ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 115
(a) Hillel agrees that nowadays, one cannot be Yotze by eating Matzah and
Maror together - because whereas Matzah is d'Oraysa, Maror is only
mi'de'Rabbanan. Consequently, the Maror will negate the taste of the Matzah,
and one will not be Yotze the Mitzvah of Matzah (though he will be Yotze
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 mi'd'Oraysa and Maror mi'de'Rabbanan. But if both
would be either de'Rabbanan or d'Oraysa, one would indeed be Yotze,
according to Hillel.
(a) If one may *not* eat the Matzah and Maror together, why does the Tana
continue '*Afilu* Zeh Bifenei Atzmo, ve'Zeh Bifenei Atzmo'? Surely this is
the only way that they can be eaten?
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.
(b) We therefore amend the first part of the Beraisa, to say not 'Yachol
Yehei Korchan be'Bas Achas' to 'Yachol Lo Yeitzei Bahu Yedei Chovaso Ela im
Kein Korchan be'Bas Achas'. In this way, we learn from "Al Matzos u'Merorim
Yochluhu" that one can *even* be Yotze 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 Rabbanan, because, according to Hillel, one could
be Yotze Maror with the sandwich alone - Tosfos DH 'Ela Mevarech'), and then
together, as a symbol of Hillel's ruling.
(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.
1. The Rabbanan 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.
(b) One is ...
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.
1. ... Yotze if one swallowed Matzah - because swallowing is called eating.
(c) One may have thought that someone who swallowed Matzah and Maror is not
Yotze - 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.)
2. ... not Yotze if one swallowed Maror - because he did not taste the sharp
taste of Maror.
3. ... Yotze in this case too, according to Rashi's text - because he *must*
have tasted something of the Maror as he swallowed it).
(d) If one wrapped them both inside a piece of paper and swallowed it, he
will not be Yotze - 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 Yotze, for either of these two reasons - Rashash).
(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
(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) 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) Shmuel Darshaned "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 Mishnah (two complete breads for Motzi on
Shabbos and Yom-Tov).