GOAN – Just making sure that we’re one the same page here, lfi the Rogachover they used 8 shpudim, one per day, as shpudim shel barzel are golmai cli machteches, which, like we see several times in the gemara in Shabbos, are not mekabel tumah until you are machshiv them (this lechora is a kasha on the Rogachover, as it is taloi on machshava, not maaisa), and therefore they were only mekabel tumah after whey were lit, and therefore wouldn’t be tamei.
I would have thought that in a pashut reading of the Rogachover that they only lit one ner, on one shpud, per night, which had a din of the ner maáravi, which was the only ner that they were mechuyav in, as there was no mizbayach. However, then the gemara in r”h is shver, as it is clearly talking about shpudim, and very clearly talking about something that has a din of a menorah (as otherwise there cannot be a problem of lo saásun iti) with 7 branches.
I would be tempted to say that the gemara and psikta are talking about 2 different maamarim, and have nothing to do with each other at all, except that the gemara sounds like R”Y misheard (read? before rebbi?) the mamar and thought that בעץ, baatz, tin, ment biéitz, with wood, and if there were 2 different maisim they could both be true, as the Rogachover’s Chanukah ner didn’t have a din menorah, as he points out himself, and therefore could have been made out of wood (and it couldn’t have just been one pshutei kli eitz, as it needed to have a ner; i.e. a beis kibul).
Which brings me back to my first (sorry, seventeenth) question (I’m still waiting for answers, by the way. They were all serious questions.), why were they coated in tin (unless, of course, what I just speculated is right, and we have 2 seperate maamarim here)?
(Side question (#18): l’fi the same Tos from before, how did they clean it out if it was golmei kli machteches and therefore not shel prakim?)