” 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)”
That is not how the Rogatchover understood it – what you are saying pertains to the original memra of רבי יוסי בר יהודה who upholds that Etz is included in Lo Sa’asun but in the answer ..!?אמרו לו “משם ראיה שפודין של ברזל they completely disagreed that it had any Din of a Menorah, and that is the maskonah l’fi the Rogatchover, I don’t think the simple pshat is like that.
“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, ”
That is what he is saying, for more see the 2nd link I posted. He explains there are three separate ‘g’darim’ in the Hadlakos H’menorah:
a) Avodah/Maracha (which pertians to the Ner Hamaravi and can only be done by a Kohen and is kosher w/o a Menorah)
b) Hadlakos Haneros (kosher even if lit by a Zar and needs a Menorah etc)
c) The very act that the candles should be burning (Rav Chaim of Brisk also says the geder).
He explains it is based from the Toras Kohanim that has three separate l’mudim that it is docha Tumah and Shabbos – that each g’eder has its own limud
“we have 2 seperate maamarim here”
I can assume so, as the p’sikta says it was 8, whereas the Gemarah says “7” shpudim…
“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?)”
In this case, they may turn over the menorah/Shpud …no? Also, the might have thinned it out that it should be flexible on top, as with the Menorah…
“but in the answer ..!?אמרו לו “משם ראיה שפודין של ברזל they completely disagreed that it had any Din of a Menorah, and that is the maskonah l’fi the Rogatchover, I don’t think the simple pshat is like that.”
Are you learning that the Rabanan hold that it didn’t have a din of a menorah at all? If so, why didn’t they just say that instead of saying that it wasn’t wooden, rather tin?
“Are you learning that the Rabanan hold that it didn’t have a din of a menorah at all? If so, why didn’t they just say that instead of saying that it wasn’t wooden, rather tin?”
I would say that is exactly what they are intending to by saying it was “Shpudin” as in Tosfos :הא דקרי ליה שפודים משום שלא היו גביעים כפתורים ופרחים
that the fact that it was Etz l’fi R”Y renders an Etz Menorah as a Menorah and is included in Lo “S,’ so the Rabanan dispute that by saying the Etz then had no Din Menorah as it was only simple Glmy Matchas that are not mekabel Tumah etc..
Again, that is how the above wants to say it (based on the Psikta), simply learning, we would say they are just disputing the fact that it was pure wood..
If so, why are they cholek on the material – it doesn’t make a difference if it was eitz, not baatz? Why point it out, as he could be maskim?