Implied question: In many places, a Mishnah teaches "not only this, rather, even this" [and we do not learn anything additional from the first case]!

Answer #1: When we can give a different answer [than saying this is the structure of the Mishnah, rather, we can learn something extra from the first case], we give the answer.

Answer #2: When the first case is totally included in the latter, it should not have been taught.

Implied question: Why don't we ask this in Eruvin (2b) and Sukah (2b)?

R. Yehudah is Machshir (a Sukah, or Korah of a Mavoy, that is) 40 or 50 Amos tall. If he is Machshir 50, we need not teach that he is Machshir 40!

Answer: Whenever it is not precise, rather, the same applies to more, we do not ask this;

This is like we answer in Shabbos (126b) "four or five boxes" is like people say.

The Makshan there asked "if he may clear out five, we need not teach that he may clear out four!" He thought that precisely five are permitted. The Gemara answered that it is not precise.

In Nidah (37b), we say that Koshi (blood seen amidst pain preceding birth) is Metaher (from Zivah) for 40 or 50 days. The Gemara questioned this, because it is precise. Koshi is not Metaher forever.

Implied question: In Kesuvos (96a), we say that if a widow delayed two or three years and did not claim food [from the estate], she lost her rights to be fed, and the Gemara asked [that there is no need to teach both two and three]!

There it is not precise, for all the more so, if she delayed longer the lost her food!

Answer: There, "two or three" is "this, and there is no need to teach this." Therefore, we asked [that the latter does not teach anything].

Support: Similarly, in Bava Kama (118b) we permit buying four or five animals from shepherds, but not two or three;

The Gemara asked "if we may buy four, there is no need to teach that one may buy five!"

Also there, it is "this, and there is no need to teach this."

In Shabbos (60b), regarding a nailed sandal (a Beraisa permits it on Shabbos if it has four or five nails) we asked because it was obvious that only four or five are permitted, but not more.

Implied question: In Kesuvos (57a), we teach that a man may keep his wife for two or three years [without a Kesuvah], and a baby may nurse for four or five years (60b), and we did not ask!

Answer #1: There, it was obvious that even more is permitted. Therefore, we did not ask.

Answer #2: Alternatively, regarding a baby it is precise. We can say that a healthy baby may nurse four years, and a weak baby may nurse five (and this was obvious).

Question: What was the question? We can say that he holds like R. Yehudah, who said above (12a) that Yerushalayim was divided among the Shevatim!

There is an opinion that even the Azaros were divided among the Shevatim!

Answer: Even without this question, we must answer [that R. Tzadok said so merely] in order to arouse more crying;

We bring Eglah Arufah only when we do not know who killed him. Here, the murderer was known!

Also, he said "[should we bring] for the city or for the Azaros?" Obviously we do not bring for the Azaros, for it says "the closest city"! The Azarah is not a city!

Rather, he said so merely to arouse more pain.

Implied question: We should ask oppositely, that something that is not Avodah cannot require Bigdei Kehunah at all!

Answer: This is not difficult. The Torah decreed to be stringent. There is no Isur to wear Bigdei Kehunah not at the time of Avodah;

We conclude below (69a) that one may benefit from Bigdei Kehunah.

Even further, R. Yochanan holds that both Hotza'ah and Haramah require all four garments (Bigdei Kehunah), both according to the first Tana and R. Eliezer. Both of them equate the garments that he wears to the garments he removes;

Even so, R. Eliezer holds that a Ba'al Mum is Kosher for Hotza'ah since it is not Avodah, even though it requires [all] four garments.

Question: According to Reish Lakish, surely it is not an Avodah, since he does not use the verse to teach that it requires four garments.

If so, why does R. Eliezer need a verse to be Machshir a Ba'al Mum, and why does the first Tana disqualify a Ba'al Mum for Hotza'ah?

Answer: Since a Ba'al Mum is considered like a Zar (non-Kohen), one might have thought that surely, a Zar and Ba'al Mum may not approach the Mizbe'ach. This is why R. Eliezer needs a verse, and the first Tana disqualifies.

Implied question: Also regarding the Kohen Gadol, in Acharei Mos it says "u'Michnesei Bad Yilbach Al Besaro"!

Answer: It must say so also regarding a Kohen Hedyot. We could not learn from a Kohen Hedyot from a Kohen Gadol or vice-versa, since they are different in several ways.

Explanation: "Yilbash" includes a similar wearing to what was already written "v'Lavash ha'Kohen Mido" (which teaches about the Ketones and Michnesayim), i.e. another two garments.

Question: Regarding Hotza'ah, what is the source to require four garments?

Since regarding Haramah we know 4g only through a Hekesh, we then equate wearing of Hotza'ah to removing garments [written after] Haramah, like above;

We say in Zevachim (49b) that regarding Kodshim, something learned from a Hekesh cannot teach about something else through a Hekesh!

Answer #1: Perhaps only Korbanos themselves are considered Kodshim [regarding this rule], but [laws of] Bigdei Kehunah [learned from a Hekesh] can teach through another Hekesh.

Answer #2: "Yilbash" is a Ribuy (inclusion), and not a Hekesh. It includes another wearing;

Since it did not specify how many garments it includes, e.g. one or two, it is a mere Giluy Milsa (revealing a matter) that it includes two garments, like the verse says.

Answer #3: This is like the opinion there in Zevachim that when we learn from it and another matter (some laws are explicit, and others are learned from a Hekesh), this is not considered a Hekesh;

Since we may learn Hotza'ah from Haramah regarding what is [explicitly] written regarding Haramah, we may learn also from [Haramah] laws know through a Hekesh.