How do those who adovcate chumrah understand this Gemorah (Gitin 55-56)

Question

Because of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, Jerusalem was destroyed.

It happened this way: A certain man had a friend named Kamtza and an enemy called Bar Kamtza. He once made a party and said to his servant, “Go and bring Kamtza.” The man went and brought Bar Kamtza.

When the man who gave the party found Bar Kamtza there he said, “See, you are my enemy; what are you doing here? Get out!” Said the other: “Since I am already here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.”

Because of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, Jerusalem was destroyed Said the host: “Absolutely not.”

“Then let me give you half the cost of the party.”

The host refused.

“Then let me pay for the whole party.”

Still the host refused, and took him by the hand and threw him out.

Said Bar Kamtza, “Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him, this shows that they agreed with him. I will go and inform against them to the government.”

He went and said to the emperor, “The Jews are rebelling against you.”

Said the emperor, “How can I know that this is true?”

“Send them an offering,” said Bar Kamtza, “and see whether they will offer it on the altar.”

So he sent with him a fine calf. While on the way he made a blemish on its upper lip (or as some say, on the white of its eye)—in a place where we count it a blemish but they do not.

“Because of the scrupulousness of Rabbi Zechariah, our House has been destroyed . . .” The rabbis were inclined to offer it in order not to offend the government. Said Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas to them: “People will say that blemished animals are offered on the altar.”

They then proposed to kill Bar Kamtza so that he should not go and inform against them, but Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas said to them, “Is one who makes a blemish on consecrated animals to be put to death?”

Rabbi Yochanan thereupon remarked: “Because of the scrupulousness of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt, and we ourselves exiled from our land.” -Talmud, Gittin 55-56

The first half of the story I believe is known by everyone. The last section of the agadatah seems to not be repeated very often. How is this understood by the communities who seem to exault stringencies?

Answer 1

Soncino translates An'Vat'Nuto as scrupulousness, but mentions in a footnote that it is literally translated as "humility".

The literal translation seems to fit more with the way most commentaries translate it.

Rashi explains it as, "Because of the patience of R' Zechariyah, that he endured Bar Kamtza and didn't kill him". In other words because of his great humility he endured Bar Kamtza instead of killing him, and tragedy resulted.

Avraham Palagi explains that only a Gadol HaDor (a leader of the generation) can rule to temporarily uproot halacha. R' Zechariya should have done this, but didn't because in his humility he felt he was not worthy.

Rachamim Yitzchok Nissin Pilagi explains that the first and second Beit Hamikdash were both destroyed because of someone named Zechariyah, but for opposite reasons. The first Bait Hamikdash was destroyed because Zechariyah ben YiHoyada was too haughty (As brought in Midrash Kohelet 10:4). The Second Beit Hamikdash was destroyed because Zechariyah ben Avkulas was too humble (as brought in the Gemara here).

Midrash Eicha (4:3) has a different version of the story. In that version, R' Zechariya ben Avkulas was at the party, and didn't protest when Bar Kamtza was kicked out. Commentaries there explain that he was too humble, and didn't want to appear as if he was raising himself up in front of his host. And this is why we say "the humility of R' Zechariya ben Avkulas caused the destruction of the Temple". (Shlomo Buber's Midrash Eicha combines the two versions)

---

But to (perhaps) answer your question, even if you want to translate it as "scrupulousness", the Beis Levi points out that the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim Chapter 640) says that we learn from this story that one may violate a negative prohibition out of fear of the (non-jewish) government that rules over you. I didn't look up the sources mentioned there, so I don't know exactly what the conditions of this halacha are.

So before the story happened, R' Zechariyah didn't know that he may violate a negative commandment and kill Bar Kamtza (or offer the animal anyway). It was only afterwards that the halacha became clear. So he wasn't being Machmir, he was following (what he thought was the) halacha.

Answer 2

In the case at hand, actually, we're not really talking about chumros. It is black-letter law that you can't offer a blemished animal on the Altar, and it is equally black-letter law that creating such a blemish doesn't make the offender liable to death. The problem with R. Zecharyah's approach wasn't that he was looking for chumros that didn't exist before, but that he failed to apply "eis laasos la-Hashem," not realizing that he's thereby putting all of Jewry in great danger. (Suppose, after all, that the Jews had managed eventually to beat back the Romans and save Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdash - the war alone cost many Jewish lives.)

It's true, then, that the same consideration applies to chumros. But I don't think you'll find any authority who claims that they are an end in and of themselves, and that they should override other considerations. Consider R. Tarfon getting in trouble for being machmir in accordance with the opinion of Beis Shammai (Berachos 10b) - because it was vital in that period to demonstrate that the halachah follows Beis Hillel. Or consider the Beis Halevi's "I'm not being lenient about eating on Yom Kippur, I'm being stringent about pikuach nefesh." That doesn't mean that chumros don't have their place, as an expression of our desire to fulfill Hashem's will in the best possible way, where there are no such overriding considerations.