The Enlightening Dispute Between Hillel and Shamai

On Chanukah we are commanded to light candles on each of the eight days of the holiday to publicize the miracle of Chanukah. It is customary to light the candles in a chanukiya  that has nine individual candle cups, the 9th candle being the shamash used to light the other candles. Our Sages taught that is is sufficient for each member of the family to light one candle throughout all the days of the holiday, but the mehadrim (those who wished to deepen their observance of the ritual) lit an additional candle every day of the holiday until they reached eight candles on the eighth day (according to the Rambam, Hilchot Megillah and Chanukah, 4, 1). In modern times, the accepted custom is that of the mehadrim  – adding one candle each day. 

The Talmud cites the dispute between two groups of sages – Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai – regarding the question whether we should add or detract each day from the number of Chanukah candles. Beit Shamai suggests that we begin on the first day of the holiday with eight candles, and then detract one from that number each day until we light only one candle on the last day of the holiday. Beit Hillel suggests that we begin with one candle and add to it each day, ending the holiday with the lighting of eight candles. 

The halacha (Jewish law) was ruled according to Beit Hillel. One explanation for the difference between the approach of Beit Shamai and that of Beit Hillel is that Beit Shamai is marking the number of days remaining in the holiday, while Beit Hillel is marking the number of days that have passed. A second explanation is that Beit Shamai draws a parallel between lighting the candles on Chanukah and the ritual sacrifices on Sukkot, where the number of sacrifices is reduced in number each day. And Beit Hillel is acting according to the principle that “you go up in holiness, not down”. 

This dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai is one of many examples of disputes that appear in the Mishnah. Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai were two groups of students (the students of Hillel the Elder and the students of Shamai the Elder) who had different approaches to halacha. Beit Hillel usually ruled in a more lenient manner, while Beit Shamai tended to favor a more stringent approach. Following most of the disputes between them, the halacha for future generations was set according to Beit Hillel’s opinion. 

The second text brought, from the Mishna, says that disputes between the two schools are examples of  disputes “for the sake of heaven”, which are disputes argued with the goal of clarifying truth, rather than for the sake of honor or status, and thus “will endure”. Meaning, the value of the argument is not nullified for future generations, and the essential questions it raises and different approaches it presents continue to be relevant even after halacha has been determined. 

This is in contrast to the dispute that took place between Korach and his people and Moses, in which Korach and his people challenged Moses’ leadership for the sake of their own honor and status. A “dispute for the sake of heaven” can be interpreted both in terms of the purpose of the dispute, as well as the way in which it is conducted: while listening to one another, out of mutual respect, kindness, etc. We can see that Jewish tradition does not strive to create a singular concept of a truth which is binding, but has rather relied along the way on the existence of disputes, not attempting to dismiss them but rather using tools for dialogue without giving up on the value of truth.