Every month of Av, many Jews study the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza because the Talmud states that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the actions of those two men (Gittin 55b–56a). This episode is not merely a tale, but requires some analysis, since the rabbis were obviously not interested in entertaining us, but in transmitting insights.
The well-known story may be recapitulated as follows:
There was a man whose best friend was named Kamtza and whose arch enemy was named Bar Kamtza. This man decided to host a party and among those invited was his best friend, Kamtza. The host had his servant deliver the invitations, but by mistake, the servant delivered an invitation not to Kamtza, but to the host’s enemy, Bar Kamtza.
When Bar Kamtza came to the party, and the host saw his worst enemy there, he asked, “What are you doing here?” Bar Kamtza replied, “I realize this must be a mistake. Your servant must have invited me by accident. But I beg you not to humiliate me. Please let me stay and I’ll pay for half of your entire party.”
The host nevertheless insisted that Bar Kamtza get out. Bar Kamtza then offered to pay the entire expense of the party. The host would not be moved, and he evicted Bar Kamtza. The leading rabbis of Jerusalem were present during this confrontation but did not intervene.
Bar Kamtza resolved to avenge himself on the rabbis, and he went to the Roman Emperor and said, “The Jews are rebelling.” The Emperor was skeptical, but Bar Kamtza replied, “Why not test them?” So the Emperor sent a sacrifice for the Jews to bring in the Temple on his behalf. It was a beautiful animal, but Bar Kamtza made a blemish in the lips (or eyes) of the animal. This was not a disqualifying blemish for Roman sacrificial purposes, but it was under Jewish law. The Jews refused to sacrifice the animal, and the Emperor, incensed, sent his general against Jerusalem.
Thus, the Talmud records, Jerusalem was destroyed because of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza.
The problems with this tale are many. First, the host had the opportunity to exploit his arch enemy, Bar Kamtza, who had offered to pay the entire expense of the host’s party. Why did the host refuse this opportunity? All Bar Kamtza had wanted was to be left alone; a small price to pay in return for the entire expense of an elaborate function.
Second, why did the rabbis fail to intervene when they saw this act of public humiliation? A subsidiary question to this is why the blame for the destruction of Jerusalem is lain only at the feet of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, with no criticism of the rabbis?
Third, we can understand why Bar Kamtza is blamed for the destruction of Jerusalem. But Kamtza was not even at the party. How can he be held responsible for the destruction of the Temple? And yet the Talmud clearly records that Kamtza is regarded as one of the two guilty parties.
Fourth, who is the biggest villain in this story? Presumably, the host who humiliated Bar Kamtza. And yet, the name of the host never once appears in the tale.
Fifth, Bar Kamtza fails to make any effort to save himself or his family. Contrast this, for example, with the actions of Rachav who hung a red thread outside the window of her apartment so that she could be saved when Joshua conquered the city of Jericho. This act of self-preservation has no parallel in the story of Bar Kamtza. He has his revenge, but it seems not to occur to him to look out for his own safety. Why?
Rambam teaches us that a successful reprimand occurs only by a friend coming to a friend.
The final question can only be seen from an actual examination of the text of the Talmud itself. The Talmud records that the host finds Bar Kamtza at his party and says, “That man is the arch enemy of that man. What are you doing here?” This is strange. It should have simply said, “What are you doing here? You know that I can’t stand you.” Instead, the host spoke about both himself and Bar Kamtza in the third person. The rabbis’ decision to record the awkward language was deliberate. Therefore it must hold a lesson for us. What is that lesson?
The starting point for our answers comes from the Talmud (Yoma 9b); there it is stated that the First Temple was destroyed because of three cardinal sins: idolatry, adultery and murder; the Second Temple was destroyed because of sinas chinam, hatred for no reason. The problem is that this phrase is a misnomer. Hatred always has a reason. One may be overreacting, but there is an underlying reason for the hate. Therefore, we must define sinas chinam as something else—namely, hating somebody in a senseless manner. Sinas chinam describes a situation where one takes out his vengeance on someone not for personal gain or self-aggrandizement, but in such an extreme manner that the act of vengeance is destructive not only for the recipient of the anger but for the actor himself.¹
This is the key to the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. The host is not willing to let Bar Kamtza stay even though Bar Kamtza is willing to pay for the entire party. The host would rather hurt his enemy even though he also hurts himself. This is sinas chinam. What brings a person to this level of senseless hatred? Another way to ask this question is to inquire: who does the person really hate?
A person who is willing to hurt someone even though he will hurt himself more, must truly hate himself. Examples of this are, unfortunately, not that rare. How often do people persist in behavior that is clearly unhealthy for them: the chain smoker or the diabetic person who ignores medical advice? Certain people do not mind hurting themselves because they are alienated from themselves. And to recognize this, one must listen to how one talks about oneself. Remember, the host spoke to Bar Kamtza in the third person: “That man hates that man.” This is a person who is alienated from himself. The first “that man” is the host himself, the speaker of the sentence. This evidences a separation between the host and himself. The rabbis deliberately recorded this language because it shows the host’s state of mind—his alienation from and hatred of himself.²
Thus far we have answered two of the questions concerning the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. We understand why the host refused the offer of Bar Kamtza to pay for the entire party and the reason for the awkward language in the third person. The next question to answer is why the rabbis did not react.
The Bible explicitly instructs us to reprimand and correct errant behavior. “Hocheach tochiach et amitecha” (Leviticus 19:17). The word hocheach does not mean to criticize, but to show the truth, the correct way. Rambam tells us how to do this.³ You have to go in a calm and soft manner. The reprimander takes the posture of a friend. We must understand that G-d has not appointed us as His prosecutors. One must instruct out of friendship and not out of self-righteousness.
The problem is how to criticize a person who is totally alienated from himself. Rambam teaches us that a successful reprimand occurs only by a friend coming to a friend. To say to a friend that I care about you and that your actions only hurt yourself can only work with a person who cares about himself. This explains why the rabbis did not react to the host’s actions. They knew that the host was totally alienated from himself and was virtually seeking his own destruction. Therefore, the rabbis’ not criticizing the host was understandable and even correct since it would have had no effect whatsoever.⁴
Now we can understand the omission of the name of the host from the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. The Bible uses names to signify the essence of persons. Often, G-d intervenes and changes the names of people to more clearly demonstrate their essence or, more correctly, the change in their essence and the elevation of the person’s essence to a higher level.
The word “Kamtza” means a fist. And, as in English, when we speak of a tight-fisted person, we mean a person who is not charitable. Thus, “Kamtza” means miserly.
A poor person is not a miser. To be a miser, one must have money but be unable to spend it. A miser does not spend money on himself because he is alienated from himself. He does not feel entitled to spend money on himself.
Knowing this, we can see that the name of the host is really in the story. A person whose best friend is Kamtza is himself a miser and alienated from himself. By contrast, Bar Kamtza is a person who loves himself. He is a person who feels that nothing is too good for himself and is willing to spend on himself. This explains why Bar Kamtza is willing to be extravagant and was willing to pay for the entire party in order to avert his public humiliation. But after the public humiliation, with none reacting to it, he feels worthless in spirit. Only then does he experience sinas chinam, and he brings the might of the Roman Empire against Jerusalem, without any attempt to save himself or his family. Bar Kamtza has become Kamtza.
G-d finally was determined to destroy the nation because there was no chance to rehabilitate the nation. G-d chastises us when we can rehabilitate ourselves. But once we do not care about ourselves, there is no chance for rehabilitation. Then comes the total destruction. The only choice left is to save a remnant and to rebuild from that.
Notes
1. One example occurred when Hitler had invaded Russia and was trying to conquer Stalingrad. He was unable to get sufficient supplies to his troops because he was using precious trains to exterminate Jews. His hatred was so great, that even though it jeopardized the war effort, he was willing to give priority to the destruction of Jews.
2. Love, by contrast, is the feeling of being at one with someone else. In love, there is no difference between the lover and the object of the love; they are one. Indeed, the numerical equivalent of the word for love, “ahava,” is “echad,” one.
3. Mishneh Torah, Book of Knowledge (Madda)—Laws of Ethical Behavior (Hilchot De’ot)—Chapter 6, Law 7.
4. Another question is why the rabbis did not publicly side with Bar Kamtza, who was being thrown out of the party? The host was wrong to throw out Bar Kamtza and, arguably, the rabbis should have openly taken the side of Bar Kamtza. To do so, however, would have embarrassed the host publicly—an act equivalent to murder (Talmud Bava Metzia 58b). Of course, Bar Kamtza was being publicly embarrassed, but as between equivalent acts of murder, the rabbis chose to be passive and not interfere. This comports with the dictum of passivity when one is asked to murder or to be murdered—the rule is do nothing, shev v’al taaseh. See Pesachim 25b, the Tosafot on “Al Na’arah.”
Rabbi Yochanan Zweig is rosh yeshivah of the Talmudic University of Miami Beach, Florida, and Joseph Rackman, an attorney, adapted this shiur of Rabbi Zweig.
This article appeared in the Summer 1989 issue of Jewish Action.