Question: Why does he have to extinguish it and light it again? He should suffice with picking it up, since placing it makes the Mitzvah. Is a candle that is already lit worse than a candle that is lit by a Cheresh, Shotah, or Katan?

Answer: The case is where he originally lit it for Shabbos. It is therefore worse than if a Cheresh etc. were to light it, as when it is lit in its proper time it is apparent that it is lit to be a Chanukah candle. (Riva)

Observation: If so, it is permitted to light from one candle to another. Even so, since the custom has become to be stringent not to do so, the custom should not be changed.

Explanation: This seems to be referring to Chanukah candles, as the Gemara concludes that the reason is because it provides more light. However, for Shabbos candles it is obvious that it is a special Mitzvah to use olive oil, as the wick draws it better than any other fuel, as is apparent from our Mishnah that everyone admits it can be used.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Seraf refers to Guma.

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam does not think this is correct. Dyo is not Guma, as stated in Gitin (19a), "One can write with anything, with Dyo, Sam, Sikra, Kumus, etc." The Gemara there explains that Kumus is Guma.

Question #2: Dyo is not gallnut water in which people usually put Guma, as the Beraisa there states that if it was written with water of Tarya and Aftza, meaning gallnuts, it is kosher. This implies that it is not the Dyo stated in the Mishnah.

Question #2 (cont.): Additionally, "kosher" implies it is kosher b'Dieved, as opposed to Dyo which is what one is supposed to use Lechatchilah.

Question #3: Additionally, in Nidah (20a) we say that he cut up pieces of dry ink and checked (blood). This refers to our ink that is hard, not that made from gallnuts. It is also uncommon for us to put gallnuts into our ink.

Explanation #2: Rather, Seraf [discussed here] refers to the wetness from the tree, which is in our Dyo. Similarly, the Gemara in Nidah (10b) says regarding a virgin, "This one's sap is common, the sap of the other is not." Similarly, the Gemara in Pesachim (39a) says that a bitter vegetable has sap and its face is dark. The Seraf mentioned there means moisture.

Opinion: This is why Rabeinu Tam would rule that a Sefer Torah that is not written with our Dyo is invalid, as other types of ink are not called Dyo as we have explained. We say later (103b) that if it was written without Dyo it should be put in Genizah, and we say in Menachos (34a) this refers to a Sefer Torah.

Opinion: The Rashba understands that when Rosh Chodesh Teves falls on Shabbos, the Haftorah that should be read is the one regarding candles in Sefer Zecharyah, due to the spreading of the miracle of candles. The normal Haftorah read on Shabbos Rosh Chodesh, "Hashamayim Kisi," should not be read.

Opinion (cont.): Additionally, since the Maftir reads a Maftir (from the Torah) related to Chanukah, he should similarly read a Haftorah related to Chanukah.

Opinion (cont.): The reason that we first read from the Torah regarding Rosh Chodesh is because we have the ability to read from both topics. We therefore read both the one that is commonly read (Rosh Chodesh) and the one that helps publicize the miracle of Chanukah (Chanukah), and we know the rule is that something more commonly done is done before whatever is less commonly done.

Opinion (cont.): However, if we would not be able to do both, we would say that it is preferable that the publicizing of the miracle should be done. Additionally, there is not a lot of publicizing of the miracle done during the reading of the Torah, as it does not even mention candles, unlike the Haftorah.

Opinion (cont.): It also appears to the Rashba that they had the Torah reading of Rosh Chodesh first in order that the Maftir should read regarding Chanukah and read a Haftorah regarding the candles in Sefer Zecharyah.

Explanation: This refers to both the husband and wife. This is why it says that two great men came out of this marriage. Later, the Gemara merely says that he saw "she" was used to this, referring to the woman herself. This is why he said that one great man came out of her, in her merit.

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam says that his father had already passed away. This is why he used this terminology (Bei Nasa). If he was still alive, he should have said, "d'Vei Avuha" - "of his father's house."

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam adds in the name of Rabeinu Shmuel that when one writes a Kesuvah and the father of the Kalah is still alive we write, "that she is bringing him from her father's house." If he has already passed away we write, "that she is bringing him from Bei Nasa."

Opinion #2: According to the Rashba it seems that we even find this term "Bei Nasa" used when someone is alive.

Proof: This is apparent from the Gemara later (156a) where it says that Levi, the son of Rav Huna the son of Rav Chiya, came across the person who used to prepare the food for his father's animals. He saw him kneading it and giving it to his father's oxen. Levi therefore rebuked him. His father came and found him etc. (This clearly shows one can use the term "Bei Nasa" to refer to a father who is alive.) Accordingly, one can write whichever term he prefers.

Question: Why don't we decree that one cannot light on Yom Tov with oils that cannot be used for lighting on Shabbos, as one might come to use it on Shabbos if he uses it on Yom Tov? Our Mishnah states that one cannot use impure Terumah oil on Yom Tov, implying that on Yom Tov one can generally use the other oils that we said in the previous Mishnah one cannot use on Shabbos.

Answer: Since these other oils are not drawn well by a wick, even if we permit them for Yom Tov, people will not come to use them on Shabbos. It is obvious that we should decree they should be forbidden on Shabbos lest a person tilt the candle. However, impure oil of Terumah cannot be permitted on Yom Tov, as a person might mistakenly come to use it on Shabbos as it is drawn well by the wick. It is not clear to everyone that the reason is that he is obligated to burn it. There is therefore a decree that he might come to tilt it on Shabbos.

Question: Rebbi Eliezer asks that in our Gemara, Rabah explains that the reason is a decree of Yom Tov due to Shabbos. Later (24b), the Gemara derives this from the Pasuk, "Hu Levado." (What is the real reason?)

Answer: Rabeinu Shmuel answered that the Gemara later is referring to Rava who was after Abaye. Our Gemara is referring to Rabah, as his student Abaye is answering him, and Rabah's colleague Rav Chisda is arguing on him.

Question: However, it is difficult to understand Abaye's question that it should be permitted on Yom Tov. Abaye himself derives later from the Pasuk, "Olas Shabbas b'Shabbato" that one cannot use impure Terumah oil!

Answer #1: It seems that Abaye and Rava are not discussing the Gemara's statement that we do not light because we do not burn Kodshim on Yom Tov. They do not hold of the decree that we forbid Terumah due to Kodshim. Rather, they are explaining how we know that we do not permit burning Kodshim on Yom Tov.

Answer #2: The Rashba explains the question, "If this is the case, why don't we permit it on Yom Tov" as follows. It would be understandable if the case was regarding a Yom Tov that fell on Erev Shabbos, and the reason would be because we do not burn Kodshim on Yom Tov as stated by Rav Chisda. However, since you said that the reason we do not light it on Shabbos is due to a decree lest one come to tilt it, one can no longer explain that we do not light in on Yom Tov because we do not burn Kodshim on Yom Tov.

Answer #2 (cont.): Why would the reason be regarding Yom Tov if Yom involves a different reason altogether? Rather, it must be that the reason is that one will come to tilt on Yom Tov. However, how does this apply to Yom Tov (when tilting is not forbidden)?

Answer #2 (cont.): According to this explanation, it is understandable why the term "Ela mei'Atah" is used, as this implies that there is a different explanation possible which will not leave us with a question that it should be permitted on Yom Tov. There is also no contradiction in Abaye.

Question: In our Gemara, Rabah makes a decree regarding Yom Tov due to Shabbos. It is only forbidden on Shabbos itself due to a decree lest one tilt the candle. If so, Rabah holds that we make a decree to a decree. Yet in the beginning of the chapter Rabah said, "It itself is a decree, and we should get up and make a decree to a decree!"