The kinah Shavat suru meni is the first kinah that is recited in the daytime, and it is written by R. Elazar haKalir, who lived in the land of Israel, maybe around the 6th or 7th century. The kinah consists of nine stanzas, the first eight are based on the last eight letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and the ninth kinah has the acrostic of the name Elazar.
The kinah follows Megillat Eichah by quoting words or phrases from Megillat Eichah to begin each line of each stanza. Each stanza follows the same pattern in quoting Eichah, and while the kinah follows the order of the Hebrew alphabet, it follows Eichah in a backwards fashion since the first quote in each stanza is from the last chapter of Eichah, and the last quote in each stanza is from the first chapter of Eichah.
This kinah shows the development of the custom of reciting kinot on Tisha B’av by the fact that it begins with the letter samech, and then follows the Hebrew alphabet for the next eight letters. What happened to the stanzas of the first fourteen letters of the Hebrew alphabet? In turns out that the beginning of the kinah, which follows the first fourteen letters of the Hebrew alphabet, has been found as a kerovot in the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei by the chazzan. The kerovot were prayers that a chazzan would add in the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei on certain occasions.
Daniel Goldschmidt (2002, pp. 7-16) in his introduction to the kinot discusses the development of the custom of reciting kinot on Tisha B’av. He notes that initially (6th century?, 7th century?) the kinot were recited as kerovot in the morning of Tisha B’av when the chazzan would recite the Shemoneh Esrei, but as the kinot got longer, then they were moved from being part of the repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei to being recited as an independent unit after the reading of the Torah and Haftorah in Shacharit. Apparently, this kinah, Shavat suru meni, was only one-third moved, either on purpose or by mistake, and the first two-thirds of the kinah are no longer recited on Tisha B’av.
The kinah also shows how R. Elazar haKalir integrated Eichah together with the Midrashim, and specifically Midrash Eichah. For example, in the second stanza, the fifth line, he begins by quoting the verse from chapter two, for the letter ayin, Eichah 2:17. This verse states that the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash was due to G-d, but Midrash Eichah records how G-d was weeping when the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed (Proem 24, Cohen, 1961, p. 43; on 1:1, 1961, pp. 67,68; on 1:2, 1961, p. 94). R. Elazar haKalir recounts this idea from the Midrash, after quoting Eichah 2:17, and this crying by G-d leads into the last line of the stanza which refers to crying in chapter one, Eichah 1:16.
In the fourth line of each stanza there is a reference to one of the 24 priestly families (mishmerot). This occurs either by name: In stanza sameach, the family Bilgah, in stanza peh, the family Hezir, in stanza resh, the family Yechezkel, in stanza sin, the family Yachin, and in stanza taf, the family Hapeetzet (this is the least clear), see Divrei haYamim I 24:14-17. Or, in the other stanzas, the connection is with the place where priests lived, which is based on the kinah Eichah yashva havezelt haSharon: In stanza ayin, the place Yevanit, in stanza tzadi, the place Natzrat, in stanza kuf, the place Arav, and in the last stanza, the place Kabul. R. Elazar haKalir changes the names slightly and within the kinah, the word has a meaning not related to the place or family name. The inclusion of the names and places show R. Elazar haKalir’s artistry with Hebrew, but I am not sure if there any significance to these names and places other than that they are being mentioned.
The stanza of the letter peh shows how R. Elazar haKalir refers to numerous periods and not just the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash. For example, the first line refers to the Euphrates River, which was only relevant to the exiles from the first Bet ha-Mikdash, and Goldschmidt (2002, p. 35, footnote 7) notes that according to the Midrash, many of these exiles died from drinking the water from the Euphrates. Also, the third line in the stanza, R. Elazar haKalir refers to a sin by Shiloh and Rav Soloveitchik (2010, pp. 208-210) explains that this refers either to the sins of the sons of Eli when the mishkan was in Shiloh or to the fact the mishkan in Shiloh has been forgotten.
The stanza of the letter kuf refers to various other nations who did not help the Jewish people. One case is the fourth and fifth lines of the stanza which refer to an incident recorded in Midrash Eichah (2:4) that when the people were running away to the east by the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, Arabs gave them salty food and them bottles which were supposed to be filled with water, but were just empty. According to the Midrash, this caused the people’s stomach to split open. R. Elazar haKalir also refers to this incident in the lamed line of the kinah im tochalnah nashim.
Another example is from the last line in the stanza, which is based on Eichah 1:19, that the Jewish people called to her lovers but they deceived her. This line in Eichah (also Eichah 1:2) refers to the lack of support the Jewish people received from Egypt when the Babylonians were attacking Jerusalem in 586 BCE. After the Babylonians had defeated Egypt in 605 BCE, the kingdom of Yehuda was under Babylonian rule. However, it seems that in 591 BCE, Zedekaiah, a son of Yoshiyahu, tried to break away from Babylonian rule and he made an agreement with Egypt. This caused the Babylonians, Nebuchadnezzar to attack Jerusalem, and this led to the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash in 586 BCE. Yirmiyahu 37:5 records that Egypt’s army initially came to help Zedekaiah, but when the Babylonians came back and surrounded the city for two years (January 588 BCE to July 586 BCE), the Egyptians provided no help, and this is what Eichah 1:19 and the line in the kinah are referring to.
The first line in the penultimate stanza, which is based on the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, taf, states that Yaakov’s image was engraved within the throne of G-d. This idea of G-d having a throne is popular in many prayers though it is a difficult concept. I think the idea should be understood as a metaphor that there is a special connection between G-d and Yaakov. Thus, R. Soloveitchik (2010, pp. 212,213) notes that Yaakov connotes the Jewish people more than any other figure, and the idea that his image is engraved in the throne of G-d shows that the relationship between G-d and the Jewish people is eternal. This is also the basis for the second to last verse in Eichah, 5:21, that we pray to renew the bonds between G-d and the Jewish people.
The remaining line in the penultimate stanza are calls for revenge. This idea also appears in the end of chapters one, three and four in Eichah, and in several of the kinot, especially those composed for the tragedies of the Jews in Germany from the Crusaders. The desire for revenge is problematic. Many people view revenge as an act of justice since if there is no allowance for people to take revenge, then many times murderers go free. Was it wrong for people after WWII to take revenge and kill Nazis who killed Jews? However, revenge killings also lead to innocent people being killed. Was R. Elazar haKalir, writing maybe 500 - 600 years after the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, in this kinah really calling for people to take revenge? R. Jonathan Sacks (2016, p. 246) quotes two scholars who argue that when people ask G-d to take revenge they are sparing humans from taking revenge. Thus, here and in the other kinot, the call of revenge should be understood as a prayer to G-d to punish the people who harm the Jewish people, but not as a call for people to take revenge themselves.
Within the last stanza, R. Elazar haKalir inserted the letters of his first name as the beginning of each line. This is a common practice of paytanim to spell out their names in a piyyut, as it is the only way that they can claim authorship of the piyyut. R. Elazar haKalir does not do it in every kinah, and even when he does insert his name, he just refers his first name, while others paytanim sometime refer to their whole name (son of) and give themselves a blessing (usually chazak).
Cohen, Abraham, 1961 (first edition 1939), Midrash Rabbah: Lamentations, London: The Soncino Press.
Goldschmidt, Daniel (1895-1972), 2002, first printed 1972, The kinot of Tisha B’av: Following the custom of Poland and Ashkenazi communities in the land of Israel, 2nd edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Sacks, Jonathan (1948-2020), 2016, Not in God’s name: Confronting religious violence, London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Soloveitchik, Joseph (1903-1993), 2010, The Koren mesorat harav kinot: Commentary on the kinot based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Simon Posner, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers; New York: OU Press.