Question: Indeed, we should have eight. What is the source for only four?

Answer: It says "Pesilim." The minimum that Pesilim can be is two, and when we cut each, they become four;

If you would say that it is eight, there is no limit. Perhaps it is 100, or 1000! Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta (if you claim many, you do not get them, i.e. you cannot justify the claim).

Implied question: Why did we ask "perhaps there are six also of gold"?

Answer: This was in order to be like the other materials in it.

Implied question: Above (71b), when we asked [regarding Mashzar] "perhaps there are 28!", why didn't we answer "Tafasta Mu'at Tafasta" (if you claim a little, you get them, i.e. but not if you claim much)?

Answer: There, we could not say that it should be more than 28. Since it has a limit, "Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta" does not apply.

Strengthening of answer: Just the contrary! It is proper to assert the larger amount, for 100 are included in 200! (If we have too many threads, the proper number are among them.)

Implied question: In Rosh Hashanah (4b), we equate Shavu'os to Pesach. Just like Pesach has Tashlumin all seven days [for one who did not bring his Korban on the first day]...

The Gemara asked "perhaps we should equate Shavu'os to Sukos. Just like there, there are eight days [of Tashlumin...]", and answered Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta;

Also there, there is a limit!

Answer: There, we are stringent to say Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta. Until seven days, there are Tashlumin in any case (whether we equate it to Pesach or Shavu'os).

More than this, there is not Tashlumin for perhaps we learn from Pesach.

Implied question: In Kidushin (17a), regarding gifts to an Eved Ivri when he leaves, also there we say Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta, even though in any case there is a limit!

Answer: Also there we say Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta, for due to a Safek (how to expound) we cannot take money from the master (force him to give a larger gift).

Question #1: Why do we bring this verse v'Huva, which is written regarding the copper Mizbe'ach, and we abandoned the verse "v'Heveisa", which is written regarding the Aron?

Question #2: Some ask that [when they dissembled the Mishkan] when leaving an encampment [in the Midbar], it says "u'Va Aharon u'Vanav bi'Nso'a ha'Machaneh v'Horidu Es Paroches ha'Masach v'Chisu Bo Es Aron ha'Edus... u'Parsu Alav Beged Kalil... v'Samu Badav";

Inference: When they traveled, they put the staves inside. It says [about the staves] "they will not depart from it (the Aron)"!

Answer #1 (Ri of Orlins): "VSamu Badav" means that they put the staves on the shoulders of the carriers, to take them.

Objection (Tosfos): Bnei Kehas (who carried it) were not there yet, until they (Aharon and his sons) put all the Kelim into their cases, like it says "v'Lo Yavo'u Lir'os k'Vala Es ha'Kodesh..."!

Answer #2 (Tosfos): Rather, "vSamu Badav" means that they used to extend the staves to the outside, so they are seen protruding on the Paroches, like two breasts of a woman. (When traveling, they had to push them back in, so as much will stick out in back of the Aron as in front.)

Question: However, Question #1 remains difficult.

Suggestion: Perhaps there is a printing mistake in the text.

Rejection: It is difficult to say so, for in all texts it says v'Huva Es Badav, and in some it says in the Beraisa v'Heveisa;

However, in R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina's question, in all texts it says v'Huva!

Answer: If I did not fear my colleagues, I would say that there were eight rings in the Aron. The verse proves like this;

It says "v'Yatzakta Lo Arba Tab'os Zahav v'Nasata Al Arba Pa'amosav", i.e. of the four corners, like the Targum "Zivyasei";

It says after this "u'Shtei Taba'os Al Tzal'o ha'Echas u'Shtei Taba'os Al Tzal'o ha'Shenis."

Inference: There were four rings on the two sides, in addition to the four on the four corners;

In four rings, the staves were fixed. They may not leave;

In four rings, which were below or above those rings, they would put staves when leaving an encampment, to carry the Aron through them;

Regarding these, it says v'Samu Badav.

Question: What was R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina's question? We should say that there were two kinds of staves!

Some of them were fixed, and some of them entered and left [the rings], like I explained!

Answer: You must say that "v'Heveisa Es ha'Badim ba'Taba'os" refers to all the staves;

If it referred only to the ones that they inserted when traveling, it should have said also "v'Chibarta Es ha'Badim ba'Taba'os", for it did not specify when he inserted the fixed staves;

It wrote only "ba'Taba'os ha'Aron Yihyu ha'Badim." It should have explained first that he inserted them!

Rather, surely it says about all of the staves "v'Heveisa Es ha'Badim." He understands that it refers to all of them equally;

Just like these [staves] used to carry were not fixed, also the others were not truly fixed in one place, without moving from their place at all.

Rather, at least they entered (could move a little) on each side. Now, they (all the staves) resemble each other a little;

Therefore, we bring also the verse "v'Huva" written regarding the Mizbe'ach, to reveal about "v'Heveisa" of the Aron;

Just like "v'Huva" of the Mizbe'ach, the staves were not fixed, for it does not say Lo Yasuru Mimenu, similarly regarding "v'Heveisa" of the Aron, they were not totally fixed.

Question: According to what (we) explained that it refers to all four staves, the verse is difficult, for it says "to carry the Aron through them"!

Suggestion: All four staves were used to carry the Aron. Two of them were long, and the other two were shorter than them.

Rejection: In Menachos (98b), it connotes that only four people carried it.

Answer: "V'Heveisa" refers only to the fixed staves. Regarding the staves that were not fixed, why was it necessary to mention them here, to say "v'Heveisa"?

They (Bnei Kehas) did not insert them, rather, Aharon and his sons when leaving an encampment!

Support: Regarding all of them (Kelim with staves), it says "v'Nisa Bam Es ha'Shulchan", and similarly regarding the copper Mizbe'ach it says "v'Huva Es Badav b'Taba'os... bi'Seis Oso", and also regarding the gold Mizbe'ach it says "l'Batim l'Vadim Laseis Oso ba'Hemah";

It does not say about them a command "v'Heveisa", and [when the Torah discusses] making them, it does not say "he brought", like it says regarding the Aron, both regarding the command and the making.

Note: The Maharsha asks that it says "he brought the staves into the rings" (Shmos 38:7) regarding making the copper Mizbe'ach! Rashash answers that this was merely to test that they are the right size (Betzalel did so), but when the Torah discusses [Moshe] assembling the Mishkan, it mentions inserting the staves only regarding the Aron. Si'ach Yitzchak - since Moshe was not commanded to insert the staves into the Mizbe'ach, Betzalel did so. Alternatively, verse 38:7 means that when necessary, others would insert them.

Implied question - Citation (Beraisa of Meleches ha'Mishkan): Four rings were fixed in it, two in the north and two in the south;

Citation (cont.): Once they put the staves in them, they never moved from there, for it says "ba'Taba'os ha'Aron..."

Answer: [The Beraisa] discusses only the four rings in which staves were permanently fixed;

The rings in which staves were not fixed were made only for what was needed at the time of moving between encampments. It does not discuss them.

Support: It does not discuss the rings of the Shulchan, or of the copper or gold Mizbe'ach.

This requires investigation.

Assertion: It seems that even the gold plating on them was Batel to them.

Observation: Everywhere, the wood is Batel to the metal, regarding Tevilah and all matters, for it depends on the Ma'amid (the support);

This is not so regarding cedar wood. The Shulchan was of cedar wood, and plated with gold, and even so it had the status of a wooden Kli;

The plating is Batel to the wood, like we learn in Chagigah (26b) from verses.