Cantors Assembly Journal of Synagogue Music

JOURNAL

OF SYNAGOGUE

MUSIC

August 1971/Ab 5731

Volume III

Number 3

CONTENTS

Some Classic Studies in Liturgy

The Cultural Leadership Role
of the Cantor

The Influence of Jewish Music and
Thought in Certain Works of
Leonard Bernstein
(Musical Illustrations)

Hyman Sky 3
Irene Heskes 13

Abraham Lubin 17

DEPARTMENTS

Music Section

Amanut Hachazanut A. B. Birnbaum 23

Shaharit for Shabbat

Review of New Music

Yehuda Mandel 56

Shirei Rozumni, re-edited by William Lipton
Music Notes

56

journal of synagogue music, Volume III, Number 3

August 1971/ Ab 5731
Published by Cantors Assembly

editor: Morton Shames

managing editor: Samuel Rosenbaum

editorial board: Lawrence Avery, Gerald H. Hanig, Saul Meisels,
David J. Putterman, Moses J. Silverman, Pinchas Spiro, Dr. Max

Wohlberg.

associate members: Irving Kischel, Chairman, Louis Klein, Abra-
ham Shapiro, Harry Weinberg.

officers of the cantors assembly: Yehuda Mandel, President;

Gregor Shelkan, Vice President; Kurt Silbermann, Treasurer;

Morton Shames, Secretary; Samuel Rosenbaum, Executive Vice
President.

journal of synagogue music is a quarterly publication. The sub-
scription fee is $5.00 per year; $10.00 per year for patrons. Second-
class postage paid at New York, New York. All articles, communica-
tions and subscriptions should be addressed to Journal of Synagogue
Music, Cantors Assembly, 150 Fifth Avenue, New York 10011.

Copyright © 1971, Cantors Assembly

SOME CLASSIC STUDIES IN LITURGY

Hyman Sky

Petuchowski, Jakob J. f ed., Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish
Liturgy, Ktav Publishing Co., N.Y. 1970.

Hazzanim can find much of interest and instruction in this
collection of scholarly articles. They are the products of some of
the best known and most highly regarded early investigators in the
field of liturgical origins. Although many of their theories and con-
clusions have since been challenged and perhaps supplanted, they are
eminently important.

Ismar Elbogen, the author of our first essay ("Studies in Jewish
Liturgy", pp. 1-51), comes with impressive credentials. The author
of the famous Der Judische Gottesdienst in seiner GeschichtUche
Entwicklung (Leipzig, 1913) happily collects all the synonyms for
the Talmudic "prayer leader." They consist of: "Yoreid Lifnei
hateibah," "Oveir lifnei hateibah" "Poreis al(et) Shema" "Makreh"
"Korei," and "Sheliah Zibbur,"

Deriving parallels from the procedure used in reciting the
"Shirah," Elbogen proposes that "Poreis al (et) Shema" (p. 39)
implies that the Shema was recited or sung responsorially.

He thus takes exception to the prevalent view that Poreis refers
to the blessings preceding and following the Shema. The blessings,
thus, only represent "the folk reaction to the felt needs of this, the
core of Jewish prayer."

However, Aptowitzer, M.G.W.J., 73, 1929, pp. 93 ff., especially
p. 108, n. 5, and Cant. i?. to 8:11, shows that the recitation of the
"Shema" "in one voice, with one thought, in one tone," was viewed
as the kind of prayer "which pleases God most." (Also, cf. L. Ginz-
berg, Ginzei Schechter, I, p. 120, 1. 14, which also indicates a unison
recitation of the "Shema" et al.)

Elbogen presents a strong argument for the restriction in the
use of "Oveir lifnei hateibah" and "Yoreid lifnei hateibah" for the
repitition of the Amidah. He points out that the sole difference
between "Oveir" and "Yoreid" was that between Palestinian and
Babylonian rites, respectively. "Naheit" is shown as an Aramaic syno-
nym for "Yoreid" (p. 36). The term Sheliah Zibbur, therefore, was
generic in character and reflected all of the aforementioned aspects

4

of prayer leading. In fact, it would seem that each Amidah could
have its own precentor (p. 42); the Poreis functioned while seated,
the Oveir (Yoreid) while standing, the text in RH IV 7 "hasheini
matkia* . . . rishon makrei et haHalleV implying different precentors.
(The second may have been a "prompter" to call the shofar blasts,
lest the Reader become confused, cf. Ber. 24a, where we have a
similar problem regarding "Birkat Kohanim")

The restriction of the use of the technical phrase "Oveir
\Yoreid) lifnei hateibah" to that of the "loud" repetition of the
Amidah, the Tefillah, resulted in the restriction of the technical use
of the word "Tefillah" solely to the Amidah. This in turn indicates
that the technical expressions "hitpaHel" and "zelotah" in the Tal-
mudic literature could not mean "pray" or "prayer" in the general
sense. They could only mean "pray" or "prayer" with regard to the
Amidah. This, too, would clarify the sequence in terminologies in
M. Megillah where "Poreis al (et) Shema" precedes "Oveir (Yoreid)
lifnei hateibah/' and why "Birkat Kohanim" follows both (p. 40).

Elbogen thus clarifies Amram's directions with regard to "Omdim
bitefillah umitpallelim" (I, 7b), "Omeid bitefillah v'omeir (ibid, 25a),
"Umitpallelim b'lahash v'omeir . . ." (ibid, 28a), etc., and by a con-
trast in wording, those circumstances where there were repetitions of
the Amidah (ibid, 31a) etc.

Dr. Elbogen, however, in stressing "Regilut" forgets "Hiyyub."
He treats the dictum of Meg. IV 5, "Hamaftir b'nabi," as being a case
where being "under age ... it is not in keeping with the honor of the
congregation (sic) that he (the "Katan") should himself officiate"
(p. 13.).

The Talmudic literature makes very clear that "Sheliah Zibbur
Mozi et harabim y'dei hobatam" R.H. IV 9). The minor having no
such requirements, "Kol she'eino hayyab Vdavar eino mozi et
harabim" (R.H. III 8). This same principle remained in effect in
other areas as well (ex. "Tekiot" ibid.).

Louis Finkelstein ("The Development of the Amidah," pp. 91-
177) here attempts to date the various texts of the Amidah from
the internal evidence "newly available" in the Genizah materials.
He sees no contradiction between that tradition attributing the
establishment of the Amidah to the men of the "Great Assembly"
and that (Ber. 28b) which makes Gamaliel II and his colleagues the
authors of the same liturgy, (p. 91) Dr. Finkelstein proposes that

some form of the Amidah was in existence as early as the 2nd cen-
tury, BCE. Rabbi Gamaliel and his colleagues only redacted the
existing text and added five new benedictions (p. 92). The variant
readings which become obvious to us from the fragments available
can be viewed as "a species of religious dialect which varied with
locality, and which communites could not forget or abandon even
in exile/' as David Kaufmann, ("The Prayer-Book According to the
Ritual of England before 1290," p. 459 f.) so aptly put it. The
differences were "tints and shades" distinguishing one community
from the other (ibid).

That political and social conditions affected the prayer rubric
has long been known. Even the shortage of texts affected the liturgy.
In these circumstances, the congregation had to know the liturgy
by rote. Those who were not as well prepared, fulfilled their require-
ment, especially in the Amidah, by responding "Amen" to the repe-
tition by the Sheliah Zibbur" These Readers often improvised new
prayers and petitions. Even after Gamaliel's redaction, the additions
and revisions continued although the basic text remained constant
and was not as easily changed (p. 100, n. 25).

The Rabbis built in safeguards against heretics and sectaries.
We know of the "Birkat Haminum" (Ber. 26b) that was inserted
to prevent Judeo-Christians from leading the service. Dr. Finkelstein
proposes another test against the Sadducees, who rejected the con-
cept of resurrection. This was the "Gaburot" The Reader who
ascended before the Ark was required to utter a singularly Pharasaic
principle "to declare his faith in the doctrines of the Pharisees" (p.
112). The Amidah, Dr. Finkelstein therefore contends, was intended
primarily for the Reader.

Dr. Finkelstein makes the interesting suggestions that the
"Me'ein Sheua" (a) originated in Babylonia and (b) that it was
the "Sabbath Amidah of the time of its origin" (p. 116), rather than
a summary of the Friday evening Amidah. However, cf. Jacob Mann,
"Genizah Fragments of the Palestine Order of Service," pp. 424 f.
and 432, who proposes a diametrically opposite interpretation as well
as Elbogen's earlier article, pp. 37-40.

Dr. Eric Werner ("The Doxology in Synagogue and Church,"
pp. 318-370) proposes his well-known concept of "leading motifs"
(p. 351) that reflect "the musical atmosphere of that particular
festival or of that liturgical unit." Of particular importance in this
regard is the Reader's Kaddish. The editor of our collection unfor-

tunately performed a distinct disservice to Dr. Werner in omitting
the musical portion of the monograph.

Dr. Werner makes a special mention of the tradition (earlier
pointed out by Birnbaum) that Yehudai Gaon (700-764) "the ardent
champion of genuine tradition" (p. 345), favored the early Hazzanim
with the support of his authority which in turn further developed the
tradition of Hazzanut. However, the sources indicate that the u Haz-
zanut" considered here was the rubric of an alphabetized and abbre-
viated Amidah of the Minhah service preceding the Sabbath or
Festivals. The citation from Sefer Haeshkol, (edited Albeck, p. 104
ff.) infers nothing regarding the musical tradition (cf. Mann, in this
volume, p. 411).

Of special interest is Nathan the Babylonian's description of the
coronation ceremonies for the Exilarch. According to Dr. Werner,
this is "the earliest account of the performance of a choir in addition
to that of a professional Hazzan and the traditional response of a
congregation" (p. 349). The text in Neubauer, Medieval Jewish
Chronicles, II, p. 83, 1. 18, has Hazzan Haknesset opening at
Barukh Sheamar, continuing with a responsorial Ps. 92 and Pesukei
Dezimrah, while three lines further down "the Hazzan (sic) arises
to intone Nishmat" This pattern is found often in the Gaonic litera-
ture of that period. Mann ("Genizah Fragments," op. cit. p. 382),
commenting on a similar passage in Seder Rav Amram (I, 2b) says
"It is questionable whether here by Hazzan Haknesset the Reader
of the congregation (Sheliah Zibbur) is meant." Examining a con-
temporary text, Mann further comments: "We see thus that the
Reader began with Tefillot Yozer ... in Amram Hazzan Haknesset
may really refer to the attendant of the synagogue, one of whose
duties was also to open the service." (ibid, p. 383).

Dr. Werner adds a footnote that merits comment. "Even more
interesting is the recently discovered (sic) text that it was Yehudai
Gaon who introduced the Kol Nidrei, sung by the Hazzan in Sura."
(p. 349). Dr. Werner cites the Ginsei Schechter, II, p. 120, as his
source. However, the citation is Responsum #154 of Rabbi Solomon
ibn Adret. The "peg" upon which Dr. Werner makes his assertion is
the statement of Paltoi, Gaon of Pumbeditha, (842-858, a century
after Yehudai Gaon) that "it is our custom (i.e., of Pumbeditha!)
and of Beit Rabbeinu B'Bavel, (according to Ginzberg, this means
Sura), that the Sheliah Zibbur recites Sheheheyanu and Kol Nidrei
(sic) and Barkhu, et seq." The evidence to the contrary, however,

seems too substantial: Lewis, Ozar Hageonim XI in Nedarim #63,
64, 65, especially p. 23 n. 6, where the addition of Kol Nidrei into the
statement is shown as a gloss by Rabbi Eliezer b. Joel Halevy, 11th
century German Talmudist in his book Sefer RaBiYah, which is the
source of Dr. Ginzberg's assertion: Ginzberg, Geonica y I, p. 96, n. 1,
in Hatarat Nedarim; idem, Ginzei Schechter, II, p. 556; Assaf,
Tekufat Hageonim V'safrutam, p. 165; Alfasi on Nedarim, end; Isaac
ibn Ghayyat, Shaarey Simhah, I, 60b; Tur Orah Hayyim #619;
Rosh to Yoma VIII, #28. The consensus must therefore be that
although the practice of reciting Kol Nidrei in other locales was an
established custom, it was not practiced in either of the two major
centers of Babylonia, Sura or Pumbeditha, where Hattarot Nedarim
was avoided. It was avoided to the degree that the Talmudic tractate
Nedarim was not taught in either of the two schools. We can now
understand Amram Gaon's characterization of the recitation of Kol
Nidrei as "foolishness." (I, 47a).

Professor Solomon Schechter ("Genizah Specimens," pp. 373-
378) achieved world-wide fame by his recognition in 1896 of a
fragment of a Hebrew Ben Sira from the Genizah of the synagogue
of Fostat in Egypt. The Ben Sira fragment was only one of many
fragments collected there. The Bodleian Taylor-Schechter collection
also contained fragments of prayer codices, specimens of which Dr.
Schechter describes here.

Dr. Schechter suggests that on the basis of the paleography, the
paper and the text, which he discusses in detail, the fragment
represents "portions of the liturgy in their oldest form" (p. 373).
Of especial interest is the fact that these texts are much shorter than
even those "known to the Geonim" (p. 374), i.e., the Babylonian
ritual.

It should be mentioned that the liturgies known to the European
communities are Babylonian in origin. The dissolution of the Pales-
tine Jewish community started with the destruction in the 1st
century, followed by the convulsions of the 2nd, the conversion of
Rome in the 4th, the victory of Islam in the 7th, and culminated
in the blood baths of the Crusades of the 11th century. The trends,
starting after the Bar Kokhba revolt, saw Jews leaving Palestine.
Within a century, the center of Jewish life was shifted from the Holy
Land to Babylonia. Although the power to fix the calendar and the
supervision of the religious affairs of the Diaspora still remained in
the hands of the Palestinian Patriarch as late as the end of the 4th

8

century (Ginzberg, Geonica I, p. 1), the suppression of the Patriarch-
iate during the period of Theodosian II in the 5th century marked
the beginning of the rapid decline in the power structure of Jewish
Palestine. It is after this period that the burgeoning Babylonian
community entered into its period of growth. The Arab conquests
that marked the victory of Islam in the 7th century started the
movement that made Babylonian Judaism, its Talmud, and its
practices dominant in the Western world.

The subject liturgy is reminiscent of, yet different than, that of
our printed texts. Dr. Schechter, therefore, classifies the fragments as
Palestinian in character. Their brevity betrays their age; they had
as yet not been subject to the accretions of time, especially in the
Amidah. Large blocks of liturgical rubric have found their way in
and out of parts of this liturgy. Some examples:

a) Raheim . . . al Yerushalayim Irekha from our printed text
of the Birkat Hamazon is used in the weekday Amidah for the
Birkat Yerushalayim (p. 376). This reading also incorporates
part of Et Zemah David, The total reading parallels that of the
Palestinian Talmud and therefore indicates its Palestinian origin.

b) The Kedushat Hashem section of the weekday Amidah in
the Palestinian version (p. 375 f.) is the same as that we now
use only on the High Holidays (Kadosh Attah).

c) The ending of the Abodah section of this weekday Amidah
(ibid.) is reminiscent of the holiday rubric now known
(Sheofkha B'Yirah Naavod).

d) The Birkat Haminim (ityd.) is obviously an old text. Instead
of the antiseptic form found in the printed texts, it shows the
uncensored forms Meshumadim (converts) , Nozrim (Chris-
tians), and Minim (Sectarians).

The Babylonian meditation, Etohai N'zor (Ber. 17a) is com-
pletely missing from our text. Following an extremely abbreviated
Sim Shalom, the Amidah concludes with Ps. 19:15 (p. 376).

The text reveals no Kedushah or Kaddish or other forms of
congregational response, forms already in use in Gaonic times. This
led Dr. Schechter to propose that the fragment represents "a codex
written for private devotions" (p. 375). (However, cf. Jacob Mann's
article, p. 411, where the solution lies in the Palestinian custom of
reciting the Kedushah only on Sabbaths and holidays). Dr. Schechter

finds substantiation for his proposal in the inclusion of a short guide
for home ritual, featuring Birkot Nehenin for ordinary occasions.

All of the Genizah fragments contain directions in Judeo-Arabic,
the vernacular current in the Egyptian Jewish community.

Jacob Mann ("Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of
the Service/' pp. 379-448) made his reputation in the scholarly
world with his investigations into the Gaonic responsa ("The Re-
sponsa of the Babylonian Gaonim as a Source for Jewish History,"
JQR, n.s., VII, IX, and X) as well as Egyptian and Palestinian
Jewry (The Jews in Egypt and Palestine under the Fatimids, 2 v.)
He is therefore highly qualified to critically judge the Genizah
fragments he examines. He questions Dr. Schechter's pronouncement
regarding the Palestinian origin of the Genizah fragments discussed
above. The fact that the fragments were found in the "Palestinian"
synagogue in Fostat need not immediately recommend their "Pales-
tinian" character and rubric. The constant ebb and flow of Jews
between Egypt and Palestine may have only caused a diffusion that
eventually resulted in a "Minhag Mizri" exemplification by Saadyah's
Siddur, only recently critically published (1941). This Siddur was
known far in the past (cf. Ginzberg, Gaonica I, P. 166 f.), and shows
remarkable affinities to some of the fragments found.

Dr. Mann further suggests that the designation "Palestinian
Synagogue" need not indicate unbending adherence to the rituals
of Palestine. The ritual of Palestine itself may have been influenced
by the constant interchange of religious leadership that the uncertain
times between the 4th and 10th centuries experienced (p. 380).
Proof of the intrusion of Babylonian custom into the Palestinian can
be seen in the use of the conventional Humash for the weekly reading
of the Parshah of the Annual Cycle, although the custom of Palestine
was a Triennial one (p. 380 f.).

That there was a reverse influence, from Palestine on Babylonia,
can also be shown. One example shows that the Et Zemah David
was inserted in the alphabetical composition of a shortened "Amidah"
used for Minhah before Sabbaths and holidays, increasing the number
of blessings to nineteen and breaking the alphabetical progression.

The Palestinian Shaharit started with the Zemirot intoned by
a member of the congregation. It is only at the Yozer that the
Sheliah Zibbur, a higher official, assumes the leadership of the
service.

10

Dr. Mann identifies one of the fragments as "probably part of
Saadyah's "Siddur" (p. 383). Saadyah, however, always uses the
term Imam in his Judeo-Arabic instructions. Assaf, in his translation
(Davidson, I., S. Assaf, B. I. Joel, eds., Siddur R. Saadyah Gaon,
Jerusalem, reprinted 1963) always translates this to Hazzan, never
to Hazzan Haknesseth (p. 35 and passim).

Dr. Mann contrasts this fragment with Seder Rav Amram.
Amram (I, 2b) classifies the body of prayers up to Barukh Seamar
as private devotions. He prescribes that the Hazzan Haknesseth
arise and intone the Barukh Seamar. The Tefillat Yozer are to be
intoned by the Sheliah Zibbur, who also repeats the Amidah. Mann
infers from the use of these two terms that the former term reflects
the synagogue attendant who opened the service as one of his pre-
scribed duties (p. 383).

This, however, opens the question regarding the Hazzanim of
Soferim X 18 who are required to recite certain rubrics. Does Hazzan
here apply to the "synagogue attendant" or to the Hazzan as Sheliah
Zibbur?

A further question in this same direction is generated by Frag-
ment 9a (Codex Turin 51), p. 420. This fragment prescribes the
ritual for Minha. Here the "Shaz" arises and recites the Reader's
Kaddish, yet one line further down, the "Hazzan" (sic) initiates the
repetition of the Amidah. Could these have been two officiants?

Although partially included in Saadyah's Siddur and fully pre-
scribed in Soferim XVII, 11, and Amram (I, 3a), the "Palestinian"
fragments of the beginning of the Shaharit omit the Psalms as com-
plete Psalms although the fragments recite some of the verses. Dr.
Mann proposes that this is the real meaning of the terms Pesukei
D'zimrah and Pirkei Uzimrah, verses or selections rather than the
complete Psalms.

The Torah blessings of the two rituals also differed. Our current
usage "Asher Bahar Banu" is Babylonian (Ber. lib). The Pales-
tinian form is that quoted in Soferim XIII, 8, Hanoten Torah min
Hashamayim" also prescribed for the regular morning reading from
the Humash (p. 390).

According to the Palestinian ritual, the Friday evening service
started with Ps. 121, "Esa Einai" or Pss. 92 and 93. The "Kab-
balat Shabbat" found in our current printed editions was a product
of the late 16th century.

11

Nor was V'shamru (Ex. 31:16-17) part of either the Palestinian
or Suran liturgy. Idelson's contention (Jewish Liturgy, p. 131) that
its usage found Gaonic sanction finds no support in the literary
sources, as far as I can determine.

One of the fragments examined reveals early practices regarding
the congregational recitation of the Kiddush. Apparently, it con-
sisted of Vayekhulu and Magen Abot. It was preceded by the
Reader's declaration "Eit L'Kaddeish" primarily "for strangers and
also for those who do not know how to say the Kiddush" (p. 423).
It is from this evidence and Yer. Ber. lid that Dr. Mann determines
that the "Me'ein Sheva" had its origins in Palestine. In the "Yeru-
shalmV* it is prescribed as a congregational Kiddush for the Reader
when "wine is not available."

In Babylonia, apparently the congregational Kiddush had been
recited over wine. The parallel custom of using "Magein Abot" in the
absence of wine, is designated as a Babylonian borrowing from the
Palestinian rite (p. 427). All of the writers (Finkelstein, Elbogen,
Mann, Marmorstein) are unanimous in their categorizing the Me'ein
Sheva" as a prayer specifically for the Sheliah Zibbur. It is also one
of the very few parts of the liturgy that must be recited in the
presence of a minyan. Its function fully reveals the need for the
"Shaz" The repetition, closely followed by the congregation, helps
all those present to fulfill their liturgical requirements. Errors in the
private recitation of the Amidah are reconciled by the responsorial
"Amen" at its end.

Mann reveals almost as an aside the fact that our closing hymn
"Ein Keiloheinu" originally started with the "Barukh" verse and
was recited as part of the Saturday night liturgy (p. 424 f.).

David Kaufmann contributes an exciting study, "The Prayer-
Book According to the Ritual of England before 1290" (pp. 459-502).
The heretofore unknown ritual, considered lost after the expulsion of
the Jews from England, was accidentally discovered in a library in
Leipzig. Entitled Etz Hayyim, the volume is a "Compendium of
Ritual Law and the Principles of Jurisprudence" written by Jacob
ben Jehudah, Hazzan (sic) of London.

Here, too, the earliest the "Sheliah Zibbur" ascended the pulpit
was to the Yozer section after Yishtabah "for the recitation of the
Berakha (sic)". The next indication for the "Shaz" is at the Kaddish
with an indication of a concurrent congregational meditation.

12

The Shema was to have been recited by the congregation
b'dikduk uv'niggun (p. 478).

The volume is a worthwhile one in that it provides a collection
of monographs in the development of the liturgy. Both the editor
and the publisher should be commended. However, it would seem
that the raison behind this collection was the availability of the texts
in material already published by the publishers. Yet, there seems to
have been no attempt either to correlate citations printed with the

other studies in the same volume, or to provide some collative guide.
A further weakness concerns the artificial limitations imposed by the
restriction to the JQR, o.s. and the HUCA.

I believe that these monographs represent seminal efforts. Never-
theless, the volume is not representative enough to provide a general
approach to liturgical inquiry. In many ways, it also represents
idiosyncracies of the various scholars. Among them are unhappy
misquotations that may or may not be crucial to the structures of
the various theses (cf. p. 332, n. 49; p. 367, n. 148; et seq.)-

We hope that this will be the first of many such efforts by editor
and publisher.

13

THE CULTURAL LEADERSHIP ROLE OF THE CANTOR

Irene Heskes

Congratulating some noted musicians upon their performances
at a Jerusalem concert earlier this year, Premier Golda Meir re-
marked that: "Art often both alleviates and memorializes human
suffering and thereby helps us to transcend our pain." Paradoxically,
we find all too much evidence today that despite humanity's trans-
cendant needs, the arts do not fare well in a world full of general
anxiety, social tensions, and personal despair. This is precisely the
dilemma of the cultural arts, and of artists, in our contemporary
American society. For the Jews here, it is a significant aspect of our
identity crisis.

Our particular concern is for the musical art in the context of
the other art expressions. Today, there are dangerous gaps of com-
munication btween composers, performers, and audiences. The new
musical languages challenge previous definitions of musical experi-
ences as well as standards for creativity and for performance. Re-
flecting this era of general unrest, are current musical conflicts re-
garding religious music and its secular or "profane" expressions of
theological concepts. Witness the proliferation of public arguments
among liturgical musicians of all faiths concerning the latest idioms
of rock, country-folk, jazz, electronically-produced sound, and, too,
the numerous accusations by congregational critics of "cynical
plasticity," "cliched sentimentality," "hyper-commercialism." Yet,
one must acknowledge that there is healthful vitality in most of this
experimentation and innovation, and the excitement generated
around these forces of change can ultimately result in constructive
and selective cultural development. Moreover, it is precisely such
newer concepts which are attracting young musicians to the liturgy
— youth to the music of the synagogue.

Admittedly, the "open-door policy" has pitfalls, and for Jewish
liturgical music especially, safeguards must sensitively be set up
with the intentions of encouraging and supporting artistic expression
while maintaining the structure and essence of our nusach ha-tefillah.

Irene Heskes is the Staff Music Consultant of the National Jewish Music
Council, sponsored by the National Jewish Welfare Board. This Fall 1971, her
new book has been issued titled: STUDIES IN JEWISH MUSIC: THE
COLLECTED WRITINGS OF A. W. BINDER, published by Bloch Publish-
ing Company.

14

The best method is adequate education. The new ideas must not be
kept out of our synagogues. Bear in mind how extreme an innovator
Salomone Rossi was in his own day!

There is a natural relationship between on-going life and the
creative arts which cannot be saparated from common experience.
In this age of world-wide angst, those artists who address themselves
to youth or to particular causes are the folk-heroes of our society.
There is glorification of the "free spirit" in these artistic expressions.
Yet, isn't this really an adaptation of the hasidic idea of hishtaptchut
ha-nefesh — "outpouring of the soul"? Particularly for Jews, isn't the
current quest to reach youth and to address issues really a search
for our own evanescent diasporic identity?

There is an even broader aspect to our Jewish communal needs
which must be recognized in order to be properly served. Amplifying
the benchmarks of our American society, youth relates to Ufe,
education relates to liberty, and art relates to the pursuit of happi-
ness. The latter is that quality for life which J. B. Priestley in his
essay "The Secret Dream" has termed: "the nourishment of the
heart." Tending to the heart and soul is the special mission of
religion. Therefore, this is the natural purpose of the synagogue, to
which accomplishment the religious leaders of American Judaism —
rabbis and cantors — must direct their energies. It follows that artis-
tic expressions of all types within the synagogue ought not to be
considered frivolous or extraneous activities, but rather essentialities
for the communal mission. Moreover, such purposeful creative leader-
ship should be shared among all types of Jewish community group-
ings. Ultimately it will redound to the greater good of the general
American public. The practical goals are to turn passivity into crea-
tivity, observance to participation, emotional stress to esthetic
activity — doubt into faith. The focus is upon the historic ideals and
cultural heritage of our people.

Fundamentals for any relevant on-going program of Jewish cul-
tural endeavor are support, involvement, and productivity at the local
level. There, resources of talent, materials and inspiration are readily
to be found, if sought out! At this point, the professional "artist-in-
residence" of each community can assume directive leadership. The
CANTOR is unique in that he generally is the only year-round em-
ployed "artist-in-residenoe" in his locale, and this is in sharp contrast
ployed "artist-in-residence" in his locale; and this is in sharp contrast
to the other art forms of dance, theatre, fine arts, and literature.

15

Therefore, the CANTOR in particular is afforded the singular op-
portunity for such leadership in which he can marshal all the other
varied creative media, as well as music. He can serve both the
spiritual and esthetic needs of the membership in his congregation.
As a trained musician, he should be available in consultation to the
general community bridging through manifold musical activities
many separate entities — age levels, religious affiliations, racial groups.
His leadership can give the guidelines through his own musical ideas
and professional performances, incorporating other art forms into
those varied programming events. Of course, his own skills would
grow commensurately and find satisfying fruition with each under-
taking.

Clearly, the mantle of cultural arts leadership has fallen — either
with light grace or with heavy burden — upon the shoulders of the
cantorate, especially in the smaller communities. For American Jews,
the arena of Jewish education has moved into the community rather
than the classroom. The Jewish Community Centers and the syna-
gogues can teach, lead, and (yes!) heal by their community impact
much more readily than within their own particular edifices alone.
Such unity of positive outlook and cooperative understanding will
develop and grow with the fulfillment of each successful community
cultural project.

What of the individual CANTOR? Hasn't he, by natural talent
and professional training, a much larger artistic and religious role,
a broader contribution to make, than the everyday routine, albeit
devoted and spiritually motivated? He is basically a musical crafts-
man in the service of his people — sheliach tsibbur, in the highest
sense, the vocal expression of Judaism itself. How far shall those
responsibilities be extended? The present cultural needs of our
people are so significant, the obligations we owe to the American
society are so insistent, there cannot be any justification for competi-
tive stress between centers and synagogues, between different syna-
gogues, between rabbis and CANTORS.

However, the practical implemtentation of noble objectives make
for difficulties that might crush the energies as well as spirits of
strong men. CANTORS are generally over-worked and often under-
appreciated, and thus are entitled to ponder the value to themselves
of undertaking broader goals and heavier schedules. Can one strive
for higher ideals in the midst of the everyday pragmatic problems of

16

personal life? Is the CANTOR truly a creative artist of sublime
inspiration? Not everyone is, but the fortunate ones are!

To possess a sense of artistic value, to merge one's own person-
ality with something important and beyond one's self, to avow an
esthetic sense of perfection in this otherwise imperfect world, surely
imposes on a human life incredible labors. Yet, without such aspira-
tion and struggle, life sinks back into passive mediocrity.

The definition of perfectibility has been made by man's fashion-
ing of a creative heritage in his rise through history. The heroic
human survival is reflected in epochs of esthetic and intellectual
achievement. Especially for Jews, our cultural heritage is delineated
through the scope of our particular history as a thrust into destiny.
Therein lies the measure of our individual selves, of the shape of the
era in which we have striven, and of the ideals which have ennobled
our lifetime.

17
ERRATA

For technical reasons we were unable to publish, in our last
issue, the musical examples in conjunction with an article by Hazzan
Abraham Lubin on "The Influence of Jewish Music and Thought in
Certain Music of Leonard Bernstein".

We apologize to the author and print below the section con-
taining the musical examples.

II. SYMPHONY NO. 1 — JEREMIAH
The first published work by Leonard Bernstein was a Sonata
for Clarinet and Piano which was written in 1941. His first major
orchestral work was the Symphony No. 1, Jeremiah. This work which
was completed in December of 1942, was significantly enough
dedicated to the composer's father who had always impressed upon
his son a love for the Prophetic books of the Bible.

The first performance was given by the Pittsburgh Symphony
Orchestra, Leonard Bernstein conducting, with Jennie Tourel, soloist,
January 28, 1944.

The symphony contains only three movements which were re-
spectively entitled "Prophecy", "Profanation" and "Lamentation".
The last movement actually utilizes text from the Book of Lamenta-
tions in the original Hebrew. This is to be sung by a mezzo-soprano.
The work is unquestionably one which, throughout its three
movements, incorporates motifs of the Jewish musical tradition.

The renowned Jewish composer Max Helfman has made the
following comments regarding the Jewish musical motifs found in
the Jeremiah Symphony:

The two basic sources of genuine Hebraic music are: the
cantillation of the Bible and liturgical chant of the synagogue.
Like many another ancient sacred scripture, the Hebrew
Bible, when publicly read in a house of worship, is always
chanted in a prescribed manner called cantillation. To each
work on the printed page is attached a sign, a neume called
'trope'. In addition to its accentual and syntatical meaning,
each trope has a definite musical signification.

4. John Gruen and Ken Heyman, The Private World of Leonard Bernstein,
(New York: A Ridge Press Book, The Viking Press, 1968), p. 37.

18

Though there are only twenty-eight tropal signs, these
represent many hundreds of different tonal motives, inasmuch
as the same sign has a different musical meaning depending
upon the book of the Bible at the time of its reading, and
whether the readers are of the Ashkenazic tradition (Jews from
northeast Europe) or of the Sephardic tradition (Jews of
southeast Europe).

The second source is 'Nussach', the traditional modes of
chanting the liturgy. Each mode consists of a number of char-
acteristic motives: initial, pausal, modulatory, pen-ultimate and
final. At times these motives are used literally, but most often
they are the basis for improvisation.

Jeremiah is fashioned almost exclusively on the Ashkenazic
cantillation used for chanting the prophetic portion on the
Sabbath, the mode of chanting Lamentations on 'Tisha B'av'
(the ninth day of Ab), in commemoration of the destruction
of the Temple, and finally, on general 'Nussach* motives for
festival and penitental prayers. 5

In analyzing the work in more detail, we find that the main
theme of the first movement which is pronounced by the two solo
French horns is a direct quotation of two phrases used in the
liturgical chants of the synagogue. The first half is derived from
the "Amidah" cadence which is found in the section of the service
known as the "Eighteen Blessings". This standing silent prayer is
recited by the congregation and then repeated by the cantor in chant.
This particular cadence is chanted on festivals and is the motif for
certain prayers in the High Holy Day liturgy. The second part of
this movement's opening theme is based on the improvisational ex-
tension of the cantor when chanting the entire "Eighteen Blessings".
Both these phrases are very common in the liturgical repertoire of
the synagogue.

Below we find a comparison between the theme Bernstein used
for his first movement and the liturgical chant which contains the
germ motif of Bernstein. 6

5. Max Helfman, Notes on the Program, New York: Philharmonic Hall —
Lincoln Center, October 16, 1963, p. B.

6. Leonard Bernstein, Jeremiah Symphony, (New York: Harms, Inc.,
1943), p. 3.

19

Jeremiah Symphony, opening theme

tut •• i* r
in iv

Larg«m*ftl« (J-W

Idelsohn: Liturgical chant.

be - mal • a - chua

e^mc-chohnoj-sa-si chin Vor-chi,

am- - choh) be -recti bo-Yor-chi,

The liturgical example immediately above is by the renowned
Jewish musicologist A. Z. Idelsohn. 7

The opening theme by the horns is heard again in the second
and third movements, in various situations, indicating how important
a theme this is in the total scheme of the symphony. It is indeed
the integrating element of the entire work.

The second movement "Profanation" is based almost entirely
on a number of cantillations which are used to chant the Prophetic
sections of the Bible during the Sabbath morning service.

In the first eight measures Bernstein quotes seven of these
melodic formulae known as "Ta'amin" (cantillations). They are
introduced by the flutes and clarinets: 8

7. A. Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Music In Its Historical Development,
York: Schocken Books, 1967), p. 140.

8. Bernstein, Jeremiah, p. 14.

(New

20

Bernstein: "Profanation" theme

Viv*«* ••« fcrw

li«h»h Mm*

Compare the above melodic line with the quotation below which
are cantillations used in chanting the Prophetic portion of the
Bible according to Idelsohn. 9

Idelsohn: Prophetic cantillations

vay-yo-mer a.-do-m>y . r el ye-hu-shu-a bin nun |
I ■>>... I. J. A,

\ mcsho-res mo«6he \ lc - mor. | mo-she av-di | mes

After a short extension of Bernstein's "Profanation" he in-
troduces yet another one of these cantillations: 10

Bernstein: "Profanation" theme — extended

^ — "® A

The above compared to the corresponding cantillation below
quoted by Idelsohn reveals a striking resemblance between the two
examples.

9. Idelsohn, Jewish Music, p. 53.

10. Bernstein, Jeremiah, p. 15.

21

Idelsohn: cantillation example."

kunva-vor

In the final movement "Lamentation", we have for the first time
the introduction of Hebrew texts from the Book of Lamentations,
to be sung by a mezzo-soprano soloist.

Motifs used for the texts are based on the traditional cantilla-
tions used in chanting the Book of Lamentations. This book is
chanted on "Tisha B'av", the holiday commemorating the destruction
of the Temple and the City of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Bernstein: opening line of "Lamentation". 12

Lc/ito

r?F^^,

*Tj£"jjpj^i

ra-bt-ti m H*y*U tul-ju

' \t 1-nr —At-

In examining this melodic line, we note in the fourth and in the
sixth measures a melodic turn of three notes down the scale within
the interval of a minor third. This is repeated again later on in this
movement in a much slower tempo:

Bernstein: "Lamentation" motif continued.' 3

m Ach! K«l ri-*-f*-k» K*-«Ki - ju - A* Sen — k*-*i-U* * nn!..

©

Let us now compare the above two examples from Jeremiah
with Idelsohn's table of Lamentation cantillations:

11. Idelsohn, Jewish Music, p. 53.

12. Bernstein, Jeremiah, p. 47.

13. Ibid., p. 50.

22

Idelsohn: Table of "Lamentation" cantillations. 14

L*m. 1.1

om, hoyr-so . ka-al-morno . rub-bo-si bag-go-yfm,

so- to - sl bum-di - nos, hoy-, so

lo

J

We find that in the third, seventh, eighth, thirteenth and four-
teenth measures, the same melodic pattern occurs. Note also the
similarity between Bernstein's melodic line in the seventh measure
of the first example illustrated and the second measure in Idelsohn's
example cited immediately above.

Commenting about this symphony the Jewish musicologist
Israel Rabinovitch wrote: "It is worthy of note, too, that right from
the beginning, Bernstein submitted to the fascination which Jewish
themes held for him." 15

Arthur Holde wrote of Bernstein: "In his symphonic poem
Jeremiah he expressed a fervor which seemed to spring from a
powerful religious impulse." 16

Another Jewish musicologist, Albert Weisser in commenting on
Bernstein's Jeremiah wrote that it is a "work of undoubted brilliance
and felicitous lyricism" which "evokes a happy mixture of the
Hebraic and the American." 17

Finally it is worth noting that on May 16, 1944 the Jeremiah
Symphony received the New York Music Critics Circle Award as
"the outstanding orchestral work by an American composer" intro-
duced that season.

This last fact reaffirms our contention that in the final analysis,
the worth of any creative expression must be judged solely by the
inner qualities of strength and beauty which it may or may not
possess. Any other consideration such as we have pursued here, is
significant only insomuch as it was our purpose to study the work
from a musicological or ethnomusicological point of view.

14. Idelsohn, Jewish Music, p. 54.

15. Israel Rabinovitch, Of Jewish Music, (Montreal: The Book Center,
1952), p. 302.

16. Artur Holde, Jews in Music. (London: Peter Owen, 1960, p. 344.

17. Albert Weisser, The Modern Renaissance of Jewish Music, (New

23
MUSIC SECTION

Die Kunst des jiidischen Kantorats

Rezitative, Responsorien und Chore
fiir den jiidischen Gottesdienst

komponiert

A. B. Birnbaum

Kantor der neuen Synagoge zu Czenstochau

Erster Teil

Verlag „Liturgie M Czenstochau

Df«k tm C G. R*W a «. b R Uipdc

24

N?60.

ratt>£rmriu>

Hymne HI.

.N?ei.

Hymne IV.

rtl-schancha-si - Slim tis "*^ ro-mom W- ke-rew kdo- kchim lis -* ka - doscfa

Jsch-ta-bachschimcholo-ad mal-ke-nn ho- el hame-lech ha-go-dnl wlia- ko-doech ba-scho-

no schir u-schwo-cho ha lei we- aim - ro os

lo w*sif-e - res kdu- schou-mal - chas bro-cbos we-ho

do- os na-a - to wad

-lorn bo - ruch

a -to a-do-aoj

bo-rnch bu a- wowchsdroo

25

■7 ^ -*

ha-nif- lo : os ha-bo-cher be-schi - re sim : .ro_^" ~ ffiS'T lech _ # el chaj ho-o -lo, mim

O-men jhe

r * r r f ^ rW f ™ r'fTrT^r" 1 ^

schme-ra-bo mwo - - rech lolam-uUol-me ol-ma-jo js - bo - rach

x 1 i*A \U \'*\^\i -..txti^^M^

js-bo-r»chwe-jscMabachwe js-bo-rachwe-jsch-tabachwe js-bo-rachwe-jscMebachwew'js-a-le we-js-ha-lo

Chor. Kantor Kan tor. Chor. f\

}) J II J^J^i^-h })}\}) J I £ l^ 'I bJiJiiU J I IS 2 " — ' —

schmedkudscho # f te-lomiokolbirchosowechi-ro-so da-a-mi-ronbol-mowim- ro

brich hu o - men.

Kantor.

26

N9 67.

Recit.

K j'"'° r , 3

su-lcuie-cho. e-fes bil-to-cho u - mi do - me loch en ker-k'cho a-do mi e 1f> he ro bo-o •

wen su-los-cho mol- -ke-nu lcha-je ho-o- lorn ha - bo e-fea bil-tchogo-a

-le-nu li - mos hamo-sdu-ach wen do - me lcho mo-schi-e - nu lis - chi - jaa ha^ue

N968. tl#>X

Kantor. * T

El o-dan al - kol ha-ma -aim bo-ruch um-\fo - roch bfikolm mo god.

-lo wtu-wo mo - le o - lom da -as us-wu - nu so-wawim o - so

Chor Hfcmottiiltnmc wit fc*i Borchu and Bo rack HP H .

Ha-miB-gfo-e alcha-josha - ko desch wue-dor be-howodal hamcrko - wo

schus u - mi schor lif - ne chis - o che - sed we - ra - chajnim lif - ne chwo - - do

N969.

THtf£«

Recit.

Kantoi

1 T

■*4*«

Lti- J) 'J.J. J- J.VJ

L

rao-le o-lom da-asuswuun sowwino- -so ha-mis-go-e al cha- jos ha4to3e«hwuchdorbecho«T>d

27

lo wimme-o - rossche-bo - ro e-lo-he - nu jzo-rombe-da-as bwi-no wo-has - kel koachug-wu-ro

no-sanbo-hem lih-josmosch-lim bke-rewte-wel mle iin siw um-fi - kim no^a no-e si -worabe^holdho-

. o - - lorn sme chim be-ze-som wso-sim be-wo - am o - - sim be - -mo rzou ko-nom.

I(.i»„Fer wechowod"wird wis „Hfimisgoe u UQd dus,, Schewu.cb'' wie,,Mleim"recitiert oder vom Chor gesungen.

N?70.

Recit.

TW

Isch-ta-bacbschimcholoadmal-ke - nu jo-zor

mschor-sim wa-aschermschorsow ku-

-lomom-dim brum o -lorn u maschnu-im bjr-o ja-chad be-kol diw-re e-lo-him cha- jm u -
-m lccho - lom ko-lora a-huwim ku-lombru-rimku-lomgi-bo rim wchulomo&im be-mouw-jr o re-

-zou ko-nam we - chu lom pos - chim ea pi - hem bi - kdu-scho uw- to -

sim - ro um- ^r-chimum-schabjdimi um-fo-a-rim u.ma-ri zim u - matdi«chimu4uamU-chimeaschem.

N°71

Recit.

D^hip? rife)

se - to- so lhak-disch le-jos - rom bua-chos ru - - -ach bso-fo bru - ro u-win-

-i

mo kdu-acho kiUom ke-e - - chod o-nim wom-rim hjr -

28

u>n£

Chor H»rmoni*f«rui>r wi» otwo

N°7Sfc.

Recit. «? j

Trosixm

rit _

who-o-nwum wcha- -jos ha-ko-deach brasch godol mis- nas im lu-mas

. fim lu - mo - som bo-ruch jo-me - ru

Bo - ruch kwod a-do-naj mini - ko - - mo

N?73

Recit.

x> jii niK

## # *

bo-ruch Ira u-wo-ruchschmo jo *

N<?74

u/T3m

- che-nu kom - - roi - jus le-or . te • . nu ki el po-eljschu-oeo- to u-

lo be- - e-mee Iho-dosle-cho ul-ja ched-cho be- ah wo bo-ruch a-to a-do-naj

29

bo-ruch hu w- wo -ruchschmo-ha -ba cher ba mo ja-ro-el ba - - wo o - - men.

n?75. ?xrw*yaTt>

js • ro - el

Schma

- ro-el a-ao-noi_^ e-lo - he- nu a-ao - noj e - chod

Schma js - - - ro-el a-tto-nai_ e-lo- he-nu a-ao- noj e -

js - ro - el

N°7C

Kantor.

B TFITW

N?77.-T)>p*IU> '

Hob* Stimm* wen g, ftuch u, »

a -do -noj e lo hecheme - - -raes

N978.

Recit. Hob* Stimm* wn

ff.fcUCh U,fc . T | .

scho - chen ad mo-ram ko-dosd schmo

Ki le-cho no-e a-do noj e - lo - he_ nu we-lo - he a-wo -se-nu schis usdwwiho ha4el usun-ro

3 . i S

i u-mem scho-lo ne - zach gdu-lo ug-wu-ro thi - lowsif-e-res kdu - scho u-mal-chus bro

Chpf.

choswe-ho do-os me- a - to wodo - lom bo-ruch a -to a^do-noj bo-ruch hu u-wcuruch schmo

elme-lechg»dolb:i-tich bo-chos el ha - ho-do-os a do hanif-lo-os ha-bo-cherbschi-

resim-ro me-lechelchaj ho-o - lo mim o - mem-lechelchaj ho-o - lo-mim o - mem-

tteClt. llohs Stimm* wj)^ auch u,a • T — *.? : ' ' ?

Ein ke - er-kcho wen-su - le - se- cho e - fes bil - te - cho u - m i do-me lo en ke .er kcho a- do -

3

biMcho goa-le - nu li - mos hawo-schi - ach wen do-me lecno mo schi-e-nu lischi-jas ha-me -

30

N?80.

1MH bX

El o-don al kol ha -ma -sun bo-ruchumwo-roch bfikoluscho-mo god-lowtu-wo

^ 3__^ L __ , _ Qt ■? V I ^

mo-le o-lom do-as us wu-no so-w&wim o- - so ha-mis-go-e al cha - jos hako-desch

wuch-dor-bcho-wod al-ha-mer-ko^oschusu-mischor lif-nechis-o cbe - scd wrachamimlif-ne shwo-do
fo^winimorossche-bo-roe-lo he-nu jzovombe-da-as bwi-no-uw-has-ke] ko-ochug-\vu-ro nosan bo-hem

a tempo

hh-joamosch liru be-ke-rewte - wel mle-im siwum*fi - kirn no - ga no-e si-wom

bcholho-o - lim sin&chimb&£esom'we«o-€unbe - wo-am o - sira be

N?81.

mo* rzonko-nom.

DTirns o^l

wchuJom po^chiin es pi-hem bi-kdu-schouw - to-ho-ro bschi-rowo sim-ro um • wor-chim unu

Wchu-lomme-kablim a-le-hemol malchusschoraajussemi-se wnosnimrescho&ae lo - se Ihak-

deschljoz4t>mbnachasruhachbso46bru-rouwin-i^no kduschokiUomke-chodo

J-

nim wom-runbjr-o

N?83.U>TJ^

31

N?84

3

D^BIKTTI

ruch a. - to a - do - noj

N?86.

bo - ruch hu u-uw-ruch schmo jo -zor nam o

-pos o - men

Wa-ha^wi-e-nulscho-loin me-or-ba kan-fos ho-o - rez wso-li-che-nu ko-me-ni -jus lar-

- : * * * ^

bo - ruch hu u - wo-ruch schmo ha-bo - cher ba-mo js - ro-el ba - - wo o-men

a - do noj e - lo -he chem e -

32

N?8snrrrart &£

at a-wo-se-nuwo-le-nu al bo-ne-nii veal do-re-se-nu walkoldo-ros se-ra js-ro-el a~wo.de. eh

N?89.^^i^

Go- a - - le - mi go - el a- wo - se - nu jo«- re - mi zor je^chu-o

po-de-nu u-mazi-le-mi me- o - lorn schme-cho en e - lo-him su lo-se - cho

Romwui-so go4olweno-ro masch-pilge-imiimag-bi.aschfo4im mo-zi a-si-rim u-fo-de a-no-

Chor HarmoBisicniBf via b«i Schm*H987.

thi-los lei - el-jou bo-ruch hu - umwo-rochmosche uwnejsroel Ichoo-nuschirob^inichorabo^ioniruchulom

N?91.TT3»3 ^

2

i 1 ) ^^w^ h^^w^

J^J__LJ_ii>J_

, , r pp 'p -g r f p tt r r ■ p - g r t t

i cho - mo - cho bo e. Urn a-do-noj mi cho-mo cho- ne - dor ba-ko-desch no - roa (

g

r-*f r p p i p- B>f r p p ir-r r r i rf

iA*i

s

^E

£

shi - los o - se le - - le a - do - noj jus - Iocjl lo - - iora w> - - ed

N°92.

Recit.

a rriDK

i-to a-do-noj

^'" J Jiji Ji JtJ>J> J> J -WI S J* AJ_ ' ■ > I " J' » J J J J) j,J,J 1

he aw-ro-home-lo-he iz-chok we-lo - .he ja-kow ho - -el ha-go-dol ha-gi-borwhano-ro

33

el el - jou go-melcha*sodimto-wim wko-ne ha-kol wso - chercha&de o-wos u-tue-

-wi go-el liw-ne we-ne - hem lman schnio ba-ha-wo me-lech o - ser u - mo-schi-a u-mo-

. Chor. , Kantor. , Chor

a - to gi - bor Io-lorn a - do - noj mcha-je jne-sim a - to rawlho-schi - a mchal-

-kelcha-jusbe^e-sedmcha-je-me-siini brachmim ra-bim so-mechnof-lim wro -fe cho-lim u-ma-

-ros u - mi do -me lech me-lech m&misunMjhflrjeu-maz- mi- achjschu-o we-ne mou a - to lhach-

Chor. Wantnr Chor.

-josme sim bo-ruch a-to a-do-noj " " mcha-je ba-me-sim o - men.

-schem

sche mak-di schim o - so bisch-rae zno - rom ka-ko-

mar
„Kod08fb u N t ?71inO

34

N?94.HpS Vt

im kol mis-nas-im

3^ J

lu mas sro - fim lu mo sam bo-ruch )o me - ru

Borsch in N?Zt

ft »7^ J ' » jj Jiii * ? m * & h^ &* v i iigjgjji J 3 J '-M^

Mim-komcho mal-ke-nu so-fi - a we-eimlocho le nu ki

mcha4rim a nach nu

wor he-o-mur be*chire u

al je de do-wid mo schi ochzidke - cho

Jm-looha-do-noj lo-lom e-lo - ha ich zi-jou Idor - wo. dor ha-le4u - -ja

,fii ,ijjJU>,j ^J.jjji.^ij.i^pjJi^.

N?96.

Recit ad libitui

b rriaj$

fl u Kccit ad libitum i. i I

t y iij i A Ji Ji /, h j. j, j t i Ji Ji Ji Ji A fa j j. /j, J,

Bo-ruch a - to a - do-noj e . lo - he-nii we - lo - he a -wo.se -mi e - lo -

he aw-ro-home-lo-he jz^hokweJo- -he ja - a-kow ho - el ha.go<dol ha-^i-bor Vha no-ro el el-

jou goflielcha-sadimto-R-im wfco-ne ha-kol Vsocherchas-de o-woa u-me- wi go -el liw-newue-pem

tfc™ ^n ■ , L_i_, ■ .. ■ . . ■ .^

35

-togi^>orlo4om&d<Hiojmcharjemensiina-to rawTho^chi- a

r mcfaal kel-cha-jusb&cha-sedmchaje me-

eizn bru-chanun ra-bim

so mech nof-Iini wfco-fe cho4im u- 1

Jjein e-mu-naso lischejie o for mi-cho mo-choba-at^v\wosu-mido-me loch meJechraemisuncha-je uraaz-

-mi achje-schu - o whemoua-tole-ha-cha-jos me-siiii bo-rucha-toa-do-nojracharjeha4ne*im

Bcome mo-ron ka-ko-suw al jod moi-e-cho we-ko-ro se el wo mar

i_ KodoachinGNoTl

1 \ _J_

im kol mis - na&am lu - mas sro- fim lu-mo -som bo-ruch jo -me - - ro

Kantor.

row be -jo- me - nu le-o - lom wo-ed

36

se cho ol je-do dowid

' mo-schi-ach zitUce-cho
Chor Jmlocfa V9 05.

N9100.

Adagio.

TP'ppjJ

bsoch je-ru-schola jus ir - - cho le-dor wcMior ol - - - ne-zach nco chim

37

al je - de

N?101

Kantor.

do wid me schi - ach

iPPW

■^M

mcha. - kim a -nach-nu loch wsim-loi

A

i r i i - i - i ■ i ■ i ■ i r P 9 \

w nu kl mcha kim a- nach-nu loch mo^soj mo - soj tim- loch

38

bzi jou bko row bjo- me ^ nu lolom wo - ed tisch-kon tis^fa

wsiskadascb wislcadasch bsoch jruscliola jus Dsochjeruscho la - jus ir - • cao

bsoch jl-ruscholajfus bsoch je-ru-scho la-ju3 bsoch je - ru scho- la-jus. ir-

Adagio.

ldorwo-dor ul nezachnze-chim

ul~nezach nzo- - -chim We-ne-rm sir-e-nu raalchuse-cho ka - do.worhe-o-nrar bochi

N9102.

Recit.

Ainn^

mo schi ach rid to cfco

Chor Jnloc* is O.

cho e-lo-he nu mi-pi - - nu lo-jo-muschloJoinwo-ed ki el meUechgojJolwko-dosch o
fl L Chor. Kan tor. Chor.

lo bo-ruch a - to a-dojioj bo-ruchhu u-wo-ruchschmoho - el ha-ko - doscb o-men.

N?103

Binynnl'

ldorwo-dor na-gid god-loch ul-ne-zachnzochimkduschoscho nak-disch we-schiwchachoe-lo -

39

-ruch a-to a-do- noj bo-ruch hu u-wo-ruchschmoho-el ha-ko-dosch

N9104.

** J-

Js-nmchmoechebeiriatnaschel-ko ki e wed ne-monko-ro.solo klit tif-e-res bro-scho no sa -to bom-

-dolfo-necheal har-si-noj usch-nelu-chosa-wo-nim ho-ridbe-jo do wchosuwbo-hemschmirascha-

* 3 H

J

. ^ . .3

*jjT l> Jj ^ J J ^ Wjg"rhf"?'1 ferT^I W i *1 V \ \ M J J*) J*) JM f\V ft ' ts '» J JJ t !J"t"l

«i ^'

- * - 9 - »^. ^

f v " ♦ *

os hi lo - lorn ki sche-sches jo-mim o - so a-do-noj es iuuschomajus veshoo - rez

no fasch

wvtiiii\lll ik

j - no - fasch

1

j'-'>7iiij>J'3iJij>^jij 'j'U^j j.»j, i jgj>Ajjij jjji i

N9105.

PP ....

ve - lo nsa-to a-do-noj e - lo-he-nu Igo-je ho-a-ro-zos we - lo hinchal-to mal-ke- nu low-

kew a - seher bom bo chor - to

40

-ki dasclUo chem-das jo-mim b - so Ito-ro-so se cherle-ma- se wre - - schis.

le-cu a-d0Jioj e-lo-he nu baha^vww*oioncha-baskod-schecho no-jo - mictm wo js-ro-

loAch hu d-Xruchsduno jnka - dfcsdl

h&ficha-bos

das js-ro-el a - me-cho wfeech-se - jasr e-ne nubschuwcho-le zi - jo be - ra-cha-mim

41

o - nden mo-dim a - noch mi loph

ja± j> ,J

N°108.

Andantino.

rttr;i n^_

-wid aw-de-cho wdrtrouje-ru^dwlajusirlrods^ - ro - el lfo-necho lif-le-

3.

-to ul-to-wo lchenul-chfrsed ul-ra-chamimul -cha-jm uischo-lom bjamrosch-chode.«chha-se soch-

nu ado-noj e Jo-he-nu bo lto-wo o - men u-fok-de

Ckor. Kao(or.

nuwoliw

Criqr.

ro-che o - men who-schi-e
K«nt or poco MOi,<,o ed express

nu wo le - cha - jus

u-wid - wit r jeschu-o we ra-chamim chus we*ho- ne-nu

o-le-nu who-schi-e nu ki e -le cho e -

ne nu ki el me-lechcha-nun we- ra_

N<?109. ITD^m h>

Al ha-ni-smi walhapurkouwalhag:wu-roswalhatscmios WiUhamilchomosscheoai-solarWo-sftnubaja

mim ho-hera bi - smauhase bi - mema^is-johu-benjochonou ko-hen ^-dolcha^chmonaju-wo^iewkscheotn-

42

-domal-chusjo-wonhor-scho-o al am-cho js-ro-el Chaschkichomto-ro - se-cho ul-ha-wirommechu-

s . 3 s

-ke rzone - cho wa- to be-ra-cha^machoho-ra-biro o-madto lo-hem be-es to-ro-sora

rawto es di-wom dauto es di-nom no-kamto esnik-mo-som mo sar togi-bo-rimbe-jadchaloschirawra-

-bimbjad roa4imut-me-imbjadtho-rimu-rscho-ira bjad za-di-kim wse dim bja-dos-ke soro-se

-cho ul-cho o- si-soschem go-dol we-ko-doschbo- o - lo-me-cho ul-am-cho js-ro-el o-

- si - so tschu-ogdolo u-for- kan kha-jom ha-se wa-charkeu-bo-u wo-ne-oholid -wir be-se-oho u-

-fi- maes he-cho-lecho we-ti - ha-rues mik dosohe-oho whid-li-kune-rosbchaxvoskod-schechowko*

l ^. - I- , ,r — r=fr t ■ ■ ■ ■ - ■ l . - / ^_

— gW-i ■ * ■ ■ ~ tf p ■) » F y i ' i_ LJ - ■ - ■ ■ * ^^*a * * -#J *J - J) ' * 11 * ^ * * fi ^ * » * * > j ^*
-u schmo nas jmeoha nu ko e-lu 1'ho dos le-ha lei lschira choha~go-dol

Wal ku-lom js- bo-rach we-js- ro-mamschim- oho mal-ke-nu to-mid lo-lom wo-ed

wchol ha-oha-jm jo-du-chose-lo wi-ha-le - lu esschim-chobe-e-mea ho- el je-schu-o-se-nuwes-ro-se-nu

Chor. Kantor. , L -; v. i Chor.,

se-lo bo-ruch a-to a-do-noj ha- tow schimoho ul-ohons e lho dos

N?lll. DMTD jtTG

S-lo - he-nu we-lo - he a-wo-se - nu bor- ohe-nu leab-ro-cho hara-schu-

43

.now ko-ha-nim am kdo sche cho ko~ nur je-wo- rech-cho a -do- no j wjsch me - re- cho

Chor, Kantor. Chor.

j_ so a- do - noj po-now e - le- ohowjo-sem le - oho soho - lom

i Kantor. L ) j ' T ■

jo- er a-do-aoj po- now e • le-cho wi-ohu-ne ko O - - men j- so ado -noj po-

N9113.

Reoit.

Kantor

•Tun'ttj

6 . 1 K «ntor. t .

tr" j*. } \ ji .h i\ j', j, j\ m jk ji ^ i j *> } \ j » .»n

Sim scho-lom to-wo uw - ro-cho chen wo- che-sed wo- ra - cha-nim o-

-le-nu wal kol js-ro-el a - me - oho bor che-nu o wi-nu ku - lo- nu ke-chod le-orpo-ne-

wtowbe -neoho Iworechesam- oho js-ro-el beholesuw chol scho o bisohlo me
Chor.

cho bo-
Chor.

- ruch a - to a- do- noj

44

N?U4. wn

A a Fur Festtage. ■

Wtow be - ne -

- oho lwo -

reoh es am - oho js ro -

el

Chor.

behol

es uw-ohol scho bisch lo -

me - oho

bo - ruoh a - to a - do - noj
1 X

bo- ruoh
Chor.

ha

.-mwo-reoh es a- mo js- ro-el ba-scho - lorn

Chor.

N?115

Recit.

Js- ga - dal u.s.w. schme- ra-bo O - men bol - mo wim- m

KantOr. _ Chor. Kantof. Chor. Kantor-

js - bo - rach dkud-scho brioh hu le - lo wim-ra O-

Chor. Kan tor. Chor. Kantor.

tis - ka - bel

Chor.

wim-ru O-men jhe - schlomo wim-ru Omen o-ae soho

- men.

N? 116. ^3 V«

A- do- noj me -lech a- do. noj mo- loch a- do -noj jm-looh lo - lorn wo - ed

jon tiw

oho - mofl jmsoho-la - jm

45

fcj wchoPwodbo - tooh nu me- lech el rom win so k- don o-lo-mim.

.N? 117.

*CD2 *rn

Wai - hi bin- so. a ho- o - ron wa-jo- mer mo- sche ker- mo a- do - noj wjo-

ni-zi-jon te - xeso- ro ud - war a- do- noj mi je ru- scho la- jm.

If? MB.

Kant or.

i^Q VK

Enko-mo-eho io- e-lo - him a-do- noj

malohas cho-m&l

46

a-do- noj os la - mo 1 - hen a-do- noj jwo-rech es a - mo wa - scho

Ki wcho lwad bo - tooh nu ki wcho lwad bo - toch

nu me-leoh el rom

* J J ,J

poffo a poco vretc. e rit. .
me - - lech el rom wui so u — -j j — -^^

"j j" j/?

— | — 4~— f — \~\~ri J^~V^i — ~A~4 — ■ — | 4rj m — h-i i_ tf» _ la y m \ '

? { W * -* -1 »— • — 1 frf* » * ff 1 I -if- P " r J* Iff f" i* ^ T

mi

tee-lech el romwui-so el romwui- so ■

■ a- don o-io-mim.

V r ' " ' Fn I ' 1 I 1 1 l I i ' 'ill i i i j

N? 119

Recit.

2D*) 3*77.1

Wai - hi bin-zo- a ho- o- ron wa - jo mer mo- sche

47

ze bo - ro ad - war «l- do
J- J .J ffjl^ ^

r\ p p V * r f . *r

- noi miru-scho- la - jrn mi- ru-scl

scho - la - - jm.

48

Solo.

Tenor and Alt.

, _, -rcjTT

a-do- noj a-do-noj el ra-chumwoha- rum e-rech a - pa- jm wraw one Bed we. e,

J ..hJu i .. K. i, k , J . ki . . ■ farm rmA_

mes no-zer ohe - sed lo-a-lo-fim no- se o-wonwo ■
a- dp - noj

fe- schaWchafo- 6^-^

wna- ke

noj a-ao-noj el ra-ohum wcha-rum e-rech a-pa-jra wraw ohe- s ed—

mes no-°zer-ohe-Bed n °- 2er c !» e 7 sed *? -. a-lo-fim |oio

/ rt 1 1 1 J Iff

a 1 *

Ki . I^TJT

•* se o-wonwo- fo

schweha-to

wna-kewoha-to

- wna - '

- '

i.r

- r..

*i£**~

^

J^

■ 11

"> ' r r f 'r '

N9121

j A Chor.

^SJ^ ^1

49

&ne ni be e mes jsoh e cho

de- oho * - ne - ni be- e - mes,_ jsoh - e - oho

ane- ni - be-e-mes jsoh. e- oho jsoh

Kant or. Fiir tiefe Stimma von U Oder Fi«.

e - oho.

E - ohod e-lo - he-nu go - - dol a- do- ne - nu ko - dosch sohmo

K - chod ' ft- lo - he ' £u £o - dol fe do - ne- nu ko - dosch sohmo.

me - mo sohmo jack - dow

50

hoi bars6ho-ina-jni u-wo - o - rez lcho a-do-noj ha- mamlo-cfao , wha - mis - n& - sa

Tgrff

ki ko - doscta ki kfrdoschki ko4oschki kodoschki

ko-dpsch ko - dosch ado -not e - lo he

51

dosch |ci

noj elo-he-nu ki ko - dosch ki ko-dosch ado noj e-lo - he - nu

Ico-doschki ko-doschki ko-doscha-do noj ki ko - dosch kl ko-dosch ki

. \t ff'v- — rr r r r^r r

dosch ado-noj e-io-he - nu ro-rAe-um a-do - noj elo - he - nu we hisch ta~cha

ro-me-um a - do-noi , e-lo-he-nu

-"*> 1. 1 Jy I i A V .±jh±

. - -f ' r r f

lharkodscho ki ki dosch a -do - - noj

hisch tachwu lhar kodscho ki ko - dosch ado - noj

' "" J A

e-lo-he-nu.

-J JJ 4

52

N? 186.

Recit.

li?!? D ^

Je - kum pur-kau minschma-jo chi - no we-chis-do we- ra-cha-me we-cha-je a- ri

ura-so-ne rwi - che wsi-ja-to disch - ma - jo u- war- jus gn ■

-to

-fid- . -r —

nu - ho - ro roal
6 >- =»- =>-^

- jo

—3-

sar-o cha-jo we-ka- jo - mo

t J... .

sar-o

di lo

jf-sok we-

W^^

•

rjJTjTi

n w 1 *

v •

-di-la jw-to! mi-pis-go-me o-raj so lchol kho - lo

ka-di-scho ho-den raw-re -

l r 9 r\

ei * • *-J ♦ •

1 '^' J • J

rj# «

taf - lo

scha

wjas - ge jo - me-chon wj-ten ar-cho lisch-ne-chon wsis por - kun

Mische-be-racha-wa-se-nu au-ro-hom jz-chokwe-ja-a-kow hu je-wo-rech eskolha-koholha-kodoschha-

mi sche-bo-imbso-chom Ihis - pa lei u - mi

-^ GS — . *_

- nos - nim nen

53

bur be mu no ha-ko dosch bo-roch hu jscha- lem scho rom wjo - sir me-hem kol ma-cha-

-lo wir-po lcholgo-fom wis-lach Ichol a - wo - nom wjisch-lachbro-cho whaz-lo-cho be -

-cliol ma- se jte - hem im kol js - vo-el

N91S8

Rccit.

*qn3U5 ^p

kim be-zor-che zi-bur be - mu - no ha-ko - dosch bo-ruch hu je - scha-Iemscho-rom wjo-

Allegro.

sir me-hem kol machlowjrpolcholgTi - fom wjs-lachlchola-wo-namwjsch lochbro-eho we- hazlo-cho be ■

poco rail.

chol ma-scje-de - hem im kol js - ro - el a- one -hem

l

wno - mar

54

N? 129.

Recit.

na?Ttt>ri )vr\:r\

Ha- no - sentschu-o lam-lo-schim u mem-scho-lo Ian- si - chim mal-chu-so mal-chus ko - lo - lo -

ma-jm a-sim usi-wo hu-juo-rechwjsch-mor wjn-zor wja - sor wi-romemwi-g-a-del wi-na-se le-D

_3 _? ., l. i .... ^ , ^J^

. lo es - a-do-ne-nu ha - kej-sar jo - rum ho - do me-lechmR.1 che ham lo-chim bra- cha -

-mow j - ten bli-ho uw - lew kol jo - a-zow wso-row ra-cha-mo - nus la-sos to-wos i ■

-mo- nu wim kol - js - ro - el hjo - mow uw - jo - me - mi ti - wo-scho jhn - do wjs-ro -

-el jsch-kon ho-we-tach u - wo lzi-jon go-el wchen jhi ro-zou we - no - mar 0- men.

N? 130.

Recit.

•psi *n^

Jhi

ro - zon mil-fo - ne-cho a- do - noj e - lo - he - nu we lo -

-he & - wo - se - nu sehetcha desch e-lo - nu es ha-cho-des ha- se

lto.

. wo we- liw-vo-cho wsi - ten lo-nu cha im

^f^^^ ^^ ^l^

r (^ L ^f=T^mm^m^^^^m

chim cha-jm schel-scholom cha jm schelto wo cha jm schel bro-cho cha-jm

schel par-

- no - so cha - jm schel chi-luz

a zo mST— ^ P 9 ? V 5 ? Y

cha - jm schel-di luz a zo mos.

' XLhX

55

Cha- jm sche-jesch bo - hem wjr - as schoma jmwir-as chct cha -

sche-jesch bo - hem wjr-as scho mo jm

schejesch sche-jesch bo - hem

wjr - as

cha -Jim BChe-Io-scherwe-cho wod cha- jm sche-the wo-nu a -ha -was to - ro wjr-

-as scho-mo-jm cha - jm

schej-ma - le a-denoj misch-a - los il- be - nu fe

,Chor.

Q*D*2 TWyW'O

m 131.

Mische-o-so ni-sim la- a -wo - se-im wgo-al b - som me-aw- daslche - rus hu j£-

-ba kan-fos ho - o - rez eha-we - rim kol js-ro-el we - no - mar o - men.

56

REVIEW OF NEW MUSIC

SHIREI ROZUMNI: A volume of
hazzanic recitatives, re-edited and
published by Hazzan William Lip-

It is with a great deal of pleasure
and nostalgia that I read the re-edited
work of Rozumni, originally pub-
lished by Samuel Alman, who was
music director of the Duchess Place
Synagogue, London, England. This
small, very valuable work has been
re-edited by Hazzan William Lipson
of Miami Florida. I had the oppor-
tunity to study the original Alman
publication. It was and remains a
beautiful work with its own style,
phrasing and ornamentation. The
original is, with rare exceptions, diffi-
cult to use in the present time. Many
of us have invested much hard work
in changing these creations so that
they would be suitable for perform-
ance. The problem was to sing the
recitatives without using the over-
flowery phrases and yet to retain the
originality and musical genius of
Rozumni. Hazzan Lipson has done
this carefully, painstakingly and suc-
cessfully. He has prepared a hazzanic
"Shulchan-Aruch" of Rozumni crea-
tions. He has maintained the Ro-
zumni style and combined it with the
requirements of modern-age hazzanut.

There are many fine recitatives for
Kabbalat Shabbat, Shacharit and
Musaf LeShabbat. They are small
gems and can serve as an adornment
to any service. I hope this valuable
book will be used by many as it is
sure to enhance the service both for
hazzanim and worshippers alike.

Yehuda Mandel

MUSIC NOTES

COMPOSITION CONTEST

We are pleased to note that the 4th
Annual Braemer Competition is now
in full swing. The Competition invites
all composers to submit an entry of
an Hebraic String Quartet. The prize
will be $1500. In order to qualify the
music must be of a classic nature by
a Jewish composer, utilizing Hebraic
motifs.

The judges are: Vincent Persi-
chetti, Samuel Adler, Mervin Hart-
man. The deadline for submission of
compositions is December 27, 1971.

For further information send a
stamped, self-addressed 8*4 x 11
envelope to the Braemer Competition,
Congregation Adath Jeshurun, York
and Ashbourne Roads, Elkins Park,
Pa. 19117.