Our Gemara tells us that the two paroches partition curtains between the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary were replaced every year.  Why was it replaced?  I would assume because the blood of sacrifices were sprinkled on it during the Yom Kippur Avodah and also in the ritual of the Public Sin offering (See Mishna Zevachim 5:1).  These curtains were costly textiles made of spun gold and precious threads, as well as having intricate designs embroidered in them. This must have been an enormous expense.

The Tiferes Yisrael (Boaz Mishna Shekalim 8:3) raises some questions about this process. He explains that there is a principle of אין עניות במקום עשירות, in the Beis HaMikdash there is no second rate, and all purchases and practices are done at top quality. Yet, he maintains there also is a competing principle, known as התורה חסה על ממון ישראל, the Torah is careful with The Jewish public financial burden and does not impose unmanageable costly rituals. The Tiferes Yisrael says it applies in the Temple service as well. He says, the Beis HaMikdash is lavish in spending only to a point, but if it becomes a constant expensive burden then the principle of התורה חסה על ממון ישראל kicks in.

Therefore he asks, over here, how could the Jewish people be burdened with such costly maintenance of the temple curtains? It’s one thing if the curtains  got dirty, but the Cohen does not actually touch the curtains when he enters or exits as they are folded open. In addition, he says, there hardly was any dirt as the floor was marble and the cohanim did not wear shoes. The Tiferes Yisrael considers reinterpreting this Gemara as follows. They didn’t manufacture two new curtains each year but instead rotated in another set, and cleaned the old set, and then rotated back.

There are interesting psychological points and lomdishe points that come out of this piece. 

First the psychological: It has been observed that Judaism works dynamically between competing values, instead of sticking with one rule another. This philosophical idea requires and actually individual judgment in application of principles instead of rigid rules.  The rigidity of each contradictory value cancels the other, leaving space in between. Some examples: 

• Middas Hadin and Middas HaRachamim (Justice and Mercy)
• The requirement to pray according to a rigid unaltered formula (Berachos 40b) but also the requirement that it not be felt as a burden or rote (Avos 2:13), 
• Finally, the numerous and intense requirements to honor parents (Kiddushin 32a), yet the prohibition against a parent making himself too demanding and burdensome (Rambam, Mamerim 6:8 and Kessef Mishne).

There are many other examples; the more you look the more you will find. Similarly, we see an example here in regard to lavish expenses in the Temple versus conserving public expenditure.

Parenthetically, I wonder why Tiferes Yisrael doesn’t mention the fact that the blood is sprinkled on the paroches (curtain between the holy of holies and the sanctuary) in the Yom Kippur Avodah and the Public Sin offering (See Mishna Zevachim 5:1), which would indeed make it dirty. Perhaps, he holds that just as the blood never actually was sprinkled on the Aron, rather corresponding to it in front of it (Yoma 55a), despite the verse stating “on the kapores (cover of the Aron)” (Vayikra 16:15), so too the blood was sprinkled in front of the paroches and not on it. Indeed the limmud is from the next verse, וכן יעשה לאהל מועד which the Gemara (Yoma 56b) learns as the source for a duplicate action on the paroches. Thus, it would make sense that through a hekesh comparison the same rule of “near”, instead of “on”, should apply. 

In truth, the Gemara (Yoma 57a) discusses this in detail, where we see that the intention was to sprinkle in front of the paroches, not on the paroches.  Yet, it also records instances where it still did get blood on it.