Rabbi Yochanan informs us in the Talmud that it was the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza (Gittin 54b-55a) which caused the destruction of Jerusalem during the Roman period.
A brief outline of the incident is as follows: An anonymous individual threw a lavish party in Jerusalem to which his enemy Bar Kamtza was mistakenly invited instead of his friend Kamtza. The host became enraged when he discovered Bar Kamtza’s presence and was implacable as he had Bar Kamtza publicly ejected from the party. Bar Kamzah was angry, especially at the Rabbis who were present at the party and failed to stop the host from publically humiliating him. Bar Kamtzah desired revenge against all the Jews of Jerusalem.
Bar Kamtzah thus traveled to inform the Roman Emperor that the Jews were planning a rebellion. The Emperor did not believe him and created a test to see if this was true. He gave Bar Kamtza a kosher and healthy animal to deliver to the Temple authorities in Jerusalem and requested that it be sacrificed on his behalf. Unbeknown to the Emperor, Bar Kamtza blemished the animal prior to his arrival and rendered it unfit to be offered.
The Rabbis discussed whether to sacrifice the unfit animal in order to maintain peace with the government (shlom malchut) or to obey the letter of Jewish law and not sacrifice it. A leading Rabbi, Rav Zecharya ben Avkulos (hereinafter “Rav Zecharya”) rejected any abridgment of the law and prohibited the animal from being sacrificed. He also refused to have Bar Kamtza killed to prevent him from reporting to the Emperor because such an act might be misinterpreted as teaching that death was warranted for blemishing a sacrifice. As a result of the decision of Rav Zecharya, the Romans believed that the Jews were rebelling and totally destroyed Jerusalem, desecrated the Temple, and exiled the Jewish people from the land of Israel.
As the story proceeds, the blame for the destruction could be assigned to various individuals:
1. It could be the anonymous host who gave the feast;
2. It could be the Rabbis who witnessed the public humiliation of Bar Kamtza and did nothing to stop it;
3. It could be Bar Kamtza who wanted revenge, even if it meant the destruction of his entire people;
4. Finally, it could be Rav Zacharya who at the last moment could have stopped the entire process which led to the destruction and chose not to do so.
It is interesting to note, that nowhere in the story is any responsibility given to the Romans and the Emperor who actually undertook the destruction.
Rabbi Yochanan ultimately lays the blame at the feet of Rav Zecharya. He states, “it was the extreme patience (or sufferance) of Rav Zecharya Ben Avkulos (according to Rashi, for his unwillingness to kill Bar Kamtza) which destroyed our home, burned our temple, and exiled us from our country.” (Gittin 55a.)
To better understand the underlying reasoning of Rabbi Yochanan, it is important to analyze how he introduced this account of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. He does so by citing a verse from Mishlei, “Rabbi Yochanan said, what does the following verse mean? ‘Fortunate is the man who is constantly fearful, but the one who hardens his heart will fall into evil’.” (Proverbs 28:14. Gittin 54b.) Rashi explains this verse in the following manner: Fearful truly means one who is constantly concerned about the future consequences of his actions. (We should note that in the Book of Proverbs, Rashi offers a different interpretation of this verse.)
The one who hardens his heart is not concerned about the unintended consequences that his actions may produce. Despite any circumstances which surround him, he persistently proceeds forward and ultimately causes great destruction. In the case of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza the description of the persistently hard individual could apply to the anonymous host, the Rabbis at the party, certainly to Bar Kamtza and Rav Zecharya. Rabbi Yochanan chooses to put the blame squarely upon Rav Zecharya. The irony of this position is that that the hardness of Rav Zecharya’s heart is actually the result of his tolerance, temperate nature, and striving to do good. What we learn, however, is that the most noble intentions are just as likely to end in disaster as wicked ones when the individual is not fearful about what will occur as a result of his actions in the future.
Rav Zecharya did not wish to commit a sin by sacrificing the Emperor’s sacrifice which was blemished by Bar Kamtza and thus promulgate the notion that a blemished animal may be sacrificed. He also did not wish to kill Bar Kamtza to give the wrong message that one is killed for blemishing a sacrifice. These meticulous considerations overrode the necessity of maintaining peace with the Roman Government (Shlom Malchut) even though they led to horrendous consequences.
What is most striking about the failure of Rav Zecharya, is that he did not follow clear Jewish law. The Talmud states, “Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says: one who commits a sin for a sacred purpose (Lishma) is greater than one who performs a mitzvah for personal reasons and not for the sake of God (Lo Lishma). (Nazir 23b.) The Tosfot in Sanhedren 74b maintains this same formula as Rav Nachman, even though the Talmud in Nazir ultimately changes the formula that one who commits a sin for a sacred person is like one (not greater than one) who performs a mitzvah not for a sacred purpose, (because by doing a mitzvah not for a sacred purpose, ultimately will lead him to do it for a sacred purpose.) (Nazir 23b.) The Talmud demonstrates this point from the action of Yael. She deliberately enticed Sisera, a major enemy of Israel, into having sexual relations with her, in order to weaken him and thus be able to ultimately kill him. She is praised for this action, even above the matriarchs who encouraged their husbands to take concubines, not primarily for the purpose of producing children, but because of rivalry or jealously with each other. Rashi, (Nazir 23b) Thus,if Yael could be praised over the matriarchs for committing an act of sexual impropriety for the sacred purpose of killing a major enemy of the Jewish people and thereby saving many Jews, certainly Rav Zecharya would have been permitted to commit the sin of sacrificing a blemished animal for the sacred purpose of saving the Jewish people.
Similarly, the position of Rav Zecharya is troubling because according to Rava, in a situation where a non-Jew requires a Jew to transgress a commandment, but the purpose of the transgression is purely for the need of the non-Jew and there is no intent to have the Jew transgress a commandment of the Torah, the Jew is not permitted to risk his life in this circumstance and should commit the sin. (Sanhedren 74b.)
In the case before us, the Emperor did not intend for the Jews to transgress their commandments. The Talmud says that the Emperor sent a proper animal and was not aware that Bar Kamtza blemished the animal. The Emperor just wanted to know if the Jews were truly rebellious. Thus, Rav Zecharya would have been obligated to sacrifice the animal because he would not have been permitted to risk the lives of the Jewish people when there was no intent on the part of the Emperor to make the Jews transgress the Torah.
Thus, when Rav Yochanan quotes Proverbs that a hard heart leads to great evil (“Fortunate is the man who is constantly fearful, but the one who hardens his heart will fall into evil”), he really meant someone like Rav Zecharya who was hardened to his position, despite the goodness of his character. We see that sufferance, patience, or temperance can, under certain circumstances, also be expressed as unwarranted persistence, blindness, or hardness of the heart which disallows any compromise with reality. It was these two apparently contradictory qualities which according to Rav Yochanan, fulfilled the statement in the book of Proverbs which explains why Jerusalem was destroyed.
We thus see from Rav Yochanan’s introductory prologue from Mishlei that the whole thrust of the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza is to ultimately lay the blame squarely at the feet of Rav Zecharya because of the attitude which he manifested. He was not simply another character in a series of events which brought about the destruction.
Ultimately, it is the specific circumstance and the judgment of the individual as to what quality one should manifest at any given time. In one situation, being good means being persistent and uncompromising. While in another circumstance, the correct decision is to be tolerant and forgiving. We need Halacha to guide our judgment and educate us as to when the different qualities apply.
We are unfortunately living in an age, where many in our society in the name of tolerance, progressivism, fairness and goodness, are so concerned about offending people that they do not realize that their supposed goodness encourages the existence and expansion of the highest form of intolerance. For goodness to truly be accomplished, it has to be accompanied by knowledge analysis, logic and reason and not blind faith that all that is required is good intentions. Unfortunately, self-righteousness is usually blind to the future consequences. It is a perfect prescription for destruction.