These are the explanations???
Whenever I learned this passage, I understood the Talmud’s wording as ironic.
Is there room for that kind of interpretation?

Why, was what he did arrogance? In any case, Rashi explained it differently.

With God’s help, 6 Av 5781

To Cucumber — greetings,

The expression, “The humility of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkilas burned the Sanctuary,” was said by Rabbi Yosei (Tosefta Shabbat 17:4) about the “trick” Rabbi Zechariah used in order not to enter into the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, where “Beit Hillel say: One may lift the bones and peels from the table. Beit Shammai say: He removes the whole board and shakes it off.”

Rabbi Zechariah, in his excessive caution, found a way not to rely either on the leniency of Beit Hillel or on the leniency of Beit Shammai: “Rather, he takes them and throws them behind the couch.” That way he did not need to move the bones and peels directly at all—neither according to the permission of Beit Hillel nor according to the permission of Beit Shammai. And Rabbi Yosei criticizes this excessive caution, saying that it was what caused the destruction.

In the Babylonian Talmud they explained this through the concerns Rabbi Zechariah raised: lest people say that blemished animals may be offered, and lest people say that one who inflicts a blemish on sacrificial animals is to be killed—concerns that prevented doing what needed to be done: to kill the informer (according to Rashi), or to offer the sacrifice because of danger to life (according to the Maharsha).

The “humility” according to the Babylonian Talmud is as it means in the Tosefta: avoidance of a halakhic decision. In the pre-destruction situation, that hesitation was disastrous, because it led to a failure to notice that this was a case of danger to life, requiring the courage to decide even against justified halakhic concerns.

In Eichah Rabbah, “the humility of Rabbi Zechariah” is explained as his not protesting the expulsion of bar Kamtza from the feast. That may have stemmed from Rabbi Zechariah seeing himself as insignificant, and fearing that no one would listen to him if he protested—or perhaps from worrying that maybe the hosts really did have good reasons to expel the uninvited guest.

One could say that according to the Babylonian Talmud, the criticism is about lack of ability to decide in a case of danger to life, whereas according to the midrash, it is about inability to stand up for a person who is being humiliated. That fits the approach of the sages of the Land of Israel, who were called “pleasantness” because of their care for one another’s honor.

Best regards,
Amiauz Yaron Schnitzler

The Maharal, in Netzach Yisrael, says that the fact that the destruction came about through the ruling of a rabbi teaches that there is a divine stamp here—that this was a divine decree and not an accidental “historical mishap.”

Maybe we should go one step further and argue that perhaps Rabbi Zechariah’s concerns were justified. It could be that the Temple would have remained standing—but what kind of shape would a torn and polarized society have, divided between groups willing to belittle Jewish law—“people will say that blemished animals may be offered on the altar”—and groups of zealots willing to kill even someone who merely “inflicts a blemish on sacrificial animals”?

In order to be worthy of the Temple, we need to internalize both the value of precision in Jewish law—not veering from it over every tiny thing without a second thought—and also extreme caution regarding human life, not judging people unfavorably, let alone spilling blood over a slight and remote concern.

When we find ourselves in a healthy atmosphere—both regarding precision in Jewish law and regarding caution in judging others—then there will be divine assistance for “those who sit in judgment” to distinguish properly between a real concern and a far-fetched one.

Best regards,
Simcha Fish”l HaLevi Plankton

Humility is the opposite of strictness.

“A person should always be humble like Hillel and not strict like Shammai.”
“To make known the humility of Moses, that he did not delay in asking mercy for them.”

With God’s help, 6 Av 5781

To The Last Decisor — greetings,

The “humility” of Hillel as opposed to Shammai is self-restraint, not getting angry at others even if they are behaving improperly. That is how Rashi also explained it regarding Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas: “his forbearance—that he did not kill bar Kamtza.”

“The humility of Moses, that he stood and asked for mercy for Israel” can be interpreted as concern for others (as in: “Wherever you find the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, there you find His humility”), and here too one can explain Rabbi Zechariah’s concern as: maybe bar Kamtza was merely someone who inflicted a blemish on sacrificial animals, perhaps even unintentionally, and not a dangerous informer who should be killed.

But there is room to understand that “the humility of Moses in asking for mercy” is דווקא his boldness in standing, as it were, against God’s request, “Leave Me alone and I will destroy them,” and he dared to ask for mercy without fearing that God would be angry with him. In that sense one could also say that the “humility” of Rabbi Zechariah was his boldness in standing against the other sages to prevent what he saw as a rash act.

According to the Tosefta in Shabbat that I mentioned, it may be that “humility” here means what we usually mean by it—self-minimization—which leads to hesitation and inability to decide. The inability of Rabbi Zechariah and his colleagues to decide to do what was necessary because of danger to life was disastrous. But let us not forget that the excessive decisiveness that characterized that generation was also disastrous, because it led to a situation where even in the face of the Roman enemy they could not unite and instead harmed one another.

So at the end of the day, I’m not sure that exaggerated decisiveness is any better than exaggerated hesitation. And how do we find the middle path?

Best regards,
The First Doubter

Along the lines of the Mishnah: the bashful person cannot learn, and the strict person cannot teach.