I'm afraid your last question is valid. So here's what you should have thought.

Had the Torah written 'Neiros' in connection with Binyamin (which of course, it couldn't, because it took place by day), then we wouldn't have needed to go on to the next stage of 've'Chipus mi'Chipus' ... from Yerushalayim. Conversely, we need to learn 'Chipus' by Binyamin from 'Chipus' by Yerushalayim (where it does write 'Neiros'), precisely because 'Neiros' does not appear by it (Binyamin).

be'Virchas Kol Tuv

Eliezer Chrysler.

Firstly, let me apologize for misunderstanding your question, which was abundantly clear. More about that later.

The P'nei Yehoshua does indeed ask your question. This is what he answers ...

The question 'Mina Hani Mili', he explains, refers not to 'le'Or ha'Ner', but to the entire phrase 'Bodkin es ha'Chametz le'Or ha'Ner'. Consequently, the first Gezeirah-Shavah (from Binyamin) teaches us that one is Chayav to search for Chametz by day, which is preferable, because the light of the sun is that much better.

It transpires that at this stage, Bedikah by night ought to be Pasul. That is why the Gemara then brings the next stage (Yerushalayim) from which we learn that Chipus at night by the light of a Ner is also called Chipus, and consequently, the Bedikah must be performed specifically at night-time, also by the light of a lamp; and the reason for this is because, as the Gemara explains, a. people are at home at night-time and b. the light of a lamp is better for searching in nooks and crannies.

I find the P'nei Yehoshua's explanation extremely difficult however, and for a number of reasons. Firstly, 'Mina Hani Mili' follows the heading 'le'Or ha'Ner' (and not 'Bodkin es ha'Chametz ... ')? And even if you say that the heading is wrongly quoted, and the words 'Bodkin es ha'Chametz' must be inserted, how will we explain the two Beraisos, both of which refer to the nighttime exclusively (the first begins with the words 'Leilei Arba'ah-Asar Bodkin ... ') and the second 'Ein Bodkin Lo le'Or ha'Chamah ... ', and then continue 've'Af-al-Pi she'Ein Reayah le'Davar ... '?

Secondly, how can one Gezeirah-Shavah change its opinion in the middle (firstly, maintaining that Bedikah is only Kasher by day, and then that it must be performed at night)?

And thirdly, how can the Gemara say 'Chipus mi'Chipus', since the first 'Chipus' speaks by day (by the light of the sun), and the second, by night (by the light of a Ner)? What is actually happening (according to the P'nei Yehoshua) is that we first learn Metzi'ah (of Chametz) from Metzi'ah and Chipus (of Binyamin) and then, from Chipus and Neiros (of Yerushalayim)?

The Bartenura in the Mishnah, by the way, distinctly connects the set of Limudim (Chametz, Binyamin, Yerushalayim ... ) with 'le'Or ha'Ner (and not with 'Bodkin es ha'Chametz', as the P'nei Yehoshua explains).

It therefore seems to me that the initial question is easily answerable (which probably explains why I subconsciously misunderstood it the first time). The question would have been valid had we learned Metzi'ah of Chametz from Metzi'ah and Chipus of Binyamin (period). But that is not the case (as I mentioned then). What we are learning is that just as Metzi'ah of Binyamin is accompanied by Chipus, so too is that of Chametz (and consequently we will be able to learn Chipus of Chametz from Chipus of Yerushalayim ... ). It doesn't matter that the Chipus of Binyamin speaks by day, because we have a principle 'Don Minah ve'Ukei be'Asra', which means that when we learn a. from b., we sometimes learn the principle (i.e. that Metzi'ah is accompanied by Chipus) without the details (by sunlight). The details in fact, come in the next stage (Chipus of Chametz from Chipus and Neiros of Yereushalayim).

And what's more, even those who do not hold of 'Don Mi'nah ve'Uki be'Asra' (but 'Don Minah u'Minah') will concede that we apply it here. Why is that?

Because, as the Gemara has said, this is not a real D'rashah, but a 'Zeicher' or an Asmachta, as Rashi calls it, and an Asmachta, by definition, means that we know the Halachah concerned from another source, and only require the Pasuk to support it. Here too, Bedikas Chametz is de'Rabbanan, and the Chachamim instituted it at nighttime for the reasons that we mentioned earlier (as the second Beraisa specifically states). The Pesukim therefore, serve as a support for the Rabbinical obligation to perform Bedikas Chametz by night with a Ner. Consequently, the proof from Binyamin can only be a stage in the Limud, and not final, in which case we have to say 'Don Minah ve'Uki be'Asra', and learn the Din of candles from Yerushalayim.

Just one final point. I have explained the Gemara according to the opinions who actually consider the D'rashos an Asmachta (which the P'nei Yehoshua himself alludes to). I am unable to reconcile the Sugya according to the opinion of Rashi and the Ran, also cited by the P'nei Yehoshua (and explained by him), who consider Bedikah le'Or ha'Ner d'Oraysa on the one hand, yet explain it to be an Asmachta on the other (see P'nei Yehoshua DH 'Sham, Piska' and 'be'Feirush Rashi ... ').

be'Virchas Kol Tuv

Eliezer Chrysler