In lamenting the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, Rabbi Eliezer HaKalir invokes the memory of the destruction of the earlier Temple when it resided in Shiloh. The Kinnah laments that even though Yirmiyahu used Shiloh as an example of destruction coming as a punishment for sins (see Yirmiyahu 7:12) the warning was not heeded.

But pachad chet Shilo (the fear of the sin of Shilo) invokes something more. What about Shilo are we to fear? Rav Soloveichik explained that unlike the Beis Hamikdash which was endowed with Kedusha L’Atid Lavo (sanctity for all times), Shilo had only been granted temporary holiness. The fear described was about the time after Shilo’s destruction where we don’t know where the Temple in Shilo stood or what it looked like. The fear was whether in future the Beis Hamikdash would actually be remembered, or would it be like Shilo, a story with no remnants, monuments or memory.

The Kinnah may also be invoking fear as to our understanding of why the Temple in Shilo was destroyed. God announced to the Prophet Samuel that the destruction was punishment for the sins of the children of Eli, and for Eli’s inability to censure his children (Samuel I 3:11-14). What had they done? Among other inappropriate acts, Samuel proclaims that they had “slept with the women who congregated at the door of the Tent of Meeting.” That certainly sounds like a harsh sin deserving of an extremely harsh punishment.

The Talmud (Shabbos 56a) however claims that “whoever says that the sons of Eli sinned is simply mistaken.” The Talmud then goes on to explain that their only sin was having delayed by a day bird offerings that women brought, thereby requiring them to abstain from their husbands an extra night. But if that was their sin why not say so? That same Gemara in Shabbos talks about difficult stories in the life of other biblical heroes (Reuven, David, Shlomo etc.) and explains away the simple meaning of the texts with various technical loopholes that exempt the perpetrator from all wrongdoing. Why does Tanach make accusations against prominent Biblical characters that really weren’t true?

Tanach may be teaching an important lesson. While the things done may be defendable, it certainly looked bad in the eyes of the people. While the sons of Eli could give many reasons as to why the sacrifices couldn’t be brought that day, it was still a miserable experience for the women that wanted to be with their husbands that night.

That is the fear invoked by the memory of Shilo in that first Kinna; that living a life of sanctity is not merely following the laws and commandments in such a way that we can defend our actions. That’s not enough. Rather, a life of sanctity is a life that can be held up as a example through which every person, both learned and ignorant, can recognize as a life of holiness and piety, without a need for a defense.