|
Updated: 2021.07.15
Hi•leilꞋ Sr., "the Babylonian" (born during the 4th Zūg, c. BCE 65, in Bâ•vëlꞋ – died 10 CE in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim)
Hi•leilꞋ migrated as an impoverished young anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•iꞋ to YᵊhūdꞋâh during the 4th generation of the ZūgꞋōt, which operated the Hellenist Sanhedrin in the post-BCE 175 Hellenized era—under the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "priests" of the Hellenized "Temple"; themselves under the rule of the Hellenist Seleucid Sātrap (and later Hellenist Romans).
Hi•leilꞋ studied his way to become the anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•iꞋ Av Beit Din—serving as deputy to the anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Sha•maiꞋ Sr., who began the last Zūg as Nâ•siꞋ.
Demonstrating his superior skills in legal logic, translating the legal thinking that he had learned from the previous (4th generation) Zūg into contemporary law, Hi•leilꞋ won overwhelming support in the Sanhedrin to be appointed, c. BCE 28, the first anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•iꞋ Nâ•siꞋ, breaking the monopolistic grip of the anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ to assert anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•iꞋ control of the Sanhedrin for the first time—ending the קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ-Sha•maiꞋ Sr. ZūgꞋōt control of the Sanhedrin.
| Birth/Death | Tenure As Nâ•siꞋ | Name |
|---|---|---|
| b. BCE 50 – d. 15 CE | BCE ?? – BCE 28 CE | Sha•maiꞋ Sr., began as the Anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nâ•siꞋ in the Anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Sanhedrin of the Last Zūg; After losing control of the Sanhedrin in BCE 28, he began as the first Anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Av Beit Din (Deputy Justice) in Anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•iꞋ Sanhedrin |
| b. c. BCE 65 - d. c. 10 C.E. | BCE 28 & & –10 CE | Hi•leilꞋ Sr., "the Babylonian"; began as the Anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•iꞋ Av Beit Din (Deputy Justice) in the Anti-Hellenist קַנָּאִי Ōs•inꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Sanhedrin of the Last Zūg; He won control of the Sanhedrin c BCE 28, becoming the 1st Anti-Hellenist Pᵊrush•iꞋ Nâ•siꞋ. |
| b. c. BCE 34 - d. c. 41 CE; | c. 10 CE – c 12 CE CE | Shi•mᵊōnꞋ Bën-Hi•leilꞋ; 1st generation (of 6) of Tan•â•imꞋ (Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ) |
| b. c. BCE 25 – d. c. 50 CE | c. 12 CE – 50 CE | Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr. Bën-Shi•mᵊōnꞋ (Bën-Hi•leilꞋ) |
| b. c. BCE 10 – d. 70 CE | c. 50 CE – 70 CE | Shi•mᵊōnꞋ Bën-Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr. |
| b. c. 06 CE – d. c. 80 CE | c. 70 CE – c. 80 CE | Rab•ãnꞋ Yō•khãn•ãnꞋ Bën-Za•kaiꞋ; 1st generation (of 6) of Tan•â•imꞋ (Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ) |
| b. c. 45 CE – d. c. 115 CE | c. 80 CE – c. 115 CE | Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Jr. dᵊYaꞋvᵊn•ëh Bën-Shi•mᵊōnꞋ (Bën-Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr.); decreed c. 80 CE: "Wherever Beit Sha•maiꞋ conflicts with Beit Hi•leilꞋ is not Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ" (Ma•sëkꞋët Bᵊrâkh•ōtꞋ 36b; Ma•sëkꞋët Beitz•âhꞋ 11b; Ma•sëkꞋët Yᵊvâm•ōtꞋ 9a) — and whoever acts contrary to the views of Beit Hi•leilꞋ deserves death. ( Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ Ma•sëkꞋët Bᵊrâkh•ōtꞋ 1.7, 3b; et al.)! 2nd generation (of 6) of Tan•â•imꞋ (Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ) |
| – | 115 CE – 135 CE – c. 142 | – |
| b. c. 114 CE – d. c. 90 | c. 142 CE – 165 CE | Rab•ânꞋ Shi•mᵊōnꞋ Bën-Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Jr.; 3rd generation (of 6) of Tan•â•imꞋ (Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ) |
| b. c. 145 CE – d. c. 217 CE | c. 165 CE — 220 CE | RabꞋi YᵊhūdꞋâh ha-Nâ•siꞋ Ben-Shi•mᵊōnꞋ (Bën-Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Jr.), 5th generation (of 6) of Tan•â•imꞋ (Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ), editor of the Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ in 189 CE |
Hi•leilꞋ served as Nâ•siꞋ for the rest of his life (died 10 C.E.—when Yᵊho•shūꞋa Bën-Yō•seiphꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ was ≈17.
Born BCE 0007.05.29, Yᵊhō•shūꞋa's Bar-Mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ was in 6 CE (13 = -7 to +6)—4 years before the death of Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian". Thus, the account of his Bar-Mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim (Λουκαν-כֵּיפָא 24.1-52) takes place 5 years before the death of Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian". Ergo, it appears that he studied under Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" for 4 years before studying under Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr.) He was granted sᵊmikh•âhꞋ (by one or both) as RibꞋi (as distinct from the inferior sᵊmikh•âhꞋ of "rabbi" for immigrant "rabbis").
Having spent an unspecified part of his childhood in Egypt,
While the yō•khas•inꞋ documented that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shūꞋa, was an heir, both paternally and maternally, to Beit-Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋëkh, no yō•khas•inꞋ survived of Hi•leilꞋ Sr. and his sons, who were reportedly only maternally descended from the Royal Beit-Dâ•widꞋ!
Because of his rabbinic credentials from both Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" and Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr., as well as his yō•khas•inꞋ proof that he was of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ, he became the prime target of both the Hellenist Roman occupiers and their Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ poser-"Priest" sycophants in the defiled "Temple".
Hi•leilꞋ Sr. was the Minority Pᵊrush•iꞋ Complement who, paired with the Majority Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ Sha•maiꞋ Sr. Complement, comprised "The Last Zūg" (succeeded by the Tan•â•imꞋ (Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ).
Additionally, Hi•leilꞋ Sr. was also the grandfather of Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr.—who came to the aid of the Nᵊtzōr•imꞋ when they were being persecuted by the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ.
Since RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa's family trip to Yᵊru•shō•laꞋyim in celebration of his Bar-Mi•tzᵊwōhꞋ (turning 13) occurred in 0006 C.E. (which was also probably the first year after "the child grew-up" and the family had returned from Egypt). That means that when he missed his caravan back home to Nâ•tzᵊr•atꞋ with his parents because he was studying in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdōshꞋ, he was studying under Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian"!!! Moreover, his intellectual maturity at his Bar-Mi•tzᵊwōhꞋ suggests that he had previously studied while in Egypt—and that (thanks to the gifts from the Persian astrologers), since in those days young boys apprenticed early as a ta•lᵊmidꞋ, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was probably educated at the greatest university for its time in all of world history: The Great Musaeum of Alexandria.
The first extant recorded name associated with the bread-meat-dip-greens combo is the kâ•rikhꞋ of Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian"! (born c. BCE 70 in Bâ•vëlꞋ, died 10 CE in Yᵊru•shō•laꞋyim). A priori, he referred to lëkhꞋëm Bâ•vᵊl•iꞋ, today called "Iraqi pita". 
Several centuries after:
the death of Hi•leilꞋ Sr. (maternally of the House of David;)
the Roman execution of his protégé, RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa;
the "epiphany" of the Apostate Paul with his founding of the first Christian Churches in Roman Turkey,
the Roman destruction of the Hellenized Temple of Herod and yō•khas•inꞋ of the kō•han•imꞋ with the consequent cessation of sacrifices;
the Nasi proves that the practice of eating grilled, broiled or flame-roasted, non-sacrifice, yearling goat-kid or yearling lamb at the Pesakh Seider throughout Israel in the commemorative family Seider. Cattle was also sacrificed in temple but we haven't stopped eating cattle—or lamb or goat. Hence, destruction of the Beit haMiqdash justifies only skipping the sacrifice, not skipping the eating of lamb or goat at Pesakh entirely, entirely corrupting Hileil's practice until today wherever there are 2 Jews there are at least 3-4 interpetations of the 2nd dipping.
The name, Hi•leilꞋ, derived from the root הַלֵּל, which is also the root of הַלְלוּיָה, הִלּוּלָה and תְּהִלִּים.
Recognized as "the greatest of the sages of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ period", Hi•leilꞋ was the founder of the tolerant, Beit Hi•leilꞋ Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ school of interpreting Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ—in contrast to the strict, exclusivist-elite, fence-building Pᵊrush•imꞋ school founded by Sham•aiꞋ.
"Many of the halakhot and tannaitic controversies dating from the generation of Jabneh (c. 70 c.e.) are probably, and a large number are explicitly, based on the views of Bet Hillel which were adopted as the halakhah in opposition to those of Bet Shammai" [https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bet-hillel-and-bet-shammai]
Hileil v Shamai
Much info in wake of Roman destruction of "Temple". Syrian-Hellenist Tzedoqim anti-Roman (who were also Hellenists); both contrasted with anti-Hellenist Perushim. It is well known that the Perushim preferred "coexistence at a distance" with the Romans. Before destruction, argued in Temple court, the 18 Measures of Beit Shamai increasing barriers between Jews & Romans were, a priori, Tzedoqim. [(tj, Shab. 1:7, 3c; and parallel passages)]
Beit Shamai / Tzedoqim included Idumeans "According to a genizah fragment of Sifrei Zuta on Ḥukkat (Tarbiz, 1 (1930), 52)", Men. 18a, Jos., Wars, 2:566;
At Jabneh, in the generation after the destruction of the Temple, Bet Hillel gained the ascendancy (first–second century), whereupon the halakhah was laid down according to Bet Hillel. It was then stated that the possibility of making a choice between the two schools applied only "before a *bat kol [heavenly voice] went forth, but once a bat kol went forth, the halakhah was always according to Bet Hillel, and whoever acted contrary to the views of Bet Hillel deserved death. It was taught: A bat kol went forth and declared, 'The halakhah is according to the words of Bet Hillel.' Where did the bat kol go forth?… At Jabneh" (tj, Ber. 1:7, 3b; and parallel passages). The determination of the halakhah according to Bet Hillel was probably not accomplished in a single act but was rather a process that continued during the entire Jabneh period, commencing with Johanan b. Zakkai, soon after the destruction of the Temple (70) and ending with the death of Rabban Gamaliel before the Bar Kokhba war (c. 135).
In the amoraic period the halakhah of Bet Hillel was accepted in the schools of the amoraim who declared: "The opinion of Bet Shammai when it conflicts with that of Bet Hillel is no Mishnah" (Ber. 36b, et al.).
Qabalah denies history: "in the future (i.e., the world to come) the halakhah will be according to Bet Shammai (Zohar, Ra'aya Meheimna 3:245a; Moses b. Menahem (Graft) Sefer va-Yakhel Moshe 2 (1699))."
[still https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bet-hillel-and-bet-shammai]
Methodology: Perushi Hileil big-picture semiotic logic applied to principles of jurisprudence versus Syria-Hellenist "Temple" Tzedoqi Shamai mechanical keyhole literalness, having more in common with the Beit ha-Miqdash Osin of the DSS. [still https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/bet-hillel-and-bet-shammai]
Fences: Perushi Hileil minimalists, Tzedoqi Shamai maximalists
Interpretation: Perushi Hileil logic of principles, Tzedoqi Shamai unquestioning literalism
Philosophical Orientation: Hileil sees best in humankind, Tzedoqi Shamai sees worst in humankind
Hi•leilꞋ was the principle leader of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ contingent in the Beit-Din ha-
Jâ•dōlꞋ, which, until c. 30 C.E., was controlled by the Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ—who had, while they retained control, found common ground in bolstering the self-shackling Beit Sha•maiꞋ. Thus, during the tenure of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ in Roman-occupied YᵊhūdꞋâh, the stricter views of Sham•aiꞋ prevailed (though only within the Pᵊrush•imꞋ community of Jews; clearly not among the Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Jews).By the time of the destruction in 70 C.E., however, the more intelligent and logical views of Beit Hi•leilꞋ regarding “big tent” protectiveness of original principles toward adverse opinions, had prevailed for 4 decades and thereafter.
Changes in the world environment have repeatedly proven terminal to large segments, or even entire species, of populations that lack some previously unappreciated DNA. Like undefined rare DNA, the same holds true for diverse opinions, which may not seem correct or acceptable presently, but ultimately could prove correct in future; providing the sole—previously uncomprehended and unappreciated—explanation that averts extinction of entire belief systems. Advances in world knowledge dooms religions dependent upon a divine-son prophet, a prophet riding a Pegasus from Mecca to Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim overnight or Bronze Age (much less Dark Age) premises. Ex falso quodlibet. הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus).
 |
|
 |