THE GREAT DIVISION BETWEEN HILLEL AND
SHAMMAI
“What
is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? The
disputes between Hillel and Shammai.”[1] (Ethics of the Fathers
5:17).
Most
students of scripture understand that various Jewish sects existed in the days of
Jesus’ earthly ministry. Chief among
them were the Pharisees and Sadducees, but we could also include the Herodians
and the Essenes. The Herodians existed
as a subset of the Sadducees, politically aligned with the ruling family of
Herod the Great, thus holding to different values than Caiaphas and the family
of Annas. The Essenes were small in
number, claiming to be the true priesthood that descended from Zadok the High
Priest of David, while living in the wilderness awaiting the coming of the
Messiah.
By
the first century, the theology of the Pharisees had splintered into two distinct
groups: Beit Hillel (House of Hillel) and Beit Shammai (House of Shammai). Some connect the rise of Beit Hillel and Beit
Shammai to the dissolution of the Sanhedrin under Herod the Great. Prior to their dissolution, the sages of the
Sanhedrin decided all legal matters.
“At first there were no
controversies in Israel…When anyone had need of a halakah (legal ruling) he
went to the Great Sanhedrin…If they had heard (such a halakah), they informed
him of it, but if not, they decided the matter by taking a vote…From there the
halakah would spread in Israel.” [2]
Hillel
and Shammai were the last ruling “pair”, sometimes identified as the President (Nasi)
and Vice President, over the Sanhedrin.
Hillel was already Nasi when Shammai joined him around 20 BC. Although Hillel (110 BC – 10 AD) and
Shammai (50 BC – 30 AD) are seen as contemporaries, Shammai was born sixty
years later and lived twenty years beyond Hillel. Shammai died close to the time of Jesus’
crucifixion. As a consequence of living
later, the influence of Beit Shammai was rising in the days prior to the
ministry of Jesus and was the predominant first century Pharisaism.[3] Talmudic evidence indicates that Beit
Shammai’s dominance extended throughout most of the first century (Sukkah 37B). [4]
The Talmud records over three hundred
“disputes” between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. Although these disputes have been framed as
“For the sake of Heaven,” the reality is much more contentious and violent than
historically portrayed.
“The
mere fact that Shammai’s arrival caused the creation of two major and opposing
Schools of Pharisees, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel – a situation that seldom
existed in earlier times or afterward – is ample evidence of the strife and
division it caused in Jewish life.
Although the Rabbis referred to both schools’ rulings as ‘the words of
the Living God’ (Berakhot 1:7), the Talmud compares the day Beit Shammai gained
complete ascendancy and passed eighteen measures, overruling Beit Hillel, to
the day the God Calf was built. (Shabbat 17A)”
[5]
The controversy
between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel lead the rabbis to say, “the Torah become as
two Torahs” (Sanhedrin 88B). It’s
difficult to see how the two schools could have worshipped in the same
synagogue since they could not even agree on whether the daily Shema should be
prayed standing up or laying down, (Berakbot 10B). “Although the Talmud records that friendship
and love existed between the two Schools (Yevamot 14B), this would apply to
later decades, and not to the beginnings of the two groups.” [6}
Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed on many
subjects during the time both schools existed (~30 BC until shortly after the
fall of the Temple in 70 AD). One
notable, but little appreciated or discussed dispute, was the different
position each held related to Gentile salvation. According to Beit Hillel, Gentiles could merit
a place in the World to Come through obedience to the Noahide laws. A “righteous Gentile”, one living to a higher
standard than the Noahide laws, could also obtain additional rewards. On the other hand, Beit Shammai held that only
Jews would enter the World to Come. Even
proselytes who converted to Judaism would not merit a place in the World to
Come.
“The Talmud (Sanhedrin 105A
and Tosefta (Sanhedrin Ch 13) record a dispute between R. Eliezer (Beit
Shammai) and R. Joshua (Beit Hillel) over whether a Gentile who observes the
Noahide commandments merits a share in the World to Come. All agree that these universal rules are
incumbent upon the entire human race, but R. Eliezer and R. Joshua disagree as
to whether a Gentile’s observance of them entitle him to salvation in the
afterlife. R. Eliezer of Bet Shammai
adopted the view that no salvation is possible outside of Judaism and its 613
commandments; R. Joshua of Bet Hillel holds that the Gentile who observes the
Noahide Laws does share in the World to Come.” [7]
The position of Beit Shammai put them at odds
not only with Beit Hillel, but also with Jesus, the apostles, Paul, and the
entire text of the New Testament. The general
animosity of Beit Shammai toward Gentiles is reflected in the Talmudic stories
about three Gentiles who approached both Shammai and Hillel (Shabbat 31A). Whereas all three Gentiles were strongly
rebuffed by Shammai, some even chased away with his builder’s square, Hillel responded
compassionately seeking to draw Gentiles into a relationship with the God of
Israel, once speaking a form of the Golden Rule, “Whatever is hateful unto you,
do not do unto your neighbor. This is
the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary.
Now, go and study.”
Early in the first century, while Hillel was
still alive, Shammai is said to have authored “eighteen measures” (Shabbat 13B)
to create a greater separation between the Jewish people and the Gentile world. From one measure, came the requirement of
washing hands prior to eating, a topic address by Jesus in the gospel accounts,
(Matt 15:2). The Talmud tells us that an unspecified
number from the Beit Hillel were killed over the dispute surrounding the adoption
of the eighteen measures, (Shabbat 1:4).
“Both Talmuds and the Tosefta state that the day was as troublesome for
Israel as the day the Golden Calf was built in Moses’ time.” [8] The eighteen measures were passed by the
majority of Beit Shammai, firmly establishing Beit Shammai as the governing
school of Pharisaic thought, and the authority over the Sanhedrin.
The uncontrolled passion of both sides is
reflected by R. Joshua of Beit Hillel refusal to express an opinion related to Levirate
marriage lest he be killed. Scholars
believe that it was more likely Zealots, and not members of Beit Shammai, that sporadically
killed members of Beit Hillel. Although
Beit Shammai was separate from the Zealots, they shared a common hatred toward
the Roman Empire, Gentiles in general, and even Jews supportive of either.
“Some
have even suggested that the differences between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai
can be found in the political tensions that existed towards the end of the
Second Temple period. Beit Shammai
represented a more extreme political position, possibly tracing its origins
back to the Hasmoneon rebellion and even serving as the inspiration for some of
the more extreme elements in the rebellion against Rome, while Beit Hillel was representative
of a more realistic and moderate approach which might have sought some sort of
accommodation with Rome.” [9].
According to
the Jerusalem Talmud, many disciples of Hillel, along with disciples of Menachem
(vice president of the Sanhedrin), fled into the wilderness to escape the
persecution of the Zealots and Beit Shammai.
Some speculate that these disciples found refuge among the Essenes, creating
a close relationship between the Essenes and Hillel. The subsequent departure of Menachem opened
the door for Shammai to join Hillel as leaders of the Sanhedrin as early as 20
BC.
The animosity of Shammai toward fellow Jews
and Gentiles is understood as the hatred that lead to the Temple’s destruction
and doomed the nation of Israel, referred to as a “hatred without cause” (Yoma
1:1, 9B). Based on this conclusion, the
House of Shammai predictably declined in the years following the First Jewish
Revolt (66-70 AD). Sometime after 80 AD,
the Talmud records a Heavenly Voice (Bat Kol) that firmly established the House
of Hillel as the predominate opinion (Berakhot 1:4, Eruvin 13B). The Talmud goes on to state, “Both are the
words of the living God, but the Halakha is as Beit Hillel” and “The opinion of
Beit Shammai when it conflicts with Beit Hillel is no Mishnah” (Berakhot). In other words, the views of Beit Shammai that
conflict with Beit Hillel are to be considered null and void.
THE DISPUTES BETWEEN JESUS AND BEIT SHAMMAI
In his book Jesus the Pharisee, Rabbi
Harvey Falk postulates that the gospel disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees
were likely reflective of the on-going controversies between Beit Hillel and
Beit Shammai, with Jesus often taking the position of the former against Beit
Shammai. At this time in history, Beit
Shammai made up the majority of Pharisees, were much more zealous and
anti-Gentile than their Hillel counterparts, and the majority of Jesus’
positions aligned with Beit Hillel. Just
forty to fifty years after Jesus’ crucifixion, the rabbinic community came to accept
the positions of Hillel as superior, writing in the Talmud, “He who observes
the teachings of Bet Shammai deserves death” (Berakhot 11A).
Isolating Jesus’ disputes to the audience of Beit
Shammai is an important distinction because it offers the perspective that
Jesus’ criticism was targeted at a specific sect of Jews and not Judaism in
general. The latter interpretation, the
church’s historical position, has unfortunately supported anti-Semitism in the
world. Lloyd Gaston, author of Paul and
the Torah, has speculated that the apostle Paul may have been a Shammaite at
one time because he referred to his earlier life as full of zeal (Phil 3:6), “being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions” (Gal 1:14), and “being zealous for God…I persecuted this Way to the death,” (Acts 22:3-4). [10]
One example of a gospel dispute against Beit
Shammai’s position is found in Matthew where a person vows their wealth to the
Temple even to the detriment of their parents.
Bet Shammai held that a person could never be release from any vow made
to the temple (Nazir 9A). Jesus
criticized the Pharisees for this practice, “Whoever
says to his father or mother, ‘whatever I have that would help you has been
given to God,’…invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition,”
(Matt 15:5-7). As a general rule, the positions of Beit
Hillel tend to be more lenient and merciful, while the positions of Beit
Shammai are more ridged and burdensome.
It was Beit Shammai that originally pushed
the position of Pharisaic hand washing prior to eating meals. The position came out of the eighteen
measures (Shabbat 13B-15A), developed by Beit Shammai. While both Schools ultimately practiced the
washing of hands, Beit Shammai required the washing before drinking the wine. Some see Jesus’ words, “You Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and plate” (Luke 11:39), as directed toward the Shammaites
because they required washing before partaking of the cup.
Rabbi Falk finds close parallels in the position
of Beit Shammai against Gentiles entering the World to Come (Sanhedrin 105A), and
Jesus criticism, “you shut off the
kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you
allow those who are entering to go in,” (Matt 23:13). The Midrash
Genesis Rabbah 70:5 tells the story of a righteous proselyte, Aquila, who had a
conversation with R. Eliezer (Beit Shammai) and R. Joshua (Beit Hillel) about
the possible place of a convert might have among the sages. R. Eliezer told him that a convert held no
place among the Sages, while R Joshua consoled Aquila, assuring him that he was
a full member of the Torah community. R.
Eliezer’s position is believed to reflect the position of Beit Shammai. According to R. Falk, “The School of Shammai
made it virtually impossible for even the most sincere and virtuous Gentile to
find his way to salvation.” [11]
There is strong evidence that Jesus and His
disciples had some contact with the Essenes, because many parallel passages
have been found in the Dead Sea scrolls and the New Testament. [12] A commonly referenced example is the use of
the phrases “sons of light” (John 12:36), and “children of light” (Eph
5:8), which is language found in the Essene writings. The Essenes also held a strong animosity against
the Pharisees of Beit Shammai, referring to them as “traitors” and “men of war”
(Damascus Document). There is even some
speculation that when the disciples of Hillel and Menahem fled from Jerusalem
into the wilderness they ended up living with the Essenes. According to some interpretations of the
Talmud, all the disciples of Hillel left to join the Essenes after the death of
Hillel in 10 AD. If this is true, the
Pharisees who remained would have been aligned with Beit Shammai.
The destruction of the temple occurred during
a time when the Pharisees were controlled by Beit Shammai, the Sanhedrin was
dominated by Beit Shammai, and the Zealots rose to power. The Zealots fought with no regard for the
Sabbath, even in their offensive campaigns, based on a ruling of Beit Shammai
(Shabbat 19A). Whereas disciples of
Hillel, including R. Johanan ben Zakkai, sought to negotiate with the Romans
(Gittin 56A), the Zealots sought unsuccessfully to assassinate him, which
reminds us of the Jews who wanted to kill Paul, (Acts 23:12, 25:3). In
hindsight, they were probably Zealots linked to Beit Shammai, who cared not
even for their own people when they destroyed the food supplies of Jerusalem
during the Jewish revolt.
R. Gamaliel the Elder, grandson of Hill who
is quoted as protecting Peter and John in Acts
5:37, strongly denigrated Judas the Galalean, a founder of the
Zealots. It was the Zealots, supported
by Beit Shammai, that Josephus called “robbers and murders” (Wars 2:13, para
2&3), and the Talmud held as the source of hatred without cause against
their fellow Jews that lead to the destruction of the Temple.
Understanding the significance of Beit
Shammai’s theological positions and authority is significant in reframing the
disputes between Jesus and the Pharisees as a confrontation between Beit Hillel
and Beit Shammai, and not a dispute between Jesus and Pharisaic Judaism. Rabbi Falk has adopted the position of
Talmudist Rabbi Jacob Emden (1697-1776), that “Jesus never intended to abolish
Judaism, but only to establish a new religion for Gentiles based upon the
ancient Noahide Commandments transmitted by Moses at Mount Sinai.” [13] According to Rabbi Emden, Jesus “strengthened
the Torah of Moses majestically (Matt
5:18), and not one of our Sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the
immutability of the Torah.” [14]
According to Rabbi Falk, “The only statement of Jesus of Nazareth
to be found in the Talmud is ‘I come not to destroy the Law of Moses nor to add
to the Law of Moses’ (Shabbat 116B)(Matt
5:17).” [15]
