"To serve Hashem with all your heart" (Devarim 11:13) -- What service is done with the heart? Prayer!

(Sifri, Devarim #41)

In general, the breaks in the Siddur appear to have been wrought by the insertion of comments or instructions that were not part of the liturgy between the prayers. These added lines, which were printed in a different font or pitch in order to differentiate between them and the prayers themselves, caused a brek between the paragraph before and the one after the instructive comment. A cursory glance at the Siddur will suffice to prove the integrity of the following rules:

1. After a blessing, a new paragraph is always started. Presumably the prayer book originally included comments such as, "Amen is to be said here," after blessings (as some prayer books still do today). The comments have since disappeared, but the paragraphs remain. Some examples are: All the pre-prayer blessings known as "Birchot HaShachar" (TKP 6-8,13-15, RY 15-17, 23-25); "Baruch She'amar" and "Yishtabach" (TKP 30,48, RY 43,57); the blessings before and after "Keriyat Shema" (TKP 52,57, RY 60-61, 66); and the "Shemoneh Esrei" blessings (TKP 58-69, RY 67-78).

2. *Before* an extended quote (i.e., not just a grouping of non-consecutive verses or two consecutive verses) there is a break. The printer originally must have added the source for the quote and thus separated it from the previous paragraph. Again, the sources have been left out in many Siddurim but the breaks remain. Examples of this are: "Mizmor Shir" (TKP 29, RY 41); "Hodu" (TKP 31, RY 44); "Ashrei" and the "Hallelukahs" (TKP 37-43, RY 48-53);"Vayevarech David," "Vayosha" and "AzYashir" (TKP 43-46, RY 53-55 -- although "Az Yashir" follows "Vayosha" in the Torah, it starts both a new chapter and a new parasha) and the parshiot of "Shema" (TKP 53-54, RY 62-64).

   It should be noted that there is no need for a break in the prayer book *after* the quotes, only before them. Indeed, we find in numerous instances that no break is made between quotes and the prayers that follow them -- for example, following "VeHallel LaHashem" at the end of "Hodu" (TKP 33, RY 45) and following "LeOlam Va'ed" at the end of "Az Yashir" (TKP 47, RY 56).

3. A third situation where paragraphs are inserted involves poems and songs. In order to accent the metre and poetic form, songs are always separated from the preceding and the following sections. Examples of this are: "Adon Olam" (TKP 11, RY 22); "Yigdal" (TKP 12, RY 23); and "Kel Adon" (TKP 212, RY 252).

   We are now ready to review the rest of the morning prayer and analyze the mysterious breaks that do not fit into the above categories.

(A) BIRCHAT HATORAH (TKP 7, RY 16-17):

The answer to this lies in an argument between the early halachic authorities. Although we consider "VeHa'arev" to be no more than a continuation of the first blessing for the Torah (O.C. 47:6), this was not always taken for granted. In fact, most of the early authorities considered it to be the beginning of another, third blessing for learning Torah -- according to them, "Amen" is to be said before "VeHa'arev" (see Bet Yosef ad loc., Berachot 11b). We combine "Ve'Ha'arev" with the bracha that precedes it based on Rabbeinu Tam's (12 cent. France) assertion that if "VeHa'arev" is actually a separate blessing, it should start with "Baruch Atta." (Tosafot Ketubot 8a s.v. SheHakol).

Apparently the break in our Siddurim reflects the other, non-halachic opinions, that "Amen" is chorused before "VeHa'arev." According to Rabbeinu Tam, the break was apparently added by an ignorant printer or scribe, who (unaware of Rabbeinu Tam's reasoning) mistook "Ve'Ha'arev" (or "Ha'arev") to be the beginning of a new blessing due to its unusual form.

The exact same logic explains the break that appears in our Siddur following "HaMa'avir Sheina" (TKP 15, RY 25) -- see O.C. 46:1, Tosafot Berachot 46a s.v. Kol.

(B) EZRAT (TKP 55, RY 65):

This can be explained with a look at any Machzor, or holiday prayer book. It was customary in times gone by to insert special prayers, known as "Zulat"s, in the holiday prayers before "Ezrat." Although these "Zulat"s can still be found in today's Machzorim, they are recited only by a few staunch holdouts (such as the Breuer community in Washington Heights, New York) since they were blacklisted by the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 68).

The original Siddurim included a line of instruction before "Ezrat," informing the congregants to turn to their "Zulats" on holidays. The break before "Ezrat" remains until today, long after the instructions and "Zulats" were forgotten. The same logic explains the break between "Az Yashir" and "Yishtabach" (TKP 48, RY 56-57), where instructions once informed the congregants to turn to "Nishmat" (which *is* still recited today) on Shabbatot and holidays. (See Siddur Chassidei Ashenaz for an alternate reasoning for the break before Ezrat.)

(C) AL HARISHONIM:

All Siddurim have "Yehi Chavod" (TKP 36, RY 47) and "Uva L'Tzion" (TKP 88, RY 98) as separate paragraphs. Why were they separated from "Mizmor LeTodah" and "La'menatzeach," the psalms that precede them? The answer is that "Mizmor LeTodah" and "La'menatzeach" are skipped on occasion. Because of this they were printed as separate paragraphs, usually with a different size print, so that the reader could easily see where to pick up on the days that these prayers are skipped.

The same explanation may be applied to the breaks before "HaMeir La'Aretz" and "Titbarach" (TKP 50, RY 58). On Shabbat, this section is skipped and replaced by another prayer. In order to let the reader know what is to be skipped, the weekday selection was written/printed as a separate paragraph with a different pitch.

We can now return to the "Al Harishonim" puzzle. When "Zulat"s were recited, some congregations would start the holiday "Zulat" hymns before "Al Harishonim," substituting a different prayer in its stead. Since "Al Harishonim" until "Ezrat" would be skipped on holidays, it was printed as a separate paragraph, with a break before and after it!

(D) THE BLESSING OF "YOTZER"

A similar question may be asked of the blessing following "Shema," where the verses "Mi Chamocha" and "Hashem Yimloch" appear as individual paragraphs. (TKP 56-57, RY 66). In this latter instance, the words of the Tur (quoting from his father, the Rosh -- O.C. 49) are enlightening.

The Gemara tells us "that which is written in the Torah may not be recited by heart (Temurah 14a)." According to Tosafot (ad loc.) and the Rosh (Tur, ibid.), this prohibition only applies when the words are being recited by a Chazan in order to exempt those who are attending the services from reciting the verses themselves. It was once customary for the Chazan to read aloud all the blessings that precede and follow Keriyat Shema, thereby exempting the attending congregants from saying them. However, the Chazan could not exempt them from reciting Hashem Yimloch and Mi Chamocha unless he was reading the verses from a written Torah, which was not always convenient. The Ashkenazi community found a solution to this problem, says the Tur. When the Chazan reached these verses, he would stop reading out loud and the entire congreation would read them together.

It now becomes clear why these verses were make into separate paragraphs. These verses were originally preceded by a comment bidding the entire congregation to join the Chazan in their recitation, and they were printed/written apart from the rest of the blessing in order to denote the extent of the selection that is read jointly! (See Tosafot Pesachim 104b s.v. Chutz, who uses a similar form of logic to explain a break in the blessings for the Haftorah.)

Although the Chatam Sofer (Hagahot to O.C. 59:3) suggests that "Kadosh" and "Baruch Kevod" were read with the cantor for the same reason, doubt can be cast on this assumption. Tosafot's ruling, that each individual must read biblical verses for himself, only applies to verses from the Five Books of the Torah and not to verses from the Prophets or Ketuvim (Tosafot, ibid). Today, this is witnessed by the fact that "Le'oseh Orim Gedolim" (towards the end of "Birchat Yotzer," TKP 51, RY 60), from Tehillim 136, is not printed as a separate paragraph.

However, the Rema (O.C. 59:3) quotes from early sources that the verses "Kasosh" and "Baruch Kevod" should be read in a louder voice than the rest of the prayers. (In his days, the entire congregation appears to have recited the blessings as we do today). To inform us of the unique status of these verses, they were written as separate paragraphs.

Alternatively, wherever the Siddur tells us, "They would all say the words together..." it became customary for the entire congregation to recite the verse that followed in unison, to act out the prayer. This would explain why all four of the verses we are discussing ("Kadosh," "Baruch," "MiChamocha," and "Yimloch) were recited by the entire congregation in unison and were therefore written as individual paragraphs.

(E) "VE'KAROT IMO HABRIT" (TKP 45, RY 54):

The answer to this is really rather simple. It was once customary for a Mohel who was scheduled to perform a circumcision (Brit Milah) to lead the congregation in the recitation of part of the prayers verse by verse. He would begin with the words, "Ve'Karot Imo Habrit," because of the mention of Brit (Magen Avrohom 51:9). The Siddur had a break before Ve'Karot with a comment telling the Mohel where to start the public recitation.

(F) "VAYEVARECH DAVID"

According to the Arizal (quoted by Magen Avraham 51:9), we stand when reading the quote from Divrei Hayomim until the middle of the quote from Nechemya ("Ata Hu Hashem Ha'Elokim"). A friend, Rav Dovid Zussman, suggested that this is why no break was inserted before the quote from Nechemya -- so that people should not think that they are to sit down upon reaching that break.

(G) "ET SHEM"

The Tur (O.C. 61) warns us that we must pause for a second wherever the word "Et" follows a word ending with a "Mem" because if the two words are read quickly it may sound like "Met" -- dead. One example the Tur provides is "Mamlichim -- Et Shem, the break which we are discussing. The Chatam Sofer suggests that originally, Siddurim had a comment warning the congregation to pause for a second after "Mamlichim" and before "Et Shem." (As Chatam Sofer points out, we must be particularly careful not to combine these words, as there are others who actually are "Mamlich" (crown) a "Met" (dead man) as their lord!) Eventually, "Et Shem" became a new paragraph.

Another plausible explanation for the break is that, as Mateh Moshe informs us, there was once a custom to stand when reciting "Et Shem" (until "VeHanora"), in order to honor Hashem's Holy Name. Perhaps instructions to that effect once separated "Et Shem" from the preceding paragraph.

(H) "LEMA'AN YIRBU"

This uncalled for break is truly enigmatic. The verse "U'Ktavtem... U'Vish'arecha" is indeed the last verse of the paragraph which begins "Shema Yisrael." However, when repeated in v'Haya Im Shamo'a, it is only the *next* to the last verse of that paragraph."

Rav Yitzchak Satz, a friend of mine who specializes in liturgical texts, found a possible solution to this puzzle in a classic treatise on liturgy printed in Frankfurt 150 years ago, "Divrei Kehilos" (by Rav Shlomo Zalman Geiger, 1864). On page 31 (letter Yud Alef) of that work, it is recorded that either the Rabbi of the congregation or his replacement (if the Rabbi is out of town) reads the Shema aloud beginning from the words "Lema'an Yirbu" until the last word of Shema ("Emes"), with the cantillations. This custom is probably the source for the break in the Ashkenazi Siddurim before the words "Lema'an Yirbu." (Professor Hillel Goldstein z'l of Kew Gardens Hills pointed this out to me as well, without citing the source for the custom.)

Rav Geiger, however, does not explain *why* the Rav reads out loud from that particular point -- which, as we have noted, is in the middle of a paragraph. Reb Yosef Nussbaum of N.Y. submitted to me the following two suggestions:

1. Perhaps we are trying to encourage the congregation not to lose patience while waiting for the Rav to finish Keri'as Shema. The Rav starts to read out loud from the words "l'Ma'an Yirbu Yemeichem...," from which the Gemara derives (Berachos 8a) that by spending longer hours in the Bais ha'Knesses one will be blessed with long life!

2. We are taught (Berachos 16a) that if one finds himself at "uvi'She'arecha" and is not sure as to whether he is holding at the end of the first paragraph of Shema, or near the end of the second, the Halachah is as follows: One must continue from the first "uvi'She'arecha," unless he already said the words "Lema'an Yirbu...". In the latter case, we assume that his tongue continued as accustomed because he was indeed up to that point in Shema.

   Perhaps we can speculate that old Siddurim included a blurb to that effect before the words "Lema'an Yirbu."

3. From the word "v'Ahavta" (which immediately follows the words "Shema Yisrael," in which we express our acceptance of Hashem's dominion) until the words "Lema'an Yirbu," there are exactly 620 letters. That number corresponds to the number of Mitzvos d'Oraisa (613) plus the additional seven Mitzvos mid'Rabanan. (As he notes, this is also the number of letters in the Ten Commandments, see Ramban and Ba'al ha'Turim to Shemos 20:14. The Yerushalmi in Berachos 5:5 in fact tells us that one reason that we read the Shema prayer daily is because "it includes all of the Ten Commandments.")

   From the words "Lema'an Yirbu" until the end of Shema (including the verse "Hashem Elokeichem Emes" which is repeated by the Shali'ach Tzibur) there are 372 *letters*, which is equivalent to 365+7. (The 7 Mitzvos d'Rabanan are related to the list of 365 negative commandments because we learn the necessity to heed the words of the Rabbis from a negative prohibition, "Lo Sasur" -- see Shabbos 23a.) This, coupled with the well-known Midrash (Tanchuma, Parashat Kedoshim) that points out that Shema has 248 *words*, puts the number 620 into the Shema one more time. Perhaps, suggests Rav Weissmandel, this explains why Shema was "split" in the Siddurim and in the Rav's reading. The split was meant to allude to the numbers 613+7 and 365+7 through the letter-count before and after the split!

   Rav Weissmandel adds that perhaps a similar reasoning will explain why Chazal split the first paragraph of Tehilim into two paragraphs (as we find in Berachos 9b, see Maharsha there -- I discussed this in a Parasha-Page for Parashat Vayechi). It was meant to highlight the fact that the paragraphs contain 620 letters, alluding to the number of Mitzvos of the Torah and the Rabbanan. Thus split, the first paragraph contains exactly 248 letters, while the second contains exactly 372 (365+7)!