[Avodah] What is SinAs Chinam

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 05:19:13PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: R Avigdor Miller's take is very different....

: According to him the only person to blame here was Bar Kamtza.  The
: host was right to expel him, the rabbanan were not only right to
: approve it, but had he not done so they would have left in protest,
: and would have been right to do so, and the way he reacted only goes
: to prove what a rasha he was. Further, R Zecharia ben Avkolos was
: right, as evidenced by the fact that the chachamim accepted his
: arguments.

And yet, R' Yochanan, who attributes the churban to this incident, says
in mid-story (Gittin 56a; whether he interrupts himself or R' Ashi put
it in the middle):
    "mipenei anvanuso shel R' Zekhariah ben Avqulis
    hecheriva beitianu
    vesarfah es heikhaleinu
    vehigliseinu mei'arzeinu".

Rashi on "anvanuso" -- "savlanuso, shesaval es zeh velo horgo."

Doesn't sound like he thought that if the chakhamim agreed, they were
right to do so. Or that he was in the right.

Maharam Shif ("anvanuso") wondes why we aren't plaming the chakhamim,
shelo micho beyado as the true causers. He answers that they couldn't
have known the heizeq, whereas we can.

MS also mentions Eikha Rabba. I found the maaseh at 4:3. In the medrash,
it was RZbA who could have been mocheh the shaming of BQ at the party,
and didn't. And it's Rabbi Yosi who says "anvanuso shell RZbA sarfah
es haheikhal".

Although the two sources disagree on how a middah was expressed,
it's a chiddush to say the cause is the middah, without trying to
place blame on it, declaring this anvanus to be flawed.

I once blogged about why the gemara talks about "anvanus" rather than
the more usual term "anavah". It is interesting that the only usage of
"anvanus" is also by R' Yochanan, and the concept is positive (Megillah
31a):
    Every place you find Gevuraso shel HQBH
    you will find Anvanuso.
    This idea is written in the Torah, repeated in nevi'im, and said a
    third time in kesuvim...

Humans, though, appear to be better off being anavim than anvanim.

Given the grammar, "anvanus" appears to be the middah of being a humble
person, rather than "anavah"'s reference to humility itself.

Back to Zev's email:

: And the gemara's point in telling the story is not to discuss the
: *reasons* for the churban, but to show that whatever the reasons
: were, the immediate *cause* was ridiculously trivial random events,
...

Pseudo-random, as you obviously mean from context. (Or maybe the
whole word "random" needs to be rethought in light of universal
hashgachah peratis. But here it's hashgachah kelalis, so I'll punt
on that.)

The Maharshah (CA on Yuma 9b "avel miqdash 2") refers to the story
of qamtza and bar qamtza as an example of the sin'as chinam the gamra
mentions there.

R' Avigdor Miller can disagree with the Maharsha and Maharam Shif. But
he has a burden of proof your quick retelling doesn't provide.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
micha at aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter