Explanation: It is obvious to the Gemara that they recognized wax and tar, as we state that "Shavah" means "Kirusa." This is why it says that the difference is regarding buying and selling. If he vowed he would give his friend Shavah, he can give him beeswax. He cannot force him to purify it for him. The same applies to tar.

Explanation (cont.): However, when the Gemara earlier says, "What is Lechesh? It is Shucha d'Arza" it does not discuss the practical difference, because they did not know it as Lechesh. It merely explains that it is Shucha d'Arza.

Opinion #1: I heard from Rabeinu Avraham who heard that if there is only one valid candle in the house, he will remember through this candle not to tip the other candles in the room and basement.

Opinion #2: The Sar from Coucy says that if a person can do something without the light of the candle, for example to take wine out of a barrel, he can use the light of any candle (even that which we suspect he will tip, as for this task he does not need light).

Explanation: The innards of fish is not fish oil, as the Mishnah later (24b) states explicitly that fish oil can be used.

Question: This is difficult. How is it permitted to light it? It is not needed for a sacrifice! The Gemara in Kidushin (54a) says that using worn out Bigdei Kehunah is still considered Meilah!

Question: It is difficult to answer that Beis Din makes an automatic condition allowing this, as there is no reason for them to do so!

Answer: The Ri understands that since they did this for the honor of the Korban, as the Pasuk says, "And you will draw water amidst happiness" (Yeshayah 12:3), it is considered a need of the Korban.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Sukah (53a) that a woman could separate wheat by the light of the Beis ha'Shoevah. (Isn't this Meilah?)

Answer #1: It doesn't mean that she did do so, but rather that there was so much light that women could have done so.

Answer #2: However, the Yerushalmi deduces from here that there is no prohibition of Meilah against hearing, looking, and smelling Hekdesh.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. What is the question from the pants of the Kohanim? They had linen in them, as the Pasuk states, "Techeiles, Argaman, Tola'as Shani, and Shesh Mashzar (woven linen)." This is good for the wick, as it is like wrapping something that one lights with on top of something one does not use to light. While this is prohibited on Shabbos because we suspect one will light with the forbidden item by itself, this decree did not apply to the Mikdash.

Answer: The Ri understands that since the pants were only twenty five percent linen, it is nullified amongst the other types of material and it is as if the pants do not contain linen at all.

Question: How does Rava know that Rav Huna holds it is permitted to use the light? Perhaps when he says it cannot be used to light for Shabbos it is because he holds that if it goes out he will have to light it again, and he cannot light it on Shabbos!

Answer: If this is what Rav Huna held, he should not have said that this is true whether it is during the week or on Shabbos since the same reasoning applies to both cases. Rather, he should have said one cannot light with it in general.

Answer (cont.): Since he explicitly stated, "whether it is during the week or for Shabbos" we see that there is another reason not to light on Shabbos besides the reason not to light during the week. This is because he might tip the candle. If so, he holds it is permitted to use the light (as otherwise we would not suspect he will tip the candle, as he knows it is forbidden for him to use the light).

Implied Question: Rav, who says that one can light whether it is during the week or for Shabbos, could not have merely said one should not light. (Why not?)

Answer: I would think that this is specifically regarding during the week. However, for Shabbos one cannot light because he might tip the candle. If this would not be explicitly stated, I would not think that a person will be stringent to forbid using the light.

Opinion: The law indeed is like Rav and Rebbi Yochanan that it is forbidden to use the light of the Chanukah candles. Abaye also accepted that this is the law. It is also implied later that Rav Yosef held this way. We also rule that if the Chanukah candle goes out one does not have to relight it, as everyone holds this way aside from Rav Huna who is a minority opinion. We do not rule like him (here).

Explanation: However, if he did not yet light, the time to light is over.

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Porat says that one should be careful to light as soon as it becomes night, in order to ensure that he does not delay too much. However, if he did delay until after the time he should still light due to a doubt, as there is another answer in our Gemara.

Opinion #2: The Ri understands that nowadays one does not have to worry about when he lights, as we only cause the miracle to be recognized by the people of our household, as we light indoors.

Opinion: The Ri understands that Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel are only discussing lighting candles for a person who is doing so (i.e. lighting only one set of candles) for his household. There is more Hidur because it is apparent when he adds candles every night or subtracts candles that he is doing so due to the new days or days that are left.

Opinion (cont.): However, if he is lighting a candle per day for every member of his household, even if he will add candles (per family member per day) it will not be clear to the observer how many nights of Chanukah there are, as the observer will merely think that the amount of candles is related to the amount of people in the house (i.e. twenty candles could be five people on the fourth night or four people on the fifth night).

Explanation: The case is where there is no courtyard, but rather a house that is close to the public domain. However, if there is a courtyard in front of the house it is a Mitzvah to put it by the entrance into the courtyard (from the public domain).

Proof #1: This is as the Gemara says later (23a) that if a courtyard has two entrances it requires two candles.

Proof #2: The Gemara also says later (23b) that a candleholder that has two wicks can be used for two different people, implying two different houses in the yard. If they would put the candles by the entrances of their houses, it would be at the right for one of them and at the left for the other (even if their doors were close to each other, and it is supposed to be on the left for both). However, if the candle is at the opening of the yard this is more understandable.

Explanation: The Ri understands that this was at the time when the Chavri came to Babylon.

Proof: This is as the Gemara says later(45a), "Can one carry a Chanukah candle away from the Chavri on Shabbos?"

Question: Won't they also take the Menorah that is on the table inside the house? The Gemara in Gitin (17a) says that when Rabah bar bar Chanah was sick, a Chavri took away his candle!

Answer: They did not normally search for candles in the house.

Explanation: If they already made a decree that Nochrim should be like Zavim (Nidah 34a), it must be that the oil was sealed in a jug in the ground in a way that they did not sit or lay on it.