La Traviata

When Alfredo first sings the "Di quell'amor", in "Un di, felice" (http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bhr7293/index.html , p 40 ff.), at the syllable "cro-" (of "croce") he reaches the high "mi" note of the scale, which, in this case, is a high A, because we are in the key of F major. The same is true (albeit one octave higher) when Violetta repeats the tune (and words) as part of "A fors' è lui".

Later on, Alfredo sings the same "Amor, amor è palpito" tune from the balcony, in the middle of "Sempre Libera" (p. 66), which is in the key of A-flat major. In order to reach the "mi" note of the scale on "cro-" (of "croce"), the tenor would need to sing a high C. Either Verdi did not want to impose this on the tenor, or he had some other (artistic?) reason to not write in the high C (perhaps to diminish Alfredo's rôle here, since he's only on the sidelines), so he wrote in an G, which always sounds terribly unsatisfying to me.

But that's the whole point -- the tension between whether the tenor will sing the G or the high C! Most tenors should do the G, because most of them would sound bad on the high C. But there's an implicit high C there, because, of course, it's the same tune from before, which reached the "mi" note every time it was merely in the key of F.

And thus, one waits there to hear whether the tenor will or will not sing the higher note, and there's a time-period of tension, and then disappointment if he sings the G, but orgasmic release-of-tension if he sings the high C.

When I was growing up, we had a recording of Maria Callas and Alfredo Krauss, in which he does sing the high C. I looked on Youtube, and found no other recordings with the high C, but I did find the Callas/Krauss one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vofYDpBKAhY

Very Cute Piyyut for Shabbath Hanukka

(This poem is published in Anthology of Hebrew Poetry in Greece, Anatolia and the Balkans. Leon J. Weinberger. Cincinnati, 1975.)

Weinberger writes: Fourteenth century poets from Greece, Anatolia, and the Balkans include [ . . . ] Solomon Sharbit ha-Zahab from Ephesus who wrote works on grammar [ . . . ] . His ten surviving liturgical works were included mostly in the Maḥzor Roumania as well as in the rituals of Korfu and Kaffa. In his Mi Kamocha for the Sabbath that falls on Hanukka he describes in jesting form a lively debate between the Sabbath and Hanukka each of which claims priority in Jewish law and tradition.

(A "Mi Kamokha" is a piyyut inserted in the berakha after קראית שמע, before the verse מי כמכה. Minhag Roumania has not existed for the past few centuries; sadly, the Jews of Romania, Greece, and the Balkans [and their descendants] have adopted the Sepharadic rite instead of the old Maḥzor Roumania. --G.W.)

מִי כָמוֹךָ שַׁבָּת וַחֲנוּכָּה נִגְּשׁוּ וַיְרִיבוּן לְפָנָי / זֶה יֹאמַר לַיְיָ אָנִי וְזֶה יִקְרָא בְאָזְנָי
מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָאֵלֶּה הַיּוֹם נֶגֶד נְכוֹנָי / עָשִׁיר וְרָשׁ נִפְגָּשׁוּ עוֹשֶׂה כֻלָּם יְיָ.

אָמַר שַׁבָּת לַחֲנוּכָּה: לִי מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכוֹרָה / וּמִי אַתְּ וּמִי מִשְׁפַּחְתֵּךְ הַצְּעִירָה
כִּי בִי שָׁבַת אֵ-ל גָּדוֹל וְנוֹרָא / מִכָּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא

אָמְרָה חֲנוּכָּה לַשַּׁבָּת: מַה תִּתְנַפֵּל עָלַי וְתִתְגּוֹלֵל / כִּי שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים גּוֹמְרִין לִי הַלִֵּל
וְאַתְּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד בְּלֹא זֶה, וּמַה תְּמַלֵּל? / שׁוֹמֵר מַה-מִלַּיְלָה שׁוֹמֵר מַה-מִלֵּיל.

אָמַר שַׁבָּת לַחֲנוּכָּה: מוּסָפִי יוֹרֶה עָלַי דִּין עֲלִיָּה / עוֹלַת שַׁבַּת בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ עַל עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד עֲשׂוּיָה
וּמַה תִּתְהַלֵּל עָלַי בְּעַד הַלְלוּיָ-הּ? וְאַתְּ מִמּוּסָף עֵרוֹם וְעֶרְיָה.

אָמְרָה חֲנוּכָּה לַשַּׁבָּת: זִיו נֵרוֹתַי מַדְלִיקִין תְּחִלָּה וְנֵרוֹתֶיךָ אַחֲרֵיהֶם / וְזִכְרִי בְּבִרְכַּת הָאָרֶץ וְזִכְרְךָ בְּבִרְכַּת רַחֵם
וְכָל עִנְיָינֶיךָ וּדְבָרֶיךָ הֲלֹא הֵם / אַחֲרוֹנָה יִסְעוּ לְדִגְלֵיהֶם.

אָמַר שַׁבָּת לַחֲנוּכָּה: הִנֵּה אֲנִי תָדִיר כְּאֵשֶׁת נְעוּרִים תְּמִימָה / קְרוּאָה לְשִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּכְבוּדָּה בַּת מֶלֶךְ פְּנִימָה
וְאַתְּ כְּפִלֶגֶשׁ בַּלֵּילוֹת בְּאֵימָה / לְמוֹעֲדָהּ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה.

אָמְרָה חֲנוּכָּה לַשַּׁבָּת: בְּנֵרְךָ מִסְתַּכְּלִין וּמִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין / וַאֲנִי כִּגְבֶרֶת עַל אֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים
וְשִׁירְךָ לְשָׁרִים וּלְשִׁירַי יוֹרְשִׁים / יְהִי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים.

אָמַר שַׁבָּת לַחֲנוּכָּה: אֲנִי הַגֶּבֶר הַמְשׁוּבָּח וְהַמְהוּלָּל / וְאַתְּ כְּאִשָּׁה הֵעֵזָה פָנֶיהָ וְתִשְׁלוֹל שָׁלָל
וַהֲרֵי אָמְרוּ חַכְמֵי הַיּוֹפִי וְהַמִּכְלָל / אֵין מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּאִשָּׁה כְלָל.

אֲנִי עָנִיתִי: שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם מִן הַמְּרִיבָה / כִּי הַיּוֹם חֻבַּרְתֶּם בְּחִיבָּה
שׁוּבוּ נָא אַל תְּהִי עַוְלָה וְשוּבוּ עוֹד צִדְקִי בָהּ / הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אַל נָא תְהִי מְרִיבָה
מַה תָּעִירוּ וּמַה תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת הָאַהֲבָה.

שַׁבָּת רִאשׁוֹן בְּמוֹעֲדִים יִכְלוּ טַעֲנוֹתֶיךָ / יָפְיָפִיתָ מִבְּנֵי אָדָם הוּצַק חֵן בְּשִׂפְתוֹתֶיךָ
אַךְ גּוֹאֵל אַתָּה וְאֵין לִגְאוֹל זוּלָתֶךָ / וּפָרַשְׂתָּ כְנָפֶיךָ עַל אֲמָתֶךָ.

הַמְּשׁוּבֶּצֶת זָהָב הַיּוֹשֶׁבֶת בִּגְבוּלוֹ / הִנֵּה מַלְאָךְ יָבֹא לַָךְ צַדִּיק וְנוֹשַׁע הוּא וְחֵילוֹ
וַיִּתְאַו הַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹפְיֵךְ וְהַטִּי אָזְנֵךְ לְקוֹלוֹ / כִּי הוּא אֲדוֹנַיִךְ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִי לוֹ.

אֱ-לֹהַי מִמְּכוֹן שִׁבְתְּךָ הוֹפִיעָה / וַהֲשִׁיבֵנוּ וְהָאֵר פָּנֶיךָ וְנִוָּשֵׁעָה
כִּי אַתָּה תַּשְׁקִיט וּמִי יַרְשִׁיעַ / וּמִבַּלְעָדֶיךָ אֵין לָנוּ גּוֹאֵל וּמוֹשִׁיעַ.

Weinberger writes: In this poem he [the paytan] also satirizes what was probably a form of Platonic love in his day as may be seen from the following:

"אמר שבת לחנוכה: 'אני הגבר המשובח והמהולל / ואת כאשה העזה פניה ותשלל שלל
והרי אמרו חכמי היופי והמכלל: אין משתמשין באשה כלל.' "

note 65: Cf. I Davidson, Thesaurus of Mediaeval Hebrew Poetry, (New York, 1924-33), Shin 317. See below poem #34. There is a double entendre in the use of the word ’isha which means both “woman” and “fire”. Used in the former sense it is a polemic against the sexless love of the Platonist; in the latter sense it refers to the Rabbinic prohibition against making use of the light from the Chanukka candles.

Sandek

Hillel I. Newman. "Sandak and Godparent in Midrash and Medieval Practice. JQR (Jewish Quarterly Review), Winter 2007. pp. 1-28 (+four pages of appendix).

Basically, he argues that the Jewish institution of sandak is derived from a similar Christian institution: not compater* (co-parent, who has a social link to the parents), but patrinus (godfather, who has a social link to the child).The problem is that the Greek word for compater is anadokhos, whereas the Greek word for patrinus is synteknos.

Why, then, should the Jewish compater be called "sandak" (or, in many manuscripts, sandiknus, seemingly from synteknos)? Newman argues that it is based on a misinterpration of a passage from Midrash Tehillim, which says that one uses one's knees to make a sandikos for an infant who is being circumcised. Newman argues that the original meaning of this passage is "to make a box [sandyx] for the infant.*

*(The common distinction in modern practice between sandak and Yiddish קוואַטער is a late development; see A.N.Z. Roth, "Millim be-milah", Yeda‘ ‘Am 13 (1968), 52-53.)

Medieval Censorship

There is a famous poem by Yehuda Hallevi, beginnnig יום שבתון אין לשכוח, which many of us sing every Sabbath (usually at the lunch table).

The first two stanzas are well known, and are not relevant to this post. However, the third and fourth stanzas, as written by Yehuda Hallevi himself, read as follows:

ומתוך ערפל האיר אופל
ועל עב הרים יושבי שפל
ומגדל צרי אראה נופל
אך אנכי מלאתי כח

(יונה מצאה בו מנוח
ושם ינוחו יגיעי כח)

דרוך בנעל אויבים וצרים
וגם המעד קרסולי זרים
ואז יענו לך עמי בשירים
אל המהלך על כנפי רוח

(יונה מצאה בו מנוח ושם ינוחו יגיעי כח)

Because these stanzas ask for the destruction of the enemies of the Jewish people, they were removed at some point, and replaced with the following stanzas:

ובאו כולם בברית יחד
נעשה ונשמע אמרו כאחד
ופתחו וענו יי אחד
ברוך הנותן ליעף כח

(יונה מצאה בו מנוח
ושם ינוחו יגיעי כח)

דבר בקדשו בהר המור
יום השביעי זכור ושמור
וכל פקודיו יחד לגמור
חזק מתנים ואמץ כח

(יונה מצאה בו מנוח
ושם ינוחו יגיעי כח)

Moshe Menachem-Mendel (Morris Mitchel) Siegel has pointed out to me the interesting fact that unlike many cases of censorship, which result in an ugly (and sometimes meaningless) text, the replacement stanzas here are quite poetic and beautiful. Thus, the censor, whoever this was, must have been a skillful poet.

Interesting.

Beis Halleivi on Beshallach

I saw a beautiful בית הלוי today, on פרשת בשלח. I don't have the text in front of me, so let's see how well I can recall it:

כשושנה בין החוחים כן רעיתי בין הבנות -- the Medrosh says that God compares Israel to a שושנה (lily or rose), because at the moment of the Exodus, Israel gave up her idolatrous ways, and immediately started performing mitzvôs, singing praises to God in the שירה. Thus, she smelled fragrant like a rose.

The בית הלוי points out that this is because Israel's naughty behavior had not been due to internal causes, but to environmental causes. (See the Rishônim on the verse שחורה אני ונאוה.) Thus, she was like a fragrant flower, which has been placed near a pile of filth. As soon as you remove the flower from the filth, its fragrance will again clearly fill the air. Similarly, as soon as Israel was removed from the idolatrous environment of Egypt, her fragrant deeds were exuded, strong and clear.

On the other hand, when bad deeds are due to internal causes, the habituation (הרגל) of doing them makes it difficult for one to stop. Thus, in order to set a new pattern of behavior, one must go through a perioud of habituation to the good behavior.

The בית הלוי compares this distinction to a distinction in the Laws of Niddo. If a woman has a וסת קבוע, a set time each month when her period always comes, this וסת is assumed to be halakhically still valid until she has lived through three months without seeing blood on the scheduled day. However, if this וסת קבוע is due not to her internal biological clock, but to some other, external factor (such as eating garlic), then even having a single time (of, say, eating garlic) without seeing blood is enough to annul the halakhic validity of this וסת. Thus, even though an externally-caused וסת can be a וסת קבוע, we treat it as a וסת שאינו קבוע with regard to this rule.

Thus, we see that habituation that is caused by external causes is much easier to break than habituation that is caused by internal causes, because the former does not require a new habituation-period to break the old habituation.

Shemoth Rabba

The first derasha in Shemoth Rabba on Parashath Vayyera. (I imagine that it is taken somehow from the Tanchuma, but haven't gotten a chance to look it up.)

The Medrosh talks about the verse וּפָנִיתִי אֲנִי לִרְאוֹת חָכְמָה וְהוֹלֵלוֹת וְסִכְלוּת; כִּי מֶה הָאָדָם שֶׁיָּבוֹא אַחֲרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵת אֲשֶׁר-כְּבָר עָשׂוּהוּ (Ecclesiastes 2:12).

The Medrosh applies the verse first to King Solomon, then to Moses, and implicitly compares them.

Solomon heard (or rather, read in the Torah): "ולא ירבה לא נשים, ולא יסור לבבו"-- The king should not have too many wives, so that his heart not go astray. Yet he said: "Feh! I don't believe what God said. I shall have as many wives as I like, and my heart will not go astray." So, what happened? He married many wives, and his heart went astray, and he worshipped עבודה זרה, and his kingdom was torn apart.

Moses, too, didn't believe God's word.

God had said to him (Exodus 3:19-20): וַאֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי לֹא-יִתֵּן אֶתְכֶם מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לַהֲלֹךְ, וְלֹא בְּיָד חֲזָקָה. וְשָׁלַחְתִּי אֶת-יָדִי וְהִכֵּיתִי אֶת-מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹל נִפְלְאֹתַי אֲשֶׁר אֶעֱשֶׂה בְּקִרְבּוֹ, וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן יְשַׁלַּח אֶתְכֶם. And I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go, not even with a strong hand. So I shall send forth My hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I shall do there-- and then he will send you out. Nevertheless, he complained to God after only a single meeting with Pharaoh, before performing any of the wonders, וְהַצֵּל לֹא הִצַּלְתָּ את-עַמֶּךָ, Yet Thou hast not redeemed Thy people!

So, the Middath Haddin, God's "Attribute of Justice", was furious at Moses, and began: וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל-מֹשֶׁה (Elôhim spoke to Moses). The midrashic thought-process often associates the words דַּבֵּר and אֱלֹהִים with the Attribute of stern Justice.

But then, the Middath Harahamim, God's "Attribute of Mercy", kicked in-- וַיּׁאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי יי. The midrashic thought-process often associates the verb אָמַר and the Tetragrammaton with the Attribute of Mercy.

The medrosh asks: What was it that caused the Middath Harahamim to take over, even though Moses had doubted God's prediction? It was that God saw what Moses's cause for complaint was-- namely, the fact that he felt compassion and caring for the poor, suffering Israelites.

Great are compassion and caring-- and altruism-- for they can turn divine Stern Justice into Divine Mercy.

(By implication, the medrosh is criticizing Solomon, who doubted God's prediction because he cared only about himself and his own desires, and therefore was punished.)

Group identification

Some people find it very strange when I say things such as "Back when KAJ was in Frankfurt, we used to not have laayning at the hashkomo minyon."

They say: "What do you mean, we? When were you ever in Frankfurt?"

Well, I identify with my community. And my community was in Frankfurt until 1939ish.And what's more-- I say it entirely unselfconsciously and naturally.

First Post

Dear Readers,

I used to run a pseudonymous blog, which was fairly well known among certain sectors of the JudeoBlogging world.

However, I have come to the conclusion that it is best for me to post under my own name, so that I will not have a false sense of security, which could encourage me to post silly or stupid posts, or content that I would not want to be traced back to me.

This new blog will give me a voice.

I am a first-year rabbinical student at RIETS, and a member (and chorister) at KAJ.