With regard to those that are plaited from tzavta, one must cleanse them with ashes and water. With regard to those that are plaited from flax, one must leave them dormant. And if they have knots, one must undo them.

§ The Gemara discusses another aspect of the purity of a winepress. It was stated: In the case of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha’aretz] who reached his hand into the winepress and touched grape clusters that were lying in the wine, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya disagree. One says that the cluster he touched and all its surroundings are rendered impure, but the rest of the entire winepress is pure, and one says that the rest of the entire winepress is also rendered impure, as the entire winepress is considered connected due to the wine in it.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the cluster and all its surroundings are impure but the rest of the entire winepress is pure, in what way is this case different from that which we learned in a mishna (Teharot 9:8): The carcass of a creeping animal that was found in an oil press transmits impurity to the place it touched alone, but if there was liquid flowing in the mill, it is all rendered impure? Why is it not the halakha in the case of the winepress as well that the entire winepress is impure due to the liquid in it?

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the oil press, there is nothing that interrupts the flow of the liquid, and therefore the liquid connects everything to render it impure. Here, the clusters of grapes interrupt the flow of the wine, and so there is no uninterrupted connection between all of the wine in the winepress.

The Sages taught Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say they taught the son of Rabbi Yirmeya, in accordance with the statement of the one who says: The cluster and all its surroundings are impure, but the entire winepress is pure.

MISHNA: One who purchases cooking utensils from the gentiles must prepare them for use by Jews in the following manner: With regard to those utensils whose manner of preparation is to immerse them in a ritual bath, as they require no further preparation, he must immerse them accordingly. With regard to those utensils whose manner of preparation is to purge them with boiling water, as those utensils are used with boiling water, e.g., pots, he must purge them accordingly. With regard to those whose manner of preparation is to heat until white-hot in the fire, as they are used for grilling, he must heat them until white-hot in the fire. Therefore, with regard to the spit [hashappud] and the grill [veha’askela], he must heat them until white-hot in the fire. With regard to the knife, he must polish it and it is rendered pure.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: And they all require immersion in forty se’a of water, including utensils that must first be purged in boiling water or heated until white-hot. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rava says: It is derived from that which the verse states with regard to utensils captured in the battle against the Midianites: “Anything that may tolerate the fire, you shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be pure” (Numbers 31:23). By stating: “And it shall be pure,” the verse added to the process another required act of purification in addition to heating the utensil with fire, which is understood to be immersion.

Bar Kappara teaches an additional source for this halakha: From that which is stated the continuation of the verse: “Nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling [nidda],” I would derive that the utensils require sprinkling of purification water on the third and the seventh day of their purification process, as is the halakha in the case of one who is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. Therefore, the verse states “nevertheless,” indicating that the Torah makes a distinction in this case, and that sprinkling on the third and seventh day are not required.

If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “With the water of sprinkling [nidda]”? Clearly, the term nidda is referring not to sprinkling but to a menstruating woman, who is also called a nidda. Accordingly, the verse means that the utensils must be immersed in water in which a menstruating woman can immerse in order to become pure; and you must say that this is referring to a ritual bath that contains forty se’a of water.

The Gemara explains that both sources for this halakha are necessary: It was necessary for the Torah to write “and it shall be pure,” and it was necessary for the Torah to write “with the water of sprinkling,” because if the Torah had written only “and it shall be pure,” I would say that the verse means: “And it shall be pure” by immersion in any amount of water. Therefore the Merciful One writes: “With the water of sprinkling.”

And if the Merciful One had written only “with the water of sprinkling,” I would say that the process requires the setting of the sun, as is the halakha with regard to a menstruating woman, whose immersion renders her pure only after sunset. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And it shall be pure,” indicating that the utensils can be purified immediately.

§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Even new utensils that were never used that are bought from gentiles are meant to be included in the requirement of immersion, as old utensils that one heated until white-hot are similar to new utensils, as they do not contain the flavor of non-kosher food, and nevertheless they require immersion. Rav Sheshet objects to this: If so, then even scissors for cutting clothing [zuza desarbela] should require immersion as well. Rav Naḥman said to him: Only utensils used in the preparation of meals are mentioned in the passage in the Torah, and only those require immersion.

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The Sages taught this only with regard to utensils that were purchased from gentiles and are therefore comparable to the utensils mentioned in the incident that was related in the passage; but the requirement does not apply to borrowed utensils.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef bought a utensil of marda, a mixture of earth and dung, from a gentile. He thought he was required to immerse it. One of the Sages, and Rabbi Ya’akov was his name, said to him: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself that this requirement applies to metal utensils alone, as those are the utensils mentioned in the passage.

Rav Ashi says: With regard to those glass utensils, since when broken they can be fixed, i.e., remade, if one melts them down and fashions the material into new utensils, they are similar to metal utensils and also require immersion. With regard to lead-glazed earthenware utensils, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree. One says: The halakha is in accordance with its initial state; since it was initially an earthenware utensil, it does not require immersion. And one says: The halakha is in accordance with its ultimate state; since it is coated with metal, it requires immersion. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with its ultimate state.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a Jew is holding a gentile’s utensil as collateral, what is the halakha? Is he required to immerse it or not? Mar bar Rav Ashi said: A gentile once gave my father a silver goblet as collateral, and he immersed it and drank from it. But I do not know whether this was because he maintained that possessing a utensil as collateral is considered like a purchase, or because he saw that the gentile’s intention was to leave it with him, and therefore he considered it as his own.

§ The Sages taught: One who purchases utensils from the gentiles must prepare them for use in the following manner: With regard to items that the gentile did not use, one immerses them, and they are pure. With regard to items that the gentile used for cold food or drink, such as cups and jugs and flasks, one rinses them and immerses them, and they are pure. With regard to items that the gentile used for hot food or drink, such as large pots, small kettles [hakumkamusun], and samovars, one purges them with boiling water and immerses them, and they are pure. With regard to items that the gentile used with fire, such as spits and grills, one heats them until white-hot and immerses them, and they are pure.

And with regard to all utensils that one used before immersing and purging and heating them until white-hot, it is taught in one baraita that the food prepared with them is forbidden, and it is taught in another baraita that the food prepared with them is permitted.

The Gemara explains: This contradiction is not difficult. This ruling, that the food prepared with such utensils is forbidden, is according to the one who says that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, the permitted food is forbidden. That ruling, that the food prepared with such utensils is permitted, is according to the one who says that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it remains permitted. Here too, since the flavor of non-kosher food imparted by the utensil detracts from the flavor of the food, such food is permitted.

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture then the mixture is permitted, with regard to utensils of gentiles that require purging, which the Merciful One renders forbidden until they are purged, how can you find these circumstances when it is actually prohibited to use the utensils until they are purged? Since utensils impart a detrimental flavor to food that is cooked in them, there seems to be no reason not to use utensils of gentiles without purging them.

Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, says: The Torah renders forbidden only a pot