![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 11th, 2019 08:21 pmThe story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza:
There were these two people named Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, living in Jerusalem in the mid first century CE. Bar Kamtza means 'the son of Kamtza', but there's no sense in the story that these two people are related. The significance of the names in the story appears to be that they are very similar names, to the point where a person instructed to go talk to one of the people could easily mishear and talk to the other.
It's not explicitly stated, but Bar Kamtza appears to have been a Roman sympathizer, whereas Kamtza was a prominent associate of the Pharisees, the Rabbinical leaders of the day. Instead, all the Gemara says is that a certain rich and influential Jew was friends with Kamtza and hated Bar Kamtza. No reason is given for this hatred, and a traditional teaching of this Gemara is that it was baseless hatred like this that caused the destruction of the Second Temple. But that being said, the strong implication of the story is that Bar Kamtza was a Roman sympathizer and this is the reason he was hated. Which, if you ask me, is a pretty reasonable reason to hate him.
It says that the great Rabbis of the era were invited to a feast by the rich Jew, and the rich Jew attempted to invite Kamtza to the feast, but his servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. When Bar Kamtza came, perhaps believing that this was a gesture toward reconciliation, he was refused by the host, even after he offered to pay for the food he would eat, and even to pay for the whole feast. The Rabbis who were at the feast said nothing and let the host throw Bar Kamtza out of the party, clearly indicating that they favored the host over Bar Kamtza.
In retaliation, Bar Kamtza devised an elaborate revenge that set the Rabbis against the Romans and ultimately led the Romans to destroy the Temple, by putting a small but significant blemish on an animal sent by the Romans as a gift to be sacrificed by the Israelites in their Temple. When they refused to offer the animal, the Romans decided to destroy the Temple to avenge the insult, says the Gemara. Thus Bar Kamtza's revenge and its result seems wildly out of proportion to the crime of insulting you at a party.
Still, the Rabbis had a chance to prevent this revenge from taking place. The Chachamim stam sought to accept the blemished sacrifice in order to prevent the destruction of the Temple, but Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas demurred, on the grounds that this would be a desecration of God's name and teach the people that such desecrations were acceptable. Thus, Churban.
What most fascinates me about this story is how ambiguous the moral is. The most obvious moral is that humiliating your enemies is bad, or even that having enemies is bad, but Bar Kamtza seems like the kind of person you wouldn't want around at your parties, so it seems hard to blame the host for that.
The Rabbis debate the moral of the story at the end, in typical Rabbinical fashion. Rather than pin the locus on the more obvious idea of irrational hatred, Rabbi Yochanan blames the Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas's decision not to accept the invalid sacrifice in the name of peace. His lesson from the whole story seems to be that preserving the Jewish people and their ritual life in Jerusalem was more important than maintaining the smallest details of the ritual law at all costs.
There were these two people named Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, living in Jerusalem in the mid first century CE. Bar Kamtza means 'the son of Kamtza', but there's no sense in the story that these two people are related. The significance of the names in the story appears to be that they are very similar names, to the point where a person instructed to go talk to one of the people could easily mishear and talk to the other.
It's not explicitly stated, but Bar Kamtza appears to have been a Roman sympathizer, whereas Kamtza was a prominent associate of the Pharisees, the Rabbinical leaders of the day. Instead, all the Gemara says is that a certain rich and influential Jew was friends with Kamtza and hated Bar Kamtza. No reason is given for this hatred, and a traditional teaching of this Gemara is that it was baseless hatred like this that caused the destruction of the Second Temple. But that being said, the strong implication of the story is that Bar Kamtza was a Roman sympathizer and this is the reason he was hated. Which, if you ask me, is a pretty reasonable reason to hate him.
It says that the great Rabbis of the era were invited to a feast by the rich Jew, and the rich Jew attempted to invite Kamtza to the feast, but his servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. When Bar Kamtza came, perhaps believing that this was a gesture toward reconciliation, he was refused by the host, even after he offered to pay for the food he would eat, and even to pay for the whole feast. The Rabbis who were at the feast said nothing and let the host throw Bar Kamtza out of the party, clearly indicating that they favored the host over Bar Kamtza.
In retaliation, Bar Kamtza devised an elaborate revenge that set the Rabbis against the Romans and ultimately led the Romans to destroy the Temple, by putting a small but significant blemish on an animal sent by the Romans as a gift to be sacrificed by the Israelites in their Temple. When they refused to offer the animal, the Romans decided to destroy the Temple to avenge the insult, says the Gemara. Thus Bar Kamtza's revenge and its result seems wildly out of proportion to the crime of insulting you at a party.
Still, the Rabbis had a chance to prevent this revenge from taking place. The Chachamim stam sought to accept the blemished sacrifice in order to prevent the destruction of the Temple, but Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas demurred, on the grounds that this would be a desecration of God's name and teach the people that such desecrations were acceptable. Thus, Churban.
What most fascinates me about this story is how ambiguous the moral is. The most obvious moral is that humiliating your enemies is bad, or even that having enemies is bad, but Bar Kamtza seems like the kind of person you wouldn't want around at your parties, so it seems hard to blame the host for that.
The Rabbis debate the moral of the story at the end, in typical Rabbinical fashion. Rather than pin the locus on the more obvious idea of irrational hatred, Rabbi Yochanan blames the Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas's decision not to accept the invalid sacrifice in the name of peace. His lesson from the whole story seems to be that preserving the Jewish people and their ritual life in Jerusalem was more important than maintaining the smallest details of the ritual law at all costs.