HILLEL. SHAMMAI. YESHUA.
Around the time of Jesus two rival בת מדרשים, or study houses seem to come up a lot in tradition. One is the House of Hillel and One is the House of Shammai. Both give us a window into developing rabbinic thinking and discussions pretty close to Jesus and Paul as well. They are just good to have in your back pocket as you read the gospels, Acts, and early Christian Letters because they help you understand broader discussions about how ancient authors pull forward the text of the Bible into rabbinic and early Christian thought…which are more similar than different.
HILLEL.
Hillel flourished around the time of Herod the Great, who died soon after Jesus was born (Herod lived from 47-4ish BCE). Keep in mind that all we have is a smattering of literary puzzle pieces on an ancient floor. Anything we know comes from lore, and lore evolves over time. But Hillel is the founder of one of the foundational houses, or study centers, which evolved later into rabbinic Judaism. He is famous for his seven rules of exegesis and gets cast as the paradigmatic great sage.
He was probably born in Babylon. But as a young man he is said to have studied in Israel. We know almost nothing about his life and what we get from the Mishnah (250-200ish C.E.) and Tosefta (after and intertwined with Mishnah), two collections of Halakah (commentary on law collections of Torah)— are usually stories that have grown larger than life. For instance, a legend that connects Hillel with King David is probably created to make his influence as a scholar greater…and yet, see how the gospel writer of Matthew makes the same move in his genealogy right off the bat?…. just saying it’s pretty rad. The Talmud Yerushalmi says that “Rabi Levi said: In Jerusalem was found a genealogical scroll in which it was written: “Hillel is of David’s stock.” (p. Taanit 4.2)
We do know he was a leader and a big deal in Jewish Law. Later generations compared Hillel to Moses, the giver of Torah, and Ezra, who reunited the community around Torah… or gave us Torah. Too far Text and Rockers?:
When Torah was forgotten in Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and reestablished it. Some of the Torah was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and he, too, reestablished it.
Hillel came up from Babyonia at the age of forty, ministered to the sages for forty years, and guided Israel for forty years.
It is said of Hillel that there were no sages words that he put aside and did not study. Then, too, he studied all languages, even those of the mountains, hills, and valleys; of trees and herbs; of beasts, wild and domesticated; and of demons; as well as the parables of fullers and fables of foxes.
This passage is its own study house of rabbinic technique, values, and maneuvers for those of you who listen to the Text and Rock Show. Quickly though, see the repetition of forty years, the comparison drawn between an older figure to establish a newer one, the idea that everyone is your teacher within talmud torah, the Greek values of observational reasoning, Jewish categorization of nature and animals, and a touch of Greco-Roman literary tradition to show Hillel was well read in larger society. Just a few :D.
What Hillel Taught. Hillel is best known for law opinions about the rules of sacrifice and the prozbul, which was a writ that allowed the poor relief in years of Sabbatical debt relief while at the same time protecting the property and earnings of investors. Basically, he interpreted the torah towards an economic system that worked in the Roman Palestine economy… which is what a lot of early Christian and rabbinical readings of the Bible do— they pull forward the meaning of the Hebrew Bible to ideas that work for their time and experience. More on that later haters. Basically, as Jubilee year came up, when debt was to be canceled in ancient Israel, lenders in Roman Palestine simply wouldn’t grant loans and the poor were getting stuck. By the way, think about Jesus’ command to “Love your enemies and do good, and LEND, expecting nothing in return” in Luke 6.35.
Hillel famously taught a version of the law which was not always, but often less stringent than Shammai (Hillel is looser in about 80% of the literary examples which come down to us). The same effort to ask what is the heart of the law that we see in Jesus is already in the Jewish self-critique. It is not Jesus versus other Jews, it is Jesus in a discussion about how to be God’s people in this generation. And so Hillel is very close to Jesus, he even taught his students, “Be among the disciples of Aaron, who loved peace and pursued it (Avot. 1.12). He famously summarized the entire torah while standing on one foot like so: Do not do yourself to another what you would not wish done to yourself; that is the whole Torah, the rest is commentary. Go and study! (b. Sabbath 31.1a). If you’re down to clown, read this next to Matthew 7.12: Whatever you wish that people would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.”
HIS LEGACY. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the school of Hillel rose to the top over the school of Shammai. Tradition says that the academy at Usha decided the legal rulings of Hillel ought to be followed, however, to what degree it is true we will never know (y. Ber. 1.7). What we can say is that the rulings of Shammai are often kept alongside Hillel and revered. Think about that. Christian theology goes the other way— tradition seeks to bury the ideas of the heretic or explain them away as wrongheaded. In Judaism, iron sharpens iron, and the minority opinion matters. Boom boom boom.
Traditionally, Hillel issues as more lenient. This is not always true, about 20% he is more stringent. But in these cases, you can usually see what he is doing by being more stringent is trying to preserve what the law is supposed to be about. He’s after the heart of the law as opposed to Shammai who is after the preserving of tradition and the scales being tipped towards mitzvoth (obligations to keep the Law). Other scholars say that the opinions attributed to various rabbis are not consistent in the literature, and so if you line up everything Akiva for example, is supposed to have said, it is not a coherent system. We should hold both— it is reasonable to say that Hillel was generally looser in his interpretation by weighing out our sources, and at the same time, it should not surprise us if some literature manipulates what Hillel or Shammai say for their own reasons. This happens in the gospels all the time and the historicity of Jesus is always working with a gap between the marginal Jewish sage of Galilee and the evangelists’ theological programs.
SHAMMAI.
So that’s Hillel. Here’s Shammai. Shammai was not a grouch, but wanted to preserve tradition and piety and ritual practice. Remember in rabbinic thought, God is the landlord, Israel is the tenant caretaker, and if the scales are tipped for too long in the favor of evil over and against deeds of righteousness or mitzvoth— the exile could happen all over again. And so in the Shammai school the goal was not to be a vice principal in charge of discipline and all things not fun— it was to protect Israel’s place as God’s people in God’s land. So his interpretation tended to be strict and hedge around the law.
But remember, like 80% of the time, and this is the literature that comes down to us after the school of Hillel kinda wins the day. Because of this there is a lot less content with respect to Shammai, and often his house incited as the minority opinion in contrast to Hillel. We have less narrative lore of Shammai as well, the winners write history, so it goes.
And just to be thorough— a lot of scholars believe Shammai was the more popular teacher before the temple was sacked by Rome, and that over time Hillel rose to prominence. And so Shammai is like the old guard by the time we get a snapshot of their rivalry. Like the Bad Boy Detroit Pistons in the time of the 96 Bulls. Come one now. I know have some Chicago friends of the show!
We get a series of passages, especially in Mishnah Berekhot where we get the ritual rules on prayers. Berekhot means “blessings” and prayer in rabbinic thought is a gift you bring to God not a list you ask God for. Se we get a bunch of disputes that read like this:
The House of Shammai says: in the evening all should recline and recite the Shema, but in the morning they should stand up, for it it is written, “And when you lie down and when you rise up” (Deut 6.7). But the House of Hillel says: They may recite it everyone in their own way, for it is written “when you walk by the way…” (Deut 6.7).
Now, notice they are both arguing from the exact same verse how to fulfill the recitation of the prayer in Deuteronomy 6.4-5, but how you do this is vastly different.. because this debate has next to nothing to do with what the author of Deuteronomy is saying— they are pulling the text towards their debate, and specifically towards their debate where prayer is replacing sacrifice. Isn’t that fascinating?
Now these two schools of rabbinic interpretation… they were often in dispute:
Rabbi Abba said in theme of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel, the ones asserting, “The law is according to our views” and the others asserting “The law is according to our views.” Then the divine voice came forth and said, “The utterances of then and those of the other are both the words of the living God, but the law is according to the school of Hillel. Since both are the words of the living God, what entitled the school of Hillel to have the law foiled according to their rulings? Because they were kindly and humble; they taught their own rulings as well as those of the school of Shammai. And what’s more they taught the rulings of the school of Shammai before their own.
B. Ber 10b.
And yet it seems to be an insider discussion of mutual respect and honor: There are many stories of the two houses debating with honor and respect and dispersion is cast upon later disciples who wished to defame the other study house:
When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who had not studied sufficiently grew numerous, disputes multiplied in Israel, and the Torah became two Torahs.
b. Sanh 88b.
YESHUA.
Jesus seems to side with Hillel in his general outlook, but he sides with Shammai from time to time. We should expect this. Just like a graduate student takes the best of all her instructors forward— she holds all their perspectives like a well-made cistern, full to the brim without loosing a drop— teachers like Jesus were likely influenced and trained in the entire discussion of torah and formed his yoke, or interpretation of the Law, over time and consideration.
Here are a couple things though. Jesus is generally after the heart of the Law and a livable interpretation of Torah, but his hyperbolic and parabolic style requires everything of his learners. Everything. At times he sides with Shammai for a couple of reasons. Sometimes he is citing the conservative ruling to mess with/argue convincingly with opponents. When I want to change the mind of an interlocutor, it is best if I can cite a voice they understand to be authoritative. And so if I have to cite a study from Fox News to deescalate idiocy, I’ll do it because it is way more effective than citing NPR.
Other times Jesus feels Shammai’s ruling is important. Here is an example. Divorce was, is, and always has been frequent and socially abrasive to conservative tradition. Hillel is loose, arguing a man can divorce his wife for whatever reason— say she made a bad sandwich and he was fed up. Shammai says no go- it has to be sexual adultery. Jesus is more stringent like Shammai over and against Hillel in this case. Why? Because of what the law practically accomplishes. What does his teaching practically do in everyday life in the first century Palestinian household? It disenfranchised and impoverished women who no longer have a way to make enough money for daily bread. And so it had better be extreme to send her away, because it ruins her. Notice there is no provision for when a woman can divorce a man? It’s because she couldn’t. She had the status of property, although so so many provisions were in place to take care of that property.
And so Jesus is protecting women in this case by taking a harder line. Just for a quick takeaway, do you see the danger of importing Jesus’ words on divorce straight into modern culture? Today women make their own money in western society, and can call off a marriage just as easily as a man. Stated simply, no fault divorce exists in most states because it is a workable solution in the modern world. Be really careful about not woodenly applying this saying from the synoptics to marriages of family and friends you value and care about. The heart of the law today, ought to be about equity for both parties, peaceable separation, full care and thriving for any children, etc.
Okay that’s good for today Text and Rockers. Much love, Swift-Footed Markilles