Parshat Devarim

A Re-reading of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza

Parshat Devarim is always the Shabbat before Tisha Be'Av, the anniversary of the destruction of our Temple and Jerusalem, the most horrific day in the Jewish calendar.

We have noted in a previous Sedra Short the connection between the parsha and Tisha Be'Av (see below from 2006).

This week I would to like to offer a re-reading of the story of Kamtza and bar Kamtza, the story behind the destruction of the Temple, as it appears in Gittin .

It begins with Rabbi Yochanan stating that Jerusalem was destroyed because of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. Essentially a wealthy man wants to invite his good friend Kamtza to a feast, but a mix up occurs and his enemy Bar Kamtza comes instead. The man is furious and ejects Bar Kamtza from the feast, despite long pleas, in which Bar Kamtza offers to pay for the whole feast but not suffer the humiliation of being evicted. Bar Kamtza decides that since the rabbis who attended the feast did not intervene to save him from embarrassment, he would slander the Jews to the Romans.

Bar Kamtza persuades Caesar to send a sacrifice to the Temple to test the loyalty of the Jews. He then makes a minor blemish on the animal, in order to make it unfit for sacrifice. The rabbis at the Temple debate what they should do, after all the animal came from Caesar. Some rabbis suggested that they should make the sacrifice regardless, but Rabbi ben Zecharia Avkulos objected as people would then think that it was permitted to sacrifice animals with blemishes. It was suggested that Bar Kamtza be executed so that he could not report back to Caesar. Again Rabi Zecharia ben Avkolus objected as people would say that someone who offers a blemished sacrifice is liable for execution.

The animal was therefore not sacrificed and Caesar considered this a rebellion and sent his troops to destroy the city. The story ends with Rabbi Yochanan blaming the scrupulousness of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkolus for destroying the Temple.

There are two questions we must ask:

• Is this story actually true? Were there really two men with similar names with one being a close friend and the other an enemy of a wealthy man?

• Rabbi Yochanan first blames Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and then at the end of the story blames Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkolus. Whose fault was it really?

Firstly, I think it is likely that the story is a metaphor for the state of the Jewish people at the time. Two people, Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, were pretty much the same. The only difference between them was the "Bar" – a minor difference. Yet, that very small difference, possibly in ideology, was enough for him to be hated by the other side. And despite the fact that it was only a minor difference, there could be no rapprochement whatsoever.

The Jews of Judea had so much in common with each other. Yet the minor differences between the groups became positions of such stiff hatred. They could only focus on what was different and could not see that they were one people with the same goals.

Secondly, we should note that both course of actions suggested to Rabbi Yochanan Ben Avkilus were permitted as it was an exreme situation. He was only concerned as to what people might think and was therefore, machmir, strict.

Rabbi Yochanan, therefore, is making a stunning indictment of the rabbis of the Second Temple. They were so worried about what people might think regarding ritual that they were overtly strict in keeping to the letter of the law when it came to Caesar's sacrifice. However, when it came to the feelings of Bar Kamtza, they were silent, and were unconcerned as to what others might think. Rabbi Yochanan is saying that the rabbis were not careful when it came to social laws, "Bein Adam le'Havero", yet overtly strict when it came to ritual laws, "bein Adam laMakom". It should have been the other way around.

Unfortunately, this story sounds too familiar.

Last year's Sedra Short on Parshat Devarim, entitled: "A 38 Year Perspective" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2008/08/parshat-devarim-38-year-perspective-in.html

Another Sedra Short on Parshat Devarim, entitled: " Fighting in the Mountains" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007/07/parshat-devarim-fighting-in-mountains.html

A further Sedra Short on Parshat Devarim, entitled: "Devarim, Chazon and Tisha Be'Av" appears http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006/07/parshat-devarim-devarim-chazon-and.html.

Parshat Devarim

A 38 Year Perspective

In this week's parsha, Moshe begins the first of three speeches to Israel, in the last month of his life.

In it, he recalls much of the history of the past 38 years. He begins by bringing up the story of the spies, the reason why Israel wandered for forty years in the wilderness.

What is interesting is that he tells the story differently than the way that appears in Sefer Bemidbar. The story differs in three ways:

Whose idea it was to send the spies – here Moshe says: "all of you approached me and said, 'Let us send men ahead of us…'" (Devarim 1:22), i.e. the idea to send spies came from the people. However, in Sefer Bemidbar, the initiative comes from God: "The Lord spoke to Moses saying: 'Send out for yourself men who will scout the Land of Canaan'" (Bemidbar 13:1-2)

In Devarim, Moshe blames the people for rejecting the conquest, not the spies: "They…brought us back word, and said, 'The land the Lord, our God, is giving us is good.' But you did not want to go up, and you rebelled against the commandment of the Lord, your God" (Devarim 1:25-26). However, Sefer Bemidbar puts the emphasis of the blame on the people.

In Devarim, Moshe describes himself as the one who argues with people and begs them not to be frightened, while in Sefer Bemidbar Calev ben Yephuneh, and to a certain extent, Yehoshua, take on that role.

How doe we come to tems with the fact that the Torah describes the same event totally differently in different books?

Modern scholars do not have a problem with this issue. They say that that Torah records different traditions of what happens, and so Sefer Devarim recalls one tradition of how the events ensued, while Sefer Bemidbar recalls an alternative tradition.

I would like to suggest a different response.

First we must understand the purpose of these two books. Sefer Bemidbar describes why Israel did not conquer Canaan immediately after leaving Sinai. However, Sefer Devarim is Moshe's farewell to the people and his message to them for the future. He is less interested in the past, but interested that Israel learns from the past's mistakes.

He therefore, tells the story from a different perspective and emphasizes the issues more relevant to the new generation.

Whose idea was it to send the spies? Within the account of Sefer Bemidbar, it is clear that the spies had two missions. One: to spy for military intelligence; two: to see the quality of the land (see my blog on Parshat Shelach http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.htmlhttp://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html). The mission for military intelligence came from God, while the mission to see the land came from the people. It was that part of the mission that failed. Therefore, in Devarim, Moshe emphasizes the people's error, rather than God's command.

Concerning the blame for the failure, the spies themselves are long dead. There is no point discussing their personal failure. It is far more important that the people learn from their own error.

Finally, while calve might have the prime defender of the mission, he was clearly an agent of Moshe's. It was right Moshe to use him to defend the mission, as he was one of the actual spies and therefore, his perspective was far more important. However, 38 years later, Moshe is more interested in stressing God's role in conquering the land. For that he does not need a spy. For that, it needs his leadership to tell the people not to fear but to trust God.

Therefore, there is o contradiction between the accounts of Devarim and Bemidbar. They are simply told from a different perspective.

Last year's Sedra Short on Parshat Devarim, entitled: " Fighting in the Mountains" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html l.

Another Sedra Short on Parshat Devarim, entitled: "Devarim, Chazon and Tisha Be'Av" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html.

Parshat Devarim

Fighting in the Mountains

In the first of his three final addresses to Israel before his death, Moshe recalls the incident of the spies, the episode that caused Israel to wander for thirty years in wilderness.

Ironically, the immediate aftermath caused Israel to find its courage: "We have sinned against the Lord; we will go up and fight" (Devarim 1:41). However, by then it was too late and Moshe warned them of the pointlessness of impending battle. Again, the people would not listen: "So every one of you girded his weapons, and you prepared yourselves to go up to the mountain" (ibid).

Interestingly, from this and the following pessukim it is clear, Israel was in the valley, while the enemy held the mountain. The height disadvantage was disastrous for Israel: "The Emori dwelling in that mountain came out towards you and pursued you as bees do, and beat you down in Seir" (ibid 44).

This pattern was counter distinctive to Israel's battle plans during the biblical period.

Throughout that time, Israel lacked proper weaponry and until, King Shaul, an army. As a result, Shamgar's army was forced to fight using agricultural implements (Shoftim 3 :31), Shimshon made weapons from dead animals (15:16), while on the day of war in Shau'l's first army "neither sword nor spear was found in the possession of all the people" (I Shmuel 13:22).

No wonder, Sisera's 900 chariots were able to persecute the entire country in Devorah's time, and other enemies found Israel vulnerable.

Israel's response was to fight in the mountain, such as with Ehud (Shoftim 3:27), Devorah (ibid 4:6) and Gidon (ibid 6:33 & 7:9). Israels enemies, with superior weaponry, preferred the lowlands, while used the geography of the land as weapon by fighting in the highlands.

This situation was so much so that after a particularly humiliating defeat for Aram, their commission of enquiry concluded that the reason for their defeat was because "a God of mountains is their God: therefore they overpowered us. However, if we fight them in the plains, [you will see] if we will not overpower them" (I Melachim 20:23).

And so a year later, Aram again attacked, this time on the plains. However, the result was the same, "Because the Arameans said that God of the mountains is the Lord and He is not the God over the valleys, I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand and you will know that I am the Lord" (ibid 28).

Thus concludes Israel's successes and failures. Israel was defeated when the men attacked from the ground up the mountains, not just because their tactics were flawed, but because God had declared: "I am not among you" (Devarim 1: 42).

The message is clear: When God is among us we succeed, when God is not among us we fail. We must work hard to ensure that God is always among us.

Last years' Sedra Short on Parshat Devarim, entitled: "Devarim, Chazon and Tisha Be'Av" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html.