Tace, R. Shlomo Aviner! Amore Dei, Tace!

I openly admit that I have serious differences of opinion with the Hardal (Merkaz HaRav based) rabbinate. I emphatically demur on their messianically driven Zionism. I summarily reject their ever increasing resort to Da'at Torah in order to inveigh on matters of political and other subjects, while wrapped in the mantle of their rabbinic authority. I strongly disagree with their advocacy of standards of modesty that are increasingly reminiscent of the more extreme segments of the Haredi world. I absolutely reject their Western cultural 'know-nothingness.' I am deeply angered by their inability to respect the ideas of others, even from within the Orthodox World.

Indeed, aside from our common commitment to Torah and Mitzvot, I often feel we have little (if anything) in common. [And sometime I have the gnawing feeling that while we learn the same seforim, we don't really see the same words therein.]

This sense of angst is excacerbated when such rabbis hold forth in public and cause tremendous Hillul HaShem with their obiter dicta.

Today's example is provided by R. Shlomo Aviner, the Rav of Bet El 2. Apparently, he has voiced the opinion that non-Jews should be barred from service in the IDF. No, we're not discussing Russian Provo-Slav Orthodox Christians who may (or may not) have had a Jewish grandfather. we're discussing Druze soldiers, whose contribution to Israel's security (along with the Bedouin and Circassian soldiers) can never truly be repaid. His reason for doing this is the forced resignation of a senior Druze officer for misconduct. [It was a charge, by the way, of which Jews are not innocent, either.] And, upon what does he base this insight of his? He found a Rambam, that non-Jews can't be as loyal as Jews.

I don't want to start picking over the Rambam. I do know that the Druze with whom I served in the Police were more loyal, readier to die to defend this country, than the Tel Aviv draft dodgers and the members of 'Breaking the Silence.' I do know that King David had non-Jewish mercenaries in the army that rid Israel of the Phillistine threat. I do know that if anything alienates the Jews of this country from Torah (at a time that there is an upsurge ib searching for Torah and Jewish Identity), it's rabbis who either talk out of place, act out of place and who lack the ability to communicate Torah in a manner that will draw the unaffiliated closer to God and Torah, and not alienate them.
[See Rambam, הקדמה לפרק חלק בנושא הדרכים להבנת דברי חז"ל and מורה נבוכים ח"ג פ"ל .]

Alors, Rabbin Aviner, je vous en prie! Pour l'amour de Dieu, pour l'honneur de la Tora, pour l'avenir secur du peuple Israel ici en Eretz Yisrael: Si vous ne pouvez pas expliquer vos opinions dans un facon que sera intelligible a tout le monde, gardez-les a vous meme, ou a votre population local. Hazal ont nous enseigne: 'Je n'ai trouve pas un chose meilleure que la silence.'.

Thoughts on the JStreet Jive

I recently had the occasion to read Noah Pollack's incisive unmasking of the phenomenon known as J Street. After reviewing J Street's site, and sitting through some of its You Tube offerings, I found most of Pollack's observations to be both cogent and on target. To be charitable, we have here a dewy eyed group of true believers who maintain that Israel is responsible for the absence of Peace in the Middle East; that if only Israel would make the ultimate concessions, then peace would be immediately at hand. As Pollack notes, the mantra is an old one. It's the chorus that has mon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Uri Savir, and the editorial board(s) of Haaretz for over 16 years, since the merry days of Oslo. What is remarkable about the depth of their belief is the fact that they let no facts confuse them.

It must be wonderful to have such pristine faith in the midst of the sorry tale of blood and suffering that we've undergone since the accords were signed in September 1993. It must feel wonderful to be so sure, and so secure, playing Big Brother with the lives of six million people from their perch 6,000 miles away. What a rarified existence! How I envy them the power of their convictions. How I shudder at the Jewish blood that they, obviously inadvertently, will likely spill. Then again, as the Rebbe once said, 'to chop down a forest, splinters must fly.' The ends justify the means of peace making, as long as it's someone else's forest, and you're not in the way of the splinters.

Eighty Years Since תרפט

גלגולו של טענה: 80 שנה למאורעות תרפ"ט

ארז תדמור

בבוקר יום שבת, ה-24 לאוגוסט 1929, פרצו עשרות ערבים חמושים בסכינים ובגרזנים לביתו של הרוקח גרשון בן ציון בבית הדסה בחברון. העובדה שמזה שנים העניק בן ציון טיפול ותרופות חינם אין כסף למאות ערבים לא עמדה לזכותו.

בן ציון נרצח לאחר שהפורעים עקרו את עיניו ועינוהו קשות. בהמשך עינו ורצחו את בתו וקטעו את ידי אשתו שנפצעה אנושות ונפטרה בבית החולים בירושלים. באותן שעות נראו מראות דומים בכל רחבי חברון. אלפי פורעים פשטו על בתי היהודים וביצעו מסע רצח, אונס וטבח שאין שני לאכזריותו. באותו יום נטבחו בחברון 59 יהודים ושמונה נוספים מתו מפצעיהם בימים הבאים. השוטרים הבריטים חזו בנעשה באין מפריע ולא נקפו אצבע. מאות יהודי חברון, קהילה יהודית בת מאות שנים, פונו מהעיר והישוב היהודי העתיק ביותר בארץ ישראל נעקר.

בשאר רחבי הארץ נרשמו בימים הבאים מראות דומים באכזריותם, גם אם לא בהיקף הנרצחים. בירושלים נרצחו 19 יהודים ובצפת נרצחו 18. בחיפה הצליחו כוחות ההגנה לעצור את הפורעים והפרעות נסתיימו עם שבעה נרצחים. גם בתל-אביב הצליחו כוחות ההגנה לעצור את הפורעים וניסיון הטבח נסתיים בשלושה נרצחים. במוצא רצחו הפורעים את ההורים למשפחת מקלף, שתי בנות ובן. 3 מילדי משפחת מקלף ניצלו מהטבח שהובל על ידי רועה שהועסק על ידי המשפחה. אחד מהם, מרדכי, הפך לימים לרמטכ"ל השלישי של צה"ל.

כשהסתיימו פרעות תרפ"ט נמנו 113 נרצחים ו-339 פצועים. בכל רחבי הארץ נרשמו מראות דומים: גופות מרוטשות, ילדים שנשרפו חיים, תינוקות שראשיהם הוטחו בקירות, נשים שנאנסו ובטנן בותרה ומאות קטועי גפיים ופצועים שעונו. את המראות הקשים ניתן למצוא באתרי האינטרנט להנצחת הנרצחים.

אם יש אירוע היסטורי יחיד שבכוחו להפריך לחלוטין ולהאיר באור המתאים את טענות העולם הערבי והשמאל האירופי, האמריקאי והישראלי לפיהן מקור הסכסוך הישראלי-ערבי הוא בכיבוש יהודה ושומרון במלחמת ששת הימים הרי זהו טבח תרפ"ט. יתרה מכך, מאורעות תרפ"ט מפריכים לחלוטין גם את חסידי הנכבה והתיאוריות הפוסט-ציוניות השונות הרואים במצב הפליטים הערבים של מלחמת השחרור את המקור לסכסוך המתמשך בינינו לבין הערבים. מיותר לציין כי טענות אלו הן מגוחכות בפני עצמן ועומדות בסתירה לכללי הלוגיקה ולחוקי הזמן המקובלים. שהרי כיצד ניתן לראות בתוצאות מלחמת השחרור את הסיבות לפריצתה?

תמיד ימצאו דרך להאשים את היהודים

67 היהודים שעונו, נרצחו ונאנסו לפני 80 שנים בדיוק בחברון לא היו מתנחלים, תואר גנאי שהומצא על מנת להבדיל את המתיישבים ביהודה ושומרון לאחר מלחמת ששת הימים מהמתיישבים של ראשית המפעל הציוני. הם אפילו לא היו מתיישבים שהגיעו לארץ כחלק ממושבות הברון. היהודים שנרצחו בחברון נמנו על הקהילה היהודית העתיקה ביותר בארץ ישראל. ישנן עדויות כי לאורך כל המאות התגוררו בעיר לפחות כעשרים משפחות יהודיות על אף המגבלות הקשות על התיישבות יהודים בעיר מצד שליטי הארץ המוסלמים. מרבית הנרצחים בחברון היו צאצאי הקהילה הספרדית שהתיישבה בעיר במאה ה-16 וצאצאי קהילת חב"ד האשכנזית שהתיישבה בחברון בראשית המאה ה-19.

על שלל הטענות ההזויות המאשימות תמיד את התנהגותם של היהודים בפרעות ובפוגרומים הניתכים על ראשם חשוב להוסיף את הטענה המקובלת כיום בחוגי האלון חילואים והאילן פפאים למיניהם לפיהן "גזל הקרקעות", "הנישול" ו"הקולוניאליזם הציוני" הם שגרמו לשנאת אוכלוסיית הילידים כלפי המהגרים היהודים.

אלא שיהודי חברון היו בדיוק ההיפך מהדימוי השקרי שצייר אלון חילו לאגרונום קלווריסקי. יהודי חברון חיו ונהגו בהתאם לחוקי ולמעמד הד'מים, בני החסות, באיסלאם. ביום שישי, יממה לפני הטבח, הגיעו כמה מאנשי ההגנה לחברון לבדוק כיצד ניתן להגן על היהודים בעיר לאור חומרת ההתרעות.

אנשי ההגנה התבקשו לעזוב על ידי ראשי קהילת חברון על מנת שלא להלהיט את הרוחות ונאמר להם כי קיבלו ערובות והבטחות לשלומם מהמוכתרים ומאנשי הדת המוסלמים. כמי שראו עצמם בני חסות האמינו פרנסי ורבני הקהילה להבטחות שקיבלו והיו בטוחים כי שגרת החיים השלווה של השנים שקדמו לטבח תמשך.

התוצאות היו הרות אסון. בכל רחבי הארץ נפגעו דווקא היהודים שראו עצמם כבני חסות ועל כן לא ראו טעם ואף חששו להחזיק בנשק או להתארגן להגנה עצמית. הקהילות שנפגעו, היהודים שנרצחו, היו הד'ימים, בני החסות, אלו שידעו ערבית ונתנו אמון בהבטחות. בפתח-תקווה שהראתה את כוחה כמה שנים לפני כן לא אירע ליהודים דבר. בתל אביב ובחיפה הדפו אנשי ההגנה את הפורעים ונרשמו הרוגים בודדים. במושבות מבודדות כגון חולדה, הר-טוב ובאר טוביה הצליחו אנשי ההגנה להדוף את המתקפות עד לפינוי מרבית המתיישבים בשלום. אלו שהיו חמושים והכירו בערך ההגנה העצמית לא נפגעו. אלו שהיו חסרי הגנה ותלויים בחסדי הבריטים נטבחו.

לפני מספר שנים התבטאה שרת החינוך לשעבר שולמית אלוני ואמרה כי מאורעות תרפ"ט פרצו בשל פרובוקציה שעשו פעילי בית''ר עת תקעו בשופר ברחבת הכותל בערב תשעה באב. את גלגולה המודרני של טענה זו אנו מכירים מההאשמות שהופנו כלפי אריאל שרון לפיהן עלייתו להר הבית באוקטובר 2000 היא הסיבה לפרוץ האינתיפאדה השנייה. ישנם כאלו שתמיד ימצאו כיצד להאשים את היהודים בתוקפנות המופנית כלפיהם, יש רק להבטיח שאנשים כאלו לא יגיעו שוב למעמד של שרי חינוך בישראל.

[Hat tip: Aviad Stollman]

Of Scotch, Frummkeit and Bet Shemesh

[The Latest edition of Eretz Acheret is devoted to terror being worked upon the religious and haredi communities of Ramat Bet Shemesh by hooligans masquerading as 'Modesty Patrols.' It makes for terrifying, though absolutely required reading. However, events in Ramat Bet Shemesh are an extreme expression of a more pervasive phenomenon in the religious and haredi communities. I recently posted the following on the local e-list, and I believe that it speaks for itself.]

Recently, I've become aware of a lot of local discussion concerning the kashrut of Scotch and whiskeys. As a service to the community, and without presuming to pasken (since that's the purview of the Rav and Lishkat ha-Rabbanut), I did some research. The results are available here and here (the latter is far more detailed).

The bottom line is that certain types of food raise potential questions, and there are is a broad spectrum of legitimate halakhic response to those questions. Take, for example, the use of gelatin. In the US and parts of Europe, products containing gelatine are not used. [In the US, by the way, there were Gedolei Yisrael who allowed gelatin derivatives if these were less than 1 in 60 of the total, even if these received them as a matter of course (ie לכתחילה).] In Israel. and other parts of Europe, their use has been allowed since the 1930's. Here, in Israel, this was the view of the Rav of Yerushalayim, R. Zvi Pesach Frank zt'l and is widely held (especially in the candy industry).

The same type of situation is true for Scotch (and other whiskeys). Scotch is cured in vats that may or may not have been used for non-kosher wine. The Posek ha-Dor, Maran R. Moshe Feinstein zatzal, paskened explicitly that liquor manufactured in that fashion is absolutely kosher. It is true that he, himself, tried to be mahmir. However, when required, he himself drank Scotch that was prepared in the above noted manner. In other words, one may be mahmir without casting aspersions upon the essentially permissible nature of an action or a foodstuff.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the point. Most kashrut issues lie along a spectrum of permissibility. There are acknowledged Gedolim who differed sharply on such issues, and those who accept their authority are fully within their legitimate religious right to rely upon them. No one, absolutely no one, has the right to tell them that they are (God forbid!) eating trayf.

On the other hand, it is often the case that individuals are unaware of the realia of kashrut. Under those circumstances, it would be the proper thing to quietly take the person aside and explain that some people don't accept a certain hekhsher for this and this reason. It would then be up to the individual to decide. However, propriety dictates that (if applicable) both sides of the issue be responsibly presented (as well as the halakhic authorities who assert either side of the question). Anything short of that is, frankly, both misleading and abusive.

The Torquemadas of Kashrut often recall lists of forbidden ingrediants, but never read the introduction of the Netziv from Volozhin to Humash Bereshit. The Netziv (R. Naphtali Zvi Yehuda Berlin) zatzal, asks Rashi's question: Why did the Torah commence with Bereshit and not with the first mitzvah? His answer was 'Derekh Eretz Kadma la-Torah.' First one needs to learn to be a mensch. Only then can one start to accept, understand and observe mitzvot. As proof of his contention, he notes that he Second Temple was destroyed because pseudo-tzaddikim beat each other up with their frummkeit, and (as Netziv says) "the Holy One, blessed be He does not suffer such 'tzaddikim.'"

After Tisha B'Av, and in advance of Rosh Hodesh Elul, it behooves us to improve our devotion to mitzvot. It's easy to do that by crusading for humras, to check other people's tzitzis, and to carry one's own frummkeit as if it were going to break. It's easier to feel good by humiliating someone else under the guise of saving them from sin.

It's harder, more valuable, more legitimate and more worthwhile to acknowledge the fact that there are different traditions on various things and that, in the absence of the Sanhedrin, this type of limited pluralism will be part of our lives for the foreseeable future. My master and teacher, Rav Soloveitchik zatzal, refused to tell his disciples and laypersons what his person strictures were. These were a matter between himself and his Maker. A person who violates the privacy of his personal piety, in order to impose his standards on someone else who relies on his own rav is, frankly, is nothing more than a bully.

We have enough bullies in the religious community.

Guest Posting: The Great Abandonment, or Why I Mourn on Tisha Be'Av

[This powerful essay on Tisha B'Av and its contemporary significance is posted courtesy of QED.]

It's not the state of Jerusalem today, which puts the lie to "charev veshamem". More Jews live there and more Torah is learned than at any time in its history. It's not shi'abud malchuyot - we are no more enslaved to superpowers than any other small country - all of whom are independent. It's not the temple, at least not in the way most people understand. The destruction of "etzim ve'avanim" is merely the external manifestation of something far more unsettling - the feeling of abandonment of Am Yisra'el by God.

Anyone who reads Eicha will notice that, in addition to hair-raising descriptions of the depradations the Jews suffered at the hands of the Babylonians, there is a sense of abandonment. If you pay close attention, you can almost hear Yirmiyahu crying desperately to the Heavens for some sign, some assurance that he's there, that he hears us, that it will be OK in the end. Where once there was the confident, certain word of God is now only the desperate, doubt-ridden plea of the Man of Faith, who longs for His word.

In every generation since the great abandonment until modern times, Jews have cried out to the Heavens to understand Why; only to be met with silence. Things became even worse in Modern times, as the silence has allowed doubt and denial to turn the overwhelming majority of Jews away from Him. Those that remain have nothing to answer when asked "Where is God". Rather than being able to say "why, right here", we only hem and haw and squirm. Without God's presence, it is exponentially harder to defend against the constant intellectual and academic charge that "what you see is what there is" and that all of Judaism is man-made, no revelation required. Every generation of ORTHODOX Jews undergoes a constant, uphill struggle to get them to keep the faith. All these things can be traced back to the Great Abandonment.

I know all the explanations. Hester Panim. We're not children, we're grown-ups and we should not have to be coddled with constant appearances. It's a nisayon; there will be great rewards for those who hold up to it etc etc. Many will berate me for even suggesting the idea.

I don't want to hear it. I can't hear it. Not today. For just as one can not, should not try to console one whose meto is mutal lefanav, so I cannot be consoled on the day I am reminded of the day God shut me and the rest of us out. THAT is the main, most horrible tragedy - the destruction of the temple is a mere technicality, a logical end to this process. As the whole purpose of the Mikdash was "veshachanti betocham", once that's gone, the Temple is meaningless.

I say this out of the same despair mixed with hope one finds in Eichah. Mine is not a tefila sedura but a desperate, pained cry for God's presence, for him to reveal himself. I can only hope that he'll listen.

Good Job

In the Footsteps of Josephus Flavius and Tiberius Julius Alexander

Wonderful company: Tiberius Julius Alexander, Flavius Josephus

Rabbi Zekharia ben Avqulas Revisited (II)

There is, as some of the commentors have noted, another version of the story of R. Zekharia b, Avqulos. It is found in Midrash Eikha Rabba (IV, 3 s.v. מעשה). This version haunts me more than the previous one. In light of this past week's scandals, I find it all the more terrifying.

In the telling of the Midrash, the story is largely like that in the Talmud. There is, however, one exception. R. Zekharia b. Avqulos was actually present when Bar Qamtza pleaded with Qamtza not to humiliate him to no avail. The Midrash comments: והיה שם רבי זכריה בן אבקולס והיתה סיפק בידו למחות ולא מיחהת, 'And R. Zekharia b. Avqulos was there, and he could have protested, but he did not.' Seeing the moral timidity, the ethical obtuseness, of R. Zekharia b. Avqulos, Bar Qamtza concocted his scheme to avenge himself, with its tragic results. It was regarding this sin that the Midrash concludes: 'R. Zekharia b. Avqulos' diffidence (ענוותנותו) set fire to the Temple.'

In this version, R. Zekharia's sin was less dramatic, but no less lethal. He simply minded his own business. He was, after all, a guest. How could he intrude upon his host's decision? Perhaps he depended upon his host for financial support for himself, or the educational institutions with which he was affiliated. Perhaps he didn't particularly like Bar Qamtza, whose personality and character were less than stellar, judging from his subsequent actions. Whatever the case, R. Zekharia saw no reason to invoke his moral authority in order to intervene and prevent the abject humiliation of another person.

It was that raw insensitivity, moral obtuseness, smug self-satisfaction, paternalist sense of superiority which enraged Bar Qamtza. Rabbis, it would appear, can forego basic etiquette and ethical conduct when convenient. That kind of sacrilege, that mode of חילול השם sent Bar Qamtza over the edge and we are paying the price to this day.

I keep thinking about the deep seated moral rot that is eating away at the Orthodox Community (across its full spectrum), and the still too quiet ranks of its 'spiritual leadership'. Orthodox Jewish leaders number far too many R. Zekharia b. Avquloses. Too many laypeople and rabbis are blaming the informant (who, admittedly is a lowlife and should also join the Daf Yomi in Danbury Deferal Penitentiary). Too many people are rolling their eyes and speaking of the accused clergy (sic!) as exceptions. Yes, if they did these things; if they desecrated the Holy Name of He who Spoke and Created the World, then they are exceptional...rogues, criminals and traitors to Torah and everything Torah stands for.

I kept thinking about the decay in our community, but my thoughts were best expressed by the brilliant young Rav in whose community I spent last Shabbat. In a carefully presented, chillingly calm address, he straightforwardly noted that if the extremes exhibit decay, it is because the body politic is gravely ill. He noted several ills: 1) The Orthodox community has no idea of the value of money or its proper use 2) The recent economic power and success of the community has gone to its head. It no longer cares what anyone thinks of it 3) The Orthodox community has a sense of entitlement that allows it to expect things without willingness to pay. 4) The Orthodox Community has lost any sense of Qiddush HaShem or Hillul HaShem.

To this, I would add that the Orthodox Community has undergone a self-inflicted labotomy which excised its sense of moral responsibility or its ability to take responsibility. It refuses to take responsibility for deviant behavior at all its levels. It refuses to protect the Agunah, the widow, the orphan and the stranger. It rolls its eyes when confronted with the poverty its own system has created. It averts its eyes when people are different. Herdlike, it runs after the most insipid legal stricture, while ignoring the departure of so many of its children from the path of Torah and mitzvot. The list goes on, but its already been written by Isaiah and Amos, Hosea and Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Micah.

So, with Tisha B'Av looming before us, in a world in which Jewish security is more imperilled than it has been in decades, I am waiting for the shepherds of Israel to summarily and vocally reject the legacy of R. Zekharia b. Avqulos. No buts. No 'you sees'. No 'I don't understand.' It is time for moral root canal. Without our moral bearings, we are left with nothing.

I recall a story that is told of the Rav זצ"ל. A rabbi once told him that if he did not avail himself of some illegal fiscal 'slight of hand' he would be forced to close his yeshiva.

Rav Solovitchik replied: 'Then close the Yeshiva!'

Why Settlements are Legal, and why it doesn't matter...

Moshe Dann has eloquently explained why there is absolutely nothing illegal about the Jewish towns located beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines. The key paragraphs are:

In 1967, under attack, Israel struck back and conquered the Golan Heights from Syria, the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem (the West Bank) from Jordan. Israel had been threatened with a second Holocaust, and few questioned its actions. No one spoke of a Palestinian state; there was no "Palestinian people."
Many legal experts accepted Israel's right to "occupy" and settle its historic homeland, because the areas had been illegally occupied by invading Arab countries since 1948.
One organization, however - the International Committee of the Red Cross - disagreed.
Meeting secretly in the early 1970s in Geneva, the ICRC determined that Israel was in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Based on the Hague Convention, GC IV was drawn up after World War II to protect innocent civilians and restrict brutal occupations. Unilaterally, the ICRC turned it into a weapon to delegitimize and demonize Israel.
As far as is known, the ICRC did not rely on any legal precedents; it made up "the law."
Judge and jury, its decisions lacked the pretense of due process. Since all decisions and protocols of the ICRC in this matter are closed, even the identities of the people involved are secret. And there is no appeal. Without transparency or judicial ethics, ICRC rulings became "international law." Its condemnations of Israel provide the basis for accusing Israel of "illegal occupation" of all territory conquered in 1967.
Although most of the international community, its NGOs and institutions accept the authority of the ICRC and other institutions, such as the International Court of Justice, as sole arbiters of what is "legal," or not, it's strange that some Israeli politicians and jurists cannot defend Israel's legal claim to the territories. And Israel's case is strong.
ADOPTED IN 1945, the UN Charter (Article 80) states: "...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."
This means that the designation of "Palestine" as a "Jewish National Home," incorporated in the British Mandate and established by international agreements adopted by the League of Nations and US Congress, guarantees Israel's sovereign rights in this area. All Jewish settlement, therefore, was and is legal.

The sad part is that all of this is irrelevant. The world has decided that Jewish residence in Judea is illegal, and will not be deterred by facts. [Just as the Muslims are convinced, despite clear Quranic proof, that the Bet ha-Miqdash never stood on the Temple Mount.] It's nice for us to know. The rest of the world couldn't care.

Rabbi Zekharia ben Avqulas Revisited

I am haunted by Rabbi Zekhariah ben Avqulos. R. Zekharia is not a very well known figure in the Talmud. Indeed, his name hardly appears only three times in all of rabbinic literature. Yet, despite ( or perhaps because ) of this, his impact on Judaism and upon Jewish history looms large.This is the first of a series of reflections on his problematic legacy. R. Zekharia is best known for his role in the denouement of the famous tale of Qamtza and Bar Qamtza which is recounted in the Talmud ( Gittin 56a). According to the story, a certain individual named Bar Qamtza travelled to Rome and claimed to the Emperor Nero that the Jews were in revolt or (or at least planning one) against him. In order to verify this claim, Nero chose to test the Jews by sending a sacrificial animal to be offered up on his behalf in the Temple in Jerusalem. The concept was simple. If the Jews offered the animal, it was a sign that they remained loyal and if not, their refusal would be a clear declaration of rebellion. The situation, however, was not to be so simple. Bar Qamtza, owing to his deep resentment of a slight he felt he had received at the hands of the rabbis ( as recounted at the start of the story) was intent upon proving the Jews to be in rebellion and thereby to have his revenge upon them. Hence he sought at all costs to prevent the offering of the sacrificial animal in the Temple. This he achieved by splitting the lip of the animal, thereby rendering it blemished ( ba'al mum ) and hence unfit according to Halakhah. His choice of blemish was, moreover, ingenious. For, as the Talmud notes, while such a physical imperfection was recognized as such according to Jewish Tradition, it did not disqualify a sacrficial animal according to pagan lore. Hence, reasoned Bar Qamtza, the Jews would refuse to offer the sacrifice for reasons which Nero would take to be unsatisfactory at best and disingenuous at worst. In any event, Roman retaliation would be assured and Bar Qamtza's lust for vengeance satisfied. The Talmud recounts, that upon receiving the animal from Nero and quickly realizing how Bar Qamtza had maneuvered them into a corner, the Sages expressed their determination to offer the animal in any case in order to avert the Emperor's wrath and vindictive reaction. Only one man stood against them, Rabbi Zekharia b. Avqulos. Eloquently he countered each and every argument marshalled in favor of offering the animal. The crux of his argument? Halakhah must stand pristine under any and all circumstances. No other considerations may prevent the precise implementation of an established halakhic ruling. In a word, 'Let the Law bore through the mountain!' ( Yiqov HaDin et HaHar). And so, the animal was not offered. Rome attacked and the rest is history. Yet, looking back on the events of 66 CE, the second century scholar R. Johanan ruefully observed, 'The punctiliousness ( anv'tanuto ) of R. Zekharia b. Avqulos destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary and exiled us among the nations!' What was wrong with the position of R. Zekharia b. Avqulos? Rashi offers that he should have allowed the Sages to put Bar Qamtza to death as a traitor. Others, on the other hand, suggest that the Sages should have been allowed to sacrifice the calf in question, despite its being disqualified, out of considerations of Piquah Nefesh, viz. to save the lives of those who would die in the inevitable war should the animal not be offered. What is common to both of these opinions, however, is that R. Johanan was convinced that R. Zekharia erred on two counts. First, he failed ( or refused) to take into consideration the larger implications of of the situation being addressed. Second, he obstinately disallowed the implementation of other legitimate halakhic responses to a difficult, even untenable, situation and instead held tenaciously to a narrow, literalist and unimaginative 'strict constructionist' approach. For his error ( and that of the Sages who gave in to him), concluded R. Johanan, the Jewish People paid ( and are still paying ) a terrible price.