applied them, as an inventor of wholly new instruments, must have contributed in no small degree to the lustre which surrounded his labours as a teacher and legislator. But, without being expressly told, we may believe it of a man, who as a keen logician exercised such an original influence in his day, and founded such a powerful learned school, that he not only propounded logical laws for jurisprudence, but also proposed the nice and difficult questions regarding the boundaries, the number, and an ultimate connexion of all conceivable laws. And as at that time it was the custom to derive an almost endless number of old and new laws from the Scriptures, a mind like his might easily be led to ask, What is then the highest of all such laws? How he answered this question we have seen,' and we know from other sources 2 how popular the question remained for a considerable time, and how variously it was answered subsequently amongst the people.

However, if we look more closely at those seven highest principles of his, and the presupposition regarding the Scriptures from which he proceeded, we soon see to what a small extent even the basis of a thorough study of the Scriptures was supplied. Those seven principles are pure propositions of logic, resulting from the consideration of the course that can be adopted in accordance with the laws of pure thought when it is wished to draw conclusions from the words of a given book. But in this case the given book is taken as a basis simply as consisting of certain words and letters, as if it were allowable to draw from these alone all the conclusions which could be elicited from them by a skilful application of those pure laws of logic. What Scripture is and how it arose, remains in that case no less. obscure than what meaning and purpose its various subjectmatter originally possessed. Accordingly notwithstanding a logical process which is apparently so correct and so dazzling, there is nothing here but arbitrariness of a serious nature, precisely when the real difficulties of the matter are being approached, for the greatest difficulty for the Biblical studies of those days was after all in the end simply the question, how is the ancient sacred Book of Law, originally intended for very different conditions of life, now to be applied? As now Hillel was inclined by his personal disposition to mildness with reference to himself and all men, his greatest skill consists simply in evading the letter of Scripture by ingenious interpretations and subtle additions where its application appeared too harsh or too 2 From Matt. xxii. 35-40, and the parallel passages.

1 Ante, p. 23.

HILLEL AS INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE.

31

injurious and improbable for his contemporaries. The ancient Mosaic law, for instance, concerning the remission of debts every seventh year was subsequent to the time of Ezra reintroduced, but the desire to become rapidly rich, which had so greatly increased with the Greek rule, had long since frightened the rich from adhering conscientiously to that law, so that thereby all matters involving loans and debts had got into a state of serious insecurity. Accordingly Hillel hit upon the expedient that every creditor need on lending only cause a judicial declaration to be made, that he reserves to himself the right of reclaiming a certain debt from the person owing it at any time he chooses. As the Court of Justice was regarded in such matters as in the place of God, this agreement between debtor and creditor thus judicially confirmed was manifestly intended to render the law of the Scripture superfluous, although it was considered divine. And precisely this law has subsequently kept its place in the judicial life of the nation. Nor in this particular instance would such an evasion produce any other than a good effect; however, how many other laws of Scripture could be similarly evaded merely because they appeared to be inconvenient and were not liked by many people! We shall immediately observe how little Hillel was able to avoid this danger.

3

With such proofs before us, we perceive that Hillel was least of all able to found on a firm basis that branch of study in particular upon which everything in this instance depended, that is, the study of the Bible; nor, in fact, could he as much as acquire a precise and accurate idea of its nature. In this respect he made no advance beyond his age, and we have no reason to suppose that in this study he excelled Philo, whose attainments on this head we are well acquainted with; although, as by birth an Aramean and as the head of a school in Jerusalem, he undoubtedly surpassed Philo as regards a mere knowledge of the Biblical languages. If he thus lacked

1 See Antiquities, pp. 369 sq. 2 See vol. v. p. 166.

According to M. nway, x. 3-7. The fact that this law was always afterwards called by the Greek name, is one proof that it was from him. Instead of this strange term there exists also a more complete one, which is when taken alone still more unintelligible, viz., 1112017: probably a judicial document of this description began with the words πρὸς βουλὴν ὑπῆλθε, 1.0., To the council or the magistracy entered .

....

and declared,' etc, and it became customary to refer briefly to the document and the matter itself by these introductory words, as a consequence the words gradually got more and more abbreviated and unintelligible. The word DN, i.e., niтponos, for guardian, has also been preserved in the above law, x. 6. Subsequent to the rule of the Seleucidæ, Greek continued at the time of Hillel undoubtedly to be the language of the law courts, and probably remained so until the Roman war, a fact which is of considerable historical moment.

a satisfactory knowledge of the Bible, although he claimed especially to interpret and apply the Thôra, it follows that he was little able to meet the requirements of the higher objects which constituted the deepest purpose of his life. In fact, the consequence of this defect was that often mere ingenuity and a rapid adroitness of mind had to supply the place of the profounder knowledge, as some of the examples above given show. His whole temperament inclined him to indulge in witty pleasantry, and flashes of most brilliant acumen and of most subtle thought might well incessantly stream from his clever and gifted mind, enchanting his hearers and evoking a high reverence for the sacred Book from which such wisdom could be elicited; just as the same thing meets us again in the case of Philo. In addition to this, as a teacher of the Law he had a further field for the most inventive judgment and the intelligent penetration of a vast, often obscure, mass of subjects. At the same time a true and safe basis for more profound labours in getting to understand the serious ills under which the nation was suffering, and in promoting its lasting weal, had not at that time been supplied; and it was just this which he lacked.

So he remained a Pharisee; and if we ask what he accomplished as a Pharisee, it is correct to say that by his superior nature, his unwearied industry as a teacher, and his peculiar gentle kindness, he gave the most amiable form it was at all capable of to this sect, which became more and more predominant in the ancient community. Phariseeism, being from the very commencement of an eclectic nature, was capable of assuming at some time this form also; and nowhere could the benefits of this new form of a very pliant sect manifest themselves more brilliantly and beneficially than in the relations of this people to other nations. To Hillel before all others the Judean school of that time, and also in great part the Hagiocracy itself, which was then inseparable from it, owed the respect in which they were held by the potentates of the time and the comparatively long and prosperous peace as regards foreign powers in which they were able to live and work with but little interruption. Moreover, there was hardly another man who exerted a more beneficial influence than he upon the heathen more generally; and probably no one prior to the destruction of Jerusalem promoted so successfully the system of Proselytism.1

Still he could not put an end to the injurious eclecticism of

1 Hence in those times the very short verb, to make a proselyte of, was formed.

HILLEL AS A PHARISEE.

33

Phariseeism; and scarcely had that form of it which was the mildest and kindliest it could possibly assume made its entrance into the world through him, when the exact opposite tendency, which was not less present in it from the first, made itself felt more strongly. The Pharisees claimed from the commencement, in opposition to the Sadducees, to be the more strictly Judean and patriotic; they desired to be regarded as the immediate stays of the Hagiocracy, and to influence the common people by the greatest possible religiousness of their public life. An inclination to a life of punctilious seriousness, and to a rigorous opposition to everything heathen, is therefore characteristic of them from their original bent; and scarcely had Hillel, by the peculiar force of his whole character and work, thrust this inclination somewhat into the background, when, through one of his own earliest and ablest pupils, it broke forth again with new vigour. This man was that Shammai who has been already so often referred to, at first the pupil and then the rival and indeed opponent of Hillel, who by his more rigid strictness and a nature generally of greater severity, attracted many, inasmuch as the fact could not be overlooked, that the original nature of Phariseeism found more consistent and thorough expression in him, and that Hillel in many respects really carried mildness and clemency too far, from mere good nature. Hillel on his part was, however, not simply thus good-natured, but also above everything astute enough to perceive the charges to which the seemingly or actually more rigid Pharisees exposed themselves, and to more deeply understand the detriment with which their procedure threatened the Judean commonwealth. So he remained true to himself, and the antithesis which was latent in the system of Phariseeism from the beginning soon came openly to the front.

It is true that as long as Hillel lived the schism remained as much as possible concealed; the gentleness and astuteness which were peculiarly his evinced themselves also in this particular in no small degree, and contentions which are supposed to proceed simply from a sacred Book and from learned studies. may easily retire into the learned exercises and gymnastics of the school. The contention between Hillel and Shammai was accordingly regarded amongst the latter Rabbis simply as the model of a harmless and good dispute, indeed, as one conducted for the love of God.' But after the death of the great master the contention raged more unrestrainedly and loudly. The adherents of both sides separated from each other more dis1 According to the saying P. Abôth, v. 17.

tinctly, gave very different decisions on many weighty questions, and made no concealment of the important differences which separated them. These differences were, however, necessarily of a twofold kind in general.

As regards the internal life of the school and community, Shammai's opposite tendencies showed themselves to be to some extent really quite warranted and of good influence, in as far as Hillel, and still more many of his adherents, were too ready with their explanations of the duties which were prescribed in the Thôra, and thereby exposed themselves to the danger of even defending thoughtless and easy morals. Most famous in this respect was the contention as to divorce, which the house, i.e., the school, of Hillel made as easy as possible, while the house of Shammai made it difficult, in doing which both contended with each other most hotly regarding the proper interpretation of two little words of the Law, while they were not capable of properly settling even this verbal difference.

2

But as regards the relations externally towards other people than their own, Shammai's harsh nature naturally led to constant friction with those in power and to war with the heathen; and from the incident referred to previously, we see how greatly Shammai inclined, at all events in his earlier days, in this direction. Subsequently he became, even in this aspect of his character, less impetuous, so that his closest adherents followed him in this also, and both houses, i.e., schools, remained in so far without reproach. Nevertheless, it is evident that it was from this school that the new one of the Gaulonite Judas, which has to be described at length below, proceeded, simply by a process of consistent, logical development. That later school led at once, from the commencement of this new Roman period, to the most hazardous friction, and finally to the destruction of Jerusalem itself, as also undoubtedly most of the opponents of the Apostle Paul proceeded from it.3

The new opposition to the Gaulonite or Zealots' school, which was common to both, might, after the commencement of the immediate rule of Rome over Jerusalem, have caused the two houses to again draw somewhat nearer together and checked the outbreak of their open schism; but their deeper opposition to each other did not cease, although it took, in the case of inThe words Deut. xxiv. 1. houses contended as to the interpretation The contention is referred to only at the of the words. end of the Massekheth Gittin, ix. 10, as if unwillingly; and it may be seen in the Babylonian Gemâra how foolishly the two

2 Ante, p. 16.

3 See vol. vi. pp. 429 sq. [German].