Hillel and Shammai

An excerpt from: Grace and Judaism: Christians are the true Chasidim. Section: The House of Hillel and Chesed

Yose ben Yozer, and his vice President (In Hebrew: “Av Beit Din”) would set the precedent for a time known as “Zuggot” or “pairs.” Each pair would lead an assembly of Elders, to settle religious disputes and establish Halachah. The fifth pair, consisting of Hillel as president, and Shammai as vice-president would constitute the end of the era of “Zuggot.” After Hillel, the presidency was passed down to his descendants. 

The disputes between Hillel and Shammai are legendary. Tradition has an account of over 350 disagreements.

The vast majority of Hillel’s rulings were lenient compared to Shammai, who consistently advocated for the strictest interpretation of the law. 

Shammai was known for his religious zeal. However, his zeal led to theological inflexibility. In addition, he was notorious for his bad temperament. This is best communicated in a tradition that compares and contrasts Hillel’s reaction to a gentile, relative to Shammai’s outburst with a builders cubit:

There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. – Talmud Shabbat 31a

Hillel however, responds kindly:

That which is hateful to you do not do to another. That is the entire Torah, and the rest is interpretation. Go study! – Talmud Shabbat 31a

Hillel promoted a loving disposition to people, even to the gentile. This was for the purpose of “drawing them near to the Torah”:

Be disciples of Aaron,loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and drawing them near to the Torah. – Mishnah Avot 1:12

Regarding this “pair” traditions states:

Shammai’s impatience sought to drive us from the world; Hillel’s patience brought us beneath the wings of the Shechinah (the Divine Presence). – Talmud, Shabbat 31a

When Rabbi’s retrospectively analyse the dynamic of Hillel vs. Shammai, they conclude that the divine trait that best represents what Hillel stood for, was/is “Chesed” (Grace), whereas the trait that best summarises Shammai was/is “Gevurah” (Severity, or Judgement):

“Later came Hillel and Shammai…However, Hillel was from the side of chesed… and Shammai was from the side of gevura…” – Gate of Reincarnations Chapter 34, Section 2.

An excerpt from: Hashkafah. section: Jesus, the Sabbath, and the Hashkafah of Hillel

As president of the Sanhedrin, Hillel was superior in rank over Shammai who presided as second in command. Shammai often advocated for the harshest application of the law. His zeal would have undermined Hillel’s lenient approach if it were not for the fact that Hillel was president. As Hillel and Shammai gathered disciples, their disciples would in time, take on the nature of their founders. The disciples of Hillel were humble and open-minded, and the disciples of Shammai were aggressive and refused compromise.

Hillel and his interpretations would set the precedent for the lightest, most lenient approach to the Torah and its various obligations. However, during the time of Jesus, Shammai and his disciples took on the majority. They were the politically dominant party and leveraged their power aggressively.

The many times that Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees over the Sabbath, it’s clear that they were disciples of Shammai.

Had Jesus truly broken the Sabbath in a defiant manner, the disciples of Shammai would have most definitely seized Jesus for trial by the Sanhedrin. But Jesus did not unlawfully break the Sabbath.

What he did, was in accord with the Halakah of Hillel. Hillel permitted the Sabbath to be broken for the sake of life, and for the sake of Mercy. Hillel permitted the Sabbath to be broken for circumcision. It was recognized that the priests would break the Sabbath for the sake of service in the Temple and they did so “blamelessly.” In the same way, service to God could be performed in other ways without blame. Jesus was taking the lenient approach to the Sabbath, as set by Hillel.

The Shammaites were powerless to stop Jesus from doing so. They couldn’t because, in the end, Hillel outranked Shammai. This meant that Hillel’s Hashkafah/Halachah would forever remain viable and superior to Shammai’s rulings.

Jesus leveraged legal precedent to demonstrate the true intent behind the Sabbath. Since he did so according to the Hashkafah of Hillel, he was able to make his point with impunity.

Hidden in every argument regarding the Sabbath, is an implicit appeal to lenient Hashkafah originating with Hillel…

An Excerpt from: The “New Law” of the Messiah. Section: Through the Messiah we are able to obey the Torah

The Shamaaite Pharisee’s fought for the highest regulation and control of every matter. And when they failed to cultivate control, they resorted to violence:

“On one tragic day, disciples of the School of Shammai attacked, and might even have killed, members of the School of Hillel (Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4). Enough Hillelites were prevented from the home of Chanaiah ben Chizikyah ben Garon, where the sage were meeting that day, that the School of Shammai was able to achieve what it longed craved, a majority (Mishnah Shabbat 1:4). They took advantage of the situation to push through eighteen regulations, several of which were intended to strengthen the separation between Jews and non-Jews. The Hillelites saw the day on which these decrees passed as ‘a day as grievous for Israel as the day on which the Golden Calf was made. (Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4)”- page 118, Hillel: if not now, when?, Rabbi Joseph Tellushkin

Tensions were so high, that the seven woes of Jesus to the Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-37) were less controversial than we assume. It’s even likely that some of the Pharisees themselves (The students of Hillel) would have welcomed the rebuke.

The Talmud preserves a list of 7 kinds of Pharisees, allegedly observed by the genuine Pharisees among them. 2 were good, the remaining 5 kinds were regarded as possessing less than pure intentions – the language used in the text implies a “pseudo righteousness.” The matter is closed with the general warning against the hypocritical among the Pharisees:

‘Fear not the Pharisees and the non-Pharisees but the hypocrites (הצבועין) who are the Pharisees; because their deeds are the deeds of Zimri (Num. 25:11ff) but they expect a reward like Phineas’” – (Babylonian Talmud, Sota 22b)