Clarification: One has to say that it is a kind of plant (and not part of a date-palm) ...

Proof: Because the Gemara will say that just as Matzah is a kind of plant, so too, is Maror.

Implied Question: In Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Succah 32:), in connection with the Hadas, the Gemara asks 'Maybe it is a Hirduf? In answer to which Abaye quotes the Pasuk "Its ways are pleasant!"

Implied Question (cont.): Rashi explains that it would not be pleasant to use a Hirduf twig, since it is poison to animals.

Implied Question (concl.): Here too, the Gemara could have given the same answer ...

Answer: Only the Gemara gives an equally good answer.

Question: The Rashba however, asks from the Gemara earlier, which validates Hirdufni to be used as Maror, and in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Chulin Daf 58:) the Gemara implies that it is poison for animals.

Question (concl.): Since, after stating that an animal that ate Hirdufni is Kasher, the Gemara asks that Hirdufni is synonymous with poison (which it has already mentioned independently). And it replies that they are actually two kinds of poison.

Question: Seeing as there is a distance of three Tefachim between them, the two species will not nurture from one another ...

Question (cont.): Since in Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos Daf 85.) it is implied that the four on the four sides of the patch are not in the corners but in the middle of the rows.

Question (concl.): If so, why can one not plant nine seeds in the patch, three rows each comprising three seeds?

Answer: The Ri explains that the Isur is not that of nurturing but rather of creating a mixture once the seeds grow, and the Chachamimdidnot therefore wish to permit more.

Proof: And proof of this is that even five (seeds) the Gemara in Shabbos (Ibid.) would not have permitted had they not found a Pasuk that supports it ...

Proof: (concl.): Despite the fact that the Rabbanan knew for a fact that five seeds do not nurture from each other in a patch of six by six Tefachim.

Question: How can one plant even five seeds in the patch, seeing as if one counts the actual location of the seed, there is not a distance of three tefachim between one seed and the other?

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam answers the Tefachim of Kil'ayim are large-size ones, as is evident at the beginning of Eruvin (Daf 4.)

Answer #2: Whereas according to the Ri, the Chachamim knew traditionally that at this distance, the seeds do not nurture from each other (even though they will end up being a fraction less than three Tefachim apart).

Inference: It implies that Shelikah is more cooked than Bishul, otherwise it would be a case of 'This, and it is not necessary to mention that' (which the Tana'im prefer to avoid).

Inference (cont.): And so is this implied in a number of places.

Implied Question: And that what we learned in Perek Sheloshah Miynim (Nazir Daf 45:) where it discusses someone who was cooking Shelamim in Yerushalayim or who is 'Sholek' them, even though Shelikah is more than Bishul ...

Answer: That is not a case of 'Zu ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu'.

Answer (concl.): Since it is coming to teach us that Shelikah does remove the food from the realm of 'cooked'.