What were the Shammaite and Hillelite interpretations of Jewish Law?

Answer

Shammai and Hillel were two influential Jewish rabbis whose commentaries on the Torah shaped Jewish theology and philosophy for centuries. The Shammaite and Hillelite schools were the two predominant approaches to Jewish Law during Jesus’ time on earth. Regrettably, the temple’s destruction in AD 70 led to the loss of most records concerning the debates between these factions. Following the temple’s destruction, the Hillelite school rose to prominence, resulting in much of our knowledge about first-century Hillelite and Shammaite law originating solely from later Hillelite writers. These writers depict the Shammaite-Hillelite division akin to contemporary two-party politics, with each side seemingly intent on contradicting the other on every issue.

According to tradition, Shammai, a Pharisee, taught in the years preceding Jesus’ birth. In his commentary on the Law, he stressed the importance of temple rituals, and his interpretation is known for being strict, literal, and focused on Israel. The followers of these interpretations are known as the Shammaite interpreters of Jewish Law.

Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Shammai, showed less concern for temple worship. His commentary is viewed as more liberal, tolerant, and inclusive of Gentiles. Hillel also established seven distinct rules for interpreting traditional patterns. His Hillelite school stood in opposition to the Shammaite approach. Following the temple’s destruction, the influence of the Shammaite school waned, and Hillel’s philosophy became the prevailing approach to Jewish Law for over four centuries.

Scholars are uncertain about the accuracy of the differences between the Shammaite and Hillelite schools, questioning whether they are factual or the result of historical revisionism. While Jewish scholars before AD 70 frequently mention the disputes between these factions.

, the vast majority of surviving records are from Hillelite writers. It’s possible that the Hillelites exaggerated some of the differences between Shammai and Hillel to portray Hillel in a more heroic light.

Even with such open questions, it’s clear that the interplay between Shammai and Hillel influenced Judaism during the early Christian era. The rivalry between the two schools greatly contributed to Judaism’s growing belief that the oral law—as promoted in the Shammaite or Hillelite schools—was as authoritative as the written Torah.

Some scholars debate which school, Shammaite or Hillelite, had a greater influence on the theology of the New Testament. Jesus’ restrictive rules on divorce echo those of Shammai, while Hillel allowed for a wider range of acceptable reasons to end a marriage. Jesus also phrased the “Golden Rule” using a more challenging, positive expression, in contrast to Hillel’s lighter, negative expression of the same basic idea. At the same time, Jesus was welcoming of non-Jewish people and often criticized the Pharisees for their excessive legalism. The fact is that Jesus presented the truth, and His agreement with either Shammai or Hillel was secondary and coincidental. Jesus spoke the Father’s Word, and His teaching cannot be seen as a defense of any rabbi «For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. », (John 12:49).

There is also an academic debate over the influence of Shammai and Hillel on the theology of the apostle Paul. On one hand, Paul was a student of Gamaliel, who came from the Hillelite school and might have even been Hillel’s grandson. But, prior to his conversion, Paul (Saul) was hardly a tolerant, Gentile-friendly Pharisee. Rather, in opposition to Gamaliel’s teaching, Paul took a severe stance. And in his letters, Paul expresses an Israel-centric, all-or-nothing attitude.Nothing obedience to the Law (Romans 3:19-28;cp: James 2:10), which many scholars would associate more with Shammai. Of course, as he was writing inspired Scripture, Paul was not concerned with which rabbi might have had a past influence upon him; he was “carried along by the Holy Spirit” and wrote what the Spirit wanted «For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.», (2 Peter 1:21).

Ultimately, the differences between Shammaite and Hillelite interpretations of Jewish Law are more a matter of historical trivia than a major concern for Christianity. While their influence on Jewish theology might have been significant, the teachings of Shammai and Hillel are ultimately irrelevant against the contents of Scripture and the actual teachings of Jesus Christ.