Explanation #1: According to Rashi, the side closest to the fire starts hardening (i.e. becoming a crust) first. The Gemara asks whether the bottom side that Rebbi Eliezer discussed is the one closest to the oven wall. When the Rabbanan say, "until its faces become hardened" it refers to even one of its faces (i.e. sides), even the top one.

Explanation #1 (cont.): If when Rebbi Eliezer says the bottom one he means the one closest to the fire, when the Rabbanan say, "until its faces becomes hardened" they mean both of its faces. The Gemara proceeds to bring proof from the fact that Rebbi Eliezer etc., and it determines that Rebbi Eliezer is being stringent.

Explanation #2: However, the Yerushalmi implies that Rebbi Eliezer is being lenient. It says, "And Rebbi Eliezer admits regarding the Lechem ha'Panim that it is only if their face becomes hardened in the oven." This implies that in our Gemara, even a slight hardening of the face of the bread is enough. Rebbi Eliezer only requires a complete hardening regarding the Lechem ha'Panim. (Riva)

Question: If this is referring to the limbs and fats of the weekday offerings as explained by Rashi, doesn't the Gemara earlier (24b) derive from the Pasuk, "Olas Shabbos b'Shabbato" that we do not bring the weekday Olah on Shabbos?

Question (cont.): If it is referring to the limbs and fats of Shabbos offerings, and the Pasuk, "in all of your dwelling places" teaches us that even though their Mitzvah is the entire night and one could therefore wait until after Shabbos they still push aside Shabbos, we already know this from the Gemara about "Olas Shabbos" (ibid.)!

Question (cont.): Since the Gemara (ibid.) excludes an Olah brought during the week, meaning the limbs and fats offered during the week as no more slaughtering or sprinkling is done after sunset, it must be that the limbs and fats from Shabbos offerings are offered on Shabbos!

Answer: It is possible "b'Chol Moshvoseichem" is coming to permit limbs and fats of weekday sacrifices if the fire already started burning them before Shabbos.

Answer (cont.): When the Gemara (ibid.) says one cannot burn limbs and fats of weekday sacrifices on Shabbos, it means this is only when the fire did not start burning them before Shabbos.

Observation: Similarly, the Gemara in Yoma (46a) says that limbs of weekday sacrifices that are left over can be made into their own pile and organized, even on Shabbos.

Observation (cont.): Even according to Rav Huna who argues there (ibid.), he only says that one cannot make a separate pile. However, everyone agrees that they can be organized on the major pile of sacrifices being burned on the Mizbe'ach if they already started burning before Shabbos, as is apparent there.

Implied Question: The Gemara (ibid.) says according to one version that only regarding invalid sacrifices do we say that if the fire started burning them they are put into a pile on Shabbos, otherwise they are not. (This implies that we would put valid sacrifice limbs on the pile on Shabbos, even if they did not start burning!)

Answer: This is not because we do not require the fire to start burning the weekday sacrifices before Shabbos. Rather, the Gemara means that only regarding invalid sacrifices do we have to say that they need to start burning to be included in the pile on Shabbos. Regarding valid sacrifices, this does not have to be stated.

Question: The Riva is unsure whether we say in general regarding sacrifices that if the fire started burning them, they become like the bread of the Mizbe'ach and can be dealt with on Shabbos.

Question (cont.): Perhaps this reasoning specifically helps regarding the Tamid, since the Korban Tamid itself pushes aside Shabbos on Shabbos?

Question: The Gemara in Yoma (ibid.) is difficult to understand, as the Gemara there derives this from, "in its time" teaching even on Shabbos. This is unlike our Gemara that derives this from, "your dwelling places."

Answer: It seems that the main derivation is from "in your dwelling places." The Gemara in Yoma (ibid.) says, we derive from "in its time" that it is even on Shabbos since it is citing the teaching from this Pasuk that it is even if it is impure.

Question: There is another difficulty. The Pasuk, "in your dwelling places" is needed to teach that if we have to burn a daughter of a Kohen (for promiscuity) it does not push aside Shabbos. This is as we derive in Yevamos (6b) and Sanhedrin (35b) that it says "in your dwelling places" here...so too the dwelling places discussed here etc.

Answer: Our Gemara is keying on the last part of the word, "Chem" - "yours," as the Pasuk states, "Moshvoseichem" instead of "Moshvos."

Implied Question: The Gemara derives in Kidushin (37a), why did the Torah say "Moshavos" regarding Shabbos? The Gemara says that one would have thought that since it is discussed along with the Moadim, it should require Beis Din to sanctify it just like the Moadim (that are decided based on the calendar). The Pasuk teaches us that this is not so. (Don't we need the Pasuk "in your dwelling places" for our Gemara? How can it be used for both teachings?)

Answer: The Gemara (ibid.) is not referring to the Pasuk, "do not burn a fire in any of your dwelling places" as Rashi explains, as this Pasuk is not stated in the same context as the Moadim. It is also required by our Gemara. Rather, the Pasuk referred to there is stated in Emor (23), as the Pasuk, "in your dwelling places" there is stated in the context of the Moadim.

Explanation: This implies that in a place where the Torah doesn't want a fire to go out, it is enough that the fire should keep going on its own, and the wick does not have to burn most of it.

Explanation: However, according to the opinion that it is from when the fire takes hold of it on both sides, it is not yet destroyed from being used by a worker.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Pasuk says, "Its two sides the fire ate, can it successfully be used for work?" (This implies it can no longer be used at this stage!)

Answer: This is only regarding a grape vine. However, other types of wood do not get destroyed so fast to the point that they cannot used.

Explanation: Sometimes the Mishnah starts explaining from where it left off, and sometimes it starts from the first topic it mentions.)

Explanation: The Mishnah here first mentions the case that is not simple. It does this in many places.

Observation: What is difficult on Rashi's text in Sukah (7a) is explained in a different place.

Question: We already know this from the second part of the Mishnah that says, "Whatever comes from the tree cannot be used to light aside from flax!" This same difficulty applies regarding Idan.

Answer: We do not derive from general rules, even when the rule includes exceptions (see Eiruvin 27a). (This is why it is important for the Mishnah to mention other cases.)

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Kelach mentioned in the Mishnah is called Shira Fronda. However, Matchasa is not Shira Fronda, as it was not extant after the destruction of the Temple.

Proof: This is as stated in Sotah (48b) that when the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed the Shamir, white glass, and Shira Fronda were no longer extant.

Opinion #2: The Ri explains that Shira Fronda is also Matchasa. When the Gemara in Sotah (ibid.) states that it is no longer extant, it does not mean it is no longer extant, but rather that it is hard to come by.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that it also says this regarding white glass, and we know that white glass did exist after the destruction. This as stated in Berachos (31a) that Rav Ashi broke before them a vessel of white glass by the wedding canopy of his son.

Explanation: The Tana of our Mishnah did not have to state this.

Question: Since our Mishnah holds that wool and hair is invalid for lighting, what does the Beraisa mean when it says, "they added?"

Answer: "They added" means they added a reason why it is invalid, because it does not draw the oil well. Our Mishnah said it is invalid because the wool shrinks and the hair becomes singed, and it therefore did not have to say this other reason.

Opinion #1: The people of Narvona forbid our wax candles. They explain the Gemara means that you might say that it does not work as a wick, and that therefore if one put a wax candle in an oil candle it would be forbidden. This is why the Beraisa says, "From here on in is why fuels are invalid." In other words, as long as there is a valid fuel (i.e. oil, as in the case of the wax in the oil), it is permitted. However, using wax as fuel without oil is forbidden.

Opinion #2: It appears to me that if it is forbidden to light it without oil, it should similarly be forbidden to light it with oil. This is as the Tosefta says later (21a) that if a person wrapped something that is lit over something that is not lit, it is invalid. Rather, it must be that it is even permitted to use wax if he did not put it in oil.