11Hillel or Shammai, Liberal or Conservative?: Two ways of looking at Chanukah
The House of Shammai says: “On the first day of Chanukah, one lights eight lights; from here on, one progressively decreases.” The House of Hillel says: “On the first day, one lights a single light; from here on, one progressively increases.” (Talmud, Shabbat 21b)
Abraham v Isaac as reality Models both are legitimate
The loving manner v the intense demanding manner of Shammai which will be the standard after the presence of Moschiach
Your ingenious formulation of ortho-doxy as a paradoxical (only for the dualistically conditioned human intellect) place/state 'combining opposites without becoming polarized between them' is in truth the definition of what is called 'Transcendence'. Transcendence is what qualifies G-d's relationship to His creation, and it is contained within the evolutionary capabilities of the human being eventually 'situating' him/her within unobstructed reach of Light.
In Judaism knowing is kindled and comes to the fore through studying the Book, not necessarily academically but certainly with a sober heart and a passionate mind.
https://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/1713142/jewish/Hillel-or-Shammai-Liberal-or-Conservative.htm
Rabbi Krasnianski, your Love-ly presentation allowed us a glimpse into the innermost yearnings of your beautiful Jewish soul. Thanks for sharing it with us.
SHAMMAI (called also Shammai ha-Zaḳen [= "the Elder"]):
By: Wilhelm Bacher, Jacob Zallel Lauterbach
Nevertheless Shammai was in no wise a misanthrope. He himself appears to have realized the disadvantages of his violent temper; hence he recommended a friendly attitude toward all. His motto was: "Make the study of the Law thy chief occupation; speak little, but accomplish much; and receive every man with a friendly countenance" (Ab. i. 15). He was modest even toward his pupils (B. B. 134b; comp. Weiss, "Dor," i. 163, note 1).
In his religious views Shammai was strict in the extreme. He wished to make his son, while still a child, conform to the law regarding fasting on the Day of Atonement; and he was dissuaded from his purpose only through the insistence of his friends (Yoma 77b). Once, when his daughter-in-law gave birth to a boy on the Feast of Tabernacles, he broke through the roof of the chamber in which she lay in order to make a sukkah of it, so that his new-born grandchild might fulfil the religious obligation of the festival (Suk. 28a). Some of his sayings also indicate his strictness in the fulfilment of religious duties (comp. Beẓah 16a).
In Sifre, Deut. § 203 (ed. Friedmann, 111b) it is said that Shammai commented exegetically upon three passages of Scripture. These three examples of his exegesis are: (1) the interpretation of Deut. xx. 20 (Tosef., 'Er. iii. 7); (2) that of II Sam. xii. 9 (Ḳid. 43a); and (3) either the interpretation of Lev. xi. 34, which is given anonymously in Sifra on the passage, but which is the basis for Shammai's halakah transmitted in 'Orlah ii. 5, or else the interpretation of Ex. xx. 8 ("Remember the Sabbath"), which is given in the Mekilta, Yitro, 7 (ed. Weiss, p. 76b) in the name of Eleazar b. Hananiah, but which must have originated with Shammai, with whose custom of preparing for the Sabbath (Beẓah l.c.) it accords.
Shammai founded a school of his own, which differed fundamentally from that of Hillel (see Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai); and many of Shammai's sayings are probably embodied in those handed down in the name of his school.
JewishEncyclopedia.com
The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish EncyclopediaBET HILLEL AND BET SHAMMAI:
By: Marcus Jastrow, S. Mendelsohn
Down to the advent of Hillel and Shammai, who were the founders of the great schools bearing their names, there were but few casuistic differences among the schools. Between Hillel and Shammai themselves three (or, according to some authorities, five) disputes are mentioned in the Talmud (Shab. 15a; Ḥag. ii. 2; 'Eduy. i. 2, 3; Niddah i. 1); but with the increase of their disciples disputations increased to such an extent as to give rise to the saying, "The one Law has become two laws" (Tosef., Ḥag. ii. 9; Sanh. 88b; Soṭah 47b).
Discussions Between the Schools.The prevailing characteristics of the disputes are the restrictive tendency of the Shammaites and the moderation of the Hillelites. Three hundred and sixteen controversies between these two schools are preserved in the pages of the Talmud, affecting 221 Halakot, 29 halakic interpretations, and 66 guard-laws ("gezerot"); and out of the whole number only 55 (or about one-sixth) present the Shammaites on the side of leniency. Moreover, even where the characteristic tendencies appear to have changed masters, the practical result remains the same; being the logical and consistent resultants of some opinions expressed elsewhere, and in line with the natural tendencies of the respective schools; and some of their restrictive views the Hillelites subsequently rejected, adopting what were exceptionally the more moderate views of the Shammaites ('Eduy. i. 12 et seq.; compare Weiss, "Dor," i. 179 et seq.). That the latter, as a school, ever receded from their stand-point to join the ranks of their more moderate antagonists is nowhere indicated; though individuals of that school, like Baba ben Buṭa, sometimes acknowledged the unreasonableness of their party by deserting its standard for that of Bet Hillel (Beẓah 20a; Yer. Ḥag. ii. 78a). Hence it is that the Mishnah introduces some of their controversies with the remark, "These are of the lenient views of Bet Shammai and the restrictive views of Bet Hillel" ('Eduy. iv. 1; Tosef., 'Eduy. ii. 2).
Characteristics.The reason assigned for their respective tendencies is a psychological one. The Hillelites were, like the founder of their school (Ber. 60a; Shab. 31a; Ab. i. 12 et seq.), quiet, peace-loving men, accommodating themselves to circumstances and times, and being determined only upon fostering the Law and bringing man nearer to his God and to his neighbor. The Shammaites, on the other hand, stern and unbending like the originator of their school, emulated and even exceeded his severity. To them it seemed impossible to be sufficiently stringent in religious prohibitions. The disciples of Hillel, "the pious and gentle follower of Ezra" (Sanh. 11a), evinced in all their public dealings the peacefulness, gentleness, and conciliatory spirit which had distinguished their great master; and by the same characteristic qualities they were guided during the political storms which convulsed their country. The Shammaites, on the contrary, were intensely patriotic, and would not bow to foreign rule. They advocated the interdiction of any and all intercourse with those who either were Romans or in any way contributed toward the furtherance of Roman power or influences. Dispositions so heterogeneous and antagonistic can not usually endure side by side without provoking serious misunderstandings and feuds; and it was owing solely to the Hillelites' forbearance that the parties did not come to blows, and that even friendly relations continued between them (Tosef., Yeb. i. 10; Yeb. 14b; Yer. Yeb. i. 3b), for a time at least. But the vicissitudes of the period exerted a baneful influence also in that direction.
When, after the banishment of Archelaus (6
Relation to External World.As all the nations around Judea made common cause with the Romans, the Zealots were naturally inflamed against every one of them; and therefore the Shammaites proposed to prevent all communication between Jew and Gentile, by prohibiting the Jews from buying any article of food or drink from their heathen neighbors. The Hillelites, still moderate in their religious and political views, would not agree to such sharply defined exclusiveness; but when the Sanhedrin was called together to consider the propriety of such measures, the Shammaites, with the aid of the Zealots, gained the day. Eleazar ben Ananias invited the disciples of both schools to meet at his house. Armed men were stationed at the door, and instructed to permit every one to enter, but no one to leave. During the discussions that were carried on under these circumstances, many Hillelites are said to have been killed; and there and then the remainder adopted the restrictive propositions of the Shammaites, known in the Talmud as "The Eighteen Articles." On account of the violence which attended those enactments, and because of the radicalism of the enactments themselves, the day on which the Shammaites thus triumphed over the Hillelites was thereafter regarded as a day of misfortune (Tosef., Shab. i. 16 et seq.; Shab. 13a, 17a; Yer. Shab. i. 3c).
Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel continued their disputes—probably interrupted during the war times—after the destruction of the Temple, or until after the reorganization of the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Gamaliel II. (80
Constituent Members.Of the personnel of these schools there is no record, they being invariably cited collectively as "Bet Shammai" or "Bet Hillel." Nor can their number be stated with exactitude. In round figures, the Babylonian Talmud (Suk. 28a; B. B. 134a) gives the number of Hillel's disciples as eighty, while the Palestinian Talmud (Yer. Ned. v. 39b) makes of them as many pairs. Both sources mention two of them by name, Jonathan ben Uzziel and Johanan ben Zakkai; and it is added that Jonathan was the greatest and Johanan the least among the whole number. No such traditions are recorded of the Shammaites. Of their school three are mentioned by name; viz., Baba ben Buṭa (Beẓah 20a), Dositai of Kefar Yetma ('Orlah ii. 5), and Zadok (Tosef., 'Eduy. ii. 2); but they are mentioned simply because, though Shammaites, they sometimes upheld the views of the Hillelites. See Hillel and Shammai.
V:3 P:115
V:3 P:116