Sources:
Maran Moreinu HaRav Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, ztzu”kl, customarily omitted the piyyut “Bezokhri Al Mishkavi.” He likewise wrote in Chazon Ovadia, Yamim Nora’im, p. 33, that the above may be omitted (listing it together with other passages that may be omitted “if time is limited”). In practice, even when time was not limited—for example, when Selichot were recited at midnight—it seems to me that Maran zt”l always omitted this piyyut. At first glance, one may attribute this practice to his desire not to shorten the Selichot or burden the congregation, since this piyyut is ultimately an “addition” to Selichot and is not a component of the actual order of Selichot. Indeed, in Keter Shem Tov Gagin, vol. 6, p. 47, and in other works, we find reports of several communities that had the custom not to recite this important piyyut at all. It may be suggested that this was for the sound reasons set forth below:
1. This comes first: The gaon Moreinu HaRav Rabbi Avraham Chamwi, zt”l, in Beit El on the order of Selichot, after the aforementioned piyyut (before the laws of Nefilat Apayim), wrote that there are places where the custom is not to recite the piyyut “Bezokhri Al Mishkavi” at all. It appears there that this is because it constitutes an interruption between VaYa’avor and Nefilat Apayim. Although the concern not to interrupt between the Thirteen Attributes and Nefilat Apayim is found primarily regarding Shacharit—when one must not interrupt from the Amidah until after Nefilat Apayim, as Rabbeinu HaAri, z”l, wrote in Sha’ar HaKavanot, subject of Minchah, derush 1, fol. 51c—nevertheless, we also find an additional concern in this regard, seemingly, in Sha’ar HaKavanot, subject of the kavanot of the repetition of the Amidah, derush 5, fol. 43c. During the recitation of the Thirteen Attributes, a yichud of the aspect of Leah and Yisrael is effected, and afterwards, during Nefilat Apayim, a yichud of the aspect of Rachel and Yaakov is effected; one may not interrupt between these two yichudim (“and no stranger may approach them to defile the Sanctuary of Hashem, Heaven forbid,” in his words)—that is, one must not make an interruption by reciting other prayers, as cited in Ben Ish Chai, Year One, Ki Tisa, section 10. However, the mekubalim disagree as to whether yichudim are effected through the Thirteen Attributes recited in Selichot; accordingly, the concern of interruption depends on this, and this is not the place to elaborate.
2. And the second follows: In this piyyut (as well as in the piyyut called “LaMitvadeh Al Chata’av”), the recurring refrain is “Nipelah Na VeYad Hashem”—“Let us fall now into the hand of Hashem.” This is from a verse in II Samuel, chapter 24. Gad the seer told King David that, because of sin, Hashem had decreed a calamity upon Israel, but David could choose one of three decrees: seven years of famine; the enemy killing the Jewish people for three months; or death by plague for three days, Heaven forbid. David replied (there, verse 14) that he preferred Hashem to strike them directly, through a plague, rather than the enemy killing them: “And David said to Gad: I am greatly distressed; let us fall now into the hand of Hashem, for His mercies are great; but let me not fall into the hand of man.” Thus, the words “Let us fall now into the hand of Hashem” are a request that Hashem kill us, Heaven forbid. King David could indeed say this, for in his case it was the lesser evil; but why should we pray in such language? After all, a covenant is made with the lips (Moed Katan 18a; Sanhedrin 102a), and a person should never open his mouth to the Satan (Berachot 19a; Ketubot 8b). Indeed, the author of Shu”t Mekor Ne’eman was asked whether this piyyut may be recited or whether it constitutes opening one’s mouth to the Satan. He replied: “What does it matter? It is merely a piyyut, and the intent here is toward the Nefilat Apayim performed afterwards.” End quote. His pleasant words are beyond me due to the limitations of my understanding. The source of this principle that a covenant is made with the lips is the Gemara in Moed Katan 18a, where it is explicitly explained that a covenant is made with the lips even when the person did not intend what he said. There the discussion concerns Avraham Avinu, who said, “and we shall return to you”; his words proved effective, and both returned, though this was not his intention, for he thought he would offer Yitzchak. If it is because this is “merely a piyyut” rather than a prayer, Avraham Avinu’s statement too was merely a “technical” conversation, informing Yishmael and Eliezer that they should wait there, rather than a prayer to Heaven. Although the conversation of the servants’ households of the Patriarchs is more beautiful than the Torah of their descendants, etc., the Gemara there sought to derive a principle applicable to every person; thus, it is not uniquely relevant to Avraham Avinu, peace be upon him.
It occurred to me to reconcile the view of the author of Mekor Ne’eman, may he live, by distinguishing the present case: regarding the piyyut, it is evident in that setting that the intent is Nefilat Apayim, since Nefilat Apayim is recited immediately afterward. This differs from the case of Avraham Avinu, where the listeners could not discern another intent—for Yishmael and Eliezer, it appeared that Avraham truly intended to return with his son. Yet even this is not entirely clear. For the Gemara in Berachot 64a (and Moed Katan 29a) states: “One who takes leave of his fellow should not say to him, ‘Go in peace,’ but rather, ‘Go to peace.’ For Yitro, who said to Moshe, ‘Go to peace,’ ascended and succeeded; while David, who said to Avshalom, ‘Go in peace,’ went and was hanged.” There, the statement presumably applies even where one departs from his fellow with a smile and it is evident that his intent is a blessing rather than a curse—and presumably this was likewise the case with King David, peace be upon him, and his son Avshalom—yet the words have an effect by virtue of their own meaning. One may reject this with difficulty; see further. We also find in Moed Katan 27b: “To everyone they say, ‘Sit’” (Rashi explains: when they stand before the Nasi), “except for a mourner and an ill person,” because it implies, “Remain in your mourning; remain in your illness” (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 376:2). There, it is apparent to everyone that he stood before the Nasi and that “sit” means literally to sit down. Nor can one say that the concern there is one of etiquette rather than apprehension, for the Rema there cites, as a continuation of that law, the law not to open one’s mouth to the Satan. It requires further consideration. In beloved later works, one can find many incidents concerning this matter. For example, Kav HaYashar cites Rav Rechev Eliyahu, who wrote: “A woman was sitting among other women, and one woman was speaking with another about repentance, judgment, and the accounting that every person must render for his deeds. One woman jokingly began and said: ‘When I come before the Day of Judgment in the Heavenly Court and they ask me why I did such-and-such, I shall make myself mute so that I will be unable to answer.’ Within a short time, she became mute until the day of her death.” End quote. There, it was evident to all that she meant that in Heaven she would be as though mute, as is clear both from her wording and from the context in which she spoke—just as in our case regarding “Let us fall now,” where the indication arises from the context that Nefilat Apayim will shortly be said. Yet her utterance was fulfilled literally. Admittedly, the gates of distinctions are not closed in all these cases, but we have not escaped difficulty. Aside from this, regarding the claim of the author of Mekor Ne’eman, there is another point requiring consideration. As stated, the current custom among us, the Sephardic communities, is not to perform actual Nefilat Apayim, but only to recite the psalm as one recites Tehillim. Therefore, when saying “Let us fall now into the hand of Hashem,” these words have nothing upon which to rest unless they are understood literally, Heaven forbid—unless one says that it suffices that the original source involved Nefilat Apayim, which is itself an unprecedented innovation.
[See further in Mekor Ne’eman, where he brought proof from the custom of earlier generations: “In earlier days, before Nefilat Apayim they would recite the verse, ‘And David said to Gad: I am greatly distressed; let us fall now into the hand of Hashem,’ etc.” End quote. Due to the limitations of my understanding, I have not merited to understand what proof this offers. First, indeed, the disciples of the Arizal warned not to recite this verse, as cited in Kesher Godel 19:13; Beit Oved, fol. 97b, section 4; Leket HaKatzir 7:195 in the name of Nagid U’Metzaveh, fol. 31a; Chesed LeAvraham, Sha’ar HaShamayim, fol. 105b; Siach Yitzchak by Moreinu HaRav A. Mani, zt”l, Sha’ar HaAhavah, laws of Nefilat Apayim, section 5; Kaf HaChayim Sofer 131:34; and others—although it may be that their reason was interruption; examine Mishnat Chassidim, She’erit HaAtzilut 12:1 carefully. Likewise, the Gra, in Ma’aseh Rav, section 49, opposed reciting this verse, explicitly giving the sound reason that it is a verse spoken concerning calamity. This reason is also cited in Shemen LaMa’or on Shulchan Aruch 131 and in Likutei Maharich, in the order of Nefilat Apayim, fol. 89a. See also Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 131:8, that the custom is not to recite it. Moreinu HaRav Rafael Even Tzur, zt”l, Av Beit Din of Fez, wrote in his glosses to Siddur HaChodesh that he had received a tradition from his forefathers not to recite this verse (his glosses were printed in Alecha, in Kovetz Mekabtziel, vol. 3, p. 45), see there. Furthermore, even according to those who did recite this verse, that case differs, because they recited the verse in full, stating that it was King David who said, “Let us fall now into the hand of Hashem.” This is Torah study concerning what occurred with David; it bears no resemblance whatsoever to one who now says in his own name, “Let us fall now into the hand of Hashem.” This is clear.]
3. And the third comes: The author of this holy piyyut is Rabbeinu Yehudah ben Balaam, z”l (he is mentioned in several places by Rabbeinu Avraham Ibn Ezra, and this is not the place to elaborate). He established as an acrostic in the opening letters of the stanzas of the piyyut: “Bilaam chazak.” Therefore, some were concerned not to recite it, because it is not a good sign to recite a prayer bearing such an acrostic. In the addenda to Alei Hadas, p. 88, p. 450, it is written that they too were concerned about this acrostic, but found a compromise by omitting the first two stanzas and beginning with “Aneini Hashem Aneini,” so that the acrostic becomes “Am chazak.” There, in the addenda, p. 88, he writes: “Regarding our custom to omit the first two stanzas of the piyyut ‘Bezokhri Al Mishkavi’ and to begin with ‘Aneini Hashem Aneini,’ etc.—I now see that this custom was already recorded approximately two hundred and fifty years ago by the gaon Rabbi Kalifa ben Malka in his work Kaf Naki, p. 143, as follows: ‘Bezokhri Al Mishkavi—how beautiful is this refrain and its wording, were it not for its acrostic, Bilaam. Therefore, in the West they recite only its latter half, “Aneini Hashem,” etc., because they do not conclude with his name.’ [End quote from Kaf Naki].” End quote. In any event, the custom not to recite it at all is also readily understood for this reason.
To conclude: Heaven forbid for us to cast doubt upon this holy piyyut, written by one of the early authorities. It is an exalted and awe-inspiring piyyut, containing very important supplications: “Remember for them the merit of the fathers, and do not turn to their deeds; acquire Your congregation as in days of old, O Holy One of Yaakov, their Redeemer.” How could we innovate by abolishing these precious supplications from the mouths of the congregation? Nevertheless, for the reasons above, were I not hesitant, I would say that even if the congregation has some available time, priority should be given to other piyyutim, even those that are not part of the essential order of Selichot, such as “Avinu Malkeinu, we have none but You,” etc. Only if they would otherwise not engage in Torah study and prayer during their free time should this piyyut indeed be recited. May Hashem not withhold goodness from those who walk with integrity.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
