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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment