I've been reading Shmuel Safrai's article on "Halakha" in Literature of the Sages: Part One. I'll be blogging about parts of this book for the last two days of Women's History Month. My discussion today draws from pages 193-194.
In the first century C.E., there were two houses of teaching in Pharisaic Judaism: the House of Hillel, and the House of Shammai. Overall, the House of Hillel was more lenient and less literal in its interpretation of Scripture than the House of Shammai, and some have compared Hillel with Jesus, while claiming that the mean Pharisees whom Jesus criticized were the legalistic Shammaites.
But, according to Safrai, the Mishnah presents the House of Shammai as more of a champion of women's rights than the House of Hillel was. In Mishnah Yevamot 15, for example, there is a discussion between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. The issue is this: Suppose a woman testifies that her husband died. Is she to be believed? If so, then she can "collect her ketuba (stating the amount of money to which she is entitled upon dissolution of the marriage) like a normal widow" (Safrai's words), and she can remarry. If not, then she must be an aguna, "a wife without her husband who may not remarry." Those are the stakes.
According to the House of Shammai, the woman is to be believed, even if she is the only witness. According to the House of Hillel, however, she is to be believed "only if 'she came from the harvest in the same country', since with so many other witnesses around she would be afraid to lie" (Safrai here quotes the House of Shammai). The House of Shammai gives the woman the benefit of a doubt. When the House of Hillel then agrees with the House of Shammai, the House of Shammai says that the woman may collect her ketuba in such a situation, whereas the House of Hillel says that she may not. But, again, the House of Hillel comes to agree with the House of Shammai.
In another discussion, the question is whether or not a minor girl can refuse to be "given in marriage by her mother and brothers" (Safrai's words). The House of Hillel allows her to refuse "up to four or five times" (Safrai), whereas the House of Shammai states that she can refuse once and wait "until she is come of age" (Shammai's words) or marries someone. Essentially, the House of Shammai does not want a minor girl to be pushed into a marriage against her wishes. In Mishnah Gittin 9, the House of Shammai prohibits divorce except "in a case of adultery" (Safrai), whereas the House of Hillel is more liberal about divorce. According to Safrai, the House of Shammai's position "is, taking into account the social circumstances of that age, in effect a reinforcement of the wife's position."
In Mishnah Ketuvot 8:1, the House of Shammai grants women more rights than does the House of Hillel in the area of "property that came into [a woman's] possession after her betrothal" (Safrai). And, in Mishnah Ketuvot 1:6-9, in "four disputes about the credibility of a woman's testimony regarding sexual intercourse and loss of virginity" (Safrai), Rabbi Yoshua, a disciple of the House of Hillel, proclaims that "We do not rely on her word."
The House of Shammai was more of a champion of the rights of women than the House of Hillel, according to the Mishnah. Who would've thought?