It was in Galilee, accordingly, that such wild, irregular resistance to Herod at the outset of
his career, as could be offered, was organised by guerilla bands, which traversed the
country, and owned one Eze kias as their leader. Although Josephus calls them 'robbers,' a
far different estimate of them obtained in Jerusalem, where, as we remember, the
Sanhedrin summoned Herod to answer for the execution of Esekias. What followed is
told in substantially the same manner, though with difference of form21 and, sometimes,
nomenclature, by Josephus,22 and in the Talmud.23 The story has already been related in
another connection. Suffice it that, after the accession of Herod, the Sanhedrin became a
shadow of itself. It was packed with Sadducees and Priests of the King's nomination, and
with Doctors of the canon- law, whose only aim was to pursue in peace their subtleties;
who had not, and, from their contempt of the people, could not have, any real sympathy
with nationa l aspirations; and whose ideal heavenly Kingdom was a miraculous, heaven-
instituted, absolute rule of Rabbis. Accordingly, the national movement, as it afterwards
developed, received neither the sympathy nor the support of leading Rabbis. Perhaps the
most gross manifestation of this was exhibited, shortly before the taking of Jerusalem, by
R. Jochanan ben Saccai, the most renowned among its teachers. Almost unmoved he had
witnessed the portent of the opening of the Temple -doors by an unseen Hand, which, by
an interpretation of Zech. xi. 1, was popularly regarded as betokening its speedy
destruction.24 25 There is cynicism, as well as want of sympathy, in the story recorded by
tradition, that when, in the straits of famine during the siege, Jochanan saw people
eagerly feasting on soup made from straw, he scouted the idea of such a garrison resisting
Vespasian and immediately resolved to leave the city. 26 In fact, we have distinct evidence
that R. Jochanan had, as leader of the School of Hillel, used all his influence, although in
vain, to persuade the people to submission to Rome.27
21. The Talmud is never to be trusted as to historical details. Often it seems purposely to
alter, when it intends the experienced student to read between the lines, while at other
times it presents a story in what may be called an allegorical form.
22. Ant. xiv. 9. 2 -5.
23. Sanh. 19 a.
24. Yoma 39 b.
25. The designation 'Lebanon' is often applied in Talmudic writings to the Temple.
26. Midr. R. on Lament. i. 5; ed. W arsh. vol. iii.p. 60 a.
27. Ab. de R. Nathan 4.
We can understand it, how this school had taken so little interest in anything purely
national. Generally only one side of the character of Hillel has been presented by writers,
and even this in greatly exaggerated language. His much lauded gentleness, peacefulness,
and charity were rather negative than positive qualities. He was a philosophic Rabbi,
whose real interest lay in a far other direction than that of sympathy with the people - and
whose motto seemed, indeed, to imply, 'We, the sages, are the people of God; but this
people, who know not the Law, are curse.'28 A far deeper feeling, and intense, though
misguided earnestness pervaded the School of Shammai. It was in the minority, but it
sympathised with the aspirations of the people. It was not philosophic nor eclectic, but
intensely national. It opposed all approach to, and by, strangers; it dealt harshly with
proselytes,29 even the most distinguished (such as Akylas or Onkelos);30 it passed, by first
murdering a number of Hillelites who had come to the deliberative assembly, eighteen