THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD FOR THE REASON that was explained above, with the arrival of Ezra from Babylonia into Israel and the building of the [Second] Temple, there was once again no impetus to apply pilpul. For whenever any [scholars in the Land of Israel] were confronted with difficult cases, they forwarded their questions to [the court that sat] in the Holy Temple, where the Divine light of the high priest was sufficient [to determine law]. As a result, the use of pilpul diminished. Hence, when the sins [of Israel] increased during this period [even though the Temple still stood], the merit of the Temple was no longer sufficient for achieving enlightenment in the law. In addition, it is known [that towards the end of the Second Temple period] the high priests were no longer worthy of their position.¹ 18a, “R. Assai said, ‘Martha, the daughter of Boethus, gave King Yannai a tarkav (a dry measure equal to three kav) of gold dinars to nominate Joshua son of Gamla as one of the high priests (to be elected by the electors).’” Even though Joshua son of Gamla was worthy of the position, the purchase of the office by his wife Martha began a trend of people purchasing the office regardless of their character and Torah knowledge. It is stated in Tractate Sukkah 20a² that the Torah was almost forgotten in Israel [until it was saved by] Hillel, who arrived from Babylonia and re-established the [use of] pilpul. In Israel, Hillel used and applied the methodology that was being employed [by the sages] of Babylonia. Hillel is also referred to as a legislator, as it says in Tractate Sanhedrin 5a, “To what does Scripture refer in the verse, [‘The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda], nor he who legislates from between his feet?’³ These are the descendants of Hillel who teach Torah to the masses.” That is, by applying deep analysis to the received traditions and decisions, Hillel derived the seven rules for interpreting the Torah, which is set forth in the seventh chapter of the Tosefta of Tractate Sanhedrin.⁴ at the end of this chapter states, “Hillel the Elder expounded seven rules [for elucidating the Torah] before the sages of Besera: (1) through a conclusion inferred from a lesser case to a strict one and vice versa; (2) through tradition that similar words in different contexts are meant to clarify one another; (3) through a general principle derived from one verse, and a general principle derived from two verses; (4) through a general statement limited by a specification; (5) through a specification broadened by a general statement; (6) anything that was included in a general statement, and was then singled out to discuss a provision similar to the general category; and (7) anything that was included in a general statement, and was then singled out to discuss a provision not similar to the general category. These are the seven rules that Hillel expounded before the sages of Besera.” R. Yishmael later incorporated these seven rules into his thirteen rules cited in the Introduction to the Sifra. This is also recited in the morning prayers at the end of the section dealing with the sacrifices. As befitting the greatness of his generation, [Hillel and his court] functioned as a powerful spring of water that overflowed and overcame all doubts. The use of pilpul and analysis was their strength that enabled them, with the help of their Creator, to fortify the yoke of Torah. With righteous humility, through the sword of the pilpul of Torah, they experienced the wonders⁵ of the Torah, Israel’s majesty and splendor. This [system] continued during the days of Rebbi, [Yehuda the Prince], the crown and lamp of Israel, until the completion of the Mishnah.

footnotes: ¹ During the Second Temple period, many people bought the position of High Priest, including those who were unworthy of it. See Tractate Yoma ² “In the beginning, when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra rose up from Babylonia and re-established it. When it was again forgotten, it was re-established by Hillel the Babylonian….” ³ Gen. 49:10. ⁴ The Tosefta ⁵ See Psalms 45:5.

Even though Hillel came [from Babylonia] to Israel and established the seven rules for interpreting the Torah, it did not change the way the scholars in either country [Israel or Babylonia] engaged in study. From time immemorial in the Land of Israel, the sages would study individually, not together, and their main efforts consisted of rendering halachic decisions for individual cases. Their understanding of the proper interpretation of the Mishnah shone on the scholars of Israel as a torch [that is, they had an established tradition from Yehuda the Prince of the Mishnah’s meaning]. When confronted with a new situation [they would compare that circumstance] with a previously well-established law, and thus needed only minimal application of pilpul. This was never so with the Babylonian sages. Their major efforts consisted of applying pilpul in great depth, and [through group study and debate] they sharpened one another’s minds. Since people have different intellectual approaches, [group study resulted either in] laws flowing from the ‘Rock of Contention’, [that is, dispute],⁶ or one of the group would be standing near the basin [of truth], and the righteousness [of those who initially disagreed with that scholar] induced them to agree with [his] true interpretation. Their desired goal was [not personal gain], but to assure long-lasting legislation stamped with their judicial seal. Because of this [unselfish motive] they treated one another with love and respect, as one should treat his master and teacher. As it is stated at the end of the second chapter of Tractate Bava Metzia, “The Babylonian scholars would rise out of respect for one another,” etc.⁷ 33a. “Ulla said: The Torah scholars of Babylonia are accustomed to stand up before one another and to rend their garments for one another.” Ulla, an amora who traveled back and forth between Israel and Babylonia, is apparently saying that the mutual respect among the Babylonian scholars was greater than what he observed among the Torah scholars of Israel. See Ha’amek She’elah 7:5.⁸ 1 rather than os 5. There the Netziv uses this difference in study methodologies between the Israeli and Babylonian scholars in order to interpret the Talmudic discussions pertaining to the priority of teaching Torah to others, versus performing mitzvos for oneself, such as the laying of tefillin.

footnotes: ⁶ The Netziv is utilizing a play on words with the phrase, “Rock of Contentions,” cited in I Samuel 23:28. This means they had the advantage of hearing multiple viewpoints. The Netziv is also referring to the metaphor cited in Jeremiah of the rock broken in pieces. It is discussed in Part 2, chapter 10. ⁷ Bava Metzia ⁸ The text cites os