The Maimed Sacrifice

I believe there's something left uncovered in the story of Bar Kamtza. With your permission, let's look into it again.

Just as it goes with anything I write, this is my opinion, or how I understand passages in the Torah.

This story is almost in every speech on Tisha B'Av. But for some reason, everyone portrays Bar Kamtza as a guilty party. In no way do I downplay what he has done and the evil it has brought onto the nation. But I believe there's another guilty party in this story that has walked away as innocent to date. 

In Tractate Gittin 55B-56A, a story is told of a slave who is asked to invite a guy named Kamtza to a party, but the worker mistakenly calls Bar Kamtza, his owner's enemy, instead.

While going around the tables, the host notices his enemy sitting with other guests and enjoying himself. Infuriated, he comes over and asks him, what is he doing here? Bar Kamtza told him that his slave invited him, so that is why he is here. The host said, "It must be a mistake, since he asked him to call Kamtza, not his enemy, Bar Kamtza." 

The host asked him to leave. To avoid being humiliated in front of everyone, Bar Kamtza offered to pay for his meal, half the party, and even the entire banquet. The host refuses, grabs him by his hand, stands him up, and pushes him out of the party.

While there, Bar Kamtza notices many rabbis at the table. And none of them have interfered on his behalf. A thought crept into his mind that the host's behavior was acceptable to them, as if they supported the host. 

He decides to get back at the rabbis by going to Caesar and inciting him against Jerusalem. Per his suggestion, Caesar sends them a fine calf as a sacrifice, but on the way to the Bet Hamikdash, Bar Kamtza causes a blemish to it by making a small cut on its lip, which disqualifies the animal as a kosher sacrifice in the Temple. 

Now the rabbis are faced with a dilemma. They can't bring the animal as a sacrifice since it is not kosher, and they can not send the animal back, since it is something that Caesar sent as an offer. 

So, they decided to bring it anyway. But Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkulas said, "But people will say that a blemished animal may be offered on the Altar." 

So they decided to kill Bar Kamtza, but Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkulas said, "But people will say, those who blemish consecrated animal will be put to death."

At the end, they did nothing.

Says Rabbi Yochanan: "The tolerance displayed by Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkulas towards Bar Kamtza has destroyed our Temple, burned down our Sanctuary, and exiled us from the land."

And this is where I would like to draw your attention to.

Why would Hashem destroy the Temple, kill millions, and drive away millions into slavery, and cause 2,500 years of exile till today, because of the decision of one rabbi? 

Because the rabbis at the party were not new to this issue of Bar Kamtza. Every argument has a pre-story, plenty of hearsay, slander, and defamation, to the point where people take sides and work tirelessly, blindly following their "leader".

The host of the party knew this game, and he took advantage of it to its fullest. He had "slaves" working for him in every layer of society, from top to bottom. People were talking about Bar Kamtza to the point that he felt like an outsider in the community, and he did not feel guilty for punishing the whole city for what was done to him. And the worst thing about this was that all the rabbis knew all the fresh and latest dirt about Bar Kamtza.

And this is what Hashem did not like about this whole thing: that Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkulas was concerned about what people might say about the blemished animal, or about the people who bring the blemished animal, it is as if Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkulas suddenly became too religious or makhmir, way to strict about this one law of bringing a maimed korban, while ignoring all other laws. 

As if Hashem was saying to Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas: for years, the issue with Bar Kamtza was a known fact, and everyone was talking about it; the laws of evil speech, defamation, and plenty of other laws that support this type of behavior were broken daily by many people. All the rabbis were OK with this behavior of the community for years, and suddenly, this One Halacha - this law of the maimed korban, a sacrifice which may lead to peace between the king and the nation, suddenly, you are too makhmir or strict about it?? Two-faced behavior, most likely of the many, led Hashem to destroy the Temple. 

And no rabbi of that time was able to overrule Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkulas decision, since he was most likely the highest-ranking rabbi above all the others. This decision of the former Chief Rabbi affected the nation back then, and we are still in exile today because of it.

But let's jump to Tractate Chagigah 14B, which I have been talking about incessantly. The above just proves my point in another essay I have written about four people who went to Pardes. People learn it as just another story, but it is not - just another story. The story of Pardes or the issues I have raised here, just proves that Ben Zoma and Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya, who was later called Acher, have dealt with the same set of rabbis as Bar Kamtza.

The Gemara has recorded the stories of Acher and Ben Zoma, and later of Bar Kamtza, as MAJOR FAILURES of that past generation, mostly of the rabbis who were ruling the nation at that time. 

The failure of that past generation was never fixed, and every generation since then has failed to make things right. How about this one? Are we on our way to fail, too?!

According to the Talmud (Yoma 54b), when the Babylonians entered the Holy of Holies to destroy the Temple, they found the Keruvim or Cherubs on the Ark in a close embrace. There's an explanation that this scene represented G-d's enduring and intimate love for the Jewish people, even during the exile and destruction. But in my opinion, it can also represent G-d's frustration at seeing the injustice and incompetence of the few on top in executing justice, enforcing laws, reinstating the rejected ones into society, and ensuring that this won't happen again, therefore the destruction, with the hope to start all over again at some future date.

Shmuel Katanov