The days of Yaakov, the years of his life, were one hundred and forty-seven years.

(Bereishit 47:28)

There are one hundred forty-seven psalms in the book of Tehillim, corresponding to the 147 years of Yaakov's life, as suggested in the verse "You are Holy, enthroned upon the praises of Yisroel [= another name for Yaakov]."

(Massechet Sofrim 16:11)

What did Yaakov say (during the nights when he would stay up tending Lavan's sheep)? ...The entire Book of Tehillim, as it says, "You are Holy, enthroned upon the praises of Yisroel (=Yaakov)."

(Bereishit Rabba 74:11)

One such instance is in fact recorded in the Talmud itself. In Berachot 9b we are told that the first two psalms in Tehillim (according to our count) should actually be counted as one long psalm. Apparently, the practice of splitting this psalm into two parts was prevalent already in Talmudic times and the Gemara had to point out that this was not originally the case.

However, this is the only instance of such a phenomenon found in the Talmud. This accounts for only one of the three "missing" psalms -i.e. the three psalms that were "added" to the original 147 by breaking them off from their parent psalm. How can we account for the other two missing psalms? This question is discussed by many later commentaries (Yefe Mareh [to Yerushalmi Shabbat 16:1], Rav Elazar Flekles [Teshuvah Me'Ahavah 1:111] and others), but in the end is left unresolved. Very little has been written on this matter that is both convincing and in keeping with the Talmudic and Midrashic sources. (Rav David Cohen, in Ohel David end of vol. II, offers some interesting insights on the subject, but leaves room for further research. See also Rav Wolfe of Heidenheim's essay on this subject, -- in the Tehillim he printed in Redelheim, Germany -- based on the division found in the Salonika 1521 print of the Yalkut Shimoni.) Let us attempt to reanalyze the situation.

According to one reading in Rashi Megillah 17b (which is the reading found in all printed editions and is the reading quoted by Tosafot ad loc.) it seems that what we today call psalms 9 and 10 are in fact counted as one psalm. (The two psalms indeed are related in theme. It is also interesting to note that psalm 9 contains the beginning of a loose alphabetical acrostic -- from Aleph to Kaf -- and psalm 10, the end -- Lamed, and later Koph through Tav.)

It may also be learned from the Torat Chaim (Shavuot 15b) that according to Rashi (ibid.), psalms 90 and 91 should be considered as one. (It is interesting to note that the two are indeed read together when they appear in the prayerbook.) We now have candidates for the extra two psalms.

Alternatively, the commentary attributed to Rashi on Divrei Hayyamim (I, 16:34) asserts that Pss. 105 and 106 are in reality one long psalm, both reflected in the prayer that King David offered in Divrei Hayyamim (ibid.). Following through that approach, it would have to be concluded that Ps. 96 is also part of the same long Ps., since it is included in the same prayer of King David in its entirety. This approach thus offers us *both* of the extra psalms; #96, #105, and #106 are all considered to be one psalm!

We now have enough candidates to satisfy our quest for the extra psalms. Unfortunately, it can be shown that none of these three possibilities are viable options. The Gemara (Berachot 9b) tells us that the psalm beginning with the words "Barchi Nafshi" (Ps. 104) is actually the 103rd psalm since Pss. 1 and 2 should be considered as only one psalm. From this it becomes clear that the "added" psalms cannot be found anywhere before #104 -- the Talmud tells us that even in ancient times that was the 103rd Ps. of Tehillim. All of our potential candidates are thus rejected, since they all involve psalms before #103. (In fact, a more careful examination of the sources shows that in all these cases Rashi's words can indeed be interpreted in other ways. He does not necessarily mean to say that two psalms are actually one, large psalm. The search for the two "added psalms" must resume.

1) It is known from Talmudic sources (Mishnayot Sukkah 5:4) that there are fifteen psalms in the "Shir Hamaalot" series. None of these psalms could ever have been joined to an adjacent one, as this would diminish the number of Shir Hamaalot psalms (Pss. 120-134).

2) If a psalm begins with an introductory epigraph, such as "A psalm of David" or "A praise of David" (as in Pss. 108-110, 138-144), it is clear that the psalm cannot possibly be connected to the one before it.

3) Any psalm which is written according to an alphabetical acrostic can be assumed to be in its original form; it is impossible that there was once another "piece" to such a psalm that was subsequently broken off. An alphabetical acrostic must begin with Aleph and end with Tav! (This rules out connecting Pss. 111, 112, 145, 119 to an adjacent psalm.)

4) If there are two adjacent psalms, the first of which ends with the word "Hallelujah," and the second of which begins with "Hallelujah," it is clear that these two psalms could never have constituted a single psalm. (Rules out any connection between 105-106, and 145-150.)

5) Tosafot Kiddushin 33a (based on Midrash Socher Tov, Ch. 1) tells us that Tehillim is divided into five sections or "Books." These books, as Tosafot points out, are clearly demarked in Tehillim. It is obvious that the last psalm of one book could not attached to the following psalm, which is the start of a new book. (Rules out connecting 106-107.)

6) Ps. 136 has a constant refrain in every verse (Ki Le'olam Chasdo), and cannot be combined with the psalms before it or after it, which do not have this refrain.

One may still surmise that Pss. 134-135 were once connected. The Gemara in Pesachim 117a, however, clearly negates this possibility, stating specifically that one of the two Hallelujah's of Ps. 135 (verse 1 or 3) marks the beginning of a new Ps..

It becomes clear after processing all of the above criteria that we *must* find the extra psalms between Ps. 113 and Ps. 118. Thus, our search for the extra two psalms has been narrowed down to the six psalms commonly known as "Hallel!" (I later found that Rav Shlomo of Chelme, in "Mirkevet HaMishneh," [Salonika 1782, part II, Hilchot Chanukkah 3:13] makes a similar calculation. Because he leaves out rule six, however, his conclusion differs slightly from ours.)

Thus we have accounted for two of the three "extra" psalms: 1 and 2 were originally one, as were 116 and 117. But we must still find the third case where two of "our" psalms were originally one unit.

Tosafot in Sukkah 54a supplies the missing information -- Tosafot groups all of the psalms from 113-115 together into one unit! This grouping would be *more* than enough, however, as it would remove *two* more psalms from the total number, leaving us with only 146. However, this grouping together of Pss. 113-115 cannot be accepted in any case when it comes to determining the number of psalms. The Gemara in Pesachim (117a) specifically counts *B'tzeit* (114:1) as the beginning of a psalm. (Tosafot in Sukkah was dealing with the issue of the Tekiot that were blown in the Temple during the recitation of Hallel, and it was in *this* connection that he said that Pss. 113-115 are considered one unit, apparently, and not for purposes of calculating the number of psalms in Hallel. See also Tosafot Sukkah 38b, "Mikahn.") But if we accept Tosafot's partitioning of the psalms of Hallel *except* for the one exclusion which is contradicted by Pesachim 117a, we have found the third case of the compound psalm: 114 and 115 were originally one long psalm! Hallel will now be divided into four sections instead of six:

(1) Ps. 113 (*Hallelujah Hallelu Avdei Hashem*);

(2) Pss. 114-115 (*B'tzeit* and *Lo Lanu*);

(3) Pss. 116-117 (*Ahavti* and *Halelu et Hashem Kol Goyim*);

(4) Ps. 118 (*Hodu Lashem Ki Tov*).

There are several indications that bear out our latter suggestion, that 115 is not a separate psalm. Firstly, according to this scheme it can be seen that every single psalm of Hallel is separated from the next psalm by the word "Hallelujah," which is the word that exemplifies the praise of Hallel. (The first section begins *and* ends in "Hallelujah," while the second and third section end with the word.)

Another point of support for this theory is in the Aleppo Codex, the most ancient complete manuscript of the Bible (Maimonides himself saw it and praised its accuracy!), Pss. 114 and 115 are written without any separation whatsoever between them. In fact, Dr. Mordechai Breuer, a well-known expert in ancient biblical manuscripts, told me that in *all* of the manuscript Tehillims that he has seen these two psalms appear as one long Psalm. (Rav Yakov Blinder pointed out to me that Chomas Anach to Tehilim ch. 10, authored by the Chida, cites the Divrei Emes as saying that his research into old manuscripts also supported our conclusion regarding 114 & 115.)

A third proof can be derived from Massechet Sofrim 20:9, which clearly enumerates the chapters in Hallel and leaves out 115, apparently appending it to 114! Although the Vilna Gaon alters the text of Massechet Sofrim to agree to our numbering of the psalms, the Rambam (Hilchot Channuka 3:13) seems to have had the text in Massechet Sofrim that we have. When he lists the chapters in Hallel (for a different halachic purpose) he also does not count 115 as an independent chapter! The Mirkevet HaMishneh ad loc. points out that in the Rambam's Tehillim, Pss. 114-115 were obviously combined! (See also Radak, Tehillim 115:1.)

It should be noted, however, that the above Rambam and Massechet Sofrim just as clearly count 117 as an *independent* psalm, which would seem to contradict our prior assumption that it is to be combined with 116. However, this need not force us to abandon that assumption. Ps. 117 is perhaps considered to be independent only in the context of the *Hallel prayer*. After all, Ps. 117 comes after the Hallelujah at the end of 116, and ends with its own Hallelujah, which perhaps grants it the Halachic status of a separate section of praise in Hallel. However, as far as the count of psalms in *Tehillim*, it may have been joined with 116 due to its brevity.

Interestingly, Minhat Shai (beginning of Tehillim), an early commentary with superlative expertise in matters dealing with the authenticity of the various versions of the Biblical texts, also accounts for the 147 psalms in Tehillim by joining 1-2, 114-115, and 116-117 just as we have, based on old manuscripts!

The breakup of Pss. 1 and 2 into two psalms was known even in Talmudic times, as can be seen in Berachot 9b (quoted above, section I). The reason for the subdivision is suggested by the Maharsha to be as follows. The Gemara says that the reason the verse Yihyu Leratzon -- "May the expression of my mouth... find favor..." (Ps. 19:15) -- is appended to the end of the Shemoneh Esrei ("Eighteen Benedictions") prayer is that David used this verse to conclude his 18th psalm (according to the ancient division, where Ps. 19 was the eighteenth psalm). Perhaps when the eighteen-benediction prayer was expanded into nineteen during the late Tannaitic period, the need to keep the parallel between the number of psalms preceding the verse of Yihyu Leratzon and the number of benedictions in the Shemoneh Esrei was addressed by changing those eighteen psalms into nineteen, subdividing Ps. 1 into two parts!

When did the subdivision of Pss. 114 and 115 take place, and under what circumstances? Perhaps we may suggest the following. A look in any Siddur will show that in Hallel, the first half of Ps. 115 is always printed as a separate paragraph from the second half. (In modern prayerbooks, this section often is printed in a different size or style of print, as well.) This is also the case with the first half of Ps. 116. The reason for this is that when the "short" version of Hallel is recited (on Rosh Chodesh and the last six days of Pesach), the first half of these two psalms is omitted. It is possible that the long psalm which was originally comprised of B'tzeit, Lo Lanu and Hashem Zecharanu came to be divided into two separate psalms due to this fact. In order to hint to the reader that he must, at times, skip part of the psalm ("Lo Lanu"), a break was inserted in the prayerbook *before* the words Lo Lanu, perhaps containing the message that this portion is skipped on certain days, as in today's prayerbooks -- see Parasha-Page, Ekev 5756, for more on this issue. (No break need be inserted *after* Lo Lanu -- or after Ahavti, the other part of Hallel that is skipped -- because a note appearing in the break *before* those paragraphs would tell the reader where to pick up when Lo Lanu is skipped, or perhaps the reader would know where to continue on his own once reminded that he must skip a portion.) From the prayerbooks, the new paragraph division at "Lo Lanu" crept into our books of Tehillim, where "Lo Lanu" was eventually mistaken for a distinct psalm!

My friend, Harav Yaakov Blinder, suggested that a similar theory may be presented to explain how Ps. 117 came to be split off from its parent psalm, 116. The Rambam (Chanukah 3:8) tells us that the custom is, when reciting the "short version" of Hallel, to skip not only the first halves of Pss. 115 (Lo Lanu) and 116 (Ahavti), but also the entire Ps. 117 (Hallelu et Hashem) and the first four verses of Ps. 118. Maggid Mishneh attests to this being the prevalent custom in his days. (This custom is no longer followed in the standard Sephardi or Ashkenazi rites, but it is still practiced by the Yemenite Jews.) Thus, the early Siddurim, for the same reason described above, printed Ps. 117 as a new paragraph, in order to insert before it a note that one is to start skipping from that point until the words "Min Hametzar" on certain days. This division in the Siddur eventually led to making Ps. 117 into a new psalm in the book of Tehillim as well!

We can now understand why the 150 psalms in our texts of Tehillim are the 147 psalms of King David's ode to Yakov Avinu. In every generation, when confronted by any difficult situation, we offer Hashem our prayers in the form of the eternal chapters of Tehillim. We remember the difficult times our father Yakov endured while in exile, slaving over the flocks of his devious uncle, and how he used the calming words of Tehillim to remind himself of Hashem's constant protection and of the ultimate victory of good over all evil.

[NOTE: I presented a copy of this essay to Dr. Mordechai Breuer of Jerusalem, a modern expert in all matters relating to textual Masoret and ancient biblical manuscripts. Dr. Breuer was kind enough to send me a lengthy reply, praising my work and the conclusions I reached and sharing with me his personal approach to the discrepancy in the psalm-count. He, too, judged the same three psalms we mentioned to be the extra ones, but it appeared more logical to him to assume that the original Mesorah was 150 psalms, and the Mesorah of the Midrashim with which we started *combined* three psalms with adjacent psalms for various reasons -- some of which we have touched upon here.]