Observation: We say similarly below (53a) regarding Ma'aleh Ashan and below (67b) a Beraisa expounds [regarding Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach, the words] "ba'Midbar" and "ha'Midbarah" to include Nov and Giv'on, Shilo and Beis Olamim.

In Sotah (16a), regarding earth for a Sotah, it says "Min ha'Afar Asher Yihyeh b'Karka ha'Mishkan", we ask what is the source to include Shilo and Beis Olamim...

In Shevuos (16b, regarding liability for Tum'as Mikdash), we ask "since the Mikdash is called Mishkan and Mishkan is called Mikdash, the Torah could have written both times 'Mishkan', or both times 'Mikdash'!

Inference: Even though Mikdash is called Mishkan and Mishkan is called Mikdash, we needed two verses, one for the Mikdash and one for the Mishkan. We would not have learned one from the other;

Contradictions: In Chulin (24a), regarding years that disqualify Leviyim, it says 'perhaps this is even in Shilo and Beis Olamim! "La'avod Avodas" (teaches that this is not so.' Without a verse, we would have learned to the Mikdash!)

In Eruvin (2a), we say "a Shelamim slaughtered before the doors of the Heichal were opened is Pasul. What is the source in the Mikdash? We find that the Mikdash is called Mishkan." (We did not require another verse!)

Answer #1: (Normally we cannot learn one from the other.) In Eruvin (i.e. regarding Shelamim), perhaps there is a verse equating the Mikdash to the Mishkan for this law;

Similarly, in Chulin [perhaps a verse would have equated Mikdash to Mishkan regarding Leviyim]. After we exclude Shilo and Beis Olamim from "La'avod", we expound the other verse for a different law.

Riva's text: In Shevuos, the Gemara asked why we need two verses. (We could learn from either to the other!)

Answer #2: Even though Mikdash is called Mishkan... [so normally we may learn one from the other], in Shevuos, regarding Tum'ah, one might have thought to distinguish them, since they are different regarding Tum'ah;

Had the Torah written Mikdash, one might have thought that it is proper that a Tamei who entered the Mikdash is liable, for the Isur is permanent;

Even after the wall fell, one is liable for the place for [entering in] Tum'ah;

However, in the Mishkan, after they traveled elsewhere and dissembled the Mishkan and erected it elsewhere, one is not liable for the first place;

Had the Torah written Mishkan, one might have thought that it is proper to be liable for it, since it was anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah, and one may not touch it b'Tum'ah, even when it is dissembled;

However, stones of the Heichal that fell off, one may touch them while Tamei.

Support: This also answers why we need a verse in Sotah to include Beis Olamim, because the Torah discussed [her Aveirah] in an expression of Tum'ah - "v'Nisterah v'Hi Nitme'ah."

Also, we learn all laws of Safek Tum'ah from Sotah.

Therefore, one might have thought that since the Mikdash and Mishkan are different regarding Tum'ah, like I explained, also regarding Tum'as Sotah they are different.

Support: This [distinction] is the reason for Isi ben Yehudah, who requires a verse to include Shilo and Beis Olamim;

There, Isi ben Menachem argues with him, and says that we do not need a verse, for there is a Kal va'Chomer.

The Torah did not distinguish between Shilo and Beis Olamim regarding light Tum'os. Regarding Tum'ah of a woman, which is severe, all the more so [we do not distinguish]!

Explanation: Light Tum'os are entering the Mishkan or Mikdash while Tamei. One is Chayav Kares for both of these;

Implied question: There is a distinction between them like I explained (permanent Kedushah of the place, or touching them when dissembled)!

Answer: Even so, they are the same regarding Kares for one who enters them. He (Isi ben Menachem) does not consider it proper to distinguish them [regarding Sotah] due to this distinction (Kedushah of the place, or when dissembled).

Implied question: Why did we need to expound "Midbar ha'Midbar" [to teach that Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach applies also in Beis Olamim]?

Answer: One might have thought that it applies only while Yisrael were in the Midbar, close to a Midbar [from which it is pushed off a cliff];

Implied question: Why did we need a verse for Ma'aleh Ashan?

Answer: Since it says in that verse "Aharon" [one might have thought that it applied only in the Midbar].

Implied question: Why did we need a verse in our Sugya [that even in Shilo and Beis Olamim, others must separate from the Heichal during Avodas Panim]?

Answer: It says "Ohel Mo'ed." One might have thought that it was called Ohel Mo'ed only in the Midbar. The verse is extra;

It needed to say only "v'Chol Adam Lo Yihyeh b'Vo'o Lechaper ba'Kodesh." One might have thought that [b'Ohel Mo'ed] comes to exclude Shilo and Beis Olamim;

After we include Shilo and Beis Olamim [from ba'Kodesh], we say that the Torah wrote Ohel Mo'ed to exclude the Azaros.

Observation: Alternatively, we could have said at the time that blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kipur are put in the Heichal.

Explanation: The Gemara did not say so, for it is not uniform, for some of them are put Lifnai Lifnim.

Implied question: There are many differences! The gold Mizbe'ach, Menorah, Shulchan and Matan Damim are in the Heichal, and not between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach.

Answer: The Gemara discusses only [differences regarding] separation.

Question: Why did Chachamim decree to separate from between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach at the time of Haktarah Lifnai v'Lifnim, but not at the time of Haza'ah? :

We learn about separation] both [at the time of] Haktarah and Haza'ah from the same verse, above!

Answer: Haktarah is written more explicitly in the verse. Therefore Chachamim decreed about it, but not about Haza'ah, which is learned from the extra word "Lechaper".

Explanation: [The Makshan asks] according to you (R. Elazar), the Tana should not have taught "both at the time of Haktarah...";

Rather, he should have taught "in the Heichal they separate both for its Kedushah and the Kedushah of Lifnai v'Lifnim", which connotes both Ketores and Matan Damim", and between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach they separate only for Kedushah of the Heichal", i.e. of Ketores and Matan Damim."

Why did he mention Haktarah, which connotes only Haktarah [of the Ketores]?

Granted, I (the Makshan) say that they separate from between the Ulam and the Mizbe'ach even at the time of Haktarah Lifnai v'Lifnim", but not at the time of Matan Damim Lifnai v'Lifnim. It is good that he mentioned Haktarah!

Answer: All separation is one. The Tana mentioned Haktarah because the verse primary discusses it, but the same applies to Matan Damim.

Question: Granted, regarding goats for [a mistaken ruling of the Great Sanhedrin about] idolatry, it says "Kaparah"

However, [what is the source for] the bull of a Kohen Mashi'ach (anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah), about which it does not say "Kaparah"?

Suggestion: There is a Hekesh to Par Helam Davar (brought for a mistaken ruling).

Question: [We can still ask] what is the source according to the opinion that (Zevachim 50a) that something learned from a Gezeirah Shavah concerned teach through a Hekesh [regarding Kodshim]!

The Par Helam Davar itself is learned from a Gezeirah Shavah "Kaparah-Kaparah."

Answer - part 1 - Implied question: One opinion in Zevachim 40b says that "la'Par" refers to Par Helam Davar, even though the verse discusses this! (Why didn't he expound it to teach about something else?)

Answer: He needs [an extra mention of it] to make it considered that what was learned from a Hekesh [to Par Kohen Mashi'ach] as if it was explicitly written regarding Par Helam Davar [so it can teach through a Hekesh].

According to this opinion, here we can say just like "la'Par" refers to Par Helam Davar, to make it considered that what was learned from a Hekesh to Par Kohen Mashi'ach as if it was explicitly written regarding Par Helam Davar...

Also here, it helps for what was learned from [a Gezeirah Shavah to Par] Yom Kipur to be as if it was explicitly written regarding [Par Helam Davar] itself.

Answer - part 2: According to the opinion that "la'Par" refers to Par Yom Kipur, it is not difficult;

He expounds "v'Asah la'Par" - to be Par Yom Kipur. "Ka'asher Asah la'Par" is Par Kohen Mashi'ach;

This Hekesh equates Par Yom Kipur and Par Kohen Mashi'ach. We learn separation from Par Yom Kipur.

Implied question: There, we learn goats of idolatry from "ha'Chatas" written regarding Par Helam Davar. We expound goats of idolatry from it;

It is not considered as if they are Hukshu to Par Kohen Mashi'ach, rather, to Par Helam Davar, which the verse writes!

Answer: There is different, for Chatas is merely extra. There is no connotation that it is Hukash to Par Kohen Mashi'ach;

However, regarding Par Kohen Mashi'ach and Par Yom Kipur, the flow of the verse connotes that a Hekesh equates them - "v'Asah la'Par", i.e. Par Kohen, "Ka'asher Asah la'Par" to Yom Kipur.

Support: Also the Ritzva explained so there regarding another matter.

Rashi's opinion: This is a ring to make a noise, like it says "his Kol will be heard when he enters the Kodesh."

The Yerushalmi's text: There it says Nartik (case), so he will not get burned.

Explanation (Riva): It was like a leather case around the handle of the Machtah to hold it, so he will not get burned.

Reason: This is because any metal Keli, when part is hot, all of it is hot.

Therefore, today he needed a case more than on other days, because the coals are in the Machtah for a long time, and it got very hot.

Explanation: Later he takes it out, for this is one of the Avodos, removing the Kaf and Machtah.

The Yerushalmi asked "isn't this a Chatzitzah?", and answered that he fixes it with a nail.

Explanation: He uses nails to fix the case to the handle, so it will be Batel and considered like the Machtah itself.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that when they refine it, nothing is lacking.

Zahav Mupaz is called so based on the name of its place.

Source: We say in Zevachim (22a) that he is Mekadesh in any Kli Shares. "Yirchetzu" includes other Klei Shares (Riva).