The kinah Eichah yashva havezelet haSharon - איכה ישבה חבצלת השרון

This kinah, again from R. Elazar haKalir, also follows the aleph bet, as the first word of each stanza is the first word in the verses in chapter one of Eichah, and these verses follow the order of the aleph bet. In addition, the kinah has 24 stanzas to match with the twenty-four priestly families, whose names are recorded in Divrei Ha-Yamim I 24:7-18 and the end of each stanza in the kinah refers to a city/ town/ village in the Galilee, where apparently priestly families were living. The rhyme of each stanza, with the possible exception of the fourth stanza, is based on the name of the place in the Galilee. Since there is a need for twenty-four stanzas, the letters shin and taf each have two stanzas. Goldschmidt (2002, p 52) notes that really there are two more stanzas to this kinah, one which has an acronym of R. Elazar haKalir’s name, but theses stanzas are usually skipped. It is believed that R. Elazar haKalir was a priest, cohen, since in this kinah he shows great knowledge of the families and an affinity to them. Maybe, he based the kinah on the first chapter of Eichah since Eichah 1:4 refers to the suffering of the priests.

This kinah raises a historical question concerning the 24 priestly families. These families existed in the time of the second Bet ha-Mikdash as evidenced from the verses in Divrei Ha-Yamim, but did they continue to exist after the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash? Shmuel Klein (1909, in German) used this kinah and other piyyutim to create a baraita that states that the 24 families left the area from around Jerusalem and moved to the Galilee either after the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash or after the Bar Kokhba revolt. According to this idea, the 24 priestly families remained intact after the two tragedies, and many people have accepted this historical recreation. However, in a fascinating article Trifon (1990) notes that there is no evidence for this movement of families at those times or for the continuation of the families, except for two statements in Yerushalmi Ta’anit chapter 4 (see below) which refer to two of the priestly families, but it is from the third century. Instead, she suggests that in the middle of the third century or later, priests who were living in various cities/ town/ villages in the Galilee either associated themselves with the priestly families from the second Bet ha-Mikdash or other people made this association.

This historical question is crucial for how one understands this kinah. If one believes that there was a movement of the priestly families around the time of the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash or after the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt from the center of the country to the north of the country, then one can understand the kinah as lamenting this change of location (within the land of Israel) of the priestly families. However, if this movement never happened, then the references to the 24 places in the kinah should be understood as a way or prayer to re-institute the families.

In my reading of the kinah I follow the second approach, not just because of Trifon’s arguments, but if the priestly families had really continued, then it is odd that R. Elazar haKalir does not refer to the names of the 24 families from Divrei ha-Yamim only to places in the Galilee. Also, the kinah ends on a positive note (stanza 24), so this suggests that the mention of the 24 areas where the priests lived is part of this prayer to re-institute the families. Also, in each stanza there is a rhyme based on name of the place in the Galilee, but there are five words that rhyme in each stanza, when one would have thought that four rhymes would form the stanza. The fifth rhyme in the stanza is the name of the place in the Galilee, which suggests that the name of the place is independent of the four previous lines in the stanza, and then unrelated to the sorrows that are hinted to or mentioned in the first four rhymes of each stanza. In fact, there seems to be almost no connection or a tenuous connection at best between most of the ideas in each stanza with the particular priestly family, with the possible exception of the first stanza. For example, many of the stanzas do not refer to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, which means that R. Elazar haKalir is not lamenting events from the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash and then R. Elazar haKalir is not referring to some sad events that occurred to the priestly families at that time. I will now explain some of the different stanzas.

The first stanza is based on the town of Maron, and in theory the priestly family of Yehoyariv, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:7, but as mentioned above the name is not mentioned in the stanza. The line with the fifth rhyme and the name Maron is based on a cryptic statement from R. Levi in the Yerushalmi Ta’anit, chapter 4, law 5, that refers to the place Maron, the priestly family Yehoyariv and another person, Mersarbei, who is referred to in the kinah before the place Maron. It could be that R. Levi was stating that the family of Yehoyariv was the priestly family working in the Bet ha-Mikdash when it was destroyed and that is what R. Elazar haKalir means when in write in the fifth line of the stanza, kinimsar ha-bayit, they gave over the Bet ha-Mikdash.

The idea of the first stanza is state how good everything was at the start, that the people and/ or the Bet ha-Mikdash were like a rose, but then all was lost as the singers of the people or of the Bet ha-Mikdash were silenced and the priests stopped working in the Bet ha-Mikdash.

The second stanza is based on the town of Tzipori, and in theory the priestly family of Yedayah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:7. This town and the priestly family are also referred to in Yerushalmi Ta’anit, after the quote from R. Levi, by an even more cryptic statement by R. Berekhia about how the people rebelled against G-d. This rebellion might be why R. Elazar haKalir referred to the people sinning by killing a cohen and a prophet on Yom Kippur in the second line of the stanza.

It is very confusing which prophet was killed and when. The popular understanding is that the incident being referred to is that the people killed Zechariah ben Yehodaya (Divrei ha-Yamim II 24:21), who was both a cohen and a prophet. Note, Zechariah ben Yehodaya is not the prophet Zechariah from the book of prophets, see Blank (1937-38). It is also claimed that this killing is referred to in Eicah 2:20, but as noted by the Ibn Ezra on the verse, the simple reading of Eicah 2:20 is that the verse is saying how terrible it was that the Babylonians killed priests and prophets in the Bet ha-Mikdash. If Zechariah ben Yehodaya is the correct reference in this kinah, then the killing happened in the kingdom of Jehoash (Joash) around the years 796 BCE to 835 BCE, many years before the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash. This killing is mentioned in other kinot, as for example the kinah “Yom achpi hikbadeti” (not by R. Elazar haKalir) and in the kinah “Im tochalnah nashim” (from R. Elazar haKalir) in the nun line, the ayin line and the last line of the kinah. Presumably, R. Elazar haKalir mentioned the killing in this kinah since it relates to the priests.

The third line of the stanza refers to people killed because of the killing of the cohen. These deaths are mentioned in the Yerushalmi, Ta’anit chapter 4, law 5, that quotes R. Yochanon that 80,000 young priests were killed after Zechariah (ben Yehodaya) was killed. It is hard to believe that so many priests died at that time.

The third stanza of the kinah is based on the town of Mafsheta, and in theory the priestly family of Harim, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:8. The first line in the stanza refers to the exile from the land, which means that R. Elazar haKalir is referring to the events after the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash where most of the population was exiled, and would not refer to the priests after the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, where there was no forced exile of the priests or the general population to outside of the land of Israel.

The third line in the stanza refers to four judgments on the people since they did not follow the laws of shemitta and ma’aser. Goldschmidt (2002, p. 48) notes that the connection between these punishments and the sins is mentioned in Pirkei Avot chapter five, and that these four punishments are plague (dever), war (herev), famine and captivity. Is this similar to the symbolism of the four horsemen in the Book of Revelation 6:1-8, which most likely was written by a Jew.

The fourth stanza is based on the town of Ayatah, and in theory the priestly family of Seorim, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:8. This stanza might be unique in the kinah since the place name, Ayatah, is the second to last word in the stanza, not the last word in the stanza, and the rhyme of the stanza is based on the following word, lo. However, maybe the name of the town is really Ayatahlo.

The fifth stanza is based on the town of Beth Lehem (in the Galilee, not south of Jerusalem), and in theory the priestly family of Malciyah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:8. In this stanza, R. Elazar haKalir refers to sins, thought it is not clear if R. Elazar haKalir is referring to the sins of the people or the sins of the priests. In any event, this means that R. Elazar haKalir is also placing the blame for the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash on the people or the priests.

The sixth stanza is based on the town of Yodfat and in theory the priestly family of Meyamun, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:9. In the second to last word of the stanza, it could be that R. Elazar haKalir is referring to the fall of Yodfat to the Roman army in 67 prior to the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash after a 47-day siege. Josephus was the commander of the Jewish forces. In the end of the battle, all the soldiers committed suicide, while Josephus surrendered to the Romans and went on to be a chronicler of the battles against the Romans. Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 280) makes an interesting point about Josephus:
It is interesting that Josephus is not mentioned at all in the Gemara, although Rashi does refer to him (Baba Bathra 3b)... It is hard to know what the attitude of our sages was, but I suspect that while they disapproved of what Josephus did (at Yodfat), they felt that they did not have the right to condemn him. As a result, they ignored him. The Gemara would have mentioned him if they considered him a traitor.

The seventh stanza is based on the town of Elvu and in theory the priestly family of Hakotz, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:10. In the third rhyming word in the stanza there is a possible reference to the name Hakotz, and in the fourth rhyming word, there is a reference to the town, Elvu. In this stanza, R. Elazar haKalir contrasts the change in the people from Mount Sinai where they willingly agreed to follow the Torah to when the people sinned.

The eighth stanza is based on the town of Uziel and in theory the priestly family of Aviyah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:10. In this stanza, in the first line, R. Elazar haKalir continues the reference from the people in the desert as he seemingly refers to the sin of the golden calf (Shemot 32:4) and in the second line, R. Elazar haKalir states that the people continued to not listen to G-d’s prophets.

The ninth stanza is based on the town of Arbel and in theory the priestly family of Yeshuah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:11.

The tenth stanza is based on the town of Kabul and in theory the priestly family of Shicnayahu, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:11. Rav Soloveitchik (2010, pp. 282,283) suggests that in this stanza, R. Elazar haKalir is saying that really the people were supposed to all be killed, but instead the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed instead of people being killed. He explains that this understanding is the basis for a strange practice that we have that even though according to the Talmud (Ta’anit 29a), the Bet ha-Mikdash only began to be destroyed in the afternoon of Tisha B’av, still we reduce some of our mourning in the afternoon, as for example we sit on chairs after mid-day (Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 559:3). Rav Soloveitchik suggests that this reduction in mourning is because once the Bet ha-Mikdash was beginning to be destroyed, then it was understood that not everybody would be killed. While it very well could be that R. Elazar haKalir was saying in this stanza that the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed instead of all the people being killed, I doubt that this is the basis for this minimization of the mourning in middle of the day of Tisha B’av. More likely this change is due to the influence of the Mourners of Zion, who were probably Karaites, since they (the Karaites) developed the idea of the redemption starting in the afternoon, an idea which is not in the Talmud. The Karaites would split their day of mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash (the tenth of Av) into two parts, mourning in the morning and then in the afternoon, there was a time of comfort and consolation, see Yaakov Gartner, (1981).

The eleventh stanza is based on the town of Kanah and in theory the priestly family of Elyashiv, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:12.

The twelfth stanza is based on the town of Tzfat and in theory the priestly family of Yakim, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:12.

The thirteenth stanza is based on the town of Bet Maon and in theory the priestly family of Huppah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:13. In the third line, R. Elazar haKalir refers to the killing of the priests by Nov (Shumel I 22:17-19) and the killing of the Givonim (Shmuel II 21:1) both in the times of King David. Presumably R. Elazar haKalir wanted to mention the killing by Nov since it involved suffering by priests, and possibly he then mentioned Givon since it was around the same time and it fit into the rhyme.

The fourteenth stanza is based on the town of Yeshbeav and in this case the name of the town is the same name in theory of the priestly family of Yeshbeav, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:13. Is that a coincidence?

The fifteenth stanza is based on the town of Mearyah and in theory the priestly family of Bilgah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:14. In the second line of the stanza, R. Elazar haKalir notes that by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, the merit from the akedah did not help the people. In contrast, in the selihot prayers, many of the piyyutim are based on the idea that G-d should answer out prayers due to the merit of the akedah.

The sixteenth stanza is based on the town of Yevanit and in theory the priestly family of Emer, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:14.

The seventeenth stanza is based on the town of Mamlach and in theory the priestly family of Chezir, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:15.

The eighteenth stanza is based on the town of Natzrat (Nazareth) and in theory the priestly family of Hapeetetz, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:15. In the first line of the stanza, R. Elazar haKalir quotes the verse from Eicah 1:18 that G-d is righteous, which he has Yoshiyahu saying when he is dying in the next kinah, “Eicah eli konenu,” and he partially quotes the verse at the end of the kinah, “ve-atah amarta.”

The nineteenth stanza is based on the town of Arav and in theory the priestly family of Hapitchiyah, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:16.

The twentieth stanza is based on the town of Nunia and in theory the priestly family of Yechezkel, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:16.

The twenty first stanza is based on the town of Yochnah and in theory the priestly family of Yachin, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:17.

The twenty second stanza is based on the town of Bet Hoviyah and in theory the priestly family of Gamul, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:17.

The twenty third stanza is based on the town of Tzalmin and in theory the priestly family of Delayahu, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:18.

The twenty fourth stanza is based on the town of Hamat Ariah and in theory the priestly family of Mazayahu, Divrei ha-Yamim I 24:18. In this stanza, R. Elazar haKalir prays for the healing and the re-birth of the people and of the Bet ha-Mikdash, which ends the kinah on a positive note. He includes a positive ending also in other kinot such as “Az bemelot safek,” and “Eich tanchamuni hevel.” This type of ending would become standard with later paytanim, but not so much with R. Elazar haKalir.

Bibliography:

Blank, Sheldon H., 1937-38, The death of Zechariah in Rabbinic literature, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 12-13, pp. 327-346.

Gartner, Yaakov, 1981, Tefillat Nachem, time of comfort and the Karaites, (Hebrew) Sinai, 89, pp. 157-164.

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.

Klein, Shmuel, 1909, Beiträge zur Geographie und Geschichte Galiläas, Leipzig.

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.

Trifon, Dalia, 1990, Did the priestly courses (mishmarot) transfer from Judaea to Galilee after the Bar Kokhba revolt? Tarbiz, 59:1-2, pp. 77-93.

Introduction to four kinot relating to the massacre of the Jews in Germany by the Crusaders

On Tisha B'av there are four kinot which re-call the slaughter of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Worms and Mainz (all in Germany along the Rhine River) by the Crusaders in 1096. These kinot are Hacharishu mimeni, Mi yeten roshi mayim, Amarti sheu meni and Evel aorer. The kinot also describe how the Jews refused to become Christians and instead killed themselves, and even their children.

On November 27, 1095, in Clermont, France, the Pope Urban II made an appeal that Christians in the West should go help the Christians in the East and this led to a series of Crusades by people in Western Europe to capture land in the Middle East and specifically the land of Israel. One group of at least 15,000 people from apparently Northern France responded to the Pope’s call, and started to walk to the land of Israel in the spring of 1096. However, these people were not willing to wait to fight until they got to the land of Israel, but they started to attack Jewish communities almost from the get go. Sperber (1990, p. 109) writes that it seems that the first Jewish community that they attacked was in Rouen in northwest France. Afterwards, they travelled eastwards towards Germany, and they attacked the Jewish community of Speyer on May 9, 1096 (8th of Iyar). Note, the kinah Mi yeten roshi mayim gives the dates for the attacks on the Jews of Speyer, Worms and Mainz. Also, note that since the Crusader mob travelled eastwards from France to Germany, north of Paris, they did not encounter the Jewish communities south of Paris where Rashi lived, and Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 431) writes that this enabled the Torah shebe’al peh to continue since there was no destruction of Torah scholarship in France in 1096.

From Speyer, the Crusader mob went north along the Rhine to kill the Jews in Worms (around 50 kilometers north of Speyer) on the 23rd of Iyar and Rosh Chodesh Sivan (May 24 and May 31, 1096) and then they continued north again to Mainz (another 50 kilometers north of Worms) to kill the Jews in Mainz on the third of Sivan (June 2, 1096). Afterwards they continued marching northwards, 165 kilometers, to the city of Cologne and they killed the Jews there on Shavuot (June 5, 1096). This last pogrom is not mentioned in the kinot, but is mentioned by Sperber (1990, p. 108). The fact that Crusaders marched northwards, which was out of their way since they were supposed to be walking east or south to go to the land of Israel, shows their cruelty as they were just going to kill the Jews. According to one estimate, during these two months of May and June 1096 in Germany, “as many as 8,000 Jews were massacred or took their own lives,” (Haag, 2014, p. 106).

Most of the mob who attacked the Jewish communities died on their march to the land of Israel, but some joined with a Crusader force, which was led by various knights, and they conquered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099 (17th of Tammuz). This led to more massacres of the Jewish community of Jerusalem, and the burning of synagogues where Jews were hiding. These massacres are not mentioned in the kinot, but the entire period of the Crusaders was a terrible period for the Jewish people.

One oddity about the four kinot relating to the destruction of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Mainz and Worms is that they are not grouped together. Instead, in between the four kinot, there are kinot about the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash and the second Bet ha-Mikdash. I have never understood this disorder. People have suggested to me that this apparent disorder is to show that all the tragedies are related. I doubt this and think there could be some historical reasons, but I do not know of any particular reason.

Bibliography:

Haag, Michael, 2014, The tragedy of the Templars: The rise and fall of the Crusader States, London: Profile Books.

Soloveitchik, Rav Yosef, 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.

Sperber, Daniel, 1990, Minhagei Yisrael, Volume 1, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

The first kinah on the night of Tisha B'av: Zekhor Hashem meh hayah lanu - הקינה זכר ה' מה היה לנו

On Tisha B'av we recite kinot (dirges) at night and during the day. At night the first kinah that we recite begins with the phrase, zeckor Hashem meh hayah lanuu, please G-d what has happened to us.

This kinah is recited after reading Eicah at night, and it forms a continuation with Eicah since it is based on the fifth chapter of Eicah, as the first half of each line of the kinah is from the fifth chapter and the kinah follows the order of the verses in the chapter. Yet, the unknown paytan (the author of the kinah) changed the second half of the verse, with the exceptions of verses 5:1,2 and 5:19-22, and this change highlights one of the changes in Hebrew poetry from the biblical period to the first millennium. In Tanakh, poetry is not defined by rhymes, and any rhymes that do occur are unintentional. However, in the first millennium, the paytanim (cantors) began to create piyyutim, of which the kinot is one example, based on rhyme. Benjamin Hrushovski (1981, p. 62) writes, "The rhyming system of the Hebrew piyut was the earliest known massive, systematic and obligatory use of rhyme in poetry, and it is very plausible that through the Christian Syriac church employing Aramaic (a cognate language to Hebrew), and via Latin liturgy, the principle of rhyme was transferred to European poetry."

Why did this stress on rhyme begin with the paytanim in the first millennium? My guess is that since they were creating new prayers that the congregation did not recognize, they used rhyme to get the listener’s attention.

Returning to our piyyut, maybe the paytan had a “problem.” On the one hand, the paytan wanted to base the entire piyyut on the fifth chapter of Eicah, but he also wanted that the piyyut would rhyme. His solution was to keep some verses, such as 5:1,2, which happen to have a rhyme, and he kept the last four verses of Eicah chapter 5 without making any changes. However, for all the intervening verses, Eicah 5:3-18, the paytan changed the second half of the verse even though some verses such as 5:15,16,17 have a rhyme. 

We will now go through these intervening verses to see that either the paytan changed the verse to introduce a rhyme, to improve the rhyme, or to give what apparently, he thought was a better explanation or a more appropriate explanation to the beginning of the particular verse. In addition, in many lines, the paytan changed the idea of chapter five, which is to show how sad the situation was with the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, to blaming the people for their sins which caused the tragedy. Furthermore, at the end of half of each line, the paytan added the word oy, and the end of the second half of each line, he added the word oy meh hayah lanu, “what has become of us” which is from Eicah 5:1.

The first example of this change is by the third line of the kinah. The second half of Eicah 5:3 records that because of the destruction by the first Bet ha-Mikdash, “our mothers are like widows,” while the paytan changed the phrase to “our mothers lament in the month of Av.” Presumably, this change was to create a “full” rhyme (the same word) with the word av in the end of the two halves of the verse. Note the word lament in the piyyut is mekkonnot. The Mishnah Moed Katan 3:9 explains that this was a special type of mourning practice, where apparently one woman cried out and other women joined in to also cry out. I do not think this is done today at funerals.

The next line in the kinah changes the idea in the second half of Eicah 5:4 that after the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, the people had to pay a lot for their wood (people hate inflation) to “because we dishonored the water libation.” This change relates to the mention of water in the first half of the verse, adds a rhyme to the two parts of the line, and now blames the people for the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, that the people sinned by the water libations.

The fifth line of the kinah changes the idea in the second half of Eicah 5:5 that “our enemies were exhausting the people giving them no rest” to “we hated other people for no reason.” This change gives a “full” rhyme since the same word, radafnu, which now ends both parts of the line, and again places blame on the people for the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash.

The sixth line of the kinah changes the idea in the second half of Eicah 5:6 that the people were dependent on hand outs from the Assyrians for their bread, to “Assyrians hunted us as a hunter does his pray.” This change keeps the reference to the Assyrians from the verse in Eicah 5:5, but makes the plight of the Jews much worse and it adds a “full” rhyme with the word yad in the end of first half of line and the word yad again in the end of the second half of the line.

The seventh line of the kinah barely changes the second half of the Eicah 5:7, just the order of the words. Eicah 5:7 has the words, “And we suffer for their sins” and the kinah has “And we for their sins suffered.” This does not change the meaning of the verse in Eicah, but with the change, the two parts of the seventh line in the kinah rhyme.

The eighth line of the kinah changes the second half of Eicah 5:8 that the people have no hope of coming free from their masters who had been (or still?) slaves to blaming the people for why slaves ruled over them that the Jewish people had not freed their slaves, presumably in the yovel year, see Yirmiyahu 34:13-17. This change not only blames the people for their sins, which is not in Eicah 5:8, but also adds a rhyme between the first half of eighth line of the kinah with the second half of the eighth line of the kinah.

The ninth line of the kinah changes the second half of Eicah 5:9 in a similar manner to the eighth line of the kinah. Eicah 5:9 records that the people barely have bread since they are in fear of being robbed, while the kinah records that the people barely have bread since they did not give bread to the poor when they had the chance. Again, the paytan blames the people for their sins as he claimed the people sinned due to a lack of ethics, just like in the fifth and eighth lines, and he made a rhyme between the two parts of the ninth line of the kinah. Goldschmidt (2002, p. 24, footnote 9) notes that the word used by the paytan to describe the people not giving to the poor comes from Devarim 15:7.

The tenth line of the kinah changes the second half of the Eicah 5:10 from a description of the people withering from famine to that the people had switched the glory of G-d, which Goldschmidt (footnote 10) suggests means that the people did not follow the Torah, for a scandal. The paytan seems to be insinuating some sexual impropriety, which would connect this line to the following lines in the kinah since this change does not seem to relate either to the beginning of the verse or to the words that were replaced, the second half of Eicah 5:10. Again, the paytan is blaming the people, when there is no blame mentioned in the verse in Eicah, and he added a rhyme to the kinah.

The eleventh line of the kinah changes the second half of Eicah 5:11 that young women in Yehuda were raped like other women in Jerusalem, the first half of the verse, to saying that the women were raped since the people had regularly committed adultery. Again, the paytan blames the people and again he added a rhyme to the kinah, which is not in Eicah 5:11.

The twelfth line of the kinah replaces the second half of Eicah 5:12 which states that the Jewish elders were shown no respect, presumably by the non-Jews, to explaining the first half of Eicah 5:12 that the leaders of the people were hung. The paytan explains that the leaders were hung because they acted unethically by stealing and robbing from the poor. Again, the paytan is saying that the people sinned, again unethically, but here the gain in rhyme is somewhat minor, as Eicah 5:12 has a rhyme between the two parts of the verse based on the sound, oo, but now with the change, the rhyme of the twelfth line of the kinah is based on the sound loo.

The thirteenth line of the kinah, as usual quotes the first half of Eicah 5:13, which refers to the difficulty of young men carrying heavy millstones, but does not quote the second half of the verse, which refers to the young men failing by some wood, which is not that clear. Instead, the paytan changes the second half of the Eicah 5:13 to refer to young men going to a house of prostitutes based on Yirmiyahu 5:7 and this connects with the millstone in beginning of the verse which is used for grinding wheat. Again, the paytan is blaming the people and there is some improvement in the rhyme, from oo and loo in Eicah 5:13 to oo and oo in the thirteenth line of the kinah.

The fourteenth line of the kinah changes the second half of Eicah 5:14 from referring to an absence of music by young people to explaining the first half of Eicah 5:14 that the elders were no longer judging the people since the paytan explains that they perverted justice of the orphans and widows. Again, the paytan is saying that the people sinned, and he added a rhyme to the fourteenth line of the kinah when there is no rhyme in Eicah 5:14.

The fifteenth line of the kinah changes the words in second half of Eicah 5:15 “our dancing has turned into mourning” which relates to the loss of joy expressed in the first half of the verse to “because we did not go on the pilgrimages to Jerusalem,” which explain the loss of joy in the first half of the verse/ kinah. In this case, there is no change in the rhyme at all from Eicah 5:15, but the paytan has changed the verse from being a description of sadness to blaming the people for the sad state. Did the paytan think that this was a more appropriate explanation to the beginning of the particular verse than what is recorded in Eicah 5:15?

The sixteenth line of the kinah as usual changes the second half of Eicah 5:16, but it is surprising. Eicah 5:16 begins by stating that our crown (the Bet ha-Mikdash) has fallen and the second half of the verse is that this happened due to our sins. Accordingly, this verse blames the people and also the two parts of the verse happen to rhyme based on the sound noo. One might have thought that the paytan would have accepted this verse as is, but no, he changed the second half of the verse to “because the Bet ha-Mikdash was burnt.” These words explain the crown falling in the first half of the verse, but do not blame the people, which breaks the pattern in this piyyut. Instead, maybe the paytan changed the second half of Eicah 5:16 since he improved the rhyme to now be based on she-noo (instead of just noo) in the end of both halves of the sixteenth line of the kinah.

The seventeenth line of the kinah changes the second half of Eicah 5:17 from “our eyes are dimmed” to “because the honor of the Bet ha-Mikdash is gone.” The second half of Eicah 5:17 is a parallelism to the first half of the verse which expresses the sadness of the people, but with the change in the kinah the second half of the seventeenth line of the kinah explains the first part of the verse that we are sad since the Bet ha-Mikdash is gone. Presumably, the paytan thought that this change was a more important message since this again, as in Eicah 5:15, is a case where his change did not alter the rhyme that happened to be in Eicah 5:17.

The eighteenth and last line that the paytan changes from Eicah chapter 5, seems also to be due to his desire to add a rhyme to the verse which does not exist in Eicah 5:18. Eicah 5:18 begins by stating that the Bet ha-Mikdash is desolate and then explains that this is because foxes roam over it. The paytan changes this to explain that the Bet ha-Mikdash is desolate since an idol was placed in it. This might make the desolation seem greater, and for sure it adds a rhyme of the sound mem to the end of the first and second halves of the eighteenth line of the kinah.

The next four lines of the kinah are exactly the same as the last four lines of Eicah chapter five, Eicah 5:19-22, and maybe the paytan did not changes these lines since he did not want to change Eicah 5:19, which speaks about G-d.

Bibliography:

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.

Hrushovski, Benjamin, 1981, Note on the systems of Hebrew versification, in The Penguin Book of Hebrew verse, edited and translated by T. Carmi, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: England, pp. 57-72.

The kinah Zekhor et asher asah tzar be-finnim - הקינה זכר את אשר עשה צר בפנים

The kinah Zekhor et asher asah tzar be-finnim is again by R. Elazar haKalir. The first word of each line corresponds to the first word of each verse in chapter five of Eicah and the second word of each line follows the aleph bet. Two exceptions are that since the fifth chapter in Eicah has 22 verses and there are 24 lines to the kinah, so lines 22 and 24 do not begin with the first word of a verse from Eicah chapter five. (If one wants to, they can argue that lines 21 and 23 are double lines, and then the kinah only has 22 lines, as line 23 becomes line 22.) In addition, each set of two lines ends with a rhyme by both the end of each line and by the end of the first half of each line, in total four rhymes. Also, each pair of lines usually has the same theme.

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.

Bibliography:

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.

The kinah: Eicah eli konenu - The tragic death of Yoshiyahu - איכה אלי קוננו

On Tisha B’av there is a custom to recite kinot at night and in the morning, and in previous years we have discussed the kinot Shavat suru meni and Eicah asta be-apcha, the first two kinot that are recited in the morning. This year we will discuss the sixth kinah that is recited in the morning, Eicah eli konenu.

The kinah, Eicah eli konenu, again by R. Elazar haKalir, has twenty-two lines, and an addendum with four more lines. The first word in each of the twenty-two lines is the first word in each verse of chapter four of Eicah, and as the order of the verses in chapter four of Eicah, as well as the first three chapters of Eicah, follow the aleph bet, the order of this kinah is also based on the order of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The relationship between chapter four in Eicah and this kinah is that many people understand Eicah 4:20 to be referring to Yoshiyahu (Talmud Ta’anit 22b). Also, since Divrei Hayamim II 35:25 records that Yirmiyahu wrote a kinah about Yoshiyahu, there developed the idea that all of chapter four in Eicah is a kinah about Yoshiyahu, see Rashi on Eicah 4:1.

This kinah is a fairly well-known kinah since the kinah is relatively less obscure than other kinot. This kinah is based on the tragic death of Yoshiyahu (Josiah), who was the King of Yehuda from 639-608 BCE. (His death is recorded very briefly in Melachim II 23:29,30 and with a little bit more detail in Divrei Ha-Yamim II 35:20-25.) When Yoshiyahu was 39 years old, in 608 BCE, Egyptian forces came by boat to Israel and wanted to march through the land apparently to aid the Assyrians (in northern Syria/ Iraq) who were fighting the Babylonians. Yoshiyahu attempted to stop the Egyptians, and he was killed fighting the Egyptians in Megiddo, around 100 kilometers north of Jerusalem.

The first line of the kinah, aleph, notes that Yoshiyahu started to rule when he was eight years, as he began to rule after his father, Amon, was assassinated.

The second line of the kinah records how the Egyptians wanted to pass through the land of Israel, and that Yoshiyahu’s good deeds did not save him. This is the question of the kinah, how could it be that such a righteous king was killed by the Egyptians? Note the Egyptians are referred to as the children of Ham, the son of Noah who was cursed in some manner (Bereshit 8:19-27), and also in the third blessing by kriat shema at arvit, Egypt is referred to as the children of Ham. This disparaging reference to Egypt only increases the question how could such a righteous king die by the hands of descendant of the cursed Ham?

The third line of the kinah describes how great was Yoshiyahu, as it says that he was the best leader the people had since Moshe (called Avigdor in the kinah). This line is based on Melachim II 23:25, which makes the same point. I have always wondered what happened to King David or Yehoshua? Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 294) writes that Yehoshua was greater than Yoshiyahu, but Yehoshua was not a king. This idea accords with the verse in Melachim II, which stresses that Yoshiyahu was the greatest king. With regard to King David, Rav Soloveitchik suggests that Yoshiyahu was greater than David in the sense that Yoshiyahu had to destroy idols and David did not have to fight against idol worship. This might be, but traditionally David is remembered as the greatest king. Perhaps, Yoshiyahu is not remembered as prominently as David because Yoshiyahu had such a tragic end as discussed in the kinah.

After stating how great Yoshiyahu was, lines four, six and the second half of line 8 of the kinah try to explain how it was that Yoshiyahu suffered such a tragic death if he was so righteous. The answer in the kinah is that he suffered due to the sins of his generation who sinned secretly. For example, line four states that people kept idols on the two sides of the door, which meant that the idols would not be seen if the door was open, but when the door was closed then the people would see and worship the idols in their homes (Midrash Eicah Rabbah 1:53).

Line five of the kinah presages the end of the kinah that Yoshiyahu who was considered to be like gold would instead be completely tarnished like coal by the Egyptians when they killed home so cruelly.

Line seven records that Yoshiyahu ripped his clothing, when he realized that he had not succeeded in reforming the people. The source for this line is a statement by R. Yaakov on Eicah 2:17 (recorded in Midrash Eicah 1:1 and 2:21).

The first half of line eight notes the approaching Egyptian army, and lines nine and ten of the kinah quote from Divrei Hayamim II 35:21 that the Egyptian king Neco sent a messenger to ask Yoshiyahu not to intervene and to let the Egyptian forces pass through the land of Israel.

Line 11 of the kinah records that Yoshiyahu did not agree to this request from Neco, and Yoshiyahu justified his refusal by referring to the blessing recorded in Vayikra 26:6 that a foreign army would not cross through the land of Israel.

Line 12 then records that Yoshiyahu also did not listen to Yirmiyahu who urged him to let the Egyptians pass through. Rav Soloveitchik explains (2010, p. 296) explains that Yirmiyahu understood the verse in Vayikra only to mean that an enemy army would not pass through the land of Israel, but Egypt at that time was not an enemy, which meant that they should be allowed to pass through. However, the Talmud (Ta’anit 22b) quotes that Yoshiyahu argued that the verse also referred to a peaceful foreign army, and hence he thought that he had divine support to stop the Egyptian army.

Line 13 of the kinah ignores this argument about Vayikra 26:6, but states that in any event the people were not worthy of receiving the blessing from G-d since they sinned secretly and ignored the words of Yirmiyahu who was from Anatot (a little north of Jerusalem).

Line 14 of the kinah records how the Egyptians slaughtered the Jewish people in the battle and line 15 records how some people (Yirmiyahu?) tried to tell the people to retreat and stop fighting, but the people continued to fight the Egyptians.

Line 16 of the kinah records how the Egyptian archers succeeded at shooting at Yoshiyahu, and lines 17 and 18 state how even after they wounded Yoshiyahu, they continued to shoot more arrows at him, as altogether three hundred arrows pierced him. The source for these lines is that Divrei Hayamim II 35:23 records that Yoshiyahu was fatally wounded by Egyptian arrows, while Midrash Eicah Rabbah (1:53) quotes R. Manni that three hundred arrows pierced him to such an extent that his body became like a sieve. Horrible.

Lines 19 and 20 of the kinah record that as Yoshiyahu’s attendants went to him in his dying moments, they heard him say that “G-d was righteous and that I had sinned” a verse from Eicah 1:18. This indicates that Yoshiyahu did teshuvah in his dying moments that he recognized that he had sinned by not listening to Yirmiyahu. The source for these lines is the Talmud Ta’anit 22b and Eicah Rabbah 1:53, which states that Yoshiyahu said these words to Yirmiyahu.

Line 21 of the kinah notes that Egypt would be punished for what they did and three years later, in 605 BCE, the Egyptian army was decisively defeated by the Babylonians in two battles in northern Syria.

Line 22, the last line of the kinah, returns to Yoshiyahu, who again (as in line five) is compared to the finest gold, and again the kinah states that he was punished due to the sins of the people, which is the answer to the question how could such a righteous person die in such a horrible manner.

The next four lines are the addendum to the kinah, and they state that Yoshiyahu died at Megiddo and in a post-shemitta year. I am not sure why it is important that he died in a post-shemitta year, but maybe this was to connect his death with the destruction of the second Bet ha-Mikdash which according to Seder Olam (quoted in Erechin 12b) was also destroyed in a post-shemitta year.

The kinah then notes that 22 years after Yoshiyahu died, 586 BCE, the first Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed which corresponds to the twenty-two words or lines of the kinah.

The last two lines of the addendum are obscure, but seem to refer back to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, that an anonymous person is quoted as saying that he thought that G-d would protect the people, but G-d let the Bet ha-Mikdash be destroyed. Maybe these lines are here since Yoshiyahu also thought that G-d would protect him, but G-d let his die so horribly.

One question about this kinah is that I have never understood why Yoshiyahu did not listen to Yirmiyahu and why would he have thought that he knew the interpretation of the Torah better than Yirmiyahu. While one can give a political answer that no king wants to have a foreign army march though his/ her territory, or that Yoshiyahu was worried that Egypt was not going to just march through peacefully or that Yoshiyahu thought that by attacking the Egyptians, he would become an ally of the Babylonians, the rising power in the world, still Yirmiyahu had told him to allow the Egyptians to pass through. My guess is that maybe Yoshiyahu understood that he was a righteous king and he thought that it was obvious that G-d would save him, and this seems to be a conception of some religious people that they become very confident that G-d will intervene to save them even if they are acting recklessly.

Another question concerning this kinah is why do we recite a kinah about the death of one person? Rav Soloveitchik (2010, pp. 292, 293) proposed three answers. One, the kinah about one person shows that what happens to one person is important. Two, Yoshiyahu was great leader and king, and the loss of a “great” person can be comparable to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, and three, Yoshiyahu’s death signaled the ensuing destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash since if a righteous king like Yoshiyahu could not save the people, then all was lost.

I would add that it is “obvious” that R. Elazar haKalir would write a kinah about Yoshiyahu’s tragic death once Divrie Hayamim II 35:25 states that Yirmiyahu wrote a kinah about Yoshiyahu, and, as mentioned above, there is the idea that chapter four of Eicah is a kinah about Yoshiyahu. The question is why did Yirmiyahu write a kinah about Yoshiyahu, and the answer could be that since Yirmiyahu knew Yoshiyahu personally, his death was a great blow to Yirmiyahu and Yirmiyahu might have even felt guilty that he was unable to have stopped Yoshiyahu from fighting the Egyptians.

Bibliography:

Rav Soloveitchik, 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.

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 see 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, R. Elazar haKalir is referring to what happened bad to the Jewish people, and he uses various terms to refer either to the Romans or to the Babylonians. In the second line of each stanza, R. Elazar haKalir refers to good things that G-d did to the Jewish people, and which it was hoped would have continued. For example, in the first stanza, the first line of the kinah refers to the people suffering at the hands of the Romans, while in the second line, R. Elazar haKalir refers to the covenant between G-d and Avram in Bereshit 15 (the good), which might have been a source for G-d to protect the people from the Romans. In the remaining stanzas most of the references to good things that G-d did to the Jewish people relate to when the people were in the desert after leaving Egypt.

The comparison of what happened bad to the Jewish people, the first line in each stanza, to the good that G-d was supposed to do for the people, (the second line in each stanza), is not equal since each line of the good that G-d had done for the people and was hoped to continue has six words that begin with the appropriate letter, while the line which describes the bad that happened (the first line of each stanza) only has five words with the relevant letter. I wonder if this inequality is a type of prayer for G-d to do more good things for the people since the second line of each stanza (the good) is greater in terms of the number of words than the first line of each stanza (the bad). Some minor support for this idea is that the ending of each stanza has a phrase referring to talking/ praying in reference of the good that was and that was supposed to continue. For example, the end of the second stanza is u-vechen dibarnu, “And so, we spoke,” by the good that was supposed to have continued.

The kinah shavat suru meni - הקינה שבת סורו מני

On Tisha B’av there is a custom to recite kinot, prayers that re-call the suffering that happened when the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed or for other events. The kinot can be viewed as replacing selihot, which are the usual extra prayers that we recite on the other fast days, but not on Tisha B’av.

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. 

To be more specific, the first word of the first eight stanzas is not in alphabetical order, but is the first word from the last eight verses of chapter five of Megillat Eichah, which is the only chapter in Eichah which does not follow alphabetical order. Afterwards, the stanza has a word from chapter four in Eichah. The next three lines in each stanza begin with words from the third chapter of Eichah, which record three lines for each letter of the alphabet. The following line in the stanza begins with the corresponding word in the second chapter of Eichah, and the last line of each stanza is a phrase from the first chapter of Eichah. All these words from chapter four to chapter one begin with the same letter, and the letter of each stanza follow the order of the aleph bet, starting from the letter samech. This intricate pattern shows the artistry of R. Elazar haKalir, and as this is the first kinah that is recited during the day it connects all the kinot with Eicah.

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).

Bibliography:

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.

Tisha B'av, the Holocaust and the founding of the State of Israel

I have heard many times that Tisha B’av is historically related to the tragedy of the Holocaust (in print see Rav Soloveitchik, 2006, p. 226, and Press, 1996, p.70). The claim is that World War I started on Tisha B’av in 1914, and World War II is a continuation of WWI. Almost certainly future generations will view the two world wars, which were so close in years and involved almost the exact same countries fighting each other, as one war, yet this connection is not just ex post. During the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Versailles, which officially concluded WWI, John Maynard Keynes (1919), wrote a celebrated essay “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” where he predicted that the harsh terms of the treaty imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles would lead to another war.

Accordingly, it is reasonable to see a connection between WWI and the Holocaust, but did WWI begin on Tisha B’av? This cannot be answered definitely since is not clear on which day the war began. Tisha B’av in 1914 was on August 1, which was the day when Germany declared war on Russia. Yet, one could argue for other dates for the beginning of WWI such as June 28 1914 when the Archduke Francis Ferdinand was assassinated, July 28th when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, July 30th when Russia ordered a general mobilization or August 3 when Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium. Thus, it seems that while WWI started around the time of Tisha B’av, one cannot categorically state that it started on Tisha B’av. However, even if there is no exact historical connection, as Tisha B’av is a day of national mourning it still is appropriate to remember the Holocaust on Tisha B’av.

One of the themes of Tisha B’av is that while we have suffered on this day, the day will eventually be a festival since it will be related to the future redemption. If the present state of Israel is the beginning of the redemption (and we should remember the failure of Bar Kokhba) and one has accepted the argument above that WWI is connected with Tisha B’av, then maybe one can claim that the same Tisha B’av of 1914 relates to the future redemption. I have heard it argued that the “world” allowed Israel to exist because of its guilt for the Holocaust. I have never liked this argument, as for example Great Britain showed no evidence of any guilt about the Holocaust when it acted with tremendous cruelty in not allowing Jews to come to Israel after WWII. Yet, one could make the simpler argument that WWI itself led to the founding of the state of Israel.

In 1917, near the end of WWI, after Great Britain had captured the southern part of the land of Israel, it announced the Balfour Declaration, which committed Great Britain to support "the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people" in the land of Israel. In 1918, Great Britain conquered the remainder of the land of Israel from Turkey and ruled the land, as a British mandate, until May 1948. Initially Great Britain was very supportive of Jews coming to Israel, and throughout the entire period it helped foster the development of the economy in the land. Under the British mandate the Jewish population in Israel rose from around 56,000 people in 1918 to 650,000 in 1948. It is hard to imagine that such a growth in population would have occurred had the land of Israel remained under Turkish rule. Furthermore, throughout almost the entire Mandate period, including the years of the Great Depression and WWII, the economy boomed in the land of Israel, as the area had the second highest growth rate in the world from 1922-1947, and this economic growth was one of the factors (the main one?) that enabled the Jewish population to achieve independence in 1948. (For more information on the excellent economic growth in the land of Israel under the British, see Schein 2007, 2012 and 2016.)

Eating on erev Tisha B’av

The Mishnah (Ta'anit 4:7) records three opinions with regard to how a person is to act on erev Tisha B'av, the 8th of Av. One opinion, the anonymous tanna kamma, is that a person is not allowed to eat two (or more) cooked items, eat meat or drink wine. (Today this opinion is only relevant with regard to not having two cooked dishes since we stop eating meat and drinking wine from Rosh Chodesh.) Two, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel maintains that a person should reduce his regular intake of food, and three, Rebbi Yehuda says that a person must turn his bed over to sit on the floor. The Mishnah ends by noting that the Rabbis did not accept this latter opinion.

The three opinions of the Mishnah share the common idea that erev Tisha B'av is a day of mourning and a realization that people cannot be asked to fast two days in a row. The first opinion limits the food intake the most, but still people can eat. The second opinion, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, believes that the limits of the first opinion are too much for people who are about to fast, and hence he says that people should just eat less. (Today we fulfill, unintentionally, his dictum by not eating meat on erev Tisha B'av.) The third opinion, Rebbi Yehuda could be stating either an additional requirement to the first two opinions or he could be arguing with the first two opinions. If he is arguing, then maybe his view is that on erev Tisha B'av there should be no limitations on eating, but instead to show that the day is one of mourning, a person should turn his bed over.

This idea that erev Tisha B'av is a day of mourning could be either to prepare for Tisha B'av that one does not make a barbecue/ party before the fast or maybe Chazal thought that the eighth day of Av was also a day that was worthy of mourning. The Talmud (Ta'anit 29A, also Tosefta Ta'anit 3:10) records that there is a contradiction as to when the first Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed. Kings II 25:8,9 records that it was destroyed on the 7th of Av, but the book of Jeremiah 52:10 records that it was destroyed on the 10th of Av. The Talmud reconciles these opinions that on the seventh and the eighth the Babylonians entered the sanctuary, on the ninth the Bet ha-Mikdash began to burn and the destruction ended on the 10th. Thus maybe the mourning on the 8th is based on the period when the Babylonians entered the Bet ha-Mikdash, and then the mourning was slightly less than on Tisha B'av since the Bet ha-Mikdash did not begin to burn until the 9th of Av.

The Talmud (Ta'anit 30a,b) records that on erev Tisha B'av Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai (?) would sit between two types of ovens and only eat bread and water. This practice was more than required by the Mishnah, and certainly fulfilled the idea of the Mishnah that erev Tisha B'av was a day of mourning. However, the Talmud (30a) also records that Rav Yehuda stated that the first opinion in the Mishnah of not eating two cooked items on erev Tisha B'av only applies to the last meal of the day prior to the fast, the seudah hamafseket, and only if this last meal occurs after midday. (Is this the view in the Tosefta Ta'anit 3:11?) This is a big leniency and change from the Mishnah since according to this opinion, except for the last meal after midday, people can eat regularly on erev Tisha B'av, and the day loses is quasi-fast status.

We see that in the Talmud there were two approaches to eating on erev Tisha B'av. The first approach is that the day is a day of mourning almost similar to Tisha B'av and hence one eats just the simplest food possible, while the second approach allows one to eat regular food with no limits on the quantity except by the last meal.

The Rambam (12th century, Laws of Fasting 5:7-9) first writes that for the general population who cannot endure too much, i.e., who find it difficult to fast on Tisha B'av without eating regularly on erev Tisha B'av, the law is like Rav Yehuda in the Talmud, that the limitations of not eating two cooked foods only applies for the last meal prior to the fast which is consumed after midday. However, afterwards he writes that the more appropriate behavior is to follow the practice of Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai to just have bread and water. He concludes by saying that he himself never ate any cooked food on erev Tisha B'av unless it was on Shabbat. The Rambam views the two approaches in the Talmud as being complimentary depending on the type of person. (The Bach, Orah Chayyim 552, writes that the Rambam's practice is not the accepted custom and is not even praiseworthy!)

The Tur (14th century, Orah Chayyyim 552) writes that the law is like Rav Yehuda, and he discusses what is considered two cooked items. He writes that the custom in France was to mix many items together in one pot and this was called one cooked item, while in Germany this was not done. He adds that if it was customary to add items together when cooking all year long, then he thinks that this only counts as one item. He also quotes his father, Rabbenu Asher, that there are no limitations on items that are eaten raw, which means that one can eat raw fruit and vegetables at the seudah hamafseket. The Tur then adds that in Germany there was a custom to eat eggs, and this meant that they could not have any more cooked items in the seudah hamafseket.

It seems that in Germany in the end of the 13th century the seudah hamafseket consisted of bread, eggs, vegetables, fruits, cheese, and salted fish. However, in the end of the 14th century/ beginning of the 15th century there developed a custom to have two meals, a regular meal before minhah, and a simple meal, the official seudah hamafseket, after minhah. (The Rama, 16th century, 552:9, also in Darkei Moshe 552 quotes this from the Maharil, Germany, 1365-1427.) Most likely the reason for this development is that people wanted to eat a cooked meal before the fast, and hard boiled eggs were not enough.

The Arukh Hashulchan (1829-1908, 552:11 also see Mishnah Berurah, 552:22) writes that this custom of two meals is a haarama (trick). It seems that his custom was to eat just one meal, but he would eat also a dairy kugel not as a meal before the seudah hamafseket.

The trick is that the last meal is not really a meal but only eaten to allow a person to eat as much as they want in the second to last meal. If a person did not have the simple last meal, then the second to last meal would be the last meal before the fast and then one could not eat a regular meal before the fast. Yet, this trick is not a new development of the Rama or the Maharil but is from Rav Yehuda in the Talmud, who argued that the limitations of the first opinion of the Mishnah were only for the last meal eaten after midday. Furthermore, it is common to have haarama by rabbinic prohibitions, for example see Shulchan Orah, Orah Chayyim 334:16 and 335:5, and Mishnah Berurah 335:11, and people even sell their hametz, a trick to get out of the biblical requirement to destroy all of one's hametz.

The Rama (552:9) also adds that one can be stringent and not eat so much, and this person is called holy. The comment of the Rama is based on Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai, but it is not clear how stringent the "holy" person should be, i.e. how much food he/ she should limit himself/ herself and for how long on erev Tisha B'av is the person limiting his/ her intake of food. Most likely, from the context, the Rama is referring to the meal before minhah that instead of eating a lot, a person limits him or herself. In any event, this holy person is the exception, and today I believe that the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazim, if not all, eat a very full meal before the seudah hamafseket on erev Tisha B'av. Furthermore, as noted by the Chayyei Adam (1748-1820, 134:6), this full meal is eaten right before the start of Tisha B'av, which means that for almost the entire day there is no limitation on the quantity of food that can be consumed.

There was one other development by the seudah hamafseket. After his discussion of what is considered cooked food, the Tur records the opinion of Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai that if possible it is better for a person just to have only bread and water. Most likely, the Tur meant that all day the person should follow Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai, and this would be the Rambam's view. However, the Shulchan Arukh (252:6) interpreted the Tur's comment that "if possible one should just eat bread and drink water" only in reference to the seudah hamafseket. This ruling by the Shulchan Arukh changed the seudah hamafseket to just being a meal of bread and water. According to this ruling of the Shulchan Arukh, one should not even eat eggs at the seudah hamafseket, just bread and water. This was not accepted, as R. Shimon Eider (1978, p. 15), notes that the custom today is that seudah hamafseket consists of bread, cold hard-boiled eggs and water. The custom is also to dip the bread into ashes, see Rama 552:6.

We see that the law/ custom of eating on erev Tisha B'av has changed from limited eating according to the Mishnah and the ideal of the Rambam to eating with almost no limitations. Almost definitely this change was due to people's fear of fasting, and hence the practice was/is to allow people to eat without limitations for almost the entire erev Tisha B'av. The limitations on food consumption throughout the day in the Mishnah have become relegated to just the last meal of the day that is eaten after midday, and this last meal, the seudah hamafseket, has developed into a ritual meal of bread dipped in ashes, with hard boiled eggs and water to mark the impending onset of Tisha B'av.

The prohibition of doing laundry in the nine days

The Mishnah (Ta'anit 4:7) records that during the week of Tisha B'av, one does not cut one's hair or do laundry unless Tisha B'av is on Friday, and then one can cut one's hair and do laundry on Thursday. Most likely, the rationale for these prohibitions is that a person should not look festive, with a haircut and clean clothes. This was especially relevant in olden times, when doing laundry was much more infrequent than today, and hence wearing clean clothes was more impressive. (It cannot be that the prohibition of doing laundry is because of the labor involved in doing laundry since for most people not doing laundry is a vacation and this idea leaves the prohibition of not cutting one's hair unexplained.) With this understanding, it would be obvious that one could not wear new clothing, though this is not stated in the Mishnah, see Shulchan Arukh Orah Chayyim 551:6.

In the Talmud there were two developments to this Mishnah with regard to the prohibition of doing laundry. One, there is an argument as to whether a person can do laundry to wear the clothing after Tisha B'av, Rav Nachman says yes, while Rav Sheshet says no (Ta'anit 29b), and the halakhah is like Rav Sheshet, Shulchan Arukh, 551:3. Rashi explains that the basis for Rav Sheshet's opinion is that doing the laundry, which in those days was quite time consuming, would divert one's mind from the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash. It is not clear if this reason would be relevant today since washing clothing is much easier today with washing machines, but a different explanation for Rav Sheshet's opinion is that he was making a gezirah. The gezirah could be either that there was a fear that if a person washed clothing for after Tisha B'av, then by accident they might come to wear the clothing before Tisha B'av or that people would claim that they were washing clothing for after Tisha B'av when really they were washing clothing to wear before Tisha B'av.

A second development was that the Talmud (Ta'anit 29b) makes the unexpected claim that gihutz (a type of ironing) in Bavel is comparable to the washing of clothes in Israel. The idea seems to be that in Bavel they were not able to clean the clothes as well as in Israel, and then the prohibition on doing laundry in the week of Tisha Ba’av would only be if a person both washed and ironed (gihutz) the clothing, while there would be no prohibition of just washing clothing in Bavel since the person would not look so sharp because the clothing even if laundered were not that clean. With this logic, the question would be whether other places were like Bavel and washing clothing would be permitted in the week of Tisha B’av or like Israel and laundry would be forbidden. (In the Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud, they quote the Raavad as permitting laundry outside of the land of Israel.)

The Shulchan Arukh (551:3) first writes that our laundry is permitted, which is surprising since when he wrote the Shulchan Arukh he was living in Israel, but it seems that he was following the language of the Tur, who lived outside of Israel. However, afterwards he writes that the practice is not do laundry. Furthermore, he notes that several Rishonim argue that only in Bavel was washing clothing permitted but in other places it was forbidden, which means that washing clothing in the week of Tisha B'av  is forbidden not due to custom but to the rabbinic enactment of the Mishnah. Today with our machines and soap, laundered clothing is much cleaner than in Israel in the time of the Mishnah, and hence today the leniency of the Talmud with regard to Bavel should certainly not be applicable.

In the Middle Ages, there were several developments in the law/ custom. One, Tosafot (Ta'anit 30a, travayehu) quotes that Rashi ruled that one should not do laundry even on non-clothing items. This appears to be based on Rashi's explanation for Rav Sheshet's opinion that doing laundry diverts one from mourning, and then any laundry even one not related to making a person look good would be forbidden. The Shulchan Arukh (551:3) accepts this ruling, and also rules that a person should not change one's linen during the period (see R. Shimon Eider, 1978, p. 10).

One exception to this rule is that the Rama (551:14) rules that one can do laundry for little children's clothing. This latter ruling accords with the idea that the prohibition is to look good, and then this would not apply to little children, but if the problem is doing the laundry itself, as evident with the prohibition of washing linen, than any laundry, even children's laundry should have been forbidden. However, maybe it was considered too much to prohibit washing children's clothing since it is hard (impossible?) for little children to keep their clothing clean and in those days there was very little spare clothing.

One new stringency in the Middle Ages is that Ashkenazim began to keep this prohibition of not washing clothing from the beginning of the month of Av, as opposed to just the week of Tisha B'av, Rama 551:4. No reason is provided for this extension and it contradicts the principle of the Mishnah that Shabbat takes precedence over the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash and hence the prohibition in the Mishnah only began after Shabbat, see our discussion "The law/ custom of not cutting one's hair in the nine days and three weeks." This new stringency began after the 11th century since Tosafot (Ta'anit 30a, travayehu) rules that if Tisha B'av is on Thursday, then one can cut one's hair and wash clothes for Shabbat on Tisha B'av itself in the afternoon. Certainly, if one can wash clothings on Tisha B'av for Shabbat, then one can wash clothes for the Shabbat before Tisha B'av. Also in the 12th century, the Ravyah (Germany, 1140-1225, siman 881) writes that the custom was not to do laundry during the week of Tisha B'av, though he writes that one should not mend clothes from the beginning of the month. (With regard to Sefardim, R. Chayyim David haLevi in his Kitzsor Shulchan Arukh, 1975, p. 239 writes that Sefardim only keep the prohibition from the week of Tisha B'av, but in his longer work Mekor Chayyim, vol. 4 p. 184 he writes that Sefardim follow the Ashkenazim and stop doing laundry from the beginning of the month.)

This question which takes precedence, the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash or Shabbat, also arises as to whether one is to wear Shabbat clothing on the Shabbat preceding Tisha B'av, Shabbat Chazon. The Rama (551:1) writes that one is not to switch to Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, which shows that he gives precedence to the mourning over Shabbat, and this ruling accords with his comment that the prohibition of doing laundry begins from Rosh Chodesh. The Mishnah Berurah (1907, 551:6) notes that in Vilna the practice was to follow the Gra (1720-1797) who ruled that one wears Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon and this was also the ruling of the Rav Yaakov Emden (1697-1776). The Arukh Hashulchan (1829-1908, Russia, 551:11) notes that in his time people wear Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, and he is upset that people are not following the "old" custom to wear regular clothes on Shabbat. However, what he calls the old custom was really the newer custom that only began in the late Middle Ages, and really the initial custom prior to the Middle Ages was to wear Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon.

My impression is that today everybody wears Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, which means that they give Shabbat more priority than the mourning for Tisha B'av. Similarly, people eat meat on Shabbat during the nine days. However, if a person does not shave or bath on Friday for Shabbat, then the person is giving precedence to the mourning of Tisha B’av over Shabbat, which is a contradiction.

One recent development with regard to the prohibition of not wearing freshly laundered clothing is that people prepare for the nine days, by wearing freshly laundered clothing a few minutes prior to Rosh Chodesh, and then they wear these clothing, which are almost completely freshly laundered, during the nine days. (I am not sure when this idea developed but it must be relatively recently since only in the 19th/ 20th century did people have more than a few items of clothing that they were able to wear clean clothing every day.)

With regard to this trick, there has developed a difference between Sefardim and Ashkenazim. R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yalkut Yosef, vol. 5, p. 563, also see R. Chayyim David HaLevi, 1975, p.239) writes that one prepares the clothing by wearing them for a half hour, and one needs to do this even for socks and undershirts. However, R. Shimon Eider (1978, p. 9) writes that one only needs to do this trick for outer garments, but for inner garments, such as socks and undergarments, he quotes that R. Moshe Feinstein stated that one could wear them freshly laundered. This ruling accords with the original idea of the Mishnah, that the prohibition of not doing laundry was in order that a person will not look good, and nobody sees the undergarments. Furthermore, R. Shimon Eider also quotes R. Moshe Feinstein that if a person prepared a garment to wear, and inexplicably it got dirty, then if a person must wear a clean garment (for work) then one can wear a freshly laundered garment. Rabbi Ari Enkin (2009, p. 64) quotes from the Minchat Yitzhak (10:44) another trick, that if a person did not prepare clothing beforehand, then one can put the freshly laundered clothing on the floor for some time, and then wear the clothing. 

We see that the law of not doing laundry the week of Tisha B'av from the Mishnah had several stages of development. In the Talmudic period, there was both a leniency that the law was not applicable to Bavel, and a stringency that it was even forbidden to do laundry to wear the clothing after Tisha B'av. In the Middle Ages, the tendency was to be stringent as the prohibition was extended even to laundering non-clothing items, and for Ashkenazim the prohibition was extended to the beginning of the month of Av. Finally, recently the propensity is to be lenient both by wearing Shabbat clothing on Shabbat and by preparing clothing prior to the period when doing laundry is forbidden.

Bibliography:

Eider, Shimon, (d. 2007) 1978, A summary of halachos of the three weeks, Lakewood, NJ.

Enkin, Ari, 2009, Amot shel Halacha, Jerusalem: Urim Publications.