What is the meaning of 'the light is for you'?

Rashi: It is to show your dearness to Me.

Maharal: The light in the Mikdash was became Hash-m's Shechinah is with man. It is revealed to man according to his ability. Yalkut Shimoni (286) says that Hash-m was revealed at the sea like a valiant warrior, and at Sinai like a Zaken teaching Torah - it is according to man's needs. In the Mikdash, the light was for man's need.

How do we learn that Hash-m does not [need to eat the Korbanos, nor does He] need the light?

Rashi: The Mizbe'ach is in between.

Tosfos: This is correct. If He needed to eat and the light, he would have put the Menorah near the Shulchan!

Iyun Yakov: Midrash Tanchuma says that a mortal king puts the lamp on the left [and the table on the right. Rifa - this is lest the Menorah interfere with his right hand, which he uses.]. In the Mikdash, the lamp was on the right. Rashi did not explain so, for this shows only that He need not eat. It does not show that He does not need the light.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Beis Aharon v'Yisrael (19:4 p.150): With respect to the Shechinah, in the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, which is in the west, the south is the right. This is why the Torah always discusses the south side of the Mishkan before the north, e.g. "v'Samta Es ha'Shulchan mi'Chutz la'Paroches v'Es ha'Menorah... Teimanah veha'Shulchan Titen Al Tzela Tzafon." The Torah was discussing the Shulchan, but interrupted to say that the Menorah is in the south before saying to put the Shulchan in the north.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rashi said that the Mizbe'ach is in between. (NOTE: He understands Rashi to mean that therefore, the Menorah does not illuminate on the Shulchan. Perhaps Rashi merely means that they are distanced; Hash-m could have commanded to put one of them in the middle, and the Mizbe'ach would be on the side! - PF) Yoma 33b refutes this. It says that the Mizbe'ach is slightly outside (to the east), to enable the Menorah to illuminate on the Shulchan!

Tosfos: Some say that if He needed these, He would have commanded to put the Shulchan and Menorah in the west, near the Shechinah.

Tosfos: This is wrong. We say only that the Shulchan is in the north, and the Menorah is in the south. We do not say that they were not in the west [of the north and south sides]! They were in the western half of the Heichal (98b)!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If Hash-m needed the light, He would have commanded to permit the Menorah inside Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, and not outside the Paroches!(b) What is 'Shekufim on the inside and Atumim on the outside'?

Rashi: The Mashkof (top) of the window was narrow on the inside and wide on the outside, to let light exude from the Heichal to the world.

Maharal: Bereishis Rabah (3) says that the light was created from Hash-m's place. "V'Hinei Kevod Hash-m Elokei Yisrael Ba mi'dee ha'Kadim veha'Aretz He'irah mi'Kvodo." Kevodo is Hash-m - "Kisei Kavod Merom me'Rishon Mekom Mikdashenu." The light spread out from Hash-m.

Maharsha: How does Atumim hint that the opening was wide [outside]?!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: It should have said Chalonos Shekufim. Rather, it says "Chalonei" next to Shekufim to teach that the part of the window that is normally Shekufim (open, i.e. the inside), there it was Atumim.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: If the [more] open side was inside, like normal, it should have said va'Ya'as b'Bayis. Rather, it says "va'Ya'as la'Bayis" teaches that he made Chalonei Shekufim (the open part of the window) on the outside.

Anaf Yosef: The verses discuss [first] what was outside the Heichal - "va'Yiven... Yatzi'a Saviv." Therefore, "va'Ya'as la'Bayis Chalonei Shekufim (the open side was outside) Atumim" (the closed side was inside).

Maharsha: The text says 'Shekufim on the outside and Atumim on the inside.' Shekufim is an expression of Hashkafah (looking) (NOTE: the opening is big, to facilitate looking through it - PF) and Atumim is sealed (the opening is small). This is the opposite of Stam windows.

What do we learn from 'the 40 years in the Midbar, Hash-m illuminated for Yisrael!'?

Tosfos: In Shabbos (22b), the text says 'does he need its light? The 40 years in the Midbar, they went via His light (the pillar of fire)! Rabbeinu Tam explains, it means that Aharon did not need the light. A Beraisa teaches that one would look at a pitcher and know what is inside. Also Toras Kohanim implies that we ask that the Kohanim did not need its light. However, here it says that Hash-m does not need the light. However, it should have said 'the entire world goes via His light'!

There were many miracles in the Mikdash. Why is the Menorah testimony that the Shechinah dwells amidst Yisrael?

Maharal: Testimony brings a matter from potential to deed. It is like a lamp, which brings sight to deed. (NOTE: See Bi'urei Agadah for Shabbos 22b:2, which explains the testimony more. - PF)

Which is the western lamp?

Rashi (Shabbos 22b): According to the opinion that the length of the Menorah was east-west, this refers to the more western of the two easternmost lamps. According to the opinion that the Menorah is north-south, the middle lamp tilts westward.

What is the meaning of 'he lit from it, and concluded with it'?

Rashi: He lit the others from it, and concluded with it, like a Mishnah (Tamid 33a) teaches. He came and found the two easternmost lamps burning. The Menorah was east-west. He extinguishes the eastern one, puts in a fresh wick and oil, and leaves the western one burning until evening. From it he lit the others, which extinguished in the morning. He fixes it - he discards the remaining oil and wick, and puts in a fresh wick and oil, and lights it, to fulfill the Mitzvah of lighting. He concluded with it - he lit it after the others.

Tosfos: This was before Shimon ha'Tzadik died. The Ner Ma'aravi burned the entire day. After he died, sometimes the Ner Ma'aravi burned the entire day, and sometimes it extinguished (Yoma 39a), and they needed to add oil so it would burn until the evening. Perhaps Chachamim enacted to light the way they did when the miracle persisted, even after it ceased.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Imrei Yosher asked, also on Shabbos they lit the same way (Yerushalmi). How could they light on Shabbos due to an enactment, if the Torah did not require it?! Perhaps it was via a minor who reached the age of Chinuch. R. N. Widenfeld answered that Rava holds that the Avodah on Shabbos was different. Here we discuss according to Rava. R. A. D. Horowitz answered, Tosfos (Yoma 15b) said that "Lo Seva'aru Esh b'Chol Moshevoseichem" permits burning in the Mikdash, even if not needed for the Mizbe'ach. It seems from Shabbos 20a that this was rejected. However, Tosfos (Yoma 15b) rules like the Drashah. If so, an adult may light. Chosamo Shel Kohen (p.36) said that the Ner Ma'aravi never extinguished on Shabbos. Bereishis Rabah 11 says that there was a Berachah of Shabbos in the Ner. The Brisker Rav praised this answer.

What is sweet wine?

Rashi #1: It is sweet due to itself (the grapes, and not due to the sun).

Rashi #2: It is less than 40 days from when the grapes were pressed.

Tosfos: This cannot be! Sweet wine is Pasul even b'Di'eved. If grape juice was brought straight from the vat (before it fermented), it is Kosher (Bava Basra 97b)!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Rashi holds that the Beraisa in Bava Basra is unlike our Mishnah; he explains like our Mishnah. Kerem Shlomo (6:8 p.41) says that this is like Rashi explained (Bamidbar 28:7) "Nesech Shechar" - wine that is Meshacher (intoxicates), to exclude straight from the vat. The Ramban challenged Rashi from Bava Basra. Mizrachi answered that the verse disqualifies l'Chatchilah; it is Kosher b'Di'eved, for there is not a second verse to disqualify. This is wrong. Rashi disqualifies even b'Di'eved (he explicitly says so in Nidah 8a)!

What are smoked and cooked wine?

Rashi: When the grapes are bitter, they smoke them or cook them to sweeten them.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Atvun d'Oraisa (Klal 4) brings from the Rosh and Ran that cooked wine is Pasul because it changed via cooking. In Bechoros 17a, it says that if one draped a vine over a fig tree, wine from its grapes is Pasul for Nesachim. "Zevach u'Nesachim" - just like the Zevach must be unchanged, also the Nesachim. The smell of the wine changed due to the fig tree! Also the Rambam (Isurei Mizbe'ach 6:9) disqualifies because the taste changed. Only a detrimental change dq. Cooked wine is inferior (Terumos 2:6). Terumos 11:1 says that cooking improves wine. i.e. it makes it last longer, but it is inferior.

Why do we not use [grapes from] vines supported on poles?

Rashi: Their wine is not good.

What are Ragliyos?

Rashi: They are low vines. Their wine is good.

Here, R. Yochanan taught that just like speech is good for spices, it is bad for wine. In Kerisus (6b), he taught in the other direction (just like speech is bad for wine, it is good for spices)!

Tosfos: Here we discuss wine, so he taught that just like we know that speech is good for spices, it is bad for wine. There we discuss spices, so he who taught that just like we know that speech is bad for wine, it is good for spices.

Ha'Boneh (Kerisus 6b): Speech is bad for wine, for people who drink speak a lot; wine enters and secrets come out. This is improper speech. It is good for spices - for people who absorb a nice scent from investigation in Chochmos. One should speak with them, to ask and answer, hear and add [knowledge].

Daf Al ha'Daf citing ul'Levi Amar: Wine and nice fragrances made one clever (Yoma 76a). Wine enters and secrets come out. Silence is the fence for Chochmah.

If lambs that are as wide as their height, this is deformed like a midget. They are Pasul!

Tosfos: The text should say 'their height is wide.' Bereishis Rabah (65) says that they were so tall that they ate from cedar trees, and when they carried them on camels, their feet dragged on the ground.

Ben Yehoyada: Rather, their obesity causes them to be taller than usual.