Avodah Zarah 025

8:
The next item in our present mishnah is Adriatic earthenware, which, at first glance, does seem to be curious. The Gemara [AZ 32a] understands the term not as 'Adriatic' but as 'Hadrianic'. In Hebrew the two terms are identical. Here is what the Gemara says about 'Hadrianic earthenware':

But, we may well ask, why should any earthenware be associated with the emperor Hadrian? (Hadrian ruled the Roman Empire 113-138 CE and is notorious in Jewish history as being the ruler who put down the Bar-Kokhba revolt in 135 CE.) Rashi, in his commentary on the 'explanation' of Shemu'el says that this kind of eartheware was called 'Hadrianic' because when Hadrian was in the field with the army he would transport his wine in this kind of earthenware container. Rashi does not say how he knew this. And his comment only begs the question: why should such simple containers be called 'Hadrianic' simply because the emperor used them for his purposes? But even more does this explanation beg the more pertinent question: why should this kind of earthenware – whatever kind it may be – be forbidden for Jewish usage, as stated in our present mishnah?

9:
Shemu'el was one of the greatest of the first generation of Babylonian Amoraïm. As such, living where he did (the town of Pumpedita in what is now Iraq, an area which was not really 'Romanised') and when he did (more than a century after Hadrian's death) his 'explanation' is questionable. But the Gemara, this being sensed, then gives a second explanation:

He notes that the clay was so absorbent that they soldiers would smash the empty containers and take shards with them and drink wine from the shards!

10:
We are now nearer an understanding of why our mishnah prohibits the use of this kind of container. If this kind of earthenware is so porous and really did absorb so much of the wine that was stored in it it cannot be used by Jews because these containers have absorbed yeyn nesekh which would then be absorbed into anything that the Jew stored in the container. [For a brief account of yeyn nesekh see the previous shiur.]

11:
However, modern research has obviated the necessity of attributing these kind of earthenware containers to the Emperor Hadrian. It seems that clay of the kind that the Gemara has described is to be found near the Adriatic coast of eastern Italy. (This part of the Mediterranean sea was named for an Etruscan colony, Adria, but it is understandable why it was confused with the name of the emperor which was pronounced 'Adrian'. The Romans themselves used to call this sea mare superum, the upper sea.)

12:
Regardless of the provenance of the term used in our mishnah it is now clear that this kind of earthenware was prohibited because it was highly porous and the absorbed wine would inevitably contaminate whatever was stored in the container.

13:
The next item in the list given in our mishnah is 'perforated hides' and this clearly has nothing to do with the preceding items. But, we might ask, why should the fact that a hide had been perforated render it unfit for Jewish use? The matter is further complicated by the rider offered by Rabban Shim'on ben-Gamli'el:

What possible difference could be attributed to the form of the perforation? Why should one kind of perforation make the hide (leather) acceptable and another render it unfit for Jewish use? A hint is given in the Tosefta [AZ 5:3] which reads:

The following explanation is not for the squeamish! Apparently the prohibition is connected with pagan ritual practices. Animals were not only offered as sacrifices but they were also used for the purpose of 'taking the auspices'. The animal was killed and then immediately various organs were removed – particularly the heart and the liver – and a priest 'qualified' to interpret what was shown by these organs would offer his judgement.

14:
If a hide had a round hole in it it was most probably a hole made in the animal's skin to permit the pagan priest to insert his hand into the carcass and wrench out the appropriate organs. If the hole was elongated it could not have served for that purpose.

15:
However, the Gemara [AZ32a] adds a more sinister note. The Gemara asks: