Quote "If a gentile plugged a hole in a metal utensil made by a Jew, but he plugged it with a material which does not require toivela, such as plastic, would that change the result?"

You wouldn't be required to Toivel it, since the Goy's contribution is now the main part of the utensil, it would be a plastic utensil that doesn't require Tvela.

Quote "Also, is it significant that the goy who makes a utensil for a Jew never used it and planned to sell it as a new item?"

If it would, then we wouldn't need to Toivel utensils. this is from the Gemarah that says that new utensils need Tvela, since after you Kashur them, they're like new, yet they need Tvela.

SEIF 11

SELLING A UTENSIL TO A GOY

If someone sells a utensil to a Goy and then buys it back, the Tosfos and Rosh says he needs to Toivel it. This is, since in the middle, it received the name of ownership of the Goy on it.

The PT says in the name of the Chachmus Adam that if you sell Chumeitz, make sure you don’t sell the utensils that they are in, since when you buy them back, they will need Tvela.

GIVING A GOY A UTENSIL FOR COLLATERAL

If one gives a collateral to a Goy, even if he gives up from redeeming it, he doesn’t need to Toivel it if he eventually redeems it. (The Mahrashal says you need to Toivel it if your intention when you gave him the collateral that he should keep it.)

The Taz says the reason a collateral is more lenient to a Goy than to a Jew, since a Jew acquires a collateral to be his more than a Goy does. He brings the Gemarah in Pesachim 31 that says that there is a Machlokes if a Jew acquires (for certain aspects) a collateral from a Goy, but everyone agrees that a Goy doesn’t acquire collateral from a Goy.

The Gra explains that there is a difference between the utensila Goy gets from a Jew and what a Jew gets from a Goy. When a Jew gets from a Goy, really he should Toivel it even if it is borrowed, but since it is not similar to the case of the Torah (the utensils of Midyan), he’s exempt. So a collateral, though he doesn’t own it, since he might eventually keep it, makes it similar enough to the utensils of Midyan. But in order to have a utensil to be a Goy’s to say that it has the Tumah of the Goy and needs Tvela, that you need it to be completely the Goy’s, so that he never owned it (but just being a collateral by him) doesn’t make the utensil Tumay.

If a Jew has a partnership in a utensil with a Goy, it doesn’t need T’vela, since his part doesn’t need Tvela and the Goy’s part doesn’t help T’vela, since it’s still owned by the Goy. If the Jew buys the Goy out, it would require T’vela for the part he just bought from the Goy.

A GOY THAT STOLE A JEW’S UTENSIL AND RETURNS IT

(Background- if something becomes stolen, it doesn’t become the property of the robber. Even with Yiyush (the owner gives up hope for retrieving the stolen object) the object still doesn’t becomes the robber. We Paskin that you need the object to change hands after the Yiyush so that the one who took it from the robber acquires it. Yet, even in cases where Yiyush doesn’t help (before it changes hands, land) if the original ownership is forgotten, then the robber can own it.)

If a Goy stole an utensil and the original ownership is forgotten (before this, the Goy doesn’t own it, even with Yiyush) then it depends who the Goy is. If he’s a regular Goy, when he returns it, it doesn’t need Tvela. Even though he owned it, since he’s not able to use it in public, so his ownership is limited, so it’s not similar to the utensils of Midyon. But if the Goy was an officer or a Governor, that he can get away with taking from other people with impunity and he can be seen in public with it, it becomes his completely. If he decides to return it, then you would need to Toivel it.

SEIF 12

THE UTENSIL’S HANDLE

The Mordichai says that the handle needs to be Toiveled with the rest of the utensil. Since the concept of T’vela has nothing to do with Bliyos (food absorbtions.) (Even though handles don’t need Kashering if it wasn’t for the suspicion something splashed on them) since new utensils need Tvela too. So it still needs Tvela since it’s part of the utensil.

SEIF 13

RUST

The Smag says that all rust must be removed before the Tvela. If you don’t, it would be a Chatzizah. The Gra brings the Sifri that Darshens from "only the gold etc." That "only excludes the rust. The Kol Bo says that the small amount of rust at the end that is difficult to remove is not a Chatzizah since it’s on the minority of the utensil and you are not particular about it.

(From the Torah, a Chatziazah is only when it’s on the majority of the surface plus you are particular that it shouldn’t be there. The Rabanon decreed that as long as you are particular about it, though it is only on the minority, or is on the majority, though you are not particular about it, is a Chatzizah. If it is only on the minority of the object and you are not particular about it, then it is not a Chatzizah.)

SEIF 14 & 15

A MINOR OR A GOY TOIVELING

If a minor Toivels a utensil, the Trumas Hadeshen says it’s Kosher. Even though there are those that Paskin (and the Rama says to be stringent like them L’chatchila) that a Niddah needs intent for her Tvela, and a minor cannot have intent by himself. Still, we can stand over him and teach him to have intent. Alternatively, that only Tvela from Tumah needs intent. Here there is no real Tumah, but just a Gezeiras Hakasuv (decree from the Torah) so it’s more lenient and doesn’t need intent.

The Rama doesn’t make any exceptions which implies even without instructions, the minor’s Tvela is good. The Taz points out that he must hold like the second answer. The Shach says the same thing by a Goy’s Tvela, that it’s good, that it doesn’t need intent. The Gra explains it like the Shitos that even a Niddah doesn’t need intent. The Aruch Hashulchon explains, since even by a Niddah it’s only a stringency to have intent. Tvela for utensils which is more lenient you don’t need intent.

The Taz says that a Goy shouldn’t do the Tvela, since you’ll miss out making the Bracha (since you can’t make it on the action of the Goy.) Only if you’re making a bracha on many utensils, so the Goy can help out with some of the Tvela.

BELIEVING THE MINOR OR GOY THAT THEY WERE TOIVELD

This is only when we see them do it. They’re not believed at all that they Toiveled the utensil on their own. A Goy is never believed to say witness on anything, whether to make thing lenient or stringent. Minors are not believed for anything that it is D’oraisah. Only for things that are D’rabanan, like searching for Chametz (since from the Torah all you need to do is annul the Chametz.) Just like the Rabanan obligated it, they also made in the decree that a minor would be believed.

This is only true if the minor had the ability to make that Rabanan, like he can search his house. But something he cannot do he’s not believed. That’s why only a slave is believed until which point is the end of the T’chum Shabbos, but not a minor.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger brings Poskim that a minor is believed to Toivel glass utensils, since they’re only D’rabanan, so a minor is believed, since he’s able to do it himself. Rabbi Eiger says it’s not so simple, since Tosfos in Eiruvin 31b says that’s only by searching his own house, that the obligation rests on himself. To do something for someone else he’s not believed. That’s why you can’t send him to put out an Eiruv T’Chumim.

The PT brings the Pri Migadim that also disagrees with believing him to Toivel glass. Since the Rama in 127:3 says that a minor is not believed only if there is no Chezkas Issur (the thing was already prohibited and you’re relying on the minor to do something to remove the prohibition.) So the glass has a prohibition to use it, so you can’t believe him that he Toiveled it and removed that prohibition. The Magen Avraham in OC 437:8 argues with that Rama. He says we see by searching for Chametz, that has a Chezkas issur, yet he’s believed.

SEIF 16
IF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TOIVEL

The Mordichai says, that if you didn’t Toivel an utensil before Shobbos or Yom Tov, which is prohibited, since it looks like you are fixing it, since it is unusable before Tvela (or there is no Mikvas around) you can give it to a Goy and borrow it. That way you won’t have a utensil that belongs to a Jew that was not Toivel. The Taz says that as soon as you can Toivek it, you need to. Since there is no plans to ever return it to the Goy, it is no worse than a collateral that the Goy wants to abandon by you. Also, it’s comparable to a borrowed Talis (you’re not obligated in Tzizis from the Torah unless you own it.) If you borrow it for more than thirty days, it needs Tzitzis Midarabanan, since it perceived that it’s yours.

The Shach says that the Rama in Orech Chaim 227 gives another solution. That if you have a well that is a Kosher Mikvah, you draw water, and through that you also Toivel it by it being immersed in it. Since the whole decree of not Toiveling is because it looks like you’re fixing it. Since here it only looks like you are drawing water it’s permitted. Similarly why a human is allowed to Toivel on Shabbos and it doesn’t look like he’s fixing himself, because the onlooker would think he’s just cooling off.

The Magen Avraham says that you shouldn’t make a Bracha on it, or else teh Bracha would give it away that you’re Toiveling it to make it Kosher. The MB says that you shouldn’t do this unless you don’t have any other utensil, since you’re loosing out the Bracha. Similar to what the Gemarah says that a naked man shouldn’t sepaate Trumah, since he can’t make a Bracha.

The Biur Halacha asks, if a Bracha reveals why you’re putting t in water for and it doesn’t look like you’re just drawing water, then how can a Niddah make a Bracha when she goes on Shabbos? It’s going to reveal her intentions to Toivel and is not going to cool off.

The Yeshuas Yaakov answers that according to our Minhag (of the Rama) to make the Bracha after the Tvela, since at the time of the Tvela there was no revelation of the reason why she’s going, so it’s not a problem. The Biur Halacha asks that this doesn’t answer the Mechaber who holds that you make the Bracha beforehand?

The Biur Halacha says whether an outside factor causes the immersing to be considered as exposed that it’s doing for Tvela depends on the Machlokes why a Ger can’t be Toiveled on Shabbos. Tosfos says that since a Beis Din needs to stand over him, it’s exposed that he’s doing it for Tvela and not for cooling off. The Rambam says, not because of the Tvela itself, that is permitted in all cases. The problem is that you need to use a Beis Din on Shabbos. So the Tosfos holds that an outside factor exposes the Tvela as a Halachic Tvela and prohibits it while the Rambam permits it. The Mechaber who allows a Niddah making a Bracha before the Tvela must hold like the Rambam.

Baruch Hashem we finished Hilchas Tvilas Keilim