Siman 475

And after he has drunk the second cup – he shall wash his hands and recite the blessing "al netilat yadayim." And even though he already washed his hands for the dipping, nevertheless, since he interrupted with the Haggadah – we are concerned that perhaps he diverted his attention and touched a soiled place (Gemara 115b). And were it not for this reason – the first washing would have sufficed for him. And even though the first washing was not for sanctity but rather so that he would not defile the liquids, nevertheless it would have sufficed for him, for we maintain that washing does not require intent (Tosafot ibid.). And behold, according to this, if he intended during the first washing to complete his entire meal with it without a diversion of attention, and recited over it "al netilat yadayim" and guarded his hands – he does not require a second washing (see Magen Avraham subsection 1).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, was not pleased with this, and this is his wording: And it seems to me that he should not intend for this, so as not to nullify the enactment of the sages who enacted to wash two times on this night. Thus far his words. And they raised a difficulty against him: For where did the sages enact so? For they explained the reason is lest he divert his attention, and if so, when he did not divert his attention – he does not require a second washing (Magen Avraham ibid. and Bach). And it seems to me that the primary view is like the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for since the halacha was decided in the Gemara there that one requires a second washing of the hands, granted that the reason is because of the concern of diverting attention, nevertheless, in any event, the rabbis enacted so. And on the night of Pesach we are meticulous not to change from all that they have accustomed us. And who knows how many other reasons there are for this. And such is the custom, and one should not change.

And behold, in the Tur he brought two opinions: that there are those who hold that over the whole one he recites the blessing "Hamotzi," as on every Yom Tov, and over the broken piece "al achilat matzah" because of "bread of poverty." And there are those who hold the opposite, that "Hamotzi" is over the broken piece, for this is the change on Pesach. And consequently, "al achilat matzah" must be over the whole one, for two blessings over one matzah is impossible, because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles. Therefore, in order to fulfill all opinions—he should hold both of them. And as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, he should take the matzot in the order he placed them, the broken piece between the two whole ones, and hold them in his hand and recite "Hamotzi" and "al achilat matzah." And afterward, he should break from the upper whole one and from the broken piece, from both of them together, and dip them in salt, and eat them while reclining together, a kezayit from each one. And if he cannot eat like two kezayit together, he should eat the one of "Hamotzi" first, and afterward the one of "achilat matzah." Thus far his words. And it is not understood what he says, "he should eat the one of Hamotzi first," for does he know which one is for Hamotzi? For does he not hold both of them together because of the doubt, as I have written (see Taz, subsection 3, who raised this difficulty). And it seems to me that because the primary ruling we adopt is that over the whole one is "Hamotzi" and over the broken piece is "al achilat matzah," for such is the opinion of most poskim; however, nevertheless, out of respect for the second opinion, we hold both of them.

And we have heard from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that the hiddur hamitzvah is to swallow both kezayit measures together, or at the very least, the kezayit in one go. And even though it combines within the duration of kedei achilat pras, nevertheless, the essence of the mitzvah is thus. And this is what he wrote in section 6: If one ate like a half-kezayit, and went back and ate like a half-kezayit – he has fulfilled his obligation, provided that he does not delay between one eating and the other more than kedei achilat pras. Thus far his words, meaning: that he should not delay from the beginning of the eating until the end of the eating more than kedei achilat pras. And nevertheless, we have not found among the early authorities that they require this, to eat all at once. And the Maharil wrote explicitly that one may eat little by little, provided that he does not delay more than kedei achilat pras. And I saw one who wrote that this in section 6 contradicts this (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And it seems to me that there is no relation between one and the other. For in section 6 it deals with one who eats a half-kezayit and stops, and this is certainly not proper ab initio. But when one eats consecutively – where have we found that one must eat all of it as one? (And what the Magen Avraham wrote from the end of the chapter "Gid HaNasheh" – I am wondered. For there it is regarding a limb from a living animal, where we require a complete limb, see there. And nevertheless, since it came from the mouth of our teacher, the Beit Yosef – one should be careful if it is possible for him to do so.)

And there are those who were exacting: why is a kezayit required from the "Hamotzi" matzah? It is understandable regarding the "eating of matzah" matzah—its mitzvah is only with a kezayit, as there is no eating less than a kezayit. But regarding the "Hamotzi" matzah—is it then required to eat a kezayit with every blessing of "Hamotzi" (Bach)? For in siman 210 it was explained that one does not need a kezayit. However, in truth it is not a difficulty at all, for does one not fulfill the obligation of matzah from the Torah with whatever matzah he eats? It is only that we, for the sake of hiddur, say that this one is for "Hamotzi" and this one is for the obligation of eating matzah. If so, it follows that with the first eating—he is fulfilling the obligation, and if so he must eat a kezayit. And afterwards when he eats the second, and his intention is for the sake of eating matzah—perforce he must also eat a kezayit from it according to his intention, as per the enactment of our sages, of blessed memory. If so, it follows that he needs two kezayitim. (And the Taz in subsection 2 labored over this, and according to what I have written it works out well with simplicity.) And regarding what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote to dip in salt, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom is not to dip them in salt on the first night, for clean bread does not require salt. Thus far his words. And it is not specifically the first night, for the same law applies to the second night (Chayei Adam subsection 4). Rather, his intention is the obligation of matzah of the first night, and it follows that for us it is both nights because of the doubt of the day. And the reason they did not practice the custom of salt, even though we practice the custom even with clean bread to dip in salt, is because of the love of the mitzvah (Maharil). That is to say: we cherish the mitzvah of matzah so as not to mix another thing with it. And the Levush wrote the reason is because of "bread of affliction." And I do not know: does the poor man eat without salt? And it seems to me that now they dip in salt because it is better in taste, and it is a hiddur mitzvah. And the Rambam wrote to dip it in charoset, and they disagreed with him. And the custom is not so.

And afterward he shall take a kezayit of maror and dip it entirely into the charoset, because there is a type of venom in the maror, and the charoset nullifies it. However, he should not leave the maror in the charoset for long, so that the taste of its bitterness is not nullified. And for this reason, he must shake the charoset off of it. And he shall recite the blessing "on the eating of maror." And he shall eat it without hesiba, because it is a remembrance of the affliction, and hesiba "as free men" is not applicable to it. And if he ate it with hesiba – he has fulfilled his obligation. And since there is a dispute in the Gemara, as Hillel holds that one must wrap the matzah together with the maror and eat them as one. And they do not nullify one another, for even according to the one who holds that prohibited items nullify one another, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 98, nevertheless, mitzvot do not nullify one another. However, even according to Hillel, this is only during the time of the Temple, when both are from the Torah. But in this time, when matzah is from the Torah and maror is rabbinic – the rabbinic maror comes and nullifies the matzah from the Torah (Pesachim 115a).

Therefore, we first eat matzah alone, and maror alone. And afterward, we take the third matzah in order to fulfill a mitzvah with it, and place the maror between the matzah, and wrap them together and eat them in reclining. And we say, "A remembrance of the Temple according to Hillel." And there is a question regarding this: Why must we first eat maror by itself? Let us eat matzah, which is from the Torah, and then wrap matzah and maror together; for both are rabbinic, and they do not nullify one another. For just as when both are from the Torah they do not nullify one another, so too when both are rabbinic. Why then must we eat maror by itself? And the answer to this: Certainly for Hillel one could do so. But for us, it is a doubt in the Gemara there like whom the halacha follows, and perhaps the halacha follows the Rabbis that one does not require wrapping. And if so, the matzah in the wrapping is optional and not a mitzvah, and the optional matzah comes and nullifies the maror of the mitzvah (Tosafot ibid. starting with "Ela").

And know that regarding what has been explained, that one must eat them in a wrap and while reclining, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that one dips it into the haroset. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who say that one should not dip it. And so it is in the Minhagim, and so I have seen practiced. Thus far his words. And it is not understood: for the haroset is on account of the toxin, and how is it possible not to dip it into haroset? And in truth, all the Acharonim disagree with him, and they hold that one must dip into haroset. And so we practice. And his reasoning is not understood, and it must be said that he holds that the matzah nullifies the toxin. And we do not recite the blessing "borei peri ha'adamah" over the maror, because these are matters that come on account of the meal. Furthermore: for the blessing of "ha'adamah" over the karpas exempts it, as I wrote in siman 473. And one must be careful not to interrupt with speech regarding matters that are not relevant to the meal until one eats the wrap, so that the blessing of "achilat matzah" and the blessing of "achilat maror" will also apply to this wrap. For since according to Hillel the essence of the mitzvah was thus—one must bless. However, if one spoke—one does not need to return and bless, for we are in doubt as to whom the halacha follows. Furthermore: for even according to Hillel this was only during the time of the Temple and not in this time, for there is no Torah obligation of maror in this time, and the maror would nullify the matzah as I have written. (See Turei Zahav, subsection 7, and it requires further study. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter eight, law 6: And afterward he recites the blessing "on the washing of hands"… And afterward he wraps maza and maror as one, and dips in charoset and recites the blessing "Blessed… who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the eating of maza and maror," and eats them. And if he ate maza by itself and maror by itself – he recites a blessing on this by itself and on this by itself. And afterward he recites the blessing "Blessed… who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the eating of the sacrifice," and eats from the meat of the fourteenth-day chagigah first. And he recites the blessing "Blessed… who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the eating of the pesach," and eats from the body of the pesach. Neither the blessing of the pesach exempts that of the sacrifice, nor does the blessing of the sacrifice exempt that of the pesach. And in this time when there is no sacrifice, after he recites "hamotzi" he recites the blessing "on the eating of maza," and dips maza in charoset and eats. And he recites the blessing "on the eating of maror," and dips in charoset and eats… and this is a commandment from the words of the scribes. And he returns and wraps maza and maror, and dips in charoset and eats them without a blessing, in memory of the Temple. Thus far his words.

And all of his words are not understood at all. First: that the wrapping during the time of the Temple required all three together: pesach, matzah, and maror, as it is written: "with matzot and bitter herbs they shall eat it." Furthermore: according to whom did he rule? If according to Hillel—how could one fulfill the obligation by eating this by itself and that by itself? And if according to the Rabbis: even if we were to say that according to the Rabbis one also fulfills the obligation through wrapping, as is implied from the language of the Gemara there, nevertheless, certainly the primary way is this by itself and that by itself. And so it is proven in Zevachim (79a), see there. And it is further difficult: if he ruled according to Hillel—why do we need in this time to eat maror by itself, as I wrote in section 7? (See Lechem Mishneh and the glossator, and they did not provide a healing for his words.)

And it appears in my humble opinion that his words are founded upon the Yerushalmi in the first chapter of Challah, where we learn there: Hillel the Elder used to wrap the three of them as one. Rabbi Yochanan said: They disagree with Hillel the Elder. And it asks: But did not Rabbi Yochanan wrap matzah and maror? And it answers: Here is during the time of the Temple, and there is not during the time of the Temple. And even if you say both here and there are during the time of the Temple, two things are many against one and they nullify it. Thus far the wording of the Yerushalmi. And this is its explanation: That at first it answers that during the time of the Temple they nullify one another, since they are all from the Torah. And not during the time of the Temple, since maror is not from the Torah—it does not nullify. And this is the opposite of the reasoning of our Talmud. And to this it said: And even if you say that both are during the time of the Temple—specifically wrapping the three of them is forbidden, for two are many against one and they nullify it. But two together—the one does not nullify the second. And it will interpret "with matzot and marorim they shall eat it"— that the matzah shall be wrapped with the maror and not the Pesach. And for this, the Rambam rightly ruled like Rabbi Yochanan, for he holds that the fact that they disagree with Hillel is only regarding wrapping the three of them as one, and not regarding two. And he ruled like the Rabbis according to Rabbi Yochanan. And in this time, he ruled like our Talmud, that the rabbinic comes and nullifies the Torah commandment. Therefore, one first needs each one by itself, and afterwards in a wrap. (And like the opinion of the Tosafot; and also the sugya in the Talmud there will be well interpreted, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

If he has no vegetables for the first dipping except for maror—he should recite over it at the first dipping "borei peri ha'adamah" and "al achilat maror." And at the second dipping, he should dip it in charoset and eat it without a blessing. For how is it possible to recite a blessing when he has already filled his stomach with it? Therefore, he must necessarily recite "al achilat maror" beforehand, even though the essence of the mitzvah is after the matzah. And he does not require a concluding blessing. And since he recited "al achilat maror" beforehand—he certainly fulfilled his obligation. And even though it is written "matzot and marorim"—it is not a hindrance if he precedes with the maror (Tosafot 114b, starting with "Zot"). And if it is difficult: if so, why must he eat it a second time after the matzah? However, this is for the sake of recognition for the children (Gemara ibid.). And regarding that which he does not require charoset at the first dipping, even though the charoset is because of the poison, and what difference is there to me between the first dipping or the second dipping? The Rosh answered there in the name of our teacher Yonah, and this is his wording: Because the first dipping is not an obligation but for recognition, and people are accustomed all year to eat lettuce without charoset, even now the sages were not concerned. But the second dipping which is for the mitzvah—the sages were careful, so that there should be no concern of danger. Thus far his words. And it is not understood at all: for did we not explain that he fulfilled his obligation at the first dipping? Rather, certainly the Rosh does not hold as I wrote that he fulfills it at the first dipping, but rather he does not fulfill it. Either because he holds "matzah and marorim"—specifically matzah first and afterwards maror. Or because he holds mitzvot require intent, as he indeed ruled so in the fourth chapter of Rosh Hashanah. Therefore, the first is like the dipping of vegetables. And if it is difficult: if so, how does he recite "al achilat maror" at the first? For it can be said that the primary intent is for the second dipping. And why should he not recite the blessing at the second dipping? Because it would appear like a mockery, that after he has eaten from it he should recite a blessing now (Ran ibid.). Therefore, it is necessary to do so. (And the Magen Avraham in subsection 14 wrote: even though mitzvot require intent—it is different regarding matters of eating, for behold he ate and derived benefit, see there. And the Bach distinguishes between a Torah law and a rabbinic law, that regarding a rabbinic law they do not require intent, see there. And the Perishah distinguishes between if he did not know that he ate and if he did know, see there. But from the words of the Rosh and the Ran that we brought, it does not appear so. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

Since there are doubts regarding eating maror twice, one is therefore obligated to make an effort not to eat maror for the first time, but rather vegetables. There is one who says that if he has no vegetables—he may eat a turnip (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). It is a wondrous thing to say this, since the sages commanded only vegetables (the Eliyah Rabbah also wrote that it requires further study). And there is one who says that according to the custom of our regions where we take horseradish for maror, and therefore if he has no vegetables and takes this also for the first dipping as has been explained—he should not recite the blessing "borei pri ha'adamah" over it, for behold it is not fit for eating at all when it is by itself (Magen Avraham, subsection 10). Rather, he should recite only "al achilat maror." And there are those who disagree on this, for since the rabbis ordained "and he dips it in vinegar or salt water"—it is properly called fit for eating, and he must recite "borei pri ha'adamah" over it (Chok Yaakov, subsection 16 and Eliyah Rabbah). Furthermore: these blessings of enjoyment are like the blessings of the commandments (ibid.), since it is according to the ordinance of the sages. However, in our places, it is a remote possibility that they would not obtain some vegetable.

Ab initio, one must chew the matzah with his teeth, so that he tastes the taste of matzah. However, ex post facto, if he swallowed the matzah—he has fulfilled the obligation (Gemara 115b). And one should not ask: Does not the taste of matzah also hinder ex post facto, for it is for this reason we ruled in siman 461 that if one cooked matzah he has not fulfilled the obligation, because it does not have the taste of matzah. If so, in the case of one who swallowed, why has he fulfilled the obligation? But in truth, they are not comparable, for cooked matzah, even before he put it in his mouth—it has left the category of matzah, and it is as if he put another food into his mouth. This is not the case regarding one who swallowed (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). Furthermore: there, matzah does not descend to his intestines, whereas regarding one who swallowed—his intestines swallowed matzah. And at the end of "Gid HaNasheh" it is explained that eating in his intestines—is considered eating. (For Resh Lakish said that only in his intestines is it considered eating, and Rabbi Yochanan held that even in his throat it is considered eating, but in his intestines it is certainly considered eating. And that which regarding maror he has not fulfilled the obligation is because we require the taste of maror, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.)

One who swallowed maror has not fulfilled his obligation, because we require that he taste the flavor of maror in his mouth. And when he swallows, he does not taste the flavor of bitterness (Gemara ibid.). And one should not ask: Is it not so that the choice type of maror is lettuce, and yet it has no flavor of bitterness at all? For it can be said that regarding lettuce, the name "maror" applies because of the hardness, as I wrote in siman 473, section 16; see there. But regarding the other species there, the name "maror" is due to the bitterness; and since he does not taste the flavor of bitterness, he has not fulfilled his obligation. And it follows that even with lettuce, he must taste the flavor of lettuce, for it is impossible to distinguish between this species of maror and another species of maror. And we say that the Torah commanded to taste the flavor of the maror in his mouth; whatever species of maror he eats, he must feel in his mouth what he eats, and not through swallowing. And even if he swallowed matzah and maror as one, he has fulfilled the obligation of matzah, but he has not fulfilled the obligation of maror. And the maror does not nullify the matzah, since he did not chew them at all. And if he wrapped matzah or maror in a fiber and swallowed it, he has not fulfilled even the obligation of matzah. And this is not because of the flavor, for there is no need to taste matzah. Rather, it is because this is not the manner of eating, and we do not read regarding it "in the evening you shall eat matzot." And regarding maror, he has not fulfilled the obligation by a kal vachomer: for aside from the fact that this is not the manner of eating, there is no flavor of maror.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: If one ate matzah without intent, such as if oppressors or bandits forced him to eat—he has fulfilled his obligation, since he knows that the night is Pesach and that he is obligated in the eating of matzah. However, if he thought it was a weekday, or that this was not matzah—he has not fulfilled it. Thus far his words. He wrote this reasoning in order to reconcile the words of the Rambam, who here ruled that he has fulfilled it, yet in the second chapter of Shofar ruled that without intent—he has not fulfilled it, to distinguish between eating and other matters. However, even regarding eating, if he did not know that today is Pesach or that this is matzah—he certainly has not fulfilled it, for mitzvot require intent. And regarding eating, when he knew, even though it was done under duress—it is like intent. This reasoning was mentioned in the Tosafot in Pesachim (115a). But from the words of the Rosh there, and the Tur here, it does not appear so, see there. (See Ketzot HaChoshen there, letter 100, who elaborated on this.)

If one ate a kezayit of matzah while he was an epileptic during his period of insanity, and afterwards during the night he was healed—he is obligated to eat when he is healed, because that eating occurred at a time when he was exempt from all the mitzvot. And this has no connection to "mitzvot require kavanah," for even if they do not require kavanah—nevertheless, he must be a sentient living being, and not when he is entirely without his senses. And know that even if they do not require kavanah, nevertheless, if he intended not to fulfill the obligation—he has not fulfilled it. And one should not ask: if so, how do we say that if bandits coerced him to eat matzah—he has fulfilled the obligation? For since they coerced him, if so he did not want to eat, and behold he intended not to fulfill it. For it can be said that he did not want them to feed him, but rather he wanted to eat of his own accord. And after they coerced him—he certainly did not intend not to fulfill it (see the Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

It is a known matter that there is no obligation of matzah except on the first night alone, as it is written: "in the evening you shall eat matzot." But throughout the entire festival, if one desires not to eat matzah, but rather types of desserts—the permission is in his hand. And only on Shabbat and Yom Tov must one eat bread, and not because of the law of matzah. And even on the first night, from the Torah one fulfills his obligation with a kezayit. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: And they are accustomed to make the three matzot of the Seder from an isharon, in memory of the loaves of the Todah offering. And they make a sign on them to know which is first or second or third, and they place the first on top, and the second in the middle, and the third on the bottom for the korekh. And if he changed it—it does not invalidate. And they bake them also in order. And if one of them broke—they take it for the second, since in any case they break it. Thus far his words. And now we are not accustomed to this, because through this the dough will come to a state of delay, and it is not worthwhile. And know that thus I have received: that even though there is no obligation of matzah except on the first night, nevertheless it is a mitzvah to eat matzah all the days of Pesach as it is written: "seven days you shall eat matzot." And that which they call it "permission," is because a mitzvah relative to an obligation—they call "permission," because this is not a positive commandment but rather the will of Hashem, that the children of Israel should eat matzah all the days of Pesach.