And does He require its light? Didn’t all those forty years: It is a wonder: Why did it mention forty years? The whole world always walks by the light of the Omnipresent! And some explain it as, "Did Aharon need its light when he went inside?" [Accordingly,] didn't the pillar of cloud give light to them in all the places those forty years? It is as we say in the Baraita of the Work of the Tabernacle, "He would look inside a pitcher and know what is inside it; in a barrel and know what is inside it." And it so implied in Torat Kohanim - that it is referring to the priests. As there, it teaches the version, "And did they need the lamp? And didn't all of those forty years they not require the lamp? As it is stated (Exodus 40:38), 'For the cloud of the Lord was over the tabernacle.'" However at the end of [the chapter entitled] Kol Korbanot (Menachot 26b), it is implied that it is referring to the Divine Presence. As it cites it regarding that which Rabbi Elazar said, "I do not require [it] for eating and I do not require it for its light." And there it also said, "'To the curtain of the testimony' (Leviticus 24:3) - it is testimony to all who come to the world that the Divine Presence rests among Israel. But perhaps you will say (ask), 'Do I require its light,' Didn't all those forty years [etc.]?"

And with it he would conclude: [Rashi] explained, "and with it he would conclude" the ordering (cleaning). For he would order the rest in the morning, but he would order this one in the afternoon. And he would hold the old one in his hand or place it in a vessel until he would place the oil and wick and light, and [then] light the others from it. But this is difficult to Riva: For if it is possible to light from the old light - if so - let him also light the other ones from it; so what is the question on Rav? Once he has removed the old wick from the lamp, there is no longer [an issue] of contempt of the commandment, nor [an issue of] weakening the commandment. But rather it is certainly impossible to do this. So when he came to order [the lamps], he would order everything in the lamp and the wick would become extinguished on its own. However while the old wick of the western lamp was still lit, he would light the others from it. And he would [then] order it, put oil and a new wick into it and light it from the others. So "with it he would conclude," [refers to] the lighting.

But isn’t it true that here, since the lamps were fixed, etc.: Like the one, in the chapter [entitled] Shtei Middot (Menachot 88b), who said that the lamp was flexible, as it is implied there that it was connected but it was flexible, in order that he could order it properly. But there is [also] one that said there that it was not fixed, but that he would rather remove it completely at the time of the ordering and place it [back] afterwards.

What is about it: It is a wonder: What is its question; and what is that which [Rav Huna, the son of Rabbi Yehoshua] also said, "We see if kindling, etc." Behold, it is at first glance implied that the law is like Shmuel (such that there is no question to be resolved)! For behold, Rabbah acted according to him. And if so, a wood chip is also permissible. For note that it is perforce about a wood chip that they argue, and about contempt for the commandment. As behold, the one that explained the reason of Rav being on account of weakening the commandment was refuted. So we must say that it did not hold the words of Rabbah to be essential. [Hence] he asked if placing accomplishes the commandment, so it is forbidden for Rav from lamp to lamp on account of contempt for the commandment, as it is with a wood chip; or does kindling accomplish the commandment, and it is permissible, like with the [Temple] candelabrum - for we are not concerned about weakening the commandment. And it concludes that kindling accomplishes the commandment, so it is permissible. Or also (another explanation): I found in the name of Rivam that it is asking according to Shmuel - as the law is like him - whether it is permissible with a wood chip or not. So he asks if we hold like it said above, that according to the one that said it is on account of contempt for the commandment, it is permissible to light from lamp to lamp according to Rav. And if so, they are arguing about a wood chip, and Shmuel permits with a wood chip. Or perhaps we do not hold like this and there is contempt of the commandment also from lamp to lamp, and Rav forbids [it] - since the placing accomplishes the commandment, such that it is not similar to the [Temple] candelabrum, and it is only from lamp to lamp that Shmuel permits. But with a wood chip, even Shmuel concedes that it is forbidden. It concludes - we see that we ask [this], and resolve that kindling accomplishes the commandment. So for Rav, one may kindle from lamp to lamp, like the candelabrum; and for Shmuel, it is permissible even with a wood chip.

As a dilemma was raised before them, does kindling accomplish the commandment, etc.: And what comes out from it (the practical difference) is if a deaf-mute, a mentally compromised person or a minor lit or placed [the lamps].