Opinion on Destruction of the Beis Hamikdash

elisheva25

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 8:14 pm

I saw something posting online about why the Bais Hamikdash was destroyed .
Not familiar with this angle at all.
Wondering what others think

𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝗶𝘀 𝗛𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗸𝗱𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙨 𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙤𝙢, 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗱, 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝘂𝗺 𝗝𝗲𝘄𝘀, 𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗞𝗮𝗺𝘁𝘇𝗮 𝗯𝗮𝗿 𝗞𝗮𝗺𝘁𝘇𝗮. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻. 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗛𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗼𝗻 𝗛𝗮𝘁𝘇𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗸 R' Avigdor Miller 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗞𝗮𝗺𝘁𝘇𝗮 𝗯𝗮𝗿 𝗞𝗮𝗺𝘁𝘇𝗮

𝗤: 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝙘𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙗𝙖𝙣 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀? 𝗪𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗞𝗮𝗺𝘁𝘇𝗮 𝗯𝗮𝗿 𝗞𝗮𝗺𝘁𝘇𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝗶𝘀 𝗛𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗸𝗱𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙨 𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙢?

𝗔:

Now, there’s a big misconception that the public has about a certain Gemara in 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘵𝘢 𝘠𝘶𝘮𝘢. In 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘵𝘢 𝘠𝘶𝘮𝘢 (9b) the Gemara asks: Why was the Beis Hamikdash 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘶𝘷? Why was it destroyed? When we say Beis Hamikdash we mean not only the Beis Hamikdash – it means the whole setup of Jewish independence and commonwealth.

So the Gemara says that the first Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of certain reasons and then the Gemara asks: What about the second Beis Hamikdash? Why was that destroyed? And the Gemara says because of 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮; because of causeless hatred.

Now, on this there is a great deal of misconception. I was once in an Orthodox school, a very Orthodox school, and I saw on the wall there were two pictures. One was a picture of a concentration camp. Jews in the concentration camp and they’re being thrown into the fire, the crematorium. And next to it was another picture of Kamtza bar Kamtza in ancient Yerushalayim just before the 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘯; and the host was ejecting him from a banquet – Kamtza bar Kamtza was being ejected from a banquet. Kamtza bar Kamtza was dressed in a black hat and a 𝘬𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦; he had a nice beard too. He was represented as a decent person, maybe even a 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮, and he was being ejected from the banquet.

Those were the two pictures and there was a chain with links connecting them; the picture of Jews being killed in the camps linked to the picture of Kamtza bar Kamtza in ancient Yerushalayim. And the people who made these pictures understood it as follows: The Gemara says (Gittin 55b) why was Yerushalayim destroyed? Because of Kamtza bar Kamtza. Because a man once wanted to make a banquet and he invited all the 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘪 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮 to the banquet and he sent his servant to invite a certain sage named Kamtza. But the servant made an error and he invited Kamtza bar Kamtza, a different person. Now, when Kamtza bar Kamtza came, the host said, “I’m sorry but I didn’t invite you. This is a private gathering and you therefore must leave.” So Kamtza bar Kamtza said, ”You’re embarrassing me. Let me stay and I’ll give you the cost of my meal.” But the host wouldn’t allow him to stay at the private banquet and after some haggling Kamtza bar Kamtza offered to pay for the whole banquet if he would be allowed to remain. But the host said no and he took him by his garment and he led him out; he ejected him. And for that, the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed.

So, underneath the pictures was a statement printed in big letters, that the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮; in other words, these two stories were equated. They were trying to say that because Kamtza bar Kamtza was ejected, that was 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮, and that was the example of the causeless hatred prevalent in Yerushalayim. And therefore that caused a chain that led up to the crematorium, to Jews being burned in Hitlerland.

Now, that really is what most people think. That’s the picture they have. They put together these two statements, the story of Kamtza bar Kamtza and the statement of 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮 that destroyed the Beis Hamikdash and they understand that this is what caused all our troubles from then on.

It’s a terrible misconception! It’s a slander on the Jewish people! A terrible error!

First of all, who was Kamtza bar Kamtza? Who was this character? Josephus, in his Vita – that’s his own life story – he relates that Kamsus the son of Kamsus was a Herodian. Which means he was a 𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘢; he was a member of the clique of the house of Hurdos. And the house of Hurdos, the Herodians, were our enemies. They were our bitter enemies; we suffered 𝘵𝘻𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘴 from them without number.

Now the Gemara tells us that this host had sages at his banquet table. He made a private 𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘩 for the chachomim to gather. And we know that נקיי הדעת שבירושלים לא היו יושבים אלא אם כן יודעים עם מי היו יושבים‏ – The pure minded sages of Yerushalayim never sat down at a meal or a meeting unless they knew who was present. It was a principle of theirs. They didn’t believe in sitting down in a moshav leitzim. And sometimes there could be one person, a leitz, who can spoil everything. One careless person who shoots his mouth off, he spoils the whole atmosphere. So the נקיי הדעת שבירושלים, the people whose minds were pure, would only associate with other pure minded people. They wouldn’t be impolite to others. They didn’t demonstrate that they were standoffish but 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙.

Now, this host invited the pure minded people, the 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮. It says in the Gemara that all the 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮 were there. And who marches in? None other than Kamsus bar Kamsus who is famous as a member of the Herodian clique, an enemy of the sages. He was a 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳, an informer, and he was delighted that he was invited there. Because now he could sit and listen to the deliberation of the sages. That’s what he wanted – to sit and listen in so he could know their plans. This would be his chance; otherwise he could never get in because 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙣𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙮.

But here some mistake was made and Kamtza bar Kamtza hastened to utilize it. So he hurried and dressed up and he came to the banquet. Here he is! And he wants to sit down with the 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮 and listen in to what’s going on. And naturally he’s going to bring all the information he has to the Herodian clique who are waiting in order to undo any good things that the 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮 wanted to do for the people.

So the host was now in a dilemma. What could he do? Either he could send away all of his guests, or he could send away this informant, this 𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘢.

Now, you have to understand that the Torah is very just. The Gemara is extremely fair. In fact, the Gemara leans all the way over for fairness. And so when this low character – and he was a low character. That we know because what did he do subsequently out of revenge when he was ejected from the banquet? He went to the Romans and he told them that the Jews are in revolt against you. That’s the worst thing you can say. It’s like throwing a spark in dynamite. Because the Romans were afraid of revolt and they punished most cruelly any small sign of revolt. So this man Kamtza bar Kamtza was an enemy of the Jews; you could see that. Because he started all the trouble.

And still when this host got up and he remonstrated with Kamtza bar Kamtza and finally he had to take him by his lapels and lead him out, our sages said it was wrong. It was a sin.

Now how was it a sin? That’s too much for us to understand. What would we have done?! Otherwise Kamtza bar Kamtza would be sitting there and the sages wouldn’t say a word. The whole evening would be wasted. You couldn’t open your mouth when this informant was sitting there. And still, such is the judgment of the Gemara. It’s fair and severe, and therefore it says there that this is what caused the destruction of Yerushalayim.

It doesn’t mean that this is really a sin; that this was the cause. Yerushalayim would have been destroyed anyhow. But when Hakodosh Boruch Hu sought a match that would set the fire, He chose this to be the match. It was a poetic justice. Don’t misunderstand this! 𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘾𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙗𝙖𝙣. This was just a spark that set off the fire.

𝗬𝗲𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗛𝗮𝗸𝗼𝗱𝗼𝘀𝗵 𝗕𝗼𝗿𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗛𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆 𝗬𝗲𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗺 – that’s what the Gemara says; forty years before He had already decided to destroy Yerushalayim – so 𝗛𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗲 𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻.

So when Kamtza bar Kamtza was heard to have gone to the Romans and he started the trouble, it was a parable; it was meant to be used as a lesson – that we shouldn’t have embarrassed him.

Now we don’t really understand that lesson – it’s too fair for us to understand. But that’s what the Gemara does – 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻. You shouldn’t have ejected him; you should’ve let the evening be ruined. And all the sages should have just sat there in silence and that’s all. You couldn’t cancel the banquet. All the food would have gone lost. There were no refrigerators in those days. All the food would go lost! It can’t be helped. It was an expensive banquet but it can’t be helped. Don’t put a man to shame. And that’s why this poetic lesson was utilized – to teach the people a lesson. You shouldn’t have embarrassed him.

So what is this business that 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮, that causeless hatred caused the 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘯. It says in the Gemara that causeless hatred caused the destruction. So many Jews think it means that the Jews hated each other, that 𝘧𝘳𝘶𝘮 Jews hated each other. That’s what they think. They think that the whole nation at that time were all 𝘧𝘳𝘶𝘮 Jews, all 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘪 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮, and they were all busy hating each other. And that’s why the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed!

But that’s as silly as could be. It’s not realistic at all! 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲; 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝙛𝙧𝙪𝙢 𝗝𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿! In those days, the whole nation, the 𝘈𝘮 𝘏𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘩 was divided into followers of Beis Shammai and followers of Beis Hillel. The entire Jewish nation was divided into those who followed Beis Shammai and those who followed Beis Hillel. These were the two great assemblies of Torah sages. There wasn’t anybody else that was of the 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘪 𝘦𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘪 𝘠𝘪𝘴𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭, of 𝘧𝘳𝘶𝘮 Jews. We’re not talking about the 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘮. True Jews all were 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘮 of Beis Shammai or of Beis Hillel.

And the Gemara (Yevamos 14b) says openly that the 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘮 of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel loved each other. These two schools, although they had different opinions on some things, even on very important things, but they loved each other. שהיו אוהבים זה את זה – 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, לקיים מה שנאמר – 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘬 𝘰𝘧, האמת והשלום אהבו – 𝘓𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰. They loved the truth; that’s why each one stuck to his opinions but they loved peace too.

And the Gemara talks about that. The Gemara dilates on how they loved each other. Now if Beis Shammai loved Beis Hillel and vice versa so Beis Shammai certainly loved Beis Shammai. And Beis Hillel loved Beis Hillel. It doesn’t make sense that Beis Hillel loved Beis Shammai but they didn’t love their own people. It’s ridiculous. The Jewish people loved each other – 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙨 𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙢.

I once saw that an 𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘮 𝘨𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘭 wrote – I won’t mention his name – he was misled, and on the strength of this 𝘮𝘢’𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘳 that the Beis Hamikdash was laid waste because of 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮, he wrote that unfortunately the 𝘧𝘳𝘶𝘮 Jews were too critical of each other and they sometimes suspected each other of not being 𝘧𝘳𝘶𝘮 enough. Now, that’s just taken out of thin air! 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲!

So what does it mean that there was 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮? Who were the ones who hated for nothing? 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝘇𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗸𝗶𝗺. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗝𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 who were not of Beis Shammai or Beis Hillel. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝘇𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗸𝗶𝗺 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀! That’s the 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮!

You’ll ask a question: So because the Tzedukim, the wicked people, hated the sages, therefore the Jewish nation is responsible? The answer is yes, because they were also Jews. When Jews are wicked the entire Jewish nation is responsible. That’s a great principle in the Torah. We are treated as one individual. 𝘒𝘰𝘭 𝘠𝘪𝘴𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘮 𝘻𝘦𝘩 𝘭𝘢’𝘻𝘦𝘩 – all of Yisroel are guarantors for one another means that we’re one body, we’re one person. And therefore we were held responsible for the misdeeds of Kamtza bar Kamtza and the Tzedukim and all those who hated the 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮.

Do you want that example of hatred? The New Testament is an example of the hatred towards the sages. 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿, 𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗲𝘀. Constantly it’s reiterated. The Pharisees are promised that there’s only one place where they’re going to go when they’re dead. When they die they’re going to a certain place and it’s reiterated over and over again in the New Testament. The 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮 are called vipers and snakes. They are the worst kind of hypocrites and criminals.

Now, who are the Pharisees? The Pharisees are Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinus, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkinos, Rabban Gamliel Hazaken and his son Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai. All these famous names; they are our luminaries, our teachers. Their lives we study. It’s their words that inspire us. 𝘔’𝘱𝘪𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘶 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘮! There’re the best of our nation! They’re the cream of our nation. They are the ones who the New Testament condemn us as the worst.

Now you people may not believe it; it may seem exaggerated to you. But the fact is that the New Testament mentions other nations too. It mentions a lot of people. It mentions the Romans but it has nothing bad to say against the Romans. It mentions the Greeks but there’s no criticism against the Greeks. It mentions the Samaritans, the 𝘒𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘮, but no criticism of the Samaritans. It mentions the Sadducees too; no criticism of the Sadducees. But when it speaks about the Pharisees, then they let loose; they turn around and let loose like a skunk that gives the best that it has to offer and the New Testament pours a torrent on the 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮. Not only once! All the time; all the pages of the New Testament are splattered with that poison against the 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘮.

But they were all Jews however. In those days they were all Jews; they were still Jews. And so if you want to know why the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, so the Gemara says that there was hatred, 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮. 𝗪𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗱? 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀! 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀! 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 – 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱!

That’s the point that’s missed by all the writers. All the writers who speak on this subject misunderstand it. They blame our poor people for 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮. There’s no 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘻 anywhere that there was causeless hatred among the sages and their disciples.

But there was a very great hatred 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩 them! The Saducees hated the sages! And the 𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘢 says certain types of 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘪 𝘩𝘢’𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘻 were also 𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘮; they hated the sages. It’s a 𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘢 in Pesachim. You remember what Rabbi Akiva said? He said, “When I was an 𝘢𝘮 𝘩𝘢’𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘻, if I would get a hold of a sage I would tear him to pieces.” He testified later that that’s what he thought when he was an 𝘢𝘮 𝘩𝘢’𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘻.

It was these people – they’re the ones because of whom the Beis Hamikdash was ruined. Because our nation has to be perfect! And when we have in our body-politic, in the commonwealth of the Jewish nation a certain poisoned minority, so that means that the body is not healthy and therefore Hakodosh Boruch Hu had to make a change of climate. And that’s why the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed.

Malkqueen

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 9:42 pm

This is a very interesting perspective, and seems to boil down the churban to basic antisemitism, which is the most baseless hatred.

SuperWify

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 9:46 pm

Very interesting.

There was hatred and fighting among the sicarrim, the other rebels, the Pharisees, the chachamim ect.

southernbubby

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 9:47 pm

I saw a couple of articles today on that theme. They basically said that from a pedological angle, it makes sense to tell children that Bar Kamtza was bullied and shamed and nobody stood up for him and Hashem was angry. As adults, we have to understand that the story was not so simple just like no situation is so simple. They also said that Hashem uses upheaval to reset society so that the wrongs can be corrected.

Malkqueen

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 9:52 pm

southernbubby wrote:

This is very frightening to hear, given the context in which we're living.

amother

Puce

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 9:55 pm

OP, what then must we do to bring Mashiach according to this opinion?

amother

Salmon

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 10:00 pm

It kind of lays waste to the whole "tisha b'av is about making shalom" angle.
But I don't understand why tisha b'av got hijacked in that way anyway. The first bias hamikdash had nothing to do with sinas chinam.

amother

Salmon

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 10:01 pm

Malkqueen wrote:

This is very frightening to hear, given the context in which we're living.

To me it's comforting. Ikvei demishicha. Hashem needs to turn the world upside down so He can slot Moshiach into the picture.

Malkqueen

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 10:05 pm

amother [ Salmon ] wrote:

To me it's comforting. Ikvei demishicha. Hashem needs to turn the world upside down so He can slot Moshiach into the picture.

I like this way of looking at it. Thanks for posting!

southernbubby

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 10:23 pm

Malkqueen wrote:

This is very frightening to hear, given the context in which we're living.

True but some of the changes may be ultimately beneficial. Take for example, telemedicine. This became popular due to the pandemic but it's use can expand medical care to many underserved people. Maybe children will be assigned to smaller classes and many people will continue to work from home which will cut down on traffic and pollution. If bats are truly the culprit, maybe we can get better at protecting animal habitats and so on.

elisheva25

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 10:41 pm

I don’t know ... I am confused by this as well. I’ve only learned the the basic explanation of Bar Kamtza story.
This is all new to me. But it def seems how this could have been the way it happened .
But what do we take from here ?
And why isn’t this version being taught ?

Mama Bear

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 11:35 pm

I read the Artscroll Tisha B'av book today. It's FASCINATING. And having not learned too much Jewish History in school, I was amazed by how much we don't know, by how much context we're missing in the era of the churban of the 2nd bais hamikdosh.
By and large most of the Jews of those days were awful people. To be honest the Jews of today are tzaddikim by comparison. Besides for the small faction of frum yidden and Chazal of those days, the rest were horrible people. The sinas chinam and fighting were between the 3 different factions: the Biryonim/Zikariim, the Righteous/Moderates, and the Friends of Rome. They just couldn't get together to decide how to deal with Romans and were fighting with each other, with the Birnyonim/Sicariim mercilessly slaughtering people for evil and greed.
The whole book is so fascinating and lends a rich background to explain how the whole 2nd churban came together. To be honest we were doomed for years before. There was so much bloodshed and fighting going on there, that it reminds me a little sometimes of the divide between the gov't, the frei yidden, and the chareidim in EY (with less bloodshed). But we can certainly picture the kind of sinas chinam that was going on then....

newcomer

Thu, Jul 30 2020, 11:38 pm

There was a lot of fighting among the Jews prior to the churban. They only starved in Yerushalayim because of the rebellion and food destruction by a group of other Jews, etc. Jews were responsible for the deaths of other Jews.

malki2

Fri, Jul 31 2020, 12:41 am

amother [ Puce ] wrote:

OP, what then must we do to bring Mashiach according to this opinion?

I asked the same question to someone. Because Rabbi Miller does make a number of very good points. The person told me that if there was a problem of Sinas Chinam among the population, it was a magnification of a smaller, but more significant (in Hashem’s eyes) problem within the Torah world. Meaning that we still have what to fix in our own world. Rabbi Miller was just saying that we shouldn’t think that the Torah scholars walked around hating each other. And also that when the Gemara said that the cause was Sinas Chinam, it was giving the direct cause, but not necessarily the underlying issues. The bottom line is that on some level, we were still not good enough as a people, and we still need to improve ourselves as much as we can.

PinkFridge

Fri, Jul 31 2020, 9:57 am

Malkqueen wrote:

This is very frightening to hear, given the context in which we're living.

Maybe but it can be distilled. On some level, once you teach kids, even little kids, about the churban, they need to know that Hashem doesn't do things in an arbitrary vindictive way.

PinkFridge

Fri, Jul 31 2020, 10:19 am

amother [ Salmon ] wrote:

And we improved enough after 70 years to be able to go back but not totally. The chachamim davened for the yetzer hara for avodah zara to be removed because it seemed so clear that given the opportunity again, we'd slide. And they canonized nusach tefilla and more for us to be take along into the next galus, which seemed likely: we didn't get back all the nisim of the first Bais Hamikdash.

Still, we mourn the human pain of the first, which is predicted and documented in Tanach, and should take the lessons of the first BHMK (no yetzer hara for idol worship, but what have we replaced it with) as a cautionary tale.

PinkFridge

Fri, Jul 31 2020, 10:22 am

malki2 wrote:

There's no question that this galus has been boot camp for interpersonal growth. Look at the lessons of Rabbi Akiva's students. Yes, there is there not making birchas haTorah, I.e. treating it as an academic pursuit, but there is definitely their not giving each other proper kavod, as expected from them on their madreigah.

giselle

Fri, Jul 31 2020, 11:12 am

While this is all interesting to read, it doesn’t really change the lesson for me. We may not be 100% sure of the accuracy of the historical details, but sinas chinam absolutely exists in the frum world today, and we need to end that. So whether or not bar kamtza was a Rasha (btw many do learn this correctly or at least according to your OP, that he was not a good person - who would think he’s a good person seeing what he did to the Jews after?), the lesson still stands that we need to work on Ahavas Yisrael. Not one gadol would say otherwise.

imasoftov

Fri, Jul 31 2020, 12:06 pm

The Gemara tells a somewhat different story.

Throughout the quote it says "Kamtza bar Kamtza", but the Gemara opens not with "Because of Kamtza bar Kamtza" but "Because of Kamtza and bar Kamtza". Thereafter, Whenever the quote says "Kamtza bar Kamtza", the Gemara says "bar Kamtza". The quote says that Kamtza was a sage, however the Gemara says that Kamtza was a friend of the host. Later on, the quote refers to a figure named Kampsus bar Kamsus found in Josephus, as a "member of the Herodian clique, an enemy of the sages", but all I've found about him (see here, paragraph 9 is that he (the name is spelled Compsus there) was opposed to the revolt and a brother of a former governor of Teveria appointed by Herod. But Herod died in 44 CE, the Churban was 26 years later. There's nothing else there about this person with a similar name or his brother, nothing about his attitude to the rabbis, or whether he did anything to oppose the revolt.

The quote says the host said "I’m sorry but I didn’t invite you. This is a private gathering and you therefore must leave" while the Gemara reports him as saying "You are my enemy, get up and leave".

The quote says "the Gemara tells us that this host had sages at his banquet table. He made a private 𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘩 for the chachomim to gather" but the Gemara says that the rabbis were there, but not that they were the only guests. The quote says that because KbK was a known informer, the rabbis would have left had he stayed, but the Gemara doesn't mention them as the reason the host threw bK out, only that they did not protest. KbK wanting to spy on the rabbis or sitting with them is also not in the Gemara.

The Gemara doesn't say anything resembling "And still when this host got up and he remonstrated with Kamtza bar Kamtza and finally he had to take him by his lapels and lead him out, our sages said it was wrong. It was a sin." It neither praises nor condemns the host, although it does later blame Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas' humility.

Last edited by imasoftov on Sun, Aug 23 2020, 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

imasoftov

Sat, Aug 01 2020, 3:10 pm

Quote:

So what does it mean that there was 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮? Who were the ones who hated for nothing? 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝘇𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗸𝗶𝗺. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗝𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 who were not of Beis Shammai or Beis Hillel. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝘇𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗸𝗶𝗺 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀! That’s the 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘮!

I had to go back to getting ready for Shabbat after my previous post but while I was doing it, I remembered that the Gemara about sinat chinam as the cause for the Churban is not the one about Kamtza and bar Kamtza, but a different one, Yoma 9b which after discussing the three sins for which the first Churban happened (idol worship, forbidden s-xual relations, and bloodshed) says, but during the time of the second Temple, people were engaged in Torah study, mitzvot and gemilut chasadim, so why was it destroyed? Because of baseless hate.

To understand this Gemara in light of the quote, one would have to read it that the Tzedukim were engaged in Torah study, mitzvot and gemilut chasadim.

And just now I looked up the Gemara in this part:

Quote:

And the Gemara (Yevamos 14b) says openly that the 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘮 of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel loved each other. These two schools, although they had different opinions on some things, even on very important things, but they loved each other. שהיו אוהבים זה את זה – 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, לקיים מה שנאמר – 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘬 𝘰𝘧, האמת והשלום אהבו – 𝘓𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰. They loved the truth; that’s why each one stuck to his opinions but they loved peace too.

Well that's almost what it says. It's not entirely wrong, this Gemara doesn't say they hated, but neither does it go as far as love. What it says is חיבה וריעות, affection and friendship, which are certainly better than hate, but aren't quite love. The pasuk that the Gemara quotes does mention love of truth and peace.

I looked for the phrase שהיו אוהבים זה את זה and found it in Bereshit Rabba 38:6 but it's about the Dor Hahaflaga (the generation of Migdal Bavel).

I've also posted before a number of incidents between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, one going back to Hillel himself.

Beitza 20a tells how students of Beit Shammai approached Hillel himself when Hillel brought a sacrifice on Yom Tov that was permitted according to him but not by them, and instead of arguing with them, lied about it being a sacrifice that they approved of, and on the next page, a similar dispute between a member of Beit Hillel and another of Beit Shamma (here just one of each) ended with the former telling the latter off.

Yerushalmi Shabbat 9a says, about the day that Beit Shammai had a majority over Beit Hillel in the attic of Chanania ben Chizkiya ben Garon that students of Beit Shammai killed students of Beit Hillel ר' יהושע אונייא תלמידי ב"ש עמדו להן מלמטה והיו הורגין בתלמידי ב"ה. A commentary, the Korban HaEda says that Beit Shammai didn't actually kill any of Beit Hillel, they only threatened to, with weapons that they had brought, with the result that others from Beit Shammai who were inside had a majority.

I don't know if this represents a progression - from Hillel avoiding argument, to a student who engaged in argument, ending in weapons outside the yeshiva - or these incidents were not presented as a history of escalation, but either way there was more to the story than just love or affection.