Avot051

1:
The introduction to our present mishnah – standard fare in this chapter so far – is, in fact, the clearest proof that it should not be understood at its face value. The phrasing that one pair of sages received the oral tradition from a previous pair of sages leaves us with the impression of an unbroken chain of tradition. In his introduction to his monumental halakhic work, Mishneh Torah, Rambam says quite clearly that the chain of tradition goes back

But we have seen on several occasions so far that there have been gaps in the succession of generations, sometimes of several decades. Our present mishnah presents Hillel and Shammai as being the direct recipients of the tradition from Shemayah and Avtalyon. From the historical point of view it is quite certain that Hillel (and probably Shammai too) did, indeed, study at the feet of Shemayah and Avtalyon. But our sources describe for us how Hillel became the President of the Sanhedrin, quite some time after the deaths of Shemayah and Avtalyon; and our sources also make clear that Shammai was a second choice as Hillel's "running mate", and only became President of the Court after a certain Menaĥem had "left" in circumstances shrouded in mystery [Mishnah Ĥagigah 2:2]. (Probably he entered the service of King Herod.)

2:
If we were to make a list of the ten sages who changed forever the course of the development of traditional Judaism Hillel would certainly be among them. Indeed, if we were to compile a list of the five sages who must be considered the most prominent in their unique contribution to the development of the oral tradition Hillel would be one of them. Hillel towers above many of his predecessors and many of his successors. Among his predecessors we would have to go back to Simon the Righteous to find a sage whose contribution was comparable, and he lived 300 years before Hillel.

3:
Hillel was the first of the great sages who was not born in Eretz-Israel. He hailed from the great Jewish community in Babylon (what is now Iraq). We must remember that when Cyrus the Great gave permission to the Jewish exiles in Babylon to return home and rebuild their national and religious institutions only about 50,000 people availed themselves of the offer, and the returning exiles left behind them in Babylon a much larger number of brothers and sisters who preferred the life in the world's greatest metropolis to the rigours and difficulties of rebuilding Jewish life in the Holy Land. This was some five hundred years before the time of Hillel, and in the meantime Babylonian Jewry had continued to flourish and develop. The Jews of Babylon recognized the superiority of Eretz-Israel in most religious matters, though in some matters they considered themselves to be superior. One such matter was the leadership of the Babylonian diaspora: the head of the community, the Exilarch as he was called, was always a direct descendent of Yehoyakhin the last surviving king of Judah. Thus the Exilarchs in Babylon claimed direct descent from King David – and that made them, at least in their own eyes, superior to both the Hasmonean and the Herodian rulers in Eretz-Israel.

4:
Hillel also claimed descent from King David, though he could never claim the right to the Davidic throne since he traced his Davidic descent back through the maternal line only. The Gemara [Sotah 21a] tell us that his family were merchants, but the young Hillel wanted to study Torah and the best place to do that was in Eretz-Israel. According to the Gemara [Shabbat 15a] Hillel was already famous in Eretz-Israel one hundred years before the destruction of the Bet Mikdash. This should probably be taken as intending to indicate that he assumed the presidency of the Sanhedrin around the year 30 BCE. According to a rather artificial biographical arrangement given in a midrash [Sifré, Berakhah 16] Hillel's presidency lasted for 40 years. At any rate, he must have been the religious leader of Israel for several decades, and probably died around the year 10 CE, maybe a little later.

To be continued.

In Avot048, in response to a query from Gregory Ashe, I mentioned yet again Rambam's clear injunction that it is forbidden to gain material benefits from teaching and administering Torah. Jacob Chinitz has referred me to another statement of Rambam which could be understood as having a different implication. I am very grateful to Jacob for raising this very interesting question. He refers me to Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shemittah Veyovel, 13:13. Rather than give this our cursory attention at this stage I have decided to hold the issue over and to give it detailed attention when we reach Avot 4:5.