I have often wondered at those who explain that the rabbonim
were partly at fault for not having interfered. ( think the maharsha is one of those? )
what could they have possibly have done that wouldn’t have made matters worse and caused even more embarassment? although bar-kamtza thought they should have done something and was angry that they did not, I find it hard to understand that the maharsha (or someone) would agree with him.
I also don’t understand the question, “why is the story called kamtza bar kamtza, since kamtza had nothing to do with it”.
yes kamtza had nothing to do with it, but the confusion of the two names did, and that is why the story is called that. simple enough.
rav Miller pointed out that the sinas chinam referred means the sinah of the prushim for the tsedukkim! puts a completely different slant on things! I thought it was his own pshat, but it is not.