Tisha B'Av: Story of Kamtza Bar Kamtza - The Misplaced Humility of Rav Zecharia Ben Avkulas

Okay, good afternoon friends. We have an amazing topic today. Today is our final sh before a tishab. I don't know if you could say you know there's a shil whether you can make a shakanu during the three weeks the says it's better not to make a shakanu. It's not because of a because in allow it's because we can't say that it's a it's a of difficulty for the Jewish people. If I could take this opportunity, today is Gimmel A. Today is the yard site of Rab Shamshin of Ashtapal. Today is also the third and final day of our campaign. If you'd like to be mishtave in helping us build our base medish and facilitate the shurim, you could go to charity.com/mh25. charity.commh25. Maybe somebody will be kind enough to post it on the notes on the shear. I would appreciate it. charity.commh25. We have an amazing topic today. We're going to study the most well-known garra related to besa mikdash. I don't think there's a more well-known garra but to apply the principle of the sasharim. Yes, that's it. Thank you. To apply the principle of the sasharim something that people don't pay attention to, they don't know about. Meaning, sometimes the more well-known something is, the more obvious something is, the less we know about it. Let me tell you the story that we all know about, and we're going to try to dissect it and break it apart. Today, we're going to learn the story of Kamsa Baramsa. So, don't say, "Oh, I already learned it in camp 500 times. I already know it. Please tell me at the end of today's sh that it was like you never learned it before. The Gmorra tells us that was trying to understand the int fortune is someone who's always afraid but one who hardens his heart will fall in evil. The Gmorra says that there are three instances in Jewish history that caused great destruction because of Kamar Kamsu. Uh shalim was destroyed because of a rooster and a hen to Malaka was destroyed and bet was destroyed because of a shaft of a chariot. We're going to study today Kamsa Baramsa. The Gumar says there was a man who had a friend named Kamsa and someone who he hated named Baramsa. The man made a party. He told his servant, "Please invite Kamsa." Sure enough, the servant invites Baramsa. When the host noticed Baramsa's at the party, he said, "Get out of here. Get lost." Barhams was embarrassed. He said, "Please, could I stay? I'll pay for my food. I'll pay for my drink." He then said, "I'll pay for half the party. I'll pay for the whole party." The host would have nothing to do with it. He said, "Don't throw me out in middle of the festivities." The host refused and walked Kam Baram out the door. Baramsa left in great shame. To add insult to injury, there were great Rabanam at the party who saw him being shamed and he did nothing about it. Nobody came to his defense. He felt that their silence implied that they agreed. They were complicit. The Marsh says that Baramsa made a mistake. The host of the party was very powerful, influential person. There was nothing the could have done. Baramsa goes to the Caesar. He told him the Jews rebelled. The Caesar said, "What's your proof?" He said, "Send them an animal to bring as a carbon." Gentiles are allowed to send animals to be brought as a carbon. You'll see they won't accept it. Baramsa took a third born calf which has the juiciest meat and it's being sent as a carbon to the Ba Mikdash. And while it's being sent, Barcamsa put a mum on the upper lip or on the eyelid, rendering it a balm. That would not be a balm for a gentile, but it would be a barum for a gentile who wants to bring the carbon to the bikdash. Theim are stunned. They don't know what to do. Should they be macro of the carbon? But it's about should they not be m of the carbon? They're endangering their their security and the security of the B mikdash. So what do they wanted to do? They wanted to be macro of the carbon in a state of imperfection in order to maintain shalom. The wanted to overlook the disqualification of the animal comes said no don't do that. If people see we're being mak an animal with a mum, they're going to think that yal and they're going to say that you be m an animal with a mum. So the rejected the animal but then the realized is going to report to the caesar. He's going to endanger the life of the community. So they said we have to kill baramsa again says no you can't do that. That's gonna send a message that if somebody puts a mum in a carbon people are gonna say we killed him and craven I'm sorry they're going to say that somebody put a m should be killed there's no for putting a m in an animal again deferred to because of the excessive humility Because of the excessive humility of it destroyed the temple. It burnt down the bikdash and it caused us to go into exile by rejecting the animal by not killing baramsa. That was excessive humility. And that is what destroyed the bas mikdash. It's very interesting. So who's right? Was of Kulas right or were the right? You know when of Kulas made his decision? We don't really have a dissenting view. We don't have an opposite view. We at the time that it happened nobody was able to disagree with Abas. So who's correct? Was correct or were the correct? It seems like the were correct because that because of B mdish was destroyed. But why does call that humility? Why is it called it the zakulas destroyed the base mikdash? What is the anova? What is the humility over here? Obviously, of made a mistake. But why did he make a mistake? What's the reason that it was a mistake? Should in fact the violated the and brought the animal with as a balm in order to maintain the peace. I mean it would seem that the were correct. The said be macro of the carbon. Is being macro of a carbon that has a mum one of the three sins you have to give up your life for? I understand in general you're not to be mac of a carbon with a mum. But being makum is not is not something that has to be observed if it means that it comes at the cost of saving Jewish lives. So at first glance the should have been correct. Theim said we need to be mac of the carbon to save the peace. We have to be mac of the carbon to save Jewish lives. What was the rale of yimal craven? They're going to say that we could be makum. Who cares if people are going to say that? We're going to be worried about that at the expense of Jewish life. Isn't it more important to save Jewish lives than to to be worried of what people are going to think the hala is regarding balm? Also when they realized that Baramsa is going to say what they did to the Caesar. So the said kill Baramsa. Should they not have killed Baramsa? Should they not have killed Bara? So of course says well people are going to say that we kill someone who puts a mum in a carbon. Who cares if people are going to say that? But the whole's life is in line is on the line. In other words, let's begin by trying to understand the opinion of Zakaria. Why was Zakaria Abulas concerned in this situation that people are going to say that if you put a mic you're killed or people are going to say that your macro of a carbon with a mid who cares if people say that? After all, the lives of the Jewish people are at stake. What is the rationale of Abulas? So to understand the position of you have to learn and the babakama says the the rabbis the Roman government sent two centuries to the they said teach us your ku They read the to them. They repeated. They thriceed when these centuries were leaving. We analyze your whole and it's true except for one that you say that an axe of a Jew that gores the axe of a gentile is exempt. And when an ox of a gentile gores the ax of a Jew full damages whether it's a or we understand the Roman century said it says it's only a Jewish sh but if reu is davka then even a kanani that gores a Jewish ox should be because it's not and if even of a is that gores of a cananani is in other words if rayu is dava even the even the ax of a Jew if it gur is the ax of aani the Romans said are we your friends or not if we're your friends, then you should be if you damage us. If we're not your friends, then you should be we should be put when we damage you. And that's the end of the story. The the Roman centuries came, they wanted to learn Tyra. The rabbis taught them Tyra. And the Romans said, "We agreed to everything in the Tyra except for the laws of tors." Asks Tyus, "How were the allowed to teach to the Gentiles? says if you teach to a gentile you're like it says answers Tyra's two answers number one they had no choice when the Roman government says teach us Tyra you give them shir you don't have no choice their lives were on the line they you're not obligated to risk your life not to teach Tyra to a gentile. So therefore they had no choice or the Roman centuries made themselves like converts and therefore the rabbis did not realize that they were not Jewish. comes the Marshall and the Yam and the Marshall working with Toyis's first answer that the reason why the taught them to is because their lives were on the line. The Marshall says some a very simple question who asked the rabbis to teach them the of Baba Kama saying the Roman centuries were sitting there. They don't know Babaakama from Baba Matsia from Baba Misa. So just tell them what you need to tell them. Why do you need to tell them the that if the sh of a Jew damages the sh of a gentile and if gentile damages? Why do you have to tell them that? So the marshall says it must be the case is they asked teach us tors teach us these. So they had no choice. To which the Marshall asks, "Yeah, they did have a choice. Distort the hala." Why didn't the rabbis just say, "When a Jew damages the sh of a gentile, you pay double. And when a gentile damages the sh of a Jew, you're potter." That's a simple way to get out of it. I understand they couldn't not teach it to them because they were asked specifically about the laws of damages. So just distort the from which the yam derives an amazing principle derives. You're not allowed to distort even in danger. You have to give up your life for it. I what do you mean it's not one of the three carninal sins? It is misrepresenting the even on the minutia is considered like a caros the quotes and he asks why did the rabbis teach on these? Wouldn't they know this would be something dangerous? Were they not concerned of so many um disasters that could come from this? Especially the evil empire, the Roman government that all of their thoughts were only to try to come up with a pretext and cause animosity. They should have changed the and said either that either you're always or you're always we're obligated to risk our life to to sanctify the name of God because if heaven forbid you misrepresent the it's like denying the Tory. They had no choice. Even though you only have to give up your life for one of the three cardinal sins, misrepresenting the Torah is a violation of one of the three cardinal sins because it's like a caros. It's like being in the Torah says we're talking about where the officers ask them tell me about tell me about tell me about tell me about the laws of damages. Tell me what is tell me. So they had no choice but to say the truth. They could not slip out of this case. Ah, you'll say we know there were times in history where the Rabanon did misrepresent Tyra like this Septuagant in the first paric of Migillah with Tami Hamel who gathered 72 Zakanim and they distorted the Tyra. That's because there they were divinely orchestrated to translate it that way. And it was like like the Garra says and it was also there they didn't change they just changed the expressions. But to say is or is that's like being kifer in the what difference does it make if it's the whole toyra or one like the says dear friends I think this opens up for us a new vista of understanding the of the opinion of kulasar abulas was a tana he was was a smart man. He knew that the lives of Jews were at stake if they're if they're not m of the carbon. However, when the desired to be macro of the carbon, he said we can't be macro of the carbon. Then people are going to think that you could be macro of a carbon with a mum in it. So you'll say, "Who cares if people think that?" Let them think it. So what if they think it? At the end of the day, even if they think it, isn't it more important to save Jewish lives? You don't have to give up your life not to be mac of a carbon with a mum. That's true. If a gentile would come and enforce that we're makra of a carbon with a we would have to do it. But in this case said, you're misrepresenting the Tory. People are craven. People are going to say if the were of this carbon, you could be m of a carbon with a m in it. And the marshall says distorting the Tory is a capital offense. It's akin toos. It's heresy. It's being ker in the Torah. You can't misrepresent the then the said let's kill to which says you're also misrepresenting the because people are going to say if you put a murban we're not allowed to misrepresent the even if that means risking the lives of Jews. So we now understand the opinion of Kulas understands the value of how important it is to save Jewish lives. But we can't misrepresent the Torah just to save Jewish lives. So I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that the Gumar and the Marshall and the Yam is not quite like Absta's case. The marshall says to teach an incorrect that would be misrepresenting the Tyra and that would be a capital offense. But in this case where Baram is sending an animal with a we're not teaching a that you could be makalum. We're just being mak the balum but we're not misrepresenting in terms of the way we're presenting and teaching Tyra. So I want to share with you a chuva of Ram Mosha an amazing chuva of Ramosa. Ramosa is discussing a contemporary issue. Can a woman after the kaducian after the man says to her of Israel. Could the woman then turn to the man and give the man a ring? It's called a dual ring ceremony. Is that permitted or not? Mosha says, "No, it is not permitted." Mosha was asked says, "Look, regarding the kaducin, they're already married." The fact that she gives and says is just even if everybody knows and the know that she's going to do it, it's not the kaducian as if they only want to get married with this procedure cuz even if they would make the stipulation behal But says Moshe, it is aer for the woman to give the man a ring at the wedding. It is prohibited. First of all, if it's the custom of Goim to do it, it is a for Jewish people to do it. Even if they're not doing it as a a tribute to a des even if they're just doing it as an empty practice, it would be an isura of especially this practice which not only is empty, it's against the Tory because according to the Tory, the man acquires the woman. And if the gentile practice is she marries him as well, then this is considered an empty practice that for a Jew to adopt would be an isa however says even if it's not the practice of it is ushered to do it at the even if she doesn't say anything. Why you ready for this? says Mosha, we're going to compare it to somebody who wants to take a shower after the mikvah. The Gumar and Shabas says they used to be toy in let's say a lake and then they would take a shower because the lake was full of impurities. And the Gmorra says they made a gazer. You can't take a shower after you go to the lake because people are going to say it's not the grimy lake water that's matar. It's theim that's matu. So therefore they made a gazer that you can't take a shower after you go to the mikvah in a lake. So says Moshe, if you're not allowed to take a shower after you go to the lake because people are going to think it's the shower that's mahar you and not the lake. Certainly you're not allowed to have her give the ring after he gives her the ring because people are going to think it's not his giving the ring that's marrying them. It's her giving him the ring. I bezda never made such a gazer still since it could easily come to people thinking that it's user now it's not only asser to do it it's an iser because by having her give a ring it's going to cause to be forgotten and forgetting a even if it won't come to any isser like says then invokes the we if you misrepresent the it's considered kafira says Moshe even though there's no question has the authority to obligate a Jew to pay a for damages if there is a but they can't say that's the even therefore says even though in this case we're not saying the is the woman gives the ring But we're doing an act from which people will derive that kaducin will only be created if she gives the ring. Says to do an act that will cause people to forget the true you're on an oo. So we're seeing Ra Mosha has an expanded understanding of the not only are you not allowed to misrepresent Tyra by teaching a wrong and if you teach a wrong it's considered you can't even do an act from which people will have a misconception about Tory to merely take a shower after going to the mikvah which could cause people to think that that's what is tie her you that itself is misrepresenting to allow the woman at the to give the man a ring even though we're not teaching that that that creates but it's a misrepresentation of the that itself is kafira. So coming back to we understand his position very well. He says even though you're not giving a shar that you're allowed to be mak a carbon with a mum but if you rabbis are standing there and allowing the carbon to be brought from which people are going to derive that you could be mak a carbon with a mum in it. It's a misrepresentation of the and therefore it's going to create what is known as a it's it's it's tantonic to you're not teaching the but you're doing something from which people will have a an erroneous view of that's you have to be and if we kill if we kill baram people are going to think even though you didn't teach this that if you put a moment a carb on your so we've explained the so then why did say he was wrong we've beautifully explained based on the teaching an erroneous is based on's expanded understanding of the that it applies Even if you don't teach the but merely you represent the way that's also a so what did the hold what was wrong with so I want to offer you the following there's aud Here's a situation. A city was under siege by non-Jews who wanted to murder all the citizens. A Jewish woman left the city. She seduced the general and the other Jews in the city escaped. The was asked to comment about the correctness or lack thereof of the activities of this woman. Huda said the woman was wrong. Arayos to be proactive is even if it's going to save Jewish lives. So they asked what do you mean? But Esther Esther did it says to Nhuda. Esther was different because when Esther did it, it was to save all of Kali Israel. to save all of Kalisrael, you could violate one of the three cardinal sins. To save just a group of people, you can't. So, this doesn't really help us because in the case of the Yamay, it wasn't the entirety of Klaus whose life was on the line. So they weren't allowed to uh th those Roman those were not allowed to misrepresent the how about when the carbon came to the base and said he was right you can't mis misrepresent the even though Jewish lives are at stake it wasn't all of cl Israel Well, but I want to share with you another kadesh. The inf was asked the Jews of a a certain city were saved. Are they allowed to say halal? The says they're not allowed to say halal. You can only say hal if all of is saved. Comes and asks, "So how do we say halaneka?" It wasn't all of Kal is says the Alazar quoting get Makushar that when you're dealing with the B mikdash the B mikdash has a status of all of and since the B mikdash was saved and rededicated in times of Kaneka that's considered all of when that's a a great when you're dealing with the B mikdash that as the status of all of taking that back to under normal circumstances he would be absolutely right you cannot be of a carbon with a m in it you're misrepresenting the it is you can't kill someone who put a m in a carbon because it's misrepresenting the but here's where he went wrong he should have known the kdosh that when you're dealing with the bikdash The Romans may come and destroy the Bikdash. Now we're dealing with all of Israel. When it comes to all of we know from Esther, you're even allowed to violate a cardinal sin. He should have known that in order to save the Bikdash, it would have been okay to be mak this carbon even though it's misrepresenting the or it would have been okay to kill Baramsa. What do you mean? It's a cardinal sin. Yeah, but the B mikdash is at stake. There's a big when it comes to the Biktod then you're allowed to violate a cardinal sin to save it. Ah now we understand why the said the humility of destroyed the B mikdash. How so? Why the humility of the B mikdash of Aulas destroyed the B mikdash? You think it's easy to say like that? You need need grace plates. You need big shoulders to take upon yourself the responsibility to paskin that under these circumstances we could misrepresent the Torah and either be mak a carbon with a mum or kill baramsa. That's a very big. You need big shoulders to say such a kosh of Kulas didn't have such big shoulders. His humility prevented him. His humility got interfered with his coming to the correct conclusion. You know the garra says that an ammora met someone who was mourning the ba mikdash. He said who do you think you are to mourn the ba mikdash? You have to be an to mourn the ba mikdash. In general, a person has to be of stature to mourn the B mikdash. It's interesting that during the three weeks, we don't we we tell everyone to mourn the B mikdash as if we need to rectify the mistaken humility of take a look in the says, I don't know what kind of humility was here. that he didn't allow them to accept the carbon or not to kill him. This is not humility. Should have said the righteousness, you know the or his but why the humility rashi says it means his tolerance. Rashi says the tolerance. What does that mean? The tolerance rashi seems to indicate that of Kulas was being too tolerant. Meaning he was very patient in tolerating baransa and not killing him. But the maritzka says humility and tolerance are not the exact same character trait. So the the maritzia says similar to this idea that we're saying that you would be allowed to be if it's a sak for Israel like we find that put on big day or they wore shness. So we see that criticized that he was worried that people are going to say and crave him. That means you were allowed to misrepresent the Tory or they would have been allowed to be because he's a but because of the great humility was he was afraid to take the responsibility of the he was that people would say oh he did the wrong thing he didn't consider himself great enough that people should follow an innovative or or revolutionary he thought only a big galador could issue such a and he's not roy for this to stand in the breach and to issue this revolutionary idea. That's why Kazal say the humility that he didn't want to so to speak step up to the plate and take upon himself that this situation called for a revolutionary. If you look in the medish this the says on the it says was there and he didn't protest again we see that this there was a certain deficiency that there are times in halaka that call for extra legal measures extra legal measures And the ultimately say it was the misplaced humility of Abulas. But the way we're so to speak setting it up today is that the position of was based on the yam as understood by that it is considered a cardinal sin to misrepresent if it's going to lead to a misrepresentation of and therefore under normal circumstances maybe we would have said ables was correct but ultimately he was incorrect and the reason he was incorrect is Because since all of Kalisra was at stake, it required a to allow them either to mak the carbon or to kill. I think this is really a new take and a revolutionary take on this episode and the the Gmorra's summation is I wish everyone we should be and if we're not should have an easy fast and we I want to also mention the new safaris is now available. You could get it in farm stores. You could get it online and it's a very appropriate limud for this time of the year. Rabbi say have a great day. Ktovia warning.