Question (my Rebbi): There is a big difference between them, i.e. the outer Kli!

When one immersed a Kli in a Kli, according to the opinion that forbids [regarding Kodesh] due to Chatzitzah, this applies both to the outer Kli and the inner Kli;

According to the opinion that it is a decree lest the opening is less than ki'Shfoferes ha'Nod, we decree only about the inner Kli. No decree applies to the outer Kli. In any case it is Tahor.

Support: Below, we say "this applies to a Tahor Kli (in which other Kelim were immersed). If the Kli was Tamei, since Tevilah helps for the outer Kli, it helps for the inner Kli."

Answer (R. Elchanan): Our Mishnah discusses when the outer Kli is Tahor and the inner Kli is Tamei.

Support #1: The words connote like this. It taught "we immerse a Kli in a Kli." Therefore, the reason of the weight of the [inner] Kli does not apply to the outer Kli (it does not need Tevilah).

Support #2: Rava establishes it like this below. He says "this applies only to a Tahor Kli." I.e. we establish our Mishnah like this.

Explanation #2: However, Rashi explains in our Mishnah "we immerse a Kli in a Kli" when both of them are Temei'im.

Objection: Even if the opening of the [outer] Kli is less than ki'Shfoferes ha'Nod, if both were Temei'im, it (the Tevilah) helps [even for the inner Kli], since it helps for the outer Kli!

Observation: According to Rashi, we can say that we could have said they argue about the outer Kli (if we are concerned for Chatzitzah, it remains Tamei), but we prefer to teach the extremity of the lenient opinion, that the Tevilah can help even for the inner Kli.

Question: Why don't we permit if he already immersed it? It says "if he immersed them", in the past! (R. Yitzchak I. Chaver explains that Tosfos asks why we don't ask about if he already immersed it.)

Explanation: This is why Amei ha'Aretz are believed about guarding it (wine or oil for Kodesh).

Support: In a Tosefta in Chagigah, R. Yosi says that everyone is believed about guarding it.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): At the time of Gitos (when people press wine) they (Amei ha'Aretz) are believed, because Chaverim are Metaher their Kelim;

After the Gitos and olivepresses passed, we say that he is not believed.

Objection: If one opened his barrel [during the Regel], they permitted [what remains after the Regel, even though Amei ha'Aretz touched it during the Regel], only because we permit the end due to the beginning, like it says in Beitzah (11b. If we would not permit what remains, he would not open it, and food and drink would not be available for Olei Regalim.)

If letter of the law they are Tehorim, even without this (permitting the end due to the beginning) it would be permitted!

Explanation #2: Rather, it connotes that Chachamim and R. Yehudah agree that they are Tehorim only for all the days of the Regel.

Support #1: Below (26a, we expound) "Kol [Ish] Yisrael... Echad Chaverim" to teach that all are considered Chaverim during the Regel.

Support #2: The Seifa of the Tosefta connotes like this.

Pesak (R. Elchanan): We hold like R. Yosi. We are concerned for enmity.

Consequence: Therefore, nowadays we make a Zimun with any Am ha'Aretz (i.e. rely on him to be one of the three), even though we say in Berachos (47b) that we do not make a Zimun with an Am ha'Aretz.

Also Rav Menasiya bar Tachlifa, Rami bar Chama did not want to make a Zimun with him! (Even though Rav Menasiyah learned, since [Rami thought that] he had not served Chachamim, he considered him to be an Am ha'Aretz. Rava attributed Rami's death to this.)

Explanation #2 (Ri): Not everyone who wants to consider himself a Chacham may do so, and not make a Zimun with an Am ha'Aretz;

We do not establish ourselves to be Talmidei Chachamim regarding this.

Question: What was the Hava Amina of the Makshan? Surely it requires Tevilah because the Am ha'Aretz touched it! (Od Yosef Chai - he knew this. He asked this to force the Tartzan to say that a Chaver immerses what he borrows from an Am ha'Aretz, to set up the question (Amud B) "if so, Beis Hillel should answer Beis Shamai 'when we borrow a Kli from an Am ha'Aretz, we immerse it'"!)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): However, [an Am ha'Aretz] will listen regarding a Kli Shetef (one that can be immersed, i.e. it is not of Cheres) and immerse it.

Question #1: Why will he heed this more than [if we would be Metamei] food and drink?

Suggestion: It is because one cannot be Metaher them in a Mikveh.

Rejection: How can you answer regarding liquids? He can do Hashakah on them! (Ya'avetz says that "liquids" refers to water, for Hashakah does not help for other liquids. Almost everyone says so (PF), but Tif'eres Yisrael (Hilchesa Gevirta Machshirin 6:3) says [according to R. Eliezer ben Yakov, whom the Halachah always follows] that any amount of water added to Mei Peros makes them like water, and Hashakah applies to them.)

Question #2: We conclude that we immerse them. If it is for their needs, why will he [heed us and] immerse them more than Kli Cheres? (We are Metaher his Klei Cheres, for if we say that it is Tamei, he will not heed us.)

Answer (and Explanation #2): Rather, the Gemara means that [the Am ha'Aretz] will not heed you. Therefore, he (a Chaver) will never borrow (Kli Cheres of an Am ha'Aretz, or consume his food or drink, for Tevilah is not Metaher them);

However, this does not apply to Klei Shetef. A Chaver borrows it [from an Am ha'Aretz], and it is always considered Tamei to Chaverim.

Implied question: Above, when we say that when we borrow [Kelim] from [Amei ha'Aretz] we immerse them, and the case of his turban that fell (above 20a, and an Am ha'Aretz picked it up), and in Nidah (33b) of [an Am ha'Aretz] who immersed and stepped on a Chaver's garment, we are Metamei only due to an Am ha'Aretz. We are not concerned for Tum'as Mes!

Answer: Since [Tum'as Mes] is not common, we do not decree about it.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since we said that one who borrows from him (an Am ha'Aretz) must immerse [the Kli], this shows that he is not believed about Tevilah.

Question (R. Elchanan): What was the question from the Beraisa about Tum'as Mes? We said only that one who borrows must immerse Tum'as Erev (the Kli becomes totally Tahor at night);

He did not mean that the borrower must be Metaher from Tum'as [Mes, which requires] Shivah (seven days), for people do not lend Kelim for seven days, like we conclude!

Note: Even if he is believed about Tum'as Mes, there is no Kal va'Chomer to say that he is believed about Tum'as Erev, for Tum'as Mes is rare. Also, we find that Amei ha'Aretz are believed only about severe matters, e.g. Kodshim!

Answer (and Explanation #2 - my Rebbi): This (inference that he is not believed about Tevilah) refers to "Beis Hillel should answer Beis Shamai that we immerse Kelim that we borrow", and we conclude that this is different;

Since Beis Shamai are Metamei because a Kli Cheres does not save from Tum'as Ohel, if so Haza'ah on days three and seven is required;

If we may use their Kelim [through mere Tevilah], we should say that they are believed to save everything, [to say] that they did not become Tamei through a Mes.

Therefore, we ask from Tevilas Tamei Mes to Taharas Kelav through Tevilah from what touched a Tamei Mes;

You said that we immerse from other Tum'os, because they are Tum'as Erev. However, here Haza'ah is needed;

Therefore, Beis Hillel did not answer back to Beis Shamai, for Tevilah does not help according to Beis Shamai, for we are concerned for Kelim, that they did not save an Am ha'Aretz from Tum'as Ohel.

Therefore, we ask "this implies that he is not believed to say that he saved them from an Ohel. However, a Beraisa teaches..."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "The beginning" is Haza'ah. "The end" is Tevilah. He need not immerse again.

Question: We should learn from a Kal va'Chomer. One is not believed about Tevilah of Kelim, but he is believed about Haza'ah. Regarding his body, he is believed about Tevilah. All the more so he should be believed about Haza'ah [of his body]!

Answer (my Rebbi): He is believed about Haza'ah of Kelim only when he comes in front of us and says "they did not become Tamei Mes", [and then he is believed] for this [Tum'as Mes] is not common;

However, if he comes to do Haza'ah, he is not believed (we do not sprinkle on him until days three and seven) even without his body (i.e. he requests Haza'ah only for his Kelim).

Support: A Tosefta says that if an Am ha'Aretz comes to receive Haza'ah, we sprinkle on him and his clothing after three days;

Explanation #2: Some say that "the beginning" is when he comes to receive Haza'ah. "The end" is when he says "I received Haza'ah."

Question: According to them, the text should have said "Taharas Mes", but the Tosefta says "Tevilas Mes"!

Explanation: Mid'Oraisa food and drink are not Metamei a Kli. Rabanan decreed [that liquids are Metamei a Kli] due to bodily fluids of a Zav or Zavah, like it says in Nidah (7b);

Rabanan made [this law, to distinguish the inside and outside of the Kli, for] a Heker (to show that it is only mid'Rabanan), lest people burn Terumah and Kodshim due to [Kelim that became Tamei through liquids], like we say in Bechoros (38a).

Explanation (Rashi): They carve out a receptacle in the bottom of the bowl and the height [of the Kli is greater all] around, and they put in the receptacle vinegar and mustard.

Question (R. Elchanan): If so, for Terumah it should all be Tamei, since the cavity is Tamei!

This (the cavity) is no less than inside [a Kli] inside [the outer Kli! If Tum'ah is in an inner Kli, it is Metamei the outer Kli, unless its walls extend past the walls of the outer Kli.]

Poor answer: We must say that the Mishnah means as follows. The back, and inside the Tzevitah (receptacle):

If the back became Tamei, the inside and Beis ha'Tzevitah did not become Tamei;

If the inside and Beis ha'Tzevitah become Tamei, the back became Tamei.

Consequence: According to this, Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel (who said where people grasp it) and Rav Asi (who said where finicky people dip) argue about the Perush of the Mishnah (i.e. not only about the meaning of Beis ha'Tzevitah, but also about whether Tzevitah and the inside have the same law, or they are independent). This requires investigation.