Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

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

<< < (2/2)

edu:
quote from muman613

--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---
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

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page