* Such an earthenware tripod counts as an earthenware stove. 10 Cf. Midd. 2*.
all of it becomes unclean. If the middle stone was taken away and the other stones were near enough to support a large cauldron, they are susceptible to uncleanness. If the stone was put back again the whole becomes again clean. If it was plastered with clay it becomes susceptible to uncleanness after it has been heated to a degree sufficient to cook an egg thereon.
4. If two stones were used to make a stove and they became unclean and another stone was set up on the one side and another stone set up on the other side, a half of each [inner] stone remains unclean, and a half clean. If the clean [outer] stones were taken away, the others again become [wholly] unclean.
7. 1. If the bottom of the fire-basket1 of householders was hollowed out to a depth of less than three hanabreadths2 it is still susceptible to unclean¬ ness, since when it is heated from below the cooking-pot above will still boil; but if [it is hollowed out] more deeply it is not susceptible3 to un¬ cleanness. If [then] stone4 or gravel was put in [to fill up the hole] it still remains insusceptible.5 If [the stone] was plastered over with clay, it is thereafter susceptible to uncleanness. This was the answer of R. Judah6 about the oven that was set over the mouth of a cistern or cellar.
2. If the hob7 [of a stove] has a cavity in which to hold cooking-pots, it is not susceptible to uncleanness by virtue of conditions applying to a stone,8 but it is susceptible by virtue of being a vessel having a cavity. What touches the [outer] sides [of it] does not become unclean by virtue of conditions applying to a stove. Its flat expanse R. Meir declares insus¬ ceptible to uncleanness, but R. Judah declares it susceptible. So, too, if a [wooden] basket wras turned upside down and a stove made above it.9 3. If a stove is divided into two lengthwise it becomes clean; if breadth¬ wise it remains unclean. If a single stove is divided into two lengthwise or breadthwise it becomes unclean. If a fender around a stove is three finger- breadths high it is susceptible to uncleanness both by contact and from [uncleanness within] its contained air-space; but if it is less than this it is only susceptible to uncleanness by contact and not from [uncleanness within] its contained air-space. How is the measure of the contained air¬ space determined? R. Ishmael says: They stretch the spit from above [the brim of the stove] downwards [to the brim of the fender], and whatsoever is thereby enclosed can convey uncleanness through the contained air-space. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: If the stove becomes unclean the fender becomes unclean; but if the fender becomes unclean the stove does not become un¬ clean.10 4. If the fender was detached from the stove and was three finger- breadths high, it is susceptible to uncleanness both by contact and from [uncleanness within] its contained air-space; if it was lower than this, or had 1 A movable earthenware stove with very thick bottom, open at the top, where a pot could be set. According to Maim, it is the masonry under a stationary stove.
2 Lowering by so much the level of the fire.
8 The fire would be too low down and the heat would be dissipated.
4 Variant: lead.
5 Since the filling substance does not count as part of the vessel.
6 See above, 5“.
7 But according to Maim, it is a chest filled with hot ashes; on the top of the chest are holes to take pots in which food can be kept warm.
8 Cf. above, 52. When attached to the ground it is insusceptible, and if it becomes unclean it can be made clean in the conditions prescribed above, 3lf.
9 7 'he conditions applying to the stove do not apply to it.
10 The fender is but an adjunct.
614 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH no rim at all, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. If the three clay props [that bear the cooking-pot] were three fingerbreadths long, they are susceptible to uncleanness both by contact and from [uncleanness within] their contained air-space; if they were shorter they are the more suscep¬ tible,1 even if they were four2 in number.
5. If one [of the three] was taken away they are still susceptible to un¬ cleanness by contact3 but not from [uncleanness within] their contained air-space. So R. Meir. But R. Simeon declares them insusceptible. If it was made with only two props, one opposite the other,4 they are susceptible to uncleanness both by contact and from [uncleanness within] their con¬ tained air-space. So R. Meir. But R. Simeon declares them insusceptible. If they were more than three fingerbreadths high, the part [of the props] three fingerbreadths high and downwards is susceptible to uncleanness both by contact and from [uncleanness within] their contained air-space; and the part higher than three fingerbreadths is susceptible to uncleanness by con¬ tact but not from [uncleanness within] their contained air-space. So R. Meir. But R. Simeon declares them insusceptible. If the props were removed less than three fingerbreadths from the rim of the [mouth of the] stove, they are still susceptible to uncleanness by contact and from [uncleanness within] their contained air-space; but if more5 than three fingerbreadths they are susceptible by contact and not from [uncleanness within] their contained air-space. So R. Meir. But R. Simeon declares them insusceptible. I 6. How is the measure of the contained air-space determined?6 Rabban j Simeon b. Gamaliel says: A measuring-rod is stretched from one to the other;7 what is outside the measuring-rod is clean and what is inside the measuring-rod, and the place occupied by the measuring-rod itself, is unclean.
8. 1. If an oven was divided [into two parts] by boards or hangings and a creeping thing was found in one part, the whole becomes unclean. If a broken-down hive that was patched with straw8 hung down within the air-space of the oven, and had within it a creeping thing, the oven becomes unclean. If the creeping thing was found in the oven, food in the hive becomes unclean. R. Eliezer declares it clean. R. Eliezer said. If the hive affords protection in the graver matter of corpse[-uncleanness],9 should it not also afford protection in the lighter matter of [uncleanness contracted from] an earthenware vessel? They answered, If it affords protection in the graver matter of corpsef-uncleanness] (respecting which partitions afford protection in a ‘Tent’),10 does it therefore follow that it will also afford protection in the lighter matter of [uncleanness contracted from] an earthenware vessel (respecting which partitions afford no protection)?
2. If the hive was undamaged (and the same applies to a hamper or a 1 They are more nearly portions of the stove itself.
2 And one was superfluous for bearing the pot.
J As being usable as handles. 4 But broad enough to bear the pot.
5 The surplus ceases to count as part of the stove and to suffer the conditions peculiar to a stove.
6 What space counts as contained within the three props?
7 So describing a triangle (Bert., Tif. Yis.).
* It does not count as a vessel at all and so does not afford the protection which is afforded to its contents by a sound vessel (see below, 8*). * See Ohol. 9*- ’.
10 Referring to corpse-uncleanness conveyed by ‘overshadowing’ (see App. IV. 6) based goatskin) and the creeping thing was found in it, the oven remains clean. If the creeping thing was found in the oven, food in the hive remains clean. If there was a hole in them1 [what they contain becomes unclean] when, if the vessel was used for foodstuffs, the breach was large enough for olives to fall through, and if for liquids, large enough for liquids to drain through; and if for either, the more stringent condition applies — a breach large enough for a liquid to filter in.
3. If a colander2 was put over the mouth of the oven and it sank therein3 and it had no rims, and the creeping thing was found in it, the oven becomes unclean; if the creeping thing was in the oven, food in the colander becomes unclean, since only vessels4 afford protection against [uncleanness within] earthenware vessels.5 If ajar was full of clean liquid and it was put beneath the bottom of the oven, and the creeping thing was in the oven, the jar and the liquid remain clean. If ajar was held upside down with its mouth within the air-space of the oven, and the creeping thing was in the oven, the dripping liquid [still] at the bottom of the jar remains clean.
4. If a cooking-pot was put in the oven and the creeping thing was in the oven, the cooking-pot remains clean, since an earthenware vessel can¬ not convey uncleanness to other vessels.6 If it contained dripping liquid this becomes unclean and renders the pot unclean. Thus the pot may say,7 ‘What renders thee8 unclean does not render me unclean, but thou hast rendered me unclean*.
5. If a cock swallowed a creeping thing and fell within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean; but if the cock died there the oven becomes unclean.9 If a creeping thing was found in an oven, the bread in it suffers second-grade uncleanness because of the oven’s first-grade uncleanness.10 6. If a leaven-pot [of earthenware] having a tightly stopped-up cover" was put inside an oven, and in the pot was leaven and a creeping thing separated by a partition [within the pot], the oven becomes unclean but the leaven remains clean.12 But if it was an olive’s bulk of corpse both the oven and the house become unclean but the leaven remains clean.13 But if there was an opening [in the partition] one handbreadth square,14 all becomes unclean.
7. If a creeping thing was found in the outlet15 of an oven or of a double stove or of a single stove, and it was outside the inner edge, the oven remains clean. If it16 was in the open air, even if an olive’s bulk of corpse [was in its outlet], it remains clean; but if there was [in the outlet] an open¬ ing one handbreadth square,'7 all becomes unclean.
* A hive, hamper, or goatskin suspended in the air-space of an oven in which was a dead creeping thing.
1 A tablet with perforations and made of earthenware (so Maim.). Bert, and Tif. Yis: a small earthenware slab having no cavity, used by bakers to knead on.
J It was in part lower than the level of the oven's opening.
« And a flat, rimless sieve is not accounted a vessel. * Cf. Par. 5*; Yad. i*.
6 i.e. it can never become a ‘father of uncleanness’ (App. IV. 16 b).
7 To the liquid. * The uncleanness of the earthenware vessel. Cf. Par. 8*®; Toh. 8'.
* From the creeping thing. On the carrion of ‘clean birds’ see App. IV. 14 c.
10 The creeping thing is a ‘father of uncleanness’ and conveys ‘derived uncleanness’ of ‘first grade' to the vessel; and the food thereby suffers ‘second-grade’ uncleanness from the oven. See App. IV. 8 b, 17 d. ** See below, 10*.
11 Because in an earthenware vessel the effect of a ‘tightly stopped-up cover' is to prevent the entrance of uncleanness; it does not prevent its egress. Cf. Num. 191*.
>* The minimum opening which suffices to afford passage to corpse-uncleanness. See Ohol. 3*.
*3 A hole low down in the stove- or oven-side, to let out smoke or let in air.
16 The oven or stove. 17 And one handbreadth deep. See Ohol. 3’.
616 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH 8. If the creeping thing was found in the opening at which the wood was put in, R. Judah says: If it was within the outer edge the stove becomes unclean. But the Sages say: If it was outside the inner edge it remains clean. R. Jose says: [If the creeping thing was found] directly beneath where the cooking-pot is set and inwards, the oven becomes unclean; but if directly beneath where the cooking-pot is set and outwards it remains clean. If it was found [on that part of the stove] where the bath-keeper sits, or where the dyer sits, or where the olive-seethers sit, the stove remains clean; it becomes unclean only [if the creeping thing is found] inside that part of the stove which is blocked up [by the cooking-pot].
9. If an earth-oven1 has some place w’hereon to set a pot, it is susceptible to uncleanness; also that of glass-blowers, if it has some place whereon to set a pot, is susceptible to uncleanness. The furnace of lime-burners or of potters is not susceptible. A big baking-oven, if it has a rim, is sus¬ ceptible to uncleanness. R. Judah says: If it is roofed. Rabban Gamaliel says: If it has a border.
10. If a man touched one that had contracted uncleanness from a corpse, and he had foodstuffs or liquids in his mouth, and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was clean, they render the oven unclean.2 If a man was clean and had foodstuffs or liquids in his mouth, and he put his head into the air-space of an oven that was unclean, they become unclean.3 If a man ate fig-cakes4 with unwashed hands5 and put his hand into his mouth to take out the small stones, R. Meir declares [the fig-cake] unclean, and R. Judah declares it clean. R. Jose says: If he turned it over in his mouth it becomes unclean; otherwise it remains clean. If he had a pondion6 in his mouth, R. Jose says: If it was to relieve his thirst, it becomes unclean.
11. If milk from the breasts of a woman [who was unclean] dropped into the air-space of an oven, the oven becomes unclean, since a liquid [that is unclean] conveys uncleanness whether [its presence is] acceptable or not acceptable.7 If she was cleaning out the oven and a thorn pricked her so that she bled, or if she burnt herself and put her finger into her mouth, the oven is rendered unclean.
9. 1. If a needle or a ring8 were found embedded in the bottom9 of an oven and they were visible but did not project, and if, in baking, the dough would touch them, the oven is unclean. This applies to dough that is neither too soft nor too hard. If they were found in the [outer] plastering of an oven10 with a tightly stopped-up cover, and the oven was unclean, they also are unclean; if it was clean, they also are clean.11 If they were found at the sides of the [clay] plug of ajar,12 they are unclean; but if opposite the mouth * Such as that of Ben Dinai, 5“.
2 Although they suffer only ‘derived uncleanness’; see App. IV. 18 b. Par. 8‘.
1 His mouth does not count as 'a vessel having a tightly stopped-up cover’ (see io'*).
5 These count as suffering ‘second-grade uncleanness’; therefore they render Heave¬ offering (see App. IV. 17) unclean and invalid with ‘third-grade uncleanness’. But dry food is only susceptible to uncleanness when moistened by a liquid (p. 758, n. 1.)
6 App. II, A. 7 Of. Maksh. il; 4‘; Teb. Y. a1.
* Metal objects found by chance are in any case deemed to be suffering corpse-unclean¬ ness.
9 The ground on which the oven was fixed. If the objects were in the ground before the oven was put there they cannot count as part of the oven.
10 In a ‘tent’ wherein was a corpse.
* 1 They count as part of the plastering which is a part of the oven.
12 The plug was cone-shaped and thrust, narrow end down, into the jar’s mouth; there¬ fore part of the sides of the plug was within the jar’s air-space, part ‘opposite’ the mouth of of the jar, they are clean. If they were visible from within but do not project into the air-space of the jar, they are clean. If they sank into [the air-space of the jar] but beneath them was still [clay] thin as garlic-peel [between them and the air-space], they are clean.
2. If there was ajar1 full of clean liquids with a siphon inside it and the jar had a tightly stopped-up cover, and it was put in a ‘Tent’ wherein was a corpse, the School of Shammai say: The jar and the liquids remain clean but the siphon is unclean. The School of Hillel say: The siphon also is clean. But the School of Hillel changed their opinion and taught according to the opinion of the School of Shammai.
3. If a creeping thing was found beneath the bottom of an oven, the oven remains clean, since I may suppose that it was still alive when it fell,2 and is only now dead. If a needle or a ring were found beneath the bottom of an oven, it remains clean, since I may suppose that they were there before the oven was brought there. If they were found in the wood ashes, the oven is unclean, since there is naught whereon to rely [in deeming it clean], 4. If a sponge had soaked up unclean liquids and its surface became dry, and it fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven becomes unclean, since the [absorbed] liquid will in the end emerge. So, too, if a piece of turnip or reed-grass [had absorbed unclean liquids]; but in these two cases R. Simeon declares [the oven] clean.
5. If potsherds that had been used for unclean liquids fell into the air¬ space of an oven, and the oven was heated, it becomes unclean, since the [absorbed] liquid will in the end emerge. So, too, with fresh olive-peat; but if the peat was old the oven remains clean. But if it was known that liquid emerged, even if the peat was three years old, the oven becomes unclean.
6. If olive-peat or grape-skins had been pressed out in conditions of cleanness3 and unclean persons trod upon them and liquid emerged there¬ from, they remain clean since they had at first been prepared in conditions of cleanness.4 If while they were yet clean the spindle-hook was wholly sunk into the spindle, or the iron point into the ox-goad, or a ring into a clay brick, and they were then brought into a ‘Tent’ wherein was a corpse,5 they become unclean.6 If one that had a flux7 shifted them they become unclean. If they then fell into the air-space of an oven that was clean they render it unclean; but if a loaf of Heave -offering touched them it remains clean.
7. If a colander8 was put over the mouth of an oven, forming a tightly stopped-up cover,9 and there was [in the plastering] a split between the oven and the colander, [it no longer serves as a tightly stopped-up cover] even if the split is so small in size that the tip of an ox-goad cannot enter.
the jar, and the thickest part was outside. If the ring or needle were in the first two parts they have the benefit of the protection of the ‘tightly stopped-up cover’.
1 Belonging to an Am-haaretz (App. I. 3). The present case is supposed to be the same as that dealt with in Eduy. iu.
2 And so did not render the oven unclean through the contained air-space.
3 By clean persons and in clean vessels.
4 The liquid was not intentionally trodden out and so could not render the solid olive- and grape-skins susceptible to uncleanness. See p. 758, n. 1.
6 Only objects ‘swallowed’ by living creatures are protected against corpse-uncleanness.
8 See above, 83. 9 See below, 102.
SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH R. Judah says: [It is valid unless it is such that] it can enter. If there was a split in the colander itself [it no longer serves as a tightly stopped-up cover] if the size [of the split] is such that the tip of an ox-goad can enter. R. Judah says: [Even if it is such that] it cannot enter. If the split was curved it is not measured lengthwise; but [they take account only of] whether its size is such that the tip of an ox-goad can enter.
8. If a hole was made in the [stopped-up] outlet of an oven [it no longer acts as a tightly stopped-up cover] if its size is such that a spindle-staff can enter in and come out burning. R. Judah says: [Even if it comes out] not burning. If a hole is made in [the plastering] at the side of it [it no longer acts as a tightly stopped-up cover] if its size is such that a spindle- staff can enter in and come out, but not burning. R. Judah says: [It must be such that it will come out] burning. R. Simeon says: If [the hole was] in the middle, [the prescribed size is such that a spindle-staff] can enter; but if at the side, such even that it cannot enter. So, too, he used to say of a jar’s plug in which was a hole, of which the prescribed size is the thick¬ ness of the second knot in an oat-stalk, that if [the hole was] in the middle, the stalk should be able to enter; if at the side it need not be able to enter. So, too, he used to say of large store-jars in which was a hole, of which the prescribed size is the thickness of the second knot in a reed, that if [the hole was] in the middle [of the plug] the reed should be able to enter; if at the side, it need not be able to enter. This applies only if they were made to store wine; but if they were made for other liquids, however small the hole, [the contents] are subject to uncleanness.1 This applies only if [the holes] were not made at man’s hand; if they were made at man’s hand, however little the hole, [the contents] are subject to uncleanness. If a hole appeared [not caused by man’s hand], and the vessel was used for food¬ stuffs, the prescribed size of the hole2 is such that olives will fall through; if for liquids, such that liquids will drip through; if for either, the more stringent condition applies — that of the tightly stopped-up cover — such that liquids can filter into it.
10. i. These vessels afford protection [in the ‘Tent’ wherein is a corpse] when they have a tightly stopped-up cover:3 vessels made from cattle- dung, stone, [unburnt] clay, earthenware, or alum-crystal; also4 from fish¬ bones or fish-skin, the bones and skin of animals that live in the sea, and wooden vessels that are not susceptible to uncleanness.5 They afford protection whether [the tightly stopped-up cover] is above or at the side, whether they stand on their bottom or lean on their sides. If they are turned upside down they afford protection to all that is beneath them to the nethermost deep. R. Eliezer declares unclean [what is beneath them]. They6 afford protection to everything save that an earthenware vessel can afford protection only to foodstuffs, liquids, and [other] earthenware vessels.7 2. With what may they stop them up? With lime or gypsum, pitch or wax, mud or excrement, crude clay or potter’s clay, or aught used for 1 In the ‘tent’ wherein is a corpse.
2 When the contents are no longer preserved from corpse-uncleanness, even if the vessel has a tightly stopped-up cover.
3 See Num. 1915. * See below, 1713.
5 Those big enough to hold forty seahs. See below, 1 51 0 Such vessels having tightly stopped-up covers.
plastering. They may not stop them up with tin or lead, for though they serve as a covering they cannot serve as a cover that is tightly stopped up. They may not stop them up with swollen fig-cakes or dough kneaded with fruit-juice, lest they make unfit1 what is in the vessel. But if a vessel was so stopped up it affords protection.
3. If the plug of a jar became loose but did not fall out, R. Judah says: It affords protection. But the Sages say: It does not afford protection. If its finger-hold2 was sunk below [the level of the top of] the jar and had a creeping thing therein, the jar becomes unclean. If the creeping thing was in the jar food within the finger-hold becomes unclean.
4. If a ball or coil of reed-grass was put over the mouth of the jar and only the sides of it were plastered down, it does not afford protection — but it must be plastered above and below. So, too, with a patch of woven stuff. If [the covering was] of paper or leather, and it wTas bound round with a cord, it affords protection only if it is plastered at the sides.
5. If the earthenware of a jar had scaled off but the pitch [lining] re¬ mained (so, too, pots of fish-brine which are lined with gypsum up to the brim) R. Judah says: Such do not afford protection. But the Sages say: They do afford protection.
6. If a jar had a hole in it, but the wine-lees blocked it up, they afford protection. If it was corked up with a vine-shoot [it affords protection] only if it was plastered at the sides. If it was corked up with two vine- shoots [they afford protection] only if it was plastered at the sides and between the one vine-shoot and the other. If a board was put over the mouth of an oven, and it was plastered at the sides, it affords protection; if two boards, [they afford protection] if they were plastered at the sides and between the one board and the other. If they were fastened together with pegs or joints they need not be plastered in the middle.
7. If3 an old oven4 was within a new oven,5 and a colander lay over the mouth of the old oven and was such that if the old one was removed the colander would fall, the whole becomes unclean; if it would not fall the whole remains clean.6 If a new oven was within an old oven, and a colan¬ der lay over the mouth of the old oven, and the space between the new oven and the colander was less than one handbreadth, whatsoever is in the new oven remains clean.7 8. If many saucepans stood one within the other, yet their rims were at the like level, and there was a creeping thing in the uppermost one or in the lowest one, that one alone becomes unclean and the others remain clean. If they were so [damaged] that liquids could penetrate into them, and the creeping thing was in the uppermost saucepan, all become unclean; if it was in the lowest, that one is unclean but the rest remain clean. If the creeping thing was in the uppermost saucepan and the lowest was highest [in the brim], these both become unclean. If it was in the upper- 1 By means of their liquid matter (cf. Maksh. 64) they may render the food within sus¬ ceptible to uncleanness (Lev. 1134).
2 A cavity in the plug to help the fingers to draw out the plug.
3 In the ‘tent’ wherein is a corpse.
4 Properly fired, thereby counting as a ‘vessel’ and requiring a tightly stopped-up cover to protect it.
5 Not yet properly fired; it is therefore not a finished ‘vessel’, is insusceptible to unclean¬ ness, and can serve as a ‘screen’ against corpse-uncleanness.
6 The colander serves as a valid screen. Cf. Ohol. iz1.
7 It can be regarded as though the colander lay over the top of the new oven, so affording t protection.
620 SIXTH DIVISION: TOHOROTH most saucepan, and the lowest was highest [in the brim], all of them in the middle that drip with liquid become unclean.
11. r. Utensils1 of metal are susceptible to uncleanness whether they are flat or whether they form a receptacle; after they are broken they become insusceptible; but if again utensils are made of them they once more be¬ come susceptible. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: This does not apply to every uncleanness but only to uncleanness from a corpse.
2. Any article of metal that has a name of its own2 is susceptible to uncleanness, excepting a door, bolt, lock, hinge-socket, hinge, clapper, or [threshold] groove, since these are made to be joined to the ground.3 3. Articles made from iron ore, or a piece of [unshaped] smelted iron, or the iron hoop of a wheel, or of sheet-metal, or metal plating, or the bases or rims or handles of other vessels, or metal chippings or filings, are not susceptible to uncleanness. R. Johanan b. Nuri says: Also [such as are made] from broken up [metal] articles. If they were made from the frag¬ ments of [other] articles or from the refuse, or from nails known to have been made from other articles, they are unclean. If [they were made] from common nails the School of Shammai declare them unclean, but the School of Hillel declare them clean.
4. If iron from an unclean article was smelted together4 with clean iron and the greater part was from the unclean iron, the whole is unclean; if the greater part was from the clean iron, the whole is clean; if the two were equal the whole is unclean. So, too, if an article was made of both cement and cattle-dung.5 A door-bolt6 is susceptible to uncleanness, but if it was only [wood] plated [w7ith metal], it is not susceptible. The clutch and the cross-piece of a lock are susceptible to uncleanness. R. Joshua says: A door-bolt may be drawn off one door and hung on another on the Sabbath. R. Tarfon says: It can be dealt with like all other articles and moved about within the courtyard.
5. The scorpion-bit of a bridle is susceptible to uncleanness, but the cheek-pieces are not susceptible. R. Eliezer declares the cheek-pieces also susceptible, but the Sages say: The scorpion-bit alone is susceptible to uncleanness, but while they are joined together the whole is susceptible.
6. A metal spindle-knob R. Akiba declares susceptible to uncleanness, but the Sages declare it insusceptible. If it is only plated it is insusceptible. If a spindle, distaff, rod, double flute, or pipe are made of metal they are susceptible to uncleanness; but if they are only plated they are not sus¬ ceptible; but in either case if the double flute has a groove for the ‘w'ing’7 it is susceptible.
7. A curved horn is susceptible to uncleanness and a straight one is insusceptible, but if its mouthpiece is of metal it is susceptible. Its wide [metal] end R. Tarfon declares susceptible, but the Sages declare it insus¬ ceptible. When they are joined together the whole is susceptible. So, too, [they have taught that] the branches of a candlestick are not susceptible to uncleanness, but the cups and the base are susceptible; and when they are joined together the whole is susceptible.
1 Cf. 21; is1. 2 i.e. it is not merely part of another utensil.
2 And remain insusceptible even if they are not yet attached to the ground.
5 If this is the greater part the whole is insusceptible. See App. IV. 16 c.
6 Often used as a pestle.
7 Perhaps a cavity containing a vibrating tongue of reed is intended.
8. A helmet is susceptible to uncleanness but the cheek-pieces are not susceptible; but if they have a cavity that will hold water they are suscep¬ tible. All weapons of war are susceptible: the javelin, spear-head, greaves, and breastplate are susceptible to uncleanness. All women’s adornments are susceptible to uncleanness: the ‘golden city’,1 2 necklace, ear-rings, finger-rings, rings with a seal or without a seal, and nose-rings. If a necklace has metal beads on a thread of flax or wool and the thread breaks, the beads are still susceptible to uncleanness, since each one is an article in itself. If the necklace has a thread of metal, with beads of precious stones and pearls or glass, and the beads are broken and the thread alone remains, it is still susceptible to uncleanness. The remnants of a necklace [are still susceptible] if enough to encompass the neck of a little girl. R. Eliezer says: Even if only a single link remains it is susceptible to unclean¬ ness since the like of it is hung around the neck.
9. If an ear-ring is made with a pot-shaped bottom and a lentil-shaped top and the pieces fall apart, the pot-shaped piece is susceptible to unclean¬ ness by virtue of being an article forming a receptacle, and the lentil-shaped piece is susceptible to uncleanness in itself. The hooklet [of the ear-ring] is not susceptible. If the pieces [of a pendant] made in the shape of a grape-cluster fall apart, it is not susceptible to uncleanness.
12. 1. A ring3 worn by men is susceptible to uncleanness, but a ring for cattle or for utensils and all other rings are not susceptible. The [iron- shod] beam [used as a target] for arrows is susceptible to uncleanness, but that [used as a foot-stock] for prisoners is not susceptible. A neck-iron is susceptible. A chain that has a lock-piece is susceptible, but if it is used [only] to tie up [a beast] it is not susceptible. The chain belonging to corn-merchants is susceptible, but that belonging to householders is not susceptible. R. Jose said: This applies only if it has but one link; if it has two, or if it has a slug-piece on the end, it is susceptible.