Question: Rav Kahana should have said he should lessen it as the Mishnah says regarding the beam over an alley. This is as the Gemara states in Eiruvin (2a) that since putting a beam over an alley is Rabbinic in nature, the Mishnah uses terminology that it should be fixed (as according to Torah law, it is fine the way it is).

Answer #1: It is possible to say that it says it is invalid because he wants to say that it is invalid like the terminology used regarding Sukah which is a Torah law.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he did not want to say a longer statement like "put it out, lower it, and go back and light it," as one would not be able to merely move it and place it lower while it is still lit, as is apparent from the Gemara later (23a).

Implied Question: We permit an Esrog on the last day more than a Sukah. (What is the difference between them?)

Answer: The Gemara in Sukah (46b) explains that we sit in the Sukah when it is unclear if it is the seventh or eighth day. If one has to eat Bein Hashemashos on this day, he does so in the Sukah. Since the Sukah is still set aside for the Mitzvah during Bein Hashemashos, it is still set aside during the next day which is either the eighth or ninth (not Sukos) day.

Answer (cont.): However, an Esrog is not taken on a day that is either the seventh or eighth day of Sukos. It is only Muktzah on the possibly eighth day because it was Muktzah during the seventh day.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Esrog is still forbidden during Bein Hashemashos leading into the eighth (or ninth) day because it is possibly still the eighth day during the Bein Hashemashos (and the Esrog is still Muktzah on the eighth day). (Why, then, is it permitted on what is possibly the ninth day?)

Answer: Since it is only forbidden because of a doubt whether Bein Hashemashos is the day or night, it does not become Muktzah the entire next day. This is akin to an egg that is hatched on the first day of Yom Tov that we rule is permitted to use on the second day of Yom Tov, even though it was still Muktzah during the Bein Hashemashos of the (end of the) first day of Yom Tov because it is unclear whether Bein Hashemashos is day or night. (See Tosfos in Sukah 10a, DH "Ad" at length.)

Explanation: This implies that the reason that Sukah decorations are Muktzah is because it is denigrating to the Mitzvah (to use them for a different purpose).

Question: Th Ri asks that the Gemara later (45a) implies that the reason is because it was set aside for a Mitzvah!

Answer: The Ri answers that both reasons are necessary. The reason that it is set aside to do a Mitzvah is not reason to forbid it on Chol ha'Moed, as this type of Muktzah is only pertinent on Shabbos or Yom Tov. The reason of denigrating a Mitzvah is only forbidden if they fell. However, now that we say both reasons, we forbid even if they fell on Chol ha'Moed.

Question #1: The Ri asks that since Sukah decorations are forbidden due to denigration of a Mitzvah, what is the Gemara's question in Beitzah (30b)? The Gemara there asks a question from Sukah decorations on the wood used for the Sukah, as it asks, "Does a condition not help for the Sukah? Doesn't the Beraisa say that if he put Sechach on according to the Halachah etc.?"

Question #1 (cont.): Why is this a question? Perhaps regarding the wood of the Sukah a condition does not help, as its law of Muktzah is derived from a Pasuk. This is as the Beraisa there states, "How do we know that the wood of a Sukah is forbidden all seven days? The Pasuk states, "Chag ha'Sukos Shivas Yamim."

Question #1 (cont.): This is a Torah derivation, as is apparent from the Gemara in Sukah (9a) that Beis Shamai rules that an "old Sukah" is invalid from this Pasuk. The Gemara explains that Beis Hillel uses this Pasuk to teach that wood of a Sukah is forbidden all seven days. However, it is possible that a condition could be used for Sukah decorations as they are only forbidden due to denigration of a Mitzvah!

Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara later (45a) implies that wood for a Sukah is only forbidden because it is set aside for the Mitzvah.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answered that both Sukah decorations and the wood of a Sukah that is not needed for the Sukah to be valid are only Muktzah due to either denigration of a Mitzvah or being set aside for a Mitzvah. The only part of the wood of a Sukah that is Muktzah due to this Torah derivation is the amount needed for the Sukah to be a valid Sukah.

Answer (cont.): The one asking the question in the Gemara in Beitzah (30b) from Sukah decorations on wood of a Sukah did not know this difference between the wood not needed for the Sukah to be valid and the wood that is needed for the Sukah to be valid.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara answers that the case is where he said, "I am not separating from them during the entire Bein Hashemashos," as this causes the holiness not to take effect on the Sukah decorations or the wood that is not needed for the Sukah to be valid. However, the wood of the Sukah needed for the Sukah to be valid is automatically holy according to Torah law all seven days, and a condition does not prevent this holiness.

Implied Question: The Gemara there says, "If he made a condition, the law is according to his condition." The Gemara asks that this implies a condition works. The Gemara answers that the second part of the Beraisa is referring to a regular Sukah. The Gemara then asks, can't a condition work for a Sukah used for Sukos? Doesn't the Beraisa say, "If he put Sechach on it etc." (Why didn't the Gemara differentiate between a condition for more than the required size of the Sukah and the amount needed for the Sukah to be valid?)

Answer: It did not want to differentiate between a condition for more than the required size of the Sukah and the amount needed for the Sukah to be valid, as "everything is according to his condition" implies that it is discussing the entire Sukah.

Implied Question: The Gemara did not say that the "father of these laws" is the wood of a Sukah, as it is derived from a Pasuk as stated in Beitzah (30b). (Why not?)

Answer: The Ri says that from the wood of a Sukah I would not know this, as Sukah is different because when one uses it for other purposes (i.e. and thereby makes the Sukah invalid) he is nullifying the Mitzvah. However, regarding Sukah decorations and counting money by a Chanukah candle, the Mitzvah does not go away (as the Sukah is still valid and the Menorah is still lit).

Explanation: If there is an obligation to have Tzitzis on a Talis, it is clearly forbidden (to take them off the Talis). Rather, even if it is only an obligation for a person who wears a Talis to have Tzitzis on it, this is also forbidden.

Explanation (cont.): This is as we find regarding Mezuzah that the person who took it off was punished, as stated in Bava Metzia (102a), even though it is only an obligation for a person who is living in that house.

Explanation (cont.): Shmuel says that one can take off the Tzitzis, even though Shmuel himself holds that it is an obligation for the Talis to have Tzitzis. Even so it is permitted, since he is taking it off in order to put it on another Talis.

Implied Question: The Gemara (ibid.) states the person who took off the Mezuzah was punished. (Why does Shmuel say Tzitzis should be different?)

Answer #1: Perhaps he did not intend to put it on another house.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Mezuzah is different because it is made to save people from demons.

Implied Question: Even though everyone agrees one cannot untie Tzitzis from a Talis if he does not intend to put it on another Talis, it is not difficult to understand why the custom is to take off Tzitzis from the Talis of a dead person. (Why is this?)

Answer: This prohibition to take Tzitzis off a Talis specifically applies regarding a Talis of a live person who is obligated in the Mitzvah.

Observation: The Gemara in Kesuvos (6a) asks a question there regarding (whether Rav really holds like Rebbi Shimon regarding Gereirah).

Question: This is difficult. Why does the Gemara say this was for forty years? The entire world always follows the Light of Hash-m!

Answer: Some explain the question as follows. When Aharon used to go in, did he need the light?! During the forty years Bnei Yisrael were in the desert, the pillar of cloud would light the way for them wherever they were!

Proof #1: This is as stated in the Beraisa d'Meleches ha'Mishkan that he would look in the jug or barrel and know what was inside of it.

Proof #2: It is also apparent from the Toras Kohanim that this is referring to the Kohanim's ability to see (through closed vessels or areas). The text there states, "Do they need a candle? All forty years they did not need a candle, as the Pasuk states, "For the cloud of Hash-m is on the Mishkan etc."

Observation: However, in Menachos (86b) the Gemara implies that this is referring to the Shechinah.

Proof: This is because it quotes this regarding Rebbi Elazar's statement, "I do not need to eat or to have light." The Gemara there also states, "For the Paroches of the Eidus - this is testimony to all of the people of the world that the Shechinah rests by Bnei Yisrael. If you say I need the light, all forty years etc."

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he would finish preparing the candles with this candle, as the others he would prepare in the morning while this one he would prepare in the afternoon. He would hold the old lit wick in his hand or put it in a vessel until he would put oil and a wick in the western candle. He would then light it from the old wick, and light the others from the western candle (this is how the question of Tosfos is explained by the Maharam).

Question: The Riva has difficulty with this. If he can light from the old wick, why didn't he light the other candles from it as well? What would be the question on Rav? Since he took out the old wick from the candle, there is no more problem of denigrating a Mitzvah or weakening a Mitzvah!

Explanation #2: Rather, it is impossible to do this. When he would prepare the candles, he would prepare every part of the new candle causing the old wick to go out on its own. However, while the old wick was still lit in the western candle, he would light the other candles from it. He would then prepare the western candle, fill it with oil and put in a new wick, and light it from one of the other candles. When it says, "he would finish with it" it means it was the last candle lit.

Observation: This is according to the opinion in Menachos (88b) that the candle part of the Menorah was made of "Perakim." The implication there is that it was attached to the Menorah, but it was made out of Perakim (see two explanation in Rashi in Menachos ibid. DH "Shel Perakim," one being that the gold was thin so that it could be easily bent in different directions) to help clean it out well.

Observation (cont.): There is also an opinion there that the candle (holder) part was not attached permanently to the Menorah, but rather would be taken off the Menorah while being cleaned, and only put back on afterwards.

Question: This is difficult. What is the question? What does Rav Huna mean that we see if lighting etc.? The Gemara implies that the Halachah follows Shmuel, as Rabah ruled according to his opinion. If so, it is also permitted to use a twig, as their argument seems to be regarding a twig and whether this is called denigrating to the Mitzvah.

Proof: This is evident from the fact that the opinion that Rav's reasoning is due to weakening the Mitzvah was found to be difficult.

Answer #1: It must be that Rav Huna does not understand that Rabah's opinion is significant. His question is that if placing the candle makes the Mitzvah, Rav would forbid lighting from candle to candle due to the denigration of the Mitzvah, just as he does regarding lighting a twig from the candle.

Answer #1 (cont.): Alternatively, it is possible that lighting the candle makes the Mitzvah, and it is permitted just as it is permitted regarding the Menorah, as we do not suspect for the weakening of the Mitzvah. He concludes that lighting makes the Mitzvah, and it is therefore permitted.

Answer #2: Alternatively, I found the following explanation in the name of the Rivam. The question is according to Shmuel whose opinion we follow, and it is whether it is permitted to use a twig. He is unsure if we hold as stated earlier that according to the opinion that the problem is only denigration of the Mitzvah, it is permitted to light from candle to candle according to Rav. If so, they argue regarding a twig and Shmuel would permit it.

Answer #2 (cont.): On the other hand, it is possible we do not rule this way. Perhaps we say that there is denigration in lighting from one candle to the other, and Rav would forbid doing so as placing the candle makes the Mitzvah. This is unlike the case of Menorah. Shmuel would only permit lighting from candle to candle, but he would admit using a twig is forbidden.

Answer #2 (cont.): He concludes that we see this is the question, and we conclude that lighting makes the Mitzvah, and therefore according to Rav one can light from candle to candle just like in the case of Menorah. According to Shmuel, even using a twig is permitted.

Observation: The difference would be whether a deaf and dumb person, insane person, or a minor lit it or put it down.