Beit Hillel's Humility and Halachic Precedence

[והעמידו תלמידים הרבה] שב״ש אומרים אל ישנה אדם אלא למי שהוא חכם ועניו ובן אבות ועשיר וב״ה אומרים לכל אדם ישנה שהרבה פושעים היו בהם בישראל ונתקרבו לתלמוד תורה ויצאו מהם צדיקים חסידים וכשרים:

AND RAISE UP MANY DISCIPLES. The School of Shammai said: A master should teach only those who are wise, meek, of good family and wealthy; whereas the School of Hillel said: He should teach everyone, for many sinners in Israel have in this way been brought near to the study of the Torah, and from them issued righteous, pious and worthy men.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ. יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵן, וַהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים, מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לִקְבּוֹעַ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתָן? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹחִין וַעֲלוּבִין הָיוּ, וְשׁוֹנִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּקְדִּימִין דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְדִבְרֵיהֶן. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁנִּבְרָא, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁנִּבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁלֹּא נִבְרָא. נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁנִּבְרָא, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנִּבְרָא — יְפַשְׁפֵּשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: יְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו.

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai. The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.

הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּפְרֹשׁ מִן הַצִּבּוּר, וְאַל תַּאֲמִין בְּעַצְמְךָ עַד יוֹם מוֹתְךָ, וְאַל תָּדִין אֶת חֲבֵרְךָ עַד שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְאַל תֹּאמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמֹעַ, שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְהִשָּׁמַע.

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אוֹסְרִים וְאֵלּוּ מַתִּירִין, אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַכְשִׁירִין — לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלָא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי. כָּל הַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטְּמָאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אֵלּוּ מְטַהֲרִים וְאֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין — לֹא נִמְנְעוּ עוֹשִׂין טְהָרוֹת אֵלּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי אֵלּוּ. רָבָא אָמַר: טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּאֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.

§ The mishna comments: Although Beit Hillel prohibit the rival wives to the brothers and Beit Shammai permit them, and although these disqualify these women and those deem them fit, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying women from Beit Shammai. Furthermore, with regard to all of the disputes concerning the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity, where these rule that an article is ritually pure and those rule it ritually impure, they did not refrain from handling ritually pure objects each with the other, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel frequently used each other’s vessels. § Rava said: The rationale of Beit Shammai for their opinion that rival wives are permitted in levirate marriage is not due to a specific verse. Rather, Beit Shammai apply the well-known halakhic principle that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists. Since the first wife was already a prohibited relation to her brother-in-law during his brother’s lifetime, the second prohibition of a wife’s sister does not apply to her. Accordingly, her presence is entirely disregarded, as though there is no forbidden relative here to exempt the rival wife.

אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל — מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא עָשׂוּ? וְאֶלָּא לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל — מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר עָשׂוּ? אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל, וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל, וּכְגוֹן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל רוּבָּא, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא עָשׂוּ — דְּהָא בֵּית הִלֵּל רוּבָּא. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר עָשׂוּ, כִּי אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא — הֵיכָא דְּכִי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ. הָכָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְחַדְּדִי טְפֵי. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל, מַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא עָשׂוּ — דְּהָא נְפַקָא בַּת קוֹל, וּמַאן דַּאֲמַר עָשׂוּ — רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל.

The Gemara inquires: When does this question apply? If we say that it is referring to the period prior to the Divine Voice that declared that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, then what is the rationale of the one who said that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion? But rather, if one would say it is referring to after the Divine Voice, what is the reason for the one who said that they did act in accordance with their opinion? After all, the Divine Voice established that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara answers: Neither of these options poses a difficulty. If you wish, say that it is referring to the period prior to the Divine Voice, and if you wish, say instead that it is after the Divine Voice. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say it is prior to the Divine Voice, and it is referring to the period when Beit Hillel formed the majority of the Sages. Therefore, according to the one who said that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion, the reason is that Beit Hillel was the majority, and the halakha is in accordance with the majority. And the one who said that they did act in accordance with their opinion maintains that when do we follow the majority? It is in a case where the disputing parties are equal in wisdom to one another. Here, however, Beit Shammai are sharper than Beit Hillel, and therefore they acted in accordance with their own opinion despite the fact that they were in the minority. And if you wish, say instead that it was after the Divine Voice. The one who said that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion would say that this was due to the pronouncement of the Divine Voice. And the one who said that they did do so, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, with regard to the Divine Voice that emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the oven of akhnai (Bava Metzia 59b), that one disregards a Heavenly Voice. Just as he disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

וְלָכֵן מָצִינוּ כַּמָּה דְבָרִים מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, לְלַמְּדֵנוּ, שֶׁאַף בֵּית שַׁמַּאי שֶׁשֹּׁרֶשׁ נִשְׁמָתָם מִבְּחִינַת שְׂמֹאל הָעֶלְיוֹן, וְלָכֵן הָיוּ דָנִין לְהַחֲמִיר תָּמִיד בְּכָל אִיסּוּרֵי הַתּוֹרָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁהָיוּ מִבְּחִינַת יָמִין הָעֶלְיוֹן, הָיוּ מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת לְהָקֵל וּלְהַתִּיר אִיסּוּרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מוּתָּרִים מֵאִיסּוּרָם וְיוּכְלוּ לַעֲלוֹת לְמַעְלָה, אַף־עַל־פִּי־כֵן, בְּכַמָּה דְבָרִים הָיוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְקִילִּין, מִפְּנֵי הִתְכַּלְלוּת שֹׁרֶשׁ נִשְׁמָתָם שֶׁהוּא כָּלוּל גַּם מִיָּמִין. וְכֵן שׁוֹרֶשׁ נִשְׁמַת בֵּית הִלֵּל כָּלוּל גַּם מִשְּׂמֹאל, כַּיָּדוּעַ דֶּרֶךְ וּמִדּוֹת קֹדֶשׁ הָעֶלְיוֹן, דְּ״לֵית תַּמָן קִיצּוּץ וּפֵירוּד״ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, וְכָל הַמִּדּוֹת כְּלוּלוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ, וְלָכֵן הֵם מְיוּחָדוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ, כַּיָּדוּעַ לְיוֹדְעֵי חֵן; וּכְדִכְתִיב בְּאַבְרָהָם, שֶׁהוּא מִדַּת הַחֶסֶד וְהָאַהֲבָה: ״עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה״, עַל־יְדֵי שֶׁלָּבַשׁ מִדַּת הַגְּבוּרָה, ״וַיַּעֲקוֹד אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ . . וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת כוּ׳״.

Thus we find various matters that are of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. This comes to teach us that Bet Shammai, the root of whose soul is of the category of the supernal left—[that is why they always decided stringently regarding all the prohibitions of the Torah; but Bet Hillel, who were of the supernal right, would find favorable arguments to be lenient and to permit the injunctions of Bet Shammai so that these should become muttarim from their issur and able to ascend upward. Nevertheless]—in several matters, even Bet Shammai are lenient. This is so because of the inclusiveness of their soul’s root, which compounds the right as well. And, likewise, the root of Bet Hillel’s soul compounds the left also. For, as known of the mode and attributes of the kodesh ha’elyon, there is no cleavage and division there, Heaven forfend, and all the traits compound each other. Thus, they are united one with the other, as known to the students of Kabbalah. Thus it is written of Abraham, who is the attribute of chesed and love: “Now I know that you are fearful of G–d”—for he had donned the attribute of gevurah “and bound Isaac his son…and took the knife….”