In our Gemara on Amud Aleph, we encounter the poignant story of Kamtza, who was humiliated and expelled from a party while the sages remained silent. Seeking revenge, Kamtza hatched a plan to make the government believe that the rabbis were rebelling. To provide evidence, he intentionally caused a minor injury to the eye or lip of an animal designated for sacrifice. Although this was not an obvious blemish, it rendered the sacrifice invalid according to Jewish law. The rabbis faced a conundrum, as rejecting the sacrifice could be seen as an impudent rejection by the Roman authorities.

Maharal poses a question (Netzach Yisrael 5) as to why the rabbis did not send a diplomatic mission to explain the intricacies of Jewish law to the Caesar, proposing that they could clarify how even such subtle blemishes are significant to Jews. However, Maharal suggests that such an explanation would have been offensive to the Caesar. He explains that the distinction between the Jewish concept of a blemish and the gentile concept of a blemish represents a fundamental difference in worldview. Gentiles focus primarily on physical appearance, whereas Jews require more subtle forms of completeness, symbolized by the minor blemishes on the eye or lip (representing matters of vision and speech). Suggesting that the Caesar's sacrifice was unacceptable due to these subtle blemishes would imply that the Temple was primarily intended for Jewish worship, potentially seen as insubordination and treason.

I would like to offer a different perspective. I believe that a person's relationship with God, like any other relationship, is influenced by their overall outlook and interactions with others. The Jews of that time had a legalistic and technical approach to relating to others, which was often paranoid and lacking in compassion. This approach led them to automatically assume that the Caesar would reject their explanation, leading them to engage in discussions on how to circumvent the problem. However, just as a humble and straightforward approach to the Caesar could have been accepted, the potential for repentance towards God could have been received as well. As stated in Deuteronomy 30:11-14:

"For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off... It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it."

This passage metaphorically illustrates the relationship between Marta bas Baytus and her servant, whom she sends to buy flour from the marketplace. The Gemara recounts that despite various options of lower quality flour being available, the servant fails to exercise initiative and purchase the flour, constantly returning back to Marta for more guidance. By the time he returns to the market, each successive quality of flour is sold out. The servant’s passive aggressive attitude ultimately led to their mutual starvation. This lack of initiative stems from the fear, judgment, and intolerance prevalent in their relationship. Due to Marta's past criticism and harshness, the servant “just follows orders”, without taking any additional risks or initiatives.

This moral quality represents an indictment of the generation that engages with others in a petty and unforgiving manner. It is why they did not expect a favorable response from the Caesar to their explanation, nor did they anticipate forgiveness from God upon their return.

Our relationships have a way of becoming complicated. When we are unforgiving or refuse to humble ourselves, we often believe that others will not forgive us. This rings true in our relationship with God and our loved ones alike.