Explanation #1: Rashi's first explanation is that when Rav says "two three" he means that if there are drops of wine in the vessel one must first rub it with ash and then rinse it with water (two). If it is dry, one must first rinse it with water, then scrub it with ash, and then rinse again (three).

Explanation #1 (cont.): When Shmuel says "three four" he means he means that if there are drops of wine in the vessel one must first rub it with ash, rinse it with water, and then scrub with ash again (three). Even though this means he must rinse the ash away afterwards, Shmuel does not count this. If it is dry, one must first rinse it with water, then scrub it with ash, rinse again, and scrub with ash (four). Just like the first case, Shmuel does not include another rinsing afterward as being counted. This is how they taught the argument in Sura.

Explanation #1 (cont.): In Pumbedisa they taught that when Rav says "three four" he means that if there are drops of wine in the vessel one must rub it with ash, rinse it with water, and rub it with ash again (three). If it is dry, one must first rinse it with water, then scrub it with ash, and then rinse again, and scrub it with ash again (four).

Explanation #1 (cont.): When Shmuel says "four five" he means that if there are drops of wine in the vessel one must first rub it with ash, rinse it with water, scrub it with ash again, and rinse again (four). If it is dry, one must first rinse it with water, then scrub it with ash, rinse again, and scrub with ash, and rinse again (five). Rav and Shmuel are not arguing according to this version which was taught in Pumbedisa. Shmuel merely included the last rinsing, while Rav did not.

Question: Rashi asked that according to the version taught in Sura, being that Rav and Shmuel argue, as Rav only requires one cleaning of ash and Shmuel requires two cleanings of ash, why did Rav include the last rinsing while Shmuel did not? According to the version taught in Pumbedisa this is not difficult, as their entire difference is based on whether or not they included the last rinsing.

Explanation #2: Rashi therefore understands that there is a different explanation, one which his father taught him. When Rav says "two three" he means that if the vessel is dry it requires rinsing and scrubbing with ash (two). If it has drops of wine, it requires scrubbing with ash, rinsing with water, and ash again (three).

Explanation #2 (cont.): Shmuel agrees with Rav regarding a vessel with drops of wine (three). He argues regarding a dry vessel that it requires rinsing with water, scrubbing with ash, rinsing again, and ash again.

Explanation #2 (cont.): In Pumbedisa they taught that Rav says regarding a dry vessel that one must rinse, use ash, and rinse again (three). Regarding a vessel with drops of wine he must use ash, rinse, use ash again, and rinse again (four). Shmuel agrees with Rav regarding a wet vessel, but says that five steps are required for a dry vessel. According to this explanation, the Sura and Pumbedisa versions are not arguing. (They each hold there is no argument regarding wet vessels, and there is an argument whether or not the process must be repeated one more time regarding dry vessels.)

Question: This explanation also does not seem correct. If this is so, Rav and Shmuel's logic are exactly the opposite of each other! Rav is more lenient regarding a dry vessel than regarding a wet vessel, whereas the opposite is true of Shmuel!

Explanation #3: It therefore appears to the Ri that the following explanation is correct. When Rav says "two three" he means that a dry vessel must be rinsed and scrubbed with ash, while a wet vessel must be scrubbed with ash, rinsed, and scrubbed with ash again.

Explanation #3 (cont.): When Shmuel says "three four" he is merely adding an extra rinsing to each case, whether the vessel is wet or dry.

Explanation #3 (cont.): In Pumbedisa they taught that when Rav says "three four" he means what Rashi explained earlier in his first explanation. If there are drops of wine in the vessel one must rub it with ash, rinse it with water, and rub it with ash again (three). If it is dry, one must first rinse it with water, then scrub it with ash, and then rinse again, and scrub it with ash again (four).

Explanation #3 (cont.): When Shmuel says "four five" he is saying four steps for a wet vessel and five for a dry vessel. He is merely adding a last rinsing to each case.

Explanation #3 (cont.): Rav and Shmuel are not arguing according to both versions of Sura and Pumbedisa. Rather, Rav is not counting the last rinsing, while Shmuel is including the last rinsing.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that our tablecloths and sheets that were soaked in Yayin Nesech do not have to be laid out to dry for twelve months. This is apparent from the fact that it does not say this law regarding all linen clothes in general. Rather, this only refers to items that the Chachamim said require this treatement. They said this because they had expertise in understanding the amount of absorbtion in these items.

Opinion (cont.): One should not differentiate between Yayin Nesech that is cold and other prohibited items that fall on these tablecloths. Everything is permitted if they are laundered in a Kli Sheini. It is well known that in a big load of laundry, where everything is hit many times, the prohibited item will clearly come out.

Implied Question: Perhaps one can differentiate between prohibited things that are stuck to these items and prohibited things that do not get stuck. This is a difference that is indeed stated in Zevachim (79b).

Explanation: The Gemara explains this is referring to a knife used to cut something cold.

Implied Question: This is unlike a knife that is used to slaughter a Treifah which can be merely wiped clean with an old tough rag, as stated in Chulin (8b, see Tosfos DH "v'Hilchasa"). (Why don't they have the same law?)

Answer: The knife of a Nochri has absorbed a lot of sticky liquids. However, a knife that was once used to slaughter a Treifah does not absorb the blood that squirted out of the animal.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that a Revi'is is enough liquid in which one can immerse needles and pipes according to Torah law. (Why shouldn't that be enough regarding Tevilas Keilim as well?)

Answer: This is only regarding (becoming pure from) their impurity. However, requiring the immersion of the vessels of Midyan is a novel law, and for that one requires forty Sa'ah.

Explanation: This refers to vessels that have a lead coating inside the vessel. However, if they have a lead coating outside the vessel, or if it is a wooden vessel that has some metal around the outside of the vessel, even according to the opinion that everything depends on what keeps the vessel stable one does not have to immerse it.

Explanation (cont.): This is because the metal side is not used with the food, as the Torah discussed vessels used for the meal, meaning that these materials that require Tevilah are coming in contact with the food.

Opinion: Rabeinu Shmuel says that if a Jew borrowed a vessel from his friend who bought it from a Nochri, it requires Tevilah, being that it already was obligated in Tevilah when his friend bought it.

Opinion: Being that the Gemara does not answer the question, one must immerse the collateral without a Berachah.

Opinion (cont.): If one has a vessel that he bought from a Nochri that certainly requires immersion with a Berachah, he should immerse this collateral as well and he can say a Berachah on both of them.

Opinion (cont.): Someone who gives a vessel to a Nochri worker to fix does not have to Tovel it afterwards, even according to the opinion that a worker acquires the improvement of a vessel. This is because the Nochri is not known as owning the vessel, and it is therefore unlike the incident in the Torah where Bnei Yisrael had to Tovel the vessels of Midyan.

Opinion (cont.): If someone sells a vessel to a Nochri and then buys it back it requires Tevilah, being that it was known as the vessel of the Nochri.

Opinion (cont.): However, if someone gives a Nochri his vessel as collateral and then redeems it from him, it does not require Tevilah. Despite the fact that the Gemara is unsure whether or not giving collateral is considered a sale, in this case it is certainly unlike a sale. (The Maharsha explains that the Gemara only entertained this earlier where a Jew had possession of the collateral of a Nochri, and it was unsure whether or not the Nochri would merely leave it by the Jew. In our case, the Jew already redeemed the collateral, and it therefore certainly does not look as if it was sold to the Nochri.)

Explanation: This does not specifically mean that he must scald it and then immerse it. Even if he immerses it first and then scalds it, it is valid. This is because Tevilas Keilim is not due to impurity, which would make this like someone who is being Tovel while holding a Sheretz. Even new vessels (that have never been used before) require Tevilah.

Explanation (cont.): The Mishnah indeed says regarding a knife that one can sharpen it with a sharpening stone and it becomes pure. This is despite the fact that it is not completely pure, as it requires scalding to be able to be used to cut boiling hot items. Even so, one can immerse it in order to enable cutting cold items.

Implied Question: The Beraisa says "he scalds them" before saying he immerses them. (Why does it say it in this order if in fact it can be done in the opposite order as well?)

Answer: This is because scalding is more stringent due to the importance of getting out the absorbed prohibited items (see Avodah Berurah).

Implied Question: According to the opinion that says Nosen Ta'am l'Fgam is permitted, it is understandable why the Beraisa says, "until the immersion was done." However, according to the opinion that it is forbidden, why should we forbid if it was used before immersion? (As long as it was after kashering it should not be forbidden!)

Answer: However, one could answer that there might be a decree not to use it before Tevilah due to one possibly using it before Hagalah or Libun (i.e. koshering).