Regrettably, most congregants, myself included, do not fully understand every line of the many piyyutim that appear in our liturgy. Generally speaking, the texts that we recite on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur tend to be somewhat easier to follow than many selichot, kinot, and yotzrot composed for other occasions. Nonetheless, they are not without their challenges. I present here a number of observations that should help enhance our understanding of what most of us see as the most important prayer services of the year.
- Near the beginning of chazarat ha-shatz of musaf on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, we find the lines Dibberot elleh divrei ha-berit galleh be-zikhron shillush berit. The tune impels almost all chazzanim to pause after elleh. This, however, is a mistake. The lines mean, “Remove (roll away) the words elleh divrei ha-berit (the three words that follow the tokhachah (or tokhechah) in Ki Tavo and hence represent that tokhechah) through the remembrance of the threefold covenant (with the patriarchs).” Thus, the words elleh divrei ha-berit must be said as a single phrase. It is not terribly difficult to do this.
- People who daven in havarah Ashkenazit should say Ho-ochez be-yod—or ba-yod— middas mishpot, not be-yad, as almost all machzorim—and chazzanim— say. Be-yad middas mishpot has no evident meaning, and the line is based on the verse ve-sochez be-mishpot yodi. This is vocalized correctly in the Machzor ha-Gra, where the text was prepared with meticulous care.
- When davening from the Machzor ha-Gra, I noticed the vocalization taggid le-Ya‘akov davar (not devar) chok u-mishpat. There was no note explaining this, but I realized upon reflection that the line is based on the verse “Maggid devarav le-Ya’akov, chukkav u-mishpatav le-Yisrael.” Thus, these are three separate words—no semikhut. I then saw that in Heidenheim’s commentary, he notes this vocalization approvingly with an illuminating elaboration. He cites a midrash that refers to this verse and says, Amar ha-KB”H le-Yisrael: Im asitem chukkai ein ha-satan nogea‘ bakhem (Tanhuma be-Hukkotai #1, ed.Buber, p.108; Yalkut Shim‘oni on the Torah #671). Thus, we see the full meaning of Be-ein melitz yosher mul maggid pesha‘ (i.e., the satan), taggid le-Ya’akov devar—or davar—chok u-mishpat. Since changing this would probably startle the congregation, I can construct a limmud zekhut for the chazzan’s not doing so. One could argue that devarav is a kelal, and chukkav u-mishpatav are the perat: “his words, which consist of his laws and statutes.” Thus, one can justify, perhaps be-dochak, devar chok u-mishpat. In any event, this midrash, to which the author was certainly alluding, explains the passage in the davening, which is otherwise obscure.
- In U-Netanneh Tokef, the Machzor ha-Gra vocalizes tinnasse’ (in u-vo tinnasse’ malkhutekha) with a patach followed by a dagesh rather than the usual kamatz. That made me realize that this is based on the verse in Bil‘am’s blessing: ve-tinasse’ malkhuto, where that is indeed the vocalization. It is, however, an unexpected form, and the one we usually say is the one we would expect. (Many old machzorim had u-va-shofar [with a patach] gadol yittaka‘,” but this has generally been corrected in the ones currently in use.) Also in U-Netanneh Tokef, the proper form, as Prof.Richard Steiner pointed out to me, is mi-ya‘ani u-mi ya‘ashir, as in al tira ki ya‘ashir ish. This is a hif‘il that represents a change in status as in hivri’ and hizkin. But I would not do this if I were a chazzan, because it would be too startling to the congregation at a high point of the davening. Again in U-Netanneh Tokef, one should say ve-khe-anan kaleh with a segol since the other words are either adjectives representing a current state or present-tense verbs (until ya‘uf).
- In Ve-ye’etayu kol le-avdekha: The proper vocalization is ve-yilmedu to‘im binah, not vi-(ye)lammedu. In every other line of this piyyut, the subject of the verb is those who do not now recognize the true God. It is those people who stray (to‘im with a tav can become almost syno