QUESTION: The Gemara (55b) relates that Yerushalayim was destroyed because of the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. A man had a friend named Kamtza and an enemy named Bar Kamtza. He instructed his messenger to invite Kamtza to a festive meal in his home. The messenger mistakenly summoned Bar Kamtza instead of Kamtza. When the host noticed Bar Kamtza at the meal, he ordered him to leave. All of Bar Kamtza's entreaties to the host to allow him to stay and avoid the humiliation of being evicted fell on deaf ears, and the host threw Bar Kamtza out of his home.

Bar Kamtza reasoned that since there were Chachamim at the meal who did not protest the host's behavior, it must be that they condoned his conduct. Bar Kamtza decided to take revenge and slander them before the Roman Emperor. He related to the Emperor, "The Jews have rebelled against you." The Emperor asked him to prove his claim. Bar Kamtza suggested that the Emperor send an animal to Yerushalayim to be offered in the Beis ha'Mikdash as a Korban. If the Jews decline to offer it, he will know that they have rebelled against him. The Emperor sent a choice calf with Bar Kamtza to Yerushalayim to be offered as a Korban. During the journey, Bar Kamtza made a blemish in the animal, rendering it unfit to be offered as a Korban.

When Bar Kamtza arrived and the Chachamim assessed the situation, they wanted to offer the blemished Korban even though such a Korban is normally prohibited, in order to remain on favorable terms with the Emperor. However, Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas stopped them and said that if they offer it, people will say that one may offer blemished animals upon the Mizbe'ach. A suggestion was made that Bar Kamtza be put to death so that he would not return and defame the Jews to the Emperor. Rebbi Zecharyah vetoed this suggestion as well, saying that if they executed Bar Kamtza people would say that someone who makes a blemish in an animal designated as a Korban is liable for the death penalty.

Rebbi Yochanan concluded from this incident that "the humility (Anvasnuso) of Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas destroyed our Beis ha'Mikdash), burned our Heichal, and exiled us from our land."

Why did Rebbi Yochanan use the word "modesty" to describe the actions of Rebbi Zecharyah?

(a) The CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER prefaces his explanation by citing the words of RASHI (DH Anvasnuso) who explains that "Anvasnuso" in this context means "Savlanus" ("patience"). This attribute describes Rebbi Zecharyah's patient tolerance of the conduct of Bar Kamtza.

The Chasam Sofer explains that when Rebbi Zecharyah suspected that people would think that one may offer blemished animals on the Mizbe'ach, or they would think that one who blemishes an animal designated as a Korban is liable for the death penalty, his real concern was for the sin of Chilul Hash-m. Rebbi Zecharyah knew that most people know that a blemished animal may not be offered on the Mizbe'ach, and that one is not put to death for blemishing a Korban. Rather, he was concerned that if the Chachamim would permit the Korban to be offered and, as a result, the Emperor would execute Bar Kamtza for lying to him, some people would circulate rumors about how the incident of Bar Kamtza began. They would recall that it started because the Chachamim sat at the original meal and did not protest the affront done to Bar Kamtza when he was thrown out of the house. Rebbi Zecharyah thought that this would constitute a grave Chilul Hash-m in the eyes of the people.

The truth, however, was that Bar Kamtza's conduct was intolerable. A person who was prepared to endanger the whole nation merely because of an affront to his personal prestige must have been a well-known evildoer for some time. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that the reason why Bar Kamtza was expelled from the festive meal was because the host could not tolerate the presence of such an evildoer in his home. It is likely that had he not been forced to leave, the Chachamim themselves would have arisen and left in order not to be in his present (see Sanhedrin 23a and Insights there).

Therefore, his eviction from the house was not a Chilul Hash-m. However, since Rebbi Zecharyah excelled in the virtues of tolerance and patience and was able to tolerate the presence of Bar Kamtza at the same meal, he felt that the fact that the Chachamim did not protest was a Chilul Hash-m.

The Chasam Sofer adds that this approach explains the words of a cryptic Tosefta in Shabbos. The Tosefta in Shabbos (17:4) states, "Beis Shamai says that one may lift up bones and peels from the table on Shabbos, while Beis Hillel says that one may not lift them up directly but rather he must shake them off the table. Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas did not conduct himself like Beis Shamai or Beis Hillel, but rather he threw them directly behind the couch." (See also Shabbos 143a.) The Tosefta adds, "Rebbi Yosi said that the humility (Anvasnuso) of Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas destroyed the Heichal." What is the meaning of Rebbi Yosi's statement in that context?

The PNEI YEHOSHUA (Beitzah 2a) writes that the reason why Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel permit one to move bones and peels on Shabbos even though they are Muktzah is that they are considered a "Graf Shel Re'i," a repulsive object for which the Chachamim did not apply their prohibition against moving Muktzah items on Shabbos. Rebbi Yosi explained that the reason why Rebbi Zecharyah did not accept the leniency of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai was that he was able to tolerate repulsive objects, just as he tolerated the presence of Bar Kamtza. Accordingly, Rebbi Zecharyah did not allow himself to move bones and peels on Shabbos because to him they were not repulsive.

(b) The MAHARATZ CHAYOS offers a different explanation which is more consistent with the simple meaning of the word "Anvasnuso," "modesty." Rebbi Zecharyah was a great Torah scholar, but because of his humility he did not recognize himself as such. The Maharatz Chayos cites the MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 656:8) who writes that it is apparent from the account of Bar Kamtza that one may transgress a Torah prohibition when its fulfillment may result in grave consequences from the government. The Maharatz Chayos explains that this is evident from the fact that the Chachamim did not agree with Rebbi Zecharyah's opinion in the incident of Bar Kamtza. Moreover, the Torah permitted the Chachamim to kill Bar Kamtza because he had the status of a "Rodef," a "pursuer" who was threatening to destroy the entire nation.

However, because of Rebbi Zecharyah's great modesty he did not have the boldness to issue a novel ruling. He did not consider himself great enough to issue a Hora'as Sha'ah (a ruling necessary for the circumstances of the moment). He thought that a Hora'as Sha'ah was solely in the domain of the great leaders of the generation, and he did not count himself among them.

Accordingly, it was the exaggerated humility of the otherwise great Rebbi Zecharyah which indirectly led to the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash. (See also KOVETZ HE'OROS, Yevamos 49:7). (D. Bloom)

QUESTION: The Gemara (56a) relates how Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai was smuggled out of Yerushalayim when the city was under siege to speak with Vespasian (Aspasyanos), the commander of the Roman legions. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai called Vespasian "the king" because he foresaw that he would soon be crowned as Emperor. Vespasian asked Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai, "If I am indeed an Emperor, why did you not come to me sooner?"

Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai replied that the Biryonim (the rebels among the Jews who wanted to fight the Romans and not negotiate; see Rashi to 56a, DH Biryoni) did not allow him to leave the besieged city. Vespasian responded with a parable: "If one has a barrel of honey and there is a deadly snake wrapped around it, would one not break the barrel so that the snake should go away?" That is, Vespasian claimed that the Jews in Yerushalayim should have burned down the city walls in order to get rid of the Biryonim, who were guarding the ramparts and not letting anyone exit (Rashi DH Ein). Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai was silent; he did not respond. Rav Yosef, or according to others, Rebbi Akiva, described Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's reaction with the verse, "Hash-m returns the wise men backwards, and confuses their intellect" (Yeshayah 44:25). Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai should have replied, "We were waiting for the chance to take tongs and remove the snake and kill it. This way we would save the barrel." That is, "we were waiting for the chance to overcome the Biryoni and drive them out and save the city, and then make peace with you" (Rashi DH v'Chavisa).

Immediately after this exchange, a messenger arrived from Rome with the news that the Caesar had died and that Vespasian was chosen as his successor. Vespasian informed Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai that he was returning to Rome and would send a new general in his place. However, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai could make one request of him before he left. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai said, "Give me Yavneh and her Sages, and the princely line of Raban Gamliel, and doctors to heal Rebbi Tzadok."

Again, Rav Yosef, and according to some, Rebbi Akiva, described Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's response with the verse, "Hash-m returns the wise men backwards and confuses their intellect," because he should have asked Vespasian to spare Yerushalayim entirely. The Gemara explains that the reason why Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai did not make this request was that he assumed that Vespasian would not be so merciful, and he thus would have wasted his single request and would not have gained for the Jewish people even a small salvation.

Why does the Gemara explain Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's reasoning in his second exchange with Vespasian, but it does not explain his reasoning in the first exchange, in the analogy of the snake and the barrel?

ANSWER: The CHOCHMAS MANO'ACH explains that Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai certainly was not foolish with his answers. On the contrary, he responded with profound wisdom. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai certainly considered the response about the tongs. However, he did not give this reply to Vespasian because he did not want to defeat him with such a simple answer that would have openly disgraced the supposedly wise Vespasian.

The Chochmas Mano'ach cites support for this approach from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (10b). The Gemara there relates that Keti'a bar Shalom defeated the Emperor in a debate. Although the Emperor admitted that Keti'a was right, he sentenced him to death, since anyone who wins an argument with the Emperor must be put to death (see also Sanhedrin 39a and Tamid 32a). Therefore, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai was being very prudent by remaining silent.

The Chochmas Mano'ach points out that in fact the first part of the verse quoted by the Gemara, "Hash-m returns the wise men backwards," is meant to indicate that sometimes the wise men deliberately and consciously retreat and do not return a wise rejoinder. The Chochmas Mano'ach therefore understands that the Gemara does address Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's reasoning for not giving this reply to Vespasian.

The Chochmas Mano'ach cites further support for his explanation from the Midrash (Eichah Rabah 1:31). The Midrash relates that the servants of Vespasian asked Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai the question about the snake and the barrel, and he indeed answered them with the analogy of the tongs. The Chochmas Mano'ach explains that the Midrash does not contradict the Gemara here: although Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai knew it was not prudent to give the correct answer to Vespasian, he had no reservations about giving this answer to Vespasian's servants.

Perhaps the second dialogue between Vespasian and Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai may be understood in a similar manner. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai realized, in his wisdom, that it would be over-ambitious for him to ask for the salvation of Yerushalayim. The Gemara hints to this when it quotes the verse, "Hash-m returns the wise men backwards," a second time. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai realized that the appropriate course of action at the moment was that of retreat and restraint, and thus he deliberately did not request Yerushalayim.

Further support for the Chochmas Mano'ach's explanation may be inferred from the Gemara's account of the dialogue between Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai and Vespasian after Rebbi Yochanan gave Vespasian excellent advice about how to treat his swollen foot. Vespasian again asked him, "Since you are so wise, why did not come to me until now?" Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai replied, "Have I not already told you?" This response indicates that Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai knew that he had not in fact been defeated in debate by Vespasian when there was such an obvious answer, and that he had tactfully chosen to avoid a clear victory in the debate. (D. Bloom)