I 5. There are ten several degrees of uncleanness in men. He whose atonement is yet incomplete2 is forbidden [to eat of] Hallowed Things but permitted Heave-offering and [Second] Tithe; he that had immersed himself the selfsame day [because of uncleanness]3 is forbidden Hallowed Things and Heave-offering, but permitted [Second] Tithe; he that has suffered a pollution4 is forbidden all three; he that has connexion with a menstruant conveys uncleanness to what lies beneath him in like degree as [he that has a flux conveys uncleanness] to what lies above him; he that has a flux and has suffered two issues conveys uncleanness to what he lies upon and to what he sits upon, and he must bathe in running water5 but he is exempt from the offering; if he suffered three issues he must bring the offering; he that is a leper but only shut up6 renders [a house] unclean by entering into it, but he is exempt from the obligations of loosening his hair, rending his clothes7 and cutting off his hair and from the Bird- offerings,8 but after he is pronounced free of leprosy he is liable to them all; if a member is severed [from a man] and it does not bear its proper flesh,9 it conveys uncleanness by contact and carrying but it does not convey uncleanness by overshadowing; if it bears its proper flesh it conveys un¬ cleanness by contact and carrying and it also conveys uncleanness by over¬ shadowing. The measure of ‘its proper flesh’ is such that is capable of healing. R. Judah says: If in one place there is [flesh] sufficient to surround the member with [the thickness of] the thread of the woof, there is there such that is capable of healing.
6. There are ten degrees of holiness. The Land of Israel is holier than any other land. Wherein lies its holiness? In that from it they may bring the Omer,to the Firstfruits,'1 and the Two Loaves,12 which they may not bring from any other land.
7. The walled cities13 [of the Land of Israel] are still more holy, in that they must send forth the lepers from their midst; moreover they may carry around a corpse therein wheresoever they will, but once it is gone forth [from the city] they may not bring it back.
8. Within the wall [of Jerusalem] is still more holy, for there [only] they may eat the Lesser Holy Things'4 and the Second Tithe. The Temple Mount' 5 is still more holy, for no man or woman that has a flux, no men¬ struant, and no woman after childbirth may enter therein. The Rampart16 is still more holy, for no gentiles and none that have contracted uncleanness from a corpse may enter therein. The Court of the Women is still more holy, for none that had immersed himself the selfsame day [because of uncleanness] may enter therein, yet none would thereby become liable to ; See Ker. 2*. He counts as still suffering 'third-grade' derived uncleanness, and so renders Hallowed Things invalid by causing them to suffer ‘fourth-grade uncleanness'.
: See p. 773, n. 6. He is still suffering the equivalent of ‘second-grade uncleanliness' and can convey 'third-grade uncleanness’ to Heave-offering, so rendering it invalid.
♦ And has not yet undergone immersion. Lev. 15'*®.
11 Of Pentecost. Lev. 23". 11 See Arak. 9*. 14 See Zeb. 5*®; 14*.
The whole square (see p. 489, n. 11) of the Temple Area.
16 Surrounding the rectangular group of inner courts, containing the Temple structure to the west and the Court of the Women to the east (see Midd. 2J).
606 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH a Sin-offering, The Court of the Israelites1 is still more holy, for none whose atonement is yet incomplete may enter therein, and they would thereby become liable to a Sin-offering.2 The Court of the Priests is still more holy, for Israelites may not enter therein save only when they must perform the laying on of hands,3 slaughtering, and waving.4 9. Between the Porch and the Altar is still more holy, for none that has a blemish or whose hair is unloosed may enter there. The Sanctuary is still more holy, for none may enter therein with hands and feet unwashed. The Holy of Holies is still more holy, for none may enter therein save only the High Priest on the Day of Atonement at the time of the [Temple-] service. R. Jose said: In five things is the space between the Porch and the Altar equal to the Sanctuary: for they may not enter there that have a blemish, or that have drunk wine, or that have hands and feet unwashed, and men must keep far from between the Porch and the Altar at the time of burning the incense.5 2. 1. Utensils6 of wood, leather, bone, or glass that are flat are not suscep¬ tible to uncleanness. If they form a receptacle they are susceptible. After they are broken they become clean, but if again utensils are made of them they once more become susceptible. Earthenware vessels and vessels of alum-crystal are alike in what concerns uncleanness: they contract un¬ cleanness and convey uncleanness through their air-space, and they contract uncleanness [when upturned] from what touches their [concave] bottoms but not from what touches their outer sides; and when they are broken they become insusceptible to uncleanness.
2. The smallest remnants of earthenware vessels and the bottoms and sides [of broken vessels] that can stand without support [remain susceptible to uncleanness] if, [having when unbroken held] as much as a log,1 they can still hold enough [oil] to anoint the little finger [of a child]; or if, [having when unbroken held] from one log to one seah,7 they can still hold a quarter- log; or if, [having when unbroken held] from one to two seahs, they can still hold a half-Zo^; or if, [having when unbroken held] from two to three or up to five seahs, they can still hold one log. So R. Ishmael. But R. Akiba says: I would not prescribe any measure for [the unbroken] vessels; [but, rather, the rule should be]: The smallest remnants of earthenware vessels and the bottoms and sides [of broken vessels] that can stand without support [are still susceptible to uncleanness] if after having been as large as small cooking-pots, they can still hold [oil] enough to anoint the little finger [of a child]; or if after having been as large as Lydda jars, they can still hold a quarter-Zog; or if after having been of a size between Lydda jars and Bethlehem jars, they can still hold a half-Zog; or if after having been of a size between Bethlehem jars and large store-jars, they can still hold one log. R. Johanan b. Zakkai says: The capacity of the fragments from large store-jars is two logs; the capacity of the bottoms of [broken] Galilean cruses and of little jars may be aught soever; but their [broken] sides are not susceptible to uncleanness.
3. Among earthenware utensils these are not susceptible to uncleanness: a tray without a rim, a breached fire-pan, a tube for parched corn,8 gutter 7 See App. II, D.
7 See Shebu. 21.
spouts, even if they are bent or even if they are hollowed out,1 a basket-top that is used as a bread-basket, a ewer that has been fashioned so as to cover up grapes, a [stopped-up] jar for swimmers, a [small] jar let into the sides of a ladling-jar,2 a bed, a stool, a bench, a table, a ship,3 an earthenware lamp-stand; these4 are not susceptible to uncleanness. This is the general rule:s Among all earthenware utensils that have no inner part no regard is paid to their outer part.
4. If a lantern has a container for oil it is susceptible to uncleanness; if it has not, it is not susceptible. A potter’s mould with which he begins to shape the clay is not susceptible to uncleanness; but that with which he finishes it is susceptible. A funnel belonging to householders is not susceptible to uncleanness, but one that belongs to pedlars is susceptible, since it serves also as a measure. So R. Judah b. Bathyra. But R. Akiba says: Because he lays it on its side to let the buyer smell it.
5. The cover of wine-jars and oil-jars and the cover of papyrus jars6 are not susceptible to uncleanness, but if they were adapted for other use they are susceptible. If the cover of a stewpan has a hole in it or if it has a pointed top, it is not susceptible to uncleanness; if there is no hole in it or if it has not a pointed top, it is susceptible, because the housewife drains the vegetables into it. R. Eliezer b. Zadok says: Because she turns out the [stewpan’s] contents on to it.
6. If a spoilt jar was found in the [potter’s] furnace before its manu¬ facture was complete it is not susceptible to uncleanness; but if after its manufacture was complete, it is susceptible. A sprinkler7 R. Eliezer b. Zadok declares insusceptible to uncleanness, but R. Jose declares it sus¬ ceptible because it only lets the liquid out in drops.
7. Among earthenware vessels these are susceptible to uncleanness: a tray with a rim, an unbroken firepan, and a tray that is made up of several dishes. If one of them was rendered unclean by a [dead] creeping thing, they are not all rendered unclean; but if the tray had a rim that exceeded [the height of the rims of the contained dishes], and one dish was rendered unclean, all become unclean. So, too, with an earthenware spice-pot, or a double inkstand. But if one part in a wooden spice-pot is rendered un¬ clean by a liquid,8 the other is not rendered unclean. R. Johanan b. Nuri says: They divide the thickness of the partition and the half that serves the unclean part is accounted unclean, and the half that serves the clean part is accounted clean. But if its rim exceeded [the height of the rims of the contained parts], and one part was rendered unclean, the other parts become unclean also.
8. A torch is susceptible to uncleanness, and the reservoir of a lamp is susceptible to uncleanness from [an uncleanness within] its air-space.9 The comb-shaped filter of a water-cooler R. Eliezer declares insusceptible to uncleanness; but the Sages declare it susceptible.
1 By the dripping of water, so that a cavity is formed.
2 Cf. Par. s5; Toh. io?; Yad. i2. The large earthenware bucket used to draw up water out of a well. This ‘small jar let into the sides’ is in Par. 5 3 and Yad. i3 referred to as ‘the flanks'; it was some appendage to facilitate the handling of the large jar.
3 Cf. Shab. g2. 4 Even if they have a cavity. 5 Cf. below, 251; 27'.
6 Or ‘papyrus jar-covers’. Some explain the adjective, nayyaroth, as a place-name.
7 So devised that water in a sieve-like receptacle could be retained or released by closing or opening a hole above by means of the finger.
8 Which, of itself, cannot render anything else unclean (see App. IV. 18b), though (cf. Maksh. 6*) it renders foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness. 9 See p.604, n. 5.
608 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH 3. i. What is the measure of the breach that suffices in an earthenware vessel to render it insusceptible to uncleanness?1 If it was used for food¬ stuffs the breach must be large enough for an olive to fall through; if for liquids, large enough for liquids to run through; and if for either, the more stringent condition applies: a hole large enough for an olive to fall through.
2. In a jar the measure of the breach is such that a dried fig [will fall through]. So R. Simeon. But R. Judah says: A walnut.2 R. Meir says: An olive. In a stewpan or cooking-pot the measure is an olive; in a cruse or ewer the measure is such that oil will drip through; in a water-cooler the measure is such that water will drain through. R. Simeon says: For all three of them the measure is such that seeds will fall through. In a lamp3 the measure is such that oil will drip through. R. Eliezer says: A small coin. If a lamp has lost its nozzle it is not susceptible to uncleanness. A lamp of unbaked clay that has its nozzle burnt by the wick is not susceptible to uncleanness.
3. If a hole was made in a jar and it was mended with pitch and it was broken again but the part mended with pitch can still hold a quarter-^, it remains susceptible to uncleanness since it has never ceased to belong to the category of ‘vessel’. If a hole was made in a potsherd and it was mended with pitch, even if it will hold a quarter-log it is not susceptible to uncleanness since it had ceased to belong to the category of ‘vessel’.
4. If a jar was cracked and it was plastered over with cattle-dung, even though the potsherds would fall apart if the cattle-dung was taken away, it is still susceptible to uncleanness since it has never ceased to belong to the category of ‘vessel’. If it was broken in pieces and its sherds were stuck together again or if potter’s clay was brought from elsewhere [to stick them together], and it was plastered over with cattle-dung, even though the sherds held together when the cattle-dung was taken away, it is no longer susceptible to uncleanness since it had ceased to belong to the category of ‘vessel’; yet if there was in it one sherd that could hold a quarter- log every part is susceptible to uncleanness by contact, but only the part adjacent can suffer uncleanness from [uncleanness within] the air-space.
5. If a man plastered [a layer of cattle-dung] over a sound vessel [and the vessel became unclean], R. Meir and R. Simeon declare the plastering unclean. But the Sages say: If a man plastered over what was sound, the plastering is not susceptible to uncleanness; but if over what was cracked, the plastering is susceptible. And the same applies also to the hoop bound round a gourd-shell.
6. If a man touched the scutchgrass that was smeared over a pithos4 [and the pithos was unclean], he becomes unclean. The clay plug of a jar does not serve as a connective.5 If a man touched the plastering of a baking- oven [that was unclean] he becomes unclean.
7. If a kettle was plastered over with both mortar and potter’s clay and a man touched the mortar, he becomes unclean, but if the potter’s clay, he remains clean.6 If a cauldron had a hole in it and it was mended with pitch, R. Jose declares it insusceptible to uncleanness, since it cannot hold 1 Which it becomes so soon as it cannot fulfil its proper purpose.
4 The largest type of store-jar. Cf. R.Sh. 37.
5 So that if either the plug or the jar became unclean the other becomes unclean also.
6 If the kettle was unclean. The potter’s clay does not adhere thoroughly and so does not count as a connective.
hot water as well as cold. And he used to say the same of a vessel made of pitch. If copper vessels' were mended with pitch they become insusceptible to uncleanness; but if they were used for wine they are still susceptible.
8. If a hole was made in a jar and it was mended with more pitch than was needful, what touches the pitch that was needful becomes unclean, but what touches the pitch that was not needful remains clean. If pitch dripped on to a jar, what touches the pitch remains clean. If a wooden or earthenware funnel was stopped up with pitch, R. Eleazar b. Azariah declares it susceptible2 to uncleanness. R. Akiba declares it susceptible if it was of wood3 but insusceptible if it was of earthenware. R. Jose declares both susceptible.4 4. i. If a potsherd cannot stand of itself because of a handle-piece on it, or because its bottom is pointed and the point overbalances it, it is not sus¬ ceptible to uncleanness. If the handle was taken away or the point broken off it is still insusceptible. R. Judah declares it susceptible. If a jar was broken but could still hold something in its sides, or if it was split as it were into two troughs, R. Judah declares it insusceptible to uncleanness, but the Sages declare it susceptible.
2. If a jar was so cracked that it could not be moved about with even half a kab of dried figs in it, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. If a flawed earthenware vessel became so cracked that it could not hold any liquid, even if it could hold foodstuffs, it is not susceptible to uncleanness, since there can be no remnants of remnants.
3. What counts as a flawed earthenware vessel? Any that has lost even its handle only. If the sharp broken ends stuck out [at the top of a broken vessel], all those that [stand close enough together to] contain olives are susceptible to uncleanness by contact, and what lies over against them is susceptible to uncleanness from [uncleanness within] the contained air¬ space; but those that do not [stand close enough together to] contain olives are susceptible to uncleanness only by contact, and what lies over against them is not susceptible to uncleanness from [uncleanness within] the contained air-space. If it leans on its side like a kind of throne, any part that can contain olives is susceptible to uncleanness by contact, and what lies over against it is susceptible to uncleanness from [uncleanness within] the contained air-space; but any part that cannot contain olives is susceptible to uncleanness only by contact, and what lies over against it is not sus¬ ceptible to uncleanness from [uncleanness within] the contained air-space. The bottoms of pointed-bottomed jugss and the bottoms of Sidonian bowls, although they cannot stand unsupported, are susceptible to un¬ cleanness, because they were made after this fashion from the first.
4. If an earthenware vessel has three rims and the innermost exceeds the others in height, all [outside it] remain clean;6 if the outermost rim exceeds the others in height the whole becomes unclean; if the middle one exceeds the others in height, what is within it is unclean, and what is outside it remains clean. If all three are equal, R. Judah says: They divide [the thickness of] the middle rim. But the Sages say: [If what is within one rim 1 Used for heating liquids. 1 It will contain liquids.
J To which the pitch will adhere tightly, whereas it will easily fall away from earthenware.
4 The pitch will hold tight to the broken edges if not to a smooth earthenware surface.
* Some explain the word korfiyoth as the adjectival form of a place-name, ‘Korfian’.
* They count only as part of the outside of the vessel, which does not become unclean if the inside becomes unclean.
6lO SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH becomes unclean] all [the rest] remain clean. After what time does an earthenware vessel become susceptible to uncleanness? From the time that it is fired in the furnace, for that is the completion of its manufacture. 5. i. [To be susceptible to uncleanness] a baking-oven1 must, in its first state, be [at least] four [handbreadths high] and [it is still susceptible if] what is left* of it is four [handbreadths high]. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: This applies only to a large oven, but if it is a small one [it is sus¬ ceptible] in its first state no matter what its height, and [it is still susceptible] if what is left of it is the greater part of it. [It becomes sus¬ ceptible] after its manufacture is complete. What counts as the completion of its manufacture? When it has been heated to a degree sufficient to bake spongy cakes. R. Judah says: When a new oven has been heated to a degree sufficient to bake spongy cakes in an old oven.3 2. [To be susceptible to uncleanness] a double stove4 must, in its first state, be [at least] three [handbreadths high], and [it is still susceptible if] what is left of it is three [handbreadths high]. [It becomes susceptible] after its manufacture is complete. What counts as the completion of its manufacture? When it has been heated to a degree sufficient to cook thereon the lightest of eggs when broken and put in a saucepan. If a single stove5 was made for baking, its prescribed measure6 is like that for an oven; if it was made for cooking, its prescribed measure is like that for a double stove. A stone that projects7 one handbreadth from an oven or three fingerbreadths from a double stove serves as a connective.8 If it projects from a single stove that was made for baking, the prescribed measure is like that for an oven; if it was made for cooking, the prescribed measure is like that for a double stove. (R. Judah said: They have spoken of the measure of a handbreadth only [in what concerns a stone] between the oven and the wall’ of the house]). If there were two ovens side by side [and joined together by a stone], one handbreadth is allotted to each, and the residue between is not susceptible to uncleanness.
3. The crown10 of a stove is not susceptible to uncleanness. If the fender around an oven is four handbreadths high it is susceptible to uncleanness by contact and from [uncleanness within] its contained air-space; but if it is less than this it is not susceptible. If it was joined to the oven, if only by three stones,11 it is susceptible to uncleanness. The places on a stove12 for the oil-cruse, spice-pot, and lamp are susceptible to uncleanness by contact but not from their air-space. So R. Meir. But R. Ishmael13 declares them insusceptible.
1 Made of clay, pot- shaped, narrow above and wide below, like a truncated cone. It has no bottom but is fixed to the ground with fresh clay. Cf. below, 5’.
I After it had been broken because it had contracted uncleanness.
3 Which needs less heat than the new oven.
* Shab. 3*. A utensil for containing fire. It has two holes above, over which the cooking- pots are set.
5 Shab. 3*. Similar to the ordinary stove except that it has but one hole above.
4 When its height is enough for it to be susceptible to uncleanness; and also the pre¬ scribed degree of heating which marks the end of its manufacture. 1 To serve as a handle.
8 If the oven or stove is unclean, what touches the stone becomes unclean; and if any¬ thing unclean touches the stone, the oven or stove becomes unclean.
» Where one handbreadth suffices to isolate the wall from the oven. But if the stone pro¬ jects in the other direction it counts as a handle, and therefore a connective, even if it is longer than one handbreadth.
10 A high, and apparently detachable, rim around the stove’s open top; it does not contract uncleanness from uncleanness in the stove.
II The meaning is obscure. Some temporary or insecure connexion is implied.
11 A kind of ‘hob’ is intended. >* Some texts read ‘Simeon’.
4. If an oven was heated from without or unwittingly or while yet in the craftsman’s house, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. Fire once broke out among the ovens at Kefar Signah,1 and when the case was brought [for decision] to Jabneh, Rabban Gamaliel declared them susceptible to un¬ cleanness.2 5. The chimney-piece on a householder’s oven is not susceptible to uncleanness, but that of bakers is susceptible because the baker rests the roasting-spit3 on it. R. Johanan the Sandal-maker says: Because he bakes thereon4 in time of need. So, too,5 the rim around the boiler belonging to olive-seethers is susceptible to uncleanness, but that belonging to dyers is not susceptible.
6. If an oven was half filled up with earth, that part from the earth downwards can contract uncleanness enly by contact,6 but the part from the earth upwards also from [uncleanness within] its contained air-space. If an oven was put over the mouth of a cistern or cellar, and a stone was laid there,7 R. Judah says: If by being heated below it was also heated above, it is susceptible to uncleanness. But the Sages say: Since it has been heated it is susceptible, no matter whence [it was heated].8 7. If an oven had become unclean how is it made clean again? It is divided9 into three parts and the plastering scraped off down to the earth bottom. R. Meir says: The plastering need not be scraped off, still less to the earth bottom; but it need only be cut down so that on the inner side10 it is less than four handbreadths high. R. Simeon says: And it must be removed from its place. If it was divided into two parts, one large and the other small, the larger remains unclean and the smaller becomes clean. If it was divided into three parts one as big as the other two together, the big part remains unclean and the two small parts become clean.
8. If it was cut up breadthwise into rings, so that each is less than four handbreadths high, it becomes clean. If it was again [set up and] plastered over with clay it becomes susceptible to uncleanness after it has been heated to a degree sufficient to bake spongy cakes. If the plastering was built [around the oven] at a distance, and sand or gravel put between, of such they have said, ‘Be it a menstruant or she that is clean that bakes therein, it continues clean’.11 9. If an oven was brought in pieces from the craftsman’s house and hoops were made for it and fastened around it while it was yet clean, and it then became unclean, it again becomes clean if the hoops are taken off; if they are fastened on again it continues clean. If it was now plastered with clay it [forthwith] becomes susceptible to uncleanness; for it needs not to be fired since it has been fired already.
ro. If it was cut up12 into rings and sand put between each ring, R. Eliezer declares it insusceptible to uncleanness, but the Sages declare it susceptible. Such was the [kind of] oven made by Achinai. As for the 1 Men. 88. 2 Their being burnt marked the end of their manufacture.
3 On which roasting flesh hangs. The chimney-piece is thus an essential part of the oven.
4 i.e. he sticks his dough on the sides of it if the rest of the heated oven surfaces are occupied. s Eduy. 7s.
6 If a dead creeping thing touched the oven sides above the earth.
7 Serving as a bottom to the (new) oven.
8 The first heating, which marks the end of its manufacture.
9 Perpendicularly.
10 Sometimes the oven was sunk below ground level and sometimes its bottom was above ground level.
11 It counts as broken up and so insusceptible to uncleanness.
t> 1 2 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH cauldrons of the Arabs,1 which are hollows dug in the ground and plastered with clay, if the plastering can stand of itself it is susceptible to uncleanness; otherwise it is not susceptible. Such was the [kind of] oven made by Ben DinaiA ii. An oven of stone or of metal is not susceptible to uncleanness; yet this last3 is susceptible by virtue of being a vessel of metal.4 If a hole was made in it, or if it was damaged or split, and it was mended by plastering or patched with clay, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness.5 How big must the hole be? So big that the flame comes through. So, too, with a stove. A stove of stone or of metal is not susceptible to uncleanness; yet this last3 is susceptible by virtue of being a vessel of metal. It a hole was made in it or if it was damaged or split and6 it was mended by plastering, or if clay props were made on it,7 it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. If it was smeared over with clay, whether inside or outside, it remains in¬ susceptible to uncleanness. R. Judah says: If inside, it becomes susceptible, but if outside, it remains insusceptible.8 6. i. If a man made three clay props on the ground and joined them together with clay so that he could set the cooking-pot thereon, it9 is susceptible to uncleanness. If he fixed three nails in the ground so that he could set the cooking-pot thereon, even if he so fashioned them to make a place for the cooking-pot to rest upon, it remains insusceptible to unclean¬ ness. If he used two stones as a stove and joined them together with clay, it is susceptible to uncleanness. R. Judah declares it insusceptible unless a third stone is used, or unless it is made to lean against a wall. If one stone was joined [to the other] with clay, and the [third] one not joined with clay, it remains insusceptible to uncleanness.
2. A stone on which a cooking-pot is so set that it rests both on the stone and on an oven or a double stove or a single stove, is susceptible to uncleanness. If the cooking-pot rested on this stone and also on another stone or on a rock or on a wall, such is not susceptible to uncleanness. This was the [kind of] stove put against a rock used by the Nazirites10 in Jerusalem. If stones were set side by side for a butcher’s stove, and one of them became unclean, all of them do not become unclean.
3. If three stones were used to make two stoves, and one of the outer stones became unclean, the [half of the] middle stone that serves the unclean stone becomes unclean, but [the half] that serves the clean stone remains clean. If the clean stone was taken away, the middle stone pertains wholly to the unclean stone. If the unclean stone was taken away, the middle stone pertains wholly to the clean stone. If both outer stones became unclean and the middle stone was a large one, as much of it as is required to support the cooking-pot is reckoned to one [of the outer stones], and as much of it as is required to support the cooking-pot is reckoned to the other, and the residue between is deemed clean. But if it was a small stone, Men. 5*. 3 Sot. 9*. Cf. Josephus, Ant. xx. vi. t; viit. 5; Bell. it. xii. 4.
1 It is not susceptible through its air-space like an earthenware vessel; and it can be made clean by immersion.
* See App. IV. 16. Also, as distinct from an earthenware vessel, it can contract unclean¬ ness from its outer side.
s It then takes on the qualities of an earthenware oven.
* Some texts omit this clause.
7 On top of it, on which to set the cooking-vessels.
* On the ground that it derives no effective benefit.