Kol Nidre: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Institutions (review)

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW, XCII,Nos. 1-2 (July-October, 2001)219-221 MOSHE BENOVITZ.Kol Nidre: Studies in the Development of Rabbinic Votive Institutions. Brown Judaic Series 315. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Pp. 203. Moshe Benovitz provides a careful and detailed account of the history of votive institutions in ancient Israel that is as impressive as it is clear. The double-entendreof the title is apparentat the very outset. In the Introduction , Benovitz cites the Kol Nidre prayer,a popularcomponent of the High Holy Day liturgy, andnotes the general obscuritysurroundingthe list of seven ancient votive institutionsmentionedin the prayer(nidrei, esarei, haramei, kinnuyei, qinnusei, and shevu'ot). Successive chapters examine each of these institutions as they appearin biblical, Second Temple and rabbinicsources. A concluding chapterbrings this informationto bearin a final discussion of the Kol Nidre prayeritself. Benovitz studiously and consciously avoids the methodological errorof previous studies, which tend to interpretobscure referencesto votive institutionsin Second Templesources in light of laterrabbinicconceptions. For Benovitz, Second Temple sources representan interim stage in the transition between biblical and rabbinic votive institutions and should not be read anachronistically.On more than one occasion he argues convincingly thatpre-rabbinicsources are a critical missing link, the key to understanding the evolution of votive institutionsfound in rabbinicliterature.For example , the connection between the biblical herem offering andthe rabbinic use of the term herem to refer to excommunication has not hithertobeen satisfactorily explained. In chapter3, Benovitz shows that Second Temple sources attest to a previously unidentifiedform of herem, which he terms "conspiracy herem,"according to which conspiratorsvow to ritually immolate (as herem) anyone in the group who does not follow throughwith the group'scriminalplan. Texts from Qumranindicate thatthe "deathsentence " under a conspiracy herem was commuted to excommunication, a safeguard against the contagion imparted by the herem victim until his death. In rabbinic sources this excommunication would become a punishment in its own right. Likewise, the connection between the biblical neder and the rabbinic neder has never been adequately explained and is obscure to the rabbis themselves. While the biblical neder is always dedicatory of persons and propertyto God and never prohibitive, the rabbinicneder can be either a dedicatoryvow (a promise to devote something or someone to the Temple) or a prohibitive vow (a ban placed on specific propertybarringits use by 220 THEJEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW the votary or some other person). The rabbinicexplanation of prohibitive vows as likening an object to a sacrifice (which is forbidden for general use) has been adoptedratheruncritically by scholars and applied anachronistically to prohibitivevows attestedin Second Temple sources. Benovitz argues that the rabbinic explanation should be rejected; close analysis of the formulaeemployed in prohibitivevows suggests thatthey too are dedicatory ,but thatthe consecration of the object occurs simultaneouslywith the violation of the consecration.For example, a vow to the effect thatthe wine I will drinkis qorban (a sacrifice), dedicates wine only at the moment that I drink it. But the act that consecrates (drinking)is also the act that violates. The practical effect of such a dedicatory vow is that it creates a personalprohibition. Benovitz'understandingof therabbinicprohibitiveneder,set outin chapter 1, illuminates a numberof otherconfusing or obscuretexts. Mark7:11 andCDC XVI:13-15 may be understoodas protestingthe use of dedicatory vows to create a personalprohibition.These texts indicate thatthe practice was viewed by some as an abuseor mockeryof the dedicatoryvow since no consecrationwas ever intended. For their part,the Pharisees would surely have objectedto unscrupuloususes of the prohibitivevow, butconsideredit technically valid, beyond theirpower to annuland, in any event, preferable to the takingof oathsin God'sname. Chapter4 examines the substituteformulaeqonam ,qonahandqonas (insteadof qorban)usedin prohibitivevows of thistype.Benovitzrejectsthecurrenttheoryof a Phoenicianderivationfor the term qonam and proposes instead a Greekderivation.The firstcentury Greekprohibitiveformulaemployed the declined forms koinon, koine, and koinos meaning "common"or "shared"and referringto items donated to charity.These terms were adoptedby the rabbisand the vowels of qorban were then superimposedon these basic terms, giving rise to qonam,qonah and qonas. Understandingthe rabbinicprohibitiveneder as an originally dedicatory vow providesnew insight into the origin andtheoreticalbasis for the dissolution of vows by the rabbinic sages (chapter 6). The Bible contains no provisionfor the dissolution of vows andoaths andyet rabbinicsources indicate thatrabbinicalcourts were empoweredto declare vows not binding. Benovitz argues that...