[Avodah] kamztah and bar-kamztah

[Eli Turkel]

I was asked to move to avodah a discussion I started on Areivim based
on a shiur I just heard. In my response to some comments I will try and
give the major points.

First I would have great hesitancy of taking the stories historically.

Starting with the end - Beitar was destroyed after a multi year battle
and not strated by a minor irritant over some minhag. No one really heard
of Tur Malka. Josephus who records the battles leading to the churban in
great detail does not mention bar kamtza Nero died several years before
the destruction.

Interesting the person who made to the meal is not named while kamtza
who had nothing to do with the story is known.

Rather chazal wanted to give examples of the sinat chinam leading to
the destruction rather than give a historical account.

1. I mentioned the treatment of the Romans - my statement referred to
this gemara only and not other discussions in shas.

I would contrast the Gemara in Gittin to the story of Chanukah.

There Antiochus is the evil king who starts up with the Jews. Mattisyahu
kills the local Syrian-Greek over an issue of Avodah Zarah In
Gittin the Romans are treated very sympathetically. Nero (whoever he
represents) when presented with the accusations of Bar Kamtzah demands
proof. He shoots arrows to determine G-d's will and finally runs
away and converts. Vespasian also treats R. Yochanan Ben Zakai very
graciously. Only Titus is considered a total rasha.

In the story of Tur Malka the Jews kill Roman soldiers and the general
forgives them because of a miracle. Only after the Jews celebrate their
"victory" does he return and kill them. Even with Beitar it is the Jews
that instigate the battle.

The Jews on the contrary always act without thinking of the consequences
(see last Tosafot Gittin 65b). Bar Kamtza destroys the whole country
including himself over a petty fight. The chachamim at the meal dont
seem to react. Zercharya ben Avkilus seems to completely ignore the
seriousness of the insult to the emperor. In the last two stories the
Jews start up with the Romans over minor customs that certainly are not
within "yehareg ve-al ya-aovor".

2. The worst is Zercharya ben Avkilus. He takes on every chumra without
any thought of the consequences of the chumra. It seems even the chachamim
dont over-ride him because he represents the chumra. He is constantly
afraid of what people will say. Everyone in the shiur kept on asking
the question of what happened to "pikuach nefesh".

<<Actually that whole gemara is easily read as saying that once Hashem
had determined to bring about the churban, nothing would have prevented
it; it demonstrates this by showing what trivial mistakes led to it.
If those had not happened, something else would have. >>

I read the gemara as demonstrating the sinat chinam of the generation.
They themselves brought on the churban. This is clear from the actions of
the zealots who burnt all the food in Jerusalem. I have no idea of the
ideology of Zercharya ben Avkilus but clearly he felt that his halachic
fears were more important than insulting the enemy. I again contrast
this with the Maccabees who fought over basics of Judaism. The last
two segments dealing with revolts are minhagim that were meaningless
confirms this.

The rabbi compared this to those that take on every chumra with Shemitta
even if it means helping Hamas in Gaza.

<<Of course it's possible to take on every chumra of shmitta *without*
helping Hamas in Gaza, by doing without the produce, or by spending the
extra money to buy from hydroponic greenhouses or to import from places
that are neither under shmitta nor Hamas. After all, surely helping
Hamas is also an avera, and one that Zercharya ben Avkilus would not
have sanctioned.>>

Agreed completely. The rabbi was not against all chumrot. He was against
chumrot that lead to helping the enemy which is exactly the case of
Zercharya ben Avkilus. There is nothing wrong with the fears of Zercharya
ben Avkilus in some other circumstances. What is wrong with his approach
is having far-fetched fears and as a result insulting the Roman emperor.

<<The Gemara refers to his anava; this fear is nowhere to be found
in this analysis. His fear of what people would say was not a fear of
the people, but of the erroneous halachic conclusions they would reach.
It's called yir'as Shamayim, as in ekev anava.>>

and that over-rides pikuach nefesh? Again Tosafot stresses that they
trusted in themselves too much. I think the gemara is contrasting this
whole attitude with that of R. Yochanan Ben Zakai who saw the dangers
and took steps to work with the Romans rather than insulting them.
An interesting question which is not discussed anywhere I could find
is where was R. Yochanan ben Zakai when Zercharya ben Avkilus made his
statements. It is fairly clear he was not consulted. What we do know
from Josephus is that the zealots took over and eliminated everyone who
disagreed with them including leaders which probably led other leaders
to keep their opinions to themselves.

 ---------------------------------------------------------

As an aside I mentioned that every single agricultural element the Jews
left in Gush Katif has been destroyed and the land returned to the desert
status it was before.

and this represents what RYBS and many others have pointed out that EY
was desolate during the entire galut and flowered only when the Jews
returned. Here where the Jews left the land returned to its desolate
state.

-- 
Eli Turkel