As the Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur approach, I thought I’d put up a few new videos on Youtube of some of my favourite High Holiday songs. Reaction to my recording and arrangement of the Moroccan Kol Nidrei was so encouraging last year, I thought I’d contribute a few more this year as well.
Three of the five are selections from my CD, High Holiday Memories: Timeless Moroccan & Sephardi Classics (available at CD Baby, CD Universe, and my website, www.eyalbitton.com).
EL NORA ALILA featuring 3 traditional tunes: Turkish, Moroccan, and Spanish & Portuguese Synagogue. This beautiful poem written Moses ibn Ezra, introduces the Ne’ila towards the end of Yom Kippur. It is a rousing moment in all Sephardic congregations. I’ve arranged it for cantor & choir.
AMONAI SHAMATI This piyut is sung by various soloists prior to the Amidah on Rosh Hashana & Yom Kippur. The tradition of singing this particular piyut is not maintained as rigorously as some other songs. This particular melody is from Morocco.
AHOT KETANA On the first night of Erev Rosh Hashana, Sephardic communities around the world introduce the holy day by singing this hymn by Abraham Hazan Gerondi. It invokes great sentiment among Sephardim as it, along with Psalm 81, marks the start of the New Year. This tune is of Moroccan origin. I’ve arranged it for cantor & choir.
VENISLACH
This is a melody I composed for choir and have introduced to the Adath Israel in Montreal and to Beth Tikvah Synagogue in Toronto. It’s sung three times immediately after the chanting of Kol Nidrei.
BEROSH HASHANA This is a beautiful and stirring melody and text from the Ashkenazi tradition. I’ve arranged the song for cantor and choir. It’s one of my favourite moments in the Rosh Hashana & Yom Kippur service.
I’m thrilled to hear that rehearsals for MISS PERSIA The Musical have been going well at the Savannah Christian Church. Director Wayne Sullivan has been keeping me in the loop and I’m sure they’re going to do a great job!
They’re putting on three performances of my musical, starring Ansley Kicklighter as Hadassah / Esther, on Sep. 26, 27, and 28. Please visit their production site http://savannahchristian.com/worship-arts/drama/.
It was such a shame that I could not attend this year’s North American Jewish Choral Festival. I hear it went amazingly well, as always.
This year was particularly special as the wonderful and talented Ottawa choir, Musica Ebraica, made an appearance at the festival and sang a Sim Shalom of mine. The choir got to sing it with my own cantor, Cantor Tibor Kovari, of Toronto’s Beth Tikvah Synagogue (where I’m Music Director).
I’ve heard nothing but positive things. Kudos to the choir and to their director, Dave Malecki.
One of my favourite TV shows of all time is Newhart – the 1980s series. In the first season, Newhart has a neighbour, Kirk Devane, who owns a diner called The Minuteman Café.
In one episode, Kirk’s diner gets robbed. After contacting his insurance company regarding the theft, he runs to his neighbour, Newhart, and is absolutely indignant. The insurance company refuses to pay. He’s livid. He finds this inaction by his insurance company to be unjust, as you can imagine.
Newhart, however, tells him that he’s not the least bit surprised. It’s a case of “the boy who cried wolf”. You see, Kirk’s greatest talent is not being a cook or restaurateur. No, it’s lying. So, Newhart tells him that, after garnering a reputation for lying and even for filing false insurance claims, Kirk is getting his just desserts. Despite all that, Kirk insists, “It’s not fair.”
Little in this world is black and white. There are lots of greys. Fairness can be one of those greys as it is often relative and even subjective.
A little boy sees his sister get a gift from his parents. Meantime, he doesn’t get anything. “It’s not fair,” he says to his parents. “But it’s your sister’s birthday,” they explain. From that boy’s perspective, this wasn’t fair. Well, to me and probably all of you, it was fair. It may not be the same or equal but it is fair.
Parashat Pinhas (Numbers 25:10-30:1) gives us some interesting examples of fairness.
(1)
The story of Zelophehad’s daughters is a perfect example (ch. 27).
(Ch 27: 1) “Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad… from the families of Menasseh, the son of Joseph. The names of his daughters were: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.” They make their case to Moses. Their father had no sons and they think they should gain his inheritance. Remember, the rule at the time was that the inheritance should go to the eldest son.
So what does Moses decide?
Nothing. He goes to God to find the answer. And God tells Moses (v. 7), “The daughters of Zelophehad are right.” Women are right? The highest spiritual authority in the universe, the Creator, God, sides with women? Even in this day and age, there are societies that would not accord such open-mindedness to women. The decision may not be as open-minded as we are in N. America today. Nevertheless, it’s highly progressive for its time.
But wait, there’s more. Go back to v. 2. “And they stood before Moses, and before Elea’azar the priest, and before the leaders and all the congregation, at the door of the tent of meeting.”
I find this amazing and beautiful. Why does the Torah bother with this verse? Isn’t the point really that Moses heard the case and brought it to God and a decision was made?
I think the Torah wants to underline the importance this case was given. And I think that the Torah reveals something else to us that may not be intentional. Women were heard at the highest level of this spiritual society. I’m not talking about kol ishah or the mechitzah. I’m referring to the equality and dignity that was given to women in this judicial matter – and at that time, judicial matters and spiritual matters overlapped. This case was heard by members of the public, the leaders, the High Priest, and Moses. This is significant.
Not only that but let’s look once again at v. 1. “The names of his daughters were: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.” They have names! Why? Because they matter – and because as people who inherit a father’s possession, they take their place alongside the men in that society. This is incredibly remarkable and telling.
In looking over this particular story, I asked myself why Moses didn’t make the decision himself. He’s the highest judge and the highest spiritual leader. Shouldn’t he make the judgment?
I believe that change is difficult to accept. It’s hard for everyone. Yes, some people say they embrace change but it’s not completely true. Even they embrace one sort of change but not another. There’s always something that you feel should not be changed.
As a musical director, I’ll present a particular scenario. Let’s say you come to synagogue on Erev Yom Kippur and you prepare yourself spiritually to recite the Kol Nidrei. Then you hear the cantor and choir sing a melody you’ve never heard. It sounds nothing like the traditional Ashkenazi Kol Nidrei. How would you feel? How would you react?
Everyone has a line in the sand when it comes to change.
So with the case brought forth by the daughters of Zelophehad, a significant change was being made. Women were going to count. Women were going to be able to gain an inheritance. It may have had many limitations but the bottom line remains true. I believe that this was such an important new rule that it could not have come from Moses. It had to have come from the highest possible source – God Himself.
Imagine you’re a member of the public, maybe even Zelophehad’s brother, and you hear Moses make a decision like this. With the mentality of that day and age, you might be very upset. You might look at Moses and question his judgment. But what would you say – what could you say – if Moses told you that this had come straight from God?
Nothing. You’d have to accept it.
Ultimately, though, this decision was a fair one. Justice, in its purest form, is supposed to be fair. And this judgment, at least to us today, is certainly a fair one. It is just.
There’s another issue that strikes me in this story but I’ll come back to it later.
(2)
A second display of fairness in this week’s parasha can be found in Ch. 27:12-14. “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Go up into this mountain of Abarim, and see the land which I have given to the people of Israel. And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was gathered, because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin …”
After a 40-year journey out of Egypt, Moses will die before entering the Promised Land. How is this fair?
As punishment, God could end Moses’ life before entering the Promised Land without letting Moses see the land.
The Torah, it seems to me, seeks to illustrate God’s fairness. On one hand, Moses will be punished for disobeying God. On the other, he will be rewarded with seeing the end of his journey. He will see the results of his life’s work. He will not experience the results but he will see that his life’s work has led to something. He will die with the knowledge that his mission in life was indeed a success.
In the early 18th century, during the Baroque period, the best-known composer in Europe was Georg Philip Telemann. He was considered the foremost and greatest composer of his day. But today, when we look upon that era, it’s not Telemann we remember but another composer: Johan Sebastian Bach. Yes, Bach did have success in his lifetime but he died having no idea what the impact of his life’s work would be.
At the end of the 18th century, Mozart died at 35, a poor man. He was buried in an unmarked grave. Again, and perhaps more than Bach, he had no idea what the results of his life’s work would be.
When I look at those examples, Mozart’s in particular, I can’t help but find it unfair. So the fact that Moses was permitted to see the Promised Land before dying was a blessing.
(3)
There’s a third illustration of fairness in this chapter. In v. 18 & 20, the Torah reads: “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit… You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey.”
I’ve always been fascinated with this. Who would you have assumed would take over for Moses? Historically, in every society, who takes over for any given ruler? Usually, the person who assumes leadership over a nation is an heir of the current or previous ruler. Generally speaking, when that doesn’t happen, it’s because of an assassination or a coup.
I would have assumed that would be the case here. Instead, Yehoshua bin Nun is chosen. Why Yehoshua? According to the text we just read, he is “a man in whom is the spirit”. He is deserving. He has merit.
Imagine you’re the King’s eldest son. On the King’s deathbed, he tells you that you, the prince and eldest son, will not become King. Someone else, not even a member of the royal family, will take the position. Would you consider that fair? Isn’t it fair that the King have a rightful heir?
The Torah teaches us that heredity is not always the key to entitlement. Sometimes it’s merit. And this isn’t the first time the Torah makes this point. We’ve seen it with Jacob & Esau, Joseph and his brothers, David and his brothers, David and Absalom, and others.
There’s another interesting element in this section. Whose decision is it to appoint a new leader for Israel? Look at v. 15-17: “Moses said to the Lord, ‘Let the Lord… appoint a man over the congregation,… who shall lead them…” This is a true leader. This is someone who is concerned not with his legacy but with the well-being of his people.
**
Let’s go back, for a moment, to the story of Zelophehad’s daughters. In Ch. 27, v. 3, the daughters say to Moses, “Our father died in the wilderness; he was not among the company of those who gathered themselves against the Lord in the company of Korah, but died for his own sin; and he had no sons.”
(1)
Why do the daughters give that entire preamble? Why don’t they just say, “Our father died in the wilderness and he had no sons”?
They’re underlining that he did not rebel against Moses and God and should, therefore, not be punished. I also think there’s another reason that the daughters mention the fact that their father did not stand against Moses or God. I am convinced that this is to remove any argument against them, any shadow of doubt – not just for Moses but for all of Israel. They’re trying to convince the public and the Torah is trying to convince the reader of the case’s merit.
In terms of justice and fairness, even if Zelophehad had stood against Moses, why should his sin taint his children? Doesn’t the Torah teach us not to punish children for their parents’ actions?
By mentioning Zelophehad’s support for Moses and God, we are being sent a message: don’t even look for excuses with respect to this case. After all, this is a change that many people would have or could have been upset by.
(2)
There’s another part of that little speech that really stands out in my mind: “…but died for his own sin.” What does that mean?
It seems to me that this reflected a way of thinking within the Israelite community. I believe that death was seen as a punishment. Surely, there were degrees of sin but nevertheless, I think the Ancient Israelites – like many today – believed in cause and effect, in reward and punishment.
He “died for his own sin.” It’s an interesting concept. It seems to me that they believed he must have done something that led God to end his life – even if it took place in old age.
Look again at the topic of Moses’ death. We said earlier that the reason Moses doesn’t go into the Promised Land is as a punishment for disobeying God. But let’s reread Ch. 27:12-14. “Go up into this mountain of Abarim, and see the land which I have given to the people of Israel. And when you have seen it, you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was gathered, because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin …”
Notice that the Torah does not say, “Go up into this mountain of Abarim, and see the land which I have given to the people of Israel. And you shall not enter the land because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin …” No, it says “you also shall be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was gathered, because you rebelled against my word in the wilderness of Zin …”
As I read it, the punishment isn’t that he won’t live in the Promised Land; the punishment is that he will die. Again, just like with Zelophehad, there’s the notion that even death is a result of your actions – of your sins.
It’s a remarkable idea. It may be disturbing or upsetting in some ways but it’s remarkable. Clearly there seems to be levels or degrees of sins. There’s no equating the sin causing the death of Moses and the sin causing the death of Korah, for example. Still, it seems that it is looked upon as cause and effect, reward and punishment, fairness.
