Explanation #1: It seems that one recites also 'ha'Motzi' over the broken piece.

Proof: And this is also implied in 'Keitzad Mevorchin' (B'rachos, Daf 39:) where the Gemara says 'Everybody agrees that when it comes ot Pesach, one places the broken piece inside the whole one and 'recites a Motzi' over it.

Proof (cont.): In other words, even those who hold that the B'rachah over the whole loaf covers the broken pieces, concedes that on Pesach, one recites the B'rachah (not over the whole one, but) over the broken one.

Reason: Because ''Just as a poor man (tends to break his bread) ... '.

Conclusion: And one then places ir inside the whole one, to make it look as if he recited the B'rachah over the whole Matzah. And it implies that all this is referring to 'ha'Motzi'.

The Third Matzah: After that it cites Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, who says that 'On Shabbos one is obligated to recite 'ha'Motzi' over two whole loaves, as the Torah writes 'Collect double portion of loaves".

Implied Question: The basic statement of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba is in Perek Kol Kisvei (Shabbos, Daf 117:).

Answer: And the reason that it cites it there after Pesach is to teach us that one requires a third Matzah (on Pesach) on account of Lechem Mishnah), and that one is Chayav to make 'ha'Motzi' over two loaves both on Shabbos and on Yom-Tov.

Proof: Otherwise, why bring there the statement of Rebbi Chiya (bar Aba).

Halachah: Rav Alfas too, rules that one needs to recite 'ha'Motzi' over two loaves on Yom-Tov.

Reason: And the reason for this is because a double portion of Manna used to fall on Erev Shabbos.

Question: We Daven in 'Atah Kidashta' - ' ... you blessed it (Shabbos) over and above all other days, and blessed it over and above all other times ...

Question (cont.): Thus implying that the Manna fell on Yom-Tov?

Support for Explanation #1: So too, was the custom of R. Menachem mi'Yuni and ha'R. Yom-Tov - to recite everything over the broken piece.

Explanation #2: The Ri however, used to recite 'ha'Motzi' over the whole one, and ' ... al Achilas Matzah; over the broken one, before breaking both Matzos together - and that is the accepted custom.

Conclusion: And that is one uses the third Matzah for the sandwich, so as to perform a Mitzvah with each of the three Matzos.

Clarification: In the Yerushalmi it says that there are some who do it to commemorate the blood.

The Way It's Done #1: And that is the accepted Minhag, to make it thick initially, and when it comes to eating it, one waters it down with wine or vinegar.

The Way It's Done #2: In Teshuvas ha'Ge'onim it says tat one should make Charoses wit the fruit to which K'lal Yisrael is compared in Shir ha'Shirim ...

Source: "Under the apple-tree I aroused you", "Like the peel of a pomegranate", The fig-tree has grown buds", "I said that would climb a date-palm", "I went down to a garden of nut-trees" and almonds, (Shekeidim) because Hash-m hastened ('Shakad') the redemption.

Halachah #1: This implies that the Halachah is like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok,

Halachah #2: Moreover, in some texts it cites Rebbi Yossi, 'whose reasoning is always irrefutable' (and therefore the Halachah is generally like him).

Support: And Rabeinu Yosef, in his Seder, similarly made Charoses as a reminder of the mortar (used by our forefathers when they were enslaved).

Implied Question: The reason that it does say 'Kulo Maror' ...

Answer: Is because we use other vegetables for the first dipping in.

Clarification: Rav Chisda in 'Eilu Devarim' (earlier on Daf 70.) establishes this like ben Teima, who said that the Chagigah that comes together with the Pesach must be eaten roasted.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara there cites Rav Chisda and here it doesn't ...

Answer: It is the way of the Gemara to do so.

Clarification: This means that one must (not just bring it, but) actually verbalize it - 'This Pesach which we eat ... '.

Clarification (cont.): And since Matzah and Maror are compared to Pesach, one also needs to say 'This Matzah ... ' and 'This Maror ... '.

Information: Some say that one lists seven expressions of thanks and no more, corresponding to the seven heavens.

Clarification: The Tana Kama does not explain how, so Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva argue over his words ...

Clarification (cont.): Rebbi Tarfon holds that one does not conclude with 'Baruch', seeing as one does insert words of request, only thanks; whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, one does conclude with 'Baruch', since one inserts words of request when one says 'So Hash-m our G-d, let us reach ... '.

Halachah: And we Pasken in Eruvin (daf 46:) like Rebbi Akiva, whenever he argues with a contemporary.

Precedent: Similarly we find in Sanhedrin (Daf 21.) in connection with "Lo Tarbeh lo Nashim" and at the beginning of Chezkas ha'Batim (Daf 28.), that the Tana'im argue over what the Tana Kama meant.

Source: For so we learned in the Mechilta 'All the songs are written in the feminine except the song of the future, which is written in the masculine.

Source (cont.): This is because a woman experiences the pain of childbirth (again and again)

Proof: And so the Payat wrote in the Zulas of 'I Pasros' - 'These songs (Shiros) were established in the feminine, because the salvation that they contain is akin to a woman who gives birth ... the strength of the last song (Shir) is like males who do not give birth - "Sing to Hash-m a new song (Shir Chadash)!"

Text: And the text there (in the Mechilta) reads 'from the Zevachim (the Korbanos Chagigah) and from the Pesachim'

Reason: This is because the Chagigah of the fourteenth (of Nisan) is eaten before the Pesach, since the Pesach had to be eaten 'to satisfaction'.