“All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas, whether called ‘ḳonam,’ ‘ḳonas,’ or by any other name, which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect; they shall not bind us nor have power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligatory; nor the oaths be oaths.” – KOL NIDRE, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia 

3. Kol Nidre applies to humans, NOT GOD

The Jewish Encyclopedia attempts to state that the Kol Nidre is only to avoid heavenly judgment, meaning that the Kol Nidre only refers to vows made to god and not people or other institutions; we have already shown from the Talmud this is not true.

The teachers of the synagogues, however, have never failed to point out to their cobelievers that the dispensation from vows in the “Kol Nidre” refers only to those which an individual voluntarily assumes for himself alone (see RoSH to Ned. 23b) and in which no other persons or their interests are involved. In other words, the formula is restricted to those vows which concern only the relation of man to his conscience or to his Heavenly Judge (see especially Tos. to Ned. 23b). In the opinion of Jewish teachers, therefore, the object of the “Kol Nidre” in declaring oaths null and void is to give protection from divine punishment in case of violation of the vow. – KOL NIDRE, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia 

…At other times and places during the nineteenth century emphasis was frequently laid upon the fact that “in the ‘Kol Nidre’ only those vows and obligations are implied which are voluntarily assumed, and which are, so to speak, taken before God, thus being exclusively religious in content; but that those obligations are in no wise included which refer to other persons or to non-religious relations” (“Allg. Zeit. des Jud.” 1885, p. 396). – KOL NIDRE, Jewish Encyclopedia 

The Jewish Encyclopedia again attempts to state that the Kol Nidre does not apply to vows made to any person, court of justice or community.  However, in the same paragraph, they admit that many early Jewish authorities wanted the Kol Nidre to be used when it was “extorted from the congregation… in times of persecution”, and so you can see that the Jews can use Kol Nidre if they feel “persecuted”. Wouldn't revelations about the Noahide Laws lead non-Jews to become suspicious or angry... could Jews say this was "persecution"?

No vow, promise, or oath, however, which concerns another person, a court of justice, or a community is implied in the “Kol Nidre.” It must be remembered, moreover, that five geonim were against while only one was in favor of reciting the prayer (Zunz, “G. V.” p. 390, note a), and furthermore that even so early an authority as Saadia wished to restrict it to those vows which were extorted from the congregation in the synagogue in times of persecution (“Kol Bo,” l.c.); and he declared explicitly that the “Kol Nidre” gave no absolution from oaths which an individual had taken during the year. – KOL NIDRE, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia 

4. Even some Jews disapprove of the Kol Nidre

It would seem that for some time the Kol Nidre has even been disapproved of by many Jews.  Karaites, a very small sect of Jews who do not follow Talmud but Torah only, are known to have protested the Kol Nidre’s power of dispensation. It was even disqualified by many scholars of the Babylonian academies.  The moral effect of the Kol Nidre was so negative that many Jewish officials themselves felt that it made other Jews who took its advice to be untrustworthy.

The readiness with which vows were made and the facility with which they were annulled by the scribes gave the Karaites an opportunity to attack the Rabbinites, and forced the Geonim to minimize the power of dispensation. Yehudai Gaon of Sura (760), author of the “Halakot Pesuḳot,” went so far as to forbid any study whatsoever of Nedarim, the Talmudic treatise on oaths (Alfasi on Nedarim, end; L. Löw, l.c. p. 363).Thus the “Kol Nidre” was discredited in both of the Babylonian academies and was not accepted by them… For the same reason Jeroham ben Meshullam, who lived in Provence about the middle of the fourteenth century, inveighed against those fools who, trusting to the “Kol Nidre,” made vows recklessly, and he declared them incapable of giving testimony (“Toledot Adam we-Ḥawwah,” ed. 1808, section 14, part iii., p. 88; see Zunz, “G. V.” p. 390). The Karaite Judah Hadassi, who wrote the “Eshkol ha-Kofer” at Constantinople in 1148 (see Nos. 139,140 of that work), likewise protested against the “Kol Nidre.”… Judah ben Barzillai, a Spanish author of the twelfth century, in his halakic work “Sefer ha-’Ittim,” declares that the custom of reciting the “Kol Nidre” was unjustifiable and misleading, since many ignorant persons believe that all their vows and oaths are annulled through this formula, and consequently they take such obligations on themselves carelessly (“Orḥot Ḥayyim,” p. 106a).  – KOL NIDRE, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia  

5. The Kol Nidre is recited among non-Jews

Notice, however, even though Jews themselves were upset with having to deal the with the Kol Nidre, it is customary to recite the formula in the various lands of the Jewish dispersion, meaning it is customary to practice Kol Nidre in the presence of non-Jews.

 According to Naṭronai, however, it was customary to recite the formula in various lands of the Jewish dispersion, and it is clear likewise from Amram’s “Siddur” (ii. 37a) that the usage was wide-spread as early as his time in Spain… From Germany (Ṭur Oraḥ Ḥayyim, § 619) this custom spread to southern France, Spain, Greece, and probably to northern France, and was in time generally adopted (Shulḥan ‘Aruk, Yoreh De’ah, 619, 1; Zunz, l.c. p. 96). – KOL NIDRE, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia  

6. Kol Nidre and “Jew Oaths”

The Kol Nidre has inspired many legislatures and judges throughout history to consider it necessary to have special oaths just for Jews (“Jew Oaths”).  The Jewish Encyclopedia would have us believe that all of the non-Jews and Jews throughout history who have taken issue with the Kol Nidre are simply misreading it and are projecting their own unscrupulous intention onto the text. The Kol Nidre text of the Talmud was purposely written to confuse and hide its truth, what does that tell you? We even see apostates from the Jewish Religion believe the cynical nature of the Kol Nidre is true enough to use it in their attacks against their former religion.

The “Kol Nidre” has been one of the means widely used by Jewish apostates and by enemies of the Jews to cast suspicion on the trustworthiness of an oath taken by a Jew (Wagenseil, “Tela Ignea, Disputatio R. Jechielis,” p. 23; Eisenmenger, “Entdecktes Judenthum,” vol. ii., ch. ix., pp. 489 et seq., Königsberg, 1711; Bodenschatz, “Kirchliche Verfassung der Heutigen Juden,” part ii., ch. v., § 10, Frankfort and Leipsic, 1748; Rohling, “Der Talmudjude,” pp. 80et seq., Münster, 1877); so that many legislators considered it necessary to have a special form of oath administered to Jews (“Jew’s oath”), and many judges refused to allow them to take a supplementary oath, basing their objections chiefly on this prayer (Zunz, “G. S.” ii. 244; comp. pp. 246, 251). As early as 1240 Jehiel of Paris was obliged to defend the “Kol Nidre” against these charges. It can not be denied that, according to the usual wording of the formula, an unscrupulous man might think that it offers a means of escape from the obligations and promises which he had assumed and made in regard to others. – KOL NIDRE, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia  

7. Why still Kol Nidre today?

Finally, at the 1844 rabbinical conference held in Brunswick Germany, it was unanimously declared that the Kol Nidre was not essential and that members of the conference should try their best to abolish the proxy.  Yet, there were of course many orthodox Rabbis who opposed this measure and the Kol Nidre didn’t die.  Even though it has been opposed by both non-Jews and Jews and is obviously an suspect script, the Kol Nidre is still alive and well today, being sung every year on Yom Kippur in the many synagogues of world Jewry.  The Explanation given by Jewry is that despite its even Jewish proclaimed moral reprehensibility, the melody which goes along with the Kol Nidre is just so appealing…

Yielding to the numerous accusations and complaints brought against the “Kol Nidre” in the course of centuries, the rabbinical conference held at Brunswick in 1844 decided unanimously that the formula was not essential, and that the members of the convention should exert their influence toward securing its speedy abolition(“Protocolle der Ersten Rabbiner Versammlung,” p. 41, Brunswick, 1844)… Naturally there were many Orthodox opponents of this innovation, among whom M. Lehmann, editor of the “Israelit,” was especially prominent (see ib. 1863, Nos. 25, 38). – KOL NIDRE, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia  

The principal factor which preserved the great religious authority of the “Kol Nidre” well into the nineteenth century, and which continually raises up new defenders for it, is doubtless its plaintive and appealing melody, which made a deep impression even on Lenau (see his remarks in “Der Israelit,” 1864, No. 40, pp. 538 et seq.) and which was the favorite melody of Moltke, who had the violinist Joachim play it for him. – KOL NIDRE, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia