Shammai
Shammai (50 B.C.E.–30 C.E.) was a famous Jewish scholar of the 1st century, and an important figure in Judaism's core work of rabbinic literature, the Mishnah. He was the most eminent contemporary and opponent of Hillel, taking a strict position on the interpretation of Jewish law versus Hillel's more liberal interpretation on many matters. Both teachers were part of the movement known as the Pharisees, who sought to increase piety among the Jewish people by emphasizing the application of the Law of Moses in everyday life, rather than insisting mainly on the tradition of the Temple of Jerusalem.
Shammai's school of thought became known as the House of Shammai (Beit Shammai), and Hillel's was known as the House of Hillel (Beit Hillel). The debates between these two schools of Jewish thought grew particular heated in the period leading up to the Jewish rebllion against Roman rule that resulting in the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and the expulsion of the Jews from Judea. They also form the basis for many of the latter discussions recorded in the Talmud. They also impact on the history of early Christianity, in which Jesus appears to side with the school of Hillel on most matters, sometimes bitterly denouncing the strict legalism of what appear to be the followers of Shammai.
Background and character
Shammai was likely a Palestinian Jew. His family was relatively well off, and he was an engineer by trade. Of an irascible temperament, he seemed to lack some of the tireless patience which is said to have distinguished Hillel. A famous story characterizing him tells of a time when a gentile came to him and asked to be converted to Judaism upon the condition that he summarize the entire Torah while standing on one leg. Shammai held this to be both impossible and impertient, and he drove the applicant away with his measuring stick. Hillel, on the other hand succeeded in converting doing as the seeker requested by summarizing all of "the Law and the Prophets" with the famous dictum: "What is hateful to you, do not unto your neighbor." (Shabbat, 31a).
Nevertheless Shammai was in no way a misanthrope. He appears to have realized the disadvantages of his temper. Thus he recommended a friendly attitude toward all. His motto was: "Make the study of the Torah your chief occupation; speak little, but accomplish much; and receive every man with a friendly countenance" (Avoth, i. 15). He was modest even toward his pupils.
Yet, in his religious views Shammai was known to be strict. When he wished to make his son, while still a young child, conform to the law regarding fasting on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), he was dissuaded from his purpose only through the insistence of his friends (Yoma, 77b). On another occasion, when his daughter-in-law gave birth to a boy on Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles) he broke through the roof of the bedchamer in order to make a sukkah of it, so that his new-born grandchild might fulfil the religious obligation of the festival (Sukkah, 28a).
Leaderhip in Jerusalem
In Shammai's day, the governing council of the Jews, or Sanhedrin was controlled by the Pharisees, to which both he and Hillel belonged. Hillel served as the council's president. After Menahem the Essene resigned the office of vice-president, Shammai was elected to it. Then, after Hillel died, around in 20 C.E., Shammai took his place as president with no vice-president from the minority being elected. The school of Shammai thus attained complete ascendancy, during which Shammai passed his "18 ordinances" in conformity with his ideas.
The exact content of Shammai's ordinances is not known, but they seem to have been designed to strengthen Jewish identity by insisting on stringent separation between Jews and gentiles, an approach that was regarded as divisive and misanthropic by the followers of Hillel.
The liberal Pharisees were thus forced into not only a minority position, but a relatively powerless one. Hillel's grandson Gamaliel succeeded the position of president after Shammai in the year 30, but the Sanhedrin would remain basically dominated by the house of Shammai until around 70 (see Council of Jamnia). A "voice from heaven" is said to have nullified the legality of the rulings of the house of Shammai (Berakhot, 1:7), which is why Rabbinical Judaism follows Hillel.
An opinion preserved in theTalmud goes so far as to state that when Shammi passed one of the ordinances—a law completely contrary to the opinion of Hillel—the day "was as grievous to Israel as the day when the golden calf was made" (Shabbat, 17a).
Beit Shammai v. Beit Hillel
In the years after the death of the two great teachers, disputations among their disciples increased to such an extent as to give rise to the saying, "The one Law has become two laws" (Tosef., Hag. 2:9; Sanh. 88b; Sotah 47b).
The prevailing characteristics of the disputes are the restrictive tendency of the Shammaites and the moderation of the Hillelites. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, some 316 controversies between these two schools are preserved in the pages of the Talmud. Shammaites did not take the "strict" view on every issue. Indeed, in 55 of the 316 cases, they argue on the side of leniency. Thus, the Mishnah introduces some of the debates with the remark, "These are of the lenient views of Bet Shammai and the restrictive views of Bet Hillel." ('Eduy. 4:1; Tosef., 'Eduy. 2:2) Morever, sometimes a "strict" view on one issue led to a "liberal view" on another. For example, Shammai's strict view on the question of marriage led to his disciples upholding the rights of women in divorce cases to a greater extent than their opponents.
The Shammaites were said to have inheritied the stern and unbending character of their founder. To them it seemed impossible to be too stringent in religious prohibitions. The Shammaites were also intensely patriotic, and would not bow to foreign rule. They opposed all relations not only with the Romans themselves, but also with those who cooperated with the Roman administration.[1]
The Shammaites thus particularly abhorred both the Roman tax system and the Jewish collaborators who served as tax collectors. Under the leadership of Judas the or Galilean and a Shammaite named Zadok, (Tosef., 'Eduy. ii. 2; Yeb. 15b), a political movement arose to oppose, even violently, the practice of the Roman laws. The Shammaites were thus able to coalesce with the Zealots in this and probably other cases. The Hillelites, animated by a more tolerant and peaceful spirit, consequently lost influence to he House of Shammai on issues relating to Roman rule. Feelings between the two schools grew so hostile that they even refused to worship together.
As the sruggle intensified, the Shammaites atttempted to prevent all communication between Jew and Gentile, prohibiting the Jews from buying any article of food or drink from their heathen neighbors. The Hillelites refused to approve such sharply defined exclusiveness. However, in the Sanhedrinthe Shammaites, together with the Zealots, carried the day. Thus, the struggle between Shammai and Hillel forms an important historical background to the Jewish Wars against Rome and ultimately the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.
The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel continued their disputes even after destruction of the Temple, until the reorganization of the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Gamaliel II. (80 C.E.). By that time all hopes for victory over Rome had been lost, and the House of Shammai was obliged to take a subservient role. All disputed points were brought up for review and in nearly every case the opinion of the Hillelites prevailed (Tosef., Yeb. i. 13; Yer. Ber. i. 3b). Thenceforth it was said: "Where Beit Shammai is opposed to Beit Hillel, the opinion of Bet Shammai is considered as if not incorporated in the Mishnah"; that is, null and void.
Few of the leading figures of the two houses during this period are known. Howver the Talmud names two leaders of the House of Hillel: Jonathan ben Uzziel and Johanan ben Zakkai. Three leaders of the Shammaites are mentioned by name: Baba ben Buṭa (Bezah 20a), Dositai of Kefar Yetma ('Orlah 2:5), and Zadok (Tosef., 'Eduy. 2:2). However, these three are mentioned mainly because, though Shammaites, they sometimes upheld the views of the Hillelites
Shammai and Christianity
Many scholars believe that the debate between the followers of Shammai and Hillel formed an important background to the story of early Christianity. Some suggest that when Jesus, at the age of 12, was found by his parents in deep discussion with the teachers at the Temple, Shammai and Hillel—and certainly several of their close disciples—may have been among them. Jesus appears to have sided with the House of Hillel on many matters, from commerce with gentiles, to the degree of strictness he insisted on with regard to the kosher dietary lies. Indeed, Jesus' famous saying, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" appears to be a paraphrase of Hillel's own summary of the Torah. Likewise, his willingness to compress "the law and the prophets" into short summary teachings such as "Love the Lord God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself," place him firmly in the camp of Hillel.
We may even speculate that the "Pharisees" whom Jesus excoriates as "blind guides" and "children of hell" were those followers of Shammai who would be most prone to find fault with Jesus' teachings. Meanwhile, other Pharisees such as Nicodemus protected Jesus from persecution in the Sandhedrin. Joseph of Aramithea, who provided Jesus with his tomb and was reportedly a secret disciple, was also a Sanhedrin member. His affiliation is not stated, but it is unlikely that he was a follower of Shammai.
However, the evidence does not all favor viewing Jesus simply as a Hellelite. His strict teaching on divorce and statements such as "not a dot, not an iota shall pass away from the law until all is accomplished," portray hims as siding with Shammai at least some of the time.
After Jesus' death, his early followers, too, seemed to fall into both camps. Those "Juaizers" who insisted that gentiles be circumcized before being accpeted into full Christian fellowship echo the attitude of Shammai. On the other hand, Paul's teaching that Jewish and Gentile Christians should eat at the same table seems in accord with the more liberal teachings of Hillel. In this regard, Paul's statement that he was taught by Gamiliel, Hillel's grandson, is particularly interesting.
The Shammai-type Jews would have been more prone to reject and persecute Christians both for their liberal attitude toward gentiles, and their willingness to "render unto Ceasar." Jesus' reputed association with "tax collectors and sinners" would have been particularly offensive to Shammai and his disciples. Reports of Christians being "cast out of the synagogues" or punished by local Jewish leaders may be best understood with reference to the dominance of the House of Shammai in Jewish politics of the time.
[note: parts of this article were copied from the Jewish Encyclopedia articles, now on the public domain, on "Shammai" and "Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel."]
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
External links
This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication now in the public domain.
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
