The kinah Eicah asta be-apcha - הקינה איכה אצת באפך

The second kinah recited in the daytime of Tisha B’av is Eicah asta be-apcha. This kinah was composed by R. Elazar haKalir. His name appears in an acrostic form at the end of the kinah, though this acrostic is not obvious. After the twenty-two lines that follow the aleph/ bet structure of the kinah (not counting the refrain in between the stanzas), there are two “extra” lines, and these contain the five letters that form the name Elazar, aleph, lamed, ayin, zayin and resh: The second letter in the first word of the first extra line is an aleph. The first letter in the second word of the first extra line is a lamed. The first letter in the first word of the second half of the first extra line is an ayin. The first letter in the first word of the second extra line is a zayin, and the first letter in the second half of the second extra line is a resh.

This kinah is a tongue twister since each line has either five or six words that all begin with the same letter, are difficult to pronounce, and follow the aleph bet structure. This ability to form all these words within the aleph bet structure shows R. Elazar haKalir’s literary artistry. 

This kinah continues the previous kinah in two ways. One, the previous kinah, Shavat suru meni, was focused on the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, while this kinah begins by referring to the destruction by the Romans of the second Bet ha-Mikdash. Secondly, the first kinah was based on chapters one through four in Eicah, and in this kinah, the refrain in between each stanza is from the first verse in the fifth chapter of Eicah.

This kinah has many other connections with Megillat Eicah:

One, the opening word of each stanza is eicah, the first word in Eicah 1:1, 2:1 and 4:1.

Two, Eicah 2:1 records the phrase how did G-d not remember, and the middle phrase of each stanza of this kinah has the phrase “that G-d did not remember.”

Three, the kinah is based on a comparison of what occurred by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash and what should have been and this same idea is expressed in Eicah 2:1.

Four, the third word in the first line of the kinah, the aleph line, be-apcha, is in Eicah 2:1.

Five, the third word in the fourth line of the kinah, the daled line, derech, is in Eicah 1:4.

Six, the second and third words in the fifth line of the kinah, the heh line, hagta be-hegyecha, appear in Eicah 1:5 (also in Eicah 3:22).

Seven, the first word in the seventh line of the kinah. the zayin line, zanachta, is the first word in Eicah 2:7.

Eight, the sixth word in the ninth line of the kinah, the tet line, temeim, is the first word in Eicah 1:9.

Nine, the first word in the tenth line of the kinah, the yud line, yekar, is in Eicah 4:2.

Ten, the first word in the twelfth line of the kinah, lo, the lamed line, is the first word in Eicah 1:12 and 4:12. The word lo also appears in several other verses of Eicah since the word lo is a common word.

Eleven, the first and fifth words in the fourteenth line of the kinah, the nun line, nesiat and nasata, are the first word in Eicah 3:41.

Twelve, the first word in the fifteenth line of the kinah, the sameach line, sacta, is in Eicah 3:45.

Thirteen, the first word in the seventeenth line of the kinah, the peh line, pasta, is in Eicah 2:16 and 3:46.

Fourteen, the first word in the nineteenth line of the kinah, the kuf line, karata, is the first word in Eicah 1:19 and 3:55.

Altogether we can say that R. Elazar haKalir incorporated many words from Megillat Eicah to write this kinah, but these are just background elements for him to express the difference between what happened by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash and what should have been. This comparison highlights the suffering of the people, as the fall is even greater if ones knows how high or special the people’s situation was supposed to have been.

This comparison occurs in each stanza of the kinah, which consists of two lines. In the first line of each stanza, referring to what happened, R. Elazar haKalir uses various terms to refer either just to the Romans, mentioned specifically in the first line or also the Babylonians, while in the second line of each stanza, referring to what was supposed to be, R. Elazar haKalir refers to the Jewish people. For example, after referring to the Romans in the first line of the kinah, in the second line, R. Elazar haKalir refers to the covenant between G-d and Avram in Bereshit 15.

The comparison of what was, the first line in each stanza, to what was supposed to have been, the second line in each stanza, is not equal since each line of what was supposed to have been has six words that begin with the appropriate letter, while the line which describes what was only has five words with the relevant letter. I wonder if this inequality is a type of prayer for the fulfillment of the promise of what was supposed to have been since the phrase of what was supposed to have been is greater in terms of the number of words than the phrase of what was. Some minor support for this idea is that the ending of each stanza has a phrase referring to talking/ praying in reference to the letter from the line of what was supposed to have been. For example, the end of the second stanza is u-vechen dibarnu, “And so, we spoke,” by the line of the letter daled which recalls what was supposed to have been.

Bemidbar 36:5-9 – Tribalism

Hello,

I have received a warning from the host of the blog (Google) that the email subscription service, which uses Feedburner, is ending in July 2021. This means that after July 2021, people who have signed up to receive the posts on this blog to their email will no longer automatically receive the posts. Instead, I will start an email list with a link to new posts, which I will send out when I upload a new post, which is around once a month. If you want to be included in this email list, send me an email at ajayschein@gmail.com. In addition, if you want to post a comment, you have to send it to me because, for reasons that are not clear to me, the blog does not accept comments.

Thanks

Andrew Schein


Bemidbar 36:1-4 records that the elders of the tribe of Menashe were afraid that the tribe of Menashe would lose some of its land if the daughters of Tzelofhad, who were to inherit land, would marry outside of the tribe. 36:5-9 records that Moshe told them that their fears were justified and hence he instructed the daughters of Tzelofhad to marry men from the tribe of Menashe.

There are different opinions how to understand Moshe’s response. The Talmud quotes Shmuel (Baba Bathra 120a) that Moshe was only giving advice and the Ramban (on 36:7, again see Baba Bathra 120a) suggests that the law not to mix-up the tribal land was only for that generation. Both of these approaches are possible, but the simplest understanding of Moshe’s response is that restriction on who to marry was binding and for all generations since there is no indication in the Torah that this was just advice or a temporary law.

As pointed out by the Ramban (on 36:7) and the Bekhor Shor (on 36:9), it is not clear if restricting women who can inherit property to marry within their tribes, will stop land from “moving” to another tribe. 36:8 records that only if a woman is going to inherit land, then she cannot marry outside of her tribe, but the Torah does not limit all women from marrying outside of their tribe. This means that there could be a case where a woman has a brother or many brothers, who were supposed to inherit their father’s land, and the woman married outside of her tribe thinking that her brother(s) would inherit her father’s land. However, if her brother or brothers died without any children, then the woman would seem to inherit from her father even if she had married outside of her tribe. Yet, this case would probably not occur that much.

Why was it a problem if land “moved” from one tribe to another? What would be so bad if a person from one tribe lived and owned land amongst another tribe, as everybody was part of the same nation? Why did Moshe just not respond to the tribe of Menashe that it is not a problem if a person from another tribe would own land within their tribe? Also, just like the tribe of Menashe could have “lost” land, the tribe could have “gained” land if a person from the tribe married a woman who would inherit land from another tribe.

These questions are part of the larger question of why did the Jewish people maintain the tribal structure by the division of the land? Was this for legal reasons as maybe it was considered easier to judge people within one’s tribe? Was the tribal system considered a simpler way to administer a large nation? Or, was it that the tribal affinity was so great that people did not want to give it up even if it meant weakening the bonds of the nation as a whole?

Maybe the goal of maintaining tribes and their land was a way to maintain the names of the sons and even grandsons of Yaakov. The idea of keeping a name of their father is the claim of the daughters of Tzelofhad, 27:4, and is the basis for the law of yibbum, Devarim 25:6. This concern could also be with the names of the children of Yaakov, and the Jewish people are called in the Torah the sons of Yisrael, see for example 36:1,2,3,4,7,8,9,13. By distributing the land based on tribal names, this maintains the names of the sons of Yaakov and the two grandsons who Yaakov blessed in Bereshit 48. This same idea would then apply to not allowing some tribes to inherit land within other tribes since with the land “moving” within the tribes, it is theoretically possible that after enough years, a tribe’s land would lose its distinctive name.

A minor proof for this idea that the goal here is to maintain the names of the sons of Yaakov is that 36:1,5,12, three times refer to Menashe as the son of Yosef. This reference to Yosef is not necessary, but it does hint that the basis for the law to marry within the tribe is keep the name of Yosef, and then his brothers, the sons of Yaakov/ Yisrael.

Interestingly, to this day, the Jewish people are known based on the name of Yehuda, the fourth son of Yaakov.