Updated: 2025.01.22
By the 1st C.E. the Hellenist-Greek Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ had codified their Hellenist-Greek Interpretive Tradition in their Hellenist-Greek Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν (Book of Dogma). Thus, all of the 3 major min•imꞋ of the 1st century C.E. maintained and respected their own Tradition of interpreting Ta•na"khꞋ (Scripture, Bible)!
However, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ continued to transmit their Interpretive Tradition by oral repetition and memory.
Thus, it is inaccurate and false to generalize from the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Literalists' anthropomorphic & mystic supernaturalist rejection of Pᵊrush•imꞋ rational/logical reality Interpretive Tradition that they rejected Interpretive Tradition wholly, simply because their rival Pᵊrush•imꞋ Interpretive Tradition happened to still be transmitted via "oral" repetition (enabling continuing interpretation) instead of codified (fixed) in a book.
Centuries later, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ codified their "Oral Law" as well: c. 200 CE Mi•shᵊn•âhꞋ, c. 400 CE Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ, and c. 500 CE Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bâ•vᵊl•iꞋ. Yet, no one claims, based on this, that the Pᵊrush•imꞋ rejected Oral Law!!!
of Beit Sha•maiꞋ Sr.Some have cited the 18 גְּזִירוֹת the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. with tunnel-vision; viewing them as an anti-Roman manifesto to pursue an agenda of distancing themselves from the Romans. However, this flies in the face of overwhelming documentation of fact. First, the 18 גְּזִירוֹת merely stipulate the literalist interpretive tradition of the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. relative to punishments; e.g. an eye for an eye literally (rather than metaphorically as the Pᵊrush•imꞋ interpreted it); i.e. which criminals should be stoned, which burned, which beheaded and which hung from a tree, etc. A fortiori, the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ rule depended upon their collaboration with their Hellenist Roman-patron occupiers, who backed the aristocratic kō•han•imꞋ-priesthood religious hierocracy cum hagiocracy of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. over Pᵊrush•imꞋ Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ only so long as they kept the Roman Province of YᵊhūdꞋâh in line with Roman requirements.
The Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ were a paternally-racist, Hellenist-assimilated, Roman-sycophant, hierocracy of priests (and wealthy Hellenist aristocrats) ruling over the Pᵊrush•imꞋ (Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ) in the Roman Province of YᵊhūdꞋâh.
The advocacy of Beit Sha•maiꞋ Sr. for imposing kᵊhūn•âhꞋ ritual purity on all of Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ has occasionally been misrepresented as measures to distance all Jews from Romans. But the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ dependence on the patronization of their Roman overlords for their own dominance in the Συνέδριον over the Pᵊrush•imꞋ betrays the fallacy of the misrepresentation.
On the other hand, the insatiable drive of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. for absolute rule over Pᵊrush•imꞋ Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ—which we still witness today among the advocates of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr.—was intractably incompatible with Roman rule. This inherent conflict inexorably exploded in 70 CE, and again in 135 CE… and must inevitably and repeatedly explode for as long as advocacy for Beit Sha•maiꞋ, Sr. is tolerated by Pᵊrush•imꞋ Beit Hi•leilꞋ Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
Kᵊhūn•âhꞋ (& Lᵊwiy•imꞋ) ritual purity codes, continuing relevancy?
Why would they be imposed on all of Am Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ in any event?
Whether they even remained appropriate for a Hellenized (i.e. defiled, non-kosher) "Temple" or Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ at all?
Still later, after the destruction of the (defiled) Hellenized-"Temple", how could "Temple"-dependent purity codes have any relevancy at all, even to Hellenist (i.e. non-kosher) Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "kō•han•imꞋ"?
Dissimilar Systems Of Interpretation, Polemics & Apologetics:
Pᵊrush•iꞋ Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" — big-picture semiotic logic applied to principles of jurisprudence, versus
Syrian-Hellenist "Temple" Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ Sha•maiꞋ Sr. — insisted on a literal interpretation of the Written Law; consequently, they did not believe in an after life, since it is not mentioned in the Torah.
"take away Fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men's own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in the Underworld." Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 2.162-166 [https://www.livius.org/articles/people/sadducees/].
simplistic mechanical-literal, Hellenist "Temple"-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ kō•han•icꞋ Unquestioned, Religious-Rulership Tradition! (which Hellenist "Temple" Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ perverted from their Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ Ōs•inꞋ kō•han•imꞋ forbears documented in the DSS).
Philosophical Orientation:
Pᵊrush•iꞋ Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" — respecting persons as equals and motivating best in human individuals, versus
Syrian-Hellenist "Temple" Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ Sha•maiꞋ Sr. — priestly-patronizing assumed arrogance of rulership over inferiors, increasingly limiting ("fencing") people collectively, geared to worst in humankind
Expanding Fences Around Tōr•âhꞋ:
Hi•leilꞋ v Sha•maiꞋ ≡ Pᵊrush•imꞋ v Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, exactly matching the contention in each of the 5 categories!
In the wake of the Pᵊrush•imꞋ wresting dominance over the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ in the Συνέδριον by Hi•leilꞋ Sr. "the Babylonian" as Nâ•siꞋ c. 10 CE, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ of 25-30 CE were increasingly required by their Roman patrons to demonstrate their wished-for continued, but long-gone, indispensableness to the Roman occupiers. Despite numerous attempts of entrapment by the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ to quash the growing wave of Pᵊrush•imꞋ dominance, the Pᵊrush•imꞋ preferred to "return to Caesar things that are for Caesar… and to Ël•ōh•imꞋ things that are for Ël•ōh•imꞋ"; as famously enunciated by the firebrand ta•lᵊmidꞋ granted sᵊmikh•ãhꞋ by Hi•leilꞋ Sr. and Tan•âꞋ Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr.—RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa.
The Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ desperation soon culminated in an all-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ (Beit Sha•maiꞋ) kangaroo court, unprecedentedly convened at night and on a holy day, relying on the perjuries of false witnesses, to convict RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa of sedition against Roman rule (not any Scriptural trespass) and then, with the allowance of the Roman Provincial Governor of YᵊhūdꞋâh, Pontius Pilate, at the behest of the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ (Beit Sha•maiꞋ), the Roman soldiers crucified him.
In the face of growing Roman suppression leading up to the destruction of the Hellenist-Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Hellenized "Temple", the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ had lost the confidence of the Israelis due to their complicity with their increasingly harsh Hellenist Roman patron-occupiers. This was exacerbated by their having cooperated with the Romans in railroading RibꞋi Yᵊhō•shūꞋa (Pᵊrush•imꞋ never held Beit Din at night nor on a holy day), who had been a wildly popular Pᵊrush•iꞋ firebrand among the Pᵊrush•imꞋ citizenry, into a Roman crucifixion based on false charges).
After the destructions of 70 CE and 135 CE, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, who had ruled the Συνέδριον from the first Zūg•ōtꞋ, the names of the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nᵊsiy•imꞋ, although they are known and documented, were replaced by a reference to their Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν—The סְפַר גְזֵירָתָא (Hebrew: סֵפֶר גְזֵירוֹת ), excerpted in The 18 גְּזִירוֹת, which happens 
to be a Hebrew synonym of בְּתֵירָא!!! Thus, the phrase "sons of Bathyra" merely means "group members" of the Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν—in other words, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ; and "Elders of Bathyra" are the same!
Recognizing that these phrases refer to previous—Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Nᵊsiy•imꞋ, of the Συνέδριον resolves all of the multiple enigmas reported by—created by—the entire gamut of Jewish and Christian historians.
The determination of the pristine original Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ of the Beit Din hã-Gã•dōlꞋ (convened in the Temple Yᵊhō•shūꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzã•dōqꞋ ha-Kō•heinꞋ hã-RãshꞋã הַכֹּהֵן הָרָשָׁע (Hellenized to Jason) ','#dfefff', 260)"; onMouseout="hideddrivetip()"> of Herod ha-Ë•dōm•iꞋ, which was that of Beit Hi•leilꞋ ha-Nãs•iꞋ, "was probably not accomplished in a single act but was rather a process that continued during the entire YaꞋvᵊn•ëh period, commencing with Rab•ãnꞋ Yō•khãn•ãnꞋ Bën-Za•kaiꞋ, soon after the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) and ending with the death of Rab•ãnꞋ Ja•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr. before the Bar-KōkhꞋvã war (c. 135 CE).
The destruction of the "Temple" left the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ-kō•han•imꞋ with only their previously-secondary base: the Συνέδριον, thereby ushering in the dualing [sic] rule of the Zūg•ōtꞋ; a rulership of dualing [sic] interpretations—"The one Law has become two laws" (Tō•sëphꞋᵊtã Khag•aiꞋ 2.9; Ma•sëkꞋët Συνέδριον 88b; Ma•sëkꞋët Sōt•ãhꞋ 47b).
"At [YaꞋvᵊn•ëh, in the generation after the destruction of the Temple, [Beit Hi•leilꞋ (i.e. Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ) cemented their] ascendancy (1ˢᵗ–2ⁿᵈ century [CE]), whereupon the [Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ] was laid down according to [Beit Hi•leilꞋ (i.e. Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ)]. It was then stated that the possibility of making a choice between the two schools applied only "before a [bat kōl ] went forth, but once a [bat kōl] went forth, the [Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ] was always according to [Beit Hi•leilꞋ], and whoever acted contrary to the views of [Beit Hi•leilꞋ] deserved מִיתָה . It was taught: A [bat kōl] went forth and declared, 'The Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ is according to the words of [Beit Hi•leilꞋ].' Where did the [bat kōl] go forth?… At [YaꞋvᵊn•ëh]" (Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ, Ma•sëkꞋët Bᵊrãkh•ōtꞋ 1.4; and parallel passages)". This decree was final throughout all of the succeeding Nãs•imꞋ of the Συνέδριον, in YaꞋvᵊn•ëh, to 70 CE: Shi•mᵊōnꞋ Bën-Hi•leil´, Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ, Sr. (ha-Za•qeinꞋ), Shi•mᵊōnꞋ Bën-Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ, Jr.
The post-70 CE, post-Συνέδριον Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bâ•vᵊl•iꞋ, edited by Beit Sha•maiꞋ, documents their change of course—into kã•ræt´.
In the Õmōr•ãꞋic period the Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ of Beit Hi•leilꞋ was accepted in the schools of the Õmōr•ãꞋyim, who declared: "The opinion of Beit Sha•maiꞋ, when it conflicts with that of Beit Hi•leilꞋ is no Mi•shᵊn•ãhꞋ" ( Ma•sëkꞋët Bᵊrãkh•ōtꞋ 36b, et al.)!
This includes the idolatries of anthropomorphism and irrational supernatural mysticism (e.g., Qa•bãl•ãhꞋ & ZōꞋhar) that arises from the Literalist Interpretive Methodology of Beit Sha•maiꞋ (the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ).
Qa•bãl•ãhꞋ's Bible, the ZōꞋhar, is an intractable contradiction of YaꞋvᵊn•ëh: "In the future (i.e., the world to come) the Ha•lãkh•ãhꞋ will be according to Beit Sha•maiꞋ"!
Contrary to the pneumati-nocti-xeno-stitious ZōꞋhar—more than a millennium later, advocacy of Beit Sha•maiꞋ has, since YaꞋvᵊn•ëh, carried a spiritual death sentence!!!
At YaꞋvᵊn•ëh, the intelligent methodology of logical interpretation of pristine Original Principles by Beit Hi•leilꞋ had irreversibly prevailed; inclusive and welcoming “big tent” logic, protective of diverse logical (scientific) explorative discussion and advancements. The pivotal advantage of the Beit Hi•leilꞋ logical (scientific) method over the Beit Sha•maiꞋ (Temple Kohanic) dead-end "Tradition!" method (personified in Tuvya the Milkman of Fiddler on the Roof), is that only the Beit Hi•leilꞋ logical (scientific) methodology adopts and produces advances in science and technology, remaining apace in our הָעוֹלָם הִשְׁתַּנָּה (mundus mutatus)!
The Beit Sha•maiꞋ methodology guarantees ossification, obsolescence, irrelevance, intractable internal conflict and extinction!
When one fully digests that Sha•maiꞋ Sr. was the Tzᵊdōq•iꞋ, Nãs•iꞋ-Complement of the Last Zūg, that is the critical context that frames the discussion for objective researchers to peer through the 5 th century CE rabbinic rewrite (reform) of the debates between "Hillel & Shammai".
The earliest and most pristine accounts of the debates within "The Last Zūg", and the continuing debates between Beit Hi•leilꞋ and Beit Sha•maiꞋ, are documented in the Tō•sëphꞋᵊtã, where the original debaters are manifestly and unambiguously defined as Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ v Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ (the Hellenized offspring of the extinct Ōs•inꞋ).
This definition is corroborated and confirmed in the Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Yᵊrū•sha•lᵊm•iꞋ (c 400 CE) framing the debate as between "our Rabbis" (the Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ) in contrast to the contemporary Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Khã•kham•imꞋ —being "those in the [Hellenized] Temple Court"; the precinct of the Hellenized kō•han•imꞋTzᵊdōq•imꞋ; i.e. Beit Sha•maiꞋ!
Thus, when the Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ had consolidated sole power (starting in BCE 28 when Hi•leilꞋ ha-Za•qeinꞋ, "the Babylonian" became the first Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ Nãs•iꞋ) over the Beit Din hã-Jã•dōlꞋ in YaꞋvᵊn•ëh, however, the Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ "blotted out" the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ from their (Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ) rabbinic history in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bã•vᵊl•iꞋ (c 500 CE), rewriting subsequent rabbinic history to recharacterize it as an exclusively internal Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ debate among Rabãn•ãnꞋ often contrasted against otherwise uncharacterized Khã•khãm•imꞋ!
Thus, the 5th century CE Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ Bã•vᵊl•iꞋ frames events recounting the 1st century CE as they led up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and subsequent exile of 135 CE. There became a dichotomous amalgamation of Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ absorbing a kō•han•imꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ component. Other Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ increasingly identified as "Herodian Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ", etc. (some of whom, e.g. "the House of Boethus" and "Herodian Pharisees", were even Roman-collaborators, bitterly criticized in Ta•lᵊmūdꞋ), increasingly seen simply as "Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ", to become an amalgamated party of heterogeneous, increasingly polarizing new Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ!!! Thus, the Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ, who were mostly kō•han•imꞋ, were thusly absorbed into rabbinic history, encouraging the assumption that Beit Sha•maiꞋ Khã•khãm•imꞋ were also "Our Rabbis" (i.e. Pᵊrūsh•imꞋ)! These two "Houses" of "Jews" can be tracked down to today's Jewish community; no less conflicted—but both far more distant from the Tōr•ãhꞋ of YaꞋvᵊn•ëh.
Pay it forward (Quote & Cite):
| Yirmeyahu Ben-David. Zug 5: Hileil & Shamai (2025.01.22). Netzarim Jews Worldwide (Ra'anana, Israel). https://www.netzarim.co.il/ (Accessed: MM DD, YYYY). |
 |
 |
 |