Tag Archives: Samaritans

Understanding Resurrection of the Dead

‘The Vision of the Valley of the Dry Bones’ by Gustav Doré

One of the fundamental principles of Jewish belief is in Techiyat haMetim, a future Resurrection of the Dead. The Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, 1138-1204) enumerated it among the 13 Principles of Faith that every Jew must believe in. He based it mainly on the famous Mishnah that opens the tenth chapter of the tractate Sanhedrin. It begins by stating that every member of the nation of Israel has a share in the World to Come, and then goes on to give several exceptions to the rule—those who forfeit their share. The first is anyone who holds “there is no Resurrection of the Dead from the Torah”. In other words, a person who argues that the Resurrection of the Dead is not a legitimate Torah principle. Such a person is a heretic and forfeits their share in the World to Come. The big question is: do we actually see anywhere in the Torah that there is a reference to the Resurrection of the Dead? The Talmud (starting on Sanhedrin 90b) gives numerous possibilities, most of them indirect derivations, before giving us one place in the Torah that does directly allude to the Resurrection of the Dead. This special verse is in this week’s parasha, Ha’azinu.

In the song of Ha’azinu, Moses quotes God as declaring: “See now that I, I am the One; There is no god beside Me. I deal death and give life; I wounded and I will heal: None can deliver from My hand.” (Deuteronomy 32:39) The order of words is significant: God did not say that He gives life and then puts to death, but rather that He puts to death and then He gives life! Thus, those that have died will be resurrected back to life. Some in the past disputed this interpretation, including the ancient Sadducees who did not believe in any afterlife. Recall that the Sadducees held strictly to the Law of Moses, to the Written Torah, and rejected the Oral Torah. They pointed to places in Tanakh that speak of She’ol, a repository for the lifeless dead, and quoted verses like “the dead do not praise God!” (Psalm 116:17) in support of their position. Interestingly, the Samaritans also believe only in the Torah, and reject even the Prophets and Ketuvim, yet they do believe in a Resurrection of the Dead based on our verse in Ha’azinu!

Once we look into the Prophets, we see numerous references of the future Resurrection. The first that is typically cited is Ezekiel’s Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37). In this episode, God took Ezekiel to a valley and raised up skeletons, asking the prophet if they could come back to life. Ezekiel replied that only God knows such things, and God proceeded to bring the bones back to life. In Rabbinic tradition, it is believed that these revived skeletons were a segment of the Tribe of Ephraim. Back in Egypt, the Israelites desperately awaited their salvation, and many believed the time of Redemption had come and gone. They miscalculated by 30 years, and a group of Ephraimites decided to take matters into their own hands and flee. Unfortunately, they didn’t make it and ended up dying (or being killed) in the Wilderness. It was these Ephraimites that God resurrected before Ezekiel’s eyes. This description is found in multiple places in Midrash (such as Yalkut Shimoni I, 226), and in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 92b). The same page of Talmud does offer an opinion that the Vision of the Dry Bones might only be metaphorical, or that it doesn’t necessarily imply a literal future resurrection of all the dead. It could just be highlighting God’s power to revive the dead in general, or even just an allegory for the restoration of Israel after destruction and exile. The contradiction is resolved by saying both are true: the Vision had metaphorical meaning, but it was also literally true!

Another place in Tanakh that is a clear source for Resurrection is Daniel’s statement that “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence.” (Daniel 12:2) Similarly, Isaiah stated “Oh, let Your dead revive! Let corpses arise! Awake and shout for joy, you who dwell in the dust. For Your dew is like the dew on fresh growth; You make the land of the spirits come to life.” (Isaiah 26:19) Here, Isaiah refers to a “dew” of resurrection, and mystical texts have much to say about this dew. One of the early Kabbalistic works, Sefer haPeliyah, says that it is the same dew that was used to revive the Israelites when they briefly “died” from the overwhelming Sinai Revelation. The Talmud (Chagigah 12b) says God keeps this special dew locked up in the highest of the Seven Heavens, the realm of ‘Aravot, alongside His Throne and chief angels like Seraphim and Ofanim. Elsewhere, the Talmud (Ketubot 111b) reads the verse above not as “dew on fresh growth” but as “dew of light”, since the exact words are tal orot. What is this light? It is the light of Torah, and therefore “Anyone who engages with the light of Torah, the light of Torah will revive him; and anyone who does not engage with the light of Torah, the light of Torah will not revive him.”

The Talmud here continues to say that all the righteous dead will resurrect specifically from Jerusalem, since it says in Psalms 72:16 that they shall “blossom out of the city like the grass of the earth”—and the city is none other than Jerusalem. The Zohar (II, 28b) adds that the future resurrection will begin from the indestructible luz bone. This bone will absorb the dew and become like dough, from which God will reform the body. Is there such a non-decomposing bone in the human body? As explored in depth before, scientifically speaking there is no such bone, and “luz” may actually refer to other things. It may even refer to Jerusalem itself, based on Jacob’s Vision in Genesis 28 which says the original name of the place was Luz. So, resurrecting from “Luz” may just mean that everyone will resurrect in Jerusalem!

Intriguingly, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan suggested that luz may be referring to DNA, and the Zohar might be saying that resurrection will be possible by taking a small remaining DNA sample and reviving from it the entire body. Today, scientists have indeed made major advances in DNA biotechnology, organ printing, and cloning that may make it possible. In fact, in another place the Zohar (I, 135a, Midrash haNe’elam) actually suggests this might be the case: “In the future time, the Holy One, blessed be He, will rejoice with the righteous, and will rest His Presence upon them, and all will rejoice with great joy… Said Rabbi Yehuda: the righteous are destined in that time to create worlds and resurrect the dead.” So, it will be the Tzadikim in the Messianic Age who will have the power to revive the dead! It remains to be seen whether this will be an entirely spiritual power, or whether it might involve the use of DNA technology.

Relatedly, advances in modern medicine and health are allowing us to dramatically increase lifespans. Isaiah prophesies that a time will come when a centenarian will be considered a “youth” (Isaiah 65:20). The ancient Book of Jubilees (Ch. 23) speaks of a time when man’s lifespan will return to that of Adam and the first generations, who lived nearly a millennium. In the future, each person will enjoy a thousand-year lifespan. This is probably related to the Talmudic and Midrashic statement that the Messianic Age will conclude by the year 6000, after which there will be a cosmic thousand-year Sabbath (see, for instance, Sanhedrin 97a). Based on Psalm 147:2-3, the Zohar (I, 139a, Midrash haNe’elam) gives a more detailed timeline: first Jerusalem will be rebuilt (arguably this has already happened), and then the Temple will be rebuilt, followed by the Ingathering of the Exiles, and only forty years after this will the Resurrection of the Dead begin.

Initially, all will be resurrected, including the wicked, except the pre-Flood generation (Yalkut Shimoni II, 429). Once everyone is resurrected, they will be judged and receive their due reward or punishment. This is also affirmed in the Talmud, in the famous discussion between Rabbi Yehuda haNasi and the Roman emperor Antoninus (Sanhedrin 91a-b). The latter questioned how God could judge a soul—which is pure and righteous—for the sins of the body, and how God could judge a body—which is just a hunk of matter and otherwise lifeless—for actions driven by the soul. Using a clever parable, Rabbi Yehuda explained how God will bring souls back into bodies and judge both together. (See also the Ramban in his Discourse on Rosh Hashanah, where he explains how Judgement Day will follow the Resurrection.)

The righteous will go on to enjoy their reward, as supported by another passage in Kiddushin 39b, which states the true reward for all mitzvot will be bestowed in the Era of Resurrection. This is the real definition of Olam HaBa, the “World to Come”, that our Sages speak of. While the term Olam HaBa is often used more ambiguously or in reference to other realms, it is really the era of reward here on Earth, when body and soul reunite. This is further supported by the Talmud in Ketubot 111b which says that in Olam HaBa, the yields of fruits and vegetables will multiple dramatically, and making wine will be effortless, with a single grape or cluster of grapes able to “produce no less than thirty jugs of wine”. This teaching is based on a verse in this week’s Ha’azinu, too.

Modern harvesting and winemaking technologies have already automated much of the process and simplified winemaking significantly, in fulfilment of Talmudic prophecy.

Another verse in this week’s parasha states that God’s Holy Land “atones for its people” (Deuteronomy 32:43). And so, there is a belief that those buried in the Holy Land have all their sins automatically wiped out. Rabbi Elazar takes it one step further and says only those buried in Israel will merit to be resurrected! The other Sages counter that this cannot be the case, and that anyone who at least “walked four cubits in the Land of Israel is assured a place in the World to Come”. However, we know that Resurrection can only take place in the Holy Land, so what will happen to all the bodies buried outside of Israel? God will miraculously make the corpses from all over the world “roll” through underground tunnels to Jerusalem! (Ketubot 111a)

The Talmud further tells us (both in Ketubot 111b and in Sanhedrin 90b) that people will be resurrected fully clothed. Rabbi Meir used a parable to explain this to Queen Cleopatra, saying that just as a “naked” kernel of wheat is buried in the ground and sprouts new wheat grains with several layers of chaff, so too will the righteous be resurrected covered up. Reish Lakish, meanwhile, uses two Scriptural verses to prove that people will initially be resurrected in the same state in which they died (blind, lame, etc.) but will then be miraculously healed. Since Adam and Eve were created as twenty-year-olds in the Garden of Eden (Beresheet Rabbah 14:7), it seems people will similarly take on the youthful bodies of a twenty-year-old.

The Zohar’s Midrash HaNe’elam cited above suggests that the process of Resurrection may last something like 200 years until all the righteous return. First will be revived the generation of the Exodus (Zohar III, 168b), along with the great Patriarchs and Prophets of old. Then all those who “drew water” from the wellsprings of Torah. Everyone else will follow, and all will eventually enjoy a millennium of peace and prosperity, with the ability to explore the farthest reaches of the universe and the highest heavens, and to truly marvel at all of God’s creations in the vast cosmos. It isn’t clear what will happen after that. Some envision a totally spiritual existence entirely devoid of the physical, perhaps for eternity (which is really hard to fathom). Others believe God will simply hit “reset” and a new Sabbatical cycle will begin, with civilization starting from the beginning all over again. Whatever the case, we must first usher in Mashiach and the Messianic Age, followed by the Era of Resurrection, and a millennium of Shabbat peace and reward. May we merit to see it soon.

Gmar chatima tova!

Things You Didn’t Know About Samaritans

In this week’s parasha, Ki Tavo, we read how God commanded that when the Israelites cross into the Holy Land, they should first make a stop upon two special mountains: Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval (Deuteronomy 27:12-13). The Tribes of Israel should split between the two mountains; six of them would set up on Mount Gerizim and six on Mount Eval. Then, a series of blessings would be proclaimed from atop Mount Gerizim, and a series of curses from atop Mount Eval. The people would answer “amen!” to signify their agreement. This would serve as one final reminder of their covenant with God before they settle down in their apportioned lands and get on with their new lives.

Har Gerizim in 1912

Today, that mountain of blessing, Mount Gerizim, is still venerated by the world’s last community of Samaritans, numbering less than 1000 people. About half of them live in the Israeli city of Holon, and the other half live around Mount Gerizim itself, in the village of Kiryat Luza, once part of the Biblical site of Shechem and currently the Palestinian town of Nablus (an Arabic corruption of the Roman title Neapolis). For the Samaritans, Mount Gerizim is the holiest place on Earth. They believe this is supposed to be the true location of the Holy Temple. They believe this is where Abraham bound Isaac during the Akedah. They believe this is the mountain upon which the Mishkan first rested, and where sacrifices to Hashem were originally brought. In other words, Gerizim is the Samaritan “Jerusalem”. Who, exactly, are the Samaritans? Continue reading

The 18 Decrees of Beit Shammai

In this week’s parasha, Re’eh, Moses cautions the Israelites that they should observe every Torah mitzvah that he relayed to them, and not to add or detract from it (Deuteronomy 13:1). This always brings to mind the question of Rabbinic additions, expansions, fences, and stringencies that have been added to Jewish practice over the centuries. In light of the above verse, are such extras valid? Karaite Jews would argue with a resounding “no”, and this is why they stick to a strictly literal observance of the Torah.

The reality is that the Torah does also allow for the leaders and sages of future generations to make new rulings as necessary. Generally speaking, tough, such rulings must be based on something in the Torah itself, and rabbis are only attempting to extract the Torah’s true meaning and practice. Talmudic opinions are almost always supported by a Scriptural verse, even if it sometimes takes a lot of mental acrobatics to see how. We have 13 major rules of exegesis that the Sages followed in deriving rabbinic laws, and the general view is that the Sages did not invent anything new, but only rediscovered something lost:

In one passage, we are told that as soon as Moses passed away, some 3000 halakhot were forgotten (Temurah 16a). The Israelites asked Moses’ successor Joshua to get them back through prophecy, but he countered that no longer can laws be derived through prophecy—lo bashamayim hi! “The Torah is not in Heaven!” (Deuteronomy 30:12) Ultimately, Joshua’s successor Othniel was able to restore 1700 halakhot through the use of the 13 principles of exegesis. In other words, built into the Torah itself is the power to extract its true meaning, and to derive all laws, including rabbinical ones, from it.

That said, sometimes laws are introduced without a Scriptural basis, presumably out of necessity. The most infamous case of this is the time when Beit Shammai took over the Sanhedrin by force and voted in 18 new decrees (see Shabbat 13b-17b and Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:4). It isn’t clear what exactly happened, and how it transpired. It began when the Sages of the day all went to visit one of the leading scholars, Chananiah ben Hizkiya ben Garon, who was ill at the time. (Ben Garon’s greatest achievements were composing a text called Megillat Ta’anit, and ensuring that the Book of Ezekiel remained in the Tanakh at a time when many Sages wanted it removed. He was able to resolve all apparent contradictions stemming from the Book of Ezekiel.)

While in Ben Garon’s attic, it turned out that the disciples of Shammai outnumbered the disciples of Hillel. As this was a valid convocation of rabbis, it would be permitted to vote in new laws. Beit Shammai took advantage of the opportunity, and brought in armed guards to block the entryway to the attic so that Beit Hillel could not escape. Then, they proposed 18 laws and voted them in by majority. The Talmud Bavli says that Hillel was made to sit in submission before Shammai, and this was a most shameful event. The Talmud Yerushalmi goes even further and says things got violent, and disciples of Shammai actually killed disciples of Hillel! Many refuse to believe that Torah sages literally harmed each other, and say the Talmud must be speaking figuratively. Whatever the case, both Talmuds assert that this day was as difficult and terrible for the Jewish people as the day of the Golden Calf. In fact, there used to be a fast day observed in commemoration of this tragedy, on the 9th of Adar (see Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 580).

When did this event happen? There are two possibilities: the first is that it happened in the time of Hillel and Shammai, and this is supported by the language of the Bavli which suggests Hillel and Shammai were themselves present. Hillel’s life overlapped with that of the cruel King Herod. We know from both Jewish and historical sources that Herod persecuted the rabbis, which might explain why they had to make new rulings in secret, in places like the attic of Ben Garon. The other possibility is that it happened during the Great Revolt, shortly before the destruction of the Second Temple. By that point, the Sanhedrin could not convene in its proper quarters on the Temple Mount, which might also explain why they had to gather secretly in an attic. Moreover, we know that at the time there were Kanayim, “Zealots”, a faction of Beit Shammai that did indeed take up arms and sought to violently rule the streets of Jerusalem. This is more fitting with the Yerushalmi’s violent account. In addition, the Yerushalmi does not say Hillel and Shammai were there, but does suggest Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer were there. Recall that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer were students of Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai, the leading sage at the time of the Temple’s destruction.

Rabbi Eliezer, who was stringent and more of a Shammai at heart (even though his main teacher Rabban Yochanan was a disciple of Hillel), believed that the 18 decrees of Beit Shammai were a good thing. They had “filled the measure”. His more lenient colleague Rabbi Yehoshua believed it was a terrible thing, and not only did they not fill the measure, they “erased” the measure! He thought that more stringencies were counterproductive, and instead of being a fence that preserves Judaism, would make Judaism too difficult to observe and drive people away. Not only will the unlearned majority stop keeping rabbinic laws, they will throw off the yoke of Torah entirely and stop keeping even Scriptural laws. In short, the masses will “throw out the baby with the bathwater”. Rabbi Yehoshua’s observation was prescient, and it seems history has confirmed his fears.

With that long introduction, what exactly were those 18 decrees?

“A Nation That Dwells Alone”

There are vast differences in opinion regarding the nature of the 18 laws. Both Talmuds present multiple lists, with varying items. Most of them tend to focus on purity laws that applied in Temple times but are not so relevant today. The list that is most applicable for us is given in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shabbat 1:4) by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, as follows:

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai taught: On that day they decreed about [1] their bread, and [2] their cheese, and [3] their wine, and [4] their vinegar, and [5] their fish brine, and [6] their muries, and [7] their preserves, and [8] their parboiled food, and [9] their corned food, and [10] on split grain, and [11] on ground food, and [12] on peeled barley; [13] on their speech, and [14] on their testimony, and [15] on their gifts, [16] on their sons, and [17] on their daughters, and [18] on their firstlings.

First is the law of pat israel, to only consume bread that was made by Jews, or that a Jew participated in making at some point in the process. This is a stringency still observed by many today. Similarly, the second law was against gevinat akum, the “cheese of idolaters”. Until then, all cheese was considered kosher by default, since it can only be made from cow or goat milk (although there is a question regarding the kosher status of rennet). Henceforth, only cheese made by Jews or closely supervised by Jews would be kosher. This, too, is a law that is widely observed today. (Having said that, Italian Jews typically did not observe this stringency, and consumed all cheese.)

The related law of chalav israel—not consuming gentile-drawn milk—is derived by the Sages from this one about cheese, and the Talmud goes on to say that we are concerned cow or goat milk will be mixed with milk from non-kosher animals (like horses). For much of history, Jews in many locales were lenient with chalav israel, and typically did consume gentile milk, especially if it came from a trusted source. Today, because government bodies regulate milk in most developed countries, people have become even more lenient regarding milk and it is common to consume chalav stam.

The most widely accepted and well-known of the 18 is the prohibition against yayin stam, gentile-made wine. The Torah itself only forbids yayin nesech, wine that was used in idolatrous libations. (More accurately, the Rambam explains in his Sefer haMitzvot [Negative Mitzvah #194] that even the Torah itself does not prohibit idolatrous wine explicitly, but it is derived from a verse in parashat Ha’azinu where God admonishes the people for drinking idolatrous wine.) In that Ben Garon attic, Beit Shammai forbid all gentile wine. This has become standard halakhic practice today.

The Talmud Bavli concurs that gentile-made wine was one of the 18 decrees (Shabbat 17b). It also adds gentile-made oils. Oils are mentioned in the other Yerushalmi list, too. The oil ban is discussed in other places in the Talmud, where the Sages say that the prohibition on oils didn’t take effect because it was just way too difficult to keep (Avodah Zarah 36a). On the same page, the Talmud suggests that the ban on gentile wine and oil actually dates back to the prophet Daniel, though he had taken these stringencies only upon himself. Whatever the case, the one rule that all lists agree on without a doubt is the prohibition on “their daughters”, presumably meaning intermarriage. But wait, wasn’t intermarriage already forbidden from the Torah?

One minority opinion in the Yerushalmi suggests that the ban on “their daughters” is metaphorical, and actually just means on eating their eggs! In other words, there may have been a time when Jews only consumed eggs from Jewish-supervised hen houses. While intriguing, this is not the accepted opinion. Instead, the Sages explain that when the Torah banned intermarriage, it only meant specifically with the seven Canaanite nations. Beit Shammai decreed a ban on all intermarriage. In that case, what do we make of Ezra’s pronouncement for the Israelites returning to the Holy Land after the Babylonian Captivity to get rid of their foreign wives?

Some interpret the Torah to mean that it was originally forbidden to intermarry with Canaanites even if they converted to Judaism. All other nations were permitted to marry as long as they converted. Ezra’s pronouncement was against the wives that didn’t convert, or refused to convert. According to this view, Beit Shammai would have banned all intermarriage, even with converts. This really cannot be accurate. Bartenura (Rabbi Ovadia of Bertinoro, c.1445-1515) comments on Shabbat 1:4 that “their daughters” refers specifically to Samaritans, and it was intermarriage with Samaritans that was prohibited.

A different interpretation is given in the Talmud Bavli (Avodah Zarah 36b). Here we read that the ban on “their daughters” was not referring to marriage, but to any sexual intimacy with gentiles, even outside the context of marriage. In other words, before Beit Shammai’s decree, a Jewish man may have been allowed to be intimate with a gentile woman, and this is what was banned. The Talmud continues with a long series of back-and-forth arguments to show that truly, this was all prohibited already in the Torah itself. What Beit Shammai did was only to prohibit intimacy with gentiles even in private quarters and in secret—and this had already been instituted once before by the Hasmonean Maccabees, of Chanukah fame.

The Talmud adds here that the reason Beit Shammai made these decrees is to separate Jews from non-Jews and to lessen mingling between them. The ultimate goal was to prevent Jews from assimilating or falling to idolatry. (Keep in mind that at this time, two thousand years ago, “gentile” and “idolater” were basically interchangeable, since there were no other monotheistic religions around.) Beit Shammai banned gentile wine and bread so that Jews don’t go to non-Jewish parties. They made decrees on purity to further solidify the separation between Jews and idolaters. Perhaps Beit Shammai wanted Israel to live up to Bilaam’s words in the Torah that Israel is “a nation that dwells alone”. This was necessary because the Roman Empire was a huge melting pot, and many Jews were becoming Romans. (Including the Jewish-Roman general that destroyed the Temple, as explored in the past here.)

Having said all that, the rule in Judaism is that the law always follows Beit Hillel, so why were the decrees of Beit Shammai accepted at all?

“Halakhah K’Beit Hillel”

Presumably, the decrees of Beit Shammai were accepted because they were voted in by majority in a Sanhedrin-like council. However, the Talmudic narrative makes it quite clear that it was not a legitimate Sanhedrin. Beit Hillel were forced to vote, and perhaps were even violently suppressed. Beit Shammai took majority through an inappropriate ruse. How could such laws ever be passed or accepted? I think it is a likely possibility that they weren’t accepted.

If we date the event to the time of the Great Revolt—which makes more sense altogether—we can understand why Beit Shammai pushed these laws. Not only did they want to separate between Jews and Romans, but they also wanted to weed out Roman sympathizers and collaborators. They became uncharacteristically violent because they felt desperate times called for desperate measures. It is possible that this event led directly to Rabban Yochanan’s exit from Jerusalem. He got permission from Vespasian to establish a new school in Yavne. Rabban Yochanan was a Hillelite, as were his disciples. Now we can better understand why, henceforth, Beit Shammai basically ceased to exist.

However, there were among Rabban Yochanan’s students those who favoured more stringencies, like Rabbi Eliezer. They personally upheld the decrees of Beit Shammai, inspiring others to do the same. Over time, the stringencies became more and more commonplace, and some did become universally accepted. Since they became accepted, that became normative halakhah. The question for us today is: should we continue to observe these Shammaian practices, and should we encourage people to take on these stringencies? Do we side with Rabbi Eliezer, or with Rabbi Yehoshua? Shammai or Hillel?

The Talmud itself affirms that we never accept Beit Shammai (Berakhot 36b). In fact, the language there is that we don’t even consider their opinion to be valid! So why observe their decrees, especially in light of the horrible way they voted them in? It is intriguing to note the position of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who spoke about this issue at length, explaining that Beit Shammai is all about potentials and not realities, and is rooted in the mystical side of Gevurah and Din, not Chessed—hence the reason for the complete rejection of Shammai (see, for instance, Likkutei Sichos, Vol. II, on Beshalach/Tu b’Shevat). Yet, Lubavitch is quite strict regarding things like chalav israel and gevinat akum! (Some explain it by finding other sources and explanations. However, it doesn’t change the fact that it is a Shammaian law!)

Another argument might be based on the oft-repeated idea that in the Messianic Age, the law will switch to follow Shammai. Since we are approaching that era, should we take these extras upon ourselves? Or should we do the very opposite, and rule on the side of Chessed at a time when the world clearly needs it.

A final note to keep in mind is that the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 36a) suggests that the 18 decrees of Beit Shammai actually cannot be repealed, even by the future Sanhedrin of Eliyahu! How could this be? (And, in that case, how was it that the prohibition on oils was rescinded?) And how do we make sense of all this in light of the famous Heavenly Voice that proclaimed, after three years of ceaseless debates, that the halakhah should always follow Beit Hillel? (Eruvin 13b)

I leave these questions unanswered, and will instead conclude with one more teaching of the Sages. A Tosefta in Eduyot 2:2 states that there are 24 instances where Beit Hillel is actually stricter than Beit Shammai. (The Jewish Encyclopedia counted 55 instances!) The Sages conclude by stating the following:

Forever the law follows Beit Hillel. One who wishes to take stringencies upon himself and follow the stringencies of both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, of him it is said: “A fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). However, one who takes on both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the leniencies of Beit Hillel is wicked. Rather, one should either follow Beit Hillel—with their leniencies and stringencies—or follow Beit Shammai—with their leniencies and stringencies.

לעולם הלכה כדברי ב”ה והרוצה לעשות להחמיר על עצמו ולנהוג כחומרי ב”ה וכחומרי ב”ש על זה נאמר (קוהלת ה) והכסיל בחשך הולך התופס קולי ב”ש וקולי ב”ה ה”ז רשע אלא או כדברי ב”ה כקוליהן וכחומריהן או כדברי ב”ש כקוליהן וכחומריהן.

Shabbat Shalom!