There seems to be a contradiction between rashi 24a (d.h. ela) and rashi 24b (d.h. amar) whether it is "assur" or just "not proper" to benefit from the product of a miracle. I later found this question raised by the mitzpah eisan (he makes a distinction between a miracle done for an individual and an miracle done for the public - to me it seems to be a dochek). I think the distinction is that on 24a the miracle was done in the zechus of Elazar Ish birta and he (and his daughter) would be the ones benefiting so it is an issur since it will be deducted from his zechyos. But, on 24b the miracle was done in the zechus of R' Yehuda (just as the rain came in the zechus of him removing his shoe), and it was the buyers who were going to be benefiting, therefore it is not an issur on them to benefit from r' yehuda's zechuyos. Nevertheless, since the source of the benefit is a miracle, it is preferable not to benefit from a miracle at all (and perhaps their benefit would deduct from R' Yehuda's zechuyos so he tried to discourage them from benefiting).
The problem is that rashi 25a (d.h. ad) in the story with the oil says that r' chanina lit another candle from the miracle candle so as not to benefit from the miracle "just like r' yehuda did by the sand and flour". Based on the distinction above, in the case of R' chanina there would be an issur to benefit, so rashi should have cited the proof from the case of Elazar Ish birta?
For an answer - see comments.