I enjoy your Shiur immensly and it is a tremendous help.
You wrote in the Outline of the Daf:
2) HOW MUCH MUST CATCH BEFORE SHABBOS
(q) Answer #2 (Shmuel): They are logs that caught fire from the willow.
I understood Rashi to say that the wood burns together - the big pieces catch fire from the small pieces, and the word "Achvana" according to Shmuel is from the Shoresh "Ach" - brother. I looked in Rashi in "Yirmiah" and he says this bifeirush.
You are quite correct. The Girsa of Rashi in our Gemara was not "Etzim she'Nidleku b'Achvana " but rather "Etzim she'Nidleku b'Achvah " . This is indeed the Girsa in old prints of the Shas, manuscripts, and in the Aruch (Ach) and other Rishonim (DIKDUKEI SOFRIM, #200). This explains the words of Rashi in Yirmeyah as well.
Our translation in the Outlines was based on our Girsa of the Gemara, "b'Achvana" (see Gemara 20b), which indeed does not conform with what Rashi writes.
Thank you for pointing that out!
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
1) [i] This is a Machlokes in Pesachim 65a. Rebbi Nasan maintains the view which you wrote. The Rabanan, however, argue with him, and maintain that Ein Shevus b'Mikdash applies to all types of activity.
[ii] Concerning the Kesef Mishnah in the end of Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah, the Kesef Mishnah indeed says that the reason why Ein Shevus b'Mikdash is because the Kohanim are Zerizim. However, the Gemara in Eruvin (103a) is clearly not like the Kesef Mishnah. The Amora'im argue there concerning the reason why it is permitted to lower the Korban Pesach into the oven; some say it is because Ein Shevus b'Mikdash, and others say that it is because the members of the Chaburah are Zerizin (as our Sugya says as well on 20a). From the fact that these two opinions are arguing, it is clear that "Zerizim" is not the reason for Ein Shevus b'Mikdash. The Gemara there itself says that those who say the reason is Ein Shevus b'Mikdash hold that the members of the Chaburah are not Zerizim.
[iii] In any event, in the Beis ha'Mokad -- which is like Shevus outside of the Mikdash -- it could be as we have written, that part of it was not in the Mikdash.
2) Correct, the Maharshal writes the same thing as the Maharsha, which we wrote in our answer.
3) Very good. Thank you.
6) The RASH was from the Gedolei ha'Rishonim and one of the authors of the Tosfos, and preceded the Tosfos Rid by many years (and the words of the Tosfos Rid are indeed very similar to the words of the Rash).
8) Rashi does not mention at all that his intention was to burn the oil and not to smear it. Rather, Rashi says that he set it aside to pay to the oil-press workers.
9) His answer needs further elucidation, because we conclude (25b) that Hadlakas ha'Ner on Shabbos is obligatory, and he is not permitted to forego it. His answer that it is a Mitzvah that is known to everyone, as is written in the Perush ha'Mishnayos, is difficult, because certainly then it should apply to Kerias Shema, which is known to everyone.