Implied question: Now there is no Yerushalayim (built) and no Beis ha'Mikdash, and in the days of Mashi'ach, everything will be built!

Answer: We must say that "there is no difference between..." is not precise.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is written regarding [the spoils] from Midyan "Etz'adah v'Tzamid..." and it is written "Tischat'u... Atem u'Shvichem" (you must be Metaher them, for they became Tamei)!

Rebuttal: You are forced to say that "Tischat'u" does not refer to all the spoils, for they took also animals, which do not receive Tum'ah!

Explanation #2: Rather, it is because it is written "Etz'adah v'Tzamid..." and afterwards it is written "va'Yikach... me'Itam Kol Kli Ma'aseh", which refers to all the Kelim taken;

Below (63b), we learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Kli-Kli" from Sheratzim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Biris] is on the leg, to hold her socks, lest they fall and her leg will be seen.

Objection: If so, why is it forbidden to go out with Kevalim, in the Havah Amina that the only difference is that Biris is on one [leg], and Kevalim are on two?

Explanation #2: It is possible to remove them without revealing the leg. Therefore, one may not go out with Kevalim, lest she take it off to show it, for it is an ornament for decoration;

However, Biris, which is only on one [leg], she does not take it off and show it, for it is not an ornament. Since she has only on one [leg], it is a disgrace for her!

Therefore, it is fine that Biris is Tahor, for it is not an ornament for decoration;

Also, it is not a functional Kli. It is only a Kli that serves a Kli, like the ring of a Kli, which it says above (52a) that it is Tahor. Also Rashi explained so.

The reason why Kevalim are Temei'im is because they are ornaments for decoration, like I explained.

Explanation (R. Tam): Yud Kei was written at the end of the first line, and Kodesh and Lamed were at the beginning of the second line. Now it is read well (Kodesh Lamed are on the left).

Do not explain like the simple meaning (Yud Kei is at the beginning of the line), for if so, it is not read properly.

Question: Above (26a) we included only three by three fingers!

Answer: There we discuss from a big garment. Here we discuss Arig (a woven garment) Kol Shehu (of any size, i.e. even very small), that from the beginning he did not intend to add to it;

We learn both of them from "Oh Beged", for they are equally [reasonable]. Arig initially [made to be] of any size is like three by three fingers from a big garment.

Question: Still, why is a garment of any size Tamei? We require that it can be moved empty and full, like a Sak!

Answer: It is proper to bend and fold and take a pearl or needle in it.

Question: If so, why are Pashut hide Kelim (i.e. they have no receptacle to hold something) Tehorim? They are proper to fold something in them, like here!

Answer: It refers to cooked hide, which is hard (it cannot be folded).

Question: We should already know that a Tachshit of any size is Tamei, since a ring is written among Klei Midyan!

Answer: Perhaps the ring is thick and very big, and it is not Kol Shehu.

Explanation: It is half Arig, and half an ornament. It is Tamei.

Inference: We require some small Shi'ur. If not, what is half of Kol Shehu?!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Torah teaches about] Tum'as Mes regarding [Klei] Midyan, and we cannot learn Sheratzim from Mes to be stringent, for Mes is a severe Tum'ah;

[The Gemara] answers that we learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah] "Kli-Kli" from Sheretz. I.e. just like the Kli said regarding Sheretz receives Tum'ah from a Sheretz, also the Kli said here (Klei Midyan) receives Tum'ah from a Sheretz.

Question #1: If so, [the Gemara] should have asked "that (Klei Midyan) was written regarding Tum'as Mes!"

Question #2: When it answers 'we learn from "Kli-Kli"', it should have answered that we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Beged v'Or"! (On 64a, we learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Beged v'Or" between Tum'as Sheratzim and Tum'as Mes.)

Explanation #2: "That was written regarding Midyan" regarding the spoils of Midyan. The Parshah does not discuss Tum'ah at all. How can we learn that Arig and Tachshit Kol Shehu are Tamei from "Kol Kli Ma'aseh"?

[The Gemara] answers that we learn from "Kli-Kli." I.e. just like the Kli written regarding Sheretz discusses Tum'ah, also the Kli written regarding Midyan pertains to Tum'ah.