The humility of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkilus

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

1 2 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

b.chadash

Sun, Aug 07 2022, 11:44 pm

At the end of the tragic story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkilus refuses to allow the blemished animal to be brought as a korban. The other rabbis felt that they should bend the rules just this once so as not to risk angering the Roman emperor. But Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkilus took a hardline approach and said, well people will say that we allow animals that have a blemish to be brought as a Korban.

So the rabbis suggested they should kill Bar Kamtza, so he wouldn't be able to go back to the emporor and denounce them. But again Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkilus opposed this, saying that people will think we kill people who blemish animals.
So they did nothing. Unfortunately.

Bar Kamtza's plan succeeded. Now he had proof for the emperor that the Jews were rebelling against him, and this is what precipitated the destruction of Yerushalyim.
Rav Yochanon said that it was because of the humility/meekness/modesty [hard to translate the word "invanusa"] of Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkilus that the beis Hamikdash was destroyed.

It's interesting to me that of the many characters in the story who are to blame, the gemara also puts blame at the feet of this Rabbi. His fault? He was too humble, too meek.

The idea is that he didn’t have the guts to give a heter, to bend the law in a situation that clearly warranted it. He wanted to play it safe. He also apparently had a very narrow and shortsighted view.

When we examine the stories of the past, it seems that it is full of cases where people were just too literal, too bent on sticking to the letter of the law, and weren't capable of seeing the bigger picture, and the tragic consequences. (Gedalia ben Achikam comes to mind as well.)

Of course this is a slippery slope. I tend to identify with this approach because it's just safer to follow the law than to think outside of it. But in certain extenuating circumstances, such as Pikuach nefesh, the situation calls for bending the rules.

Another thing that stands out about Rabbi Zechariah's approach is that he was very worried about what others would say. Instead of judging the case for what it was, he was afraid of setting a precedent. I think about certain decisions that we sometimes make as parents, or that teachers /principals make that are too harsh. But we do it because we don't want others to get the wrong idea. We sacrifice the child because we worry that it will be perceived the wrong way.
It's a very hard call.

But in the case of Zecharia ben Avkilus, it had ramifications that still reverberate until today.

amother

Antiquewhite

Sun, Aug 07 2022, 11:52 pm

This is what Hashem wanted.

Interesting point.

And let’s not forget, we weren’t on our best behavior across the board.

amother

SandyBrown

Sun, Aug 07 2022, 11:52 pm

Very well written and I really like how you tied it together with people's point of view of matters of today. I just have a question, is this under shidduchum for a reason?

b.chadash

Sun, Aug 07 2022, 11:54 pm

amother [ SandyBrown ] wrote:

Very well written and I really like how you tied it together with people's point of view of matters if today. I just have a question, is this under shidduchum for a reason?

Whoops. I didn't realize where I was typing this.
I could probably connect it to shidduchim, but I won't go there, lol.

Eta. Is there a way to move it?

Last edited by b.chadash on Sun, Aug 07 2022, 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Tangerine

Sun, Aug 07 2022, 11:54 pm

Very interesting, thanks for sharing food for thought.

amother

Goldenrod

Sun, Aug 07 2022, 11:54 pm

I don't know what to make of this story. I don't like blaming someone for someone else's wrongdoing. So many times there's a story where someone kept true to principle and it bought about a yeshua or kiddush Hashem or they lauded the person who did so. So many times in our history, not bending was the answer. Mordechai, didn't bend with either the party or when Esther told him to take off his sack clothes- even though you can't go before the king like that.

b.chadash

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 12:03 am

amother [ Goldenrod ] wrote:

Exactly. I always think about this dichotomy as well.
Sometimes the message is-dont bend!
Other times the message is- don't be a fool and bend!

Ironically, the example you brought about Mordechai and Esther, I actually see it more about bending. The whole idea of Esther going willingly to Achashveirosh is one of the most confusing stories in Tanach. She basically willingly submits to a non jew, taking her out of the category of an ones.

Also, Esther tells Mordechai to abolish Pesach that year. Rather we should fast one pesach than not have any future pesachs.

Yehudis is also hailed as a heroine for essentially acting as a harlot for Heliporni, because she ends up killing him.

chestnut

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 12:03 am

amother [ Goldenrod ] wrote:

And Pinchas

amother

SandyBrown

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 12:05 am

b.chadash wrote:

Whoops. I didn't realize where I was typing this.
I could probably connect it to shidduchim, but I won't go there, lol.

Eta. Is there a way to move it?

you might be able to change the original post or ask a mod to do it. I was just thinking about this,not this particular story but this idea, in light of all the threads going on today. If we stop seeing things so black and white so much pain and misunderstandings can be prevented.

chestnut

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 12:06 am

b.chadash wrote:

Sometimes the message is-dont bend!
Other times the message is- don't be a fool and bend!

Exactly

b.chadash

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 12:09 am

amother [ Goldenrod ] wrote:

I just want to point out that it is Rabbi Yochonon that blames Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkilus for the destruction. Not me and not you.

It seems that in another version if the story, Rabbi Zechariah ben avkilus was one of the rabbis who was at the party and said nothing as the host humiliated Bar Kamtza. Bar kamtza was so mad that the great rabbis did not protest this indignity and that's why he wanted to take revenge on everyone.
This is another example of his meekness. He was too humble to get involved, too unworthy to judge the situation.
And there is a third example elsewhere in gemara that also points to an aversion to taking a stand.

SYA

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 12:50 am

b.chadash wrote:

According the the Gemara, he wasn’t just one of the Rabbis. The medrash on Eicha says that he was the one who was able to protest at the party.

b.chadash

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 7:08 am

SYA wrote:

According the the Gemara, he wasn’t just one of the Rabbis. The medrash on Eicha says that he was the one who was able to protest at the party.

Right .
I actually read somewhere that his humility was such that he saw himself as unworthy, and just one of the guests. He didn't view himself the way other did, as the ONE who could have and should have protested at the party.
Interesting because usually humility is praised.
But when the humility in a leader is excessive, it sends out the wrong message. Shaul hamelech was also faulted for being too humble.

Aurora

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 8:17 am

I feel like I see this kind of humility on the part of many rabbis and bati din who deal with women's issues, such as covering hair, and especially with agunot.

b.chadash

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 8:34 am

Aurora wrote:

I feel like I see this kind of humility on the part of many rabbis and bati din who deal with women's issues, such as covering hair, and especially with agunot.

Can you elaborate?

zaq

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 3:38 pm

I'm not fond of any story that ends with "and that's why (name that disaster) happened." All of these stories are just examples of the kinds of things that were going on, all of which, put together, led to the catastrophe of the day. There is never just one cause or one person who was to blame.

Life is a balancing act. It's easy in hindsight to say "soandso should have been more flexible" or "soandso should have stood firm," but could you have predicted the outcome had you been there at the time? As the song says, "you have to know when to hold and when to fold," but unless you've been counting and memorizing cards, the best you can do is guess.

imorethanamother

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 4:26 pm

zaq wrote:

The Talmud brings it up as an important lesson. Take a stand. It's very possible that the entire reason the Roman army came to subdue Judea is because they viewed it as a threat. They wouldn't have, had RZBA have allowed the korban for safety.

I think that lesson has been internalized. It used to be that things that would never have been allowed - I'm only thinking of abortion because it's such a hot topic now, but there are others - have slowly been more accepted because we recognize that we can't let the law trample the safety and welfare of klal Yisroel. So in this respect, the assignation of blame is key to the shaping of our leaders, all future leaders, because we ensure the survival of our people.

zaq

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 6:07 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

You just contradicted yourself. The message here seems to be "be flexible", NOT "take a stand." And frankly, we can never know for sure which is the right way to go A brilliant leader may say "we need to keep a low profile and allow some things to slide so that things won't get worse." Another, every bit as brilliant, will say "we can't give in one inch, because today it'll be an inch and tomorrow it'll be a foot." There are well-respected communities that pride themselves on their refusal to compromise when it comes to any aspect of halacha, even if it brings them into conflict with other communities, and this is seen as a good thing.

It reminds me of the quotation "Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason." IOW, if a strategy succeeds, we applaud it; if it fails, we deplore it. If a soldier disobeys orders and the result is a disaster, he's court-martialed. If he disobeys orders and the result is a stunning success, he gets a medal. Who's to say that giving in on the matter of the korban would have changed the outcome? Maybe the KBH would have been so offended he'd have destroyed the BHM sooner. The sin'at chinam was still there. The political infighting was still there. Kamtza/Bar Kamtza were still there.

imorethanamother

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 6:19 pm

zaq wrote:

You just contradicted yourself. The message here seems to be "be flexible", NOT "take a stand." And frankly, we can never know for sure which is the right way to go A brilliant leader may say "we need to keep a low profile and allow some things to slide so that things won't get worse. Another, every bit as brilliant, will say "we can't give in one inch, because today it'll be an inch and tomorrow it'll be a foot." There are well-respected communities that pride themselves on their refusal to compromise when it comes to any aspect of halacha, even if it brings them into conflict with other communities.

It reminds me of the quotation "Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason." IOW, if a strategy succeeds, we applaud it; if it fails, we deplore it. If a soldier disobeys orders and the result is a disaster, he's court-martialed. If he disobeys orders and the result is a stunning success, he gets a medal. Who's to say that giving in on the matter of the korban would have changed the outcome? Maybe the KBH would have been so offended he'd have destroyed the BHM sooner. The sin'at chinam was still there. The political infighting was still there. Kamtza/Bar Kamtza were still there.

You have excellent points, but I think I didn’t fully explain an important point.

RZBA didn’t take a stand. He wasn’t flexible either. He didn’t rule either way. He didn’t say the korban could be brought. And he didn’t say the korban couldn’t be brought. Here was an incredibly important juncture of Jewish history, and he had the opportunity to delay the onset of the onslaught. But he didn’t. And this wasn’t the first time he had this particular issue where he seemed paralyzed to rule on an issue.

Rabbi YY Jacobson also had a speech about this. For eating nuts, one opinion said you can throw away the shells and one said you couldn’t, I forget the controversy exactly and my computer died. RZBA didn’t do either. He did both. He took both opinions about how to handle shells of nuts and did both of them, thus showing his disciples that neither opinion could be fully trusted.

In Talmud, often you’ll have differing opinions. But most often they have those opinions based on what they were told or taught or witnessed. They pick one side and follow it. Rav Poppa is praised because he compromised, but not because he refused to fully endorse either choice. And his compromises didn’t negate either side or perform both opinions. That’s the true definition of flexibility.

(ETA I’m not sure exactly that Rav Poppa didn’t have a ruling that did indeed perform both opinions as the compromise. I’m probably wrong on this. Maybe RZBA thing with the nuts was somehow different? I have to listen to R’ Jacobsons speech again)

As an aside, yes there are multiple factors regarding the chorban, but there’s always multiple choices along the way, and who knows? We had had thousands of instances of sinas chinam, why that particular one? Sodom were known to be cruel, but it was the episode of the woman covered in honey and devoured by bees that sealed their fate. The point is all our choices matter. Even one person can delay or negate the inevitable.

b.chadash

Mon, Aug 08 2022, 8:35 pm

Fascinating discussion. I agree with both of you. However, I take exception to something Zaq said.

Zaq said, " I'm not fond of any story that ends with "and that's why (name that disaster) happened."

I totally agree. That's because we have a very small window to reality. We don't know the whole picture, no matter how smart we are.
However, in this case, it was Rav Yochanon who made that statement about Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkilus.

Furthermore,The gemara says ,"Because of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, the city of Yerushalayim was destroyed. And because of a hen and a rooster, the city of Tur Malka was destroyed. (Or was it Beitar? I don't remember the exact details. ) etc. In other words, if you believe that the Rabbis in the gemara had the ability to assess events and make conclusions, then you could trust that these words are to be taken at face value. I, for one, believe that the rabbis in the gemara had that ability to make such statements.

That being said, there are many ways to understand the statement. One way to explain it is that the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza were just a microcosm of what was going on all over. It was just one example that was symptomatic of the entire generation. Another way of looking at it is that the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza is the actual event that set the wheels in motion that would eventually destroy Yerushalyim.

Regardless, all of that was beside the point of the discussion.
The discussion is that a person's excessive humility, and trying to play it safe is often the wrong approach, especially if he is a leader. Patience and humility are very laudable traits. But sometimes they can be bad.

Regarding what imorethanamother said, I heard that the argument was about meat bones on Shabbos. Hillel and Shammai disagreed on the proper was to dispose of them. Rabbi Zecharya Ben Avkilus took kind of a cowards approach, not siding with either opinion. Apparently this was the only other time his name is mentioned in the gemara, and so this idea is borne out of the corollary between these two events.

I think it was the Novominsker Rebbe, zt"l who said, "When it comes to important things, you can't play Switzerland"

Last edited by b.chadash on Thu, Jul 27 2023, 9:40 pm; edited 2 times in total

Page 1 of 2

1 2 Next