That Tannaitic teachings remained dynamic and never stagnated owed in
no small part to the emergence in the first century B.C.E. of zuggot, pairs of
scholars who, while embracing the same corpus of beliefs and exegetical
method, often articulated conflicting interpretations of specific practices.
This dynamism born of disagreement was not new to the rise of rabbinic
Judaism; tensions between kings and prophets, priests and scribes, and
Pharisees and Sadducees had animated the development of Israelite and early
Jewish culture. During the first century B.C.E., a highly productive and con-
structive incarnation of this animating tension appeared in the debates and
disputes between the first of these zuggot,transitional figures between the
Pharisees and the rabbis: Hillel and Shammai.
As Louis Finkelstein suggested decades ago, Hillel and Shammai repre-
sented two types of Pharisees that then presaged the two mentalities within
the realm of rabbinic Judaism. Hillel, Finkelstein noted, was a plebeian
Pharisee; Shammai was a patrician Pharisee with Sadducean tendencies.
Shammai tended to interpret Scripture more conservatively and literally.
Hillel, more attuned to what later generations of rabbis would call inyana de-
yoma(affairs of the day), would adapt biblical tradition more liberally.
In addition, Shammai, like other landed patricians and Sadducees, was
more interested than Hillel in agricultural matters. Hillel was more sensitive
to the economic implications of agricultural commandments like the Shmita
(sabbatical year). According to the Bible, every seven years the land was to lie
fallow and debts were to be cancelled. Hillel, noting the reluctance of credi-
tors to lend money as the sabbatical year approached, and the potential
economic devastation that could ensue, modified the cancelling of debts with
the prozbol, a caviat that allowed creditors to place certain type of debt in
escrow during the sabbatical year, and then collect them the following year.
The disparate outlooks between Hillel and Shammai carried over to and
were developed by their disciples, Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai (literally, the
School of Hillel and the School of Shammai). A disagreement over the proper
way to kindle the Hanukkah lights, for example, reflected a broader philo-
sophical understanding of the nature of holiness. Bet Shammai advocated
lighting the lights in a diminishing order, eight on the first day down to one
on the last, arguing that one can descend in holiness but not ascend. Bet
Hillel advocated lighting the lights in ascending order, arguing that one only
ascends in holiness. In other words, Bet Shammai regarded holiness as ulti-
mately finite and diminishing, while Bet Hillel regarded holiness as infinite
and ever-expanding.
An equally revealing dispute was over the proper way to greet a bride on
her wedding day. The disciples of Shammai advocated kalah k’mot she-hi
(speaking to the bride truthfully no matter what). The disciples of Hillel, by
contrast, advocated kalah na’a va-hasida(telling the bride she is beautiful and
pleasant). This underscored the overriding Shammaite concern with the letter
52 The rise of Rabbinic Judaism