The Liturgy of Bloch’s Avodat Ha-Kodesh

Seth Ward

Ernest Bloch (1880-1959) composed his Avodath Ha-Kodesh: The Sacred Service in 1930-33.1 It was written for a Reform synagogue in San Francisco, Temple Emanuel Congregation, whose Cantor, Reuben R. Rinder, arranged for the commission by Gerald Warburg (1907-1971), son of financier and Jewish leader Felix Warburg and cellist in the New York Philharmonic and Stradivarius Quartet. Bloch was also enabled to write the piece thanks to the generosity of the Rose and Jacob Stern family, whose endowment to the University of California in 1930 freed the composer from teaching and other commitments. 2 Among the best-known complete settings of a Jewish service, it has been called “a high-water mark of 20th-century synagogue song,”3 and is likely the most-often performed full setting of any Jewish service.4 The Sacred Service was premiered in Turin, Italy in January 1933. It was performed elsewhere in Italy, and in London and New York, before it was first presented in Temple Emanuel, in March of 1938.

The Sacred Service is based on the Sabbath Morning Service of the Union Prayer Book, the prayer book of the Reform movement within American Judaism.5 This paper will briefly address a question which may be of interest to many studying, hearing, conducting or performing the Sacred Service, whether they are familiar with contemporary Reform or traditional Jewish prayer, or totally unfamiliar with Jewish worship.6 How does this work fit within the liturgical context of the congregational worship of the Union Prayer Book of its time? Biblical sources for the prayer texts will also be identified (these are not given in the score editions of which I am aware, nor were they, for the most part, to be found in the Union Prayer Book).7 Comments will also be made about differences from the traditional Jewish services and how the piece relates to Jewish music, drawn in part from Bloch’s recorded ideas regarding the composition.

As we shall see, Bloch envisioned the Sacred Service to be performed as an integral whole, without breaks for reading from Scripture, a sermon and so forth, as would be the norm in a synagogue service. Nevertheless, the synagogue context was very much part of the conceptualization of the piece, and of Bloch’s lectures, letters, and commentary about its construction.

1 Summy-Burchard, © 1934, republished Braude, © 1962. My thanks to Laurence Hoffman, Frederick Greenspahn, Eric L. Friedland, and Susan Berson, and to my wife, Carol Kozak Ward, for their help guidance and suggestions for this article.2 Robert Strassburg, Ernest Bloch: Voice in the Wilderness, Los Angeles: Trident Shop, California State University, 1977, p. 65. On Warburg: Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Keter, 1974), 16:285. 3 Joseph A. Levine: Synagogue Song in America, Crown Point IN: White Cliffs Media Company, 1989, p. 182; reprint Northvale: Jason Aronson, 2000.4 The best known recordings are those conducted by Bloch, with Mark Rothmüller as Cantor, London Philharmonic Orchestra and Chorus, (London LP123, reissued as Rockport RR 5001), sung in English; and conducted by Leonard Bernstein, in Hebrew, with Robert Merrill as Cantor, (Columbia Masterworks MS 6221/ML 5621, reissued as Sony Classical, SMK 47533). 5 The Union Prayer Book (often “Prayerbook” or “Prayer-book”) was adopted in the 1890’s; the editions will be discussed below. 6 Bloch made copious notes on this subject, some of which are referred to below. Liturgical discussions are often included in program notes (such as those by Hans-Ulrich Fuss, written in 1991 and included with the Sony Classic re-release of the Bernstein recording SM2K 47533). The relationship between the Sacred Service and the liturgy was a major theme of the treatment of this work by David Michael Schiller in his doctoral dissertation: Assimilating Jewish Music: Sacred Service, A Survivor from Warsaw, Kaddish, University of Georgia, 1996. Fuss’s comments do not reflect a deep familiarity with the Jewish liturgy. Schiller’s work is solid.7 In general, it appears that more recent Jewish prayer books have given more attention to annotating Biblical and Rabbinic sources.

Ward, Avodath Ha-Kodesh Article Appeared in Modern Judaism 23:3 (2003) pp. 243-263.The Union Prayer Book

The Union Prayerbook for Jewish Worship—Seder Tefilot Yisrael was a “union” which brought together major strands of liturgical reform in American Judaism.8 These included Isaac M. Wise’s attempt to create a unique ritual for the United States, Minhag America: The Daily Prayers of the American Israelite (1857);9 the work of I.S. Moses (1847-1926), one of the leading forces in creating the Union Prayer Book; 10 and David Einhorn’s Olat Tamid (1856), usually considered its most important model. Many of the U.S. Reform prayerbooks drew in turn from some of the innovations made in Berlin and Hamburg in the second decade of the 19 th century.11

There were three main editions of the Union Prayer Book; the first edition was dated 1894-95.12 Bloch used the next major revision, which was done in 1922; (the volume I was able to examine, however, was copyrighted 1924; all references here to the Union Prayer Book are to this edition except as noted). 13 Its last revision was dated 1940; certain sections had somewhat more Hebrew, or had Hebrew texts differing from those of the 1922 edition, upon which the text of the Sacred Service was based.14 All these editions had a Hebrew title, Seder Tefilot Yisrael. In 1975, substantial changes were introduced and its Hebrew name was changed: Sha’arei Tefila The Gates of Prayer: The New Union Prayer Book;15 few if any Reform congregations use the classic Union Prayer Book today.16

The liturgy of the Union Prayer Book follows the broad outline and structure of traditional Jewish prayer, but there are numerous differences in text and details. The Reform liturgy was shaped by the use of the vernacular, the avoidance of repetition, provisions for variety, changed locations for traditional texts, and shortening the liturgy by slight abbreviations of the standard prayer texts. There were also highly interpretive translations or actual textual emendations or removal of passages where the Hebrew was considered out of step with modern beliefs.17 Thus there was careful attention to providing moving and inspirational English translations, more suitable for synagogue recitation than for revealing the exact meaning of the Hebrew text printed in the prayer book. Some textual changes increased the commitment to the universal brotherhood of man, or served the need to memorialize the departed. Some of the Hebrew texts were rearranged, or variants adopted from the Sephardic tradition or prayer books no

8 It is unlikely that the “Union” in Union Prayer Book could refer to the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC), the congregational body of Reform Judaism. From a preliminary edition in 1892, this prayer book, and all subsequent revisions were published by the Rabbinic arm, Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR). 9 First published 1857; the copy I examined was “As Revised In Conference” and published in Cincinnati, by Bloch Publishing, 1897.10 In preparing this section I was able to examine Isaac S. Moses, Order of Prayers, Tefilah Le-Moshe, Milwaukee, 1884.11 For an overview of the development of Reform liturgy, see Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (based on the 1913 edition and the 1972 Hebrew edition), translated by Raymond Scheindlin, Philadelphia and New York: Jewish Publication Society/Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993, 297ff. Encyclopedia Judaica article “Prayerbooks.” See also Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and its development, New York: Schocken 1967, ch. 19, pp. 268-300; L. Hoffman, “Language of Survival” CCAR Journal 24:3 (1977) and E.L. Friedland, “Liturgical Introduction,” in Sharona R. Wachs, American Jewish Liturgies: A Bibliography of American Jewish Liturgy from the Establishment of the Press in the Colonies through 1925, Cincinnati, HUC Press, 1997, 23-31. 12 The edition I examined was a preliminary version published by the CCAR, Chicago, 1892 (Wachs #473, replaced by the 1894-5 volumes). 13 Union Prayer-book for Jewish Worship, Cincinnati: CCAR, 1922 (Wachs #1200). The volume I examined was entitled The Union Prayerbook for Jewish Worship, dated and copyrighted 1924. Thus the title/copyright page information is not exactly identical to Wachs #1200 or #1234. 14 Union Prayerbook for Jewish Worship, Newly revised edition. New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1940. The last imprint I have been able to find of this edition was in 1978. 15 New York: Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1975.16 One might think that, for reasons similar to those of American Reform Judaism in the late nineteenth century, “Union Prayer Book” could be a nomenclature for unified rituals adopted by other American denominations. A computer search should not be trusted to be comprehensive, but, curiously, the only other Union Prayer Book found in Worldcat (the computer index of most US and many international university libraries) is The Union Prayer Book: a manual of public worship, prepared for the use of the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ in the United States of America, New York: A. S. Barnes, 1871. 17 Ismar Elbogen provided a list of differences between traditional and most Reform prayerbooks. His list of emendations usually encountered includes references to angels, particularism, return to Zion, sacrifices, Messiah and resurrection, pp. 331-332.

2

Ward, Avodath Ha-Kodesh Article Appeared in Modern Judaism 23:3 (2003) pp. 243-263.longer in use. In many cases, the distinct Hebrew texts of the Union Prayer Book represent a Reform “tradition,” carried over from practices established by Wise or Einhorn, or German reform antecedents going back to the early nineteenth century.

The avoidance of repeated passages is perhaps most notable in the Kaddish “sanctification” and Amida “[prayer recited while] Standing.” The Kaddish is among the most familiar elements of the Jewish liturgy, recited daily by those who have recently lost a loved one, and then annually on the anniversaries of the death. In the traditional prayer book, various forms of the Kaddish frame sections of the service; some are recited by mourners. The Sabbath Morning Service in the Union Prayer Book includes only one Kaddish. Indeed, every service in the Union Prayer Book has only one Kaddish, recited by mourners near the end of the service, and always has an added paragraph relevant to mourning not found in the traditional prayer book (and not found in today’s Sha‘arei Tefila).

Similarly, the Amida is the central prayer of the traditional ritual, considered to replace the Temple offerings of old. In the traditional Sabbath Morning Service, it is recited first silently by each individual, then recited communally by the Cantor with appropriate congregational responses. After the Torah reading, an “additional” Amida, “Musaph,” is recited (and repeated) to recall the additional offering made in the ancient Temple on the Sabbath and biblical holidays. In the Union Prayer Book, the Amida is recited only once during the Sabbath Morning services. The prayer is never named, nor is the congregation directed to rise at this point, although it is invariably indicated that the first paragraph is to be read by the “Minister.”18 On Sabbaths and Festivals, the traditional Amida has seven berachot “blessings” (singular: beracha)—sections which begin or end with “Blessed art Thou O Lord….”; the first two are found in every service in the Union Prayer Book.19 There are three more berachot in the section of the Sabbath Morning Service immediately before the Amida; the Sacred Service has only one beracha text in the entire composition.

Variety is provided in the Union Prayer Book by offering five distinct sets of texts and readings for the Sabbath Morning Service. In the 1924 edition, these are inserted between the fourth and fifth blessing of the Amida and are entitled “For the first Sabbath of the Month,” up to “For the fifth Sabbath of the Month”; there are additional readings for festivals and other special occasions. This practice was expanded in later editions of the Reform prayerbook.20

Music

Before turning to the liturgical context of the Sacred Service, a few comments about the musical context are in order. Bloch is usually identified as among the most “Jewish” of composers, but the Jewishness of his music is not based on his utilizing traditional themes. Leonard Bernstein considered the aims of Bloch’s compositions to be “programmatically and deliberately Jewish,” but the listener could only realize that “Hebraism” was supposed to be shaping the melodies by reading the program booklet.21 Perhaps Bloch’s use of Mixolydian and Lydian modes may be considered “Jewish”—although Bloch notes that his use of the Lydian mode was “taken from the counterpoint which I studied at the Conservatory.”22 A.Z. Idelsohn has noted that although “Bloch’s music is designated ‘Jewish,’ its Jewishness, however, consists in an abundance of augmented steps and, in the opinion of some, in a certain heavy melancholy.” Idelsohn concludes that at most, “Bloch’s music may be said to have a touch of Orientalism.”23

18 In contrast, in Sha‘arei Tefilah there is always a heading: Tefilah “prayer,” the formal name for the Amida. 19 In the 1924 Union Prayer Book, all the Sabbath and Festival services have the first two blessings but none of the services has the full complement of seven blessings. The Sabbath Morning Service has a Hebrew text for each blessing, although the concluding formula is missing from the sixth. In contrast, the Sabbath Evening service has the first, second and fourth blessings, and the Afternoon service lacks the ending of the fourth and the three final blessings. 20 Pp. 80-109. The 1940 edition has five separate sets of readings at the beginning, middle and towards the end of the Morning Service. These are simply noted I, II, III, IV and V—there was no longer any reference to a monthly Sabbath cycle. This was expanded even further in Shaarei Tefilah. 21 Bernstein, “The Absorption of Race Elements into American Music” (1939), in Findings, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1982, pp. 98-99, cited in Stephen J. Whitfield, In Search of American Jewish Culture, Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 1999.22 Strassburg p. 141. 23 Idelsohn, Jewish Music in its historical development, New York: Schocken, 1956, p. 474.

3

Ward, Avodath Ha-Kodesh Article Appeared in Modern Judaism 23:3 (2003) pp. 243-263.What then makes Bloch’s music “Jewish?” P. Gradewitz has argued that Bloch combined the sensibilities of both those of earlier generations who were committed to Jewish folk-music, and those liturgical composers who adopted German music, and thus “achieved the first synthesis of the various traditional and modern elements.” For this, he calls Bloch “a genius of Hebrew music.”24 Gradewitz echoes the views of A.W. Binder, who wrote about the incongruity between “the Oriental melos of the [Jewish] musical tradition and the German harmonic system,” and considered Bloch “the one to solve the problem best.” The Sacred Service “expresses the Jewish melos with a harmonic background which reflects its true spirit.”25

The traditional melodies of the synagogue are mostly non-metric modes assigned to various subsections, repeated as necessary by the Cantor and elaborated upon according to his skill. Some individual paragraphs have their own melodies, often called mi-Sinai “From Sinai,” although they can hardly be more than several centuries old. Musically, however, the Sacred Service does not use any of the traditional modes or mi-Sinai tunes, except for the Tzur Yisrael “Rock of Israel” at the end of Part I, which is based on a musical notation of the passage which Cantor Rinder had sent to him. 26 It should be noted, however, the passages chanted in traditional modes are parts of berachot, and except for Tzur Yisrael, these are otherwise absent from the Sacred Service. The texts Bloch set to music were largely those that use composed music for the cantor or metric congregational or choral songs. One musicologist has written that the setting of Ehad hu Elohenu in Part II, the Kedushah (“Sanctification”), is “reminiscent of a mi-Sinai tune” from the High Holy Days Musaph, ochila la-el. “He treated the elusive strain as only a composer familiar with chazanic practice would: responsively.”27 It is not argued that the use of this motive was conscious or exact; instead, the suggestion seems to be that Bloch was imbued with traditional melodies, which sometimes left their mark.

Bloch’s music, however, does reflect certain qualities of the traditional music of the synagogue, using repeating motives, (including motives from other works he composed on Jewish themes, Schelomo and Three Jewish Poems),28 and establishing an effect similar to the non-metric traditional modes by frequent changes in time signature. The Cantor-Choir responsive structure also reflects a prominent feature of the Synagogue, as is the alternation between non-metric and highly rhythmic responses, and between Biblical verses and non-biblical liturgical passages.

Literal quotation of traditional Jewish music did not play much of a role in the Sacred Service, but Bloch’s “Hebraism” in a more literal sense is highly apparent. Bloch studied the Service and its Hebrew text for a full year in preparation for this composition. He analyzed every Hebrew word, and set sections in Hebrew that were not found in Hebrew in the Union Prayer Book, such as Yihyu le-ratzon and Bayom ha-hu.29 He spoke and wrote passionately about the drama of the text, and gave a Hebrew name to his composition, Avodath Ha-Kodesh (cf. Num. 7:9), usually found in Hebrew characters on the scores. Perhaps most significantly, the published scores of the Sacred Service do not use the English versions of Hebrew texts provided by the Union Prayer Book. These are often interpretive but unfailingly elegant; of course they were designed to be read rather than chanted. Instead, a somewhat more literal English version by David Stevens has been provided for performance. 30 Nevertheless, it would appear that the composer was often inspired by the Union Prayer Book’s English, not the Hebrew, for example in conjunction with Bloch’s universalist interpretation of Tzur Yisrael in Part I (and repeated in Part V), which will be noted below. This gives rise to a practical issue on concert programs, record jackets and CD inserts: what translation to use. Leonard Bernstein used a translation based on the Union Prayer Book, although he used the Newly Revised Edition of 1940; several CD’s published in Britain (including the reissue of Bernstein’s recording) appear to have made use of The Authorized Daily Prayer Book. A concert booklet for a performance on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the composer’s birth as part of the Spoleto-USA festival in Charleston made use of a liberally-edited version of the Stevens translation.31

24 P. Gradewitz, The Music of Israel from the Biblical Eras to Modern Times. Portland: Amadeus Press, p. 284. 25 P. 95.26 Strassburg, p. 72.27 Levine, pp. 182-183, Musical example in Appendix C, p.224. 28 Strassburg, ibid.29 Strassburg, p. 67.30 This was the translation used, for example, in Bloch’s London recording. 31 The version of the Authorized Daily Prayer Book, by Joseph Hertz, “Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire,” was published in New York by Bloch, 1975. It originally

4

Binder makes repeated reference to the “Oratorio” style of the Sacred Service. Unlike most settings of synagogue prayers, the Sacred Service is an entire service, arranged in five parts. Most who composed for the synagogue wrote compositions for individual prayers even when composing an entire service. Especially given Bloch’s comments about the drama of the piece—in speeches, program and liner notes, and letters—“Oratorio” seems to be an appropriate term. When used for the synagogue, however, perhaps it is more like a Mass used in worship, with five Parts. It is not often noted that this is a comparison alluded to by Bloch himself. Speaking in San Francisco after completing this composition in September 1933, Bloch said the five parts “have to be played without interruption, as a unity…like the Mass of the Catholics.” (Bloch also noted that he “was not educated religiously” and the “service which has filled me with deepest emotion has been the Catholic Church.”) 32 Indeed, as Klára Móricz has shown, the Sacred Service came to replace an earlier plan for a Mass, a piece his daughter later called “the Mass Bloch never wrote.” 33 Foreshadowing the Sacred Service, this Mass was to have grown out of a Jewish context, his Israel Symphony, composed 1912-16. He later recalled that his original plan for the last movement of the Israel Symphony was meant to signify “next year in Jerusalem” in a symbolic sense, the

triumph of Truth and Justice and Peace on Earth. At the end, the Bass would …proclaim a Credo embodying my ideas of Judaism, of Humanity: “Here ends Israel …but here begins the realization of its ideals which are those of all humanity, according to the great prophets!” proclaiming the Unity of Humanity, and a chorus would have sung a hymn of Peace and Love.34

The composition was interrupted by the death of his father in 1913, and Bloch felt unable to write the hymn of peace and love during the upheaval of the World War; Israel Symphony premiered in 1917.35 In the 1920s, he wrote friends that he had begun to rework his original idea for the final movement for the Israel Symphony as a Mass, which would include a “credo ‘in unam cath[olicam] ecclesiam’ in the widest sense of the word.” (The literal translation of the phrase from the Latin Mass is “I believe in one universal church”). In the 1930s, as Móricz put it, “the task of writing a Jewish service melded with Bloch’s dream of the universal Mass that he had wanted to write as the ending of the Israel Symphony.”36

Bloch envisioned the Sacred Service to be performed as a whole and without break (except for a momentary pause between Parts) “to end the service for the Reformed

appeared in London in 1941. I base this observation on idiosyncratic renditions of some of the prayers, especially ve-hu yashmi‘enu in the Kedushah: “He will let us hear … in the presence of all living (his promise),” p. 531, and the Tzur Yisrael, as noted below. The two British recordings I consulted were Bernstein (CD reissue referred to above), and a recording by the Zemel Choir (Chandos CHAN 8418), which used the same translation. Bernstein used the 1940’s Union Prayer Book, not the Revised Edition, for the Hebrew text of the traditional Kaddish as well as for the translation on the record jacket (the Revised Edition’s Kaddish differs from the Traditional Kaddish; the text is provided below). The Spoleto program is found in The Spiritual and Artistic Odyssey of Ernest Bloch: A Centenary Perspective. Charleston: Piccolo Spoleto/Spoleto U.S.A., in conjunction with K.K. Beth Elohim, 1980.

32 Strassburg included a transcript of Bloch’s speech about the Sacred Service in his biography pp. 136-142. These quotes are from pp. 136-7.33 Title of an article by Suzanne Bloch, in Ernest Bloch Society newsletter 4 (1972), p. 1, based in part on letters written in French to Lillian Hodgehead and Ada Clement, 14 January 1925 and a letter to Edmund Fleg, 30 May 1923, cited by Klára Móricz, Jewish Nationalism in 20th Century Art Music, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California-Berkeley, 1999, pp. 261-2. Emphasis as in Móricz.34 From the letter to Hodgehead and Clement, Móricz, p. 261. Móricz indicates that the version published by Suzanne Bloch was somewhat different. Móricz examined the letter in the University of California at Berkeley Ernest Bloch Collection. Instead, Bloch wrote a short prayer, in English with a few Hebrew words, to be performed as part of this piece. Emphasis in original.35 Bloch explains why he did not write the Hymn in the letter to Hodgehead and Clement, Móricz, p. 261; on his father’s death and the premiere, see Strassburg, pp. 30-31, 46.

36 Móricz, p. 272. I should note that I reached the conclusion that Bloch had aspects of the Mass in mind from the style and layout of the piece and from the San Francisco lecture, before I became aware of Móricz’ dissertation and Bloch’s earlier plans to write a “universal Mass.”

Ward, Avodath Ha-Kodesh Article Appeared in Modern Judaism 23:3 (2003) pp. 243-263.Synagogue.”37 Indeed, with the exception of the “Silent Meditation” and Yihyu le-ratzon at the beginning of Part III, individual Parts or individual sections within each movement are rarely performed as stand-alone pieces. Nevertheless, when considered in the context of a worship service, the five parts of the Sacred Service—like the parts of the Mass—are separated by elements for which a musical setting was not written. Our analysis will attempt to put the work in its liturgical context.

The following chart summarizes the relation of the structure of the Sacred Service to the Reform synagogue service of the Union Prayer Book.

Sacred Service Union Prayer Book Part I Introductory texts, Call to Prayer (Barechu)and Shema with its blessings.--- Amida—first two blessings.Part II Kedusha (Sanctification)--- Completion of the Amida, including readings for individual Sabbaths.Part III Silent Devotion and Response; Taking the Scroll from the Ark--- Reading of the Torah and HaftarahPart IV Returning the Scroll to the Ark--- Sermon, Ashrei (Ps 145), First paragraph of the Adoration [Alenu]Part V Conclusion: Adoration [Alenu], Mourners’ Prayer, Closing Hymn, Benediction.

A modern Reform service following the Shaarei Tefila-Gates of Prayer—Sabbath Morning or Friday evening—would be largely similar in format. Sabbath morning services in traditional congregations (Orthodox or Conservative) largely follow the same format, except for the silent Amida and the Musaph Amida and Kedusha following the return of the Scroll to the Ark as noted above.

Part I

The Sacred Service begins with an introductory meditation, Mah Tovu, “How Goodly are Thy Tents,” consisting of Num. 24:5, and Ps. 5:8, 26:8, 95:6, 69:14. This is followed by the Barechu, the Call to Prayer “Praise ye the Lord to whom all praise is due.”38

The Barechu opens a section which contains the Shema, often called “Israel’s profession of faith:” “Hear O Israel, the Lord is Our God, the Lord is One” (Deut. 6:4). The recitation of the Shema actually includes more biblical verses; in the Union Prayer Book, these are Deut. 6:4-9 in its entirety, and Num. 15:40 and part of 41.39 The Shema is accompanied by three blessings in the Morning Service; there are two before—entirely omitted in the Sacred Service—and one after.

In the Sacred Service, nine orchestral measures follow the Barechu before the Shema. The Shema is followed by the response Baruch “Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom for ever”40and Veahavta (Deut. 6:5-9) “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might….” This alternation of biblical verse, non-biblical line, and related biblical verse is very typical of the Jewish liturgy. It is unusual, however, to interpolate non-scriptural material into a block of consecutive verses, as in this case of Deut. 6:4-9. The next section of the Sacred Service follows the same pattern of scripture—non-scriptural line—related scripture, based on the Song of the Sea (Ex. 15), recited by the Israelites who had escaped Pharaoh. Mi Chamocha “Who is like unto Thee” (Ex. 15:11), is followed by Malchutcha “Your

37 Strassburg, pp. 136-7.38 In this review of the liturgy of the Union Prayer Book and Sacred Service, transliterations of the Hebrew follow the standard Israeli pronunciation, rather than the traditional Ashkenazi pronunciation in the score editions. 39 The traditional Shema concludes with Num 15:37-41 (in its entirety) and has a middle paragraph, Deut 11:13-21.40 This interpolation in the liturgical recitation of Deut 6:4-9 is ascribed to Jacob by the Talmud, Pesahim 56a.

6

Ward, Avodath Ha-Kodesh Article Appeared in Modern Judaism 23:3 (2003) pp. 243-263.Kingdom.”41 This non-scriptural line serves the purpose of providing an interpretive framework preparing the worshipper for the second verse quoted from this context: Adonay Yimloch “The Lord shall reign for ever” (Ex. 15:18). Part I of the work ends with the traditional Tzur Yisrael, “Rock of Israel,” ending with traditional blessing formula “Blessed art Thou O Lord,” (with the Choir singing baruch hu u-varuch shemo “Blessed be He and Blessed be His name”), “who has redeemed Israel.42

Bloch did not set the full text of this section (unlike the other Parts, in which the full text is set to music). 43 Traditional practice would have been for the Cantor to recite various lines within the blessings surrounding the Shema, including the final lines of each. The Union Prayer Book also indicates a responsive reading after the Shema, based on the traditional text.44 Most likely, the passages set to music in the Sacred Service were those which would have been sung by Cantor and Choir in the congregation for which it was composed. In any case, they correspond to Hebrew sections indicated for recitation by Minister, Choir and Congregation in the Union Prayer Book.

Bloch called Part I the “exposition.” It takes us from an introductory text composed largely from the Psalms, to the call to prayer, the declaration of faith and God’s unity, Man’s love for God, and God’s mighty acts in history. Its conclusion recalls the ancient Israelites invoking the heavenly kingdom, “the Lord shall reign for ever,” which Bloch calls a “chorus of exaltation.”45 This foreshadows a similar verse used as the end of Part II. But Part I does not end with this exaltation. Instead, its conclusion is a passage which, to Bloch, speaks of “the misery of humanity,”46 and, when it is reprised in Part V, is called “a lamentation” and “cry for help.” Bloch’s understanding of this passage may be based on the Union Prayer Book translation, which is far more universalistic than a literal translation might imply. The Union Prayer Book version may be compared with a more exact translation of the text; Stevens’ English text for performance published in the Sacred Service score is added for comparison.47

41 Malchutecha connects Exodus 15:11 and 18 in the Evening service, but it is found also in the Morning Service in the 1924 edition of the Union Prayer Book. The Union Prayer Book editions of 1892 and 1940 that I have been able to examine have the more traditional shirah chadasha “a new song.” Zeh Eli “This is my God” in the Malchutekha is a two-word citation of Ex. 15:2.42 The text of the Tzur Yisrael is not identical to that of the traditional prayer book, omitting a reference to the redemption of Judah and Israel. This reference has been restored in the Shaarei Tefilah.43 As we shall see, there are passages “in between” Parts that were not set to music. Excluding such passages as are “outside” the framework of the Parts, the only other element of the service that was not set to music is the Kaddish. Bloch may have intended it to be recited only when the Sacred Service was used in the synagogue, and he did not include it in his recording of the work. When it is included as part of a performance it is usually recited without accompaniment, but Bloch may be said to have provided a musical setting for this as well: the score calls for the choir to sing Tzur Yisrael softly while the Kaddish is said. Similarly, although often a Rabbi reads the English text of prayers included in Part V, Bloch wrote a musical recitative for these passages. 44 P. 73. 45 Strassburg, p. 139.46 Ibid.47 Union Prayer Book, p. 74; Literal translation is from Liner notes from The Royal Edition of the Sacred Service: Leonard Bernstein conducting, no. 18 of 100, Sony Classical, SM2K 47533; As mentioned in note 31 above, the translation used in this British imprint, under the patronage of Prince Charles, (and the essentially identical translation in the Zemel Choir recording) is generally consistent with that of The Authorized Daily Prayer Book. In the Tzur Yisrael passage, the translation is identical to that of The Authorized DailyPrayer Book translation, except for the elimination part of the traditional prayer text which is not included in the Union Prayer Book.

7

Union Prayer BookO Rock of Israel, redeem those that are oppressed and deliver those that are persecuted. Praised be Thou our Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

Literal TranslationO Rock of Israel, arise to the help of Israel, “our Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 47:4). Blessed art thou O Lord—blessed is he and blessed is his name—who hast redeemed Israel. Amen

Stevens VersionRock of Israel, arise to the help of Israel! Our deliv’rer Adonoy, O bless and praise his Name, O blessed Israel; O blest be Thou O Lord—O praise Him and his holy Name—Redeemer of Israel. Amen.

In a congregational service using the Union Prayer Book, the texts in Part I of the Sacred Service would be followed by the first two paragraphs of the Amida in Hebrew and/or English.

Part IIThe next section of the service is named “Sanctification” in the Union Prayer Book (without the Hebrew-character title sometimes used for other sections); Bloch used the traditional Hebrew Kedushah as the title of his Part II. In the traditional service, this is the highlight of the Cantor’s repetition of the Amida. The Kedushah represents Israel joining in singing the praises encircling the Heavenly Throne, as noted in its introduction, Nekadesh: “We will sanctify your Name in the world just as it is sanctified in the highest heavens.” These praises take the form of two verses describing the angelic praises of God as recounted by the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel in the visions with which they started their prophetic careers. The first congregational response is Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts” (Isaiah 6:3). The second, Baruch “Blessed,” is translated in the Union Prayer Book as “In all places of they dominion, Thy name is praised and glorified” (Ezekiel 3:12). Bloch compares this section with the Sanctus of the Mass, “originally taken from the Hebrew”48 (which indeed uses Sanctus “Holy,” Isaiah 6:3, and a Benedictus “Blessed,” albeit a different verse, Ps. 138:26.) In the Union Prayer Book Adir Adirenu (mostly from Psalms 8:10)49 introduces the second verse and Ehad hu Elohenu “One is our God,” follows it.50

For a time, Byzantine religious persecution prevented Jews from reciting the Shema in its normal place. Therefore, the beginning and ending lines of its traditional recitation, Deut. 6:4 and the second half of Num. 16:41, were inserted at this point in the traditional Musaph Kedushah. The original purposes of Ehad hu Elohenu was to connect these verses. Moreover, it reinterprets the context of Num. 16:41, which begins “I am the Lord your God who took you out of the Land of Egypt.” Rather than looking back to the Exodus, Ehad hu Elohenu looks toward a future revelation: “… And He [God] will cause us to hear (yashmi‘enu) in His mercy, again,51 in the sight of all living … ‘I am the Lord thy God (Num. 16:41, end).’”52 In the Union Prayer Book, the verses from the Shema are omitted, and the English text reads: “…And in His mercy He will answer our prayers in the sight of all living.” (The Stevens translation also has “answer us”).53

Bloch concludes the Kedusha with a stirring choral rendition of Ps. 146:10: Yimloch “The Lord shall reign for ever; thy God, O Zion from generation to generation. Halleluyah.” In the first two congregational verses of the Kedusha, the worshippers had joined in singing praises heard in heaven, according to prophetic visions. This third congregational verse is earthly praise, recognizing God’s eternal kingship and mentioning Zion—Jerusalem. In the context of the traditional Kedusha, this is a reference to future redemption.

In the Union Prayer Book (as in the traditional service) this is followed by Le-dor va-dor “From generation to generation,” the final beracha of the Kedusha. According to the Union Prayer Book, the congregation is seated and this passage is recited by the Minister. The service continues with the Hebrew text of the Blessing of the Day, the English readings for each Sabbath of the month or for special Sabbaths, and the remaining traditional blessings of the Amida in Hebrew and English.

48 Strassburg, p. 139.49 Elbogen says “its wording was influenced by a piyyut of R. Meshulam b. Kalonymus (d. Mainz, ca. 1000),” p. 58. In any case, with the exception of the first two words, the wording is that of Psalms 8:10.50 These are both from the traditional Musaph service; Adir Adirenu is only said on Festivals. This was not an innovation of the Union Prayer Book; the same practice was found in, e.g. Wise’s Minhag Amerika. The “Sanctification” for Sabbath and for Festivals was thus identical. Biblical reflections in Ehad hu Elohenu: the first few words reflect Deut 6:4. He is our Father, perhaps Isaiah 63:16, although this was common enough in post-Biblical literature. “He is our King and Saviour” (Union Prayer Book: “Helper”): Compare Isaiah 33:22.51 Hebrew shenit “A second time” perhaps based on Isaiah 11:11.52 Only shenit “again” is omitted from the traditional Hebrew text.53 Presumably, rendering yashmi‘enu “He will cause us to hear” as if it were yishma‘enu “He will hear us.”

Ward, Avodath Ha-Kodesh Article Appeared in Modern Judaism 23:3 (2003) pp. 243-263.Part III

As noted, to avoid repetitiveness, the Reform service does not have the traditional “Silent Amida.” Instead, an English adaptation of the paragraph traditionally recited after the final blessing of the Amida is retained as a “Silent Devotion;” the last line is to be sung by the Choir.54 The 1924 edition does not yet suggest that an individual may replace this meditation by other silent prayer “such as the heart may prompt,” as in the 1940 revision. Part III of the Sacred Service begins with “Silent devotion (and response):” orchestral music for the silent devotion, with the Choir’s response sung a capella—in Hebrew: Yihyu le-ratzon “May the Words of my Mouth” (Ps. 19:15).

The next section of the service is called the “Reading of Scripture.” In this section, the Torah scroll is removed from the Ark and placed on the Reader’s Desk. In the Union Prayer Book, the Minister reads Psalm 24:3-6 in English, and the Choir sings Seu Shearim “Lift up your heads, O ye gates” (Ps. 24:9-10); in the traditional prayer book, this entire Psalm is recited as the Torah is returned to the Ark on festivals and weekdays.55 Bloch wrote vividly of the “deep symbolic meaning” of the Seu Shearim, which was revealed to him one dark day in the Swiss mountains, as the sun triumphed over clouds and fog, and trees, rocks and mountains became clear, the sky a deep blue, and darkness had disappeared.

Then the cantor intones the Seu shearim. I interpret this as clouds rising—high in the sky—darkness receding out of man’s heart—that the light may enter into it. Immense symbol, which poor fettered humanity, bound to its miseries, fetishisms of all kinds, is still awaiting! I wanted to express the wish that man may liberate himself from hate, prejudice, dark instincts, regression, all that lowers him and prevents him from seeing the truth, from going forward, from rising above himself.56

After these introductory verses, in congregational practice, the congregation rises for “Taking the Scroll from the Ark.” Bloch provides a “symphonic interlude” to allow for the time needed to remove the Torah scroll and sets the two verses given in the Union Prayer Book for Cantor-Choir renditions: Torah tziva lanu (Deut. 33:4) and Beit Yaakov (Isaiah 2:5). The Union Prayer Book translation is

“The Torah which God gave through Moses is the heritage of the congregation of Jacob. Come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord.”57

The Cantor, holding the Torah, reprises Shema Yisrael, with choral reiteration, followed immediately—as in the Union Prayer Book—by the traditional processional of the Torah from the Ark to the Reader’s Desk, Lecha Adonay ha-gedulah “Thine, O Lord, is the greatness and the power” (I Chron. 29:11), with which this Part ends. Bloch characterizes this part as “liturgic, woven around the Torah and the Laws of Moses, with its organization, discipline and symbolism.”58

The sections entitled “Reading from the Torah” and the “Reading of the Haftarah” occur at this point in the Union Prayer Book. The Torah scroll is unwrapped, the blessings before the Reading from the Torah is recited, and a selection is read from the scroll. The Union Prayer Book gives the weekly readings at the end of the volume. After the Reading from the Torah, another blessing is recited. The Torah scroll is rolled up again and the Haftarah, a passage from the Prophetic books of Hebrew scripture, is read, also following the table at the end of the volume.

54 This prayer is based on the Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 17a, which ends with Psalms 19:15. The first line is similar to Ps. 34:14. In the 1924 Union Prayer Book, this passage has a Hebrew title but is given only in English. In the traditional prayer book, this paragraph has one more sentence, which is the same as the final line of the Kaddish. 55 Like the reduction in the numbers of Amida and the Reform liturgy for the Kedushah “Sanctification”, this change is already found in Minhag Amerika. The Union Prayer Book notes that the passage is Psalms 24, without indicating that the entire text is not read. 56 Bloch, letter of 1944, in Collected Writings of A.W. Binder p. 32-33,

57 Literally: “Moses commanded us the Law, an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob. O House of Jacob, let us walk together in the light of the Lord.” The traditional prayer book at this point has (since the 16 th century) Numbers 10:35, recited by the Israelites in the wilderness when the Ark was about to moved, followed by Ki Mitzion “From out of Zion” (Isaiah 2:3) and Baruch shenatan “Blessed is He who gave the Torah to Israel.” (None of these are in the 1924 Union Prayer Book, only the last figures in the 1940 Union Prayer Book). 58 Strassburg, p. 140.

9

Ward, Avodath Ha-Kodesh Article Appeared in Modern Judaism 23:3 (2003) pp. 243-263.Part IV

Part IV sets the portion of the service entitled “Returning the Scroll to the Ark.” In synagogue practice, the Cantor faces the congregation with the Torah in his arms, and begins with Gadlu “Declare the greatness of the Lord with me and let us exalt His name forever” (Ps 34:4). This passage is transposed from its position in the traditional service before the reading of the Torah, where it introduces Lecha Adonay ha-gedulah “Thine O Lord is the greatness…” Note the connection between the wording in its traditional placement: gadlu “Declare greatness” and ha-gedulah “the greatness.”59 This passage is followed by the traditional recessional Hodo “His Glory” (Psalm 148:13-14) as the Torah is taken to the Ark. Torat Adonay Temimah, “The Torah of the Lord is perfect,” portions of Ps. 19:8-10, and ki lekah tov (Prov. 4:2) “I give you good advice: do not neglect the Torah” allows enough time for the Torah to be replaced in the Ark. 60 As the congregation is seated, this section ends with Etz Hayyim (Proverbs 3:18,17), traditionally sung as the Ark’s doors are closed, and styled by Bloch as “a peace song,”.61 This setting describes the Torah as a Tree of Life, whose supporters are happy, whose ways are paths of pleasantness, and all of whose paths are shalom “peace”—a word repeated several times to conclude Part IV.

Bloch summarizes this section: “Then put the Law away now that you have understood it. It must be a living thing, the rejoicing, happiness, the exaltation of all mankind, ending with the Tree of Life, and that all those who are supporters of it are happy.”62

In congregational prayer, as indicated by the Union Prayer Book, the Sermon follows the return of the scroll to the Ark.

Part V

In Parts I and II, we saw the pattern of alternation of scriptural and non-scriptural material. Parts III and IV—framing the reading from Torah and Prophets—are both entirely based on biblical verses. Part V is nearly entirely non-Biblical, except for a few cited biblical snippets and the Priestly Benediction at its end. Yet—with its ringing declaration of brotherhood, final communal recognition of Divine sovereignty, confrontation with death and mourning, and intensely personal understanding of the final hymn—this section, and not the Kedushah or the Torah Reading, becomes the culmination of the service.63 After the sermon, the concluding section of the Union Prayer Book begins with the Ashre (Ps. 145 with additions) in English, and the “Adoration,” based on the traditional Alenu prayer. The Alenu was probably composed in the early Christian centuries; it was originally recited during the High Holy Day services but since the Middle Ages has been recited at the end of every Jewish service. On the High Holy Days, the Rabbi and Cantor prostrate themselves to the floor, as they read va-anahnu “and we bend the knee and bow,” the only time this is done in Jewish ritual today. Throughout the year when this part of the Alenu is recited, officiants and congregants merely bend their knees slightly and bow forward. In the Union Prayer Book, the “Adoration” is recited in English until va-anahnu, which is recited in Hebrew. The traditional Alenu contains echoes and quotes of various verses in Isaiah, particularly 45:23 and 51:13 (and 45:20 in some editions). The first paragraph (which includes va-anahnu) stresses the distinctions between the worshippers of God and the rest of the “families of the land,” whereas the final paragraph envisions a future day in which idolatry will cease and all will come to true worship of the One God.64 The English version reworks the Hebrew text substantially. It was composed for the first edition of the Union Prayer Book and strongly stresses the brotherhood of man.65

59 The traditional liturgy at this point is Yehallelu, the beginning of Ps. 148:13; the next section, Hodo, continues this verse.60 This appears to follow a choice given in the Tractate Sofrim “Scribes” 14:14, although this may have been said while the scroll was lifted and displayed to the people. 61 The Union Prayer Book omits the first and final lines of the traditional text (Num. 10:36 and Lam. 5:21). According to Elbogen, these verses are found in all rites, p. 160 (English). Numbers 10:36 refers to the returning of the Ark of the Covenant in the wilderness to its place of rest. The Lamentations verse also speaks of returning—in this case the return to God of those offering prayer. The transposition of order of the verses from Proverbs 3 is part of the traditional prayer book text. 62 Strassburg, p. 140.

63 Indeed, the Mass Bloch once hoped to write ends with a prayer for peace, whereas the Jewish service goes on to at this point. I cannot help but wonder whether ending Part IV with a “peace song” shows traces of his old idea of transcending the particulars of Catholic or Jew by going beyond simply a prayer for peace and hoping for brotherhood, and steadfast faith. 64 Menachem Kellner has written about the tension between the first, particularistic, paragraph of the Alenu, and its concluding, universalistic paragraph, in “Overcoming Chosenness” in Jospe, Madsen and Ward, Covenant and Chosenness in Mormonism and Judaism (Madison: Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, 2001) 149-152. 65 The evolution of this text is described by E.L. Friedland, The Historical and Theological Development of the Non-Orthodox Prayerbooks in the United States, Ph.D. Dissertation, Brandeis University, 1967, pp. 226-236; cited by Schiller, p. 46.

10

Ward, Avodath Ha-Kodesh Article Appeared in Modern Judaism 23:3 (2003) pp. 243-263.

Part V of the Sacred Service begins with Va-anahnu. The Sacred Service provides a musical accompaniment as the Minister recites the following English texts. The first is an English version of the final paragraph of the Alenu; the last line, bayom ha-hu, “On that day” (Zach. 14:9) is sung in Hebrew, stressing the hope for universal brotherhood. Bloch made a few changes in this text, including the replacement of “idolatry” by “fetichisms.”66

The English recitation continues with the introduction to the Mourner’s Prayer, composed by Gustav Gottheil at the end of the 19th century.67 Although the English text is often simply read, Bloch provided music for it to be sung as a kind of recitative. Bloch intended these two passages always to be in the vernacular language of the country in which the piece is being presented.

The Mourner’s Kaddish is not always included in concert presentations of the Sacred Service, although the score directs that it may be recited, in Hebrew, in the congregational setting. No music was written for the recitation of the Kaddish. Suzanne Bloch, the composer’s daughter, noted Leonard Bernstein’s recording of the Sacred Service departed from her father’s intentions for this section of the piece, which were reflected in the London recording in which Bloch himself conducted. She “pointed out that Bernstein replaces the Kaddish chosen by Bloch from the Union Prayer Book with another one, and changed the singing voice to a spoken intoning of the memorial service by a rabbi ‘with a microphone.’”68

Bernstein had used the Kaddish of the traditional prayerbook. The Union Prayer Book interpolates into the traditional Kaddish the following passage (no longer found in Reform prayer books), in Aramaic and English:69

Union Prayer Book: EnglishTo the departed whom we now remember, may peace and bliss be granted in life eternal. May they find grace and mercy before the Lord of heaven and earth. May their souls rejoice in that ineffable good which God has laid up for those who fear Him, and may their memory be a blessing unto those who treasure it.

Literal Translation of AramaicOn Israel and the righteous and all who have left this world, according to God’s will. May they have great peace, and a good portion of the world to come, grace and mercy before the Lord of heaven and earth, and let us say, Amen.

Union Prayer Book: Aramaic‘al yisrael ve‘al tzidikaya. Ve‘al-kol-man deitpetar min ‘alma hadein kir‘uteih deelaha. Yehe lehon shelama raba vehulka tava lehayei ‘alma deatei. Vehisda verahamei min-kodam mare shemaya vear’a. Veimru amen.

The Kaddish is set in counterpoint to a choral reprise of the Tzur Yisrael “Rock of Israel,” from the end of Part I. Tzur Yisrael is a plea for God to arise for the help of Israel, but this prayer is seen by the composer also to be universal, writing

“Chorus and Cantor must sing all the following [the Tzur Yisrael]… as a far distant lamentation of all mankind—The Answer to this lamentation,—this cry for help,—is then the Adon Olom—”

(p. 78, vocal score; emphasis in original)In the Union Prayer Book, the final hymn of the Morning Service is En Kelohenu “Who is like our God.” Bloch chose instead the closing hymn of the Evening service, Adon Olam “Lord of the World,” a poem often incorrectly ascribed to Ibn Gabirol (Spain, 11th century). It provides a text at once far more universalistic and more personal, referring both to unbounded Divine rule, and the courage faith offers in all parts of life; perhaps, in the final stanza, be-‘et ishan “when I sleep”—in facing mortality as well. The first verses refer to God’s universal suzerainty and power, predating and surviving Creation. Bloch then provides an eight-measure interlude before continuing with the hymn as it turns to the individual’s personal reliance upon God in times of need. The text is now voiced in the first person, singular: ve-hu Eli “He is my God.” The score directs the Cantor to resume singing “again, as an expression of Humanity.” The final stanza beyado “Into His hand do I commend my spirit . . . and my body” is sung “with supreme resignation,” and concludes with a solid statement of hope and courage: ve-lo ira “I shall not fear.” In many synagogues and temples, the Adon Olam is sung without much feeling, sometimes led by a youngster, or made to fit to popular tunes. Bloch saw the Adon Olam as the culmination of the piece, the answer to the questions raised by the rest

66 Móricz, p. 289, citing a letter to Cantor Rinder dated 5 March 1931. 67 Schiller, citing Friedland, 119. 68 David Kushner, Ernest Bloch: A Guide to Research (NY: Garland 1988), p. 45, summarizing Suzanne Bloch, writing in Ernest Bloch Memorial Society 1982:3.69 This is the third paragraph of the Kaddish; the only traditional version of the Kaddish to have an interpolation relating to death or mourning is that to be said at a funeral, in which the added material is in the first paragraph. This paragraph begins ‘ al Yisrael “On Israel,” like the paragraph it replaces in the traditional Kaddish de-Rabbanan, recited after readings from Rabbinic material, but is otherwise totally distinct.

11

Ward, Avodath Ha-Kodesh Article Appeared in Modern Judaism 23:3 (2003) pp. 243-263.of the service, and in particular the universal cry and lamentation and the Mourners’ Prayer. He himself reported that he consulted with the Orthodox Rabbi Alessandro da Fano (d. 1935) in Milan about his understanding of this poem.70

The Union Prayer Book indicates that the Sabbath Morning Service concludes with a Benediction. The text is not given. In the Sacred Service, it is the Priestly Benediction (Num. 6:24-26). Bloch: “After the orchestra and chorus give this message of faith, hope and courage, we must send people back to their routine of living, cooking, laundry and so on. Thus the priest gives a Benediction, the chorus answers, ‘Amen’ and they leave.”71

In setting the Sacred Service, Bloch did not set the words of the Union Prayer Book to music based on traditional Hebrew melodies, nor did he report that synagogue practice had the profound effect upon him that the Roman Catholic Mass had. We have shown how the piece allowed liturgical requirements of the synagogue service to be met—with important sections of the liturgy to be recited in between the five movements, as might be the case with a setting of the Mass performed in a church service. Yet Bloch’s intent was not to do so but to have the piece performed without break, even in a synagogue setting. He found his own musical expression, inspired in some ways by traditional Jewish music but using its melodies only sparingly, for dramatic effect. He found his own meaning in the words and the service itself, studying the words intensively in Hebrew, and coming to know the text in great detail. While he was committed to a vernacular component, he also set Hebrew texts that were not included in the Union Prayer Book. He tried to capture the text of the service, with its drama, its interplay of themes from Torah, Prophets, ancient Israelite Kings, and generations of liturgical poetry.

I do not propose or desire to attempt a reconstruction of the music of the Jews. . . It is rather the Hebrew spirit that interests me—the complex, ardent, agitated soul that vibrates for me in the Bible; the vigor and ingenuousness of the Patriarchs, the violence that finds expression in the books of the Prophets, the burning love of justice, the desperation of the preachers of Jerusalem, the sorrow and grandeur of the book of Job, the sensuality of the Song of Songs. All this is in us, all this is in me, and is the better part of me. This it is which I seek to feel within me and to translate in my music—the sacred race emotion that lies dormant in our souls.72

The Sacred Service stresses universal brotherhood, and is permeated by the hope that Mankind will transcend idolatry and fetishisms of all kinds. Written in Europe in the early 1930s, against the backdrop of the rising importance of Fascism and the Nazi party, the work has a timeliness that still resonates today. As Lucienne Bloch Dimitroff wrote, the Sacred Service represented her father’s “hope that someday man could live with his fellow men without fanaticism, without intolerance, but with respect for their common ideals.”73 But the piece also delivers a strong message about the source for its universal aspirations in the spiritual history and achievements of the Jewish people. The “Hebrew Spirit” sustains the Sacred Service, offering divine praise, peace, light, hope, courage and faith in facing God, the state of the world, and our own mortality.

Seth Ward

70 Letter from Bloch to A.W. Binder, 1944, published in Collected Writings of A.W. Binder, ed. Irene Heskes, New York, Bloch Publishing, 1971, p. 33.71 Strassburg, p. 142.72 This oft-quoted passage is found, for example, in the Encyclopedia Judaica article on Ernest Bloch, 4:1098.73 In The Spiritual and Artistic Odyssey of Ernest Bloch: A Centenary Perspective. Charleston: Piccolo Spoleto/Spoleto U.S.A., in conjunction with K.K. Beth Elohim, 1980.

12