Why was the First Temple destroyed? Three things that occurred in it: idolatry, unseemly provocative sexual behavior, and bloodshed. But the Second Temple, ... why was it destroyed? Baseless hatred. This teaches that baseless hatred is equated with three sins, idolatry, provocative sexual behavior, and bloodshed.
Yet in the period of the Second Temple, the people are described as performing all the mitzvot perfectly, studying Torah diligently, and doing acts of chesed. How is it possible that we could do all these things and yet hate our fellow Jews? We have the answer given to us, baseless hatred. And how was that hatred baseless? Maharsha gives us an example in Gittin 57a, two men, Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, lived in the same town but hate each other. Kamtza is loved by one man in particular and, because of his love for Hamtza, hates Bar Kamtza. When that man makes a feast, he sends to invite his dear friend Kamtza but, through an error, Bar Kamtza receives the invitation instead.
Bar Kamtza, thinking that the man who had hated him before wants to forgive him, dresses in his finest clothes and comes to the feast prepared in turn to forgive the man who hated him. Yet when this man discovers Bar Kamtza at the feast he is furious and demands that he leave immediately, ignoring Bar Kamtza's pleas to stay, even after being assured that Bar Kamtza will pay for whatever he eats or drinks, after being offered first half, and then the entire cost of the feast if his enemy would forgive him just this once and spare him the embarrassment of being thrown out on the street. Now the Rabbis were there at the party and said nothing while this happened, and Bar Kamtza, who had been minded to forgive his enemy, now burned with the desire for revenge, not only on his enemy, but on the Rabbis who stood by and said nothing while he was humiliated.
And he did exactly that, through a simple trick, relying on the punctilious observance of all the mitzvot that the Rabbis insisted on. Bar Kamtza persuaded Caesar to send a sacrifice to the Temple, and secretly made a small blemish on the animal's lip, to symbolize the Rabbi's silence, or the eye, to symbolize that the Rabbis had seen and stood aside, so that the animal, Caesar's gift, was rejected. And thus was initiated Caesar's hatred of the Jews, which led directly to the destruction of the Temple.
Now perhaps Bar Kamtza was the son of Kamtza, as the name implies, to show us that there is no more destructive hatred than that of kin for kin, but it is certain that he was a Jew and that the two men were related at least through Abraham. Whatever sins, if any, he had performed against the party's host, he wanted to forgive and be forgiven for the sake of peace, which we are commanded to do.
And the Rabbis said nothing.
Yet when Caesar's sacrifice came to the Temple, a tiny blemish, which might easily have been overlooked for the sake of peace, was an excuse to start a feud with the King of that place.
So it's not only the party-giver who hated without cause, after being begged for even a small courtesy for the sake of peace, but the Rabbis who were so exacting in their observance of the minor mitzvot but forgetful of the greater, who set themselves up through pride as the final judges of what's right and wrong, who sowed hatred through their inaction at the first and their actions at the last.
Interesting. Thanks.
This nitpicking over "minor mitzvot" almost (I said "almost") makes an argument for God to do away with the minor technical aspects of the Law.
SD