In the first line of the kinah, the aleph line, we ask G-d to remember that the enemy (tzar) drew his sword in the Holy of Holies. The enemy is referring to Titus, the Roman general and later Caesar, who was in charge of the Roman army that destroyed the second Bet ha-Mikdash. Josephus (re-print 2004, pp. 359-362) records that Titus did not desire for the Bet ha-Mikdash to be burnt, but one soldier on his own set fire to the Bet ha-Mikdash. Josephus also claims that Titus tried to stop the fire, but in the bedlam his orders were not heard. Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 369, see also Rav Soloveitchik, 2006, p. 205) is quoted as saying “that Josephus’ account is clearly false.” In any event, one might wonder how could or would Titus enter the Bet ha-Mikdash if it was burning? According to his kinah, he entered before it was burning, but even according to Josephus, he went in to the Holy of Holies when it was burning.
The second line of the kinah, the bet line, describes what Titus did when he went into the Holy of Holies, he defiled the show bread and pierced the curtain, the parokhet, that separated the inner room and the outer room of the Bet ha-Mikdash. This latter act is recorded in Gittin 56b and Bereshit Rabbah 10:7. The end of the line follows the idea that the curtain was embroidered on two sides, which as Goldschmid (2002, p. 72) notes is based on the Yerushalmi Shekalim, 8:4, 51b.
The third line of the kinah, the gimmel line, is that Titus disgraced the Jewish people, called orphans in the kinah, by entering the Holy of Holies with a bloody shield and then by making marks in the Holy of Holies with his bloody sword.
The fourth line of the kinah, the daled line, seems also to refer to Titus that he defaced the Bet ha-Mikdash with blood. Maybe Titus here represents all the Romans who defaced the Bet ha-Mikdash.
The fifth and sixth lines of the kinah, the heh and vav lines, note how Titus bragged that he could fight G-d that he was able to enter the Holy of Holies and left unscathed. Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 365) notes that this line is based on Gitten 56b.
The seventh line of the kinah, the zayin line, records the wonderment that how was Titus able to enter and leave the Holy of Holies unscathed? The kinah notes that when the people were in the desert, Nadav and Avihu were killed instantaneously when they sinned, Vayikra 10:1,2, but Titus was not harmed at all. Note it seems that R. Elazar haKalir is following the idea that Nadav and Avihu brought their fire inside the mishkan/ ohel moed, but I think they sinned in front of the mishkan, see our discussion on the verses. The second half of the seventh line claims further impudence of Titus that he even brought a prostitute with him into the Holy of Holies. Goldshmidt (2002, p. 73) notes that this idea is based on Vayikra Rabbah 22:3.
The eighth line of the kinah, the chet line, continues with the wonderment, but now the question is more general, how could G-d allow or even cause to burn the place where sacrifices had been burnt to G-d? R. Elazar haKalir does not yet offer any answers to these questions.
The ninth line of the kinah, the tet line, changes the theme of the kinah as the line refer to Titus and all the Romans taking the vessels from the Bet ha-Mikdash and sending them to Rome on ships. Evidence of this can be seen today in Rome by the Arch of Titus. When I was by the Arch in the summer of 1982, somebody had etched in the words, am yisrael chai, the Jewish people live, but when I came back in 2007, the Arch was fenced off (maybe to stop people from etching on it).
The tenth line of the kinah, the yud line, notes the shock (horror ?) of the people when the High Priest awoke and he could not find the 93 vessels of the Bet ha-Mikdash, which had been taken away, as mentioned in line nine of the kinah. Rav Soloveitchik (2002, p. 367) notes that this line is puzzling. How could the High Priest have not known that the vessels had been taken away and that the Bet ha-Mikdash had been destroyed? What could it mean that he awoke? Did he go to sleep oblivious to what was happening in the Bet ha-Mikdash? Maybe R. Elazar haKalir does not just refer to the High Priest but to all the priests, and he was not referring to the literal morning after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, but to when the people had recovered sufficiently to survey the damage, and then the priests were shocked at the extent of the robbery by Titus and the Romans.
The eleventh line of the kinah, the chaf line, returns to the first theme of the kinah, Titus entering the Holy of Holies, and refers to women being scared of him. Were women in the Bet ha-Mikdash battling the Romans? Possibly, this reference to women is because R. Elazar haKalir was “forced” to refer to women since he was following the fifth chapter of Eicah and the first word in Eicah 5:11 is women. The second half of the eleventh line claims that Titus scarred the floor of the Bet ha-Mikdash with his boots, as maybe there was blood on the boots.
The twelfth line of the kinah, the lamed line, begins with a reference to leaders, following Eicah 5:12, and that they were scared of Titus, but it is not clear which leaders are being referred to. Could be the Jewish leaders of the rebellion who were scared of being killed by Titus? The second half of the twelfth line reverts back to Titus’ action in the Holy of Holies with the prostitute. The connection between these two half lines and with the eleventh line (its pair) is not clear.
The thirteenth line of the kinah, the mem line, begins a new theme unrelated to Titus, but maybe related to R. Elazar haKalir’s question in line eight, how could G-d allow the Bet ha-Mikdash to be destroyed? The thirteenth line refers to a Midrash (Devarim Rabbah 1:17) that there were 600,000 demons who were going to defend the Bet ha-Mikdash, and the young people were counting on them. The idea being that the people knew that they could not defeat the Romans militarily, but they believed that G-d would do a miracle to save them. It is possible that R. Elazar haKalir refers to these angels again in the kinah that begins (depending on different versions) Al elah ani bociyah or Tesater lealam.
In the fourteenth line, the nun line, the kinah continues the theme of the thirteen line (its pair) as it states that the elders knew that G-d had allowed for the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, so the demons could not act and G-d, as it were, was chained, asur ba-zikkim. Thus, G-d did not stop the Romans. This phrase, asur ba-zikkim is from Yirmiyahu 40:1 but there it did not refer to G-d, as it is a daring concept in the kinah that G-d could be “in chains.” Rav Soloveitchik (2006, p. 174) explains that the phrase that G-d was asur ba-zikkim means that G-d “arrested the attribute of mercy and allowed the attribute of judgment to prevail.” The combination of lines 13 and 14 is that idealistic young people tend to act rashly without concerning themselves of the consequences of their actions, but they cannot depend on G-d to save them from their folly, as G-d could be “in chains.” This lesson from the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash is very important today in Israel, but it seems that it is being ignored.
The fifteenth line of the kinah, the samech line, notes that the Romans (admon) were repeating what Nebuchadnezzar (soten) had done, which just raises the question how could G-d twice let the Bet ha-Mikdash be destroyed? Maybe R. Elazar haKalir was not enthralled with the idea that G-d could be “in chains,” so he raised the question again.
The first half of the sixteenth line of the kinah, the ayin line, refers to the Jewish people as the descendants of Yaakov, who peeled branches when working for Lavan to get more spotted sheep and goats, Bereshit 30:37,38, that G-d let His anger vent against the Jewish people. The second half of the line explains that G-d’s anger led Him to abandon the Bet ha-Mikdash. This line is different than the idea of G-d being “in chains” (line 14) that here the idea is that G-d was upset with the people for their sins and that is why the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed.
The seventeenth line of the kinah, the peh line, momentarily reverts back to Titus, that he had a meeting with his commanders telling them to destroy the Bet ha-Mikdash. Josephus (re-print 2004, p. 359) also reports that Titus met with his commanders prior to the final battle for the Bet ha-Mikdash, though as mentioned above, Josephus claims that Titus did not want the Bet ha-Mikash to be destroyed. R. Elazar haKalir clearly did not accept this claim of Josephus.
The eighteenth line of the kinah, the tzaddi line, notes that even though the Romans were determined to destroy the Bet ha-Mikdash, G-d limited them, and kept the western wall, the Kotel, from being destroyed. This idea also differs from the idea of G-d being in chains (line 14) and that G-d completely abandoned the Bet ha-Mikdash (line 16).
Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 370) makes the interesting point that this line of the kinah is the earliest reference to the Western Wall, as it is not mentioned in the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, and even by the Rambam when he visited Yerushalayim. He notes that the Kotel is referred to in the Midrash Shemot Rabbah 2:2 explaining the verse in Shir ha-Shirim 2:9. Goldschmidt (2002, p. 74) notes that this same reference to the Kotel is recorded in Midrash Tehillim 11:3 and in a version (not my version) of Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 2:4. However, Rav Soloveitchik (see also 2006, p. 207) thinks these references to the Kotel are late additions to the Midrash. Rav Soloveitchik (2006, p. 138) seems to be following the idea that R. Elazar haKalir lived in the 10th century and the Midrash(im) were written beforehand. However, more likely R. Elazar haKalir lived prior to when the Midrashim were written, and then this kinah would be the earliest written reference to the Kotel that we have.
The nineteenth line of the kinah, the kuf line, returns to the idea from line ten of the Romans taking valuables from the Bet ha-Mikdash and shipping them to Rome, but now the valuables are young children, more like teenagers.
The second half of the twentieth line of the kinah, the resh line, records how the children were sent to Rome (the land of utz, see Eicah 4:21) in three boats. The first half of the twentieth line, similar to lines seven and eight, is a question how could G-d allow this destruction of the people, especially children? This question is particularly poignant with the continuation of the kinah.
The twenty-first line of the kinah, the shin line, records that the children pleaded with G-d to have the boats turn back, but when their prayers went unheeded, they jumped into the sea. The source for this sad story is Gittin 57b and Eicah Rabbah 1:16. These sources explain that there were 400 children, and that they realized that they were going to be sold as slaves for immoral purposes, see the kinah Ve-et naveh chatati, which has this same idea in reference to the children of Rebi Yishmael. Thus, they committed suicide to thwart the Romans.
The twenty-second line of the kinah, the taf line, records how the children sang songs of praise as they jumped into the sea, and R. Elazar haKalir compared their singing to the singing of the people after the splitting of Yam Suf by the Exodus from Egypt, Shemot chapter 15.
The first half of twenty-third line of the kinah, a taf line again, records that the children died at sea. The second half of the line starts with a phrase from Tehillim 44:18 and records that even with all the suffering, we have not forgotten G-d.
The last two words of the first half of the twenty-fourth and last line of the kinah, again a taf line, is based on Tehillim 68:23. According to the Talmud, the children asked one of the more knowledgeable ones in their group whether they would have a share in the world to come if they committed suicide, and he answered by quoting this verse from Tehillim, that some people will return from Bashan from the depths of the ocean, which was understood to mean that they would have a share in the word to come. This answer led them to jump in the sea.
Clearly, R. Elazar haKalir looked upon it positively that the children committed suicide, and it could be that this kinah by R. ha-Kalir was part of the culture that led many Ashkenazi Jewry to commit suicide in the Middle Ages rather than submit to Christian tormentors. However, Haym Soloveitchik (2004, pp. 83, 84, 86) notes that according to the halachah, it is not clear if the children were correct in their actions. In any event, this incident of the children jumping into the sea became a source for Rabbenu Tam to argue that it is permissible for a person to kill him/ herself if one fears that he/ she will be driven to apostasy by torture or the threat of a painful death. However, Haym Soloveitchik claims that Rabbenu Tam was relying on this episode as an ex post justification for the martyrdom of Ashkenazi Jewry in the Middle Ages, who were and still are viewed as the holy ones for their actions. Several of the ensuing kinot (Hacharishu mimeni, Mi yeten roshi mayim and Amarti sheu meni) deal with these tragedies.
The last three words of second half of the twenty-fourth line, and the end of the kinah is from Tehillim 44:24, but R. Elazar haKalir has transformed the verse to be a call for us to pray to G-d, and this corresponds to the second half of the twenty-third line. The idea could be that after reciting this kinah which includes references to almost all the tragedies by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, we have an obligation to pray, and specifically to recite kinot.
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.
Josephus, Flavius (37-100?), re-print 2004, The great Roman-Jewish war, The William Whiston translation as revised by D. S. Margoliouth, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
Soloveitchik, Haym, 2004, Halakhah, Hermeneutics, and Martyrdom in Medieval Ashkenaz (Part I of II), The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 94, No. 1 (Winter), pp. 77-108.
Soloveitchik, Joseph (1903-1993), 2006, The Lord is righteous in all of his ways: Reflections on the Tish`ah be-Av kinot, edited by Jacob J. Schacter, New York: The Toras Harav Foundation by Ktav Publishing House.
Soloveitchik, Joseph, 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.
Soloveitchik, Joseph, 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment