Yaakov Jaffe
This is the fourth posting in a series about the Kinot of the 9th of Av. For the first three postings, click here, here, and here.
What makes a great individual into a hero? Secular literature and culture have numerous answers to this question, and Judaism also has a range of views attested over the centuries. In many accounts, a hero is strong, mighty, brave, powerful, long-suffering, or enduring. But what do the Kinot of the 9th of Av believe? This essay will investigate the famed account of the death of the ten Rabbinic martyrs of the Talmudic period, Arzei Ha-Levanon, and consider the Kinah’s view about Jewish heroism in general, and the deaths of these martyrs in particular. Did they die hero’s deaths, victoriously fighting for an ideal? Does the fact that they were killed make them less heroic? What was the root cause of their deaths?
We begin with a review of the authorial and historical context of the Kinah, followed by some of the source material that would have been used in building this Kinah, before turning to the Kinah itself. The content of the Kinah and some of the literary elements involved lead to dramatic, bold assertions about causality and fate and these Rabbinic heroes.
Authorship and Context of Composition
Arzei Ha-Levanon was written by the otherwise-unknown thirteenth-century German rabbi Meir ben Yehiel.[1] The Kinah features 51 rhyming lines (all ending in -rah) of variable length, divided into two distinct acrostics. The first 22 lines are arranged in an alphabetic acrostic, with each consecutive line beginning with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet in sequence. The following 29 lines spell out the author’s name Meir ben Yehiel, followed by the customary concluding salutation “hazak ve-ematz, may the son of Yehiel live.”[2] The poetry and composition of the piyut are original to this author, although many of the ideas are borrowed from the Midrash of the Ten Martyrs, sometimes called Midrash Eleh Ezkerah.[3] The author of that Midrash is unknown, but it seems to date to the time of the Geonim.
As a thirteenth century work, the Kinah was written at a time just after the Jewish theology of martyrdom was first born. Though the Talmud and early Midrashim discuss a varied assortment of legal circumstances and historical events where Jews sacrificed their own lives for the sake of their faith, there is no broad theology of the implication and meaning of martyrdom for the Jewish people’s relationship and interaction with God. Following the events of the first crusades in the late eleventh century, Jews of Northern Europe began to grapple with the issue in earnest, and so this Kinah – like a few others – is part of that genre that explores the meaning of martyrdom.[4]
Indeed, the end of the Kinah generalizes the lessons of the ten martyrs to the martyrs of the author’s own day: “Behold, like these and like these the children of treachery have continued to afflict with reproach / with stoning, burning, sword and strangulation, who can estimate it!” (lines 44-45). Thus, though the superficial subject of the Kinah is the ten martyrs, the author has many more other martyrs in mind as well. A key line (22), discussed further below, uses the word “le-dorot,” for generations, suggesting a contemporary resonance for the old events. The merit of the martyrs of the past and present provides merit for the hopeful redemption of the future generations.
Earlier Sources for the Ten Martyrs
The Talmud has no central discussion of ten rabbinic martyrs who were killed because of their faith or because of merely being Jewish, although it does identify a number of great sages who were killed specifically because they engaged in religious behaviors that had been previously prohibited by the secular governments or because they were leaders of the Jewish people.
Two rabbinic figures were assassinated for their leadership roles: Rebbi Yishma’el the high priest and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I was the political leader of the rabbis, the son of Rabban Gamliel the elder and the father of Rabban Gamliel of Yavneh, while Rebbi Yishma’el was one of the final priests, if not the final priest, of the second Temple period.[5] They were killed at the end of the second Temple period, years before the deaths of the other martyrs. Because these two rabbis died before the others, they are discussed first in the Kinah, the only two who appear in the first half as part of the alphabetic acrostic. Their martyrdom is discussed in Sanhedrin 11a, quoting Tosefta Sota 13:4,[6] while the martyrdom of specifically Rebbi Yishma’el is also mentioned in passing in Brachot 57b and the peeling off of his skin is mentioned in Hullin 123a and Avodah Zara 11b.
The two most famous examples of martyrdom in the Talmud are Rebbi Hananyah ben Tradyon (Avodah Zara 17b-18a) and Rebbi Akiva (Brachot 61b), who both defy Roman edicts against public Torah study and are killed in rather gruesome fashion as a result. The Kinah summarizes the ordeals of both of these rabbis (martyrs #3 and #5). In the case of Rebbi Hananyah (lines 30-33), the Kinah borrows heavily from the verbiage of the Talmud, although adapting it to match the needs of the acrostic and the rhyme.[7] The discussion of Rebbi Akiva’s death in the Talmud is also noteworthy, as it mentions Rebbi Akiva continuing to maintain religious observance and Jewish values up to the moment of death; Rebbi Akiva dies while reciting the final word of the first sentence of the Shema (lines 23-26).[8]
Finally, two other less-well-known rabbis have their deaths mentioned in passing in the Talmud. Rebbi Hutzpiz (martyr #9), the translator or announcer of lectures, dies and has his tongue thrown into a garbage heap, as mentioned in the final lines of Hullin on 142a (also cited by Tosafot to Bechorot 36a s.v. Rebbi Hutzpiz). The Kinah (lines 38-39) does not explain why he was murdered or use any other description of his death, but does praise him with the words “immediately, a flying bird was burnt with the sound of his voice like in a bonfire.”[9] Finally, Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava (martyr #4) is killed by the Romans for perpetuating religious ordination (Sanhedrin 14a). That his death was at the hand of 300 spears “that turned him into a sieve” appears in the Talmud but not the Kinah (lines 27-29).[10]
Most later Midrashim and liturgical poems tend to concur about the idea that there were 10 martyrs, but they disagree widely as to who the remaining four martyrs were, beyond the six whose deaths appear in the Talmud.[11] Eikhah Rabba 2:4 adds Rabbis Yeshvav, Yehudah Ha-Nahtom, Ben Azai, and either Rebbi Tarfon or Rebbi Elazar Harsona (along with switching Rabban Shimon with his father, Rabban Gamliel). Midrash Tehillim 9:14 adds the first three of those four, but lists Rebbi Yossi as the final martyr. The Midrash of the Ten Martyrs has a mostly different list of four additions: Rabbis Yehudah or Elazar ben Dama, Yeshvav, Hananyah ben Hakhinai and Elazar ben Shamu’a.[12] `This Kinah, as well as the selihah “eileh ezkera” from Mussaf of Yom Kippur, clearly work off the text of this Midrash, using many details of the martyrs found there but not in the Talmud.
Many printed editions of the Kinah are missing two martyrs, Rebbi Elazar ben Dama (martyr #7) and Rebbi Hananyah ben Hakhinai (martyr #8). This is due to a haplography error, a result of homoioteleuton with the word “ve-aharav.” Whenever the same word appears in two nearby lines, a copyist may accidentally skip from one instance of the word to the next when copying the poem from one scroll to another, omitting a full line or more in the newly copied version. Here, this means that many printed Kinot are missing the full line and a half of the Kinah which discusses these two martyrs (lines 37-38). The source Midrash says little about these two martyrs, noting nothing about the latter and only that the former was martyred because of the Mitzvah of Tefillin.[13] Rabbi Hananyah ben Hakhinai appears only twice in the entire Mishnah, in Avot 3:5 and Makkot 21b. He may not even have been ordained, as per Sanhedrin 17b. His Mishnah, which immediately follows that of the martyr with whom he shares a name, Rebbi Hananyah ben Tradyon, provides an eerie foreshadowing of the death of a martyr: “Someone who stays awake at night or walks on the way and [at those times] turns his heart to emptiness – he is guilty of his own death.”
Heroism, Strength, and Victory
Having concluded an inventory of the martyrs and how they are described in earlier sources, we now move to consider how the Kinah frames the martyrs as heroes, even in their deaths. The Kinah begins (lines 1-4):
Cedars of Lebanon, mighty ones of the Torah,
Masters of Shields in her battle, in the Mishnah and Gemara,
Heroes of Strength, they do her work in purity
Their blood was spilt like water, and the heroism was lost/forgotten
The Kinah uses language to frame the martyrs as one would military heroes. It focuses on their strength and might, probably spiritual or character strength. The framing of Torah scholars as military heroes is a typical one in Rabbinic Literature,[14] although it is more ironic when depicting the moment when the scholars met their deaths at the hands of those who possessed greater physical might and more advanced tools of war. Rabbinic scholars are already called shield bearers in Brachot 27b,[15] and Torah study is also called a war in Sanhedrin 42a, but those contexts speak about regular Torah study, not the victory of maintaining faith even through death.
In that vein, it is instructive to see how the Kinah uses a particular metaphor for Rebbi Akiva: that his Torah study grinds mountains together. Rebbi Hananyah ben Tradyon gathers people at the gate, an allusion to Isaiah 28:6 “for heroism, returning from war to the gate” which is understood by Megillah 15b to refer to Torah study.
The first two martyrs are also lauded as heroes of strength (lines 16-21):
He [Rebbi Yishmael the priest] announced “a mouth that is heroic/victorious in Torah
Suddenly has been penalized with an unusual and stringent death.”
The [Roman leader] commanded to skin his head with the professionally-sharpened razor (Isaiah 7:20)
He fulfilled with his skin [the verse] “bow so we shall pass upon you” (Isaiah 51:23)
The wicked one skinned, when the time came to reach the place of Tefillin, the bright command
He made a yell heard,[16] and the entire world shook and the Earth crumbled (Isaiah 24:19).
The Kinah states, proudly but paradoxically, that even when the Jewish people face tremendous loss, their leaders remain heroes. The world shakes not because of the Roman legion, but because a Jew’s tefillin-place was perturbed. The Jew achieves the biggest victory by dying with their faith and resisting the pressure to reject that faith.[17]
Indeed, most of the martyrs die while performing Mitzvot, earning that victory over the Romans by resisting the decrees. We noted above that Rabbi Hananyah ben Tradyon dies while teaching Torah, Rebbi Akiva dies while reciting Shema, and Rebbi Elazar ben Dama dies while wearing Tefillin despite a Roman decree. The tenth martyr, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamu’a, dies while reciting Kiddush (lines 41-43).[18] Though not mentioned in the Kinah, Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava is killed while giving ordination to his students. Rebbi Yishmael asks the Roman hegemon to delay his death for a few moments so he can mourn for Rabban Shimon (lines 11-15).[19] The Romans do not control what the Jews do; the Jews are in control and are focused exclusively on the commandments they are supposed to perform.
The death of the martyrs is similarly redefined as a victory towards the end of the Kinah (lines 46-49), as part of the concluding summary reflecting on the death of martyrs in general. Specifically, these deaths are interpreted as sacrifices. This theme, which is returned to in a number of the Kinot, is based on the Midrash that the death of the righteous provides atonement just as sacrifices do (see Rashi to Bamidbar 20:1).[20] It is hard to translate these lines, and there are different textual versions of the lines on account of their graphic nature, but a rough translation is:
‘The leftovers of her’ – the dispersed lamb – ‘are eaten by’ lions[21]/
‘They shall eat her in a holy place’ (Vayikra 6:9), ‘like the sin offering and the guilt offering’ (Vayikra 6:10), to make her memory lost/
‘The chest that is waved and the thigh that is raised’ (Vayikra 10:15) were torn by the lion and young lioness.
A sacrifice is a conscious gift we give to God, rather than something taken away from us; it is a volitional act on the part of the individual who offers the sacrifice. If martyrs are offerings as-if on the Temple altar, then they are not victims of martyrdom, but proactive parties. They may have been eaten by our enemies, but they retain agency and religious significance and are not mere casualties of war.
Verbiage associated with the Temple and the sacrificial order is used regarding the martyrs throughout the Kinah. The concept of purity appears in three different lines (line 9, line 14, line 26). The martyrs are called holy in line 5 and line 9. They are compared to Temple items in line 8 (“holy vessels, coronet, and crown”[22]) and in line 14 (“Menorah”). In an argument that is both comforting and disturbing, the Kinah implies that on the same day that we mourn the loss of the Temple and its sacrifices, the martyrs serve a parallel or even a replacement role. Needing to make meaning of the losses of the crusades, the author of the Kinah gives new significance to the deaths of martyrs, and they become heroes and Temple sacrifices.
It is interesting that across the Kinah, the Romans are never directly mentioned. The martyrs are killed by “the kingdom,” “malkhut,”[23] but that kingdom is never named. Ten named Jewish heroes have their unique selves remembered for all time, while the enemy is barely a factor worth recalling, and is nothing more than a supporting character in the central drama.
Who Caused the Deaths of the “Cedars of Lebanon”
Key to understanding the Kinah is its opening two words, “Arzei Ha-Levanon,” “The cedars of Lebanon.” The words are clearly meant to be understood figuratively; the martyrs were human beings and not trees. Many take the words as a metaphor: the martyrs were tall, strong, mighty, enduring, and unyielding in the face of adversity much like the cedar tree. They stood side by side with each other as trees typically do. Indeed, the cedars of Lebanon are depicted as quintessential examples of strength in the Bible (see Isaiah 2:13), and one verse even compares the righteous to a cedar in Lebanon, in similar verbiage (Psalms 92:13). The demands of the acrostic require a phrase that begins with alef here, and so the two words serve the acrostic while simultaneously serving as a metaphor for the martyrs.
The author probably intended a third element with these words: an allusion to a Biblical verse.[24] Discovering the allusion is vital to understanding the argument of the entire Kinah. In searching for the verse the author intended to allude to, it is best to find Biblical verses that use this exact phrase “The cedars of Lebanon,” and not the parallel “a cedar in Lebanon,” or “cedars of Lebanon” or “cedar in Lebanon,” because the author chose to begin with these exact words and not any of the related variations. The phrase “The cedars of Lebanon” appears only three times in the Bible, and the source intended by the author, if any, makes a tremendous difference for understanding the logic of the Kinah. One of the three, Isaiah 2:13, merely uses the phrase as a symbol for strength or arrogance,[25] and so allusion to this phrase has the same effect as the metaphoric reading above, that the martyrs were heroes of strength. The two other verses, though, have very different implications from what we have already discussed, which can deepen our understanding of the Kinah’s argument greatly.
In the Parable of Yotam (Judges Chapter 9), the judge’s son tells the story of a lowly thorn that was chosen by the trees to be their king, not because he was deserving, but because of convenience and because the better candidates had all declined leadership. In frustration, the thorn calls out that if, indeed, the trees were untruthful in their offer, “a fire should come from the thorn and burn the cedars of Lebanon” (9:15).
This allusion frames the burning of the cedars of Lebanon as being caused by a rival and an enemy, indeed, but a lowly one who is not deserving of his status, and who uses his dry, brittle nature, not his strength, to spread destruction (as in Shemot 22:5). This prominent allusion in the opening words of the Kinah supports the central thesis of the Kinah that our enemies are not more heroic and stronger; even when Jewish martyrs are killed, the martyrs were killed by mere thorns. As we know that at least one of the martyrs, Rebbi Hananyah, was burnt in a fire, the events of the martyrs historically enacted the curse of Yotam’s parable with the fire of the thorn burning the mighty, cedar-like Torah scholars.
A different possible verse the author may have been alluding to is Psalms 29:5. The formal structure of the Kinah provides an undeniable hint that the author had Psalm 29 in mind when composing the poem. We have noted that the Kinah is divided into two halves: 22 lines of alphabetic acrostic which discuss the first two martyrs, followed by a 29-line acrostic featuring the author’s name and talk of the remaining eight martyrs who were killed a century later. The alphabetic acrostic ends with a line that begins with the final Hebrew letter, tav, that reads “‘Their merit shall stand for generations,’ [said] the Voice of Hashem in its reply” (line 22).[26] The words “the Voice of Hashem in its reply,” which end the alphabetic acrostic, are an almost verbatim restatement of Psalm 29:4, the verse immediately preceding Psalm 29:5, with a minor change to fit the rhyme. Thus, the author has bookended the alphabetic acrostic with two quotes from two consecutive verses in Psalm 29, 29:4 in the last line of the alphabetic acrostic and 29:5 in the first line of the alphabetic acrostic. This bookending directs the reader to the radical theological statement in Psalm 29:5, “Hashem shatters the cedars of Lebanon.” The righteous were not killed by the power of the ascendant Romans, or even by the destructive energy of thorn-like despised oppressors. Instead, their deaths were caused by Hashem, Who breaks the cedars of Lebanon. Later in the Kinah, line 50 says God should cease to chastise the Jewish people (based on Devarim 8:5), suggesting the episode of the martyrs is God disciplining the Jewish people, though we might not understand why. The story becomes a story of the Jews and their God, not a battle between the Jews and the Romans; the Romans were only God’s tools.
Thus, the key first two words of the Kinah operate on at least three, if not four, levels. They match the acrostic and serve as a metaphor for the righteous. They allude to one verse that conveys the central theme of the Kinah, that Hashem, not our enemies, retains power and controls world events. They may also allude to a second Biblical verse that frames the enemy that burns a majestic cedar as a lowly, powerless thorn which cannot start a fire by itself but only conveys it from one place to another through its own destruction. Whichever allusion was intended, if not both, the opening words use the literary form to further the central idea of the Kinah.
The Light Forward
If the martyrs were victims of a war lost long ago, then their deaths provide little opportunity for optimism about our close relationship with Hashem. Yet, the Kinah makes a profound argument that the martyrs were not losers in that war, but they were either sacrifices to Hashem, or those who received a punishment from Hashem. If so, their story does provide a forum to consider closeness with our Creator and the future of the relationship. The last two lines of the Kinah are thus incredibly optimistic in their tone and refocus on the relationship between Hashem and the Jewish people:.
Strengthen stumbling knees! O portion [=God] of Jacob, his salvation in a time of duress
A King will rule over righteousness [=Jupiter], He shall say your days of mourning have been completed, by His light we shall travel and go.
These two lines are filled with numerous allusions and technical terminology. The Kinah ends with Hashem, as opposed to the other false gods, being called the “helek,” literally “portion” but figuratively the “apportioned Deity,” of the Jewish people. A major subtext of medieval martyrdom is the comparison and relative worth of the various deities, were such a thing possible, so the Kinah asserts that Hashem is the Deity who can truly provide salvation in difficult times. The Jew prays to Hashem, the one true God, and not any of the false gods or stars and constellations apportioned to the other nations.
Biblically, the other luminaries are apportioned to the nations (“halak,” Devarim 4:19), either to provide light (Megillah 9b) or as powers (Ibn Ezra, see Rashi). In contrast, Hashem is called the portion of Israel (Jeremiah 10:16). This may mean that Hashem, not the stars, provides us light, and in a nod to this view, the Kinah ends, “by His light we will travel and go.” Alternatively, the idea is that Hashem interacts with the Jewish people directly without a ministering angel or other Divine power in between (Jeremiah 10:16, as understood by Chida loc. cit.), and so the Kinah argues that our God and portion should give salvation to us.
A further allusion is found in the phrase “A King will rule over righteousness.” The Hebrew word used by the Kinah for righteousness is “Tzedek,” the standard word for the concept across Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew. The word “Tzedek” has a second meaning in Mishnaic Hebrew, however: the planet Jupiter (Shabbat 156b, Bereishit Rabba 43:3).[27] Consequently, the line can also be translated as “A King will rule over Jupiter.” The central God of Rome was Jupiter, and so the Kinah can be understood as saying “A King will rule over Rome [Jupiter’s nation],” a clear promise for the future redemption of Israel over our enemies.[28] Rome and later Christianity will have a new king, as the Mashiach, the new king over Tzedek, rules over our enemies.
The Kinah had already hinted to the notion that the righteous are as close to God as the stars or planets in the third line. The line quotes from Psalms 103:20, “Bless Hashem his agents/angels, heroes of strength,” a verse taken by the Talmud to refer to the stars (Brachot 10a), Torah scholars (Kiddushin 40a), and the angels (Shabbat 88a). In Medieval philosophy, many Jews believed that Hashem interacted with the other nations as universals and not as particulars, thus only the other nations are apportioned ministering angels, which are represented by the stars (see Ibn Eza to Devarim 4:19, Tehillim 1:6). But the righteous Jews stand as particulars before Hashem directly, on the same level as the stars and the angels. Hashem is our portion directly, unlike the Romans who are apportioned the planet Jupiter.
The Kinah ends with the words “travel and go.” Like the other words in the ending, this also alludes to a Biblical verse which would resonate with Jews mourning their interactions with the Christians. The words are taken from the request of Esav – the archetype or symbol for the Roman empire and later Christianity[29] – that the Jew travel with him (Genesis 33:12) and share a future or destiny. The Kinah reverses the notion by saying our portion is not theirs, our light is not theirs, and our destiny is not theirs; we will not travel with them; instead we walk with God, Whose might knows no bounds and Who can shatter even the greatest cedars of Lebanon.
[1] See Yehudah Leib Gordon to Rabbi Reifmann, 1864, Available at https://benyehuda.org/read/42532#heading-7 and also Daniel Goldschmidt, The Order of the Kinot for the Ninth of Av [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1972), 12. Surprisingly, Abraham Rosenfeld, Authorized Kinot for the Ninth of Av (London, 1970), xxi, 125, thought it was written by the son of the Ri Migash in 12th century Spain.
[2] The demands of the acrostic force the kinah into a number of uncomfortable grammatical contortions, so many printed versions of the Kinah have corrected the grammar at the expense of the acrostic. The acrostic also demands that Rabbi Hananyah ben Tradyon be referred to only by his first name, Hananyah, without the title “Rabbi”, and this, too, is changed in most printings at the cost of maintaining the acrostic as was originally written. See https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ארזי_הלבנון_(קינה) For a scholarly treatment of this and all the relevant textual variations, see Goldschmidt, 82-85.
[3] Published in J.D. Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim (New York, 1915), 439-450. Available at https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=2585&st=&pgnum=167
[4] For further discussion of the history of this religious/legal category see Simcha Goldin, The Ways of Jewish Martyrdom trans Yigal Levin (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2008).
[5] See Rashi loc. cit. Shimon the son of Gamliel authored one of the Mishnayot in Avot (1:17), but it is typically his grandson of his same name who is mentioned in the Talmud. Rebbi Yishmael the high priest appears only a handful of times in the Talmud: Brachot 7a (entering the holiest of holies), Brachot 51a, Shabbat 12b (anticipating a speedy rebuilding of the Temple), Yevamot 104a, Bava Batra 60b (how to mourn the destruction). For more on Rebbi Yishma’el the high priest, see https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/9av-5784-kinah-the-1st-zionists-hostages-in-rome/
[6] Shmuel Ha-Katan predicts the death of these two rabbis.
It is clear from the context that the Rabban Gamliel earlier on that page of Sanhedrin is Rabban Gamliel the elder, father of Rabban Shimon the martyr. This means that Shmuel Ha-Katan, editor of the blessing contra-heretics and the individual who predicted Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I’s death, was a second Temple period figure, and not a figure from the post-Temple gathering of rabbis at Yavneh. See glosses of Rabbis Yaakov Emden, Shmuel Shtrashon, Shlomoh Ha-Kohein of Vilna, and Reuven Margoliot (Margoliot Ha-Yam) to Sanhedrin.
[7] One detail that does not appear in the Talmud is the location of the public study, which the Kinah attributes to the gates of Zion, unlikely given the time of the event. The word gate is added for two formal reasons and not to convey content: both for the sake of the rhyme, and to allude to Isaiah 28:6 as discussed below. All told, 25 of the 34 words in these four lines are taken directly from the account in the Talmud.
There is a certain irony that the Kinah is recited on a day when public Torah study is prohibited under Jewish law, recounting a rabbi who taught Torah publicly when it was prohibited under Roman law.
[8] Here, too, the Kinah borrows heavily from the language of the Talmud, although to a lesser degree, with 16 out of the 31 words, just over half, coming directly from the Talmud.
Rebbi Akiva’s death as a martyr is also mentioned in passing in Menachot 29b.
[9] This phrasing works off the praise given to a different translator-rabbi in Sukkah 28a, adapting the phrase slightly to match the needs of the rhyme and the acrostic.
[10] Somewhat surprisingly, all of the details of his death that appear in the Talmud are omitted from the Kinah, and are instead replaced with new details: that he was 70 years old when he was murdered, that he was fasting at the time, and that he was “clean and pious in his work to hurry it along.” There is reason to think that he rushed to ordain his students before his death, but the Talmud does not mention this detail.
[11] For a discussion of why there should be specifically ten, see Rabbeinu Bechayay to Bereishit 44:17.
[12] Including Rebbi Elazar ben Shamu’a in the list of martyrs is surprising, given that he died around the year 190, long after the other well-known martyrs, who would have been killed in the aftermath of the Bar Kochvah revolt. See Yaakov Jaffe, “‘Praiseworthy are You Talmidei Chachamim’ – Self-Definition, Torah Study, and Jewish Martyrdom” at https://seforimblog.com/2023/12/praiseworthy-are-you-talmidei-chachamim-self-definition-torah-study-and-jewish-martyrdom/ December 27th, 2023.
[13] There is an irony that the Kinah is recited on a day that Tefillin are not worn, though they are Biblically obligated.
An unnamed Ben-Dama dies a martyr’s death in Avoda Zara 27b, refusing treatment for a snakebite from Jacob of Kfar Sakhina the heretic; he isn’t actually killed by the Roman government like the other martyrs are, and Tefillin are not relevant to his death. It is not clear if this is the same figure the Kinah has in mind. It is conceivable that a rabbi and a heretic would have argued about Tefillin, since Tefillin are physical laws in the Hebrew Torah that Christians would argue has been surpassed by their new laws. For more on this heretic, see Yaakov Jaffe “Jacob the Heretic and Zecharia Meshulam and the Translation and Punctuation of Nehemiah 8:4” Jewish Bible Quarterly 47:3 (2019), 163.
[14] For more examples, see Yaakov Jaffe, Isaiah and his Contemporaries (New York: Kodesh Press, 2022), 58-59.
[15] Maharsha to Bechorot 37b, citing Arukh, argues that they were literally shield-bearers, but there is little in the context of the Talmud that encourages this reading.
[16] The word is spelled shin-mem-ayin, and should be vowelized in piel form shima, to announce or make heard (see Rashash to Brachot 15a). Because this word is sometimes mistakenly read as being in the kal form, shama, some printings removed the word, but it is clearly needed for the sake of the acrostic.
[17] The Kinah omits any discussion of the physical beauty of Rebbi Yishma’el, the impetus for removing his skin in the first place. The focus is on Jewish measures of value and worth, not Greco-Roman ones.
[18] Rebbi Elazar ben Shamu’a is stabbed at the penultimate word of Kiddush, unlike Rebbi Akiva who had died at the last word of Shema. The reason for this appears to be because the penultimate word of Kiddush is the name of God, and it resonates more deeply in the source Midrash than were he to die with the final word of Kiddush, “to make.”
[19] He asks to cry for the son of the “gvira,” referring to the son of Yehudah, the gvir of his brothers (Chronicles 1:5:2). The rhyme forces the word to take feminine form, but the Nassi was a male descendent of the paternal line of Yehudah.
[20] In a Kinah written with a Christian context in mind, the death of the righteous serving as atonement for humanity would also surely have resonated deeply.
[21] The phrase “the leftovers from her shall be eaten” is taken from the sacrificial laws in Vayikra 6:9. The Jewish people are called a dispersed lamb, and her enemies lions, in Jeremiah 50:7. In a moment of high artistry, the poet blends together the two verses, each containing the word “to eat,” and so one word makes allusion to two verses. Both of these verses invoke the notion of sacrifice, one through the explicit verbiage, and one through the lamb, often offered as a sacrifice in the Temple. Lastly, the final word in the Hebrew, “pezurah,” dispersed, is taken directly from Jeremiah and also perfectly matches the demand of the rhyme of the line.
[22] Using metonymy, the high priest is called coronet, ‘neizer’, which is worn by the high priest (Shemot 29:6), while the king is called the crown, ‘atarah,’ which king David wore (Shmuel 2:12:30, Avodah Zara 44a).
[23] The phrase “Harugei Malkhut” is a technical Talmudic phrase that refers to Jews who are killed by the secular government. Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava is given the title in Sanhedrin 11a, as are Rebbi Akiva and his colleagues along with the martyrs of Lod in Bava Batra 10b. Sanhedrin 47b seems to extend the term even beyond martyrs.
[24] Virtually all printings of the Kinot ignore this connection. See Goldschmidt, 82; Rosenfeld, 125; Avrohom Chaim Feuer and Avie Gold, The Complete Artscroll Tisha B’av Service (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1991), 248.
[25] For a discussion of Isaiah 2:13, see Yaakov Jaffe “This High Holidays: Are we Praying to be Raised or Praying to be Lowered?” at https://seforimblog.com/2025/09/this-high-holidays-are-we-praying-to-be-raised-or-praying-to-be-lowered/ September 29, 2005.
[26] The translation of the phrase is clunky. The last word, “behadara” typically means “in its glory,” but it also means “in her reply” in Aramaic. Goldschmidt (83) therefore translates this line that a voice of God replied that the merit of the martyrs shall last for generations. Still, one would not have constructed a sentence ending with the words “in her reply” were it not for the demands of the rhyme. A voice from Heaven is expected given the rest of Kinah, which references a voice of God replying to the deaths of two other martyrs: in lines 34-36 when describing the death of Rebbi Yeshvav (martyr #6), and in line 26 regarding Rebbi Akiva. The source Midrash also features many voices of Hashem which reply to the deaths of the martyrs.
[27] For more on the planet Jupiter and the name “tzedek,” see Shay Zucker, “Hebrew names of the planets,” The Role of Astronomy in Society and Culture, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, IAU Symposium, Volume 260 (2011), 301-305, available at https://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/2011IAUS..260..301Z
[28] The Kinah quotes from Isaiah 32:1 “A King will rule over Tzedek,” referring to a Messiah figure which Isaiah speaks about often. In the simple reading of the verse, Tzedek has one of two meanings. It could refer to the method of the Messiah’s rule, righteousness, a major motif of the book of Isaiah in general (see 1:21 et al.), and of the Tisha BeAv season (See Nefesh Harav (Jerusalem and New York: Flatbush Beth Hamedrosh, 1994), 140, describing the Torah reading in Brisk and Boston’s Maimonides Kehillah the week before the 9th of Av). Or, it could refer to the location of the Messiah’s rule, using a name long associated with Jerusalem (Bereishit 14:18, Joshua 10:1) to refer to the city. The Kinah exists in a polemical, anti-Christian context, and so it is noteworthy that Christians claimed that Isaiah 32:1 referred to their Deity; see “Sefer Nitzachon Yashan,” 244, Available at https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=2852&st=&pgnum=244&hilite=. Given the proximity to the notion of light in the previous and following lines, it seems reasonable to translate the word Jupiter in the context of the Kinah, referring to the star and the ministering angel associated with the star.
[29] See https://thelehrhaus.com/commentary/a-festive-song-with-an-unclear-message-uncovering-the-meaning-of-maoz-tzur/. Line 10 also alludes to Ovadia 11, another chapter about the battle between Esav and the Jew.
Site Operations and Technology by The Berman Consulting Group.