This seliḥah poem, written by R. Joseph of Chartres, commemorates the martyrdom of approximately 150 Jews in Clifford’s Tower, York, England, in the year 1190. A summary of the events of 1190, sometimes referred to as “the English Masada,” can be found here. Like many medieval Jewish poems about massacres, Elohim B’alunu carefully treads the line between assuming guilt and declaring innocence. This poem, interestingly enough, directly calls out the person seen by R. Joseph of Chartres as ultimately responsible — the crusader King Richard Ⅰ. Beloved in Christian memory, this radical zealot of a king has a much darker, more horrific reputation among Jewish and Muslim groups. . . .

Some Jewish communities, especially those in the region of the Four Lands, have a custom of fasting on the 20th of Sivan. This day has a full seliḥot service, commemorating a series of horrors that occurred on that day, most prominently the Chmielnicki (Khmielnetsky) massacres of 1648-49. But this poem was written for another horrific occurrence on 20 Sivan, the blood libel of Blois in 1171. This was the first time the accusation of ritual murder was ever made against the Jews of France, but it wasn’t the last. This seliḥah poem, written by Hillel ben Jacob of Bonn, starts with the dramatic accusation that God has abandoned the people Israel, continuing by listing those who died in myriad horrid ways, and ending with several citations from the apocalyptic final chapter of the book of Joel. . . .

The haftarah for the second day of Shavuot, Ḥabakkuk 2:20-3:19, interspersed with a cantillated text of the Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel. Since Targum Yonatan is a bit more drash-heavy than Targum Onkelos, it is translated separately as well. The haftarah reading includes the piyyut Yetsiv Pitgam, with an acrostic rhyming translation of the poem, with the second-to-last verse restored to its rightful place, as well as a concluding paragraph for the meturgeman to recite, as found in the Maḥzor Vitry. . . .

This pizmon was written by R. Shmuel ben Moshe Ha-Dayan of Aram Ṣoba (ca. 1150-1200) an Aleppine payṭan whose works were almost completely lost before being rediscovered in the Maḥzor Aram Ṣoba. It emphasizes the uneasy juxtaposition of the joy of Simḥat Torah with the tragedy of Moshe’s death. Originally it was probably recited before musaf, but perhaps for those who follow Ashkenazi customs a more appropriate location would be as an introduction to the Yizkor service on Shemini ‘Atseret — which for those who don’t keep second-day yontef is the same day. . . .

This piyyut, attributed to Menaḥem ben Aharon, is found in the Maḥzor Vitry, siman 465. It is a note-for-note structural parody of a beloved Pesaḥ maarava poem, Leil Shimurim. Israel Davidson, in his 1907 work “Parody in Jewish Literature,” writes, “The parodist apparently has no other aim than to dress a wine-song in the garb of a religious hymn. The burden of the song is that on Purim one must throw of all care and anxiety… But in order to make our happiness complete, we must remember the needy, and share our luxuries with those that are in want of them.” . . .

This geulah piyyut, by R. Yehuda heḤasid, is, similar to the prior zulat, a response to the massacres of the First Crusade. It specifically focuses, in the way only a maverick like heḤasid could, on holding God to account for breach of covenant, and calls out both Christians and — on a much rarer theme — Muslims for their slaughter of Jews during the Crusades. As a geulah, it is recited right before concluding berakha of the Emet blessing and the Amidah. . . .

This zulat piyyut, by R. Shmuel bar Yehuda (fl. 12th c.), is a keening cry in response to the traumatic First Crusade Rhineland massacres, known as the Gzerot TaTN”O in Hebrew, specifically focusing on the 3 Sivan massacre and martyrdoms in Mainz. The massacres of the Gzerot TaTN”O were so traumatic to Ashkenazi Jewry that to this day, the Av haRaḥamim prayer for martyrs, usually elided on Shabbat Mevorkhim, is not elided on Shabbat Mevorkhim Iyar or Sivan. As a zulat, it is recited at the end of the “Emet v-Emuna” paragraph. Generally the second half of the paragraph is altered slightly when a zulat is inserted. In this case, the alteration, according to the old Nusaḥ Polin, is included. . . .