[Avodah] Kamtza BaKamtza - Has anyone seen Meforshim who comment on this perspective?

[Rabbi Meir G. Rabi]

Thank you R Arie
I must apologise for being unclear

I am not dwelling on Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos re his decision to not
offer the sacrifice,
Your observations on that are penetrating and illuminating.

I am expressing surprise that we seem to have lost focus on the Chachomim
who violated BKamtza by remaining silent whilst he was being humiliated at
the party.

I believe RMicha identified Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos as the principle
Chacham at the party that the other Chachamim were looking to for guidance,
and RMicha was suggesting a link between these two failures.

It was to this concern, that we somehow have lost focus, that I wrote ....
RMichas perspective still fails to be attentive to
the Chachamims insensitivity,
their indifference and
quite likely their jaundiced perspective of their duties and relationship
with HKBH and with the people
they seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that not standing up to
the rich and powerful
was the best way to lead the community.


Allow me to add another consideration:
BKamtza is utterly blind with rage
He is determined to burn down the entire block of apartments, the entire
village, including his own home and the homes of his family, why?

Because his neighbours insulted him and
NO ONE it seems, not a single person, not even his family, came to provide
him some solace and comfort. He felt that in the entire village, there's
not a single person who cares, and probably they're all actually
celebrating his humiliation.

They all deserve to die.

The Seforno explains how Pinchas saved the Yidden who deserved to die, by
killing just two people.

HKBH felt that the entire nation, by their silence were endorsing the
uprising led by Zimri. There was not a single person who stood up for HKBH
or HKBH loyal servant, Moshe Rabenu.
The vigilante Pinchas, was the one and only to feel HKBH's pain with
sufficient clarity and sensitivity that he decided to act.

And that single person provided the comfort to assuage HKBH anger. The
Yidden who deserved to die by their silence were saved by their silence,
that they remained silent whilst Pinchas dispatched Z&K.

Is this not the true message Chazal wish to teach us with the episode of K
and BK?


On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, 01:09 Arie Folger, <arie.folger at gmail.com> wrote:

> R' Meir Rabbi, pondering anvetanuto shel Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkulos
> hecheriva et beiteitnu etc., wrote:
>
> > perhaps this is true but it still fails to be attentive to their
> insensitivity,
> > their indifference and quite likely their jaundiced perspective of their
> > duties and relationship with HKBH and with the people they seem to
> > have fallen into the trap of believing that not crossing the rich a
> > powerful was the best way to lead the community
>
> If we want to understand Rabbi Zekharya Ben Avkulos, shouldn't we analyze
> his position from a perspective that he's right, even if just for the
> moment we try to understand him?
>
> Who says RZbA didn't realise the possible consequences of inaction? I
> think that there is ample historical precedent in the prophecy of Yirmeyahu
> for assuming that at some point the writing is on the wall and it is either
> futile to fight the coming destruction or we needed to willingly submit to
> the Romans total victory.
>
> If so, RZbA wouldn't not be thinking of how to avert tragedy, as tragedy
> was surely coming - even if it could be momentarily averted by killing Bar
> Qamtsa or by bringing the invalid sacrifice -, but rather how not to leave
> any permanent false teaching into the world. In fact, could it be that RZbA
> saw the destruction coming and saw in either of the two options something
> that would blunt the lesson of the Destruction and thereby requiring it to
> be all the greater and more terrible? By bringing the sacrifice, he'd
> enshrine in precedent that the laws regulating our interactions with the
> holy are fungible; by killing Bar Qamtsa, we'd convey that what made us
> merit the eventual inevitable destruction of the BhM was bringing invalid
> sacrifices, when in fact it was sinat chinnam.
>
> What made the Destruction inevitable, isn't teshuva always an option?
> Well, if you peruse Sefer Yirmeyahu (and Yechezqel) one gathers that at
> some point Destruction was inevitable and the people had to learn they
> could lose the BhM. In a sense, that was a necessary step to learn to adapt
> to the coming new reality of galut, to inspire a Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai
> to conceive to Yavneh as a refuge from the Destruction to ensure there will
> be Jews and Judaism that one day will merit the reconstruction of the BhM.
>
> In fact, in YU I learned something similar from Rav Bleich, that RZbA
> considered it ziyuf haTorah, and that that was prohibited even at the great
> cost of losing the BhM.
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Arie Folger
> Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230720/caf38b08/attachment-0003.htm>