Previous daf

1)

(a) Someone who eats onions (relatively cheap food), will be able to live in the shade of his house (he will not need to sell it to pay off the butcher); whereas if he eats geese and chickens, he will always be trying to maintain a higher standard of living - which will create financial problems.

(b) It is worthwhile eating and drinking a little less than one's needs in order to live in a nicer apartment.

(c) someone who is always eating the most juicy (and expensive) meat - will always have to hide from his creditors.

(a) Beis Shamai says that the Berachah of Kidush precedes that of wine, because the day causes the wine to be brought - and because the day has already entered and the wine is not yet on the table. Beis Hillel, on the other hand, gives precedence to the wine, because were it not for the wine, there would be no Kidush - and because wine is more common than Kidush.

(b) The alternative reason for the need of the Tana to rule like Beis Hillel (in spite of the Bas Kol - the Heavenly voice that declared the Halachah to be like Beis Hillel in all cases) - is because the author is Rebbi Yehoshua, who maintains that we do not contend with Heavenly Voices.

(a) They brought and placed before him - the vegetable for the first dipping-in.

(b) They dipped the lettuce (Maror) into something which could not have been Charoses - since Charoses was only brought for the first time together with the Seder-plate later in the Seder (as we see from the next part of the Mishnah).

(c) 'Ad she'Magi'a le'Parperes ha'Pas' means - before they reach the stage of the lettuce that is eaten after the Matzah.

(d) The purpose of bringing the lettuce (or other vegetables) at this stage - is for the children to ask why we are following the unusual procedure of dipping-in *before* the meal.

(a) In the time of the Beis Hamikdash - they brought in the body of the Korban Pesach together with the Matzah and the Maror.

(b) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok says that the Charoses is a Mitzvah;

5)

(a) Resh Lakish extrapolates from our Mishnah that Mitzvos require Kavanah (the intention to fulfill them) in order to fulfill one's obligation - since the Tana requires a second dipping, even though one already dipped the Moror the first time. Now why would that be necessary, unless Mitzvos require Kavanah (and perhaps he did not have Kavanah the first time)?

(b) It may well be, answers the Gemara, that Mitzvos do *not* require Kavanah (and he has already fulfilled the Mitzvah the first time). Nevertheless the Chachamim instituted dipping in the first time for the children to ask, and retained the second dipping in, in order to eat Matzah after Maror (see Tosfos DH 'Zos Omeres', end of Dibur).

(c) The Tana still finds it necessary to speak about a case where the first time they also used Maror, because had he not done so, we would have thought that to dip in *other vegetables* (the first time) to encourage the children to ask, that yes! but to eat Moror prematurely (and be Yotze the Mitzvah) so that the children should ask? That is not something which Chazal would have instituted. Therefore it was necessary for the Tana to inform us that even if one only has Maror, one should dip that in twice.

(a) 'Achlan Demai' ... Yatza' - because he has the option of declaring his property Hefker, and eating it (since Demai is permitted to the poor).

(b) The time-gap permitted between the beginning of the *first* half-k'Zayis of Maror and the end of the *second* - is the time it takes to eat a 'k'Dei Achilas P'ras' (four egg-volumes)?

(c) This Beraisa (which writes 'be'Lo Miskaven, Yatza') is not a disproof against Resh Lakish, who holds 'Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah' - because although this Tana holds 'Mitzvos Ein Tzerichos Kavanah' Resh Lakish follows the opinion of Rebbi Yossi, who says 'Af al Pi she'Tival ba'Chazeres, Mitzvah Lehavi Lefanav Chazeres', implying that he holds 'Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah'.

(d) The reason that Rebbi Yossi obligates taking the Maror a second time cannot be to encourage the children to ask - because if so, why did he say '*Mitzvah* Lehavi Lefanav Chazeres', since if he has already fulfilled his obligation, it is no longer a *Mitzvah* to eat Maror later? It cannot be more than a *Minhag*, in order to eat Maror after Matzah.

(a) Rava make a point of using beets and rice for the two cooked dishes - because that is what Rav Huna said, and he revered Rav HUna's statements.

(b) The Gemara proves from the fact that Rav Huna prescribed rice as one of the two cooked dishes - that we do not even consider the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who hilds that rice is a kind of grain which can become Chametz.

(c) Rav Yosef requires specifically two kinds of meat - reminiscent of the Pesach and the Chagigas Arba'ah-Asar.

(d) Ravina also requires meat, but he permits even a bone and the soup in which it was cooked, to be used as two dishes.

(a) It is preferable to use vegetables other than Maror for the first dipping-in at the Seder if possible, because then he will avoid the controversy of eating Maror prematurely and of reciting the Berachah out of place (as we shall now see).

(b) If one does *not* use lettuce for the first dipping-in - then one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' over it, which covers the Maror too. Later, when he eats Maror (after the Matzah), he recites 'Al Achilas Maror'.

(c) According to Rav Huna, one follows the same procedure if one *did* use lettuce. Rav Chisda however, disagrees on the grounds that how can one recite a Berachah only the *second* time that one eats Maror, after having already eaten it earlier (even if 'Mitzvos Tzerichos Kavanah', and he is not Yotze the first time - see see Tosfos 115a DH 'Maskif Lah')?

(d) According to Rav Chisda therefore - one recites both Berachos the first time that one eats Maror, and the second time, he eats Maror without a Berachah.

Next daf