Berakhot 138

1:
All eight mishnayot in this chapter are given in the Talmud as the sole mishnah of Chapter Eight.

2:
The sole subject of this chapter is differences of custom as reflected in the requirements according to Bet Hillel [the House of Hillel] and Bet Shammai. Before we examine the contents of these varying opinions we should explain about Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai.

3:
During the long period that stretched from the onset of Hellenistic influence in Eretz-Israel until the Romans finally established direct rule through the procurators ["Governors General"] the Pharisaic movement (from which rabbinic Judaism as we know it today is spiritually and ideologically descended) was headed in each generation by two leaders, not one. According to one scholarly view – that of Rabbi Eliezer (Louis) Finklestein z"l, for many years the Chancellor of JTS – this dual leadership was forced on the Pharisaic movement by the deep dichotomies within it. These dichotomies (according to Finklestein) came from interrelated issues of social class, economic outlook and cultural habits. What had originally united these two disparate groups was their acceptance of the concept of the Oral Torah and their opposition to the ongoing Hellenisation of the social elite of Eretz-Israel that began towards the end of the 3rd century BCE. One group drew its strength from the middle and upper classes dispersed in the countryside – "gentleman farmers" if you will; while the other group drew its strength from the proletarians huddled in the townships, particularly in Jerusalem. The former were basically conservative in their outlook (religious, cultural and economic) while the latter were more liberal in these matters. The last decades of the 1st century BCE and the first decade of the 1st century CE (in all perhaps a period of some forty years) coincide, more or less, with the rule of Herod over the Jews as a Roman puppet and the co-leadership of Hillel and Shammai over rabbinic Judaism.

4:
Hillel, originally a son of Babylonian Jewry, was the President of the Sanhedrin when it met as a deliberative body ("quasi-legislative" if you will), while his partner Shammai was the President of that same body when it sat as a court of law. These two men are usually depicted as being opposites in character – though this picture is no doubt grossly exaggerated. Hillel is seen as being humble, mild-mannered and liberal whereas Shammai is presented as being forthright, irascible and conservative. In his youth – particularly in the period immediately subsequent to his aliyah to Eretz-Israel – Hillel was penurious. (The story is well-known how he did not have the money for the entrance fee to the Bet-Midrash to hear the two leaders of the previous generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, give their lecture; so he climbed up onto the roof in the dead of winter in order to listen through the skylight. There, he was covered with the winter snow, and the following morning the two great leaders rescued him and desecrated Shabbat in order to save his life.) Shammai seems to have stemmed from a comfortably-off middle-class family. The rabbinic sources are not generous in their information about him, but Josephus recounts his fearless attack on Herod during the latter's trial before the cowardly Sanhedrin: indeed, Josephus says that Shammai was the only person in Jerusalem that Herod feared and therefore respected.

5:
Rabbinic tradition sees the students of these two sages in a different light. We quote from the Tosefta, Tractate Ĥagigah 2:9.

6:
One thing is clear: both views – the academic and the traditional – see the origin of two divergent views of halakhic Judaism as stemming from the schools of Hillel and Shammai. After the death of Hillel the Presidency of the Sanhedrin was vested in his descendents, who took the title Rabban upon assuming office.

I have received the following message from Reuven Boxman:

I found your statement that today's wine is "pre-diluted" to be surprising. While I don't count myself as an expert on wine, to the best of my knowledge wine then, as well as wine today, is fermented naturally, and the fermentation process comes to a halt when the alcohol content reaches approximately 12-13%. The only way to get a "stronger" wine is by distillation, which today we would not call wine, but rather spirits, and I don't think that the mishnah is referring to a distilled product. I would suggest that the difference is not in the wine, but in the habit. The habit at the time of the Mishnah was apparently to dilute the wine, either for reasons of economy, health, or simply personal preference, whereas today that is not the custom.

I respond:

Any knowledgeable vintners out there who can authoritatively resolve this matter for us?