Adereth Eliyahu, the cassette edition, is an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. Avodah Zarah (Idolatry), daf (page) ayin-daled, hey. Today’s daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) Avraham ben Ester, ruach Hashem tenichenu beGan Eden (in the Garden of Eden), amen, and ule'refuah shelemah (for a complete recovery), Mickey ben Jamie: El na refa na lo (Please, God, heal him, please), refuat hanefesh urefuat haguf (healing of soul and body), refuah kerovah lavo (a speedy recovery), vechen yehi ratzon (and may it be so willed), venomar amen.
We are seven lines from the bottom on ayin-daled, amud bet. Rava: ki havah meshader gulfe leHarpanya. When he was sending gulfe—Rashi says kadin reikan, empty jugs—he was sending them with a goy (non-Jew). The goy was the messenger sending the items to a place called Harpanya.
Sechif lehu apumayehu vechatim lehu abirtzayehu. So he sealed them. Rashi says, “Sechif lehu apumayehu,” meaning he would turn them over: “shuleihen lemalah,” their bases facing up, and “ufihen lematah,” their openings facing down. “Shuleihen lemalah ufihen lematah.” This was mishum chotam betoch chotam (seal within a seal). He put them in a vessel, in a bag, but turned them upside down to make two simanim (sign). “Vechatim lehu abirtzayehu, chotam et pi hasak lefi shuleihen.” He wanted to put a double siman: one siman was turning it upside down, and then he would tie the bag on top. Why did he want a double siman? What was his concern?
It says: “Kasavar kol davar shemachnis lekiyum afilu lefi sha'ah gazru beh rabbanan”—any vessel into which goyim put wine for kiyum, for the long haul, was subject to a rabbinic gezerah (decree). The rabbis were concerned that the goy might come and put his wine in it, even if only temporarily, because he was shipping the item. Any keli (utensils) normally used for long-term storage is asur—it’s forbidden—even to ship with a goy without putting simanim on it, because we are concerned he might put his wine in it, even lefi sha'ah, temporarily. It is the type of keli used for long-term storage, and that is why Rava put a double siman on it.
Rashi says: “Kol keli shemachnis lekiyum afilu ein mosro le'oved kochavim ela lefi sha'ah gazru beh rabbanan keyayin atzmo.” They made a gezerah like the wine itself. Just as the wine needed a double seal, the jug needed a double seal, “ki heichi dela teitei lidei shehiyah beyad ovdei chochavim,” so that it would not remain with the non-Jews and be ruined.
We learned in our Mishnah that certain vessels were tarred by goyim. They tarred the gat, the press in which they pressed the wine. After tarring it, they would pour wine on it to get rid of the smell, because the smell of the tar was very strong. If a Jew wants to use this gat, he has to clean it. The Mishnah’s wording was “menagevan”: you menagev it, clean it. The Gemara is going to explain exactly what the process of niguv is.
The Gemara asks: “Bameh menagevan?” Rav amar bemayim (water), Rabbah bar bar Chanah amar be'efer (ashes). One rabbi says to use water, and one says to use ashes. The Gemara asks rhetorically about Rav’s opinion: “Bemayim velo be'efer?” Is it possible to use water without ashes? You need something besides water to clean it, some detergent. Are you telling me to use mayim (water) without efer (ashes)? The Gemara then asks the reverse question about Rabbah bar bar Chanah: “Be'efer velo bemayim?” Ashes without water?
The Gemara answers: “Ela Rav amar bemayim vehu hadin (and the same applies) le'efer, Rabbah bar bar Chanah amar be'efer vehu hadin lemayim.” They both meant to use both items. Rav meant efer, and the same applies to mayim; Rabbah bar bar Chanah meant mayim, and the same applies to efer. They need both. Rashi says Rav said “mayim techilah”—first you put the water—and vehu hadin, it should say efer, atreih, after it, or batreih, should it say? “Tachat”? “Tachat” is acharehem. Rabbah bar bar Chanah said “be'efer techilah”—put the ashes first—and you need water afterward. “Ve'lo peligi”: there’s no argument between the two opinions; they are talking about different cases.
“Ha beretiva,” or “beretiveta,” and “ha beyabeshta”: it depends on whether the gat is still moist from the wine or is dry. If it is still moist, first you put ashes on it to dry it up and collect the wine, and then you put water on it to clean it. If it is dry, you put water on first and then scrub it with ashes. It all depends on whether it is dry or not.
Rashi explains: “Beretiveta sheyesh bah lachluchit yayin, noten efer techilah leshafshef ad shetitnagev bah, ve'achar kach mayim.” If there is moisture from wine, first put ashes on it and scrub until it is dry, and afterward use water. “Beyabeshta mayim techilah, ve'achar kach efer umeshafshef.” When it is dry, put on the water first and then scrub with the ashes.
“Itmar.” The Gemara now discusses the order of using water and ashes in different situations, depending on whether the gat is dry or wet. “Bei Rav mishmey deRav amri”: in Rav’s study hall, they said in the name of Rav, “tartei telat,” two and three. “VeShemu'el amar: telat arba,” three and four. Rav said two and three, and Shemu'el said three and four.
Rashi explains “tartei telat”: in the dry case, there are two stages, efer and mayim. In the dry case, there are three: mayim, efer, mayim. What does Shemu'el say? “Telat ve'arba.” In the wet case, there are three: efer, mayim, efer. Even though you then put on a fourth round of mayim to remove the efer, that final mayim is not counted. Rashi says, “Hanahu mayim lo ka chashiv,” that last water is not counted, “delav leshum negivah,” because it is not part of the cleaning process but is only to remove the ashes. In the dry case there are four stages: mayim, efer, mayim, efer. Again, the final mayim is not counted.
Rav needs ashes only once: water, ashes, water. Shemu'el needs ashes twice, whether the gat is wet or dry. Those are the opinions: “tartei utelat” or “telat ve'arba.”
“BeSura matnu hachi.” In Sura, they taught it as we just said: the machloket between Rav and Shemu'el about the wet and dry cases is two-three and three-four. However, “bePumbedita matnu”: in Pumbedita, they taught that in Rav’s study hall they said in Rav’s name, “telat arba,” three and four, and Shemu'el said, “arba chamesh,” four and five. They added one more stage. For Rav, three stages in the wet case are efer, mayim, efer; four in the dry case are mayim, efer, mayim, efer. Shemu'el says four in the wet case—efer, mayim, efer, mayim—and five in the dry case—mayim, efer, mayim, efer, mayim. For Shemu'el, the final mayim is counted as part of the process.
So there are two girsa'ot: the Sura version or the Pumbedita version. Is it two-three and three-four, or three-four and four-five? The Gemara says, “Ve'lo peligi”—there is no disagreement. One version counts the final water, and the other does not. Rav does not count the final water; Shemu'el does. Rav also agrees that after scrubbing with ashes, water is still needed. The question is whether the final water is counted as part of the process. They use the water to remove the ashes; the question is whether to count it. So two-three and three-four are really the same as three-four and four-five. The only question is whether the final water is included in the count.
Rashi says: “Ve'lo peligi Rav uShemu'el lehai lishna dePumbedita, ela leRav lo chashiv maya batra'ei, uShemu'el chashiv maya batra'ei.” In the Pumbedita version, there is no machloket (dispute): Rav does not count the final water, and Shemu'el does. That is the way we first learned it. It does not mean there is no machloket between Sura and Pumbedita. There is a machloket there, because they give different counts: two-three and three-four, or three-four and four-five. Rather, in this last version, in which one opinion says three-four and the other says four-five, there is no machloket. It is only a question of whether the final water is counted. That is what Rashi is telling us.
We are not trying to reconcile Sura and Pumbedita in this first explanation. We are reconciling the Pumbedita version with itself. That is the first pshat (plain meaning) in Rashi. Then Rashi gives a second pshat, trying to reconcile Sura and Pumbedita with each other. Before we get to the alternative, let’s understand it this way.
What is the pshat? The first rabbi, Rav, said three and four. Three is ashes, water, ashes. That is really four, but he does not count the final water; he ends with ashes. When Shemu'el says four, he counts both: ashes, water, ashes, water. Shemu'el counts the water, and Rav does not. So Rav’s three is really four, and Rav’s four is really five; he is just leaving off the final water. That is the first pshat in Rashi: Pumbedita’s version is not a machloket.
Rashi then offers a different explanation. He asks why one opinion would count the final water and the other would not. What is the reason? That does not make sense. So he gives another explanation, from his father. You do not see that very often. Rashi says he received this kabbalah (tradition) from his father: “kabbalah me'aba mori menuchato chavod.” He says, “Lashon aba mari menuchato chavod hutav be'einai veharishon lashon mori.” He likes his father’s explanation better than the first explanation, which is his teacher’s, because he has questions about the first one.
What is his father’s explanation? “Ein machloket lahalachah bein girsatam shel Sura levein girsatam shel Pumbedita.” There is no difference in the halachah between the versions of Sura and Pumbedita. “Uvishtei hagirsa'ot yeshnah machloket bein Rav uShemu'el.” Both versions have a machloket between Rav and Shemu'el. According to Rav, there is a difference between a dry gat and a wet gat. With a dry gat, one application of efer is enough; that is why it says “tartei”—efer and mayim. With a wet gat, you need two applications of efer. Shemu'el, on the other hand, holds that there is no difference between a dry and a wet gat: in both cases you need two applications.
This machloket exists in both the Sura and Pumbedita versions. The Sura version does not count the final water, while the Pumbedita version counts it. So when we said “tartei,” according to Rav, we have to ask which case it refers to. Let’s go through it again. “Shtikutei deRav keshem'atei.” Rav’s opinion distinguishes between dry and wet. A dry gat needs one application of efer, and a wet gat needs two. For the wet case, that is efer, mayim, efer, which really includes mayim afterward. Sura does not count that final mayim, so it calls the procedure three; Pumbedita counts it and calls the procedure four. In principle, the rules are the same. Rav needs one application of efer in the dry case and two in the wet case; Shemu'el holds that two applications of efer are always needed. The only question is whether the final water is counted. That is what Rashi’s father said, and that is the explanation Rashi preferred.
You can see the chart at the bottom; it gives you all the items.
“Ba'u minei meRabbi Abbahu: hanei gurgei (pressing bands) de'arma'ei mai?” What are these items? “Akalim shel arma'im”—what do they do with them? They wrap them around the pile of grapes in the gat. What are they? Strong ropes, Rashi says. Rashi calls them “gurgi,” “aklim,” and “vela'az ribusi.” He says they are wrapped around the pile of grapes so the grapes will not move from the weight of the beam. When the beam comes down, the grapes might splatter or spread out, so these items keep them in place. They are more like a net holding the grapes down. The question is how to kasher them. Why do they need kashering? I guess it is because they touch the grapes.
Rabbi Abbahu answers: “Amar lehu Rabbi Abbahu: Tanituha”—we have already learned it. “Harei shehayu gito uveit bado teme'in uvikesh la'asotam betaharah.” Suppose his winepress and oil press are tamei, and he wants to make wine and oil in purity. We are talking about a Jewish press in which a Jew had made olives or grapes in a state of impurity. The tumah had touched the whole machine, so now he wants to make wine and oil in purity. He has to clean the whole item so it will not transmit tumah. What does he do?
“Hadafin” are the planks of wood on which the piles of grapes or olives are placed at the time of pressing. “Veha'adashim” are the actual press, the basin where they press them. “Vehalulavin” are, I guess, the brooms they use to gather and sweep everything toward the middle. These are washed with water to remove the tamei material.
“Veha'akalim”—the nets we are discussing—absorb more, because they are on the grapes themselves, wrapped around them at the time of pressing. The grapes and olives get into them. If the nets are made of “netzarim,” small pieces of wood, or “batzbutz,” which is hemp, then “menagevan”: they are cleaned with ashes and water. “Veshel shifah veshel gemi”—these are types of plants that absorb more, like reeds—“meyashnan shenem asar chodesh”: leave them unused for twelve months. You need to dry them out in the air for twelve months; it is a major hechsher (kashering process).
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “Manichan migat legat umibad lebad.” These items, the shifah and gemi, absorb a lot. You do not use them from one gat to the next, from one pressing season to the next, and from one oil press to the next. “Gat legat” refers to grapes, and “bad lebad” to olives. Leave them unused for the season, and they are ready; that is less than twelve months. Maybe not. The Gemara says: “Hainu tana kama.” What are you talking about? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying exactly what the first tanna said, because the time between seasons is twelve months.
“Ika bainayhu churfei ve'aflei.” Their machloket concerns early and late seasons. Suppose the season comes early. According to the first tanna, you wait twelve months. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, if the crops grew early that year and it is an early season, you go by the season, so it could be eleven months. You do not have to wait the extra time to reach twelve months. Or suppose the season is late. Then you are stringent: you do not wait only twelve months; you wait until the season comes, which could be thirteen months. That is the nafka mina (practical difference).
Rabbi Yose says: “Ha-rotzeh le-taharan miyad.” Suppose you do not want to wait twelve months to kasher these items. What should you do? “Mag'ilan be-rotchin”—make hag'alah in hot water—or “choltan be-mei zeitim.” What is olive water? If you boil olives in water, you get olive water. The way to do it is to cook olives so they soften and can be pressed easily. Olives are softened in boiling water to facilitate extracting the oil. So he is saying to kasher them in boiling water to remove the oil, or to kasher them by putting them in hot mei zeitim. The water is hot; you pour it over them, and the oil comes out.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yose: “Manichan tachat tzinor she-meimav mekalchin, o be-ma'ayan she-meimav rodfin, ve-chamah onah (day or night period)?” Leave them under a pipe with flowing water, or in a spring with a strong flow, and let the water run over them. How long do you have to leave them there? For an onah. We will have to see how long an onah is. They give you different options: if you do not want to wait twelve months, you can kasher them in boiling water, pour mei zeitim over them, or put them under running water for a certain time.
The Gemara says: “Ke-derech she-amru be-yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry), kach amru be-taharot (purity matters).” The Chachamim say that just as you can kasher for yayin nesech, you can do the same for taharot. The Gemara asks what this means. This Mishnah or baraita was not discussing yayin nesech; it was discussing taharot. The person wanted to purify the items. The Gemara answers that just as we taught you to do it for yayin nesech, you do it for taharot. But we were not talking about yayin nesech here.
The Gemara says: “Klapei laya”—which way are these words being said? “Be-taharot kaiminan.” We are discussing taharot. You cannot say that we do it as we do for yayin nesech; we did not learn that process for yayin nesech here. We learned it only for taharot. So why does the Gemara say, “Ke-derech she-osin be-yayin nesech kach osin be-taharot”? On the contrary, we are discussing only taharot. How can you learn the law of yayin nesech if we have not learned that law yet? The Gemara says, you are right; say it in reverse: “Ela, ke-derech she-amru be-taharot kach amru le-yayin nesech.” That is how you kasher for yayin nesech as well.
Now we are discussing the nets used for yayin nesech, so they have yayin nesech in them. You either wait twelve months or kasher them immediately. How do you kasher them immediately? Either use hag'alah, or put them under running water for an onah. How long is an onah? Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: “O yom o lailah”—either a day or a night, about twelve hours. Rabbi Chana She'ina—and some say Rabbi Chana bar She'ina—says in the name of Rabbah bar bar Chanah, in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: “Chatzi yom ve-chatzi lailah,” half a day and half a night. That is half a day and half a night, six hours and six hours. Isn’t that the same thing? That is twelve hours.
Shemu'el bar Yitzchak says: “Lo peligi”—they do not disagree. Everyone agrees that it is twelve hours. Why, then, did they state it differently? “Ha bi-tkufat Nisan ve-Tishrei, ha bi-tkufat Tammuz ve-Tevet.” The statement “a day or a night” refers to when day and night are equal, in Nisan and Tishrei, in the spring and autumn. Then you usually have twelve-hour days and twelve-hour nights. That is why he said either a day or a night.
The other opinion, “chatzi yom ve-chatzi lailah,” refers to the seasons of Tammuz and Tevet, when the days and nights are not equal. In Tevet the nights are very long and the days are short. Suppose the day is six hours: half of the day is three hours. If the night is eighteen hours, half the night is nine hours. Together, that makes twelve. In the summer it is the opposite: the days are eighteen hours and the nights are six. Take half of each, and you again get twelve. The bottom line is the same twelve hours.
Rav Yehudah says: “Hanei revakei de'arama'ei.” What are these people doing? They take the sediment out of the wine. They have a meshameret, a sifter: a sack they put over the keli (vessel) to separate the shemarim, the sediment, from the wine. They put a filter over the barrel and pour the wine through; the wine comes out, and the sediment stays behind. Goyim are doing this here.
“Demazya”: if the filter is made of human hair, the hair does not absorb, so “medichan”—you just wash them with water, and they are kosher. “De'amra”: if it is made of wool, that is difficult, because the wine gets into it; “menagvan,” so you have to do niguv, with ashes and water. “Dechitana”: if it is made of linen, that is more difficult; “meyashnan,” leave it for twelve months to air out. “Ve'i ika kitrei”—if it has knots, it is worse. “Shari lehu”: untie the knots first, and then you can clean them, because the wine gets between the knots. You have to untie them in order to kasher them.
“Hanei dekulei vechalata de'arama'ei”—what are these? Beehive-shaped sieves and baskets made of reeds or wood, also used to filter wine. “Dechaytei bechavlei detzurei”: if they are woven with ropes made from “sivei dekel,” a stringy material that grows around the bottom of the palm tree, “medichan”—you just wash them with water. “Detzafta”: if they are made with something called gemi, then “menagvan”—they need niguv. “Dechitana”: if they are made of pishtan, linen, “meyashnan”—leave them for twelve months. “Ve'i it behu kitrei, shari lehu”: if there are knots, untie them.
“Itmar: am ha'aretz shehoshit yado legat venaga be'eshkolot.” An am ha'aretz is tamei on a rabbinic level, by the way. The rabbis imposed tumah on an am ha'aretz because they are not careful about the laws of tumah and taharah. He put his hands into the vat and touched the clusters of grapes.
Rabbi and Rabbi Chiya: one said, “Eshkol vechol sevivotav teme'im,” not only what he touched but all the grapes touching it become tamei, “vechol hagat kulah tehorah”—but the entire gat is tahor. The other said, “Kol hagat kulah nami teme'ah.” Everything is tamei. The grape clusters in the gat combine to transmit tumah to everything. The liquids connecting them make it all one, so he touches one item and it is as if he touched everything; the tumah spreads, and the whole thing is tamei.
According to the opinion that says the cluster and everything around it are tamei but the entire gat is tahor, how is that different from what we learned? “Sheretz she-nimtza ba-rechayim eino metamei ela mekom maga'o.” A dead sheretz found in a grinder where olives are ground transmits tumah only to the place it touched. “Ve-im hayah mashkeh mehalech ha-kol tamei.” But if liquid is flowing through the grinder, everything is tamei, because the oil in the grinder connects everything and connects all the olives. It should be the same here: there is juice coming out of the grape cluster and connecting everything. Once he touches it, it should connect everything and make it tamei. What is different about the sheretz in the grinder?
“Hatam lo mafskei velo midei, hacha mafskei eshkolot.” Over there, nothing separates the olives. Here, when the am ha'aretz touched the cluster, the clusters separate them. What does that mean? The Gemara apparently means that, since the individual grapes hang on the cluster, each one separately, the cluster itself separates the grapes from one another. The stems of the cluster are between the grapes. Therefore, they are not fit to be joined by the liquid in the vat. The olives, on the other hand, have nothing separating them, so everything can be joined together. The olives are all together under the press, and the juice between them connects them. Once he touches one part, everything becomes tamei.
Here, what do you want to make tamei? The liquid surrounding the grapes joins the clusters, but the clusters themselves are separate from the grapes. Each grape is separate on the cluster. You want to join all the grapes together because of the liquid, but the grapes are themselves separated because they are on separate stems. Each one is separate, so they do not join. That is the distinction.
“Horei leih rabbanan le-Rabbi Yirmiyah, ve-amrei lah le-v'reih de-v'reih de-Rabbi Yirmiyah, ke-divrei ha-omer eshkol vechol sevivotav tamei vechol ha-gat kulah tehorah.” The rabbis ruled for Rabbi Yirmiyah—or, some say, for his son—in accordance with the opinion that the cluster and everything around it are tamei, but the entire gat is tahor. Only what is around what he touched is tamei; presumably, the rest is separate because of the stems.
Now we get into the laws of kashering kelim. “Ha-loke'ach klei tashmish min ha-oved kochavim.” You bought a keli from a goy, and he used it for food. “Et she-darko le-hatbil, yitbil.” A keli that needs only immersion, without kashering the keli itself, should be immersed. I guess this is tevilat kelim (immersion of utensils) that we are discussing.
Rashi says: “Kelomar, kol ha-ra'ui le-hitaher bi-tevilah ein tzarich tikkun acher, kegon klei tashmish tzonen yitbil ve-tu lo tzarich.” A keli used for cold needs no other process. Nothing went into it, so all you need to do is tevilat kelim in a mikveh (ritual bath), making the keli usable for a Jew. The mikveh does not remove anything from the pot; it makes the pot usable for a Jew. We are talking about a pot the goy used for something cold. You do not need hag'alah for cold; nothing goes into it. Just immerse it, and you are done.
“Le-hag'il”: if you have a pot used for hot water or hot food, such as hot soup, the food goes into the pot. What do you do? “Yag'il.” The way to kasher it is the way it was used: hag'alah, immersing it in hot water. “Ve-lelaben ba-ur”: use fire, for example, with a skewer or something used directly on the fire, such as a barbecue grate. “Yelaben ba-ur”—the only way to kasher it is with fire. The Mishnah says, “Ha-shappud ve-ha-askala.” A shappud is like a spit or skewer, and an askala is the grate they use to put food on. “Melabben ba-ur”: they make libbun in the fire, the way they were used.
“Ha-sakkin”—the knives of the non-Jews—“shafah ve-hi tehorah.” You need to scrape it against a stone. We will see exactly how you do that. Is it a hot stone? What kind of stone is it? The Gemara will explain.
The Tanna teaches: “Vechulan tzrichin tevilah be'arba'im se'ah (forty se'ah).” All of them need immersion in forty se'ah. That is for sure. Besides kashering the keli, it is still not usable for a Jew; you still need immersion in a mikveh. That is tevilat kelim. If you bought a used silverware set, besides kashering it to remove the treifot, you have to immerse it in a mikveh. The same way we buy a new keli from a non-Jew, you have to immerse it in a mikveh. The mikveh has nothing to do with kashering; it is a separate law.
The Gemara asks about this basic law that we all know: how do you know it? How do you know that you have to immerse something in a mikveh? “Mena hani milei?” Where do you know this from? Rava says: “De'amar kra: kol davar asher yavo ba'esh ta'aviru va'esh vetahar” (Anything that can withstand fire, pass through fire and it will be pure). What is the word “vetahar” doing? Any item used with fire should be kashered with fire, and it becomes tahor. The Gemara says: “Hosif lecha hakatuv taharah acheret.” From here we learn that after you have kashered it to remove what is inside, the Torah requires another purification. What is the other purification? A mikveh. “Vetahar” means a mikveh; after the fire, “vetahar”—now purify it. That is another kind of taharah, in a mikveh.
Bar Kappara teaches: “Mitoch shene'emar bemei niddah.” Regarding the vessels of Midyan, when they went to Midyan, they took vessels. What does it say about those vessels? “Bemei niddah yitchatta” (It shall be purified with the water of purification). What are mei niddah (waters of purification)? “Shome'a ani shetzarich haza'ah shelishi vashevi'i.” I might understand from this that you need to sprinkle it on the third and seventh days, as if it had come into contact with corpse impurity. How do you remove corpse tumah from a person or from kelim? You sprinkle it with mei chatat on the third and seventh days. So perhaps I would think these kelim have to be purified like something that came into contact with a corpse, on the third and seventh days.
The verse says no: “Talmud lomar, ach.” The verse says “ach.” What does “ach” come to teach us? “Chilek”—it limits the requirement. You do not have to purify it that way. “Im ken, mah talmud lomar bemei niddah?” What, then, do the words “bemei niddah” teach us? “Mayim shehaniddah tovelet bahem, hevei omer arba'im se'ah.” When the verse says “bemei niddah,” it is not telling us to sprinkle with special water. It is telling us to immerse the item in water suitable for a niddah. What water is suitable for a niddah? Forty se'ah. That is the second source.
The Gemara says that we have two sources: “vetahar” and “mei niddah.” “Utzrich lemichtav vetahar utzrich lemichtav bemei niddah.” We need both verses. If the Torah had written only “vetahar,” I would have said any amount of water would do. The Torah therefore wrote “bemei niddah” to teach us that it has to be forty se'ah, like a mikveh for a niddah. If the Torah had written only “mei niddah,” I would have thought that you need he'erev shemesh, like a niddah. A niddah has to wait until nightfall to become tahor. So I would think that if you immerse a keli during the day, you have to wait until night.
That is why the Torah says “vetahar le'altar”: it is tahor immediately. Normally, a tamei person who goes to a mikveh can immerse during the day, but he has to wait until night to become tahor. He is called a tevul yom (one immersed that day). I might have thought that the keli, too, has to wait until nightfall. Until then, he cannot eat terumah (priestly portion), for example. The text also says that a niddah’s immersion permits her to her husband, but she is still forbidden to eat terumah and sacred foods until the beginning of the night after immersion. I guess we are not talking about the seventh day here; maybe we are talking about the Torah, let's say. So we are taught not to treat the keli like a niddah in this respect: the keli is tahor immediately.
Rav Nachman says in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: “Afilu kelim chadashim bemashma.” We have learned this from the vessels of Midyan, which were already used. How do we know it applies to new vessels bought from a goy? The Gemara says that even new vessels are included. “Deha yeshanim velibnan kechadashim damu va'afilu hachi ba'u tevilah.” Once you kasher an old keli, it is like a new keli. It has nothing in it. Still, what does the Torah say? Immerse it. Therefore, there should be no difference between a keli you have kashered and a new keli from the beginning.
Rav Sheshet challenges this: if you tell me that tevilah has nothing to do with what was inside the keli, but is for the keli itself, “afilu zuza desarbala nami”—even scissors used to cut wool should need immersion. Those are used to cut wool, not food. It sounds like any utensil bought from non-Jews needs immersion in a mikveh. So if you buy scissors from a goy, should you immerse them in a mikveh?
He answers: “Kelei se'udah amurin baparashah.” If you look at the context of the vessels of Midyan, the verses are talking about utensils used for eating. “Kol davar sheyavo va'esh ta'aviru va'esh,” and “kol davar yavi vamayim”—these are food items. So you have no proof about scissors; they do not come into contact with food. The discussion is only about food utensils.
Rav Nachman says in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: “Lo shanu ela bilkuchin, vechema'aseh shehayah, aval she'ulin lo.” They taught this only about items acquired, as in the incident of the vessels of Midyan. If you borrow a keli from a goy, you do not have to immerse it in a mikveh; just kasher it and use it. If a goy lends you a new keli, you do not have to immerse it. That is why you do not have to immerse their kelim. As long as you know they are kosher—for example, a glass they used for cold—you can use it without tevilah, because it still belongs to him and he is lending it to you. Where do we learn tevilah from? From the vessels of Midyan, which belonged to you. You cannot learn more than the source establishes. If they lent it to you, there is no law of tevilat kelim.
The Gemara now discusses which items need immersion in a mikveh. “Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef zavan mana demarda me'oved kochavim.” Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef bought a mana demarda from a non-Jew. That is what we discussed: a keli made of dung and earth, earthenware and dungware. He thought he should immerse it in a mikveh. One of the rabbis, named Rabbi Ya'akov, said to him: “Ledidi mefarsha li mineh de-Rabbi Yochanan.” I heard this explained from Rabbi Yochanan: “Kelei matachot amurin baparashah.” The kind of keli you have to immerse is the kind of keli mentioned in the passage. It means metal. This is not metal, so this type of item does not need immersion in a mikveh. The source for tevilah is the vessels of Midyan, and since those vessels were metal, only metal requires immersion.
Rav Ashi asks about glass: “Hanei kelei zechuchit.” Do you have to immerse glass in a mikveh? “Ho'il vechi nishtabru yesh lahem takanah kechelei matachot damu.” Since, if they break, they can be repaired, they are like metal utensils. They melt the glass again and repair it, however they do it. So glass has the law of metal, because metal, too, can be repaired if it breaks. Glass is not written explicitly in the Torah, but the reasoning is that, just as metal can be repaired if the keli breaks, there is also a way to repair glass. Therefore, you have to immerse glass as well.
According to this, there is a question whether it is de'oraita (Torah-level) or derabanan (rabbinic). It is a machloket among the Rishonim. You can say it is not written in the Torah and the Chachamim added it. Or you can say that their sevara (reasoning) is like a Torah-level sevara, and therefore glass is treated as metal. It is a machloket among the Rishonim. The nafka mina for us is to know which it is. It is not a nafka mina for a berachah; you make a berachah on glass, too, because you make a berachah on a rabbinic obligation as well. But if glass is derabanan, then in certain lenient cases, if you have a safek (doubt) about where the glass came from, there may be room to be lenient, according to the poskim (halachic decisors) who say glass is derabanan.
“Kunya”—what is kunya? It is earthenware, which you do not have to immerse because it is neither metal nor glass, but it has a metal coating; it is plated with lead. Rav Acha and Ravina disagree. One says to judge it as it was originally made, and one says to judge it as it is now. If you judge it as it was originally made, it is cheres (earthenware) and exempt. If you judge it as it is now, you have to immerse it. The halachah follows the latter opinion, so plated kelim have to be immersed.
That brings us to china. The chinaware that is plated in glass is glazed in glass, but that was really how it was done in the old days. Today the glaze is chemicals, so it could be more lenient. In the olden days they used to coat chinaware, which is earthenware, with glass. Because it has that glaze, you have to immerse it. But you have to check; today they mostly do not do it that way. They put a chemical coating on top, so halachically they would not have to immerse it, or they could immerse it without a berachah as a stringency.
One more. “Iba'ya lehu: mashkanta mai?” The halachah follows the opinion that judges it as it is now, so you have to immerse it. The Gemara asks: “Mashkanta mai?” A Jew lent a goy money, and the goy gave him a mashkon, a keli as collateral. Is it the Jew’s, so that he has to immerse it, or not? He lent money against the collateral.
Mar bar Rav Ashi says: “Abba, mashkaneih oved kochavim kasa dechaspa, ve'atbleih ve'ishtamesh beih.” His father, Rav Ashi, was given a silver goblet as collateral by a non-Jew, and he immersed it and used it. “Velo yada'na”—I do not know why he immersed it. Perhaps it was because he held that a mashkanta is like a purchase, so he owned it. Perhaps it was because he saw that the goy was not going to pay him back: “I mishum dachazeih le'oved kochavim deda'teih leshaku'ei.” That is, the non-Jew was going to leave the pledge with the rabbi and was not planning to redeem it; it was a specific case. So we cannot really learn the general rule from the story.
What does Rashi say? “Leshaku'ei shelo lifdot od”—he was not going to redeem it anymore. That is why Rav Ashi immersed it: the non-Jew had left this particular item with him and was not paying him back. But an ordinary mashkon may be different. So we have no proof from the rabbi’s case about the law of an ordinary mashkon.
Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen (Blessed is Hashem forever, amen and amen).