Reply To: Kamtza & Bar Kamtza

I have often wondered at those who explain that the rabbonim

were partly at fault for not having interfered. ( think the maharsha is one of those? )

what could they have possibly have done that wouldn’t have made matters worse and caused even more embarassment? although bar-kamtza thought they should have done something and was angry that they did not, I find it hard to understand that the maharsha (or someone) would agree with him.

I also don’t understand the question, “why is the story called kamtza bar kamtza, since kamtza had nothing to do with it”.

yes kamtza had nothing to do with it, but the confusion of the two names did, and that is why the story is called that. simple enough.

rav Miller pointed out that the sinas chinam referred means the sinah of the prushim for the tsedukkim! puts a completely different slant on things! I thought it was his own pshat, but it is not.

The Perushim were the Rabbanan of the time. The Tzeddukim were the Reform. MS said Rabbi Miller said that is not the P’shat.

Also, (IIRC, but I don’t have the text in front of me) Maharsha explains that the Rabbanan were involved in the Chanifa of the host, just like Aggrippas and calling him “Achi” (which the Gemorah finds fault as well), which is why they didn’t say anything.