The Meaning of Ayelet Ha-Shaḥar at Tehillim 22:1

By Mitchell First
MFirstAtty@aol.com

The phrase השׁחר אילת is found at Tehillim 22:1. The entire verse reads: “la-menatzeaḥ al ayelet ha-shaḥar mizmor le-David.” What is the meaning of השׁחר אילת ? This is the only time this phrase appears in Tanakh. Its meaning is so unclear that Radak offers five interpretations!

Literally, השׁחר אילת means: “doe of the dawn.” A male deer would be an ayal. An ayalah is a female deer (=a doe).[1] Ayelet is the construct state of ayalah. It means “ayalah of the…”

There are two times in Tanakh where the root איל has the meaning “strength.” These are at Tehillim 22:20: eyaluti, and 88:5: eyal.[2] Accordingly, some suggest that that the meaning of the phrase in our verse is “strength of the morning,” i.e., “sunrise.”³ But the איל words in those verses lack a dagesh in the yod. Our ayelet has a dagesh in the yod. With the dagesh, the meaning in Tanakh is always the “deer/doe” meaning.[4]

An amora in the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhot 1:1 and Yoma 3:2) explains ayelet ha-shaḥar by taking the position that the light of morning first appears like two horns on the horizon and then illuminates the entire horizon. He probably means that there is a similarity to the antlers of a deer which branch out in different directions. In this interpretation, the verse is referring to the morning light.[5] But the word used in Tehillim 22:1 is ayelet, referring to a female deer, and 99% of the time, these have no antlers![6] (Of course, a response could be that the verse is speaking about male deer and for some poetic reason chose to use the female form.[7])

The above amora also mentions an alternative view that ayelet means כוכבתא .כוכבתא literally means “star,” but is commonly translated here as a reference to the planet Venus. Could ayelet have meant “star” at Tehillim 22:1?[8] This is very unlikely because nowhere else in Tanakh do ayal, ayalah, ayelet or other forms of איל have such a meaning.[9]

Many interpret ayelet ha-shaḥar as a musical instrument. Note for example that Tehillim chapter twelve begins as follows: la-menatzeaḥ al ha-sheminit mizmor le-David. Most likely, ha-sheminit is a musical instrument, one of eight strings. The format of our verse, 22:1, perfectly parallels the format of verse 12:1. But try as I might, I cannot imagine a musical instrument with a name like “doe of the dawn.”[10]

Rashi and Radak mention a view that the doe symbolizes Bnei Yisrael who seek the redemption symbolized by the word shaḥar.[11]

The key to solving our problem is the introductory sentence of psalm 56: la-menatzeaḥ al yonat eilem reḥokim. There are several possible interpretations of the words yonat eilem reḥokim, but most likely the reference is to a dove that is far away and the only issue is the meaning of eilem (אלם).[12] A “dove that is far away” cannot possibly be a reference to a musical instrument. The commentary in the Soncino edition writes here that it “is doubtless the title of a song to whose melody the Psalm was sung.”

This must be the approach we should take to verse 22:1. The introductory sentence is pointing to a well-known song called ayelet ha-shaḥar and telling the conductor to use the tune of this song. This approach is taken in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (13:1321)[13] and in the commentary on our verse in the Soncino edition: “In all probability, the name of a melody to the accompaniment of which the Psalm was to be rendered.”[14] Among our Rishonim, Ibn Ezra takes this approach as well on both verses, 22:1[15] and 56:1.

Although this “tune instruction” approach does not fit the word על perfectly, we should be able to live with it. The entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica takes the position that al ayelet ha-shaḥar may have been the name of the song, but this is unlikely. It is too coincidental that the song at 56:1 would begin with al as well. Rather,על is a common word used in those first line instructions in the book of Tehillim. Sometimes it is an instruction regarding the specific musical instrument to be used and other times, like here, it can be an instruction with regard to the tune. (For examples of other times where the introductory verse likely refer to a tune, see the introductory verses to chapters 45, 57-59, 60, 69,75, and 80, and the commentary in the Soncino edition on each.)

——

Here are the five approaches that Radak had mentioned: 1) the name of a musical instrument, 2) strength of the morning, implying that the psalm was said at sunrise, 3) the name of a morning star, 4) an allusion to David fleeing from Saul, and 5) a way of referring to the Israelites. He preferred the last approach.

As to Rashi, here is what he offers: 1) the name of a musical instrument, 2) a way of referring to the Israelites, 3) the Sages’ homiletical approach that it refers to Esther (see Yoma 29a) and 4) strength, citing Menachem Ibn Saruk.[16]

Uriel Simon[17] points out that Ibn Ezra wrote two poems based on the theme that Israel is an ayelet. But as a commentator, he does not even mention this view in his standard commentary, since it is not at all a plain sense approach.[18]

—

Finally, it is interesting to offer a contemporary parallel to our interpretation of ayelet ha-shaḥar as an instruction regarding the tune of the psalm by referencing a well-known song. Nowadays we might say: “To the tune of Mary Had a Little Lamb.” (I thank Dr. Richard Gertler for this suggestion.)

[1] I am here reminded of the phrase “Doe a deer, a female deer” that I heard in the film The Sound of Music when I was a little child. That phrase finally came in handy!

[2] The Targum gives ayelet the strength meaning at 22:1, translating it as תקוף.

[3] This is the position taken by R. Saadiah Gaon. See Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms (1991), p. 51. It is referred to at the beginning of Ibn Ezra, although Ibn Ezra does not mention R. Saadiah by name.

[4] At Shir Ha-Shirim 2:7 and 3:5, אילות has the “deer/doe meaning” even without the dagesh.

[5] These statements in the Jerusalem Talmud are best understood in light of a statement at Yoma 29a.

[6] Female deer only have antlers when they have excess testosterone. This is very rare. Rashi (Yoma 29a) points out that ein karnayim le-nekeivah.

[7] In a different context, it is interesting to note the poetic license taken by the Israel Postal Company with their logo. For decades they have used a deer with antlers, intending an allusion to Gen. 49:21 (a verse that describes the delivery of imrei shefer.) But this verse refers to an ayalah. For further discussion, see my Links to Our Legacy (2021), pp. 205-208. (In recent years, their logo has been modified. Unless you knew, you cannot tell that a deer or any animal was intended originally.)

[8] Malbim is one who had adopted this interpretation.

[9] But “morning star” is a common understanding of the phrase ayelet ha-shaḥar in modern Hebrew.

[10] My son Shaya jokingly suggested that it could be a musical instrument that looked like a doe and was used to wake people in the morning! (My son’s wife is named Ayelet. It was his engagement to her in 2019 that inspired me to do this research.)

[11] See further Shir Ha-Shirim 6:10.

[12] As to eilem, perhaps it means “silent” or is a reference to a tree. Accordingly, the Encyclopaedia Judaica entry suggests “speechless dove far-off” and “dove of the far-off terebrinths.”

[13] This entry was authored by Nahum Sarna.

[14] Similarly, Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms (2007), p. 71, writes that the reference is to “a musical instrument of some sort, or alternately, to a melody.” Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, eds. L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner (1995, revised edition), p. 40, has: “beginning of a song?” Finally, Daat Mikra follows the “tune instruction” interpretation in its main commentary (but suggests that the song is about the morning star) and then offers many other suggestions in the footnote.

[15] He thinks that the allusion is to a love song, since that word ayelet is used in the expression ayelet ahavim at Mishlei 5:19.

[16] Based on the manuscript evidence provided at Alhatorah.org, most likely the last was not in the original comment of Rashi and was added by others later.

[17] Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms, p. 240.

[18] But Simon points out that he does mention and reject it in an earlier recension of his commentary on Tehillim.