This is promoted by a small work by R. Sender Haber of Norfolk VA.
The scholarly effort is on the Internet at http://www.torahlab.org/images/uploads/Eduyos_booklet.pdf and is, I think, well worth your time; it certainly was worth mine.
An aside. R. Haber is Ashkenazi and his Hebrew is Ashkenazi rather than Israeli. I did not modify the language, ergo the choice of spelling throughout. We are reading for wisdom, not Hebrew language choices.
In the article, R, Haber addresses מחלוקת - debates - among, primarily, Shamai and Hillel and their schools.
Most people are taught that Shamai was tough, unkind, and otherwise the bad guy whenever there is a debate between Shamai and Hillel.
R. Haber's work disproves that, or at least shows Shamai in a better light.
Shamai is more than one entry in Pirke Avot 1:15
עשה תורתך קבע, אמור מעט ועשה הרבה; והוי מקביל את כל האדם, בסבר פנים יפות
:
Make your study of the Torah a fixed habit. Say little and do much, and receive all men with a cheerful face.
According to R. Haber, "The very first argument emerged in the generation following Antigonus: before an animal is brought as a Korban the Kohein and/or the owner have a Mitzvah to push down firmly on its head. This act is called Semicha and it is not done on Shabbos because of the prohibition of handling animals. The question arose regarding Semicha on Yom Tov. Some held that Semicha was allowed on Yom Tov and some held that it was forbidden.
"For several generations, the Semicha argument was the only halachic argument amongst the Jews. Later, In the days of Hillel and Shammai there were three more arguments and in the days of their students the disputes became to many to count."
"The Tractate of Eduyos was written to record those newly heard opinions and to codify the ground-rules for argument.
"The Tanna began with the three arguments of Hillel and Shammai."
The first debate revolved around when a woman became nidah.
"Hillel is stringent and assumes that a woman who is a nidah is considered retroactively impure from the last time that she was definitely pure.
"Shammai is lenient and assumes that the woman became a nidah at the moment that she became aware of her status. Shammai does not assume retroactive impurity.
"According to the Rambam, Shammai was lenient out of compassion for husbands and wives whose relationships would be strained by the constant possibility of retroactive Nidah status"
Ultimately neither Hillel nor Shammai prevailed. It was the students who found a middle ground and decided the Halacha. We do assume retroactive Nidah, but never further back than twenty-four hours. This is not a typical Mishna. Generally, Shammai is more stringent than Hillel and generally the halacha follows Hillel. Here Shammai is lenient, Hillel is stringent, and the halacha follows a third view that seems to find a middle ground.
A quick interjection. R. Haber carefully cites his sources, a fact that is appreciated by those who challenge almost everything.
"Many people make the mistake of taking Hillel’s side," R. Haber writes."They think that Hillel was compassionate and Shammai was not. The truth is that if we consider the story of the potential convert who insisted on learning the entire Torah while standing on one foot, we can see Shammai in a completely different light. Shammai did not reject the convert because he was unkind or dispassionate, he rejected him because he was making a mockery of the Torah. None of us would have accepted the convert either.
An aside: It's not likely the convert would be accepted by most of today's "Orthodox" rabbinate since Hillel did not demand an impossisble committment to observe all 613 mitzvot. But then neither did Rambam.
"The differences between Hillel and Shammai were differences of approach, not differences in character traits. Shammai himself was the one who said “Greet every person with a pleasant expression," the rabbi adds.
For another sympathetic look at Shamai, visit Jewish History - Shamai and Hillel at http://www.jewishmag.com/40mag/shamai/shamai.htm.
The page starts off stating "Shammai the Elder is one of the most misunderstood figures of Jewish history. If anybody had a right to sing the blues, it was Shammai."
The author of the page, Yisrael Rutman, reminds that "The Talmud declares that ultimately in the future the law will be decided according to Shammai, not Hillel. For whatever the reason, the rejection of Shammai's approach is not really a rejection, but a deferment. The law in its practical application must be decided one way or the other; whatever the merits of the case and the arguments on either side, in the end one is either pure or defiled, guilty or innocent. The truth of Shammai's approach will become clearer in the end of days. "
הריני מקבל עלי מצוה עשה של ואהבת לרעך כמוך, והריני אוהב כל אחד מבני ישראל כנפשי ומאודי
