Kamtza & Bar Kamtza (Part 1)

Gittin 55b-56a

אקמצא ובר קמצא חרוב ירושלים דההוא גברא דרחמיה קמצא ובעל דבביה בר קמצא עבד סעודתא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל אייתי לי קמצא אזל אייתי ליה בר קמצא אתא אשכחיה דהוה יתיב אמר ליה מכדי ההוא גברא בעל דבבא דההוא גברא הוא מאי בעית הכא קום פוק אמר ליה הואיל ואתאי שבקן ויהיבנא לך דמי מה דאכילנא ושתינא אמר ליה לא אמר ליה יהיבנא לך דמי פלגא דסעודתיך אמר ליה לא אמר ליה יהיבנא לך דמי כולה סעודתיך א"ל לא נקטיה בידיה ואוקמיה ואפקיה אמר הואיל והוו יתבי רבנן ולא מחו ביה ש"מ קא ניחא להו איזיל איכול בהו קורצא בי מלכא אזל אמר ליה לקיסר מרדו בך יהודאי א"ל מי יימר א"ל שדר להו קורבנא חזית אי מקרבין ליה אזל שדר בידיה עגלא תלתא בהדי דקאתי שדא ביה מומא בניב שפתים ואמרי לה בדוקין שבעין דוכתא דלדידן הוה מומא ולדידהו לאו מומא הוא סבור רבנן לקרוביה משום שלום מלכות אמר להו רבי זכריה בן אבקולס יאמרו בעלי מומין קריבין לגבי מזבח סבור למיקטליה דלא ליזיל ולימא אמר להו רבי זכריה יאמרו מטיל מום בקדשים יהרג אמר רבי יוחנן ענוותנותו של רבי זכריה בן אבקולס החריבה את ביתנו ושרפה את היכלנו והגליתנו מארצנו

When I attempt to parse something, be it a posuk Chumash or a sugya Gemara, I honestly do not know how it will turn out. Sometimes, I have a question that leads me to believe that I have some great chidush to reveal and other times, and these are more often than I’d like to admit, I find myself leaning more toward apologetics and further explanation of the accepted reasoning. Limud HaTorah should not demand rigid adherence or faith to the established ideal, but should become a friendly challenge to those ideals. To know the true rationale behind the Divrei Chazal, one has to attack those words as one would an adversary, and subject them to the scrutiny that they deserve, and if indeed true and wise, should be able to handle.

Let us get right down to business. The story of Kamtza and bar Kamtza and its intended lesson are well known. For an English translation of Gittin 55b-56a, visit this link. This whole tale, as written, appears to be a rather simplistic assessment of characters, causes, and effects. Gittin 55b-56a looks more like a tabloid-type news-blurb than a clear explanation of the cause and effect relationship leading to the Churban Bayis Sheni. My purpose here is to look a bit deeper into Gittin 55b-56a, applying halacha, historical context, and human psychology to connect those causes to their effects and bring the players in this Judean fiasco into some semblance of reality. Like any news article or police report, Gittin 55b-56a gives us information in two ways. First, in what it does say, and more importantly, what it doesn’t mention at all and probably should if the story is to make any sense whatsoever.

Questions, Questions

1) Gittin 55b-56a omits name of the fellow throwing this party, or what sort of affair it was meant to be. The host (or guest of honor) is simply referred to as ‘hahu gavra’ which, roughly translated, means ‘a certain fellow.’ There are hundreds of ‘hahu gavras’ throughout Shas, and among the dozen or so cases I explored, did not find anything remarkable about any of them. In any case, the host had to be Rabbi-friendly, since they were present in some number. To throw such a party during hard times, and the fact that he had servants, further indicates some financial wherewithal not available to the common person. (That the Rabbis sat silently during the commotion indicates that he was someone of power, perhaps royalty.)

2) The Gemara doesn’t tell us why the host hated Bar Kamtza in the first place. We always assume that it might be sinas chinom, but is hatred like this always unfounded? Just because our Gemara does not tell us why, does not mean there was not a good reason. (I would have to REALLY mad before I would dare create a commotion during a simcha, physically and forcefully ejecting a guest in front of everyone. That kind of sinah usually goes well beyond what we would call chinom.)

3) It is likely that Kamtza and bar Kamtza (if they were even real people) were not their real names. I found three other places in Shas where the word Kamtza is used (Yevamos 121b, Nedarim 19b and Avoda Zara 37a.) Kamtza means an ‘unclean bug’; according to some it is an ant, and to others an unkosher type of locust. In either case, the authors of this sugya obviously did not hold either Kamtza in high esteem.

4) By referring to both men the with the same moniker implies that Kamtza and Bar Kamtza were very much alike (or at least had something in common), so it makes me even more curious as to why it is that one would be loathed and the other honored by our host. It obviously had little to do with their individual characters, since Gittin 55b describes both men as ‘unclean bugs’. (This reinforces question #2.)

5) Bar Kamtza was quite anxious to gain the good graces of the host. What purpose would that serve? What did Bar Kamtza stand to gain by kindling the host’s friendship?

6) Why did the Rabbis at the banquet say or do nothing? Why would Bar Kamtza have even expected them to come to his defense? Were they afraid to offend the host, or might they, have had some earnest dislike for Bar Kamtza as well?

7) Why did Bar Kamtza single out the Rabbis for blame and revenge when presumably there were plenty of non-Rabbis present who also failed to speak up in his defense? Did Bar Kamtza pick on the Rabbis because of a preexisting prejudice, or because he honestly felt they were the ones to sway the opinion of the host in his favor?

8) How did Bar Kamtza, a Jew whose real name we don’t even know, manage to gain an audience with a Caesar? Was he influential, very wealthy, or politically connected? The Gemara doesn’t say. (There are dozens of stories about Jews meeting famous kings and generals and frankly, I am suspicious of each and every one of those.)

9) Can we explain the vengeful behavior of Bar Kamtza only in terms of the banquet itself, or were there other circumstances? I find it hard to believe that a person, no matter how wronged, would risk the destruction of his entire nation out of a personal dishonor. It just seems a bit extreme to assume that a Bar Kamtza would go to all that trouble over being snubbed at a dinner.

10) Had Nero not ever offered a sacrifice at the Temple? Had any of his generals, governors, or previous Emperors? Would the Romans not have already known the Jewish laws for sacrifices? How would not accepting a sacrifice be a sign of rebellion unless other korbonos hadn’t already be received previously in good will? Had something changed in the Temple that Bar Kamtza knew about that perhaps Nero did not, which would preclude this particular sacrifice from being accepted?

11) Why did Bar Kamtza make this particular blemish on the animal? According to the Gemara in Temura 7a and the RamBam, Bar Kamtza could have made a much more obvious blemish on the animal, and by Noahide standards (or Roman Law), the animal still would have been acceptable, and Nero would still have been upset. Why the subterfuge then?

12) Why was Rav Yochanan so anxious to kill Bar Kamtza? Certainly, Rav Yochanan could not know the future, so how would he know the consequences? Had Bar Kamtza violated something else which made him, in Rav Yochanan’s mind, liable an immediate death sentence?

13) Why would Rabi Zecharia be so worried about how the killing might be misinterpreted? Was there some conflict as to what constituted a blemish or unfit korban, which would lead someone to assume the issue of Bar Kamtza’s execution was korban related? (This reinforces question #11.)

14) What would be the point of killing Bar Kamtza AFTER the korban of Nero had already been rejected and the event set in motion? At that point, killing him would have changed nothing. (This may have been Rabi Zecharia’s worry about how the killing would be interpreted by those who do not know all the circumstances.) Besides, was Bar Kamtza the only person who could have informed Nero? If his plan had been so ‘top secret’, then how did we ever find out about it?

Context & Pretext

If you were a Judean living between 150 BCE and 70 AD, it is likely that you existed in very tumultuous times. Under the Roman Occupation of Judea, the Jews were heavily taxed and the influence of Greco-Roman culture was coming in conflict with the more traditional religious ideals. The political divisions of the country were pretty much along the same lines as the religious ones; as Tedukim and Perushim were each vying for the favor of both the Romans and the general populace. These same divisions existed within royal families, too, and the Romans were experts at playing both sides against the middle. This struggle for religious and political control was centered mainly in the Judean malchus, the Bais HaMikdosh, and the Kohain Gadol. Essentially, whoever controlled the Kehuna controlled the people.

The Judean malchus assumed the task of appointing (with Rome’s approval) the Kohain Gadol and making many other political appointments (again, with Rome’s approval.) Among, the most sought after, yet reviled, position was that of tax collector. Tax collection was the raison d’etre of the Roman Empire, bringing wealth into Rome’s coffers. Tax collectors had good salaries and an entourage of Roman police on hand to enforce the law. Tax collection was lucrative position as well, affording power, influence, and the protection of the Roman Empire. The people, however, saw the tax collector as a parasite, especially when one of their own, a Judean, joined forces with the Roman exploiters of their cherished homeland.

This is why Gittin 55b-56a refers to these men as Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. Tax collectors were, in the eyes of the people, like locust or ants, that sweep down on a field, consume everything in sight, carry it off to somewhere else, and there is little that anyone can do to stop it. Tax officers of ancient times were no more beloved then than any IRS agent would be today.

It is in the backdrop of this politico-socioeconomic and religious unrest that the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza must be told. Here is the complete version retold in some detail. (This is a long post, so get some coffee and a danish. Part 2 is on the way!)