Clarification: Had it not written "Pasu'ach", we would have had to establish the Pasuk by all vessels, in which case we would not have known what to learn from "Hu".

Question (Part 1): But surely all vessels are different, inasmuch as they can become an Av ha'Tum'ah?

Question (Part 2): And when the Gemara shortly learns the reverse Kal va'Chomer - that all vessels ought to receive Tum'ah via their air, we can likewise ask that earthenware vessels are different inasmuch as they are not subject to Taharah in a Mikvah.

Answer: The Kal va'Chomer is not regarding learning one type of K'li from another, but of learning the Dinim of the outside and the air from one another.

Reservation (Part 1): But according to what Tosfos wrote above however, that this Kal va'Chomer is really more like a Mah Matzinu - to avoid asking that one should leave each one as it is and decline to learn one from the other, there is a Kashya ...

Reservation (Part 2): ... in that we cannot apply a Mah Matzinu here, to apply what is written by one to the other - since there is a Pircha (as we just explained).

Answer #1: As we answered above, we must say that there is a S'vara to learn the Kal va'Chomer one way more than the other (see Tosfos 23b, end of DH 'u'Sehei').

Answer #2 (Part 1): ... and besides, the Gemara only mentioned the current Kal va'Chomer as an extra, seeing as by S'tam Keilim the Torah specifically writes Tum'as Maga, even from the outside, as it states "And every vessel that a Zav touches shall become Tamei" (see Mesoras ha'Shas); and from where will we preclude K'lei Cheres? ...

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... and as for other Keilim, whose Tum'as Avir we learn from a Kal va'Chomer, that we learn by means of the outside and the air from one another, which is why we need the D'rashah 'Tocho shel Zeh ve'Lo Tocho shel Acher'.

Question: In that case, they will not become Tamei from the outside, since then the Pasuk of "Kol K'li Pasu'ach" will be talking about all Keilim, seeing as they too, now belong to the category of 'Tum'ah Kodemes le'Pischeihem'.

Answer: We will nevertheless, establish the Pasuk by K'lei Cheres exclusively, where the Torah writes Tum'as Avir explicitly.

Clarification: It is Mufneh, because it could have written "ve'Chol asher Yipol meihem bo, kol asher bo".

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that it is unnecessary to mention K'lei Cheres which are not subject to Tum'ah from the outside, but even other Keilim which are ... save from Tum'ah, too ...

Explanation #1 (Part 2): ... since other Keilim do not receive Tum'ah from the air of a K'li Cheres either, like we learned in Pesachim (Daf 20a).

Question #1: In that case, what is the Chidush by other Keilim more than by K'lei Cheres?

Question #2: Moreover, there is a bigger Chidush by K'lei Cheres more than by other Keilim - where for example, there is a Sheretz inside the air of the inner K'li Cheres, and there is food in the outer one, that food is Tahor even though the inner K'li is Tamei; which is a bigger Chidush than other Keilim, which do not receive Tum'ah from the air of a K'li Cheres?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that we need a Pasuk for other Keilim, to teach us that even though it is not the same species, it nevertheless stops the Tum'ah; whereas K'lei Cheres, which is the same species, we would know anyway that it interrupts and stops the Tum'ah.

Proof (Part 1): And this is evident in the first Sugya in Zevachim (3b) where the Gemara asks 'And did Rava say that a Chatas that one Shechted on behalf of someone who is Chayav to bring ... a Chatas is Pasul, ... an Olah, is Kasher? So we see that the same species does stop it; but that a different species, doesn't.

Proof (Part 2): And, in answer to the Kashya from the Beraisa 'that even other vessels save from Tum'ah' ...

Proof (Part 3): ... it answers that for that we have a Pasuk, since the Torah writes four times "Tocho" (one of them to teach us "Tocho", 've'Lo Toch Tocho", which teaches us even other vessels).

Question: In the second Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 20b) the Gemara asks from when wooden vessels are subject to Tum'ah, and it answers 'a cot and a bed from the time that one smoothens them with a fish-skin'?

Answer: The smoothening there is to remove the large splinters that can wound or hurt a person who sits on them; whereas the smoothening in our Sugya is merely for looks, to make it smooth and shiny.

Clarification (Part 1): This refers to 'Gulmei K'lei Eitz' (that are not yet completed) ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... because as far as Peshutei K'lei Eitz are concerned, it is obvious that they are Tahor, since they are compared to a sack (which is a receptacle).

Clarification: The Gemara is trying to incorporate them into Tum'ah d'Oraysa, because it is obvious that they are subject to Tum'ah de'Rabbanan ...

Source: ... as we learned in the Mishnah in the second Perek in Keilim (Mishnah 1), which is cited by the Gemara in the first Perek of Shabbos (16a) 'Flat vessels made of wood, glass and bone are Tahor; receptacles are Tamei'.

Question: In Perek Bamah Ishah (Shabbos 64a), the Gemara learns something that is made from the tail of a horse or a cow from "Beged ve'Or". How come that we do not already know that from "ve'Chol"?

Answer: From "ve'Chol", we can only include bones and the like, which are similar to each other - the bones of goats and of other animals, but not hair, which bears no resemblance to them).

Question: Why here do we not learn from "Beged ve'Or", like we do there?

Answer: We only know things that are similar to "Beged ve'Or".

Explanation #1 (Part 1): This refers to 'Marim, bein Gedolim u'bein Ketanim': 'the large ones', because they are particularly bitter; 'the small ones', because they are not yet ripe.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): 'Others say both are Chayav' - 'the large ones', because they are ripe; 'the small ones, because they are exceptionally good-tasting.

Refutation of Explanation #2: Rashi's explanation (that 'both are Patur' refers to the small ones, both bitter and sweet - and 'both are Chayav' - to the large ones, both bitter and sweet), is forced

Reason #1: Since, firstly, they (the two Leshonos) are not speaking about the same thing?

Reason #2: And secondly, when the Gemara asks what purpose the large ones serve, it should have specified 'the large bitter ones, seeing as it is speaking about sweet ones too?

Explanation #1: Rashi translates 'Temed' as water that has been added to the grape-pits.

Explanation #2: It seems however, that it refers to water that has been added to the dregs ...

Reason: Similar to the case that the Gemara cites in connection with it 'ha'Metamed, ve'Nasan Mayim be'Midah', which is speaking about adding water to the dregs, as the Gemara implies in Perek ha'Mocher Peiros (Bava Basra 97a) ...

Conclusion: ... and the two are not the same, as is implied in Perek Eilu Ovrin (Pesachim 42b).

Clarification (Part 1): This is speaking about a Mikvah that is lacking (forty Sa'ah) ...

Clarification (Part 2): Because a complete Mikvah does not become Pasul under any circumstances ...

Source: As we explained in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis' (Bava Basra 66: DH mi'Chelal').

Question: Why does the Gemara not establish the Beraisa where he added three Lugin and four emerged?

Answer: Because then, everybody would agree that it is Chayav (Ma'aser), even if it did not turn sour.

Question #1: Why do the Rabbanan exempt the dregs which taste like wine, even though it did not turn sour, bearing in mind that all Isurim in the Torah which are of a different species render forbidden when they give taste, and Tevel is more stringent regarding 'be'Mino')?

Question #2: Furthermore, according to the opinion that they are arguing over a case of 'Hichmitz', the Chachamim exempt even there, and the Beraisa is talking even about Tevel Vaday ...

Source: ... as is implied in Perek ha'Mocher Peiros (Bava Basra 97a)?

Answer: According to the Rabbanan, when wine is mixed with water, even in less than sixty, and even if one added three Lugin and three and a half emerged, it is not considered a proper taste, as it is by other Isurin; rather they consider it mere Kiyuha (fruit-acid).

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Yehudah is stringent there - to obligate taking Ma'aser, whereas here he is the one who is lenient - to permit purchasing it with the money of Ma'aser, and that it does not render the Mikvah Pasul ...

Answer: ... the Gemara holds that there is no reason to differentiate.

Question (Introduction): There is a Kashya on the explanation of the Rashbam in 'ha'Mocher Peiros (Bava Basra 96:), regarding the Machlokes between Acherim and the Rabbanan in connection with the B'rachah of 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen'.

Sugya Bava Basra [Part 1]): The Gemara states there that if one places three Lugin and three emerge (K'dei Midaso) there is no Machlokes; and that they argue where one places three, and three and a half emerge.

Sugya Bava Basra [Part 2]): The Gemara then asks from our Beraisa, where they argue by K'dei Midaso, and it answers that in fact they argue by more than K'dei Midaso as well, and the reason that the Tana mentions 'K'dei Midaso is in order to teach us how far Rebbi Yehudah goes.

Question (Conclusion): The Kashya now is what exactly is the Gemara's answer? We can still ask why the Gemara does not establish the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Acherim by K'dei Midaso, just like it establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan?

Refuted Answer: The Rashbam answers there that when Rebbi Yehudah is Mechayev by K'dei Midaso, that is only because he goes le'Chumra.

Refutation: But it is impossible to say that, as we just explained.

Answer #2: We must therefore say that the Gemara there holds like the Rabbanan, who rule leniently by K'dei Midaso, and it establishes both Ahcerim and the Rabbanan like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah.

Answer #3 (Part 1): Alternatively, the Gemara understands that Rebbi Yehudah considers where one added three Lugin and three and a half emerged Chayav mi'd'Oraysa; consequently, he is Machmir mi'de'Rabbanan by K'dei Midaso.

Answer #3 (Part 2): ... whereas our Mishnah is speaking where he added three and three and a half emerged (where it is subject to Ma'asros mi'd'Oraysa).