INSIGHT
5761 - #38
A PATH OF PARADOX
T.B.
Gittin 55b, 56a presents the famous story of Kamtza
and Bar Kamtza as the precursor to the destruction of the
Second Temple.1 Within the story, the issue arises whether
to sacrifice the Emperors animal even though it had a
blemish which normally would render an animal unfit for
sacrifice. As the story relates, this blemish - a cut on
the animals upper lip - was actually inflicted upon the
animal in the hope of fostering hostility between Rome
and the Jewish people. The Rabbis were contemplating the
allowance of this sacrifice in consideration of the
potential loss of life if Rome was angered. Rabbi
Zechariah ben Avkolus interjected that nonetheless the
sacrifice should be rejected lest people will say that a
blemished animal can be sacrificed on the alter. The
animal was not sacrificed and the Talmud, in the name of
Rabbi Yochanan, concludes that because of the humility of
Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkolus our House was destroyed, our
Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.2
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Iggrot Moshe,
Yoreh Deah 1:101 considers the use of the word
humility in describing the view of Rabbi Zechariah ben
Avkolus. Why would Rabbi Zechariahs position reflect
humility? Indeed the Soncino Translation of this
text chooses the word scrupulousness, rather than the
word humility, in defining Rabbi Zechariahs view.3 In
response, Rav Moshe quotes Maharitz
Chayot, Gittin 56a who explains that Rabbi Zechariah
was concerned that he was not qualified to render a
decision of this magnitude. Clearly, in a situation of
great need, especially to protect the nation from a
conqueror like Rome, it would be permitted, in order to
avoid bloodshed, to violate the law and sacrifice a
blemished animal. There is the need, however, for one to
assume the responsibility, evaluate the facts and render
the appropriate decision. Of course, not everyone is able
to render such decisions in Jewish Law; it is a matter
for only those with great knowledge of Halacha.
Yet, one must also not shy away from such decisions when
the matter is pressing and necessary. Rabbi Zechariah was
too humble; he felt himself unqualified to render a
decision that the specific situation called for the
sacrifice of this animal. His humility in this situation
was inappropriate.
This conclusion is most interesting
especially when one considers the famous statement of T.B.
Yoma 9b that the Second Temple was destroyed because
of sinat chinum, purposeless hatred.4 Humility, one
would think, is the solution to hatred. One only hates if
one has an ego, if one thinks highly of oneself and
thereby feels competent to judge and condemn another. If
one is humble and lacks an ego, it would seem that hatred
towards another would be much more difficult to develop.
It is thus surprising that, in the context of the Second
Temple, humility is also challenged.
Psychologically, one could argue that hatred
may also be the result of pathologically poor self-esteem
which manifests itself in the character of humility but
does not represent true humility. It is thus possible for
one who seems to be humble to demonstrate hatred for
another. It is difficult, though, to contend that the
Talmud is declaring that Rabbi Zechariah was
demonstrating a false humility. The Talmud is attacking
the manifestation of humility itself when inappropriate.
Essentially the Talmud is demanding a healthy ego and
that one know oneself. In this regard one must know ones
capabilities and, when necessary, must accept the
responsibility that comes with exceptional capabilities.
To deny ones capabilities is not correct humility but
foolish and irresponsible. In the same vein, one must
also know ones weaknesses.
We often think of morality in terms of
inequality. We demand of ourselves that we be givers
rather than takers. We argue for selflessness and thus
for consideration of the other even at our own expense.
We project the correctness of respect of those in a
higher position. All these manifestations of morality are
built upon a structure of inequality. We declare that it
is moral to reduce our stature in the presence of the
other. In the same way, we argue against hatred of the
other for hatred is a projection of oneself above the
other. If we call, under the banner of morality, for the
reduction of self in the presence of the other, we
invariably challenge the presence of hatred.
The lesson of Rabbi Zechariah lies in the
importance of the model of equality in the development of
morality. The healthy ego reflects a healthy recognition
of self - both ones strengths and ones weaknesses. It
also recognizes the essential ego of the other - with its
strengths and weaknesses. It is when we see each other
equally as human beings that we are able to build the
strongest bonds of community. It is also with this
recognition that we can develop a proper perspective of
others, without purposeless hatred. Seeing myself should
mean seeing the other.5 It is correctly seeing my ego - my being,
my strengths and my weaknesses - that leads to correctly
recognizing the ego of the other and removing the
destructive force of hatred.
Rabbi
Benjamin Hecht e-mail
Notes
1 The story recounts
how an individual, by mistake, received an invitation to
a party hosted by one who was in fact an enemy of this
individual. Thinking that he was truly invited, this
individual attended only to be confronted by the host who
demanded that this individual leave. This individual
begged, to no avail, to be allowed to remain, even
offering to pay a substantial amount of the cost of the
party, rather than be embarrassed by being forced to
leave. After being thrown out, in that the Rabbis in
attendance also did not intervene on his behalf, this
individual sought revenge not only against the host but
against the entire Jewish community. He developed a plot
whereby he initiated, in the ear of the Roman Emperor,
the rumbling that the Jews were intent on rebelling and
that this will be indicated by a refusal to accept a
sacrifice from the Emperor in the Beit HaMikdash.
This individual then preceded to cut the upper lip of the
Emperors sacrificial animal thereby rendering it unfit
for sacrifice in the Temple. The subsequent rejection of
the Emperors animal for sacrifice led to a breakdown in
Roman-Jewish relations and the resultant rebellion with
its tragic conclusion.
2 Translation from
the Soncino Talmud.
3 Although it
footnotes that the literal translation of the word used
in the text is humility.
4 The definition of sinat
chinum as purposeless hatred, rather than baseless
hatred, was developed in my Defining Sinat Chinum,
Parts 1 and 2, Nishma Insight 5757 - 22,23.
5 See, further, Maharsha,
T.B. Shabbat 31a who applies this concept to the
definition of vahavta lreiacha kamocha, love your
neighbour as yourself.
Return to top
|