- This topic has 28 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
I opened a new thread because this is off topic, & I don’t want to take away from Soilik.
Posted by MSseeker:
“The whole “The second Bais Hamikdash was destroyed due to Sinas Chinam” bit.”
And you think the RABANAN were guilty of SINAS CHINAM? Where did you get this idea from?
I know, I know, it’s a velts-tooes. People put these 2 gemaras together and concoct this ridiculous accusation. Rabbi miller zt”l set me straight on that.
Actually, it is Offen the Maharam Schif on the Daf in Gittin. Also the Pashtus in the Maharsha who also connects the two gemaros, and it is the Mashmaos of a Tosfos in Bava Metzia (that they are connected).
That being said, knowing Rabbi Miller, it doesn’t surprise me that he has a different P’shat. Would you mind please telling me where he brings this alternative P’shat and what he says?
Thanks.
I think it is a big sofek who is the real guily party by the story of kamtza bar kamtza specifically.
1)the servant, who started the feud by giving an invitation to the baal simchas enemy
2)The baal simcha of course
3)the rabbonim at the seuda who did not stop the humiliations
It could be all the above, even kamtza. As far as sinas chinom, that was prevelant among the yidden, and this story of Kamtza was both an example of sinas chinom, and a direct result of the churbon (since kamtza snitched on the jews to the roman emperor etc.)
I dont remember if Kamtza or Bar Kamtza was the intended invitee and who was invited in error. Either way, it is worth thinking about why the gemara refers to it as the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza when one of them was never there at all. Why is his name forever linked to the story that led to the destruction of the beis hamikdash if he was never there? Why is the name of the person who made the party – and was actively involved in throwing out an uninvited guest – not linked to this story (is it recorded anywhere?).I heard an answer in the name of R’ Dovid Feinstein Shlita that, if he (either Kamtza or Bar Kamtza – the intended invitee) was such a good friend of the one making the party, he would have showed up anyway and not taken it personally that he didnt get an invitation. That is ahavas chinam, your friend makes a simcha, you go and say mazel tov. Who knows, had he showed up and been in attendance, he may have been able to placate his friend and the uninvited guest may not have been thrown out and the rest of the story would not have played out. Pettiness and some measure of hatred for his friend, for no reason, resulted in his non attendance at the simcha of his friend. One does not have to conclude that the sinas chinam referred to in the gemara was that of the rabbonim in attendance.
If I’m remembering correctly, the Rabonim at the time – from among the Tanoim – who were at Kamtza’s party, did and said nothing to prevent Bar Kamtza’s embarrassment. This infuriated Bar Kamtza perhaps even more than Kamtza’s treatment of him.
Raboisai, Rabonim are people. Gedolim are people. People are imperfect, and it is possible that they will transgress. If not, where then did we get the well known and ancient wisdom that the transgression of a great person often gets a greater onesh than that of one who is not on the madrega?
The quasi-deification of anyone is an affront to our tradition. I find it hard to understand how the same people who castigate the Meshichists and the Elokists among Chabad will react with horror at the possibility that someone points out a mistake, omission, or contradiction from/by a gadol. TO me, the fact that such an occurence is rare enough to bear notice testifys to their gadlus, and does not take away from it.
even kamtza
Considering the fact that he was not present at the proceedings and very likely did not know about the party at all, please explain how he was at fault.
The Wolf
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.
yichusdik – bypassing your main point, I will just point out that there is a difference between the knowledge that Gedolim are not infallible, and the ability to contradict.
yichusdik: Yes they may make a mistake. But they are greater than us. And if you or I think a godol made a mistake, it is probably you and I who are in fact mistaken, and not the godol. So don’t feel free to point out their “mistakes”, since you are much much more likely to be the mistaken one.
I also don’t understand the question, “why is the story called kamtza bar kamtza, since kamtza had nothing to do with it”.
Possibly as a memory aid. I think one is more likely to remember the “story of Kamtza and Bar-Kamtza” (especially when the story centers around a mistake made regarding the similarity of their names) rather than “the story of <insert party-maker’s name here> and Bar-Kamtza.”
The Wolf
apushutayid: I really enjoyed that pshat. Beautiful peice. yasher koach!
There are Peshatim about or why Kamtza was at fault. However, the basic Pshat is definitely as the Wolf writes.
There are three stories mentioned together: Because of Kamtza and bar Kamtza Yerushalayim was destroyed; because of a chicken Beitar was destroyed; because of a wagon wall Tur Malka was destroyed. Now, I’m sure you’ll agree that the Gemara is not vilifying the chicken. It is merely pointing out how a city was destroyed through a trivialty.
As for the Sinas Chinam, the Gemara asks, whereas in the first Bayis there were the three cardinal sins, by the second Bayis we know who they are and they were great Tzadikim. Why was the Bayis destroyed? The answer is Sinas Chinam.
I ask, who exactly were the great Tzadikim, the Sadducees? The Baryonim? I don’t think so. In fact, the Gemara wouldn’t have had such a hard time finding a Cheit.
First – correction – s/b more than the host’s treatment of him.
Second – Logician and Cheftza, it is a very delicate issue. If you look at our history, reasonable people felt it was OK to “call out” a godol if they had a reason to think he was in error.
Think about this – R’ Moshe Galant, R’Moshe Zacuto, and R’ Chayim Benveniste all initially followed Shabtai Tzvi. They were wrong, and it was clear to laymen and other rabonim why.
There were a number of gedolim 2 and 3 generations after the Besht ( my g x 7 grandfather and his brother among them) who had great challenges from their communities of Frankfurt and Nikolsburg because of their affinity for chasidus. Not every individual in both those communities was a chutzpan denigrating them – some had legitimate questions and concerns.
In our time – R’Moshe Feinstein famously gave a psak allowing women to wear cullotes and pants made for women, but then had to retract it under much pressure. There were many non-gedolim who called for the psak to be reversed. I don’t hear anyone condemning them.
Obviously there is an issue of kovod, and obviously if there is a reason to disagree, it needs evidence, halachic support, and even better the haskomoh of a different posek. And obviously it has to be done in the most gentle and respectful way. But we aren’t catholics, who have a pope who they consider infallible. That is the road to making a man into a god, and that’s not yiddishkeit.
They were ALL at fault, including the missing Kamtza who was supposed to be invited. As soon as he realized his son was invited to HIS friend’s home, where his son was NOT a friend, he should have realized that a) a mistake was made or b) maybe the friends was extending an olive branch to the son. In either case, he should have stepped in to ensure that nothing untoward would happen to cause a blowup. Just my opinion.
Bar Kamtza was guilty of being a malshin, the host was guilty of being incredibly ungracious and publicly humiliating a fellow Jew (who was already begging to pay for the entire party, if only he could stay and not be embarrassed), the servant was guilty of…carelessness, and the rabbonim and choshuveh people who witnessed the entire preceeedings and did not take the host aside and give him mussar or calm him down, were the guiltiest of all, ebcause they are supposed to be the role models and the leaders of Klal Yisroel. A host who loses his temper, might do so because his emnotions take over and he does not think clearly (that does not make his actions right, but it explains his response). But a Rov who sees an avla committed, or better yet, ANY Jew who sees someone being treated this way, has an obligation to step in and at least TRY to turn things around and possibly even to make sholom between the two men.
There is a Gemara (Shabbos 32a) which says:
??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? (????) ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????
There is a lot to think about from a philosophical standpoint with regard to this Gemara, but I think that the main thing it teaches us is that whenever a tragedy occurs it is not for us to point blame at one party and vindicate the other. Everyone involved is at fault, because if they were not, Hashem would have directed the circumstances so that anyone who was not at fault would not have been involved.
The Maharal explains that Kamtza was a buddy that he befriended for the purpose of the fight.
I heard from both Rav Reuven Netanel and Rav Avraham Korman that the background of the story was political. Rav Netanel pointed out that “Bar Kamtza” means “son of Kamtza” and said that political disagreements even split families. Rav Korman pointed out that “kamtza” is Aramaic for “grasshopper” and that it has a characteristic of forming a swarm that eats everything in sight and then flies into the sesert or sea and dies.He then said that Chazal were talking about two different political parties. He did not say this but it could be that Bar Kamtza was a breakaway faction of Kamtza.
copied:
Chazal inform us that the primary cause for the destruction of the second Beis HaMikdash was Sinas Chinam. In this context, the Gemara in Gitin famously ascribes partial blame to the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. I think most of us are familiar with the incident where an unnamed individual threw a celebration and mistakenly invited his rival Bar Kamtza in place of his friend Kamtza. When the error was discovered, he insisted on ejecting Bar Kamtza despite repeated entreaties. In revenge, Bar Kamtza incited the Roman Emperor on a path that ultimately led to the siege of Yerushalaim and the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash.
The question arises, why does Kamtza share the responsibility equally with Bar Kamtza; he had absolutely no stated role in the events? And why is the host whose rigid hate and stubbornness to humiliate Bar Kamtza not named?
Chazal tell us that one do did not merit the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash in his days is as if it was destroyed in his days. The implication being that if we had eradicated the Sinas Chinam that led to the Churban, we would immediately merit its rebuilding, and we are held accountable for not doing our part.
May we all deserve to see the Third Beis HaMikdash soon.
What was the occasion for the party?
yichusdik – Mesechta Horios is about Beis Din making a mistake. It is clear there that you must be of a certain level to have the right to argue. By arguing, I mean whether you should follow your opinion, not just “think so”.
In Rishonim’s discussion of “Lo Sasur”, many express the idea of the need to listen to the main authority despite the awareness that sometimes they will err.
Rav Avigdor Miller zt”l explained that Josephus clearly records that Bar Kamsus was a well known tziduki. The Gemora is still open to various interpretations, but knowing the “religious” affiliation of one of the main protaganists helps shed light on the story.
The Maharal asks why Kamtza is also blamed when he wasn’t even there.He says that the atmosphere of divisiveness was so strong that the baal haseuda chose Kamtza as a friend solely because he was an enemy of Bar Kamtza. Bar Kamtza being a Tzadukki would fit in with the idea of two factions. However, in light of the Maharal’s interpretation it could be that Kamtza was not a worthy person in other ways but he was one of “unzer mentschen” simply because of his enmity towards Bar Kamtza. The use of the “bar” could also signify that things got to the point where families were split. In addition, the fact that his anger was such that he slandered the Jews to the Romans (and used the term “Jews” rather than “rabbanim’)may indicate that he felt himself it got to the point where the two factions considered theselves two separate peoples.
I don’t think the Maharal learns that they were father and son. He only Darshens the name Kamtza as a petty person and one who doesn’t get along with others; small minded. Bar Kamtza is even more so.
I did not mean that to be the Maharal’s interpretation. I heard it in a shiur and it seems to me to scream “darsheni”.
“rav Miller pointed out that the sinas chinam referred means the sinah of the prushim for the tsedukkim!”
Terrible mistake. Rav Miller pointed out that the sinas chinam referred means the sinah of the TSEDUKIM for the PRUSHIM! He explains that the Rabanan did not want to eat with a rasha. This is not sinas chinam! ??? ?????? ?’ ????. Chas veshalom to say that ??”? were ???? on ????? ????? ????.
Whatever it is, the lesson learned is that sinas chinam is hurtful to the hater, the hatee, and all the people who are collateral damage as a result. Let’s try some ahavas chinam for a change.
It seems that the gemara is saying that these trivial events caused Beitar to be destroyed because of a chicken, Yerushalim was destroyed because of a “grasshopper and the son of a grasshopper.”
Not sure what got you thinking about Tisha B’av now, but yes, the Gemara seems to be telling us how trivial things got us into trouble when there was a Gezeira. I don’t don’t know about that grasshopper part but a party invitation is trivial enough.
We know that Sinas Chinom brought the Churban about, and we understand that the Sinas Chinom was by the Tzaddikim — since the Gemara says this after wondering why the Churban happened if we know them to be Tzaddikim, so the Tziddukim, Baysusim and Baryonim are not part of the formula. Therefore, knowing there was such a problem, we look into this incident and find such references even if that is not the focal point of this Sugya.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.