Insights into Kinah 11: The Eulogy for Yoshiyahu HaMelech

f the myriad Tisha B’Av Kinnos recited by Ashkenazic Jewry, the dirge devoted to Rabbi Elchanan Adler Othe tragic, untimely death of King Rosh Yeshiva, RIETS Yoshiyahu (no. 11 in most editions of Ashkenazi Kinnos) is especially poignant. Thiskinnah , like many of the others, was composed by R. Elazar his reign, he set the Jewish people the righteousness of his people and HaKalir, whose name is synonymous back on the path of , cleansed thinking that they were worthy of 4 with the genre of Ashkenazi piyut the Beis HaMikdash and rid the Land this blessing. The Midrash Eicha( (poetic liturgical compositions). of idolatry. Yoshiyahu was tragically Rabbah 1:57), provides further While the identity of HaKalir and killed in battle when he tried to stop detail: Yoshiyahu assumed that he the time period in which he lived are Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt, from had successfully eradicated idolatry the subject of much discussion and passing through Eretz Yisrael in from all Jewish homes after having debate,1 the high regard with which he order to reach the Euphrates to wage sent messengers to inspect each and his compositions have long been war. The pasuk in Divrei HaYamim home. However, unbeknown to held are undeniable.2 (2, 35:25) records that Yirmiyahu the inspectors, there were some composed a kinnah upon the tragedy duplicitous people who stealthily R. Elazar HaKalir’s kinnos generally of Yoshiyahu’s death. Tradition placed half an idol on each side of the follow an aleph-beis acrostic teaches that this kinnah is the fourth door so that when the doors would or a permutation of the aleph- chapter of Eicha. open, the idols could not be seen but beis (reverse aleph-beis or at’bash), once closed, the idols became visible The Gemara Ta’anis( 22b) relates and are based on the language of one again. or more perakim in Tanach. Often his that Yoshiyahu was punished for name, Elazar, is encoded as an acrostic not consulting with Yirmiyahu Each line of this kinnah is replete at the conclusion of the composition. about whether to wage battle against with myriad scriptural and midrashic Pharaoh Necho. Midrashic sources allusions. A close analysis of these The literary structure ofkinnah no. 11 indicate that Yoshiyahu disregarded a connections yields many precious is patterned after the fourth chapter warning issued to him by Yirmiyahu insights. Unfortunately, space of Eicha, with each stanza beginning not to block Pharaoh Necho’s entry constraints do not allow us to focus on with the corresponding opening word into the land (see later discussion). the in its entirety, but only on 3 kinnah of a pasuk in this chapter. Chazal Yoshiyahu’s reasoning was based on several key sentences.5 (quoted by to Eicha) interpret the biblical assurance that “a sword the fourth chapter of Eicha as a איכה אלי קוננו מאליו ”shall not pass through your land eulogy for King Yoshiyahu. Yoshiyahu (Vayikra 26:6), which Yoshiyahu Cry out “Eicha” for one of the inherited the throne from his father, interpreted as referring even to a mighty ones Amon, and his grandfather, Menashe, “sword of peace” (i.e. an army that both of whom led the Jewish people doesn’t plan on waging war with Theshoresh (root) of the word “eilav” down a path of spiritual depravity. Israel). The Gemara (ibid) explains would seem to be “eil,” which means Yoshiyahu ascended the throne at the that Yoshiyahu erred in overestimating “mighty,” just as we find in the word age of 8 and ruled for 31 years. During

5 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Tisha B’av 5776 ,the midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah בן שמונה שנה החל לדרוש מאלקיוba’eilim (Shemos 16:11), which Rashi 6 translates as ba’chazakim, among the At the age of eight he began Chukas no. 19), includes Avraham mighty. Accordingly, this sentence to inquire about his G-d and Yoshiyahu in a list of personalities would be rendered “Cry out ‘Eicha’ for and paradigms that defy the trend one of the mighty ones” — namely, The simple reading of this sentence embodied by their respective King Yoshiyahu. Alternatively, “one implies that Yoshiyahu began precursors. The midrash hails this of the mighty ones” may refer to the his spiritual quest when he was phenomenon as a remarkable extraordinary individual who recited 8 years old, the year he became manifestation of the all-encompassing Eicha for Yoshiyahu — namely, king. However, the verse in Divrei unity of the Master of the Universe: Hayamim (2, 34:3) indicates זש"ה )איוב יד( מי יתן טהור מטמא לא אחד, Yimriyahu. If so, the phrase should be otherwise: כגון אברהם מתרח, חזקיה מאחז, יאשיה rendered “A cry of ‘Eicha’ came from מאמון ... העולם הבא מעולם הזה מי עשה כן ּובִשְ מֹונֶהשָ נִים לְמָ לְכֹו וְהּואעֹודֶ ּנּו נַעַר הֵחֵ ל ”.one of the mighty ones מי צוה כן מי גזר כן לא יחידו של עולם. לִדְ רֹו לֵש אֹלקֵי דָ וִיד אָבִ יו ּובִשְתֵים עֶשְרֵה שָ נָה An entirely different interpretation of That which the verse states “Who can להֵחֵ לְטַהֵר אֶ ת היְהּודָ וִירּושָ לַ ִם מִן הַבָ מֹות this sentence appears in a 16th-century ”!produce purity out of impurity? No one וְהָאֲשֵרִ ים וְהַפְסִ לִים וְהַמַסֵ כֹות. commentary on the Kinnos authored by R. Yosef ben Asher, which notes a In the eighth year of his reign, while — For example: Avraham from Terach, verse in Yechezkel (41:1) that refers he was yet young, he began to seek out Chizkiyah from Achaz, Yoshiyahu from to doorposts as eilim (see Metzudas the G-d of David his father; and in the Amon … the World to Come from this Dovid there). As such, the kinnah twelfth year he began to purge Judah world. Who did this? Who commanded implores us to cry out for the sin and Jerusalem of the high places, and the this? Who decreed this? [It was] none of idolatry that was performed by Asherim, and the graven images, and the other than the one and only [Creator] of suspending idols on the doorposts molten images. the World. of the homes (as referenced in the Thispasuk suggests that Yoshiyahu’s Yoshiyahu’s youthful stirrings to introduction). quest for G-d did not begin until the abandon the idolatrous lifestyle It is noteworthy that R. Elazar eighth year of his reign, rather than the within which he was reared, laid HaKalir utilizes the root aleph eighth year of his life (when he first the groundwork for his subsequent lamed twice in this line, once with became king). campaign to purge idolatry from the word eli, which means to cry, Interestingly, Radak translates the the land. Interestingly, Yoshiyahu’s and once with me’elav, which, as verse as “In the eighth year of his life, calling, along with his very name, were noted, means either “mighty” or when he started to rule, while he was foreshadowed many years earlier in an “doorposts.” [Interestingly, the “aleph yet young, he began to seek etc.”7 episode recorded in Sefer Melachim lamed” combination appears in the Ostensibly, Rav Elazar HaKalir follows (1, 13:1-2), in which a prophet of next sentence as well.] Perhaps the this translation.8 Hashem appeared to the wicked King recurrent use of the aleph lamed root Yeravam as he prepared to offer an is an allusion to the 31 years that Yoshiyahu was not the first person to idolatrous sacrifice upon the altar in Yoshiyahu reigned (Divrei Hayamim recognize G-d in his youth. Chazal Beis El: II 34:1), which corresponds to the have a tradition that Avraham Avinu וַּיִקְרָ א עַ ל הַ ִמזְבֵחַ ב רִדְבַ ה' וַּיֹאמֶר מִ זְבֵחַ מִ זְבֵחַ .also recognized G-d at a young age ּכֹה אָמַר ה' הִ ּנֵה בֵן נֹולָד לְבֵ ית ָ דוִ ד יֹא ִ שּיָהּו numeric value (gematria) of the letters aleph lamed (1 + 30). Like Avraham, Yoshiyahu was the ְ מֹוש וְזָבַחעָלֶיָך תאֶ ּכֹהֲ נֵי הַ ָבמֹות הַ מַקְטִרִ ים ,son of an idol worshipper. Indeed עָלֶיָך וְעַצְמֹות אָדָ ם יִ ְרְ שפּו עָלֶ יָך:

6 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Tisha B’av 5776 He called out to the altar, by the word of Meiri writes: This sentence, as well as subsequent sentences in the kinnah, suggest that דייני ישראל וחכמיהם ומנהיגיהם צריכים הם Hashem, and said: “Altar, altar! Thus Yirmiyahu had advised Yoshiyahu לפשפש תמיד ולחזר ולחקור על מעשה בני said Hashem: Behold a son will be born not to engage in battle with Pharaoh עירם ואין להם התנצלות כשיעשו הראוי על to the house of David — Yoshiyahu will Necho, and Yoshiyahu chose to defy הנגלה הבא לידם אלא צריכים לחקור ולרגל be his name — and he will slaughter these clear instructions. A number אחר הנסתרות כפי יכלתם וכל שמתרשלים ,upon you the priests of the high places .of questions present themselves בכך הרי הכל נענשים בנסתריהם של חוטאים who burn sacrifices upon you; human First, in what manner did the navi שכל ישראל נעשו ערבים זה לזה. ”.bones will be burnt upon you (Yirmiyahu) warn Yoshiyahu not to This episode suggests that on The judges of Israel, its scholars and deny passage to Pharaoh Necho — in some mystical level Yoshiyahu was its leaders, must constantly probe and person or via an emissary? Second, at predisposed from birth toward what investigate the deeds of the people of their what point was the warning issued — was to become his life’s mission and city. They are not free from guilt if they 9 before Yoshiyahu amassed his troops ultimate legacy. merely acted appropriately regarding or afterwards? Third, was Yirmiyahu’s issues that are well-known and which warning based on an actual prophecy make their way to them; they must ?that he had received from Hashem דבק בו חטא ליצני הדור אשר אחר proactively probe and “spy out” the Fourth, if so, how could Yoshiyahu הדלת קמו לסדור The sin of the generation’s private deeds to their utmost ability, and justify disregarding it? scoffers clung to him, those those who are delinquent in doing so who set up [the idols] behind are punished for the private deeds of the A cursory reading of the pesukim the doors sinners because all of Israel have become in Divrei Hayamim suggests that guarantors for one another. Yirmiyahu’s message was delivered The word davak, clung, alludes to Rabbeinu Yonah (in his commentary by Pharaoh Necho as the word of the notion of areivus, that each Jew to Sanhedrin) writes: Hashem after Yoshiyahu had already .amassed his soldiers for battle לפי שאי אפשר שלא יכירו שום פגם כשהוא is responsible for the sinful actions Additionally, the phrase “lashuv עובר בסתר. of other Jews. Why was Yoshiyahu — “to turn around” — punished? How was Yoshiyahu Because it is impossible that they will not achorayim” employed by R. Elazar HaKalir, supposed to know that some notice some fault when the sinners sin implies that the prophet’s warning was people were worshipping idols in a clandestinely. clandestine manner? R. Soloveitchik issued after Yoshiyahu had set out to answered that as a leader, Yoshiyahu By his choice of the word davak, confront the forces of Pharaoh Necho. was indeed expected to know his R. Elazar HaKalir is providing a This too would suggest that the people (The Lord is Righteous in All His profound insight into the concept warning was issued via a third party. Ways pg. 280, see also commentary in of areivus. The punishment is not Had Yirmiyahu delivered the message Mesoret HaRav Kinot). merely a technical violation for not to Yoshiyahu in person, logic would investigating the private matters of dictate that such a conversation take We might expand on this insight the people. It is a natural consequence place before Yoshiyahu went out to by examining more closely the that flows from failed leadership. A war rather than on the battlefield. concept of areivus. The Gemara leader must have his pulse on the (Sanhedrin 43b-44a) quotes a dispute conduct of his people. Even when The basis for Yoshiyahu’s disregarding among the Tannaim as to whether not initially privy to their specific the prophet’s warning would also there is punishment for the hidden deeds, he must do all within his seemingly hinge on the above issue. sins of others (nistaros). R. Yehuda’s power to probe the intensity of their Assuming that the message was opinion is that punishment is, in fact, commitment. Otherwise, their sins delivered merely by Pharaoh Necho, meted out for hidden sins. Rashi will automatically cling to him.10 Yoshiyahu might have had good explains that this is primarily directed reason to doubt that Pharaoh Necho toward the leaders. According to R. was honestly conveying a message לא שמע לחוזה לשוב אחורים Yehuda, the leaders are responsible for from the prophet. If, however, He did not listen to the the hidden sins of others. the warning came directly from prophet to turn back

7 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Tisha B’av 5776 Yirmiyahu, it is difficult to understand exchange between Yirmiyahu and was conveyed via Pharaoh Necho (see why Yoshiyahu felt justified in Yoshiyahu regarding whether to above), the plural “they” may refer to ignoring it. All of this would suggest deny access to Pharaoh Necho. In Yirmiyahu and Pharaoh Necho.12 that the Navi’s message was delivered support of his position, Yirmiyahu פני קרב כקרב ולא עלתה לו רטיה to Yoshiyahu at the battlefield via invoked a prophecy of Yeshayahu ויורו המורים למלך יאשיה proxy, most likely by none other than which implied that Israel stay above Pharaon Necho. the fray as “Egypt battles Egypt.” The As he approached the This approach is supported by the next line in the kinnah also references battlefront, no bandage was comments of Radak (Melachim 2, this prophecy of Yeshayahu. If a available, and the archers 23:29) who states: direct conversation was held, then shot at King Yoshiyah apparently Yirmiyahu visited the battlefield to convince Yoshiyahu The presentation of these events ונענש יאשיהו לפי שלא שמע יאשיהו אליו כי ,to reverse course. Alternatively, it is seems out of sequence. Seemingly מפי אלקים היה אומר לו כמו שאומר בדברי conceivable that Yirmiyahu issued after Yoshiyahu was shot it was הימים ולא שמע אל דבר נכה כי ירמיהו an initial warning in person prior to determined that no bandage was התנבא בזה וכן אמרו רז"ל כי אלקים האמור Yoshiyahu’s amassing his troops, and a available. Why does R. Elazar HaKalir ביאשיהו קדש. Yoshiyahu was punished because he subsequent warning via proxy calling reverse the order of events?13 did not listen to him [Pharaoh Necho] on Yoshiyahu to turn back from the A simple solution is to read the because he was telling it to him in the battlefield. name of Hashem. Our Rabbis say that sentence in reverse: “no bandage was As to why Yoshiyahu disobeyed when it states [from the word of] Elokim available after the archers shot.” On a the words of the prophet, perhaps it refers to the Divine. deeper level, however, we may resolve Yoshiyahu felt that the warning was this literary anomaly in light of the However, the midrash (Eicha Rabbah not based on a received prophecy Talmudic teaching (Megillah 13b) that 1:57) records a face-to-face encounter but merely on logical inferences Hashem first creates the remedy and between Yirmiyahu and Yoshiyahu: that Yirmiyahu drew from the afterwards inflicts the wound. In other aforementioned prophecy of words, Hashem normally doesn’t ולא הסב יאשיהו פניו ולא שמע אל דברי נכו 11 Yeshayahu. To this, Yoshiyahu bring suffering upon His people מפי אלקים זה ירמיהו שאמר ליאשיהו כך provided a logical counterargument unless He has already set into motion מקובלני מישעיה רבי )ישעיה י"ט( וסכסכתי as recorded in the midrash), and the process of the cure. R. Elazar) מצרים במצרים ולא שמע לו אלא א"ל משה persevered in his military campaign HaKalir alludes here to the fact that רבה דרבך לא כך אמר )ויקרא כ"ו( וחרב לא against the forces of Pharaoh Necho. this special Divine quality was absent תעבור בארצכם וחרבו של אותו רשע עוברת in Yoshiyahu’s case; hence, there was בארצי ובתחומי. no prepared remedy in place before סורו העידו עד לא שאיה The verse states] “Yoshiyahu didn’t] turn his focus away and did not listen They warned “turn back” the archers shot at Yoshiyahu. to the words of Necho in the name of before the disaster קלים הטו אחריו אוזן מוצא פיהו ... God.” This refers to Yirmiyahu who צדיק הוא ה' כי מריתי פיהו said to Yoshiyahu, “I have received from Thekinnah uses plural language Yeshayah, my teacher: ‘I will confound — they warned. What is meant by The light-footed bent behind Egypt with Egypt’ (i.e. you should “they”? As we have seen, the warning him to hear [the words] let them fight their own wars without seemingly came from only one emanating from his mouth … intervening).” Yoshiyahu responded, prophet — namely, Yirmiyahu. Hashem is the righteous one “Didn’t Moshe, the teacher of your We may suggest that because for I have disobeyed His word teacher, state ‘a sword shall not pass Yirmiyahu attributed his warning to through your land,’ and I shall allow a tradition received from Yeshayahu, This line of thekinnah is based on the sword of this evil person to pass it is as if both he and Yeshayahu had the verse (Eicha 1:18), “Tzaddik hu through my land in my borders?” issued the warning. Alternatively, Hashem ki fihu marisi — Hashem is just for I have rebelled against His The midrash records a verbal assuming that Yirmiyahu’s message word.” The midrash Eicha( Rabbah

8 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Tisha B’av 5776 1:53) and the Gemara (Taanis 22b) not. both note that Yirmiyahu overheard Rabbi Joseph B. Yoshiyahu uttering these words of Soloveitchik zt”l on ויקונן עליו כל איכה יועם confession just before his death. Yet And he lamented for him all there is a notable difference between of “Alas, the gold is dimmed” R. Elazar HaKalir the presentation of the midrash and and his Piyyutim that of the Gemara. The midrash states R. Elazar HaKalir alludes here to the “Kalir was the avi ha-paytaniim, the following: fact that when Yoshiyahu was killed, the “father” of all liturgical poets; Yirmiyahu composed the fourth he dared to do more than any והיה ירמיהו מצית אחריו לידע מהו אומר ומה chapter of Eicha — Eicha yu’am zahav other paytan. He simply had the היה אומר צדיק הוא ה' כי פיהו מריתי פיהו ,Alas, the gold is dimmed) — in at his disposal) ופום סרסורו. Yirmiyahu was listening from behind eulogical tribute. Thekinnah implies and he fashioned and refashioned to know what he would say. What was that the entire fourth chapter of Eicha it, cast and recast its words. That he saying? “Hashem is just for I have serves as a eulogy for Yoshiyahu. Yet is why the text is very difficult, rebelled against His word and the word when one examines the specific verses although most of the words of His messenger.” in the chapter, there are only a few he introduced are still in use. scattered references to Yoshiyahu; The Gemara states: There are times when he writes most of it concerns the churban in so obscurely that it is almost general. impossible to decode what he כי הוה ניחא נפשיה חזא ירמיהו שפוותיה דקא An answer may be gleaned by means. Those who do not know מרחשן אמר שמא ח"ו מילתא דלא מהגנא examining the verse in Divrei either Hebrew or aggadot Hazal אמר אגב צעריה גחין ושמעיה דקא מצדיק Hayamim (2, 35:25) which implies find ha-Kalir’s piyyutim boring. But עליה דינא אנפשיה אמר )איכה א, יח( צדיק that Yirmiyahu’s eulogizing Yoshiyahu they are not boring at all; they are הוא ה' כי פיהו מריתי. As Yoshiyahu was dying, Yirmiyahu saw set a precedent for future generations: like a gold mine.” (pp. 142-143) that his lips were moving. [Yirmiyahu] TheHakhmei Yisrael chose“ וַיְקֹונֵן יִרְ מְ יָהּו עַ ל יֹאשִ ָּיהּו וַ ּיֹאמְרּו כָל הַשָרִ ים said, “Maybe G-d forbid, he might say the kinot of Kalir for the וְהַשָ רֹות בְקִינֹותֵיהֶם עַ ל יֹאשִ ָהּו ּיעַד הַ ּיֹום something inappropriate because of very important purpose of וַ ּיִתְ נּום לְ חֹק עַ ל יִשְרָאֵ ל וְ הִ ּנָם ְ ּכתּובִים עַ ל his suffering.” He bent over and heard commemorating hurban הַקִ ינֹות. Yoshiyahu] accepting his judgment] saying: “Hashem is just for I have Yirmiyahu lamented over Yoshiyahu; Yerushalayim because they rebelled against His word.” and all the men and women singers trusted that he would not change spoke of Yoshiyahu in their lamentations, any halakhic practices and that Why does the midrash add the words until this day; and they made them an his kinot would be exactly in “and the word of His messenger” ordinance in Israel; and, behold, they are accordance with their traditions. while the Gemara omits it? Perhaps written in the lamentations. The trusted him, and he wrote the variance can be traced to what his under their supervision.” What was the ordinance that was kinot we have noted earlier regarding the (pg. 139) nature of Yoshiyahu’s sin. According instituted? Rashi writes: On Tish’ah be’Av day, we study“ כשמזדמן להם שום צער ובכיה שהם מקוננים to the midrash, Yoshiyahu disobeyed ,Mishnah, Gemara, and Midrash ובוכים על המאורע הם מזכירים זה הצער the clear instructions of Yirmiyahu all in the form of kinot written by עמו דוגמא בתשעה באב שמזכירים קינות על who had warned him not to wage -great scholars like Rabbi El’azar ha ההרוגים בגזירות שאירעו בימינו כן יבכיון על .battle against Pharaoh Necho Kalir. On Tish’ah be’Av day, Kalir is מות יאשיהו. ,According to the Gemara, however the commentator, the meturgaman Yoshiyahu never received a warning When the Jewish people experience any par excellence, who interprets from Yirmiyahu. His sin was that he form of suffering or grief that causes Eikhah in halakhic, midrashic and rebelled against Hashem by failing them to lament and cry over that event, aggadic terms.” (pg. 99) to consult with the prophet. As such, they will mention this tragedy (i.e. the the midrash adds “and the word of his death of Yoshiyahu) along with it. As from The Lord is Righteous in All His Ways messenger” while the Gemara does an example, on Tisha B’Av, when we

9 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Tisha B’av 5776 mention those who were killed during the only the king was killed, giving each Why does the kinnah end with this persecutions that occurred in our times, tragedy the appellation of an “eivel thought? This sentence highlights we cry over the death of Yoshiyahu as yachid” — the mourning over a single the flawed mindset that prevailed at well. charismatic leader.16 that time. Yoshiyahu was convinced Rashi’s comments indicate that a On a mystical level, the common that the spiritual damage that had precedent was established to include circumstances surrounding the been caused by his predecessors mention of Yoshiyahu’s death in respective deaths of Yoshiyahu had been successfully undone, that connection with mourning over and Achav reflect a kabbalistic the Jews were righteous and that other national tragedies. As such, the tradition that Yoshiyahu’s soul was a the churban would be averted. In addition, many Jews turned a blind fourth chapter of Eicha would serve reincarnation of that of King Achav. eye to Yirmiyahu’s prophecies of as a perfect illustration of this very Hence, Yoshiyahu’s unique calling impending doom and sought solace institution. While the majority of the in life was to rid the land of idolatry, in the false hopes offered by charlatan chapter does not directly bemoan the thereby “remedying” the sins of Achav prophets. However, the sad reality death of Yoshiyahu, the references who was responsible for spreading 17 was that notwithstanding Yoshiyahu’s at the beginning and end of the idolatry in the Land of Israel. herculean efforts and amazing success chapter serve to place the tragedy of in elevating Israel’s spiritual level, Yoshiyahu’s death within the larger the damage was irreversible and the כי ספדו לו איכה בעשרים אותיות context of mourning the churban, Because they eulogized him churban was inevitable. Moreover, precisely because Yoshiyahu’s death with the 22 letters of Eicha pockets of idolatry still existed serves as the quintessential paradigm throughout the land, as evidenced of Jewish tragedy. This line refers to the fact that the by the “scoffers who set up idols fourth chapter of Eicha serves as a behind the doors” (see commentary eulogy for Yoshiyahu. This reinforces above). Yoshiyahu’s death serves as a תם במקרה אחד כוס מגידו לשתות The innocent one14 the idea mentioned earlier that lesson to future generations never to experienced the same event although only a few verses directly be complacent with the status quo. by drinking the cup (of refer to Yoshiyahu, the entire chapter Perhaps this is also why Yoshiyahu’s suffering) at Meggido. is considered a eulogical tribute given death has become an integral part of that Yoshiyahu’s death is interwoven Kinnos for all generations. This line is a reference to a midrash within the description of national (Vayikra Rabbah, Acharei Mos no. tragedy. 20) that notes the bitter irony that Notes The sentence emphasizes that the righteous Yoshiyahu, who was because Yoshiyahu was eulogized killed by archers in the battlefield (of 1 Many Rishonim assume that R. Elazar appropriately (with recourse to the 22 Megiddo), suffered the same fate as HaKalir was a Tanna. Tosafos (Chagigah 13a, letters of thealeph beis in chapter 4 of s.v. V’raglei) and the Rosh (Berachos chapter the wicked King Achav who was also 5 #21) assume that he was R. Elazar the son 15 Eicha), the churban was postponed for slain by archers on the battlefield. In 18 22 years. of R. Shimon bar Yochai. [See, however, a similar vein, the Gemara (Megillah Mor U’ketziah (OC 112) who quotes the 3a, Moed Katan 28b) equates the Arizal as attesting that HaKalir contained the “spark of the soul” (nitzotz nishmas) of זמותי כי לעד יאהילי mass eulogy of Yoshiyahu to that of I thought that He would R. Elazar b. Shimon. See also the Chida’s Achav. Maharsha (Mo’ed Katan 28b) forever shelter me Machzik Bracha, ibid.] According to the notes that both of these eulogies Rashba (Teshuvos Harashba 1:469), he was are associated with battles in which R. Elazar ben Arach. Others consider the

Find more shiurim and articles from Rabbi Elchanan Adler at http://www.yutorah.org/Rabbi-Elchanan-Adler

10 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Tisha B’av 5776 possibility that HaKalir was R. Elazar b. refer to http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/ was a function of rabbinic interpretation Yaakov or R. Eliezer b. Hurkinus (Tzemach lecture.cfm/780541/rabbi-elchanan-adler/ rather than of received prophecy. Dovid, 4: 833). On the other hand, Rav Yosef analyzing-kina-11-the-tragic-death-of- Steinhart (Zichron Yosef, Orach Chaim, no. yoshiyau-hamelech/ 12 The same question can be raised with 13), speculates based on the language of some regard to the next words of the kinnah: of HaKalir’s piyyutim, that he lived in the 6 Some versions have me’elav — of his own vayima’anu sur — And they refused to turn Geonic period. This view was also held by [accord], highlighting the fact that Yoshiyahu’s back. To whom does “they” refer? Perhaps it R. Wolf Heidenheim and R. Shlomo Yehuda spiritual quest occurred without his having is a reference to Yoshiyahu and the soldiers Rappaport (Shir). [See, however, a critique of recourse to a mentor or teacher. who had amassed for battle. this opinion in Noda Bi’Yehuda (Orach Chaim 7 Radak may have been led to this 13 Some versions of the kinnah substitute the 2, #113).] See also lengthy discussion in interpretation by the syntax of the verse: word shei’yah, prayer, for retiyah, bandage. As Shu”t Teshuva Me’ahava by R. Elazar Fleckeles “uvishmoneh shanim l’malcho.” Had the pasuk such, the sentence reads well and states that (Orach Chaim 1:1). Most contemporary meant “In the eighth year of his reign,” Yoshiyahu’s prayers on the battlefield were not scholars place him within the Byzantine it should have stated “uvishnas shmoneh accepted. th period (early 7 century). l’malcho.” 14 An alternative rendition might be “He was 2 HaKalir’s compositions are often cited 8 Some suggest a more homiletical depleted through experiencing the same event and discussed by Rashi, Tosafos and many interpretation: once ascending the throne etc.” Rishonim. For a sample listing, see Shu”t Yoshiyahu was, in a sense, reborn. Hence, Teshuva Me’ahava ibid. For an eloquent the eighth year of his reign is considered the 15 The midrashic observation is based on defense of HaKalir’s intricate linguistic style, eighth year of his “new” life. a verse in Koheles (9:2), which speaks of and the genre of piyut in general, see Nesivos “mikreh echad” (an identical fate) that befall Olam (Maharal of Prague), Nesiv Ha’Avodah, 9 For an elaboration of this idea, see Pirkei the righteous as well as the wicked. Hence, R. # 12. de’Rebbi Eliezer chapters 17 and 32, and the Elazar’s HaKalir’s use of the phrase “be’mikreh comments of R. Eliyahu Haitamari referenced echad.” 3 In one instance (stanza beginning with the in note 17. words “Vayigdal avon”), HaKalir utilizes the 16 The assumption that Yoshiyau was the sole opening two words of the verse. 10 Additionally, the word davak may allude casualty of the battle is seemingly inconsistent to the concept of vicarious atonement — with an earlier line of the kinnah, “Kilah 4 The Artscroll commentary toKinnos adds: namely, that Yoshiyahu died on account of the hamonai leches Aram Nahrayim,” which the “He ignored the prophet’s harsh warning and sins of the generation and his death atoned for commentaries render as “He [Yoshiyahu] instead sought advice from the prophetess the generation’s sins in a manner similar to the destroyed my multitudes [of Jewish soldiers] Huldah whom he felt would see things in offering of a korban. This notion is implicit by going forth [in battle] toward Aram a more sympathetic light.” This sentence in a midrashic interpretation cited by Pirkei Naharyim” (see Goldschmidt edition of is factually misleading. In fact, the advice deRebbi Eliezer (chapter 17) on the pasuk Kinnos as well as Kinnos HaMeforash). that Yoshiyahu sought from the Prophetess (Yeshayau 57:1) “Tzadik avad . . . be’ein meivin Other commentaries, however, interpret Chuldah occurred years earlier in the wake ki mipnei ha’ra’ah ne’esaf hatzadik,” which this as referring to Yoshiyahu’s blocking of a discovery of an ancient Torah Scroll, the commentaries note refers to the death of the multitudes of Egyptian soldiers from which was open to an ominous verse within Yoshiyahu. [See, however, Rashi (ibid) who passing through Israel to reach the Euphrates the tochacha, and bears no connection to interprets mipnei ha’ra’ah ne’esaf hatzadik in a (see Peirush Kadmon as well as Artscroll). Yoshiyahu’s confronting Pharaoh Necho different manner.] The equating of Yoshiyahu According to this interpretation, Maharsha’s in the battlefield against the wishes of with the status of a communal offering is also assumption remains tenable. Yirmiyahu. The pairing of the two events is a noted by R. Soloveitchik (See Mesoret HaRav glaring error which will hopefully be deleted Kinot, P. 297). This concept deserves greater 17 See “Velo Od Ela” (by R. Eliyahu in future editions. elucidation. Haitamari, author of Shevet Musar), in the section on Pirkei deRebbi Eliezer, chapter 17. 5 The insights presented here are culled from 11 Indeed, the language of the midrash speaks a lengthy pre-Tisha B’Av shiur which dealt of Yirmiyahu’s referring to a tradition that 18 For a beautiful explanation of the with the entire kinnah. For those interested, he received from “my mentor Yeshayahu” significance of the eulogy’s being based on the shiur can be heard on YUTorah, please (Yeshayahu Rabi), implying that the matter the 22 letters of the , see the commentary in the Mesoret HaRav Kinnot.

11 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary • The Benjamin and Rose Berger CJF Torah To-Go Series • Tisha B’av 5776