chiefly for the sake of opposition. But it is not correc t to describe the former as
consistently the more liberal and mild.16 The teaching of both was supposed to have been
declared by the 'Voice from Heaven' (the Bath-Qol) as 'the words of the living God;' yet
the Law was to be henceforth according to the teac hing of Hillel.17 But to us Hillel is so
intensely interesting, not merely as the mild and gentle, nor only as the earnest student
who came from Babylon to learn in the Academies of Jerusalem; who would support his
family on a third of his scanty wages as a day labourer, that he might pay for entrance
into the schools; and whose zeal and merits were only discovered when, after a severe
night, in which, from poverty, he had been unable to gain admittance into the Academy,
his benumbed form was taken down from the window-sill, to which he had crept up not
to lose aught of the precious instruction. And for his sake did they gladly break on that
Sabbath the sacred rest. Nor do we think of him, as tradition fables him - the descendant
of David,18 possessed of eve ry great quality of body, mind, and heart; nor yet as the
second Ezra, whose learning placed him at the head of the Sanhedrin, who laid down the
principles afterwards applied and developed by Rabbinism, and who was the real founder
of traditionalism. Still less do we think of him, as he is falsely represented by some: as he
whose principles closely resemble the teaching of Jesus, or, according to certain writers,
were its source. By the side of Jesus we think of him otherwise than this. We remember
that, in his extreme old age and near his end, he may have presided over that meeting of
Sanhedrin which, in answer to Herod's inquiry, pointed to Bethlehem as the birthplace of
the Messiah.19 20 We think of him also as the grandfather of that Gamaliel, at whose feet
Saul of Tarsus sat. And to us he is the representative Jewish reformer, in the spirit of
those times, and in the sense of restoring rather than removing; while we think of Jesus as
the Messiah of Israel, in the sense of bringing the Kingdom of God to all men, and
opening it to all believers.
14. On Hillel and Shammai see the article in Herzog's Real-Encyklop.; that in
Hamburger's; Delitzsch, Jesus u. Hillel. and books on Jewish history generally.
15. Eduj. 1. 4.
16. A number of points on which the ordinances of Hillel were more severe than those of
Shammai are enumerated in Eduj. iv. 1 -12; v. 1-4; Ber. 36 a, end. Comp. also Ber. R. 1.
17. Jer. Ber. 3 b, lines 3 and 2 from bottom.
18. Ber. R. 98.
19. St. Matt. ii. 4.
20. On the chronolo gy of the life of Hillel &c., see also Schmilg, Ueb. d. Entsteh. &c. der
Megillath Taanith, especially p. 34. Hillel is said to have become Chief of the Sanhedrin
in 30 b.c., and to have held the office for forty years. These numbers, however, are no
doubt somewhat exaggerated.
And so there were two worlds in Jerusalem, side by side. On the one hand, was
Grecianism with its theatre and amphitheatre; foreigners filling the Court, and crowding
the city; foreign tendencies and ways, from the foreign King downwards. On the other
hand, was the old Jewish world, becoming now set and ossified in the Schools of Hillel
and Shammai, and overshadowed by Temple and Synagogue. And each was pursuing its