Tolerance of Bar Kamtza Caused the Destruction of the 2nd Temple

[edu]

In the tractate Gittin pages 55 and 56 we learn that the Caesar of Rome sent an animal to be sacrificed at the Temple and the wicked man Bar Kamtza physically damaged the animal. It was a type of  blemish that invalidates the animal for the sacrificial service by Torah standards, however, according to the standards of the Gentiles, it does not.

    The sages of the Sanhedrin thought to eliminate Bar Kamtza who threatened to inform to the Emperor that the Jews were planning a revolt against Rome. The proof being that the Jews didn't agree to sacrifice the Emperor's animal.
    At the end they did not kill Bar Kamtza because an elder of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Zechariah son of Avkulos claimed that one should be pious above the law and not kill Bar Kamtza [who was a Rodef] because perhaps people will wrongfully deduce that Bar Kamtza was killed because he put a blemish on an animal that was consecrated for a sacrifice and not because he was a Rodef.
    Concerning the piety of Rabbi Zechariah the Talmud states: "Rabbi Yochanan said 'Onvutanuto' of Rabbi Zechariah son of Avkulos destroyed our Temple burnt the Heichal Building [where the Holy of Holies was located] and exiled us from our land".
    Rashi explained there, 'Onvutanuto' - His tolerance that he tolerated this and did not kill him".
    And the Meiri commentary there explained: - "And you learn from this that all who have a presumption of striking the community by means of the monarchy, it is permitted to kill him and as they said, "they thought to kill him so he wouldn't go and inform on them to the monarchy. Rabbi Zechariah said to them", etc. Now they said about him, the tolerance that he tolerated this and did not kill him destroyed our Temple".

[muman613]

Yes, the story of Kamza and Bar Kamza is a very sad lesson.

I was thinking about this this afternoon... What are we supposed to learn from this?

Because Kamza was supposed to be invited to the party, and by mistake Bar Kamza was invited, and the host of the party disrespected Bar Kamza, this resulted in Bar Kamza causing trouble between the Jewish people and the Romans. So from this we learn a lesson about why the Temple was destroyed.

I have heard that it was not an option to kill Bar Kamza. It was not known that he would do what he did, and at what point do you suggest he deserved being killed? After the party when he was disrespected in front of the Rabbis? Also, was it known that he was the one who caused the blemish on the animal?

Also the primary lesson was that from the baseless hatred which the host felt for Bar Kamza the result was the destruction. Why did the host hate Bar Kamza in the first place?

Chabad has a video on this topic concerning Gittin 55b-57a :

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/949898/jewish/The-Destruction-of-the-Holy-Temple.htm

Another issue was the controversy whether an animal with a blemish was acceptable in order to maintain peace and those Rabbis who insisted that the principle was more important than the peace...

The problem was that some Rabbis suggested that if they killed Bar Kamza it would set a precedent so that people would think that the halacha for those who blemish an animal would be death, which they did not believe was the Halacha.

But it is true it was improper 'tolerance' which ultimately led to the destruction... But we all know that it was a decree from Hashem as the prophets had told us..

[muman613]

Here is the translation from Halakhah.com:

http://halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_56.html

He said, I won't. Then let me give you half the cost of the party. No, said the other. Then let me pay for the whole party. He still said, No, and he took him by the hand and put him out. Said the other, Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him, this shows that they agreed with him. I will go and inform against then, to the Government. He went and said to the Emperor, The Jews are rebelling against you. He said, How can I tell? He said to him: Send them an offering and see whether they will offer it [on the altar]. So he sent with him a fine calf.1  While on the way he made a blemish on its upper lip, or as some say on the white of its eye, in a place where we [Jews] count it a blemish but they do not. The Rabbis were inclined to offer it in order not to offend the Government. Said R. Zechariah b. Abkulas to them: People will say that blemished animals are offered on the altar. They then proposed to kill Bar Kamza so that he should not go and inform against them, but R. Zechariah b. Abkulas said to them, Is one who makes a blemish on consecrated animals to be put to death? R. Johanan thereupon remarked: Through the scrupulousness2  of R. Zechariah b. Abkulas our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.3

[muman613]

The real question in this entire story of the Talmud has to do with the question of the zealots.... It seems to frown on zealotry because it resulted in even more suffering...

The biryoni11  were then in the city. The Rabbis said to them: Let us go out and make peace with them [the Romans]. They would not let them, but on the contrary said, Let us go out and fight them. The Rabbis said: You will not succeed. They then rose up and burnt the stores of wheat and barley so that a famine ensued. Martha the daughter of Boethius was one of the richest women in Jerusalem. She sent her man-servant out saying, Go and bring me some fine flour. By the time he went it was sold out. He came and told her, There is no fine flour, but there is white [flour]. She then said to him, Go and bring me some. By the time he went he found the white flour sold out. He came and told her, There is no white flour but there is dark flour. She said to him, Go and bring me some. By the time he went it was sold out. He returned and said to her, There is no dark flour, but there is barley flour. She said, Go and bring me some. By the time he went this was also sold out. She had taken off her shoes, but she said, I will go out and see if I can find anything to eat. Some dung stuck to her foot and she died.12  Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai applied to her the verse, The tender and delicate woman among you which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground.13  Some report that she ate a fig left by R. Zadok, and became sick and died. For R. Zadok observed fasts for forty years in order that Jerusalem might not be destroyed, [and he became so thin that] when he ate anything the food could be seen [as it passed through his throat.] When he wanted to restore himself, they used to bring him a fig, and he used to suck the juice and throw the rest away. When Martha was about to die, she brought out all her gold and silver and threw it in the street, saying, What is the good of this to me, thus giving effect to the verse, They shall cast their silver in the streets.14

11 Perhaps = palace guards (from biryah). The reference is obviously to the Zealot bands who defended Jerusalem.

[muman613]

What does this final sentence mean?

http://halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html

What is your punishment [in the other world]? He replied: What I decreed for myself. Every day my ashes are collected and sentence is passed on me and I am burnt and my ashes are scattered over the seven seas. He then went and raised Balaam by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.1  He then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: With boiling hot semen.2  He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel.3  He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement. Observe the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the other nations who worship idols. It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for G-d espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple.

[edu]

quote from muman613

I have heard that it was not an option to kill Bar Kamza. It was not known that he would do what he did, and at what point do you suggest he deserved being killed? After the party when he was disrespected in front of the Rabbis? Also, was it known that he was the one who caused the blemish on the animal?

It is clear from the Talmud that the Rabbis did know what Bar Kamza was up to and the option of killing him to prevent the tragedy was indeed raised.
As far as what took place prior to the evil deeds of Bar Kamtza. On this question there are different approaches.
Some Rabbis believed that Bar Kamtza was an Okay guy but just snapped when he was humiliated by being thrown out of a party that he was invited to by mistake.
On the other end of the spectrum, Chatam Sofer said they were indeed right to expel Bar Kamtza who was already a wicked guy at that time from the party.
Eitz Yosef, seems to supply the most logical explanation and I am told that he is backed by historical sources, too.
He says that Bar kamtza was already a powerful wicked Jew, who had harmed the jewish people, when he was invited by mistake to the party of one of the rich men of Jerusalem. I wil add that one does not usually descend to threatening the entire Jewish people over some personal insult, unless that person was  already very bad to start with.
Given the situation that the good Jews of Jerusalem were in a relatively  weak position, they should not have needlessly embarrassed the powerful Bar Kamtza after he arrived by mistake.
According to this the baseless hatred in the story is from Bar kamtza to the jewish people.
Although I will add that sometimes the worse crimes in society are just a magnifying glass of problems that are also found in the better sections of society. In that sense, you can spread the blame of baseless hatred to a mich wider section of the Jewish people.

[edu]

For those who wish to see the evidence for the other view, that holds that the rich man was also guilty of groundless hatred towards Bar Kamtza, see the commentaries of Maharsha, Maharal and Meiri.

But for supporters of this view, I will raise a question. Why does the Talmud leave out the name of the rich man? I can only think of one pretty weak answer. Maybe you have a better idea?

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

http://thetorahrevolution.blogspot.com/2011/08/revisiting-kamtza-bar-kamtza-by.html

- Revisiting Kamtza Bar Kamtza - why was the Temple really destroyed
 by Yekutiel Guzofsky - The Story of Kamtza Bar Kamtza Revisited
 
Tisha B’Av and Holocaust lies?
 Temple destroyed due to lack of unity with evil or due to misplaced compassion upon the evil?
 
If you ask the average Jew, “What was the cause of the destruction of the Second Temple?”, he’ll likely answer based on the popular interpretation of the story of Kamtza/Bar Kamtza in Tractate Gittin 55b, that the destruction was brought upon us due to internal strife – and, in particular, a host who offended Bar Kamtza when he expelled Bar Kamtza from his banquet. In an article written in the Bnei Haneviim Journal of Av 5757, Rav David Cohen shatters this myth and the misinterpretation of the Aggadic story brought down in the Talmud.

As the story unfolds, our anonymous host requested of his servant to invite his friend Kamtza to his party. The servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza instead of Kamtza. When the host realized that Bar Kamtza, his enemy, was sitting at the banquet, he ordered him to leave. Bar Kamtza pleaded to be given the opportunity to stay, offering to pay for his meal, and even for the entire banquet; but the Host remained steadfast and forcibly removed him. Bar Kamtza said: “since the Rabbis did not protest, this is proof that they agree with what happened. I will go and become an informant to the authorities.” (There are sources that indicate that Bar Kamtza was already a known informant, and that this is why the Rabbis did not come to his defense and also why he was not invited to the banquet, see Chatam Sofer on Gittin, Maharal in Netzach Yisrael Chapter 5).

Without going into the full story, Bar Kamtza conspired to incite the Romans against the Jews and bring about the destruction of the Second Temple. During the deliberations, the Rabbis considered the possibility of killing Bar Kamtza before he could complete his evil plot. Rabbi Zachariah was opposed to this measure and the Gemorrah concludes the story: because of Rabbi Zachariah, the Temple was destroyed, the Heichal was burnt, and we were exiled from our land.
 
Rav David Cohen explains that Bar Kamtza, the treasonous Jewish informant, indeed played a central role in the events that caused the Temple’s destruction, however the Talmud does not focus on him or the host who insulted him, as we have always been taught. We have always been led to believe that over the small mistake in the confusion of the names Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, and over the harsh insult to evil Bar-Kamtza, the Temple was Destroyed. We are urged to accept the erroneous moral of this story, that we must show compassion for evil people such as Bar Kamtza the informant, and we must never insult even an evil Jew. While there are sources for this interpretation, Rashi and the Meiri clearly place the blame on Rabbi Zacharia for hesitating not to kill Bar-Kamtza, and Rashi’s view clearly fits well within the text.
 
The common interpretation of the story contradicts the actual conclusionbrought both in the Babylonian Talmud and the Midrash, which transfers the blame from Bar Kamtza the informant and the host who embarrassed him to Rav Zachariah ben Ifkulas! “Rabbi Yosef says: the humility of Zacharia ben Ifkulas burnt the sanctuary.” Rashi explains: “Humility – that he tolerated this and did not kill [Bar Kamtza].” This is also the conclusion of Meiri: “You learn from here that it is permissible to kill one who incites the government against the people.”

Thus, the Temple was destroyed due to the fact that the Jews were hesitant to kill an evil informant. It was this lack of bloodshed that brought about the destruction. Quite different, indeed, from the false interpertation of the Gemorrah that we were raised upon.

It is more than ironic that the common interpretation of the Talmudic story stands diametrically opposed to the basic reading of the text, and the basic explanation given by Rashi and the Meiri. We are urged to display hospitality and break bread with the Evil, in spite of the fact that the Rishonim learned the exact opposite lesson from the story, and concluded that it was tolerance of the evil Bar Kamtza and hesitation to kill him that triggered the destruction of the Temple.
 

[muman613]

This did not address the final statement of Gitten 57:

http://halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html

It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for G-d espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple.

I also don't believe that the Rabbis teach only that the reason for the Temple destruction was due to this Midrash. I have heard a variety of explanations for this. If any Rabbi teaches the Talmud for political goals {for instance using the story to justify hosting evil people} they are wicked because the truth is that the Talmud offers many observations on these events.

[edu]

quote from Muman613

This did not address the final statement of Gitten 57:

http://halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_57.html

It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for G-d espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple.

The Eitz Yosef commentary addresses the issue you raised Muman. He said Bar Kamtza was a Mosair, (informer who endangers Jews). However, he was a powerful Mosair. And therefore given the very fragile situation that the Jews were in, internally and externally, the rich guy who invited Bar Kamtza by mistake to his party had to be concerned about needlessly embarrassing that evil man.
But you might raise an objection Muman613. Wasn't Mordechai praised when he provoked the evil Haman, even though he could have done something to avoid the confrontation?
Answer: The Talmud in Brachot 7b and Megilla 6b give the conditions when one can provoke a wicked man and Mordechai met all those conditions.