the limits of variety 161
testimony to the notion, and neither the Bible nor Josephus preserves
any record of such traditions. But reality matters less than perceptions.
It is clear that rabbinic sages believed in the existence of this oral trad-
ition, and that they also believed that through this tradition they received
authority ultimately from Moses himself.^2
The history of this early rabbinic movement is known only from sources
preserved by later rabbis, for whom the teachers of the first century bce
and the first century ce, such as Hillel, Shammai and Gamaliel, were
revered predecessors. Legends about these sages in due course accumu-
lated much as they did for the leading personalities in the biblical narratives.
For a sound understanding of the movement before the destruction of the
Jerusalem Temple in 70 ce, it is therefore wise to discount the testimony
of any rabbinic sources later than the traditions enshrined in the Mishnah
and other tannaitic sources in the third century ce.
We learn from these tannaitic sources that study groups of sages were
well established at least a century before the destruction of the Temple
in 70 ce. Mishnaic tradition goes back, as we have seen, to Moses him-
self, but provides hardly any more information about the early links in
the chain than wisdom sayings, such as the maxim attributed to Nittai
the Arbelite some time in the Hasmonaean period: ‘Keep yourself far
from an evil neighbour and consort not with the wicked and lose not
belief in retribution.’ Traditions from the end of the first century bce
attributed to Hillel and Shammai and to their followers are less vague,
but even then the 200 years between Hillel and the compilation of the
Mishnah reduced knowledge of these early sages to very schematic
form. The Torah scholars were recalled as a series of pairs in each gen-
eration, with traditions on how each of the pair ruled on issues of the
day, such as whether hands should be laid on an offering in the Temple
before it is slaughtered, although the records of their disputes were not
always very illuminating:
Jose b. Joezer says: ‘[On a festival- day a man] may not lay [his hands on
the offering before it is slaughtered].’ Joseph b. Johanan says, ‘He may.’
Joshua b. Perahyah says, ‘He may not.’ Nittai the Arbelite says, ‘He may.’
Judah b. Tabbai says, ‘He may not.’ Simeon b. Shetah says, ‘He may.’ Shem-
aiah says, ‘He may.’ Abtalion says, ‘He may not.’ Hillel and Menahem did
not differ, but Menahem went forth and Shammai entered in. Shammai
says, ‘He may not lay on his hands.’ Hillel says, ‘He may.’^3
As this passage illustrates, the dispute form was characteristic of this
type of Judaism. The role of the pupil in the beth midrash (‘house of