Rashi's opinion: The question was according to R. Yehudah.

Objection: If so, he should have explicitly said "according to R. Yehudah"!

Tosfos' opinion: Rather, it is both according to Ben Zoma and R. Yehudah, regarding Tevilah for one who will enter the Azarah without serving;

In this case Ben Zoma agrees that the Tevilah is only mid'Rabanan, lest he serve, like I explained above (30a DH Ein).

Implied question: Why did he ask whether or not Chatzitzah [disqualifies Tevilah] here, and not regarding other Tevilos mid'Rabanan, e.g. the 18 decrees (Shabbos 13b) or similar cases?

Answer: There is an additional attribute to this Tevilah, for the person was totally Tahor. There was no concern for Tum'ah. It is a mere attribute and extra stringency;

Therefore, he asked that perhaps there is no [concern for] a Chatzitzah.

Rashi's opinion: He (Abaye) asked according to R. Yehudah.

Note: Rashi said "this Tevilah", i.e. like in the previous question, which Rashi said was according to R. Yehudah.

Question: If so, how did [Rav Yosef] answer from the Beraisa? Above, R. Yehudah argues with it!

Answer: Even so, he answers from Rabanan, who say that they made a stringency even for partial Bi'ah;

Likewise, according to R. Yehudah, when anyone immerses, which is mid'Rabanan, he must immerse even for partial Bi'ah.

Implied question: In Chulin 2b and Zevachim 32a, we say that l'Chatchilah, a Tamei may not slaughter [Kodshim] with a long knife, lest he touch the meat.

Why didn't we mention concern lest he be drawn [into the Azarah]?

Suggestion: Here, we are unsure whether or not we decree due to being drawn. (There, the Gemara gave a clearer concern.)

Rejection: This (Safek) is only regarding a Tahor. For a Tamei person, who is Chayav Kares [if he enters the Azarah], we must be more concerned!

Answer: Just the contrary. This [stringency] is the very reason [why we are less concerned there]!

There, since he is Tamei, he is more careful, and will not enter. We are more concerned lest a Tahor person be drawn in.

Question: The roofs and Aliyos (upper stories) were not Mekudash! (Why do we say that the Tevilah was ba'Kodesh?)

Answer: The roof of Beis ha'Parvah was even with the floor of the Azarah.

Support: In Pesachim 86a, we asked from [a Mishnah that says] "chambers built in Kodesh and open to Chol, the insides are Chol and the roofs are Kodesh", and answered that this is when the roofs are even with the floor of the Azarah.

Question: If the roof of Beis ha'Parvah is even with the Azarah floor, why was there a tunnel?

Citation (Yoma 19a): A tunnel went from Lishkas ha'Madichin to the roof of Beis ha'Parvah.

Answer: Even though Beis ha'Parvah was even with the Azarah floor, it was not open to the Azarah, due to modesty, for the Kohen Gadol immersed there;

Rather, they entered through Lishkas ha'Madichin, which was under the ground. From there, a tunnel went up to the roof of Beis ha'Parvah.

Assertion: We must say that the inside of Lishkas ha'Madichin was Kodesh. If not, the roof of Beis ha'Parvah would be like a chamber built in Kodesh and open to Chol. We said above that the inside is Chol.

Conclusion: You are forced to say that the inside of Lishkas ha'Madichin, to which the roof of Beis ha'Parvah opened to, was Kodesh.

Implied question: I explained that Lishkas ha'Madichin was a tunnel. R. Yochanan (Pesachim 86a) taught that tunnels were not Mekudashos!

Answer: There, we established R. Yochanan's teaching to apply to tunnels that open to Har ha'Bayis. Those that open to the Azarah were Mekudashos.

Question: There, the Gemara asked from "chambers [built in Kodesh...]" and answered that the roofs are even with the Azarah floor. We then asked from the Seifa [which says that what opens to Kodesh is Kodesh], for [if the roof is even with the Azarah floor,] it is a tunnel, and R. Yochanan taught that tunnels were not Hukdash;

[Since the Makshan thought that R. Yochanan discusses all tunnels,] why didn't he ask from the Mishnah in our Perek [which says that Beis ha'Parvah was Kodesh], and the Mishnah in Midos (5:3, which says that a tunnel went to Beis ha'Parvah), like I explained? (If tunnels are Chol, also what opens to them is Chol!)

Answer #1: It makes no difference. Also the Gemara's question [from chambers built...] is a Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (3:8)!

Support: In fact, it is better to ask from there, for it is a Seder Zera'im, which precedes Mo'ed and Kodshim [in which are Mishnayos Yoma and Midos].

Answer #2: We ask two questions from that Mishnah, from the Reisha and from the Seifa.

Question: What is the source that the Mikveh was three Amos tall? Perhaps it was only an Amah tall, and three Amos long, and the Kohen used to lie down in it?

Alternatively, perhaps it was only two Amos tall, and the Kohen Gadol would sit and immerse!

Answer: Presumably, whatever they could do to make it easier for him, they did, lest he become weak;

He immersed standing, for this is easier.

Suggestion: An [average] person is only three Amos tall from head to toe.

Rejection: If so, regarding Hezek Re'iyah (invasion of privacy), why do we require a wall four Amos tall (Bava Basra 2a)?

Rather, a person is three Amos tall up to his shoulders.

Implied question: (Why must the wall be four Amos?) His neck and head do not occupy an Amah!

Answer #1: Since we need more than three Amos, we established the Shi'ur to be four Amos.

Answer #2: Also, the ground is not made perfectly flat with a planning tool. Sometimes there are small mounds less than three Tefachim close to the wall.

Answer #3: Sometimes, a person stands on tiptoes and sees over the wall.

Implied question: Regarding burial caves, (Bava Basra 100a), the length [allotted for each coffin] was four Amos!

Answer #1: That includes the person's [neck and head], and the thickness of the coffin walls above [his head] and below [his feet].

Answer #2: We need extra space. (We should not need to force the Mes into a gap precisely the size of the Mes.)

Note: Perhaps this answer also accounts for people taller than average. This is a concern also regarding Hezek Re'iyah. However, it is easier for one with a tall neighbor to add to the wall, than to hollow out a bigger place when a tall person dies.

Implied question: Why was three Amos enough for the Mikveh?

Answer #1: When the water is three Amos deep, when one enters the water, the water rises above his head.

Note: People are about as dense as water. Every kilo of body weight displaces approximately a liter of water. If the Mikveh is an Amah wide and an Amah long also above three Amos, the water rises another Tefach for every 20 or 34 kilos of weight, according to R. Chaim Na'eh or the Chazon Ish, respectively.

Answer #2: One who immerses can bend his head down a little, until his entire body is covered in water.

Implied question: The Targum on Megilas Esther (9:14) says "[the corpse of] Parshandasa occupied three Amos on the gallows... Dalfon occupied three Amos on the gallows ... (This connotes that each of them was only three Amos tall in all!)

Answer: All of their heads were cut off. They were killed, and hung afterwards.

Support: In Shabbos (92a) we say that a person is three Amos tall, i.e. without the head;

Citation (92a): If one was Motzi a load more than 10 Tefachim above the ground he is liable, for this is how Bnei Kehas carried.

Citation (cont.): The Aron was nine Tefachim tall, and the Kapores (its cover) was one Tefach. We have a tradition that when something is carried on poles, a third is above and two thirds are below.

Granted, if we say that until the shoulder is three Amos, i.e. 18 Tefachim, there is a proper proof.

They carried on the shoulder. [Two thirds] of the Aron, i.e. six and two thirds Tefachim, were below the source. [The bottom] was 11 and a third Tefachim above the ground.

However, if one is three Amos tall including the head, the neck and head are more than one and a third Tefachim, [the bottom of] the Aron was less than 10 Tefachim above the ground!

Support #2: Also in Eruvin (48a), we say that a person's place is four Amos;

We explain that his body is three Amos, and another Amah in order to take an object above his head...

I.e. his body is three full Amos, and another Amah for his head, and in order to raise his hands above his head.

Note: I do not understand how this supports Tosfos. Just the contrary! When a normal person raises his hand straight up, his elbow is about even with the top of his head. If a person were three Amos from head to toe, his hand would extend [only] four Amos above the ground!

Question: If so, Ein Eitam was higher than 23 Amos, for if it was only 23, the water would flow outside!

Answer #1: Surely, Ein Eitam was only 23. The cavity of the Mikveh was more than three Amos tall.

[Therefore,] even though the water rises when one enters it, the water did not flow outside.

Answer #2: Even if the water left, new water would immediately come in place of it from Ein Eitam.

Note: It is not clear how this helps. We require 40 Sa'im in one enclosed place! Malei ha'Ro'im asked like this, and did not answer.

Question: Since we say everywhere that a person is an Amah wide, how can he immerse in a Kli only an Amah [wide] by an Amah [long]? Something an Amah [wide] cannot fit in a gap exactly one Amah!

Note: One may not immerse in a Kli. "Kli" refers to a cavity.

Answer: We say that a person is an Amah wide, i.e. when he is dressed.

Support: The width of burial caves was six Tefachim (one Amah). In them, we fit the coffin, and the Mes in the coffin. (An Amah fits the Mes' width, and the thickness of the walls.)

Explanation: This was for Ma'azivah (plaster on the roof). Since a very thin Ma'azivah suffices for stone (water does not leak through), we do not require a roof of an Amah [of plaster]. Any amount suffices.

Explanation: He taught this below (35a), regarding "they brought to him the linen garments."

Question: Why did he teach this on the Seifa, and not on the Reisha?

Answer #1: He did not need to teach this regarding the Reisha, for obviously we require a Heker (something to remind him) not to wear all eight garments, like he does the entire year;

Note: Tosfos connotes that for Avodas Chutz, he does not wear all eight garments. Cheshek Shlomo says that the entire Gemara connotes unlike this. Tif'eres l'Moshe says that Tosfos means that he wears eight garments, but may not wear among them the linen garments prepared for Avodas Panim.

[Normally,] when he removes his Chulin garments, he wears all eight garments. Therefore, they spread a linen sheet (perhaps the text of Tosfos should say "Sadin"), so he will recognize that today he does not wear the linen garments with the gold garments, rather, by themselves;

However, in the Seifa, when he removes the gold garments and he needs to wear other garments, one might have thought that he does not need a Heker, for surely he will not err.

Answer #2: One might have thought that since they already spread a linen sheet once so he will recognize... this suffices;

Therefore, Rav Kahana needed to explain that we make two Hekerim.

Observation: We say similarly in Bava Metzi'a (61a) 'do not give (lend) your money to him with Neshech and Marbis (two expressions of usury), with Neshech and Marbis do not give your food.'

Question: In Kidushin (32b), we say that the first Tana reasons 'if you would say like R. Yosi ha'Glili, the Torah should have written "in front of an old person Takum v'Hadarta (rise and honor), Takum v'Hadarta the face of a Zaken (Chacham)"!...'

Why don't we say that even though the Torah wrote "Takum v'Hadarta" only once, it applies to what is written before it and after it, like here?

Answer: There, "Takum" (rise) is not appropriate to "Pnei" (the face of), rather, to Mipnei (in front of), like "I cannot rise in front of you";

"V'Hadarta" (honor) is not appropriate to "Mipnei", rather, to Pnei, like "they did not honor the faces of the Zekenim."

Reference: There are five verses that are indeterminate (it is not clear if the words apply to what is written before, or what is written after). I will explain this below (52b DH Seis).