all sources provided in or below the textIn the more famous rendition of the bar kamtza Aggadah (https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.55b.17-56a.5?lang=bi) bar kamtza devises a plot against the (halacha following) Jewish rulers of Israel because he was embarrassed at a party that he was inadvertently invited to and the (anonymous) rabbinic authorities in attendance did not intervene. He then brings a non-kosher (blemished) animal to the beit hamikdash to be sacrificed on behalf of the roman empire, which r’ zecharya ben avkolas (“RZBA”) rejects despite a majority of rabbis wanting to accept it. After the rejection the majority of rabbis want to kill bar kamtza to prevent him from reporting to the roman authorities, but RZBA refuses that as well. The gemara ends with: “RZBA’s anavut destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from our land.” Pretty big condemnation.
The midrash eicha rabba tells us the same Aggadah (https://www.sefaria.org/Eichah_Rabbah.4.3?vhe=Midrash_Rabbah_--_TE&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en), but the details of the story are materially changed: RZBA is identified as the rabbinic authority at the party who remains silent while bar kamtza is being embarrassed and we’re not told that there was any debate about whether to accept the blemished korban or whether to kill bar kamtza before he could give his report. Yet, again, we’re told: “RZBA’s anavut burned the Temple.”
In a completely unrelated story (https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Shabbat_(Lieberman).16.7?vhe=The_Tosefta_according_to_to_codex_Vienna._Third_Augmented_Edition,_JTS_2001&lang=bi), we’re told that RZBA was asked to adjudicate between beit shammai and beit Hillel on whether a piece of meat was kosher; rather than rule in favor of either gadol, RZBA threw the piece of meat behind the lounge chair he was sitting on. In this instance, we’re told that, “RZBA’s anavut burned the Temple.”the aggadot beg the question – what could possibly be a problem with anavut?
I’d like to suggest that anavut - isolated from other middot – is inherently problematic. And that is what rabbi yohanan (gemara) and r’ yosi (midrash / tosefta) are telling us about RZBA. By ways of examples:
The gemara (https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.31a.12?vhe=William_Davidson_Edition_-_Vocalized_Aramaic&lang=bi) tells us that R’ Yochana points out that every time HaKaBH’s gevura is mentioned, his anavut is mentioned immediately thereafter (gives 7 examples).
Another gemara (https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.19b.21-20a.2?vhe=Wikisource_Talmud_Bavli&lang=bi) states that the power of yosef was less than boaz’s anavut and the power of boaz was less than the anavut of palti ben leish, showing the connection between power and anavut.
There are many other examples linking anavut to instances of strength, power and stringency (the latter demonstrated often by the comparison of Shammai and Hillel, which is ultimately a symbiotic relationship of two summon bonum paths to worship HaKaBH).
So what was r’ zecharya ben avkolas’s error in the incident of bar kamtza? Ultimately it seems to be that in each instance he gave a psak based on anavut; however, those instances required his gevura (or some version of other strength and courage). The lesson, perhaps to learn from this is that even when the psak halacha is correct by the letter of the law, our rabbinic authorities need to have the gevura to adjudicate halacha to the utilitarian end – yerushalayim and the beit hamikdash were put on earth in order for the rebbeyim to wield that power … and it is a disservice to klal Yisrael when they poskin devoid of gevura.
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
The Gemara explains: Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. This is as there was a certain man whose friend was named Kamtza and whose enemy was named bar Kamtza. He once made a large feast and said to his servant: Go bring me my friend Kamtza. The servant went and mistakenly brought him his enemy bar Kamtza. The man who was hosting the feast came and found bar Kamtza sitting at the feast. The host said to bar Kamtza. That man is the enemy [ba’al devava] of that man, that is, you are my enemy. What then do you want here? Arise and leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: Since I have already come, let me stay and I will give you money for whatever I eat and drink. Just do not embarrass me by sending me out. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: I will give you money for half of the feast; just do not send me away. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Bar Kamtza then said to him: I will give you money for the entire feast; just let me stay. The host said to him: No, you must leave. Finally, the host took bar Kamtza by his hand, stood him up, and took him out. After having been cast out from the feast, bar Kamtza said to himself: Since the Sages were sitting there and did not protest the actions of the host, although they saw how he humiliated me, learn from it that they were content with what he did. I will therefore go and inform [eikhul kurtza] against them to the king. He went and said to the emperor: The Jews have rebelled against you. The emperor said to him: Who says that this is the case? Bar Kamtza said to him: Go and test them; send them an offering to be brought in honor of the government, and see whether they will sacrifice it. The emperor went and sent with him a choice three-year-old calf. While bar Kamtza was coming with the calf to the Temple, he made a blemish on the calf’s upper lip. And some say he made the blemish on its eyelids, a place where according to us, i.e., halakha, it is a blemish, but according to them, gentile rules for their offerings, it is not a blemish. Therefore, when bar Kamtza brought the animal to the Temple, the priests would not sacrifice it on the altar since it was blemished, but they also could not explain this satisfactorily to the gentile authorities, who did not consider it to be blemished. The blemish notwithstanding, the Sages thought to sacrifice the animal as an offering due to the imperative to maintain peace with the government. Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas said to them: If the priests do that, people will say that blemished animals may be sacrificed as offerings on the altar. The Sages said: If we do not sacrifice it, then we must prevent bar Kamtza from reporting this to the emperor. The Sages thought to kill him so that he would not go and speak against them. Rabbi Zekharya said to them: If you kill him, people will say that one who makes a blemish on sacrificial animals is to be killed. As a result, they did nothing, bar Kamtza’s slander was accepted by the authorities, and consequently the war between the Jews and the Romans began. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The excessive humility of Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from our land.
(ג) מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁעָשָׂה סְעוּדָה, אָמַר לְבֶן בֵּיתוֹ לֵךְ וְהָבֵא לִי קַמְצָא רַחֲמִי, אֲזַל וְאַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ בַּר קַמְצָא שָׂנְאֵיהּ, עָאל וְיָשַׁב בֵּין הָאוֹרְחִים. עָאל אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ בֵּינֵי אֲרִיסְטְיָיא, אָמַר לוֹ אַתְּ שָׂנְאִי וְאַתְּ יָתֵיב בְּגוֹ בֵּיתָאי, קוּם פּוּק לָךְ מִיגוֹ בֵּיתָאי. אָמַר לוֹ אַל תְּבַיְּשֵׁנִי וַאֲנָא יָהֵיב לָךְ דְּמֵי דִסְעוּדָתָא. אָמַר לוֹ לֵית אַתְּ מְסוּבָּה. אָמַר לוֹ אַל תְּבַיְּשֵׁנִי וַאֲנָא יָתֵיב וְלֵית אֲנָא אָכֵיל וְשָׁתֵי. אָמַר לוֹ לֵית אַתְּ מְסוּבָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא יָהֵיב דְּמֵי כָּל הָדֵין סְעוּדָתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ קוּם לָךְ. וְהָיָה שָׁם רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן אַבְקוּלָס וְהָיְתָה סֵפֶק בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת וְלֹא מִיחָה, מִיָּד נְפֵיק לֵיהּ, אֲמַר בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ אִילֵין מְסָבְיָין יָתְבִין בְּשַׁלְוַותְהוֹן, אֲנָא אֵיכוּל קָרְצְהוֹן, מָה עֲבַד הָלַךְ אֵצֶל הַשִּׁלְטוֹן אָמַר לוֹ אִילֵין קוּרְבָּנַיָּא דְּאַתְּ מְשַׁלַּח לִיהוּדָאֵי לְמִקְרְבִינְהוּ אִינוּן אָכְלִין לְהוֹן וּמְקָרְבִין אוֹחֳרָנִים בְּחִילוּפַיְיהוּ, נְזַף בֵּיהּ. אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ תּוּב אֲמַר לֵיהּ כָּל אִילֵין קוּרְבָּנַיָּי דְּאַתְּ מְשַׁלַּח לִיהוּדָאֵי לְמִקְרְבִינְהוּ אִינוּן אָכְלִין לְהוֹן וּמְקָרְבִין אוֹחֳרִין בְּחִילוּפַיְיהוּ, וְאִם לֹא תַאֲמִין לִי שְׁלַח עִמִּי חַד אִיפַּרְכוּ וְקוּרְבָּנַיָּיא וְאַתְּ יָדַע מִיָּד שֶׁאֵינִי שַׁקְרָן. עַד דְּאַתְיָיא בְּאוֹרְחָא דְּמַךְ אִיפַרְכוּ, קָם הוּא בְּלֵילְיָא וַעֲשָׂאָן כֻּלָּן בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין בַּסֵּתֶר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה אוֹתָן הַכֹּהֵן הִקְרִיב אוֹחֳרָנִין תַּחְתֵּיהוֹן. אֲמַר הַהוּא שְׁלִיחָא דְמַלְכָּא לָמָּה לֵית אַתְּ מַקְרֵיב אִילֵין קוּרְבָּנַיָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לִמְחָר. אֲתָא יוֹם תְּלִיתָאָה וְלָא קְרַבְהוֹן, שְׁלַח וַאֲמַר לְמַלְכָּא הַהוּא מִלְּתָא דִּיהוּדָאָה קָאָמַר קוּשְׁטָא קָאָמַר, מִיָּד סְלִיק לְמַקְדְּשָׁה וְהֶחֱרִיבוֹ. הֲדָא דִּבְרִיָּאתָא אָמְרִין בֵּין קַמְצָא וּבֵין בֶּן קַמְצָא חֲרַב מַקְדְּשָׁא. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי עִנְוְתָנוּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי זְכַרְיָה בֶּן אַבְקוּלָס שָׂרְפָה אֶת הַהֵיכָל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מָה הָיְתָה יַקְרוּתָן, לֹא הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מוֹלִיד חָסֵר וּבַעַל מוּם.
(3) There is a story about a certain man in Jerusalem who made a feast. He said to his slave: "Go and bring to me my friend, Kamtza. He went and bought him Bar Kamtza his enemy and he came and sat down among the guests. He saw him between his guests and said to him: "You are my enemy and you are sitting in my house! Get up and leave my house!" He replied to him: "Do not shame me and I will return to you the price of the feast". He said to him: "You must not recline". He said to him: "Do not shame me and I will return do you double of what I eat". He said to him: "You must not recline". He said to him: "Do not shame me and I will return the cost of this entire banquet". He said to him: "Get up and go!" Rabbi Zechariah son of Eukolos was there and it was in his hand to stop it and he did not stop it. He left from there and said to himself: "They are reclining and feasting extravagantly and I am going to go and press charges against them. What did he do? He went to the magistrate and said to him: "Those sacrifices which you send to the Jews to sacrifice, they eat them and they offer other ones, exchanging them". He did not care. He came back and said to him: "Those sacrifices which you send to the Jews to sacrifice, they eat them and they offer other ones, exchanging them. If you do not trust me, send with me an eparch and a sacrifice and you will know that I am not lying". When they were going, the eparch fell asleep and he got up and made all the animals secretly blemished. When the priest saw them he sacrificed other animals in their place. The representative of the king said: "Why did you not sacrifice those sacrifices"? He said to him: "Tomorrow". The next day came and he did not sacrifice them. He sent and said to the king: "The whole issue of the Jews is exactly as it was said". Because of this he came to the Temple and destroyed it. See! Because of this baraita they say: "Between Kamtza and between Bar Kamtza the Temple was destroyed". Rabbi Jose said: "The extreme humility and unwillingness of Rabbi Zechariah son of Eukolos burned the Temple". Another interpretation: Why were they precious? There was not one of them who bore a deaf child or blemished child.
(ז) בית הלל אומ' מגביהין מעל השלחן עצמות וקלפין, בית שמיי אומ' מסלק את הטבלה כולה ומנערה. זכריה בן אבקילס לא היה נוהג לא כדברי בית שמיי ולא כדברי בית הלל, אלא נוטל ומשליך לאחר המטה. אמ' ר' יוסה ענותנותו של ר' זכריה בן אבקילס היא שרפה את ההיכל.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא גְּבוּרָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתָּה מוֹצֵא עִנְוְותָנוּתוֹ דָּבָר זֶה כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה וְשָׁנוּי בַּנְּבִיאִים וּמְשׁוּלָּשׁ בַּכְּתוּבִים
Having mentioned the haftara read on Yom Kippur, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Wherever you find a reference in the Bible to the might of the Holy One, Blessed be He, you also find a reference to His humility adjacent to it. Evidence of this fact is written in the Torah, repeated in the Prophets, and stated a third time in the Writings.
אמר רבי יוחנן תוקפו של יוסף ענוותנותו של בועז תוקפו של בועז ענוותנותו של פלטי בן ליש תוקפו של יוסף ענוותנותו של בועז דכתיב (רות ג, ח) ויהי בחצי הלילה ויחרד האיש וילפת מאי וילפת אמר רב שנעשה בשרו כראשי לפתות תוקפו של בועז ענוותנותו של פלטי בן ליש כדאמרן אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (משלי לא, כט) רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על כולנה רבות בנות עשו חיל זה יוסף ובועז ואת עלית על כולנה זה פלטי בן ליש
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Joseph’s power is the humility of Boaz, as Joseph is praised for showing strength with regard to an accomplishment that was insignificant for Boaz (see Genesis, chapter 39). Likewise, Boaz’s power is the humility of Palti, son of Laish, as Palti’s capacity for restraint was greater still. Joseph’s power is the humility of Boaz, as it is written about Boaz: “And it came to pass at midnight that the man was startled and turned himself, and behold, a woman lay at his feet” (Ruth 3:8). What is the meaning of “and turned himself [vayyilafet]”? Rav says: The meaning is that his flesh became like the heads of turnips [lefatot], his sexual organ hardening out of arousal, but even though Ruth was not married he refrained from engaging in intercourse with her; while Joseph had to exert more effort, despite the fact that Potiphar’s wife was married. Boaz’s power is the humility of Palti, son of Laish, as we said, for he conquered his desire not only for one night, as Boaz did, but for many nights Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Many daughters have done valiantly, but you excel above them all” (Proverbs 31:29)? “Many daughters have done valiantly”; this is a reference to Joseph and Boaz. “But you excel above them all”; this is a reference to Palti, son of Laish, who exceeded Joseph and Boaz in restraint, as discussed above.