pesach – afikomen

הלך לאכול בחבורה אחרת ויכול לאכול בבית המכס לא מהלך בחבורה אחרת ולא כבדו אצלו בבית המכס אבל לאכול דברים אחרים ממקום הראשון שרי ובלבד שלא יעקור לאוכלן עם חבורה אחרת והיינו דפליגי עליה שמואל ורבי יוחנן ואמרי כל דבר אסור לאכול אפילו בחבורה ראשונה ולפיכך המפרשים שלא יעקור מחבורה לחבורה דלאחר שאכלו קצת מן הפסח לא יאכלו ממנו בחבורה אחרת ותו תנן בקיצור כשהשמש עומד למזוג כופף את פיו עד שמגיע אצל חבורתו ותרי טעמי למה ולפיכך משמע אפיקומן אפיקו מנייכו הוציאו כליכם מכאן ונלך ונאכל במקום אחר.

Rashbam explains according to Rav אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן means that you can't eat dessert elsewhere. You can't be oker from one place to another place and eat dessert elsewhere because we're afraid that if you do that you may come to eat pesach elsewhere ואין האוכל אוכל הפסח בשני מקומות. And according to Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan, but according to Rav you can eat dessert where you ate the korban pesach. There is no din that korban pesach is the last thing that you have to eat. And according to Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan, no, אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן even means beoto makom. Even beoto makom one is not allowed to eat anything after the korban pesach.

ושמואל אמר כגון ארדיליא וגוזליא לאבא רב חנינא בר שילא ורבי יוחנן אמרי כגון תמרים קליות ואגוזים.

Rashbam says ordalaya vegozalya leabba. LeRav

דשמואל הוה רגיל לאכול בקינוח סעודה כמהין ופטריות ורב רגיל לאכול אחר סעודתו גוזלות.

The lashon afikoman according to Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan הוציאו והביאו מיני מתיקה. And Shmuel comes to say that not only should you not

יעקור מחבורה לחבורה אחרת אבל אפילו בחבורתו אסור לאכול כלום אחר הפסח.

Why?

שלא יאבד ממנו טעם הפסח ולפי שדינו להיות נאכל בסוף על השובע וכן כל הקדשים כדכתיב למשחה לגדולה כדרך שהמלכים אוכלים.

Right, so to ensure that the korban pesach will be neechal al hasova, that a person is not going to have appetite for anything whatsoever, so then mimeila Chazal said you can't even eat afterwards either. You can't eat afterwards either. You should let the taam hapesach linger, and if a person knows he has to do that then that will ensure that he eats the korban pesach al hasova.

אבא כך שמו של רב אלא בכבוד קראו אותו רב בבבל. אלא בכבוד קראו אותו רב בבבל הכי, כמו שקראו

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Eretz Yisrael Rabbeinu.

וכן מוכח בשחיטת חולין דאמרי מן ריש סדרא בבבל אבא אריכא וברב מעיקרא הוה רב אריך בדר. ורבי יוחנן כשמו סבירא ליה אלא שהיה רגיל באלו לקינוח סעודה.

Good. Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel אין מפטירין אחר מצה אפיקומן. The same way that you had this din bizman habayis that you couldn't eat dessert after the korban pesach, so too bazman hazeh we have a din that you can't eat dessert after matzah. Says the Gemara:

תנן אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן אחר הפסח הוא דלא אבל אחר מצה מפטירין.

Answers the Gemara:

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא אחר מצה דלא נפיש טעמיה אבל אחר הפסח דנפיש טעמיה ולא מצי אבורי לטעמיה לא קמשמע לן.

Rashbam:

אין מפטירין אחר המצה אפיקומן שצריך לאכול מצה בגמר סעודתו זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח בכריכה. וזו היא מצה הבצועה שאנו אוכלים באחרונה

leshem chova

ועל כרחינו אנו מברכים על אכילת מצה בראשונה אף על פי שאינה. והדר אכל מצה באחרונה ואחר שאכל מצה אין מפטירים ממנה באכילת דבר אחר שלא לשכח טעמה ובמצה בזמן הזה משום דליכא פסח בהדה דאי בזמן דאיכא פסח בהדיא תנן אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן והיינו אחר פסח ומצה הנאכלת עמו.

Okay, so I just want to spend a few minutes on this Rashbam. This Rashbam is difficult for two reasons. Difficult for two reasons. First of all, just the etzem shitas haRashbam. The Rashbam says that we're mekayem our mitzvas matzah with Afikoman. According to the Rashbam, when we eat Motzi Matzah, so at that point we're not being mekayem המצווה דאורייתא בערב תאכלו מצות. It's not until we eat matzah together at at what we call Afikoman that we're being mekayem the mitzvah d'oraisa of matzah, right? First of all, he says it initially by saying זו היא מצה הבצועה, right, this is the piece from Yachatz שאנו אוכלים באחרונה לשם חובה. And then, in case there was any doubt about what he means, the fact that the Rashbam then has to justify the fact that we make the birchas hamitzvah so much earlier in the Seder, it's quite clear that we're not being mekayem the mitzvah until the slot of Afikoman. It's at that point, in the opinion of the Rashbam, that we're being mekayem the mitzvah d'oraisa of matzah. Now, this is strange for two reasons. A, just keshe'leatzmo it's strange. Why in the world do we postpone, why in the world do we postpone mitzvas matzah until ba'acharonah? That's A. B, why is it why is it relevant over here in this context? I mean, lu yehi k'davar that we're supposed to be mekayem matzah de'oraisa at the very end, what's it got to do over here, no? Over here,

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין מפטירין אחר מצה אפיקומן.

So what does the Rashbam have to tell us? Rashbam has to tell us that bezman hazeh where there's no korban Pesach at the end of the meal, so we eat matzah at the end of the meal, and after that matzah you're not supposed to have dessert. He's not he doesn't have to tell us over here when we're mekayem our mitzvah de'oraisa of matzah. Ela mai, the maseches is almost over, he forgot to tell us, so he has to shtup it in here, otherwise... so what's it what's it doing here? Now if you take a look in the Rosh, here in siman lamed daled in the Rosh, he quotes the Gemara as well as the Rashbam, and says

ולפי זה היה נראה שצריך לאכול עמו מרור וחרוסת כיון שהיא זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח בכריכה ועליהן היה ראוי לברך על אכילת מצה אלא שכבר מלא כריסו ממנו ואם כן צריך לעשות כמו בזמן המקדש שהיו אוכלין הכל ביחד הלל וסיעתו. ואף לרבנן מצווה לאכלו ביחד. אמנם תמהני למה עושים כריכה בתחילה יספיק בכריכה אחרונה זכר למקדש. הלכך נראה לי דאותה מצה אינה לשם חובה אלא אוכלין אותה זכר לפסח שהיה נאכל על השובע באחרונה ולפי שהוא זכר לפסח יש ליתן לה דין פסח שלא לאכול אחריה ואין צריך עמה מרור וחרוסת.

So the Rosh says according to the Rashbam that we're eating this matzah zeicher to the מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח. So the מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח, ba'erev tochlu matzos, was eaten with maror as well, right? The מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח was eaten with maror as well. Okay, so if we're going to simulate, if we're going to approximate the achilas matzah which they had, so we should do it as as realistically as we can. Obviously we're not going to have something, we can't there's no korban Pesach, but why don't we eat it together with maror? Why don't we eat it together with maror? So how come we have koreich earlier than if if this is the matzah of Afikoman is zeicher to מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח, then we should have the we should eat that with maror. But interestingly, what seems to us the most glaring question, the Rosh doesn't ask, right? Meaning isn't it just strange to be postponing mitzvas matzah... ba'achronah, the Rosh doesn't even ask that kasha, right? That kasha the Rosh doesn't even ask. Okay. Now. So where does the Rosh take issue with the Rashbam? So the Rosh takes issue with the Rashbam in what our Afikoman commemorates. With what is our Afikoman coordinated? According to the Rashbam, our matzah, our Afikoman is זכר למצה הנאכלת על הפסח, correct? Is זכר למצה הנאכלת על הפסח. According to the Rosh, our Afikoman is zecher l'pesach itself. Good, fine. Fine. And somehow or other what you see in the Rishonim is that this question then dictates whether or not we're mekayem our d'oraisa of matzah with Afikoman or not. Right? These two questions both in the Rashbam and in the Rosh are הא בהא תליא. Right? First of all we saw that the Rashbam, right? What was the flow in the Rashbam? Rashbam says

צריך לאכול מצה בגמר סעודתו זכר למצה הנאכלת על הפסח

and then agav that the Rashbam finds it necessary to tell us that we're being mekayem our mitzva d'oraisa of matzah ba'achronah. So somehow or other those two things go together, right? The fact that the matzah we eat is זכר למצה הנאכלת על הפסח somehow or other that goes hand in hand with the fact that we're mekayem our mitzvas matzah ba'achronah. The Rosh comes and says no, the matzah we eat at the end is zecher l'pesach, not זכר למצה הנאכלת על הפסח but is rather zecher l'pesach. And then m'meila the Rosh says we're not eating it leshem chova, we're not eating it leshem chova. We were already yatza the chova at the beginning when we washed and we had motzei matzah. So the question is how are those two, how are those two things connected? How are those two things connected? What the Afikoman commemorates, what the Afikoman represents, how does that link to the question of when we're mekayem our ikar mitzva? Right? Fine. And somehow or other neither the Rashbam nor the Rosh bar plugta is concerned with what the counter-intuitive idea of postponing mitzvas matzah ad l'achronah, ad l'achronah. Okay. Take a look back on kuf tes vav for a minute. On קט"ו עמוד א', so the Gemara mentions that we can't initially, we cannot initially eat matzah and maror together because maror d'rabbanan will be mevatel matzah d'oraisa. Because maror d'rabbanan will be mevatel matzah d'oraisa. And the Gemara says because even if you hold מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו, even if you hold that one achilas shel mitzva can't be mevatel, can't offset another achilas shel mitzva, that's only true if they're equal mitzvos. They're both d'oraisa, both d'rabbanan. But if one is d'rabbanan and the other is d'oraisa, so then the d'rabbanan would be mevatel the d'oraisa. Fine. So the Gemara says where do we find this question of whether or not מצוות מבטלות זו את זו? Where is that question? So the Gemara says

מאן תנא דשמעת ליה מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו הלל היא.

The man d'amar who's of the opinion that מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו is Hillel.

דתניא אמרו עליו על הלל שהיה כורכן כאחת ואוכלן שנאמר מצות ומרורים יכלוהו. אמר רבי יוחנן חולקין עליו חבריו על הלל דתניא יכול יהא כורכן כאחת ואוכלן כדרך שהלל אוכלן תלמוד לומר מצות ומרורים יכלוהו אפילו זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו. מתקיף לה רב אשי אי הכי מאי אפילו אלא אמר רב אשי האי תנא הכי קתני יכול לא יצא ידי חובתו אלא אם כן כורכן כאחת ואוכלן כדרך שהלל אוכלן תלמוד לומר מצות ומרורים יכלוהו אפילו זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו.

Fine. So the Gemara says that Hillel who requires kricha is the man d'amar that in general in kol hatorah kullah מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו. And the Rabbanan who say that kricha is not required, they hold in kol hatorah kullah that מצוות מבטלות זו את זו. Right? Again, Hillel who requires kricha, he is of the opinion in kol hatorah kullah that mitzvos... אין מבטלות זו זו, the Rabbanan who don't require Kricha, they are of the opinion that מצוות מבטלות זו זו. But where did the Gemara get that from? So you have a machlokes about whether or not the Torah requires Kricha. So what's that got to do with מצוות מבטלות מצוות אין מבטלות? So take a look at the תוספות דיבור המתחיל אמר רב אשי. So around two lines into the Tosfos at the end of the line, v'im tomar מנלן דסבר הלל דאין מבטלות. How do you know that Hillel holds in Kalla Torah Kulla that אין מבטלות זו זו? Dilma שאני הכא דגלי קרא. Hillel didn't say misvara that you can eat them together, he has a passuk which tells you to eat them together, the way he understands the passuk.

ועוד דהרבנן נמי אין מבטלות דהא אם כרכן נמי יצא.

And the Rabbanan, where do we see, Tosfos says we don't understand either half of the Gemara. To say that Hillel holds mitzvos ein mevatlos from the fact that he used to eat Pesach, Matzah, and Maror together? Big deal, he's got a special passuk for it. And to say that the Rabbanan hold mitzvos mevatlos, well even they allow you to eat them together, so where do you see that the Rabbanan hold mitzvos mevatlos?

ויש לומר מדסבר דלכתחילה יש לו לכרוך ובדיעבד נפיק כי לא כרך אם כן בעלמא אין מבטלות דאם מבטלות אם כן אצטריך קרא הכא להתיר כריכה ולומר דהכא לא מבטלי והילכך לרבנן דמוקמי קרא בדיעבד שמעינן דבעלמא מבטלות ושאני הכא דגלי קרא.

So Tosfos gives, and as the Maharsha points out, the Mordechai gives basically the same teretz, beautiful teretz. We have a passuk which says you're supposed, the passuk talks about eating Pesach, Matzah, and Maror together. Hillel understands that passuk to be a chiyuv, the Torah is requiring it. The Rabbanan understand that passuk to say that bediavad it's okay. Bediavad it's okay. So how did that machlokes result? How did that emerge? Says the Gemara very well: obviously Hillel thinks מסברא מצוות אין מבטלות זו זו. So therefore misvara I knew before we read the passuk, we knew that you could eat Pesach, Matzah, and Maror together. So when the Torah speaks of eating them together, obviously the Torah's telling us there's a chiyuv to eat them together. The Rabbanan obviously approach the passuk knowing misvara that מצוות מבטלות זו זו. If מצוות מבטלות זו זו and you have a passuk, so תפסת מרובה לא תפסת, so then you have to assume the lesser chiddush, the lesser chiddush is to tell you that even if you ate them together you're yotzei. Fine, so a beautiful pshat in the Gemara. Hillel construes it as a chiyuv because he knows מסברא מצוות אין מבטלות. The Rabbanan construe it as a heter because they in svara think mitzvos mevatlos and that's exactly the correlation which the Gemara makes. Now if you take a look in the Maharsha, so the Maharsha says, yeah, the pshat is beautiful, but there's one little part in Tosfos which is very difficult.

אך לא ידענו מי הכריח לומר להלל דלא גלי קרא אלא לכתחילה יש לו לכרוך אימא דאף לעיכובא קאמר קרא ועיין בזה במרדכי וקל להבין.

Says the Maharsha: when Tosfos, again, the whole pshat, he says this doesn't affect Tosfos's pshat, but Tosfos in presenting the pshat says: well, since Hillel interprets the passuk as telling you that l'chatchila you're chayav to be korech, obviously he knows מסברא מצוות אין מבטלות. What do you mean l'chatchila? No, why not say to Hillel that it's l'ikuva? That it's an absolute chiyuv, that you're not yotzei otherwise. Why does Tosfos put in that word l'chatchila? No, Tosfos should have said

ויש לומר מדסבר הלל שחייב לכרוך אם כן בעלמא אין מבטלות.

Right? So Tosfos, agav urchia, Tosfos tips her hand here and Tosfos tells us that Kricha is not me-akev according to Hillel. Right? Says the Maharsha: where did that come from? Again, the whole pshat, Tosfos's whole pshat in the Gemara: gevahldig, he says. The fact that Hillel is interpreting this not as a heter, not as telling you that you can be yotzei this way, but this is what you're supposed to do, that shows us that he thinks mitzvos ein mevatlos. Perfect. But where do you see that for Hillel that it's only l'chatchila? No, according to Hillel the passuk is saying v'achalu, this is when Torah says ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה l'chatchila you should eat Pesach but bediavad you don't have to? No, you must eat, v'achalu means you must eat. How are you supposed to eat it? You're supposed to eat it צלי אש ומצות על מרורים יאכלוהו. So... with this one difference, that the Mordechai says that Hillel requires kreicha and that according to Hillel you're not yotzei without kreicha. You're not yotzei without kreicha. Okay, so let's see about that kasha of the Maharsha. Now again, so we're inferring to the question of mitzvos mevatlos or mitzvos ein mevatlos from the whole din of korech, right? From the whole din of korech. Now lechoira mitzvos mevatlos and mitzvos ein mevatlos means when you're eating ich veis you may let's say you'll have bread which is from maaser sheini and you're eating basar kodash, right? So then then we'll discuss are mitzvos mevatlos mitzvos ein mevatlos because it's two different mitzvos. One represents an achilas ich veis shelamim and the other represents achilas maaser sheini. Two different mitzvos, right? If it's all the same mitzvah, so then obviously there are no competing or clashing mitzvos that you have to discuss whether or not mitzvos am mevatlos or ein mevatlos. So for instance, Tosafos says Tosafos says there's no problem of any type of bitul in dipping the maror in the charoses because it's mitzvaso bechach because that's the mitzvah. The mitzvah is that you're supposed to dip it in the charoses so you can't say oh well whatever effect the charoses has on the taste is being mevatel the maror. That's gufeh the mitzvah. That's the way you're supposed to do the mitzvah. So bechlal how can we draw any inference from korech from korech to the question of mitzvos mevatlos ein mevatlos? In korech isn't it all one mitzvah of

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות על מרורים יאכלוהו?

You're supposed to eat the korban pesach with matzah and maror. So bechlal how are we inferring anything to the question of to the question of matzah to the question of mitzvos mevatlos ein mevatlos? Okay. So lechoira lefi darko and again, right? Remember that the Rambam writes the Rambam writes both in Sefer Hamitzvos as well as in Hilchos Chametz U'matzah, the Rambam says that maror never ever was a mitzvah deoraisa in its own right, but it's rather a prat in mitzvas pesach, that the din of mitzvas pesach is ליהי אכול עם מצות ומרורים. Right? So that's exactly our kasha. So how are we drawing any inferences in terms of mitzvos mevatlos or ein mevatlos? Okay, so two answers. Answer number one, which lechoira is the only answer you can give according to the Rambam, is that you see here as follows. Well, this is the only answer lechoira you can give if you hold that maror bizman hamikdash was not an independent mitzvah, so then what you see is something fascinating. אמרו עליו על הלל שהיה כורכן כאחת ואוכלן is not just that the mitzvah of

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות על מרורים יאכלוהו

that Hillel understood that that was supposed to be done by kreicha, but Hillel never ate any other matzah leshem mitzvah. Ay, but bizman habayis weren't there two mitzvos of matzah? Wasn't there one mitzvah of matzah as part of achilas korban pesach that korban pesach is supposed to be eaten with matzah and maror? And then bizman habayis obviously there was another mitzvah of matzah, baerev tochlu matzos, the mitzvah which we have today. So אמרו עליו על הלל that Hillel compressed all his achilos shel mitzvah, all his achilos shel mitzvah into this one kreicha. This one kreicha included, it encompassed all the achilos shel mitzvah. So the fact that he was eating maror and matzah as required by korban pesach together with korban pesach, we couldn't draw any inference to mitzvos. מצוות מבטלות מצוות אין מבטלות. But the fact that he was also eating the matzah of be'erev tochlu matzos with this korech, that's already an independent mitzvah. So this already should be a shayla of מצוות מבטלות מצוות אין מבטלות. So kamashmalan, kamashmalan that Hillel is obviously of the opinion that mitzvos ein mevatlos, mitzvos ein mevatlos. That's one teretz, and be'emes that teretz is really enough for us to come back to kuf yud tes, but we need to add more to faren for the Tosfos here in kuf tes vav. Now in the stencils, the Velvel quotes a couple of Rashis which he understands, or he quotes, he brings ra'ayas that Rashi disagrees with that Rambam again which we take as a davar pashut that maror wasn't an independent mitzvah bizman habayis, and that's why maror bizmana hazeh is d'rabbanan because it was never anything more than a detail in mitzvos pesach, so memaila if there's no pesach, obviously there's no mitzvas maror. So Velvel says but that's not what Rashi thinks. Rashi is of the opinion, he has a couple of Rashis that Rashis are of the opinion that maror bizman habayis was a d'oraisa, an independent d'oraisa. Ai, if that's the case, why does everyone agree that maror bizmana hazeh is d'rabbanan? Because there's a hekesh, be'emes the Gemara says matzah would have been d'rabbanan bizmana hazeh also, but we have an extra posuk of be'erev tochlu matzos, but there's a hekesh, but maror there is no extra posuk, so maror is an independent mitzvah bizman habayis, but it's hukash l'mitzvas pesach that

בזמן דאיכא פסח איכא מרור ובזמן דליכא פסח ליכא מרור.

Right? So a gevaldige, and for us that's a gevaldige chiddush, that maror bizman habayis leda'as Rashi was an independent mitzvah. It was an independent mitzvah, ella mai since it's mentioned in the same posuk with korbon pesach, so it's hukash l'korbon pesach. So therefore, but many times we have a hekesh between two mitzvos that one is only noheig when the other is noheig, even though they're totally independent mitzvos. If you say that אין עבד עברי נוהג אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג, two totally separate dinim, but the Torah connects them. The Torah in terms of the zman of when one mitzvah is noheig, the Torah says that it's linked to the zman of another of another mitzvah. And that's exactly what we have here as well. Again, let's say if you have someone who's, who was בדרך רחוקה בזמן הבית. בדרך רחוקה בזמן הבית. So according to the Rambam he didn't have maror d'oraisa because he's not eating pesach, he don't have maror because maror is just a detail in mitzvas pesach. According to Rashi, בזמן שהפסח נוהג maror noheig, so he had maror d'oraisa. He had a mitzvah of maror d'oraisa. He had a mitzvah of maror d'oraisa. So that's what Velvel has in the stencils, shitas Rashi in achilas maror. Now, according to shitas Rashi, let's assume for a moment that our Tosfos here in kuf tes vav agrees with Rashi. Right? That our Tosfos agrees with Rashi. That bizman habayis there were three mitzvos: there was a mitzvas achilas pesach, there was a mitzvas achilas maror, and there's a mitzvas achilas matzah. Tosfos then learns pshat that Hillel's korech, Hillel's korech according to Tosfos is that the Torah says, that's it, משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say when you daven. So you're supposed to have semichas geulah l'tefillah. Semichas geulah l'tefillah. Let's say you don't say shemoneh esrei, you only say birkas krias shema. So are the brachos levatala if you don't say shemoneh esrei? No. Let's say you say shemoneh esrei, didn't say birkas krias shema. So you're not yotzei shemoneh esrei? You're yotzei shemoneh esrei because they're really separate units of tfila. They're separate units of tfila, separate chiyuvim. Ella mai, Chazal tell us that despite the fact that they're separate chiyuvim, they're separate chiyuvim, nevertheless there's yet another mitzvah to sequence them in a certain way. That if you have them in a certain sequence, so that that creates yet an additional kiyum. Birkas krias shema mitzvah bifnei atzmo, tefillah mitzvah bifnei atzmo, and then there's yet another mitzvah which tells you what the seder should be between those two, you should have semichas geulah l'tefillah. So according to the ba'alei hatosfos, according to the ba'alei hatosfos again, if you hold that not only matzah bizman habayis was an independent d'oraisa, but maror as well was an independent d'oraisa, so then Hillel's din of korech is that the Torah is saying that the way to be mekayem these three independent mitzvos is together. Right? They're independent mitzvos. If you're bederech rechoka you'll eat matzah, you'll eat... Total total independent mitzvos. Comes just geulah u-tefillah. Comes the Torah and says, according to Hillel's understanding, but אף על פי כן there's a mitzvah to eat them bedafka together. Now, hava nisbonen. In sevara, if the pasuk of kreichah is telling us about a relationship between independent mitzvos, so it's mistaber that that's a din lechatchila or that's a din even bediavad? So lechora it's pashut that's only going to be a din lechatchila. If you're dealing with a pasuk which is telling you about chelkei hamitzvah about one mitzvah, so then mistaber that it's telling you that it's me'akeiv. But if the pasuk is telling you not about chelkei hamitzvah, Maror is not a chelek of mitzvas pesach and Matzah for sure isn't just a chelek of mitzvas pesach. They're their own mitzvos. And אף על פי כן the Torah is telling you to eat them together. Torah's not just telling you you can, it's not just a heter, no, because מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו we know that on our own. Torah's telling us to eat them together. So is the Torah telling us that le'ikuva or is the Torah telling us that lechatchila? If the Torah would be telling us the relationship between chelkei hamitzvah, so then the sevara pshuta is assume that it's me'akeiv. But if the Torah is telling us the relationship not between chelkei hamitzvah but between independent mitzvos, so then the sevara, then the sevara is that it's only telling you a lechatchiladike din because it's not at all mistaber that the Torah's telling you even though they're independent mitzvos, you can only be mekayeim them together. That's almost a tartei desasrei. Al korchacha the simple pshat is that the din is only going to be a lechatchiladike din. So that's Tosafos's understanding of Koreich. Tosafos's understanding of Koreich is that the whole din of Koreich is that the Torah's telling us how to relate these three independent mitzvos to each other. If that's the din of Koreich, so then it's a davar pashut that Hillel's din of kreichah is only going to be lechatchila. Either way, according to either mahalach you have to say האמורה מכל האמור in the sugya here in kuf tes vav we're drawing inferences to the question of mitzvos mevatlos מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו from Koreich, which al korchacha means that in Hillel's kreichah there's more than one mitzvah present. Now, certainly mitzvas pesach is there. What other mitzvah is there? Well, lefi hakol we can say that there's an independent mitzvas matzah there. And according to Rashi and Tosafos in kuf tes vav there's also a mitzvas maror. Okay, but for the moment let's just take the tzad hashaveh both mahalachim in the Gemara, that there certainly is the independent mitzvas matzah Hillel was being mekayeim in his kreichah, right? So now everything the Rashbam and the Rosh said in our sugya goes perfectly. What did the Rashbam begin with? The Rashbam is explaining אמר יהודה אמר שמואל is telling us that bazman hazeh we eat an afikoman of Matzah. Says the Rashbam, let me explain to you what this is all about. Why do we eat Matzah afikoman? Zecher to the מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח. Now, zecher to the מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח if again, if we're going to do it, so let's approximate it as close as we can. The Matzah which they ate im hapesach was which Matzah? Was which Matzah? Was the Matzah of ba-al tochlu matzos, right? That's what we just saw in the sugya in kuf tes vav. Because according to Hillel, that was his din kreichah. His din kreichah was to combine the independent mitzvos. So the Matzah which Hillel, which was eaten בזמן הבית עם הפסח and it's that Matzah which our afikoman is commemorating, so what Matzah was that? That was their Matzah not only a matzas mitzvah of ochlu es habasar but it was that matzas mitzvah of ba-al tochlu matzos. So says the Rashbam, so that's the flow in the Rashbam. Says the Rashbam, we eat

שצריך לאכול מצה בגמר סעודתו זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח בכריכה וזו היא מצה הצפונה שאנו אוכלים באחרונה לשם חובה

and that's why we eat, that's why we're mekayeim our mitzvos matzah bachrona because the mitzvah of having Matzah for afikoman dictates that we should postpone our d'Oraisa until then. Which is why when the Rosh comes, that's why the Rosh doesn't ask this kasha which bothered us so much of why in the world are we waiting after this big buildup, Matzah, Matzah, Matzah, so then we're leaving it till the end of the Seder? So the Rosh doesn't ask that kasha, why? Because internally if you take the Rashbam's premise, so then what he says next follows. What the Rosh says is no, I don't agree with the premise, I think the premise is wrong. I think our Matzah afikoman... Isn't k'neged the מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח, it's k'neged the pesach. If it's k'neged the pesach, it's not k'neged the מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח. Now already there's no compelling reason to postpone our mitzvas matzah. So mimaila says the Rosh, and that's why I'll tell you that according to my premise, we then do what is natural once you say that our afikoman is only k'neged the pesach, which is that we're yotzei mitzvas matzah barishona. We're not postponing it ad leachrona. And things in the Rosh, the kasha he asks on the Rashbam is very difficult. The kasha he asks on the Rashbam: well, if we're eating, if our matzah is not k'neged the pesach, but is k'neged the מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח, well the מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח was eaten with marror also. So why don't we eat matzah with marror and charoses at the end? So we'll just leave this b'tzarich iyun, but the kasha is so difficult, no? Because that's what the Gemara says in kuf-tes-vav. Once you say that we're postponing our d'oraisa of matzah ad leachrona, you can't eat marror with it, because then marror d'rabbanan's gonna be mivatel the matzah d'oraisa. You can't have it both ways. You can either say that we'll eat matzah b'achrona together with marror, and in that way we'll approximate the way they ate matzah b'achrona, or you can say we'll save our matzah d'oraisa ad leachrona, and in that way we'll approximate the way they ate matzah. But you can't say both. You can't say both. I mean once the Rashbam says that the matzah we're eating b'achrona is the matzah d'oraisa, so then this is no taina. This is bikh'lal not a kasha. Right, so it's a tzarich iyun to what the Rosh has in mind here. And then this inyan of the machlokes the Rambam and Rashi that Reb Velvel points out or we suggested that it's in Tosafos as well as to whether or not marror bizman habayis was an independent mitzvah or not, so that actually has implications l'dina bizman hazeh as well. How so? Reb Chaim explains in the stencils to farenfer a kasha of the Sha'agas Aryeh on the Rosh that the Rosh is of the opinion that for korech you don't have to have a kezayis of marror. You don't have to have a kezayis of marror. אי אין אכילה פחותה מכזית? So Reb Chaim says yeah, but the Rosh agrees with the Rambam, the mashma'us in the Rosh is that you don't need a kezayis marror for korech. Sha'agas Aryeh says can't be. So says Reb Chaim why not? If the Rosh agrees with the Rambam that bizman habayis marror wasn't an independent mitzvah but was a detail in mitzvas pesach, so how much did you have to eat? If it's only one mitzvas achila, so all the sum total had to be a kezayis. You didn't have to have a kezayis of every ingredient. You didn't have to have a kezayis of every ingredient. If all the ingredients together constituted one mitzvah, so then all that you had to have was a total of a kezayis. So if that's the case, in our korech, all you'd have to have is a total of a kezayis matzah and marror. You won't need a kezayis of each. If however... עד כאן דברי רב חיים in the stencils. And mikhlal d'varav, that if you hold that bizman habayis marror was an independent mitzvah, so then how much marror did you have to have in the kricha? A kezayis. Because it wasn't just one mitzvah that you were mikayeim in the kricha, you were mikayeim three mitzvos in the kricha. So you had to have a kezayis matzah, a kezayis marror, and a kezayis pesach. So therefore our kricha will also require minimally a kezayis matzah and a kezayis marror. So it would have that nafk'mina bizman hazeh whether or not we require a kezayis marror in the kricha. Okay, let's stop here. Let's daven Mincha.