In the Kinnos of Tisha B’Av we recite: ‘Alei zivchei temideha u’fidyonei bechoreha, ve’al chillul klei Heichal u’mizbach ketoreha.’ The expression “u’fidyonei bechoreha” requires explanation. The mitzvah of pidyon haben was not abolished with the Churban, and it remains fully incumbent even in our own time. Why, then, does the payton lament the loss of “the redemptions of her firstborn?” I heard from Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, rosh yeshivas Brisk, in the name of his father, Maran HaGriz, that the kinah is not referring to the mitzvah of pidyon haben. Rather, it mourns the cessation of the avodas halevi’im in the Bais Hamikdosh. In the poetic language of the payton, the levi’im are called “pidyonei bechoreha,” for they constituted the redemption and substitution of the bechorim in the Midbar.

According to this yesod, it may be possible to explain the opening words as well. Perhaps the correct reading is not “zivchei temideha,” the sacrifices of her daily offerings, but “zovchei temideha,” those who slaughtered her daily offerings. The reference would thus be to the kohanim, in accordance with the posuk, “Vezeh yihyeh mishpat hakohanim me’is haam me’is zovchei hazevach.” The payton accordingly mourns “alei zovchei temideha u’fidyonei bechoreha,” the kohanim who performed the avodas hatomid and the levi’im who served in the Mikdosh. With the Churban, both avodos ceased.

Many years ago, I heard from Rav Yitzchok Hutner, in the name of a certain gadol (“Kach mekublani me’kedoshei elyon”) that the text should be emended. Instead of “u’fidyonei bechoreha,” it should read “veyonei bikkureha,” with the beis of “bikkureha” pronounced with a chirik and the kaf with a dogesh. The phrase would then mean “the doves of her bikkurim,” referring to the young birds brought together with the baskets of bikkurim. Since bikkurim applies only while the Bais Hamikdosh is standing, these offerings indeed ceased with the Churban. The Mishnah in Bikkurim (3, 5) states: “Hagozalos she’al gabei hasolim hayu olos.” The birds placed upon the baskets were korev as olos. The payton may thus be contrasting two categories of korbanos that were lost. “Zivchei temideha” refers to the beheimas olah of the korban tomid, while “yonei bikkureha” refers to the bird olos that accompanied the bikkurim.

There is, however, a further possibility by which “u’fidyonei bechoreha” may be understood in its literal sense. The Gemara in Bava Basra 60b records the words of Rabi Yishmoel ben Elisha: “Miyom shechorav Bais Hamikdosh, din hu shenigzor al atzmeinu shelo nochal bosor velo nishteh yayin, ela she’ein gozrin gezeirah al hatzibbur ela im kein rov hatzibbur yecholin laamod bah. Um’yom sheposhtah malchus Edom shegozeres aleinu gezeiros kashos, um’vateles mimenu Torah u’mitzvos, ve’einah manochas osanu likaneis lishvuah haben, ve’amri lah liyeshuah haben, din hu shenigzor al atzmeinu shelo lisa isha veleholid bonim.” Rashi explains (Bava Kamma 80a) that “yeshua haben” means the seudah of pidyon haben, since “yeshuah” denotes redemption, “purkan,” corresponding to “pidyon.”

Accordingly, “u’fidyonei bechoreha” may indeed refer to pidyon haben itself. The wicked Roman kingdom issued gezeiros preventing Jews from assembling for a pidyon haben. The payton therefore laments both “zivchei temideha,” the korban tomid that was abolished, and “pidyonei bechoreha,” the mitzvah whose observance was suppressed by Roman persecution during the era of the Churban. Indeed, this stanza may revolve around Rabi Yishmoel ben Elisha, who served as Kohen Gadol during the closing period of the Second Bais Hamikdosh.

The Mishnah in Taanis (29a) teaches that one of the calamities of Shiva Asar B’Tammuz was “u’vatal hatomid.” The Meleches Shlomo writes that, according to the received tradition, the tomid was abolished by gezeirah of the wicked kingdom three and a half years before the Churban. This corresponds to the posuk in Doniel (12:11), “Umei’eis husar hatomid velaseis shikutz shomeim yomim elef mosayim vetishim.” The Ibn Ezra likewise explains that the Second Bais Hamikdosh remained without the olah for nearly three and a half years before it was destroyed. The cessation of the tomid thus occurred during the period in which Rabi Yishmoel served as Kohen Gadol. This is the lament of “alei zivchei temideha.” The continuation, “u’fidyonei bechoreha,” alludes to the Roman gezeirah against pidyon haben, explicitly described by Rabi Yishmoel himself.

The payton then mourns “ve’al chillul klei Heichal.” The Gemara in Gittin 56b describes how Titus entered the Kodesh Kodoshim, desecrated it, and pierced the paroches with his sword, whereupon blood miraculously emerged. Rabi Yishmoel, as Kohen Gadol, was uniquely associated with the kedusha of the Kodesh Kodoshim. He relates in Brachos 7a: “Paam achas nichnasti lehaktir ketores lifnai velifnim, vero’isi Akasriel Kah Hashem Tzevakos yoshev al kisei ram venisa.” Thus, “chillul klei Heichal” evokes the profanation of the very domain into which Rabi Yishmoel had entered in kedusha.

The concluding words, “umizbach ketoreha,” may refer to the chavitin of the Kohen Gadol, half of which were offered with the morning tomid and half with the afternoon tomid. The Rambam in Hilchos Temidin U’musafin (3, 19) rules: “Kohen Gadol metzuveh bemitzvos aseh lehakriv chavitin bechol yom, mechtzah baboker im tomid shel shachar, umechtzah bein ha’arbayim im tomid shel bein ha’arbayim.” A tradition is cited in the name of Rav Chaim Brisker that the chavitin are considered an integral part of the korban tomid. Hence, when the tomid was abolished, the daily chavitin of the Kohen Gadol ceased as well. “U’mizbach ketoreha” may therefore be the personal lament of Rabi Yishmoel, the Kohen Gadol, over the loss of his own daily avodah.

Thus, each phrase of the stanza reflects a dimension of the Churban bound to the world of Rabi Yishmoel ben Elisha: the abolition of the tomid, the Roman persecution of pidyon haben, the chillul of the Heichal, and the cessation of the Kohen Gadol’s daily mincha. The payton gathered these separate calamities into a single, carefully fashioned kinah, in which every expression contains an entire sugya.