‘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) 1st reader: prof. dr. I.E. Zwiep 2nd reader: dr. B. T. Wallet 21.604 words June 2017

1 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?

2 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 68

3 Conclusion 71 Appendix A 74 Literature 76 Mahzorim 78

4

5 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.

6 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

7 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.

8

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.

9 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.

10 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.

11 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)

12 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.

13 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.

14

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.

15 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.

16 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.

17 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.

18 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

19 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

20 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.

21 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.

22 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

23 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.

24 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.

25 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.

26 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.

27 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.

28 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.

29 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.

30 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)

31 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.

32 Viduy introduction One of the basic assumptions of Jewish theological thought is the idea of free will. People’s future is not set in stone but is in a certain way mouldable to one’s liking. God shows us, through his Torah, which ways are good and which ways are bad. But is up to humans themselves to choose between the various options. Those who follow Gods commandments get rewarded, and those who choose to neglect them, the sinners, get punished.124 In rabbinic literature, sin is often seen as a debt one has towards God, a debt that should be repaid.125 One way of repaying has already been mentioned, which is punishment, being tormented during one’s lifetime. Another way of repaying this debt is through repentance126, which lays the foundation for the concept being discussed here, the confession of sins or Viduy in Hebrew.

,Tanakh the in times few a find we which ,התודה verb Hebrew the from stems Viduy word The among which Numbers 5:6-7 and Leviticus 5:5. Both mention the obligation to confess for the sins one committed. Though confessions are already apparent in the bible, sacrifice, accompanied by confession, was the main way in which Jews back then dealt with atonement for their sins. In later rabbinic texts this role is assumed by confession solely, a development which is supposed to have started during the Babylonian exile and which seems logical with respect to the destruction of the temple.127

Originally no text existed for the Viduy, worshippers were to formulate their own sins and to confess them.128 Soon however, texts were given of which the rabbis advised that they’d be used. Two of these texts have become the standard texts for confession on Yom Kippur.

124 Jacobs, Louis, A Jewish Theology (New York, Behrman House : 1973) p. 6. 125 Anderson, Gary A., Sin a History (New Haven/London, Yale University Press : 2009) p. 27. 126 Stokl ben Ezra, Daniel, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck : 2003) p. 133-134. 127 Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013)p. 34-35 and 46. 128 Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 118.

33 They are the Al Het known also as Viduy Rabah and the Ashamnu also known as Viduy Zuta. They appear together for the first time in the work of Rav Amram, and have in most cases not disappeared from our prayer books. They are traditionally preceded by the prayer ki anu amkha.129 Both texts are acrostics, listing various sins. Both texts are said in the first person plural form, thus not necessarily confessing one’s own sins, but also that of its fellow Jews.130 Different traditions exist concerning the Al Het: the northern Sephardic branch says only 6 lines, which are believed to be the original six lines of which the prayer used to consist.131 The southern Sephardic branch uses a single acrostic and the Ashkenazim have the tradition of a double acrostic coming to a total of 44 lines.132 It was a process of centuries, in which more and more sins were added to the prayer, leading up to the 44 lines we have right now.133 The reform movement has of course also had its influence on the development of these prayers. Many conservative and reform communities decided to leave out a conclusory text which lists brutal biblical punishments. On top of that, they had their hand in omitting certain sentences thus shortening the prayer but in some cases also add other sins which are deemed more relevant for the modern age in which we live.134 During Yom Kippur, the confessions are read twice, during the Amidah and its repetition, on each of the 5 services (Maariv, Shaharit, Minha, Musaf and Neilah), the only exception being Neilah when the Al Het is replaced by the prayer atah noten yad.135

The Viduy is maybe the oldest form of Jewish prayer that has survived the test of time. The Encyclopaedia Judaica mentions the confession of sins during the bringing of the first fruits

129 Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 94-95. 130 The traditional answer to the question of why this is the case is based on a Talmudic saying in masekhet Shvuot 39b which states that all of Israel is responsible for one another. See: Teutsch, David A., Our Sins? They’re Not All Mine! In: Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 135. 131 Goldstein, Andrew, Multiplying the Sins in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 115. 132 Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 5- 6 133 Goldstein, Andrew, Multiplying the Sins in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 116. 134 Ibid. p. 117 135 Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 7- 8

34 and the tithes as the only formal prayers to be found in the bible.136 Taking a closer look at the confession however, one can see that the idea of what it means to confess one’s sins has changed massively over time. In Deuteronomy we read:

“I have put away the hallowed things out of my house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all Thy commandment which Thou hast commanded me; I have not transgressed any of Thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I put away thereof, being unclean, nor given thereof for the dead; I have hearkened to the voice of the LORD my God, I have done according to all that Thou hast commanded me. “137

Instead of bringing op those moments in which the individual did not live by Gods rules, this is a statement in which one confirms that he did live by God rules all the time. It’s an affirmation of the good deeds one has done and now it’s time for God to hold up his part of the bargain. How different is this from what a confession should look like according to the Rambam:

“How does one confess: He states: ‘I implore You, God, I sinned, I transgressed, I committed iniquity before You by doing the following. Behold, I regret and am embarrassed for my deeds. I promise never to repeat this act again.’”

According to Maimonides, and more in line with what people nowadays would consider a confession, admitting one’s shortcomings is elemental to the concept of confessing.

The shift we saw in the above described examples, in which shortcomings are emphasized instead of one’s piety, is connected to a theological shift which occurred somewhere in the history of Judaism. This theological switch has to do with the way Judaism perceives human nature. The key question here is: are humans in essence good or bad? Though Jews don’t

136 Berenbaum, Michael and Skolnik, Fred (Ed.) Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed. (Detroit, Macmillan Reference USA : 2007) 13:131 137 Deuteronomy 26: 14-15

35 believe in the Christian concept of “original sin”, the idea that all people tend to sin, or to do bad, is elemental to Jewish religious thought. Rabbinic Judaism emphasizes this sinfulness. Humans are capable of doing good, but sin is elemental to human existence. 138 The idea that humans sin all the time also led to the practice of confessing ones sin every day during the Amidah. The way these ideas on human nature found its expression in the liturgy can be seen from a penitential prayer which is usually recited on the days preceding Rosh Hashanah:

“We are ashamed to raise our head, for we have polluted our fair name. We have corrupted thy justice, we have distorted thy precepts, therefore we press our face to the ground in shame [...] May our lamentations be changed into song, our punishment into atonement, as we return to thy straight paths. Because of our sins we have been subjected to captivity and [to] pillage; we, our kings and our priests, have been brought into contempt. Thy dearly beloved thou didst hurl down to the ground, desolate. We have failed to implore thee, to consider thy truth, because of rising evil. We should have been destroyed like Sodom, when the sound of the mill was low, hadst thou not shown us grace for a brief moment. Thou didst mercifully spare the remnant, giving us support and fencing us in. Again we were cast adrift for the three sins which thou dost loath, and thou didst trample under foot thy glorious Temple”139

It is exactly this negative view on humanity, the idea of human beings as compelled sinners, which some modern Jews found disturbing.140 The enlightenment brought a time in which an emphasis was laid on progress. The world seemed to get better every day, and there seemed to be no end to improvement. Inventions which made life easier combined with the prospect of political equality for all gave rise to an optimistic atmosphere amongst the western world in general, and amongst the Jewish people in particular. The old liturgy in which men’s incompetence to do good and its inclination to sin, or to do bad was stressed,

138 Hoffman, Lawrence A., Tahanun and Concluding Prayers (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2002) 139 Gertel, Eliot B., Because of our Sins in: Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol. 15, No. 4 (SPRING 1976), pp. 68-69 140 Sarason Richard S., The Persistence and Trajectories of Penitential Prayer in Rabbinic Judaism in: Boda, Mark J., Seeking the Favor of God Vol. 3 (Leiden, Brill : 2009) p. 19.

36 did not fit the new worldview of the people reciting them.141 People were doing great things every day, improving the world around us. Were they really the sinners we read about in our prayers?

On top of that, the enlightenment gave us the scientific method which enabled us to prove the cause of many things, and according to modern science, this cause was not God. People get sick not because they failed to live up to Gods commandments, but because of bacteria and viruses. Science, in this case medical science, can fix things from going wrong, can prevent bad things to happen to us. And if we’re not able to fix it now, we will be able to do so in the future. Human progress was deemed never-ending, the only way which humanity could go from now on was upwards.142

Another concept which proved problematic in the modern age was the rabbinic theology of reward and punishment. This concept relies on the belief that our misdeeds are the cause of our troubles. God punishes those who do wrong and rewards those who do good.143 The Jewish exile is exemplary for this concept, being exiled was God’s punishment for the Jewish people’s transgressions. History has shown however, that bad things don’t only happen to bad people. Jews in the modern age increasingly started to reject this view. It would also be interesting to see how the Shoah, a terrible event of which for most people it would be inconceivable to think that this was a punishment by God for the Jews’ transgressions, has influenced the liturgy which deals with the reward and punishment.

The concepts of sin and rewards and punishments are of course elemental to Yom Kippur. It’s on this day that we, by confessing are sins, seek repentance for the injustices we caused during the past year. It is this paradox of the changing worldview in which people are deemed to have a nature to do good versus the focus on people’s wrongdoings during Yom Kippur that makes the Viduy such an interesting part of the service in reform circles. How do

141 Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 25-26. 142 H Hoffman, Lawrence A., Tahanun and Concluding Prayers (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2002) p. 15-16. 143 Boeckler, Annete M., Six Understandings of Confession for Our Time in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013)p. 46

37 reform Jews deal with this paradox? What role does the confession of sins play when we don’t believe to be punished for our misdeeds? Why bother to confess at all?

Dutch liturgy 1932 in the 1932 edition we find only one of the two confessions: the Ashamnu. The confession is not repeated throughout the whole day of Yom Kippur but is only recited during Kol Nidre night. The Hebrew texts are accompanied be a Dutch translation.144 The Viduy from this Mahzor shows no liturgical creativity, in that all texts are traditional texts.145 The Ashamnu is preceded by the traditional elohenu ve-elohey avotenu and after the recitation of Ashamnu follows a Hebrew text, composed from other pre-ambles and conclusions to the Viduy. These are sarnu mi-mitzvotekha, hirsh’anu u-fash’anu, mah nomar, atah yodea raze olam and uvakhen yehi ratzon milfanekha. One of these, hirsh’anu u-fash’an is traditionally recited only during the repetition of the Amidah.146 The others are said on both moments. In the translation, the traditional theology of sin and punishment is concealed. The hirsh’anu u-fash’anu makes this connection in the first sentence, but the part in which our misfortunes are said to be a result of our wrongdoings is simply left untranslated.147 The single adaption we find to the traditional text is the omission of the word avotenu in the preamble to Ashamnu, where the traditional texts ends with: “aval anahnu ve-avonotenu hatanu”. To come to a conclusion as to why this word is absent, we need to take a closer look at this preamble. In contemporary traditional prayer books it reads: “[…] she-eyn

144 Norden, J. et al., Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1932) p. 13- 15. 145 Whenever I use terms as traditional in this chapter, it means that I have relied upon the traditional liturgy as presented in the book we have sinned/Hoffman. In addition, I have used two 19th century prayer books: Mahazor … tefilot yamim nora’im ke-minhag polin raysen lita … (Wien, anton schmid : 1800) and Polak, G.I., Gebeden der Nederlandsche Israeliten voor den Avond van den Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Proops en Joachimsthal : 1849), the latter in order to take in account the specific Dutch minhag. Indeed, all three sources give the ashkenazi tradition. This because, though the Dutch reform liturgy has Sephardic influences, it is based on the Ashkenazi minhag. 146 As was mentioned before, this mahzor does not include a repetition of the Amidah which partly explains its inclusion here. 147 Norden, J. et al., Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1932) p. 15

38 anahnu azey panim u-keshey oref lomar lefanecha H’ Elohenu we-Elohey avotenu tzadikim anahnu ve-lo hatanu aval anahnu va-avonotenu hatanu”. When we take a look at the same prayer in Rav Amram’s prayer book we find that it doesn’t read “she-eyn”. Instead, it reads that we are indeed so arrogant as to say that we are tzadikim who don’t sin. In modern Hebrew, the word aval usualy to the English ‘but’. Rabbi Eli Kaunfer shows us that in this case however, it should be translated as ‘in truth’,148 thus saying that though we are as arrogant as to say the wo don’t sin, in truth we have sinned, and thus follows the confession. According to Dr. Hoffman, in time this text was altered to say that we are not so arrogant as to say that we have sinned, giving a less bleak view on human nature. Yes, we sin, but we are not so arrogant as to say we didn’t. The word avotenu does not appear in Rav Amram’s version of the prayer. Dr. Hoffman believes that the word was added to stress that our ancestors sinned and thus were pardoned, and so will the worshippers themselves be pardoned, like their forefathers. By leaving out the word avotenu, we come to a sentence which reads aval anahnu hatanu, thus emphasizing the subject149, anahnu.150 Stressing that it is us, as opposed to others, that sin, thus reemphasizing our own sinfulness, seems not in accordance with the reformers’ changing worldview in which human sinfulness is downgraded. Another possibility is that the wording was changed for it to correspond to the earlier versions of the text in which the word avotenu is absent. This possibility is however unlikely at the same time, because the remaining alterations are left intact. Other reform prayer books like the einheitsgebetbuch have made the same choice to omit the word avotenu.151

148 Kaunfer, Elie, Aval Chatanu in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013)p. 181-185 149 In Hebrew there is no need to write the subject in this sentence, writing anahnu hatanu would have been sufficient. By giving the pronominal object, an extra emphasis is laid on the subject in the sentence. This is also explained by Hoffman, see the note below (26) 150 Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 9- 10 151 Seligman, Caesar et al., Gebetbuch für das Ganze Jahr Zweiter Theil [Einheitsgebetbuch] (Frankfurt a.M., Lehrberger : 1929) p. 262.

39 1933 The 1933 edition shows some changes to the 1932 edition. First of all, recitation of the I is not constricted to Kol Nidre night alone, but is repeated during the Neilah as well152. Again, Ashamnu is the only one of the two confessions in the Viduy. After the recitation of the ashamnu, we find two texts as addition to the ones that were already included in the 1932 edition: ki anu amkha preceding and ve-atah rahum mekabel following the Ashamnu.153 Both texts are traditionally recited during the repetition of the Amidah. Additionally, in the copy which I used for the research and which is believed to have been owned by Bob Levisson, has an additional handout with texts to supplement the morning service. This handout includes a Viduy as well, though without the texts ki anu amkha and ve-atah rahum mekabel. The instructions on the handout read that, as a result of the addition of a morning service to the service of Yom Kippur, these texts are to replace the ones on pages 30-31. Indeed, the handout is placed exactly there, between pages 30 and 31. However, this version of the Mahzor already includes a morning service. Page 26 starts with the heading “ochtenddienst voor den grooten verzoendag”, while the heading of the 1932 edition simply reads “dienst voor den grooten verzoendag”. This implies that the handout was actually not meant to supplement the 1933, but the 1932 edition. Also, pages 30-31 in the 1933 edition is the recitation of the Shema, which because of its importance adds another suspicion to the idea that the handout was to supplement the 1933 edition. The fact that the I is identical to the one in the 1932 edition, without the additions made in the 1933 edition underscores this suspicion. So, as it seems, somewhere in 1932 the need was felt to lengthen the service, resulting in a handout with the addition of a morning service for Yom Kippur which included a viduy. But when would they have produced this handout? After all, one year later a new edition of the Mahzor was published. Would they have printed the handout even before they first used the Mahzor? And why would they have printed a new Mahzor one year later in 1933 without the additional Viduy in the morning service? I can find no good answer to these questions. All

152 Hirschberg, H. et. al, Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1933) p. 91. 153 Hirschberg, H. et. al, Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1933)p. 19-21

40 that can be said is that at some point(s) the service for Yom Kippur was deemed to short which led to certain additions, amongst which we find Viduyim. At first, saying the Viduy more than once during Yom Kippur was not a priority, but when the service had to be lengthened, its recitation becomes more frequent. Another important change can be seen in the translation of hirsh’anu u-fash’anu. Where the 1932 edition chose to conceal the traditional theology of sin and punishment by not translating the first sentence in its entirety, this edition does translate the sentence, thus mentioning the relation between sin and punishment.154 This move to a less radical form of reform seems in line with the personal opinions of the editor, Hirschberg.155

1934 This edition, which is a supplement to the 1933 edition, adds the second confession, the Al Het, to the liturgy of the 1933 edition. It has 18 lines, and thus neglects the idea of a full acrostic. The Mahzor refers to the translation on page 19-20 of the 1933 addition, which gives us the impression that the addition is meant for use in that part of the service only, which is during Kol Nidre night. It could be very well possible however, that the addition was applied to the other moment in which a Viduy was said as well. This Al Het is identical to the version we find in the einheitsgebetbuch. Considering the supposed influence of this Mahzor, it is most likely that it was indeed taken from the einheitsgebetbuch.

1939 The 1939 edition skips the Ashamnu, and therefore has only the al het. It is preceded and followed by the traditional uva-khen and ve-atah mekabel. The al het has 18 lines, the exact same lines as in the earlier edition. Apparently, the Viduy was deemed too long, and a choice was made what to incorporate and what not to. The 1939 edition provides the liturgy for the morning service, which might mean that during the other services, the Ashamnu was recited. The lesser focus on the confession by shortening it and the fact that the Hebrew text in

154 Hirschberg, H. et. al, Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1933) p. 20 155 See the introduction. Hirschberg left the community because he was deemed too orthodox for the movement.

41 which the connection between sin and punishment are left out gives another indication to the idea that this Mahzor was indeed only used by the more radical branch in The Hague.

1964 the 1964 edition gives the Viduy a much more prominent place in the worship service. First of all, this Mahzor includes a repetition of the Amidah in every service. In each of them we find a Viduy, leading up to a total of 10 as in the traditional prayer books. The first time during one service the Ashamnu is preceded by elohenu ve-elohey avotenu and followed by sarnu mi-mitsvotekha. Then we find the al het, preceded by mah nomar and uva-khen yehi ratzon. In the repetition of the Amidah, ki anu amkha precedes elohenu ve-elohey avotenu and the texts following the al het are replaced by ki atah salhan. This follows the line of traditional prayer books, though not all preambles and conclusions we find there are adopted in this Mahzor. The translation of the Viduy does not speak about sins, instead the word sin is translated as shortcoming.156 To translate the Hebrew word het in such a way is not at all unique, many other prayer books do exactly the same157, but the pre-war editions seemed to have no problem with the word sin. That the word sin keeps posing problems for reform Jews nowadays can be seen from the discussion concerning the new Mahzor of the American reform movement, Mishkan Hanefesh, where it sometimes appears but has been avoided in the translation of the al het.158 This Viduy seems very traditional, because of its resemblance to the Viduy we find in traditional prayer books. But other reform prayer books from the same time show the same trend. The Mahzor of the reform movement published in 1978 in the united states159 and the Mahzor published by the reform movement in 1973 in Great Britain160, have virtually the same text, while the earlier editions have much shorter confessions, in which both the

156 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) 157 Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 137 158 Librach, Clifford, A Revolution for Reform Judaism? In: Commentary (London/Portland, Vallentine Mitchell : 2015) p. 38-39. 159 Stern, Chaim, Gates of Repentance : The New Union Prayerbook for the Days of Awe (New York : 1978) p. 324-333 160 Rayner, John D. and Stern, Chaim, Gate of Repentance : Service for the High Holidays (London : 1973) p. 214-225

42 Ashamnu and al het are abbreviated.161 Although the trend to return to a more traditional text seems in line with the wider international reform movement, the Dutch example can in a way still be considered more traditional. Not because of the presence of the traditional texts, but because of the absence of any introductions or commentary, which we do find in the American and British examples. In the Dutch example, no attempt is made to connect the ancient prayers to the modern world. No wonder that, as we shall see, the Dutch worshippers were in need of something else.

Current practice When we turn to the current practice we see much more innovation than we have seen up to now. Though all communities follow the text in the Mahzor, 6 out of 9 communities162 add something to the Viduy. The introduction163 to the al het by rabbi Corrie Zeidler of the community in Brabant presents us with the reason we need alternatives. In the introduction, she writes that we say the ancient prayers out of respect for the tradition, but that the words we use have changed in meaning. We need to translate them to our time, find the relevancy to our own lives.164 One way to do so has been offered by rabbi Marianne van Praag. In 2014, she offered an introduction to the al het with the story of a rabbi who didn’t recite all the lines of al het but instead chose just one of them. During the time that everyone else was reciting all the lines, the rabbi thought of just this one sin, thought of the moment when he committed this specific sin, and of the consequences of his sin for the people around him. Van Praag posed this story as a way for her own worshippers to deal with the al het.165 It’s a way of having the worshippers truly interact with the ancient prayers, finding the relevancy for their lives today, even if they can find relevancy in only one of the lines of the al het. But to make it relevant to our time is apparently either too difficult or not enough for the modern worshipper, because we see many alternatives to the traditional confessions. In

161 Liberal Jewish Prayer book Vol. II : services fort he day of memorial and the day of atonement (London : 1923); The Union Prayer Book for Jewish Worship Part II (New York : 1956) 162 Amsterdam, The Hague, Brabant, Dieren, Rotterdam and Utrecht 163 Other communities, Utrecht, Den Haag and Dieren, provide introductions as well 164 introduction tosafot brabant 165 Introduction Al Het 2014 marianne van praag

43 Amsterdam and Brabant for example, the worshippers are presented with two alternatives to the al het166 in which sins are formulated which are deemed more relevant to our times. In these alternatives, which are written in Dutch, the word sin is not used, but is replaced by words as mistakes, shortcomings or imperfections.167 The same can be said about the introduction to the Viduy that is sometimes used in both the communities of Den Haag and Dieren.168 The community in Den Haag is however not reluctant to use the word sin in other passages. An alternative translation for the Al Het which has been taken from the Mahzor of the Reform Synagogues of Great Britain and has been translated to Dutch, does not in any way try to avoid the word sin.169 The new Mahzor also tries to have to modern worshipper connect to the idea of confession. In it, we find an addition of six lines to the al het. These additions present us with sins that the modern worshipper may connect with more easily, like pollution and the way we treat strangers. Another innovation we find in these six lines is that the last three of them are not directed to God, but to the earth, our children and our offspring. 170 The second novelty is the addition of an ecological confession of sins, written by rav Levi Weiman Kelman and rav Mordechai Rotem. As the title already reveals, in this Viduy we find all sorts of ways in which we don’t take care of the world around us, at the cost of nature. The text does not replace the traditional al het, but is posed as an alternative.171 The translations in the new Mahzor make use of the word sin as a translation for het.

Another problem concerning the Viduy is the negativity which surrounds it. Confession emphasizes those moments in which people did not live up to the standards, it focusses on mistakes. In line with the more uplifting ethos of the Neilah, the closing part of the service in which the al het is substituted by the Atah Noten Yad172, some communities say a positive Ashamnu173, emphasizing the worshippers’ good deeds of the past year. Interesting is the

166 These texts are not always recited during the service 167 Alternative al het I & II in tosafot Amsterdam and Brabant 168 Paste-ins in the mahzorim of rabbi van Praag and Mischa Schrijver 169 mahzor marianne van praag 170 Viduy new mahzor 171 Ecological Viduy new mahzor 172 Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 7- 8. 173 Den Haag and Brabant

44 resemblance to the confession from biblical times which we mentioned earlier, in which the worshipper also mentioned his good deeds instead of the sins one committed.

Overall conclusions The first thing that stands out when taking an overall look at the liturgies, is that the Viduy has become more important in time. At first the confession of sins was just a very small part of the service and constituted of the small Viduy only. Later on, the other Viduy was added as well, and nowadays the two are repeated ten times during the whole of Yom Kippur. In the introduction to these chapter we asked ourselves the question: why bother confessing if we don’t believe in the traditional theology of sin and punishment? To answer this question, Dr. Annete Boeckler sets out 6 ways in which one can understand the confession of sin in Judaism, which can be appropriate for different times in Jewish history. The six ways of understating are: confessing sins to repair the world, confessing sins to justify God, confessing sins to improve one’s character, confessing sins to create unity among Jews, confessing sins to create unity among humanity and confessing sins as poetry.174 In the earliest Mahzor, it seems that the main way to see the Viduy was as a form of poetry, and perhaps as a way to create unity among Jews. No effort was made to make the Viduy relevant to the modern worshipper, but an active choice was made not to include the traditional theology of sin and punishment. Though this theology does reappear and might suggest otherwise, the very abbreviated form of the Viduy which we find in the earliest Mahzorim imply that the confession was not seen as a way to justify God. In the 1964 Mahzor the Viduy became more traditional, thus sharing common grounds with Jews all over the world, who have the same ritual of repeating the two confessions twice during every service. In this I see a way of reconnecting with the wider international Jewish community, thus having the Viduy as a way to create unity among Jews. It is in the additional material form the different communities and the new Mahzor where we can see a change in attitude. This material shows the wish of the liturgists to make the confession relevant to the worshipper of today. By creating alternative versions to the al het, and by adding lines to the traditional version, an attempt is made to have the worshippers really think about their actions of the past year. I can clearly recognize the Viduy as a way to improve one’s

174 Boeckler, Annete M., Six Understandings of Confession for Our Time in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 47.

45 character in these texts. This is not only done by giving alternative texts, but also simply by the rabbis’ instructions, like the one from Marianne van Praag in which she asked the worshippers to think of just one sin from the al het, and to make that one relevant for the individual.

The additional material and the new Mahzor seem to share the same goal, which is translation. Not necessarily from Hebrew to Dutch, but from ancient times to modern times. This translation seems twofold, firstly to actually try to translate the ancient prayers themselves to our time of which the introductions by Van Praag and Zeidler are a good example, or secondly, to make a translation of the ideas behind the ancient texts into newly composed Hebrew and Dutch alternatives of which the alternative Viduyim are good examples.

In the previous chapter, we noticed that liturgical creativity as a tool for reform had made place for a different tool, namely the addition of commentaries and explanations accompanying the traditional texts. In this chapter, we have seen that liturgical creativity as a tool for reform has all but disappeared in Holland. The material from the handouts and from new Mahzor prove to us that this tool is still very much used.

46 Avodah

Introduction The temple service sacrifice is inextricably bound up with Yom Kippur. According to the Torah, Yom Kippur was the day during which, by the work and sacrifices of the priests in the temple, the people of Israel could get atonement for their sins, all of which is set out step by step in Leviticus 16. The destruction of the temple made it impossible to keep performing this and many other practices which centre around temple worship. However, the temple ritual described in Leviticus 16 remains relevant for Jews on Yom Kippur, not as a ritual to be carried out, but as part of the liturgy for that day.

Next to Leviticus 16, the temple ritual is also recorded in Mishna Yoma. The Avodah service as part of the Yom Kippur liturgy stems from a rabbinic custom to recite certain passages of this text during Yom Kippur.175 Elbogen mentions that the first Seder Avodah was probably not more than recitations from Mishna Yoma.176 Adding the verbal confessions of the high priest during Yom Kippur to the account which we find in Leviticus, Mishna Yoma certainly functioned as the primary source for liturgical expressions of the Avodah service.177 These liturgical expressions were formulated in liturgical poems, piyyutim, and follow the redaction of the Mishna closely. The first of such a liturgical poem on the Avodah Service is believed to be Shivat Yamim,178 though the exact date of its creation remains unknown to us.179 Shivat Yamim gives us an overview of the way in which the sacrifices were carried out in ancient times. This kind of account would become one of the two elements of which all Avodah services would consist. The other element is a review of biblical history prior to the temple

175 Schwartz, Michael D., Ritual about Myth about Ritual: Towards an Understanding of the Avodah in the Rabbinic Period in: The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy (Leiden, Brill : 1997) p. 140. 176 Elbogen, Ismar, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia, JPS : 1993) p. 56- 57. 177 Silverman, Rhoda J.H., The Accommodation of the Yom Kippur Seder Avodah: a Review of its Development Into the Modern World [Phd dissertation] (Towson, Towson University : 2012)p. 36 178 Ibid. p.42. 179 Ibid. p. 49.

47 period, and the first piyyut we know of that does so is called Atah Barata.180 These two elements are often supplemented by introductions preceding, and a text glorifying the high priest and a prayer for prosperity in the coming year following these two parts. 181 The next stage in the development of the Seder Avodah is the appearance of the first piyyut we know of which combines both of the elements, named Atah Konnanta Olam me-Rosh, and which has also therefore been labelled by Schwartz and Yahalom as the first “true Avodah piyyut” in their study on Avodah piyyutim.182

Liturgical creativity in this genre continues for some centuries in which a great many Avodah piyyutim were written, up until the appearance of Amits Koah, which marks the end to this creativity. It is this Amits Koah which has become the standard text for Ashkenazi Jewry to be read on Yom Kippur.183 Rhoda Silverman, in her dissertation on the Avodah genre, makes it clear that during this period, the Seder Avodah was everything but a canonized set of prayers. Though many rabbis had their preference, and also gave advices on which piyyutim to be read during the service, various Sidrei Avodah existed next to each other.184 After Amits Koah, no new Sidrei Avodah were composed.185 That is, up until the 19th century when the reform movement started to produce new liturgical material.186

That the way in which the reformers dealt with the Avodah service seems particularly interesting. Animal sacrifices and the old hierarchical structure of Israelite society associated

180 Silverman, Rhoda J.H., The Accommodation of the Yom Kippur Seder Avodah: a Review of its Development Into the Modern World [Phd dissertation] (Towson, Towson University : 2012) p. 49. 181 Ibid. P. 1. 182 Yahalom, Joseph and Schwartz, Michael D., Avodah: An Anthology of Ancient Poetry for Yom Kippur (Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University Press : 2005)p. 69. 183 Silverman, Rhoda J.H., The Accommodation of the Yom Kippur Seder Avodah: a Review of its Development Into the Modern World [Phd dissertation] (Towson, Towson University : 2012) p. 74-75. 184 Ibid. p. 75. 185 Except for Samuel David Luzatto’s seder avodah. However, since this poem was probably never intended for liturgical use I decided to exclude it from our discussion here. See: Silverman, Rhoda J.H., The Accommodation of the Yom Kippur Seder Avodah: a Review of its Development Into the Modern World [Phd dissertation] (Towson, Towson University : 2012) p. 76-77. 186 Ibid p. 76.

48 with the priesthood seemed incompatible with 19th century values and ideas.187 As explained in the introduction, reformers apposed the restoration of animal sacrifices and avoided any reference to the ancient custom. Enough reasons for one to think that maybe the reformers would have wanted to omit the Seder avodah entirely from its Mahzorim. It seems like there was no good reason from the reformers’ perspective not to omit it. However, the total omittance of the Seder Avodah was very rare within reform circles and knows only a few examples.188 In 19th century Germany, roughly two ways of dealing with the reform service can be detected. The first is the way in which the first edition of the Hamburg Temple prayer book of 1819189 decided to deal with the problem, namely to retain traditional Hebrew texts, but to adapt the translation in such a way that it reflects modern values and ideas. The other solution, of which the Mahzor compiled by Geiger in 1854190 is exemplary, was to make much more use of the vernacular: replacing the Hebrew text with newly composed texts in German but retaining the traditional structure.191 In the United states, where the reformers were less constricted because of the lack of a centralized religious authority, more radical approaches can be found. By more radical reforms we should think of adapting the traditional Hebrew piyyutim to fit the new theological doctrines, further abbreviation of the service and omitting some of the priestly confessions from the text, having the service in the vernacular in its entirety, and downgrading the role of the priests by stressing that in modern times the whole of Israel can be seen as having a priestly status.192

The first few decades of the 20th century show only a few changes in the liturgy of the Avodah service.193 However, the holocaust and the founding of the State of Israel changed

187 Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) p. 166-167 188 Silverman, Rhoda J.H., The Accommodation of the Yom Kippur Seder Avodah: a Review of its Development Into the Modern World [Phd dissertation] (Towson, Towson University : 2012) p. 90. 189 Ordnung der öffentlichen Andacht für die Sabbath und Festtage des Ganzen Jahres (Hamburg, Frankel : 1819) 190 Geiger, Abraham, Israelitisches Gebetbuch für den öffentlichen Gottesdienst im ganzen Jahre (Breslau, Hainauer : 1854) 191 Silverman, Rhoda J.H., The Accommodation of the Yom Kippur Seder Avodah: a Review of its Development Into the Modern World [Phd dissertation] (Towson, Towson University : 2012) p. 89-90. 192 Ibid. p. 94-112. 193 Ibid. p. 113.

49 Jewish thought all around the world and would also have its impact on the liturgies, including the Avodah Service. The reformers keep struggling with the way in which to incorporate the sacrificial cult and the idea of Aaronic priesthood in the liturgies, some taking more radical and some taking more lenient approaches. The trend we see is that a renewed interest in the longing for Zion becomes apparent in the second half of the 20th century, which should not be seen as a wish to reinstate the animal sacrifices and to rebuild the temple, but as a renewed interest in Jewish sovereignty.194

The Dutch liturgy 1932 The first liturgical publication of the Dutch reform movement does not include texts for the Seder Avodah. Of course, there may be various reasons for this decision. First, there are the objections from the side of the reform movement which we already discussed. On top of that, the entire 1932 edition is a very abbreviated Mahzor. It consists of 59 pages, from Kol Nidre to the end of Neilah, including Hebrew and translations. It appears that the Seder Avodah was not a priority for the editor Norden.

1933 The Dutch 1933 edition of the reform movement for Yom Kippur does include an Avodah service and places it at the end of Shaharit. It starts by stating that the whole of the service is to be recited in Dutch, apart from the parts that are represented in Hebrew. These parts in Hebrew are parts from Mishna Yoma which are also a part of the traditional Amits Koah195 and consist of one of the three priestly confessions. As mentioned before, the traditional Avodah service roughly exists of two parts: first there a recollection of biblical history up to the election of the Aaronic priesthood, followed by a description of the temple cultic service. This first part is absent from this Mahzor. Instead we find a text in Dutch which serves as an introduction leading up to the priestly confessions, stating that as is the case today, in ancient times Yom Kippur was the most important day of the Jewish calendar. It specifically states that these practices are something which should be seen in its historical context, and

194 Ibid. p. 114-131. 195 For the traditional Amits Koah, see: Mahzor le-rosh ha-shana ule-yom ha-kipurim (Anton Schmid : Wien, 1816)

50 stresses the part of the priestly confessions rather than the animal sacrifices which is only mentioned briefly. This focus on the confessions instead of the sacrifices continues during the rest of the service. The Hebrew text, which is left untranslated, begins with the first of the three confessions, in which the high priest confesses for his own sins and that of his house, followed by the response of the people and then again by the high priest, which are translated and which were recited in Dutch. Concluding the Avodah service we find a text in Dutch in which is explained that nowadays, we have other forms of serving God. Prayer has become the substitute for sacrifice, but the spiritual inheritance from this time stays relevant. What follows is the prayer by the high priest asking for prosperity the coming year to which a few lines are added, proclaiming the wish for the realization of the messianic vision from Yeshayahu 56:7 in which all people would be united as one in serving God. This specific verse is repeated in Hebrew.

The first thing that stands out is the very much abbreviated form this service has; it makes up only 3,5 pages of the Mahzor. Most of the texts are in Dutch, and except for the confession itself, all Hebrew is translated. The introduction reads as a kind of apologetic text, stressing that the practices should be seen in its historical context. It is clear that the editors saw this part of the service as a historic recollection of what once was. The relevance lies in the preservation of the spiritual message from that time. In order to do so, the editors did not seem it necessary to present the worshippers with a detailed account of the animal sacrifices. Next to that, the role of the priests as an elevated caste is nowhere to be found. The addition of quote from Yeshayahu is particularly interesting. Apparently, a need was felt to pray for a time to come in which there would be no difference between Jew and gentile, after having recited a prayer asking for the prosperity of the Jewish people. It seems as if the particularistic message of the high priests’ prayer which talks of the people of Israel only had to be balanced with a universalistic message.

1934 and 1939 The 1934 edition, which supplements the 1933 edition, does not include texts for the Avodah service, which leads us to believe that no changes were made to the service of the 1933 edition. The 1939 edition, which covers the morning service only, neither includes one. This could mean or that there was no Avodah service anymore (in The Hague), or that the

51 service had been placed at a different moment during Yom Kippur, for example in the afternoon service. Since the 1939 edition only covers the morning service, the 1933 edition and its additions from 1934 were probably still in use to cover the other services. Thus, going back and forth between different publications seems logical in this context, which could mean that the Avodah service from 1933 was still in use.

1964 the Avodah service in the 1964 edition resembles the one from the 1933 edition. In this edition too, the service starts with an introduction leading up to the priestly confessions. Some sentences are exactly the same as in the 1933 edition, but the text also shows some differences. Firstly, the high priests’ preparations are explained in more detail. Secondly, the sentence “Het was naar den trant van dier verre tijden, een dag zoowel van verootmoediging, als van glans en schitterende pracht, waarvan de echo nog uit de oude geschriften tot ons doordringt, een grootse plechtigheid, die allen welke haar bijwoonden, diep aangreep” has been omitted. In the specific 1933 edition which I used fort his thesis, and which contains the ex-libris of Bob Levisson and can therefore be believed to have once been his personal Mahzor, this sentence has been crossed-out. Additionally, by adding the words “en aldus sprak hij” at the end of the text, the introduction has also been amended in such a way that it flows on to the Hebrew text that follows it.

The 1964 edition includes the complete three confessions of the high priest, in Hebrew and in Dutch translation. Between the confessions, texts in Dutch are included which connect one confession to the other, and which also gives some more insights on the rituals surrounding the confessions. The two soon to be sacrificed goats are mentioned, but the actual act of sacrificing does not appear in the text. The confessions are recited in Hebrew, and the texts in between are said in Dutch.

Following the confessions, we find as in the 1933 edition, the high priests’ prayer. However, the 1964 edition presents the text in Hebrew alongside a Dutch translation. Also, the context in which the prayer is presented is different from the 1933 edition. There it followed a statement saying that the days of the temple are long gone and that prayer has substituted

52 animal sacrifice, but that we still cherish some “spiritual treasures”196 from that time, like the high priests’ prayer. This commentary is absent from the 1964 edition. Instead the prayer is presented as a continuation of the story of the high priests’ rituals, the prayer serving as the end to the ritual.

This Avodah service reads as a story. The Hebrew and Dutch texts which alternate each other are written in such a way that the one text flows over almost naturally to the next text. It really presents the text as a historical recollection, in which that what was said by the priest during the temple worship is repeated in the language which was used by the priest, Hebrew, and the rest in Dutch, so that the worshipper can truly imagine what the temple ritual looked like in ancient times.

Current practice Most communities add something to the Seder Avodah as we find it in the 1964 Mahzor. Four out of eight communities provide a handout, based on a compilation by rabbi David Lilienthal, with an amended text.197 The community in Dieren adds a Dutch introduction to the Avodah service of the Mahzor, and in Den Haag an introduction to the service is given by the community’s rabbi.198 The remaining three communities199 use the text as provided in the Mahzor. Of these, the community in the Northern Netherlands used other texts in the past, but its rabbi finds the text problematic so she returned to the text of the Mahzor. The four communities that have a handout for the Avodah service use many of the same texts.200 Rotterdam and Brabant use the exact same Hebrew text as is found in the 1964 Mahzor. In Amsterdam, the third paragraph from the text in the Mahzor which starts with the words ve-af hu hayah mitkaven is not recited. The reason is unknown, but we have a few possibilities. The first one is that, when the booklet was compiled by rabbi David Lilienthal, this passage was simply forgotten. Another reason could be the lack of a good melody.

196 The Dutch tekst reads: “geestelijke schat” 197 Amsterdam, Brabant, Rotterdam and Utrecht 198 Or at least, such was the case in 2015 199 Twente, Den Haag and Northern Netherlands 200 Brabant based their handout on the ones from Amsterdam and Rotterdam. The handout of Rotterdam has supposedly been based on the one from Amsterdam. Utrecht has not supplied us with a copy of their service.

53 Though there is a melody to which this text can be sung, it is not well-known in Amsterdam.201 A third reason can be found in the content of the text. It underscores the special role of the priest as an intermediary between man and God. To accord such a role to an individual does not stroke with classical reform thought.

All booklets use the same Dutch texts preceding, following and between the Hebrew fragments, one exception being the community in Rotterdam, to which we will turn shortly. Though not traditional texts, they can be seen as texts in which the traditional themes of the Avodah service are pointed out. It starts with an introduction which is a recollection of biblical history, from the creation of the world, to Adam and Eva, to Noah and the patriarchs, Isaacs sons, the Levites and Moses. It tries to connect the present to the biblical history, by stating that the covenant that God made with Avraham was not with Avraham alone, but with all of the Jewish people, including the worshippers today. The introduction continues, in a similar way as the introduction in the 1964 Mahzor does, to explain the relevance of the Seder Avodah to Jewish worship nowadays. This reason is virtually the same as in the 1964 explanation; we have a Avodah service because temple worship was the way in which our ancestors celebrated Yom Kippur. As the introduction in the booklet reads, we are to grasp the spirit of our ancestors during those days. On Yom Kippur, we re-evaluate our actions and seek our own shortcomings and misdeeds. The Seder Avodah serves as a commemoration for the way our ancestors did just that in ancient days. The introduction continues to present us with the ‘beginning of the story’, with a text based on the traditional Shivat Yamim, by describing the seven days of preparation of the Kohen Gadol before the commencement of Yom Kippur.

In Rotterdam, the first few paragraphs of the introduction are replaced with an adaptation on Atah Barata, which was written by its rabbi Albert Ringer. This adaptation serves as a way to connect todays worshipper to biblical history, as does the introduction the other communities use. It describes the creation of the world and of Adam. It then proceeds with one of its offspring, the patriarch Avraham, and mentions the covenant between God and

201 This has been said in a private conversation between the author and rabbi mr. Menno ten Brink

54 Avraham, then proceeding to connect Avraham and the covenant to the worshipper of today. The text serves as a replacement for the first paragraphs of the introduction that is used by the other communities.

What is absent from the adaptation is any reference to the priests, who take a primary role in the original piyyut. In the original, the role of the high priest as an intermediate between God and the Jewish people is highlighted.202 The Seder Avodah from the booklets is written in the same style as the one from the Mahzor. It reads like a story, the Dutch texts in between connecting the Hebrew excerpts from Mishnah Yoma to each other. But in the booklets, these texts in between are more elaborate and give more information than the ones in the Mahzor. In the booklets, we find a detailed description of the specific acts the Kohen Gadol was to perform on that day. No efforts are made to conceal the sacrificial acts. In fact, they are described in much detail.

The service concludes with the high priests’ prayer, followed by a text similar to the concluding text we find in the pre-war liturgies, in which is explained that the days of the temple are by now far gone, and that prayer has come to take the place of temple worship, thus making a connection to the rest of Yom Kippur.

The only community to really deal directly with the issues surrounding the Seder Avodah is Den Haag. The objections to the idea of animal sacrifice and to the reinstitution of the temple are raised in the introduction to the service. Do we really want a new temple? Isn’t animal sacrifice barbaric? The answer provided here is that though we don’t want these practices and institutions to be reinstated, we do want to recover the ideas that accompanied the practices in those times. Of course, we don’t want the reinstitution of the temple, but we do want to regain the idea of God’s presence in our midst, of which the temple was a symbol. And we do want to try and get closer to God, of which sacrifice was a symbol in ancient times.203 According to rabbi van Praag apparently, the Seder Avodah is not

202 Fine, Steven, Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue (London, Routledge : 2010) p. 95. 203 introduction to seder avodah by rabbi Marianne van Praag

55 just a commemoration to the actual practices, but much more a commemoration of the ideas and symbols behind those practices which can be applied to our lives today.

Overall conclusions Taken all together, the booklets show a renewed interest in a more traditional way of doing the Seder Avodah. Traditional introductory themes are presented in the Dutch texts, and the main part of the temple worship, the animal sacrifice and other rituals surrounding it, are explained in detail. Tradition has in a way taken the upper hand, at the loss of classical reform ideology. But this ideology didn’t disappear of course. Striking, and exemplary for this attitude towards the return to tradition, is the example of the adaptation of Atah Barata by Albert Ringer, in which a return to tradition can be seen in the fact that he chose to have a traditional piyyut inspire the opening words of the Avodah service, but at the same time to leave out one of the main elements of this piyyut, the special role of the high priest as an intermediary between man and God because of its incompatibility with reform thought.

If we are to compare the Dutch Sidre Avodah we have seen to the current practice in the United States, we can conclude that the Dutch practice has the most common ground with the conservative mahzor le-rosh ha-shanah ve-yom kipur edited by Jules Harlow and first published in 1972.204 Harlow’s Seder Avodah is considered to be one of the more traditional ones which are being used by progressive communities in the United States.205 Both start their service with the traditional review of biblical history, mention the special role accorded to the Levites. They both have a text in the vernacular which resembles Shivat Yamim preceding the texts from Mishnah Yoma.206 Most resembling is the way in which the Avodah service is framed, namely as a recollection of the past, to remember what once was,207 as opposed to the practice in the widely used Mahzor in the united states’ reform communities, gates of repentance by rabbi Stern, in which the liturgy of the Seder Avodah is framed as a contemporary worship text, elevating todays worshippers to the level of the

204 Silverman, Rhoda J.H., The Accommodation of the Yom Kippur Seder Avodah: a Review of its Development Into the Modern World [Phd dissertation] (Towson, Towson University : 2012) p. 135. 205 Ibid. p. 138. 206 Ibid. p. 139-140. 207 Ibid. p. 140

56 high priest. This way of framing is also used in the British gates of repentance by the rabbis Rayner and Stern, published 5 years before the American one. 208

It is interesting to see that although this chapter shows a great number of newly composed texts, we can recognize a trend to base these texts on more traditional precedents. This is the case with a part of the introduction, based on Shivat Yamim, and in the introduction of rabbi Albert Ringer based on Atah Barata.

208 Ibid. p. 144.

57 Yizkor

Introduction The Yizkor service on Yom Kippur is particularly interesting for three reasons. Firstly, because the origins of remembering the dead and the liturgy which accompanied this memorization are a good example of how Jewish liturgy tends to change in response to important (in this case traumatic) events. Secondly, since it is a custom which in a way was created by the reform movement. The first payer book to contain such a separate service, which was called totenfeier, was the Hamburg Temple Prayer book of 1819.209 The tradition on which this newly arranged service was based however did already exist for centuries. And thirdly, because classical reform thought rejects the concept of resurrection of the death, which is obviously something which has to be dealt with in a Yizkor service.

The remembering of the dead (Yizkor) on certain occasions within Ashkenazi Jewry is said to have originated in the Rhineland at the time of the crusades.210 The massacres of the 11th century crusades and the prosecution of Jews who would have caused the black death had such an immense impact on the Jews that they developed rituals to commemorate them. So-called memorbücher were compiled, containing the names of those that were killed for kiddush ha-Shem. These books started with the word yizkor Elohim, meaning: may God remember. It was these introductory words from the memorbücher from which the yizkor prayer was derived.211 Since the 11th century Rhineland massacres took place somewhere around Shavuot, the Shabbat before Shavuot became the day to commemorate these martyrs. The martyrs of the black death prosecution were to be commemorated on the Sabbath preceding Tisha be’av.212 On these shabatot, the names from the memorbuch would be read and the prayer av harachamim would be recited.213 This prayer, as can be

209 Ordnung der öffentlichen Andacht für die Sabbath und Festtage des Ganzen Jahres (Hamburg, Frankel : 1819) 210 Freehoff, Solomon B., Hazkarat N’shamot in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 77. 211 Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 11-12. 212 Freehoff, Solomon B., Hazkarat N’shamot in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 78. 213 Ibid. p. 82.

58 seen from its text, was clearly written for this occasion. 214 It mentions the martyrs and talks about God’s vengeance on those who kill Jews.215 There were however lists of names in which not only the martyrs, but also important contributors to the community were mentioned, which in turn led to the desire of people to have their own deceased commemorated as well. This did not take place on the two earlier mentioned shabatot, but on Yom Kippur.216 During this Hazkarat Neshamot on Yom Kippur, a certain amount of charity was to be pledged to the community in name of the deceased. The traditional text of the Yizkor prayer also contains a sentence which states that the worshipper will do so.217 These memorial donations were initially only given on Yom Kippur, but the custom soon spread to the three pilgrimage festivals as well. In Ashkenazi orthodoxy, having a Hazkarat Neshamot on these festivals is still the custom.

The custom of Hazkarat Neshamot spread eastwards, where we supposedly find the origins of the El Male Rahamim prayer. We first find this prayer in a 17th century writing Yeven Metzulah by Nathan of Hanover. It is associated with the Chmielnicki massacres of the 17th century in Ukraine. A certain chazzan would have chanted the El Male Rahamim over the massacred Jews, causing his fellow Jews to weep and thereby arousing compassion with the attackers. Though it could be true that the prayer existed before these events, we nowadays associate the prayer with these events specifically.218 In any case, it was here that the El Male Rahamim was added to the liturgy.

214 Ibid. p. 78. 215 Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 137. 216 Freehoff, Solomon B., Hazkarat N’shamot in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 83-84. 217 The idea behind the custom stems from a midrash in which we learn that the dead are also in need of atonement. By giving charity on their behalf, Jews are able to atone for the sins of their beloved ones, which also justifies the remembering of the dead on this specific day. In later years, this reason was downgraded and another explanation came forward, namely that remembering the dead brings up emotions which makes it easier for the worshipper to open up and receive repentance. However, the whole concept of these memorials has its origin in giving charity on behalf of the deceased. See: Ron, Zvi, walking out of Yizkor in: zutot no. 14 (Heidelberg, Springer : 2016) p. 2-3. 218 Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 13.

59 So, it was the three prayers Yizkor, Av Harahamim and El Male Rahamim which constituted the traditional Yizkor service. Everything else you find in contemporary prayer books are later additions inspired by the reform movement.219 As mentioned earlier, it was the Hamburg Temple prayer book that did so for the first time, and which also removed it from Shaharit and gave it the status of a separate service. Dr Annette Boeckler sees a connection between this totenfeier, and the in 1816 by Frederick William III of Prussia instituted totensonntag in German protestant churches, in which those who were killed during the liberation wars were to be commemorated. In the new Hamburg Temple prayer book, Bar Mitzvah was replaced by confirmation, imitating the protestant customs, and the totenfeier was probably modelled after the totensonntag.220 The Hamburg Temple memorial service started with a hymn in the vernacular (German) followed by a text in which the immortality of the soul is highlighted, after which several scriptural passages were to be read in Hebrew. Subsequently we find a German adaptation of the Yizkor prayer, and an abbreviated form of the Sephardi hashkavah221. Thereafter the kaddish, including an introduction, would be recited and the service concluded with a German hymn.222 Many subsequent prayer books in which an adapted reform service is found, among which we also find orthodox prayer books,223 follow this same pattern of the Hamburg Temple prayer book of 1819. 224 The Yizkor service of the Hamburg prayer book has no reference to the traditional Jewish theological concept of the resurrection of the dead, which is no big surprise, since the rejection of that specific doctrine was one of classical reform Judaism’s spearheads.225 While

219 Petuchowski, Jakob J., Kaddish and Memorial Services in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 99. 220 Boeckler, Annette M., “Service for the Souls” in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 115. 221 see: Bitton, Yoram, Hashkavah: Memorializing the Dead in Sephardi Tradition in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) 222 Petuchowski, Jakob J., Kaddish and Memorial Services in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 100-101. 223 Boeckler in hoffman 118 224 Petuchowski, Jakob J., Kaddish and Memorial Services in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 102. 225 Though the rejection of this doctrine was far more outspoken in America than in was in Germany. See Petuchowski, Jakob J., Immortality – Yes; Resurrection – No! nineteenth- century Judaism struggles with traditional belief. in: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (New York, American Academy for Jewish Research : 1983)

60 many believe the incompatibility of the doctrine with modern science to be the main reason for the reformers to reject it, Dr Jakob Petuchowski has shown in an article that the rejection of this doctrine is connected to the rejection for a return to Zion. The idea of bodily resurrection is inextricably bound up with the messianic age in which the kingdom of David is believed to be restored in the Land of Israel. The rejection of a return to Zion therefore made the rejection of bodily resurrection necessary. Though the immortality of the soul, just like bodily resurrection, can’t be proven by reason, it has no connection to a nationalistic form of Judaism and was therefore maintained.226 This might prove interesting for our case. In Holland, references to a return to Zion were in moist cases left intact.227 Would that also mean that bodily resurrection is less of a problem for them?

In a recent article on the liturgy of the victims of 1096, Dr. Abraham Gross states that “the medieval ritual is no different from the Hazkarat Neshamot, still practiced today, 900 years after 1096.“228 Gross argues that the liturgy written in commemoration of the 1096 events were a means to express the emotions of personal loss as opposed to a means to request divine forgiveness from God. The language that was available to them, and customary in their time, was however religious.229 In that sense, the ritual is no different from the one we have today, which is also believed to give expression to the emotions that go alongside personal loss. We shall continue this chapter with analysing what language it is that has been used for this purpose within the framework of the Yizkor service in the Dutch reform liturgy. What does the language that is used say the communities and its worshippers?

226 Petuchowski, Jakob J., Immortality – Yes; Resurrection – No! nineteenth-century Judaism struggles with traditional belief. in: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (New York, American Academy for Jewish Research : 1983) p. 133-147. 227 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. 12. 228 Gross, Abraham Liturgy as Personal Memorial for the Victims in 1096 in: Reif, Stefan C. et al, Death in Jewish Life (Berlin, de Gruyter : 2014) p. 169 229 G ross, Abraham Liturgy as Personal Memorial for the Victims in 1096 in: Reif, Stefan C. et al, Death in Jewish Life (Berlin, de Gruyter : 2014) p.155-169

61 Dutch liturgy 1932 The 1932 Mahzor has a short Yizkor service called “herdenking” right before the Neilah, which consists of four parts.230 First we find a prayer in Dutch which serves as an introduction. It mentions remembering bots our loved ones as remembering the martyrs who died for Kiddush ha-shem. Interestingly, it also mentions Jews living in danger, possibly referring to the rise of antisemitism in Europe of the 1930’s. The text also mentions the immortality of the soul. After the recitation of this text follows a moment of silent prayer. Probably, this was the moment in which the worshippers could say a personal prayer for their deceased loved ones. Then follows the recitation of Yigdal, which is a liturgical hymn based on the Rambam’s thirteen principles of faith. It seems somewhat out of place here, since it is customary to recite Yigdal at the end of the evening service or at starting the morning service.231 The last line of Yigdal reads: metim yehaye el be-rov hasdo, referring to the idea of bodily resurrection. Some prayer books, like the American Union Prayer Book of 1918, replace this sentence. In our Mahzor only the translation is changed to mean the immortality of the soul and not bodily resurrection, as others like the German rabbi Baer Seligman did before in his 19th century Seder Avodat Yisrael.232 The service is concluded with the recitation of the mourners Kaddish. This version of the mourners Kaddish however, contains a passage that is not traditional. It is the passage al Yisrael ve-al tzadikaya … mare shemaya ve-imru amen. This passage first appeared in the Hamburg prayer book of 1819, which made more emendations233 to the Kaddish, making it more of a prayer for the dead than a mere doxology.234 Our Mahzor does not copy these other emendations, but instead chooses to copy only that part which tends to universalize

230 Norden, J. et al., Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1932) p. 43- 48. 231 Berenbaum, Michael and Skolnik, Fred (Ed.) Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed. (Detroit, Macmillan Reference USA : 2007) 21:373-374. 232 Philipson, David, The Reform Prayer Book (Conclusion) in: Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Cincinnati, Ark : 1919) p. 219. 233 These emendations consist of an introduction speaking of the world to come taken partly from the Sephardic hashkavah, and the use of the first line of the burial kaddish in which bodily resurrection is mentioned. 234 Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) p. 325

62 the prayer, asking for ever-lasting peace not only for Jews but for all departed. As is the case in the Hamburg prayer book, this adapted Kaddish is reserved for the Yizkor service only. At other moments, the text of the traditional Kaddish is used.235 This difference between the mourners Kaddish and other forms of Kaddish during the service was in most cases preserved in German reform prayer books, in the United States this difference was lost in many cases by inserting the al yisrael ve-al tzadikaya during the other moments in which Kaddish is said as well.236 It is interesting to note that Jacob Petuchowski, in his renowned research on prayer book reform in Europe, states that other European countries did not adopt the insert which was first initiated by the Hamburg temple prayer book.237 But then of course, our example does. Possibly, Petuchowski didn’t notice the alteration in this Mahzor because it doesn’t adopt the passage from the burial Kaddish, thus at first sight making it look as if it was not altered.

1933 The 1933 edition includes a Yizkor service called “maskir neshamoth (Plechtige gedachtenisdienst voor overledenen en martelaren)”238, again just before the start of Neilah. It starts with enosh ke-hatzir yamav, an excerpt from psalm 103, to be sung in Hebrew. Afterwards, some excerpts from psalms are read in Dutch after which follows a prayer in Dutch, identical to the one we found in the 1932 version. Then, music is played on an organ during which people are given the possibility to remember their loved ones. The worshippers are not given the Yizkor prayer, but are instead presented with a prayer in Dutch. The music is followed by the recitation of Shiviti. Then follows the Kaddish, the same version as we found in the 1932 Mahzor, but with an introduction in which both the doxological element of the prayer as the idea of the immortality of the soul are highlighted.

235 Norden, J. et al., Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1932) p. 16. 236 Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) p. 327. 237 Ibid. p. 327. 238 Hirschberg, H. et. al, Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1933) p. 75-80

63 1934 The 1934 additions give us two changes. Firstly, a sermon is added to the service. And secondly, the service is moved to be held right after the recitation of the prayer for the welfare of the state, thus placing it in the middle of the day, right after the reading of the Torah.239

1939 the 1939 edition does not provide Yizkor service.240

1964 In the 1964 edition the Yizkor service241 (herdenking der gestorvenen) starts, like the 1933 edition, with the recitation of enosh ke-hatzir yamav. Afterwards follows the recitation of adonay mah adam, an excerpt from psalm 144 in Hebrew, followed by some other scriptural verses, who together with the excerpt from psalm 144 have come to be a standard part of the reform Yizkor liturgy.242 The service continues with the possibility to remember ones loved ones and provides a Yizkor text for remembering one’s father or mother. A Yizkor for one’s spouse is only given in translation. After the personal prayers follows the recitation of El Male Rahamim, after which the Shiviti is recited. Then follows the mourners Kaddish, not the one we have seen up to now, but a version without the Hamburg temple’s addition. All texts are accompanied by a Dutch translation. There are a few things that stand out in this Yizkor service. First of all is the absence of any references to the concept op martyrdom. Before the war, the reference to martyrdom was made in the Dutch prayer, which is absent in the 1964 edition. Of course, it may be very well possible that such a prayer was said, but that it changed every year and was therefore not

239 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. 23. 240 Andorn, A. et al, Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (ochtenddienst) (Den Haag, Kerkgenootschap Liberaal Joodsche Gemeente ‘S- Gravenhage : 1939) 241 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. 349-357 242 Gaster Theodor H, Yizkor the Living and the Dead: The Community as Woven by Memory in: Commentary (London/Portland, Vallentine Mitchell : 1953) p. 242-243.

64 included in the printed Mahzor. It seems even more odd not to have any reference to martyrs in the light of the developments that took place in the decades before 1964, which brings us to the other two things that stand out in this Yizkor service. For in this Yizkor service, we find no references to either the Shoah of the state of Israel. The emergence of an independent Jewish state, and the horrors of the Shoah had an immense impact on Jewish life and thinking. One would expect these events to be incorporated in the liturgy, as has been the case with major events in history, like the crusades from which the liturgy of yizkor evolved. The victims of the Shoah and the fallen soldiers in the newly established Jewish state might be expected to be incorporated in the liturgy as the martyrs of modern time. And even if they are not to be seen as today’s martyrs, one might at least expect to find a reference to these two events in the liturgy of the Yizkor service. One reason for the absence of the Shoah in the liturgy may have to do with its enormous scope. In all the years that the Jewish people faced persecutions, never had the tragedies been so big as the tragedy of the Shoah. Rabbi Dalia Marx sees a trend in the liturgical responses to tragic events: the bigger the tragedy, the fewer are the liturgical expressions. She believes one of the reasons for the few liturgical expressions in prayer books worldwide to have to do with the fact that the Holocaust is of such magnitude, that there are simply no words to describe it.243 Marx finds another reason in Jewish theology: the traditionalist theology of sin and punishment was for most Jews not able to account for the events of the Holocaust. Without a proper theological explanation for the events, liturgists may have found it too difficult to compose liturgical material. They simply did not have any answers, and thus had nothing to say.244 The Yizkor prayer we find in the Mahzor makes mention of a pledge to donate money.

243 Marx, Dalia, Memorializing the Shoah in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 57. 244 Ibid. p. 58-59

65 Current practice Nowadays, most communities use additional texts during the Yizkor service.245 In most cases the communities don’t use the text from the Mahzor at all, but instead provide the worshippers with a special handout in the form of a booklet for the Yizkor service. These booklets tend to follow the same pattern, and resemble the liturgy of the Mahzor. The components of the service are: 1. Enosh 2. Dutch translation of a poem by Channa Szenes 3. Adonay mah adam in Hebrew and other excerpts from the bible in Dutch 4. Dutch introduction 5. 2 minutes of silence in which personal prayers can be said silently. Some texts are provided: - Yizkor for a man - Yizkor for a woman - Yizkor for victims of the Shoah - Yizkor for the fallen soldiers in Israel 6. El male rahamim 7. Kaddish 8. Shiviti 9. In some communities: le-khol ish yesh shem246

The similarity of the booklets, not only in content but in layout as well, presuppose that one of these, probably the booklet from Amsterdam, served as a model for the other booklets. In line with the reform tradition, no mention is made of bodily resurrection in the services. I came across only one exception, the introductory prayer which has been used in the community in Twente, in which God is spoken of as the one who revives the dead.247 The Dutch introduction, which is in essence the same in the booklets, serves as a way to mention who it is we are remembering. Besides one’s loved ones and the former leaders of the

245 The only exceptions being the community in Flevoland who don’t hold services during the day and the community in the Northern Netherlands which just follows the texts in the mahzor. 246 Based on the yizkor booklets of Amsterdam, Dieren and Brabant 247 Material provided by LJG Twente

66 communities, we find the victims of the Shoah and those who helped save Jews during that time, and the soldiers who died defending the state of Israel. This introduction also serves as a means to include current events. The booklet from Dieren from 2015 mentions the war in Gaza as well as victims of terror in Europe. The booklet from Amsterdam from 2002 mentions the second intifada. In the booklets, we are presented with a different Yizkor then the one we find in the Mahzor. The biggest difference is that in this version, no pledge is made to donate money on behalf of the deceased248, as is traditionally the case in the Yizkor prayer. Most progressive liturgies leave this part out, because the idea that our actions have any influence on what happens with our loved ones after they die is not accepted.249 The switch to this form of Yizkor therefore does not come as a surprise, the fact that it was still present in the 1964 Mahzor is more astonishing. Another interesting detail is the inclusion of the matriarchs alongside the patriarchs in the conclusion of the prayer. The booklets also show texts by Israeli writers. During the Yizkor service, some of the communities use texts by the Israeli poets Hannah Szenes and Zelda, the first in the translation of a poem which starts with “er zijn sterren wier licht” and the second is the poem le-khol ish yesh shem. We will come back to this point later on.

In the texts from the booklets, martyrdom has returned to the liturgy. In the Yizkor prayer for the victims of the Shoah, the victims are called those who were killed for Kiddush ha- shem250. However not only the Jewish victims, but also those who were killed trying to protect Jewish lives are spoken of with the words Kidush Ha-shem.251 Naming gentiles as having died for Kiddush Ha-shem, thus putting them on one line with Jewish martyrs, is not a

248 the tradition of giving money on behalve of the deceased comes from the idea that the dead are also in need of atonement on Yom Kippur, and that by pledging money on behalf of the deceased, it is regarded as if this money had been given by the deceased, thus having done a mitzvah to balance their sins. See: Ron, Zvi, walking out of Yizkor in: zutot no. 14 (Heidelberg, Springer : 2016) p. 2-3. 249 Wenig, Margaret Moers For I Pledge Tz’dakah on Her Behalf in: Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 221. 250 Yizkor booklet Amsterdam p. 10: […] kol ha-neshamot shel sheshet milyone ha-yehudim […] she-nehergu […] al kidush ha-shem […] 251 Ibid: […] ve-khol ehad ve-ehad mi-tsadike omot ha-olam she-masru nafsham al kidush ha- shem lehatsil hayim yehudiyim […]

67 deviation from traditional Jewish theology. The rabbis don’t agree on the question if gentiles are obliged to sanctify Gods name252 , but the idea that gentiles, just as Jews, can earn a place in the world to come by giving their life for the Jewish cause already becomes apparent in a story which we find in the Talmud, where rabbi Hanina ben Teradion was burned alive. His executioner made his death quicker by removing wool from his heart and raising the fire, on the condition that he will have a share in the world to come. After rabbi Hanina’s affirmation he did as he promised, thus enabling rabbi Hanina’s soul to depart quicker, after which he threw himself in the fire. Then a heavenly voice proclaimed that both had earned their share in the world to come.253

Overall conclusions When we take a look at all the Yizkor services we have discussed, a few things stand out. First is the overall absence of the Av Harahamim prayer, which is one of the three traditional prayers of which the Hazkarat Neshamoth consisted. Its omission seems obvious in the light of its revengeful language254 and the reform principle of not praying for the destruction of its enemies.255

The biggest task with which the leaders of the communities after 1945 were charged was in what way to give room to the terrible events that happened during the holocaust. We saw that the 1964 Mahzor made no room for the commemoration of the Shoah, though possibly Dutch introductions were given to the Yizkor service in which they did. In the latest liturgies, we find both references to the Shoah in the Dutch introduction, as a special Yizkor for the fallen of the Shoah. It seems however, that the traditional religious expression in the form of a Yizkor, did not do just that which the worshippers were hoping for. The right expression seems to be found in the poem le-khol ish yesh shem by the Israeli poet Zelda. Though its text about memory and individuality could be applied to other cases as well, it has primarily

252 Berenbaum, Michael and Skolnik, Fred (Ed.) Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed. (Detroit, Macmillan Reference USA : 2007) 12:141. 253 TB Avodah Zarah 18a 254 the prayer reads: […] for He avenges the blood of its servants, renders vengeance to his foes, […] and it is said: He judges the nations, filling it with bodies, crushing heads across the land […]. Translation is taken from Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) p. 136-137 255 Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) p. XIII-XIV.

68 become associated with the commemoration of the Shoah and is a standard part of holocaust memorials in Israel. When bad things happen to people, the question they often ask themselves is why, why did this happen to me? In the case of the Shoah, there is no good answer, making it so difficult to create a liturgy to commemorate these horrific events. I believe that with the poem le-khol ish yesh shem, the communities have found a way to deal with their emotions without having to answer this question.

The influence of the emergence of an independent Jewish state is overly apparent, not only because a prayer for the fallen soldiers has been incorporated, but also by the fact that secular literature from Israel has been incorporated as part of the liturgy. The importance of Israel seems to go further than the idea of a Jewish nation-state, of which we commemorate the fallen soldiers. It is also a leading spiritual centre for Jews all over the world.256

Universalism is apparent throughout the liturgies we have seen, from the first Mahzor to the additional material which is in use nowadays. We find it in the version of the Kaddish which is used in the early Mahzorim, where a paragraph is added which mentions gentiles as well, and in the Yizkor for the victims of the Shoah, in which next to the Jewish victims of the Shoah, also those who gave their lives to protect Jews are presented as having died for Kiddush Ha-shem.

We also saw, as was the case in the chapter on the Viduy, that the Yizkor service is a part of the liturgy in which innovation can still be seen. Old traditional prayers are adapted to fit our modern views, like the Yizkor prayer in which no pledge is made for a donation. Next to that, the recent tragedies of the Jewish people have been incorporated in the traditional language of commemoration, as we saw with the special Yizkor prayers for both the Shoah and the fallen soldiers in Israel. On top of that we find the use of secular literature as liturgy, thus adding new texts which can be perceived as prayers to the existing liturgy.

256 An idea that has been coined cultural Zionism and which was popularized by the Zionist thinker Ahad Ha’am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg). See: Shimoni, Gideon, Zionist Ideology (Hanover, Brandeis University Press : 1995)

69

70

Conclusion

We will now turn to the conclusions of this thesis. The conclusions which apply to one of the four points in service only can be found at the end of every chapter, and need not be repeated here. Our interest lies with the patterns and trends that can be detected for the Dutch reform movement as a whole.

We started this thesis with saying that the idea that reform communities alter their liturgy to fit their worldview serves as the basic assumption on which this thesis is built. While writing this thesis, I started to doubt this idea more and more. Firstly, we came across the idea of Leon Morris, who said that the era in which liturgical reform is the main way for reformers to deal with their liturgy is gone. Reformers have found a new way to deal with the texts, which encompasses text study with appropriate commentaries. However, in the case of Dutch reform, I doubt if ideological motives were ever the main criterion for altering the liturgy. Much more, it seems to have been the result of emotion. Was the specific text for Kol Nidre chosen because of its content or because Lewandowski wrote such a beautiful composition for it? In the introduction, we already saw that Soetendorp drew heavily on his own emotions when compiling the liturgy. On top of that comes the fact that to alter the liturgy, one has to be very confident about the choice one makes. You need a specialist, who knows about the liturgy of Yom Kippur, its backgrounds, trends of other communities, alternative options and so on. I personally wonder if even all the rabbis have this knowledge, let alone the communities that don’t have their own rabbi. For many communities, ‘just’ having the service like they have always done is already an immense project, let alone to alter the liturgy based on ideological choices. I can imagine that the people who are in charge of the service are primarily occupied with the concern of making sure there is a service on Yom Kippur without any mistakes. They might add something now and then, based on what they maybe heard or saw elsewhere. But to really come to a liturgy which represents the communities’ worldview and which takes into account the historical developments of the liturgy, one needs a lot of time and knowledge. No wonder that it took so many years before the Union decided to compile a new Mahzor.

71

In line with the findings from earlier research, we saw that the liturgy developed itself from a more radical, to a more traditional one over the years. This move is already apparent before the war, when additions to lengthen the service where added, which also made the services more traditional. Here, being more traditional does not mean the end of liturgical creativity. Instead we saw that in many cases new liturgical creations are added to the services, both alterations to already existing prayers and completely new texts. However, we also saw that in one case, namely the case of Kol Nidre, the choice has been made to return to the traditional text at the cost of the innovative reform alternatives that have been created in the past. We also saw that this is part of an international trend within the movement for progressive Judaism. There seems to be a logical explanation for this difference in approach. The confession of sins is a custom which is believed to still be relevant for the modern worshipper today. Maybe not as a means to atone for one’s sins, to seek justification before God, but as a means to improve one’s character. The old custom can be made relevant by changing the prayers so that they speak to the modern mind. The annulment of vows however, seems to have nothing to give the modern-day worshipper. It is not that people don’t make vows anymore, but it seems difficult to find some relevancy in the idea of the annulment of vows in modern times. The way to deal with the prayer is therefore a different one than the way to deal with the Viduy. Instead of adapting the prayer, we return to the old text. Not because of its content, but out of nostalgic feelings, or for the sake of history, to keep the old Jewish practice of saying Kol Nidre on the night of Yom Kippur. We also came across this way of dealing with the liturgy as a part of history when we discussed the Avodah service. Again, this is a part of our history that we feel connected with, but that does not give us something we can work with in the 21st century. So, the liturgy is not really adapted, and included for the sake of history. The Yizkor service on the other hand, does have something to give to the modern worshipper. It provides a platform to process the experiences of loss, a way to deal with the emotions surrounding death. So, the prayers are adapted and supplemented by other texts, so that the worshipper can do just that. Of course, the division I just described between certain categories of prayer, based on its potential relevancy for the modern-day worshipper may hold for these four points of the Yom Kippur service, but may not if we take a wider look at the liturgy. This would be an interesting point for further

72 research, how for example do we interpret the return of the Musaf service within the Dutch reform communities?

But what does this say about the Dutch reform movement? One of the main ideas behind reform Judaism was that people had to understand what they were saying. To accomplish this, the use of the vernacular language in the service was promoted. Even though the use of the vernacular, in this case Dutch, has become less apparent in the liturgies the closer we get to the present, I still believe this to be of major importance to the modern-day reformers. A change can be seen in that the modern-day worshipper is to be a part of the process of understanding. The liturgists are not telling people what to take from the tradition by presenting them with their interpretative translation. Instead they are invited to discover the texts themselves, and are guided by the accompanying commentaries, or additions to the already existing prayers. The idea behind what it means to be a reform movement, namely to understand what one is saying, seems not to have changed, but the tools on how to get to such an understanding have been replaced by new ones.

73 Appendix A – Questionnaire

Vraag 1 Wordt in uw gemeente de Machzor van de LJG (Seder Tov Lehodot, 1e druk 1964) gebruikt tijdens de Jom Kipoerdienst? (Indien antwoord ja, doorgaan naar vraag 3)

Vraag 2 Zo niet, welke machzor wordt er in uw gemeente gebruikt?

Kol Nidre Vraag 3 Gebruikt u voor het Kol Nidre-gebed andere teksten ter vervanging van, of aanvullend op de teksten zoals gegeven in de LJG Machzor? (p. 163-164)

Vraag 4 Zo ja, welke teksten gebruikt u?

Vraag 5 Wie heeft de keuze gemaakt om deze teksten te gebruiken?

Vraag 6 Bent u bereid deze teksten aan mij te doen toekomen? (gelieve een naam en mailadres achter te laten)

Widoej Vraag 7 Gebruikt u voor de widoej (zondenbelijdenis, Al Het en asjamnoe) andere teksten ter vervanging van, of aanvullend op de teksten zoals gegeven in de LJG Machzor? (p. 180-185 en 198-202)

Vraag 8 Zo ja, welke teksten gebruikt u?

Vraag 9 Wie heeft de keuze gemaakt om deze teksten te gebruiken?

Vraag 10 Bent u bereid deze teksten aan mij te doen toekomen? (Gelieve een naam en mailadres achter te laten)

Seder Avodah Vraag 11 Gebruikt u voor de Seder Avodah (tempeldienst) andere teksten ter vervanging van, of aanvullend op de teksten zoals gegeven in de LJG Machzor? (p. 404-410)

74 Vraag 12 Zo ja, welke teksten gebruikt u?

Vraag 13 Wie heeft de keuze gemaakt om deze teksten te gebruiken?

Vraag 14 Bent u bereid deze teksten aan mij te doen toekomen? (Gelieve een naam en mailadres achter te laten)

Hazkarat Nesjamot Vraag 15 Gebruikt u voor de Hazkarat Nesjamot (Yizkordienst/Herdenking der Gestorvenen) andere teksten ter vervanging van, of aanvullend op de teksten zoals gegeven in de LJG Machzor? (349-357)

Vraag 16 Zo ja, welke teksten gebruikt u?

Vraag 17 Wie heeft de keuze gemaakt om deze teksten te gebruiken?

Vraag 18 Bent u bereid deze teksten aan mij te doen toekomen? (Gelieve een naam en mailadres achter te laten)

Vraag 19 Bent u in uw gemeente van plan in de toekomst de nieuwe Machzor van de LJG te gaan gebruiken die nu wordt ontwikkeld?

75 Literature

• Anderson, Gary A., Sin a History (New Haven/London, Yale University Press : 2009) • Beickner Barnett M., Champions Kol Nidre Tekst in: Jewish Daily Bulletin october 16th 1927 (New Yoork, Jewish Daily Bulletin, 1927) • Benovitz, Moshe, Kol Nidre: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Institutions (Atlanta, Scholars : 1998) • Berenbaum, Michael and Skolnik, Fred (Ed.) Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed. (Detroit, Macmillan Reference USA : 2007) • Bloch, Abraham P., The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies (New York, Ktav : 1980) • Brasz, Chaya, Dutch progressive Jews and their unexpected key role in Europe in: European Judaism 49.1 (New York, Berghahn Books : 2016) • Brasz, Chaya, In de Tenten van Jaäkov: Impressies van 75 jaar Progressief Jodendom in Nederland 1931-2006 (Amsterdam, Sja’ar : 2006) • Davidson, Israel, Kol Nidre in: The American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 25 (Philadelphia, JPS : 1924) • Elbogen, Ismar, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia, JPS : 1993) • Elbogen, Ismar, Studies in the Jewish Liturgy in: Jewish Quarterly Review vol. 18, no. 4 (Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania University Press : 1906) • Gertel, Eliot B., Because of our Sins in: Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Vol. 15, No. 4 (New York, Rabbinical Council of America : 1976) • Ginzberg, Louis, Saadia’s Siddur (Philadelphia : 1942) • Gross, Abraham Liturgy as Personal Memorial for the Victims in 1096 in: Reif, Stefan C. et al, Death in Jewish Life (Berlin, de Gruyter : 2014) • Fine, Steven, Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue (London, Routledge : 2010) • Frishman, Judith, Gij, Vromen, Zijt Nederlanders! in: Studia Rosenthaliana 30 no. 1 (Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press : 1996) • 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) • Gaster Theodor H, Yizkor the Living and the Dead: The Community as Woven by Memory in: Commentary (London/Portland, Vallentine Mitchell : 1953) • Hoffman, Lawrence A., All These Vows (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2011) • Hoffman, Lawrence A., May God Remember (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) • 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) • Hoffman, Lawrence A., Tahanun and Concluding Prayers (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2002) • Hoffman, Lawrence A., We Have Sinned (Woodstock, Jewish Lights Publishing : 2013) • Idelsohn, A.Z., Jewish Liturgy and its Development (New York, Dover : 1995) • Idelsohn, The Kol Nidre tune in: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 8/9 (Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College : 1931)

76 • Jacobs, Louis, A Jewish Theology (New York, Behrman House : 1973) • Jager, Karen de, 1954-1972: Jacob Soetendorp en de Liberaal Joodse Gemeente Amsterdam [unpublished] (Rotterdam, Erasmus Universiteit : 1991) • 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) • Kieval, Herman, The Curious Case of Yom Kippur in: Commentary (London/Portland, Vallentine Mitchell : 1968) • Librach, Clifford, A Revolution for Reform Judaism? In: Commentary (London/Portland, Vallentine Mitchell : 2015) • Meyer, Michael A., A Response to Modernity (Detroit, Wayne State University Press: 1995) • 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) • Michman, Dan, Het Liberale Jodendom in Nederland (1929-1943) (Amsterdam, van Gennep : 1988) • 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) • Petuchowski, Jakob J., Immortality – Yes; Resurrection – No! nineteenth-century Judaism struggles with traditional belief. in: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research (New York, American Academy for Jewish Research : 1983) • Petuchowksi, Jakob J., Prayerbook Reform in Europe (New York, WUPJ : 1968) • Philipson, David, The Reform Prayer Book (Conclusion) in: Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Cincinnati, Ark : 1919) • Philipson, David, The Rabbinical Conferences 1844-6 in: The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 17, No. 4 (New York, Ktav : 1905) • Posner, Raphael et al, Jewish liturgy : prayer and synagogue service through the ages (Jerusalem, Keter : 1975) • Praag, Marianne van, Between Renewal and Tradition Liberal Jewish Liturgy in the Netherlands [unpublished] (Amsterdam, Levisson Instituut : 2008) • Prosic, Tamara Kol Nidre Speaking of the Unspoken (of) in: The Bible and Critical Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 (Melbourne, Monash University : 2007) • Ron, Zvi, walking out of Yizkor in: zutot no. 14 (Heidelberg, Springer : 2016) • Sarason Richard S., The Persistence and Trajectories of Penitential Prayer in Rabbinic Judaism in: Boda, Mark J., Seeking the Favor of God Vol. 3 (Leiden, Brill : 2009) • Shimoni, Gideon, Zionist Ideology (Hanover, Brandeis University Press : 1995) • Silverman, Rhoda J.H., The Accommodation of the Yom Kippur Seder Avodah: a Review of its Development Into the Modern World [Phd dissertation] (Towson, Towson University : 2012) • Stokl ben Ezra, Daniel, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck : 2003) • Schwartz, Michael D., Ritual about Myth about Ritual: Towards an Understanding of the Avodah in the Rabbinic Period in: The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy (Leiden, Brill : 1997)

77 • Wallet, Bart, Nieuwe Nederlanders: de integratie van joden in Nederland (1814-1851) (Amsterdam, Uitgeverij Bert Bakker (Promotheus) : 2007) • Weinberg Gershon, Stuart Kol Nidrei : Its Origin, development, and significance (Northvale, J. Aronson : 1994) • Yahalom, Joseph and Schwartz, Michael D., Avodah: An Anthology of Ancient Poetry for Yom Kippur (Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University Press : 2005)

Mahzorim

• Mahazor … tefilot yamim nora’im ke-minhag polin raysen lita … (Wien, anton schmid : 1800) • Mahzor le-rosh ha-shana ule-yom ha-kipurim (Anton Schmid : Wien, 1816) • Polak, G.I., Gebeden der Nederlandsche Israeliten voor den Avond van den Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Proops en Joachimsthal : 1849) • Seligman, Caesar et al., Gebetbuch für das Ganze Jahr Zweiter Theil [Einheitsgebetbuch] (Frankfurt a.M., Lehrberger : 1929) • Stern, Chaim, Gates of Repentance : The New Union Prayerbook for the Days of Awe (New York : 1978) • Rayner, John D. and Stern, Chaim, Gate of Repentance : Service for the High Holidays (London : 1973) • Liberal Jewish Prayer book Vol. II : services for the Day of Memorial and the Day of Atonement (London : 1923) • The Union Prayer Book for Jewish Worship Part II (New York : 1956) • Ordnung der öffentlichen Andacht für die Sabbath und Festtage des Ganzen Jahres (Hamburg, Frankel : 1819) • Geiger, Abraham, Israelitisches Gebetbuch für den öffentlichen Gottesdienst im ganzen Jahre (Breslau, Hainauer : 1854) • 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) • Hirschberg, H. et. al, Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1933) • Norden, J. et al., Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (Amsterdam, Verbond voor Liberaal-Religieuse Joden in Nederland : 1932) • 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) • Andorn, A. et al, Gebeden en Gezangen voor de Godsdienstoefeningen op den Grooten Verzoendag (ochtenddienst) (Den Haag, Kerkgenootschap Liberaal Joodsche Gemeente ‘S-Gravenhage : 1939)

78