One of the comments I received yesterday was that the disagreement between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel is praised in rabbinical sources as a desirable one, conducted for the love of God -
לשם שמים
.
Since the name of Shammai and Hillel is often invoked in discussions about disputes, I would like to examine this statement in depth. Let us start with asking how is it possible for anyone to praise the dispute between the two schools, when, as the Yerushalmi clearly states, it led to bloodshed? It is well-known that if one is told "kill that person or you will be killed!" he should sacrifice his life rather than kill the other person.
How is it then conceivable that scholars will be killed for objecting halakhic rulings. Not only that, the rulings in question were neither ones of life and death, nor were they biblical. They are eighteen decrees[1],twelve of which deal with impurity, one with Shabbat, and five with restrictions on relationships with non-Jews. None of the eighteen justifies murder.
As a matter of fact, R Aharon HaCohen of Provence (13c) writes that[2]:
בט' בו [באדר] גזרו אבותינו תענית על מחלוקת הלל ושמאי
On the ninth of Adar a fast day was declared to commemorate the dispute of Hillel and Shammai.
The contradiction between this statement and the one praising the dispute could be understood as a historical development. There was originally only one disagreement between the two scholars, Shammai and Hillel, and that dispute was welcomed. There were later other disagreements, but the two scholars treated each other respectfully. It was after they both passed away, that the dispute between their disciples escalated to an armed conflict with casualties, and for that a fast day was declared.
Jewish Agency vs. the Treasury
What was that first dispute about? It is recorded in the Mishnah (Hagigah 2:2)[3] as an ongoing dispute between four generations of religious leadership in Israel. On one hand, Yose ben Yoezer, Yehoshua ben Perahya, Yehudah ben Tabbai, and Avtalyon ruled that one does not need to place his hands on his sacrifice, and on the other hand, Yose ben Yohanan, Nittai of Arbel, Shimon ben Shattah, and Shemaia say that placing one's hands on the head of the sacrifice is necessary. In the fifth generation, it seemed as if this strange stalemate has finally come to an end, with the peaceful agreement between Hillel and his lesser known colleague, Menahem.
We are not told what did they agree on, since before people could exhale in relief for the end of the dispute, Menahem mysteriously disappeared from the rabbinic arena and was drafted, as the Mishna reports, to the Roman army. He was replaced by Shammai, who immediately rekindled the old dispute and declared, contrary to Hillel's opinion, that one does not have to place his hands on the sacrifice.
It is obvious that the five generations of leaders wanted to keep the dispute alive, but why?
My late teacher, Rabbi Prof. Meir Simcha Feldblum, explained that the dispute had far-reaching consequences for the fine balance between Jews of the Diaspora and their brethren in Israel. Those who lived abroad used to send sacrifices and donations to the Temple in Jerusalem. If the ruling was that one must place his hands on the sacrifice, a significant source of income for Israeli economy would have been lost, since many Diaspora Jews would not have been able to travel to Jerusalem. On the other hand, if the ruling was that one does not have to be present, it would encourage people to stay abroad and not migrate to Israel.
The dispute was one which could perfectly fit into today's reality, where some elements in the Israeli government want to lure immigrants, while others focus on investors. For that reason, the dispute was maintained alive for many generations. There was no clear answer, and the rabbis wanted to let the people have an option.
In conclusion, when we praise the dispute of Shammai and Hillel, we do not refer to violent disagreement, or to any other type of religious discord which leads to animosity and divisiveness. The model we should emulate is one which allows for different opinions to coexist, in order to allow people to choose. An attack on those who disagree with us, even when we claim it is done in the name of God, is never justified.
Rabbi Haim Ovadia
[1]
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם, שבת א:ג: האוכל אוכל ראשון... האוכל אוכל שני... השותה משקין טמאין... הבא ראשו ורובו במים שאובין... טהור שנפלו על ראשו ועל רובו שלשת לוגין מים שאובין.... נוגע בספר... הידים... האוכלים והכלים... המניח כלי תחת הצנור... כל המטלטלין מביאין את הטומאה בעובי המרדע... הבוצר לגת הוכשר... גדולי תרומה... מי שהחשיך בדרך... פת גוים... שמנם... יינם... יחוד בנותיהם... שיהא תינוק גוי מטמא בזיבה
[2]
אורחות חיים חלק א טעם לחמשה עשר באב
[3]
יוסי בן יועזר אומר שלא לסמוך, יוסי בן יוחנן אומר לסמוך; יהושע בן פרחיה... שלא... ניתאי הארבלי אומר לסמוך; יהודה בן טבאי אומר שלא... שמעון בן שטח אומר לסמוך; שמעיה אומר לסמוך אבטליון אומר שלא...; הלל ומנחם לא נחלקו! יצא מנחם נכנס שמאי. שמאי אומר שלא לסמוך, הלל אומר לסמוך. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב בית דין
