(a)According to Hillel, Matzah and Maror were eaten together with the Pesach. Why will Hillel agree that nowadays, one cannot be Yotzei by eating Matzah and Maror together? Which one will one not be Yotzei?
(b)Hillel is the proponent of the opinion that Mitzvos do not negate each other. What is the source of this principle?
(c)How do we reconcile this with the statement (in a.)?
(a)Hillel agrees that nowadays, one cannot be Yotzei by eating Matzah and Maror together - because whereas Matzah is d'Oraisa, Maror is only mid'Rabanan. Consequently, the Maror will negate the taste of the Matzah, and one will not be Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah (though he will be Yotzei that of Maror).
(b)The source of the principle that Mitzvos do not negate each other - is Hillel's interpretation of the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu" (i.e. that all three must be eaten together).
(c)The statement in a. (that the Maror negates the Matzah) is confined to nowadays, when Matzah is mid'Oraisa and Maror mid'Rabanan. But if both would be either d'Rabanan or d'Oraisa, one would indeed be Yotzei, according to Hillel.
(a)Rebbi Yochanan proves that the Rabanan disagree with Hillel, from a Beraisa which states that one should specifically not eat them together, only 'Afilu Zeh Bifnei Atzmo, v'Zeh Bifnei Atzmo'. What is strange with this Lashon?
(b)How do we amend it?
(c)From where do the Rabanan learn that one may eat Pesach, Matzah and Maror separately?
(d)What do we do to accommodate both opinions?
(a)If one may not eat the Matzah and Maror together, why does the Tana continue 'Afilu Zeh Bifnei Atzmo, v'Zeh Bifnei Atzmo'? Surely this is the only way that they can be eaten!?
(b)We therefore amend the first part of the Beraisa, to say not 'Yachol Yehei Korchan b'Bas Achas' to 'Yachol Lo Yetzei Bahu Yedei Chovaso Ela im Ken Korchan b'Bas Achas'. In this way, we learn from "Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochluhu" that one can even be Yotzei by eating them separately (but not that they must).
(c)We learn this from "Al Matzos u'Merorim Yochlu*hu*" - which is written in the singular (otherwise, it should have written "Yoch*lum*").
(d)To accommodate both opinions - we first eat Matzah and Maror separately (Maror to accommodate the Rabanan, because, according to Hillel, one could be Yotzei Maror with the sandwich alone - Tosfos DH 'Ela Mevarech'), and then together, as a symbol of Hillel's ruling.
(a)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Oshayah rules that whatever is dipped in one of the seven liquids requires Netilas Yadayim, and that is why we wash our hands before the first dipping-in. Why is there no proof from here that the Maror must actually be dipped into the Charoses?
(a)There is no proof from the fact that we wash our hands before the first dipping-in that the Maror must actually be dipped into the Charoses - because even if one only needed to hold it close to the Charoses (and the poison would die from the smell of the sharpness), it would still be necessary to wash one's hands, because of the likelihood of them touching.
(a)The Maror is dipped into the Charoses because of the Kafa. What are the two meanings of 'Kafa'?
(b)Why may one not leave the Maror in the Charoses for any period of time?
(a)The Maror is dipped into the Charoses because of the Kafa - which means either poison or a worm.
(b)One may not leave the Maror in the Charoses for any period of time - because the acidic taste of the Charoses (which contains apples) will negate the taste of the Maror.
(a)Rav Chisda Darshened that someone who had already washed his hands for the first dipping-in, would nevertheless need to wash them again for the second one. Why did ...
1. ... the Rabanan think that that applies to the rest of the year, but not to the Seder-night?
2. ... Rav Papa says quite the opposite - that it applies to the Seder-night and not to the rest of the year?
(b)Is one Yotzei if one swallows ...
1. ... Matzah?
2. ... Maror (according to the text in our Gemara)?
3. ... according to Rashi's text?
(c)Someone who swallowed Matzah and Maror is Yotzei. Why might one have thought that he is not?
(d)Will one be Yotzei if one wrapped them both inside a piece of paper and swallowed it?
1. The Rabanan thought that the requirement to wash one's hands for the second dipping-in (even though he had already washed them for the first one), would not apply to the Seder-night (where he knew that he had to dip-in again later, and would not therefore be Masi'ach Da'as), only to the rest of the year, when he would not anticipate dipping-in later, and would therefore have been Masi'ach Da'as after the first time.
2. Rav Papa says exactly the opposite; according to him, it is at the Seder, where the long break of Hagadah and Hallel is considered a Hesech ha'Da'as, that one is required to wash again, but not during the year, where there is not usually such a long break, it is not necessary to wash again.
(b)One is ...
1. ... Yotzei if one swallowed Matzah - because swallowing is called eating.
2. ... not Yotzei if one swallowed Maror - because he did not taste the sharp taste of Maror.
3. ... Yotzei in this case too, according to Rashi's text - because he must have tasted something of the Maror as he swallowed it).
(c)One may have thought that someone who swallowed Matzah and Maror is not Yotzei - because there are two disadvantages here: firstly, he did not taste the taste of Matzah, and secondly, the Maror served as a Chatzitzah (interruption) between the Matzah and his throat. (See Tosfos DH 'Yedei Matzah' as to why the Maror does not negate the Matzah.)
(d)If one wrapped them both inside a piece of paper and swallowed it, he will not be Yotzei - either because of Chatzitzah or because this is not the usual way of eating (Ran). (It is not clear however, why the Rashbam needs to say that he wrapped them together, since even one by one, he should not be Yotzei, for either of these two reasons - Rashash).
(a)Does each participant require his own Seder-plate?
(b)Why will Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who holds that one does, agree that nowadays, it is not necessary?
(c)According to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, did they also remove the table from in front of all the participants?
(d)Why will Rav Huna agree that nowadays, it is not necessary to remove the table at all? What does one do instead?
(a)Whether each participant requires his own Matzah, Maror and Charoses is a Machlokes Rav Shimi bar Ashi and Rav Huna. The Gemara rules like Rav Huna - that it is only the person who recites the Hagadah who needs them in front of him, but not the other participants.
(b)Even Rav Shimi bar Ashi, who holds that each person requires his own Seder plate, will agree that nowadays, that is not necessary - because, all participants tend to sit at a large table (whereas, in former times, each person had his own small table).
(c)Even according to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, they only removed the table from in front of person who recited the Hagadah, but not from in front of all the participants.
(d)Rav Huna agrees that nowadays, it is not necessary to remove the table at all. Instead, one removes the Seder-plate with the Matzah, Maror and the two cooked dishes to the end of the table.
(a)Why does one remove the table (or the Seder-plate) at the beginning of the Seder?
(b)Some people have the Minhag to lift up the plate, but to remove the bone first. Why does the Rashbam disagree with that?
(c)How did the little Abaye exempt Rabah and his family from saying the 'Mah Nishtanah'?
(a)One removes the table (or the Seder-plate) - as an incentive for the children to ask why the table is being removed before the meal.
(b)Removing the bone is a mistake, the Rashbam argues, and is taken from a Gemara later (on 116b), which says that it is not necessary to pick up the bone, and is speaking not about removing the Seder-plate, but about picking up the bone and saying 'Pesach Zeh' (like we do with the Matzah). There is no point however, in removing the bone from the Seder-plate at this juncture (since nobody will think that one is being Makdish the Kodshim - as they will on 116b. And in any case, says the Rashbam, picking up the Seder-plate will not achieve any purpose - removing it from the table will.
(c)Little Abaye exempted Rabah and his family from saying the 'Mah Nishtanah' - by asking why they removed the table before they had eaten. (See Tosfos DH 'Kedei', that he also asked all the four Kashyos. However it is not clear in that case, what the Chidush is.)
(a)How did Shmuel Darshen "Lechem Oni" (in Re'eh)?
(b)The Tana adds two other interpretations, based on the fact that "Oni" is written without a 'Vav', and can therefore also mean a poor man. What are the two other explanations of "Lechem Oni"?
(c)Since we learn from "Lechem Oni" that it is a Mitzvah to use a broken piece of Matzah, why do we add two complete Matzos?
(a)Shmuel Darshened "Lechem Oni" - 'Lechem she'Onin Alav Devarim' (the Tana adds the word 'Harbeh') Note: This is the source of the Minhag to uncover the Matzah whilst the Hagadah is being recited.
(b)The Tana, interpreting the word 'Oni' as if it was punctuated 'Ani', also explains the Pasuk to mean 'bread of a poor man' - just as a poor man tends to eat a piece of broken bread, so too, should one use a broken piece (hence our Minhag to take two and a half Matzos for Motzi); and also, just as a poor man heats the oven, whilst his wife bakes the dough, that is how the baking should be done.
(c)The reason that we add two whole Matzos to the broken piece is because of the Mitzvah to use Lechem Mishneh (two complete breads for Motzi on Shabbos and Yom-Tov).