History of the Jews, Vol. 2 (of 6). Graetz Heinrich
in private as well as political affairs, and felt as if the land and property, and the very person of each individual were in the hands of the emperor, and made use of according to his pleasure. It is not surprising that, in their ignorance of the Roman constitution, the people should have looked upon the census as the herald of slavery, and anticipated with terror a repetition of the Babylonian captivity. Their dread of the census, exaggerated perhaps, but not wholly unjustifiable, caused greater agitation than any previous statute, and aroused new disputes, in which the old differences between Pharisee and Sadducee were entirely forgotten. New points of discussion were raised. The question of the supremacy of the oral law disappeared before the burning question of the day – whether the people should become slaves to the Romans, or whether they should offer stubborn and energetic resistance. This question brought dissension into the camp of the Pharisees. The new faction to which this discussion on the census had given rise sprang from the very center of the Synhedrion, and was connected with the names of Hillel, Shammai, and Judas of Galilee.
Hillel and Shammai did not live to see the catastrophe which made Judæa a province of Rome. Hillel's death caused wide-spread mourning, and the oration at his grave began with the sad cry: "O pious, O gentle, O worthy follower of Ezra." The people, in their great affection for him, continued to distinguish his descendants with their favor, and the presidency of the Synhedrion became hereditary in his family for more than four centuries. Of Hillel's son and successor, Simon I, nothing but his name has been preserved. All the greatness which encircled Hillel's name was bequeathed to the school which he formed, and which inherited and faithfully preserved the spirit of its founder. The disciples of this school evinced in all their public dealings the peacefulness and gentleness, the conciliatory spirit which had distinguished their great master. They were guided and supported by these characteristic qualities during the political storms which long convulsed their unhappy country. There were about eighty members of this school who were most devotedly attached to Hillel, and were called the elders of the school. The names of only two of these have been recorded: Jonathan, the son of Uziel, and Jochanan ben Zaccai. The former is reputed, but without actual proof, to have been the author of a Chaldaic translation of the Prophets. He was disinherited by his father in favor of Shammai, probably from displeasure at his having joined the school of Hillel.
In the same way as the school of Hillel endeavored to preserve the characteristic gentleness of their master, the followers of Shammai emulated and even exceeded the stern severity of the founder of their school. It seemed impossible to the school of Shammai to be sufficiently stringent in religious prohibitions; the decisions which they arrived at, in their interpretations of the law, were so generally burdensome that those which were milder in character were treasured up as rare exceptions. Thus, according to their opinion, no work should be attempted which, if commenced before the Sabbath, would, even without the aid of a Judæan, be completed on the Sabbath. It was prohibited on the Sabbath day to give sums of money for charitable purposes, to make arrangements for marriage contracts, to instruct children, to visit the sick, or even to bring comfort to the sorrowing. In their regulations concerning the purity of the Levites in their person and apparel, their exaggerations brought them very near the excesses of the Essenes. They were equally severe concerning matrimonial laws, and only allowed divorce to be granted in the case of the unchastity of the wife.
In the school of Shammai, the Pharisaic principles were carried to the very extreme. It was only due to the yielding disposition of the followers of Hillel that peace was not disturbed, and that a friendly relationship existed between two schools of such opposite views and characters. The school of Shammai were not only severe in their explanations of the laws, but entertained very stern and rigid opinions on nearly all subjects; they were particularly harsh and repellant towards proselytes to Judaism. Any heathen who came to the school of Shammai, requesting to be received into the community might expect but a very cold and repellant reception. The school of Shammai cared not for proselytes. How dangerous to Judaism lukewarm proselytes may be, they had too often seen in the case of the converted Herodians. But in spite of their own rigid obedience to the Law, they did not exact the same obedience from the Judæan troops who were fighting against the national enemy. Originally there had been some hesitation about making war on the Sabbath, but now the school of Shammai were unreservedly in favor thereof; the siege of a hostile city, commenced before the Sabbath, was not to be raised, in spite of the transgressing of the Sabbath law, until the fortress surrendered. These ordinances were instituted by Shammai himself, in whom hatred of the heathen was even greater than religious devotion. The school of Shammai had a large number of adherents in the Synhedrion, as well as among the people. Their religious austerity, and their hatred of the heathens, found more sympathizers than the moderation and peacefulness of the followers of Hillel. They consequently formed the majority, and were able to carry all their resolutions. Among the followers of Shammai, several names have been preserved – Baba ben Buta, Dostai from Itome, and Zadok.
It is possible that this Zadok may be the same of whom it is related that, excited by a fanatical hatred of the Romans, he joined with Judas the Galilean, and placed himself at the head of a religious republican faction who called themselves the Zealots (Kannaim). The members of this faction were also called the Galileans. The watchword which Judas gave the party of the Zealots, and which was eagerly endorsed by Zadok, was that obedience to the Roman law was disregard of the Divine law, for God alone was ruler, and could alone demand obedience; that it became, therefore, a clear and solemn duty to strain every nerve, and sacrifice property, and life, and family in this struggle against the usurper, who exacted submission due to God alone. And they set up as an exemplar Phineas, the slayer of the chief Zimri, the only one who, in the presence of a neglectful tribe and a slothful nation, had served his God with zeal. Furthermore, Judas proclaimed that the Judæan state must be a republic, recognizing God alone as sovereign and His laws as supreme. This teaching found favor all the more readily as the Roman yoke was becoming more and more intolerable. The great purpose they had in view – the recovery of their freedom – electrified young and old, and the Zealots, a faction which at first only comprised followers of Shammai, soon included a great number of Judæans, who chafed indignantly under the weight of the Roman fetters.
As soon as the law was passed that every one should give an accurate description of his family, his lands and his property, Zadok and Judas gave the signal for energetic resistance. In some places a conflict seems to have ensued. The more moderate, however, including the High Priest Joasar, tried to pacify the malcontents by explaining that the census would not be the precursor of slavery or of the confiscation of property, but was simply necessary in order to control the arrangements for taxation. It was useless, and the census was regarded with such suspicion and dislike that every fine was now called census (Kenas). Even the moderate party, although they endeavored to stem the agitation, were indignant at the encroachments made upon their liberties. The school of Hillel considered the taxation so unjustifiable that, conscientious as they were, they acceded to all measures by which it might be escaped.
Such was the general abhorrence for this system of taxation, that all those who were officially occupied in carrying it out, whether as tax-collector (Moches) or as treasurer (Gabbai), were looked upon as dishonorable men; they were not tolerated in the higher ranks of the community, and their testimony as witnesses was discredited. Only mercenary motives and utter indifference to public opinion could induce any one to undertake the despised office. The designations of tax-gatherer and overseer became henceforth terms of opprobrium.
Another change also originated with the Roman occupation of Judæa. All public documents, deeds of divorce, etc., were now to be dated according to the year of the reign of the Roman Emperor, and not, as formerly, that of the Judæan rulers. The Zealots were much annoyed at this innovation, and they accused the more moderate Pharisees, who had yielded to it, of indifference in matters of religion. "How could such an ignominy be perpetrated as to write the words, 'according to the laws of Moses and Israel'" (the usual formula in the separation deeds) "next to the name of the heathen ruler, and thus permit the holy name of the greatest prophet to be placed by the side of the name of the heathen ruler." In one matter Quirinius was forced to yield to the wishes of the people. He deposed the unpopular High Priest Joasar, and named in his stead Anan of the family of Seth, whose four sons also became high priests.
Under Coponius, who entered upon his office of Procurator when Quirinius left, the old enmity between the Judæans and Samaritans