Hillel: A famous Jєωιѕн rabbi who lived about 70 B.C.-A.D. 10. Our only source of information concerning him is the тαℓмυd, from which the following account of Hillel's career can be gathered. He was born in Babylonia, and was a descendent of the family of David. Although he lived in poor circuмstances, his zeal for God's Law prompted him to devote himself to its study while yet in Babylon. Out of the same zeal, he went, at the age of forty it is said, to Jerusalem, where Shemaiah and Abtalion were at the time the leading teachers. In the Holy City he hired himself as a day-labourer to earn his own living and that of his family, and also to meet the expenses of receiving instruction. He thus spent the next forty years of his life, with the result that he understood, we are told, all languages, including those of the inanimate and of the brute creation, and of the demons themselves. Some time after the death of Shemaiah and Abtalion, Hillel was recognized as the best jurist of the day, and was so regarded during the last forty years of his life. He is also represented as the head of the Sanhedrin with the title of Nasi (prince), as the founder of a lenient school, in usual opposition to the stricter school of Shammai, as the author of seven hermeneutic rules, as the framer of certain decrees which happily accommodated some points of the Law to the changed circuмstances of his age, as the ancestor of the patriarchs who stood at the head of Palestinian Judaism till about the fifth century of our era. Hillel was surnamed "the Great", and also "the Elder", and over his tomb were uttered the words "Oh the gentle! Oh the pious! Oh the disciple of Esdras!" Several anecdotes illustrating his zeal for the Law and his wonderful patience are embodied in the тαℓмυd. Among the sayings ascribed to him, the following are particularly worthy of notice: "Whatever is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary"; "Be of the disciples of Aaron; loving peace and pursuing peace; loving mankind and bringing them near to the Torah."

It is certain that a good deal of what is contained in the тαℓмυdic account of Hillel's career is unhistorical; for example, the division of his life into three periods of forty years each; his presidency of the Sanhedrin; his understanding of all languages, etc. When all this has been duly deducted, however, one cannot help feeling that he finds himself in presence of a strong personality, of a character stamped with unusual sweetness and elevation. Again, when all Hillel's good deeds and wise sayings are closely examined, one can readily see that he was in truth simply a rabbi, perhaps the cleverest and best of the rabbis of his day: a Jєωιѕн casuist rather than a moralist; a man who, for personal character and spiritual insight and permanent influence, cannot in any way compare with, much less equal or surpass, as some have affirmed of late, Christ, the Light, and Saviour of the World. It has been ably argued that the Pollion referred to a few times by Josephus is Hillel under a Greek name. ~Catholic Encyclopedia, Hillel

Shammai: A famous Jєωιѕн scribe who together with Hillel made up the last of "the pairs" (zúgóth), or, as they are sometimes erroneously named, "presidents and vice-presidents" of the Sanhedrin. The schools of Shammai and Hillel held rival sway, according to тαℓмυdic tradition (Shabbath 15a), from about a hundred years before the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Comparatively little is known about either of the great scribes. The Mischna, the only trustworthy authority in this matter, mentions Shammai in only eight passages (Maaser sheni, II, 4, 9; Orla, II, 5; Eduyoth I, 1-4, 10, II; Aboth, I, 12, 15, V, 17; Kelim, XXII, 4; Nidda, I, 1). He was the very opposite of Hillel in character and teaching. Stern and severe in living the law to the letter, he was strict to an extreme in legal interpretation. The tale tells that, on the feast of the Tabernacles, his daughter-in-law gave birth to a child; straightway Shammai had the roof broken through and the bed covered over with boughs, so that the child might celebrate the feast in an improvised sukka (tent or booth) and might not fail of keeping the law of Leviticus (xxiii, 42).

The strictness of the master characterizes the school of Shammai as opposed to that of Hillel. The difference between the two schools had regard chiefly to the interpretation of the first, second, third and fifth parts of the "Mishna" — i.e. to religious dues, the keeping of the Sabbath and of holy days, the laws in regard to marriage and purification. The law, for example, to prepare no food on the Sabbath had to be observed by not allowing even the beast to toil; hence it was argued that an egg laid on the Sabbath might not be eaten (Eduyoth, iv, 1). Another debate was whether, on a holy day, a ladder might be borne from one dove-cote to another or should only be glided from hole to hole. The need of fringes to a linen night-dress was likewise made a matter of difference between the two schools (Eduyoth, iv, 10). In these and many other discussions we find much straining out of gnats and swallowing of camels (Matthew 23:24), much pain taken to push the Mosaic law to an unbearable extreme, and no heed given to the practical reform which was really needed in Jєωιѕн morals. It was the method of the school of Shammai rather than that of Hillel which Christ condemned. On this account non-Catholic scholars generally make Him out to have belonged to the school of Hillel. This opinion has been shared in by a few Catholics (Gigot, "General Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scripture", New York, 1900, p. 422). Most Catholic exegetes, however, refuse to admit that Christ belonged to any of the fallible Jєωιѕн schools of interpretation. He established His own school — to wit, the infallible teaching body to which He gave the Old Testament to have and to keep and to interpret to all nations without error. ~Catholic Encyclopedia, Shammai

his interpretation of the Law tended away from that sect, correctly ascertaining in a general way the import of the Law.  Believe it or not, there were Jєωs who did understand the meaning and spirit of the Law in those days.  

To follow your position to its logical conclusion, any recognition of a Jєω under the Old Testament and his virtue in relation to the Law, e.g. this or that Jєω was faithful to the holy Law, correctly understood it in spirit and letter, would be tantamount to praising Judaism today or turning "koscher."

I think any reasonable person can see the point.  You're not making proper distinctions and then blaming everyone else for your own fallacies.    

Hillel isn't in the New Testament.  We're talking about one of the founders of the тαℓмυdic religion.

Repeating the same fallacies doesn't help your case.  You've reached an irrational state of mind, I can do nothing further.

The "Church" hasn't ruled on or explicitly taught literally thousands of opinions one might read in Catholic literature.  

To infer that absent formal Church teaching no one can legitimately make a proposition about a subject matter is yet another grave fallacy.

To think otherwise is to remove any possibility of speaking about religion outside of explicit teaching of the Church.