Question: Why must one rub? Presumably, the Halachah follows Rabanan;

R. Eliezer forbids holding the Ever, and Rabanan said "if so, drops will fall on his feet..."

Inference: When one holds the Ever, drops do not fall on his feet!

Answer #1: Even so, it is inevitable that some drops fall on his feet. Sometimes he forgets to hold the Ever until the end;

Answer #2: Ultimately, Rabanan agreed with R. Eliezer.

Support #1: In Nidah (13a), Shmuel told Rav Yehudah "sharp one! Hold the Ever...", and the Gemara questioned this from the Beraisa "R. Eliezer says, anyone who holds the Ever..."

The Gemara asks similarly in Shabbos 41a. (R. Avahu put his hands over his Ever when alighting from the river. R. Zeira was unsure whether or not he touched it. The Gemara said that surely he did not, due to R. Eliezer's teaching!)

If Rabanan disagree, what was the question?!

Rebuttal: Perhaps Rabanan permit only lest people [say that there are drops on his feet because he is impotent, and] besmirch the lineage of his children, but not when this does not apply.

This did not apply to the case in Shabbos. Also [in Nidah] Rav Yehudah was on the roof, and was urinating downwards. There was no concern for drops, rather, for dirtying the wall. Rabanan would not permit for this. (Therefore, we asked from R. Eliezer's opinion.)

Support #2: We say in Berachos (40a) that the last drops of urine finish only if one sits, or in soft earth, even if he stands... (If not, he will stop prematurely towards the end, when the stream falls near him, due to fear lest drops splash on his feet.)

The Gemara did not mention holding the Ever, even though presumably this would also enable finishing. (It always lands far from him. We must say that Chachamim forbid.)

Support #3: In Nidah (16b), we say that there are three whom Hash-m hates. One of them is one who holding the Ever while urinating. It did not mention R. Eliezer!

Conclusion: Rabanan retracted and agreed with R. Eliezer. Even though we do not find an explicit Mishnah or Beraisa in which they retracted, we can say so.

Support: We find (Nidah 13b) regarding another matter that R. Tarfon said that a hand that touches the stomach should be cut off, i.e. for touching the Ever.

Citation (13b) Rabanan: If a thorn is stuck there, may he not remove it?!

Inference: Rabanan permit even without a thorn. They asked that R. Tarfon should agree when there is a thorn.

The Mishnah there says that for a man, [a hand that checks often for emission] should be cut off. Presumably, this is also like Rabanan. It is unreasonable to establish it like R. Tarfon.

Conclusion: Rabanan retracted [and agreed with R. Tarfon], even though we do not find so explicitly.

Question: Since it is a Mitzvah to rub, and this helps [avoid slander of lineage], what was Rabanan's question to R. Eliezer "what should he do if he has no high place or loose earth?"

Citation (R. Eliezer): It is better that people slander the lineage of his children, that they are Mamzerim, than for him to be a Rasha in front of Hash-m, even for a moment.

Why didn't R. Eliezer tell them "it is a Mitzvah to rub"?

Answer #1: If he will not hold the Ever at all, many drops will splash on his feet, and even if he rubs, it will be recognized, and people will slander the lineage of his children.

Answer #2: Also, it is burdensome to wipe everything, so he will not [wipe at all].

Explanation: This is not only for Avodah. Even for Shechitah, which is not an Avodah, it is clear from below that he must immerse.

Even without Avodah, just entering the Azarah [he must immerse].

Support #1: This is clear from the Yerushalmi, which says not only for Avodah, rather, even not for Avodah.

Support #2: This is clear also from the Gemara below, like I will explain shortly.

Question: We can challenge the Kal va'Chomer! There (the Kohen Gadol who will entered the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim) intends to serve. How can we learn to a Tahor who enters [the Mikdash] without Avodah?

Answer: Surely, the Kal va'Chomer is only for a Tahor who enters in order to serve. Chachamim decreed even about one who enters not to serve, lest he serve.

Question: We can still ask that on Yom Kipur, when he changes from one Kodesh to another, he immerses in a Kodesh place! (If there is a Kal va'Chomer, it should obligate anyone who enters to immerse in a Kodesh place.)

Answer: Also the rest of the year, he immerses in a Kodesh place due to the Kal va'Chomer.

Question #1: If so, when we ask below what they argue about, we should have answered that they argue about this! Ben Zoma obligates Tevilah in a Kodesh place, and R. Yehudah does not!

Question #2A: We can still ask that Yom Kipur is more stringent, for its Avodas ha'Yom is not Kosher through a Kohen Hedyot, rather, only through the Kohen Gadol!

Question #2B: Alternatively, we can ask that the day (Yom Kipur) atones more, like we asked in Shevuos (9a)!

Answer to all questions: Ben Zoma does not consider these to be challenges. Just the contrary, they strengthen the Kal va'Chomer!

We bring them into the Kal va'Chomer, and say "one who changes from Kodesh to Kodesh, even though he already immersed an important Tevilah in a Kodesh place, and even though he is the Kohen Gadol, who is more Kodesh, and even though the entire Avodas ha'Yom is incumbent on him, and therefore he is very zealous and careful, and also because the day atones so much, even so he must immerse;

One who changes from Chol to Kodesh, all the more so [he must immerse]!

Implied question: Why doesn't he immerse in a Kodesh place?

Answer: This is logical. Since he did not yet become Kodesh with Bigdei Kodesh, he immerses in Chol..

Rashi's opinion: Above (16a), Rav Ada bar Ahavah said "this is like R. Yehudah" regarding the Mishnah in Tamid, for we find that he argues with the Stam Mishnah in Midos (2:6);

The Gemara brought a Beraisa in which R. Yehudah says that the Mizbe'ach was in the middle [between north and south]. The Stam Mishnah in Midos holds that the Mizbe'ach was not in the middle.

Implied question: If so, we could have proved from here that he argues with the Reisha of that Stam [Mishnah, i.e. Midos 2:5, which discusses Lishkas Metzora'im].

Note: The Rashash says that in Tosfos' text of that Mishnah (unlike ours), R. Yehudah explicitly argues [and says that everyone immersed there]. The next statement of Tosfos is a very strong proof of this.

Answer #1: We could not prove from here that R. Yehudah argues [with the Stam Mishnah about other matters, such as the chambers of Beis ha'Mokad, which was the subject on 16a]. We could say that here is different, for he explicitly argues in the Mishnah;

However, where the Mishnah does not explicitly say that he argues, perhaps he does not argue!

Therefore, we bring a proof from the Mishnah that says that the Mizbe'ach was in the middle.

Answer #2: We could not derive from here that he argues. We could say that that entire Mishnah is R. Yehudah;

The Reisha said that the Lishkah was called Lishkas ha'Metzora'im. It explains why, because Metzora'im immerse there, and initially it was made for this;

Therefore, R. Yehudah says that after it was enacted, every Tahor person who wanted to enter the Azarah became accustomed to immerse there.

Question: What was the question? In Yemei Sifro (when counting seven days between the two times he must shave), he is forbidden to enter only Machaneh Shechinah!

Lishkas ha'Metzora'im was not in the Kodesh (Machaneh Shechinah), since Mechusarei Kipurim entered there!

Answer #1: We ask as follows. Since he cannot enter his thumb today, until ha'Arev Shemesh (the night after he immerses), why does he enter Har ha'Bayis to immerse there?

Granted, if we discussed on the eighth day, and he already immersed the day before, [we could say that] he immerses there so he will not be Mesi'ach Da'as (divert his mind. Rather,) he will remember to enter his hand immediately.

Answer #2: Granted, mid'Oraisa he may enter Har ha'Bayis during all of ymsi. However, Chachamim decreed that he not enter;

In Nega'im (14:2), we say that after shaving [at the end of] ymgm, he is [Metamei] like a Sheretz; and in Kelim (1:8) a Mishnah says Taharas Ezras Nashim is more Kodesh [than the Cheil], for no Tevul Yom may enter there;

Lishkas ha'Metzora'im was in the Ezras Nashim. It was one of the four chambers in the four corners.

Implied question: There are Temei'im for whom we do not require Haza'ah on the third and seventh days, e.g. one who is Tamei [due to] a Sheretz, Nevelah, and all such others!

Answer: We must say that this is when they were not Hesech ha'Da'as.

Rashi's opinion: We suggest that these Rabanan are not the Rabanan who argue with him in Midos.

Note: "These Rabanan" are the first Tana in the Tosefta, who says that a Metzora immerses and stands in Sha'ar Nikanor. R. Yehudah argues and says that he need not, for he immersed yesterday.

Question: If so, why was Abaye unsure [whether or not Rabanan hold like Ben Zoma]? Surely we should not say that they argue with Rabanan in Midos!

If so (they argue with Rabanan in Midos, the Gemara should have asked that) Rabanan contradict themselves;

In many places, the Gemara asks "does only R. Yehudah contradict himself? Also Rabanan contradict themselves", and answers this. We never find that it answers that they are different Rabanan!

Answer: Rather, we must say that if they hold like Ben Zoma, they do not argue with Rabanan of R. Yehudah in Midos. (Above, the Rashash said that in Tosfos' text of that Mishnah, R. Yehudah explicitly argues and says that everyone immersed there.)

We can say also there that [Rabanan hold that] Metzora'im immerse there, and the same applies to everyone;

Implied question: If so, why was it called Lishkas ha'Metzora'im?

Answer #1: The chamber was established primarily for this (a Metzora), who must immerse and immediately enter his thumb;

Answer #2: It mentions a Metzora to teach the extremity of R. Yehudah's opinion, who argues and says that it was not for Metzora'im, rather, only for others.

Answer #3: The first Tana holds that only Metzora'im immerse there. Others who entered the Azarah [immersed] elsewhere;

R. Yehudah holds that not only Metzora'im immerse there in the Lishkah, rather, everyone who enters the Azarah.

Answer #4: The entire Mishnah is R. Yehudah;

Because he initially said that the Lishkah was called Lishkas ha'Metzora'im because it was initially established for Metzora'im to immerse there, he needed to explains that not only Metzora'im must immerse, rather, even all others.

Explanation: They hold also like R. Yehudah;

Ben Zoma and R. Yehudah argue only about whether it is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan, but all agree that a Tahor who enters the Azarah must immerse;

He mentioned Ben Zoma because the question was asked primarily from him, and he answered that he must immerse.