Examples Only three—or, according to some authorities, five—disputes are recorded between Hillel and Shammai themselves. However, with time the differences between their respective schools multiplied, to the point that hundreds of disputes between them are recorded in the
Talmud. The split between them was so deep that, according to the Talmud, "the
Torah became like two Torahs". The matters they debated included: • Admission to
Torah study: Beit Shammai believed only worthy students should be admitted to study Torah. Beit Hillel believed that Torah may be taught to anyone, in the expectation that they will repent and become worthy. •
White lies: Whether one should tell an ugly bride she is beautiful. Beit Shammai said it was wrong to lie, and Beit Hillel said that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day. •
Divorce: Beit Shammai held that a man may divorce his wife for only a serious transgression, but Beit Hillel allowed divorce for even trivial offenses, such as burning a meal. •
Hanukkah: Beit Shammai held that, on the first night, eight lights should be lit, and then one should decrease the number on each successive night, ending with one on the last night. In contrast, Beit Hillel held that one should start with one light and increase the number on each night, ending with eight. Beit Hillel's rationale is that, as a general rule in
Halakha, one increases holiness, rather than decreasing. Beit Shammai's opinion was based on the halachic principle that allows one to derive law using similarities. The
Sukkot Temple sacrifices involved 70
bullocks, reducing by one each day from 13 down to 7. •
Tu Bishvat: Beit Hillel holds that the
new year for trees is on the 15th of the Jewish month of
Shevat. Beit Shammai says it is on the 1st of Shevat. Beit Hillel's opinion is now accepted, and the new year is commonly known as Tu Bishvat (literally "15th of Shevat"). • Forgetting to say grace after meals: Beit Shammai says that one who forgot to say
Birkat Hamazon, and had left where one ate, should return to that place to recite Birkat Hamazon. Beit Hillel says that one should recite Birkat Hamazon in the place where one realizes one's omission. • The
Jerusalem Talmud (
Hagigah 2) brings a dispute concerning whether the laying of hands (
semikhah) upon one's sacrificial animal with applied force is permitted to do on a
Festival day. A division arose between the houses of Hillel and Shammai—the one permitting it, the other forbidding it. The adherents to Hillel's teaching, who permit the laying on of hands, declared: : :"Any coal that does not catch afire at the start [of lighting the coals], it will no longer catch afire [when it is lit a second time]." This means that if individuals are to be saved from errors as life progresses, they must be set on the proper course from the very outset. If not, they will persist in their errors. •
Shema: Beit Shammai's opinion is that one says the Shema lying down in the evening and standing up in the morning. Beit Hillel says anyone can say it in any position they prefer. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are, respectively, the eighth and ninth most frequently mentioned
halakhic authorities in the
Mishnah.
Discussion In general, Beit Shammai's positions were stricter than those of Beit Hillel. It was said that "the school of Shammai
binds; the school of Hillel
looses". On the few occasions when the opposite was true, Beit Hillel would sometimes later recant its position. Similarly, though there are no records of Beit Shammai as a whole changing its stance, a few individuals from Beit Shammai are recorded as deserting a particular stringent opinion of the school in favor of Beit Hillel's opinion. The final law almost always coincides with Beit Hillel, not because it constituted the majority, but because Beit Hillel studied the view of its opponents and a divine voice (
bat kol) was heard in
Yavne declaring a general rule of practice. As stated in a notable Talmudic
sugya, "
Elu ve-elu, these and those are the words of the living God, but the
Halakhah follows the School of Hillel" (
Eruvin 13b). Accordingly,
Halakha was decided in favor of Beit Hillel since it was agreeable and forebearing (or, more literally, piteous). Not only did it teach Beit Shammai's teachings, but it cited it before its own. The ruling in accordance with the teachings of Hillel was also intended to bring conformity to Jewish practices. Later in the
elu ve-elu passage (
Eruvin 13b) a disagreement is mentioned between the two schools, on whether it would have been more suitable () for humankind to have been created or not to have been created, with the school of Shammai taking the position that it would have been preferable if humankind had not been created. The passage then says something which seems to imply that the position of the school of Shammai was accepted ). Modern
Rabbinic Judaism almost invariably follows the teachings of Hillel, but there are several notable exceptions. The
Mishna lists 18 matters in which the
Halakha was decided in favor of Beit Shammai. According to one opinion in the Talmud, while
Halakha follows Beit Hillel, one may choose to follow either Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai as long as one does so consistently. However, if one follows the leniencies of both schools, one is considered evil. In contrast, if one follows the stringencies of both schools, the verse "The fool walks in darkness" is applied to one. According to Rabbi
Isaac Luria, in the future
Messianic Age,
Halakha will follow Beit Shammai rather than Beit Hillel. ==History==