Since it is a mitzvah to serve in it

See Hatz Shabbat (Ad עד עד עד עד עד עד אב) in the name of his beard – עד עד גמען; There we see the reason that something that was used for a mitzvah already has importance in itself and is preferable to a new thing.
And in Ein Ayah on Tractate Berakhot 29; from the explanation of Dehgam’ comes to us to hear the word of completeness in quality and not in quantity, Ayy’sh.

In the Chatam Sofer Shabbat novellas, I found nothing.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19920&st=&pgnum=43

Ein Aya is in the blessings of page 10.
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%95_%D7%9B%D7%94

A nice idea, but it doesn't explain the Gemara. It makes sense that it's better to raise one great scholar than two mediocre ones. But for example, in charity, it's clear that there's no reason to give two hundred shekels to one poor person instead of one hundred shekels to each of two poor people. So why are objects different from poor people? And the fact that objects feel something when you do a mitzvah with them is nothing but a surprise. And matters of Kabbalah are not worth explaining to me.
The Gemara speaks of either benefit to the object or benefit to the second mitzvah or benefit to the person. Benefit to the object is a puzzling thing and also similar to the poor thing that I mentioned, that since I have already fulfilled a mitzvah, let's now take another object. Benefit to the mitzvah is also an incomprehensible idea, although perhaps the Kabbalists would be happy to hang all the heroic signs on it. Therefore, benefit to the person (what Rabbi Michi called above a psychological matter) is what remains and is discussed.

Forgiveness. This is not in the text. But in the response of the son of the sofer Si Sakh (in the name of his elder brother, the text on the subject of Shabbat until)

https://hebrewbooks.org/1533

Thank you. But the truth is that I don't really understand what is written there. I read in the furniture and I am writing without studying the text.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1533&st=&pgnum=212

A. The difficulty is why a Hanukkah candle can be lit with a used wick but not with a used candle. This is easy because a used wick is better than an old wick. That is why the wick is flickered in Shabbat candles. But a used candle is perhaps stained and looks derogatory. And it is not like a turnip of a mixture that did not use the body of a turnip.
B. The difficulty is why sheets in which a hole is made are sewn to the sheet itself, whereas if two threads coincidentally tie in the same place, one does not dissolve and it is assumed that they do not do this to a king of flesh and blood. What is this problem? In the case of sheets, this is a repair, and they do it even for a king of flesh and blood. In the case of threads, it is about leaving a damaged condition, and this is not done even for a king of flesh and blood. Moreover, threading and its work is a small thing and is not at all similar to replacing an entire sheet.
C. The rest of the words there are also eloquent and I am tired of prolonging them.
D. The explanation in Tractate Soferim is unfortunately both cramped in itself, as the beholder will see with his own eyes, and it is also a way of phrasing that seems to deviate greatly from the path of simplicity. And who knows what pleasure you found in it.

And in any case, there is no explanation for the explanation itself, but only an export of this principle of "because" as it is to other contexts.

First of all, I didn't mean for you to read the entire answer, just the part about the innovation called the Hatz.

Regarding the renewal itself, I understood it this way: – The Gamma’ made it difficult regarding “permitting” with two stitches, which is something that is not done to the king of the Jews. And later, he asked who is ”ripping” – a sheet that has fallen into a hole is torn and sewn together. A tear is not a small tear. A tear is for the purpose of repairing by enlarging the hole, and there is perhaps a type of repair that is not artistic, and that is also not done before the king of the Jews. Unless it is worm-eaten, it is thrown away and replaced. Therefore, a renewal is from here, we learned about the importance of the virtue of the used one, because, etc. (I enjoyed that!)
Remember that Hattas lived in the days when there were kings and was familiar with their customs and ways. (And I think it is the same in our days too)

First, as I wrote, it does not seem to be a real issue. There is no comparison between a standard correction (in a cloth) and leaving a flaw (in a thread. See also Barshi). With threads, even for a king of flesh and blood, the weaver will spend two more minutes to make it beautiful. And with a cloth, even for a king of flesh and blood, there are corrections.
Secondly, come to your own conclusion, such a simple issue in the Gemara Minya and Biya in a few adjacent lines was ignored by all the Rishonim until I became a Chast? Therefore, it is understandable that in its simplicity, the Chast may have said it for the sake of convenience through falsification. And it is probably not for nothing that the Chast did not write it in his novellas. (And the entire answer there in the Chast Sofer is really all from one piece. It is not that he relied on it for a halachic ruling and perhaps it is all there for falsification in the first place.) Except that there is more pleasure in explanations from both sides and not according to some principle that was drawn from somewhere else and was not mentioned here at all, and the Gemara seemed to take it for granted. Especially since it itself is not understood, so what is the use of building buildings with it (on the contrary, we have nothing in it but its innovation).