Pesach

So now we will review the Sugya of Afikoman in קי״ט עמוד ב׳. The Mishna says the Din that אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן. I said that the translation of the Mishna let's say according to Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan which is how we pasken, it is as if it's the same as though it were to say אין מפטירין אפיקומן אחר הפסח, meaning that the pesach is not the afikoman in terms of what the lashon hamishna means. Afikoman means dessert. So you can't end off the meal, maftirin, right, lashon hamiftar mechaveiro. You can't end off the meal after the korban pesach with afikoman, right? It's not the way we colloquially use the word afikoman. The way we colloquially use the word afikoman, so we think afikoman means the matzah or the korban pesach. So l'maise it does sort of develop into that, but in terms of what it means initially, its primary meaning is that ein maftirin afikoman, you can't have dessert after the korban pesach, right? So then colloquially it becomes that the korban pesach is the dessert, so we call the korban pesach or the matzah at the end of the meal afikoman. But that's not what it means that's not what it means originally. Okay. So

אין מפטירין אפיקומן אחר הפסח. אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן.

Now, אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, after the Gemara has a machlokes what this din is. So according to Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan it means again that you can't eat anything after the korban pesach. So now אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, the same din applies bazman hazeh that we don't have korban pesach at the end, but we have matzah at the end. אין מפטירין אחר מצה אפיקומן. So says the Gemara,

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

meaning that the Mishnaos reflect bazman hazeh. The Mishnaos don't reflect just bazman habayis, they reflect bazman hazeh. Like the Mishna earlier on קי״ד עמוד א׳, when the Mishna describes what's on the shulchan, so it describes shnei tavshilin zecher l'pesach u'l'chagigah and then it says ובמקדש היו מביאים לפניו גופו של פסח. So the Mishnaos reflect bazman hazeh. So from the fact that the Mishna says b'davka אין מפטירין אחר הפסח, so doesn't that imply that davka achar hapesach but not achar matzah? Again Shmuel:

תנן אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן, אחר הפסח הוא דלא אבל אחר מצה מפטירין. לא מיבעיא קאמר. לא מיבעיא אחר מצה דלא נפיש טעמא אבל אחר הפסח דנפיש טעמא ולא מצי עברי ליה אימא לא קא משמע לן.

No, the reason the Mishna says achar hapesach is to tell us the chiddush even achar hapesach and kol shekein that achar matzah, that ein maftirin achar.

אין מפטירין אחר המצה אפיקומן שצריך לאכול מצה בגמר סעודתו זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח בכריכה וזו היא מצה הבצועה שאנו אוכלים באחרונה לשם חובה ועל כרחנו אנו מברכים על אכילת מצה בראשונה אף על פי שאינה לשם חובה כדאמר רב חסדא לעיל גבי מרור דלאחר שמילא כריסו הימנו היכא חוזר ומברך עליו הלכך מברך אתרווייהו ברישא והדר אכיל מצה באחרונה ואחר אותה מצה אין מפטירין הימנה באכילת דבר אחר שלא לשכוח טעמה ובמצה בזמן הזה מיירי דליכא פסח בהדה דאי בזמן דאיכא פסח הא בהדיא תנן אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן והיינו אחר פסח ומצה הנאכלת עמו.

So the Rashbam says as follows. The Rashbam says we eat matzah bigmar haseudah זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח, right? So that's point number one in the in the Rashbam. The Rashbam says that our matzah what we call afikoman at the end of the seudah is not zecher l'pesach but is זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח. That's point number one. Point number two, the the Rashbam says that it's this matzah with which we're yotzei our d'oraisa of matzah, right? וזו היא מצה הבצועה שאנו אוכלים באחרונה לשם חובה. Point number two. Point number three, so why is it then if that's true why do we make the al achilas matzah earlier? Why do we make the al achilas matzah at the beginning by hamotzi matzah? So the Rashbam says because that's the same problem we're we're reacting to the same problem as the Gemara earlier has on kuf yud daled and kuf tes vav. The Gemara there discusses a case where a person is using maror as his vegetable for karpas. So then the question is when do you make the bracha of al achilas maror? Do you make it before you eat maror in the slot of karpas or before you eat maror in the in its regular in its regular slot? So the way the Rashbam here understands Rav Chisda which is the way Tosafos on kuf tes vav understands Rav Chisda, it doesn't seem to be the way the Rashbam understands Rav Chisda back on on kuf tes vav which is a big kashya. But but at any way any rate the Rashbam here and Tosafos on kuf tes vav understand Rav Chisda as follows: the emes is that you're not going to be yotzei mitzvas maror until you eat maror the second time in the slot in its regular slot and אף על פי כן because of this svara of לאחר שמילא כריסו הימנו חוזר ומברך עליו because of that svara you have to advance the birkas hamitzvah. So that's a that's a whole topic unto itself. What exactly that svara is, how can you make a birkas hamitzvah so long in in advance of of the actual mitzvah? That's an an arichos of its own. Al kol panim so the Rashbam says the same thing is happening over here. The same thing is happening here. We're making the al achilas matzah even though the the truth is that we're not going to be yotzei our matzah d'oraisa until we eat afikoman. And then he says that's what the Gemara's din is that we don't eat anything after this matzah. Okay. Now the Rashbam is is very strange. It it seems to be just counterintuitive to say that that we're not yotzei matzah d'oraisa until afikoman. It gets us entangled in this whole problem. I mean לאחר שמילא כריסו הימנו חוזר ומברך עליה and and as a result to have to say the birkas hamitzvah forty minutes before you're doing the mitzvah is obviously not the not l'chatchila. It's not our first choice. So meila in Rav Chisda's case in the Gemara so we we were entangled in that problem because we had no vegetable other than maror. But over here so why is the Rashbam according to the Rashbam why are we getting involved with this problem? Why not simply do what what seems to be intuitive be yotzei mitzvas matzah d'oraisa barishonah. Okay. The other question is why is it relevant to the why is it relevant to this sugya that the Rashbam is telling us this in this context? Shmuel's din is אין מפטירין אחר מצה אפיקומן. So why is it relevant when we're being yotzei matzah d'oraisa? L'chora, that's totally irrelevant to Shmuel's din. So even if the Rashbam has this shita mechudeshes that ikar matzah is b'achrona, it seems to be just totally out of place in this sugya, just extraneous. Okay, meila he has to tell us that he's explaining to us what our matzah afikomen is. Okay, that belongs in the sugya. That he thinks it's זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח, not zecher l'pesach, it's a free country, he's entitled to his opinion on that also. But of what relevance is it to this sugya that ikar matzah is b'achrona? Now, if you take a look in the Rosh, so the Rosh is massik, it's in siman lamed daled. So the Rosh quotes the Gemara, quotes the Rashbam, and then at the top of the left-hand column here, so the Rosh 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 נפטר ממנה ואם כן צריך לעשות כמו בזמן המקדש שהיו אוכלן הכל ביחד הלל וסיעתו ואף לרבנן מצוה לאוכלו ביחד. אמנם תמיהני למה עושין כריכה בתחילה יספק 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 לו דין הפסח שלא לאכול אחריה ואין צריך עמו מרור וחרוסת.

So the Rosh asks, if our matzah b'achrona is זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח, so why don't we eat it with maror and charoses? The מצה הנאכלת עם הפסח was ne'echal with maror and charoses. So he says, no, I think that we're yotzei matzah barishona. We're yotzei the d'oraisa of matzah at motzi matzah. The matzah that we eat at the end is not זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח, it's only zecher l'pesach. And if it's only zecher l'pesach, so they weren't looking to recreate everything, they just wanted a zecher for the korban pesach. They wanted a zecher for the korban pesach. Okay, so what do you see in the Rosh is as follows: first of all, the question which bothered us, he doesn't ask. What seems to be the biggest question on the Rashbam, namely why does the Rashbam postpone mitzvas matzah until achrona, so the Rosh doesn't ask that kasha. The biggest kasha apparently he doesn't ask. The other thing which you see in the Rosh, which we don't understand yet, but it certainly points us in a certain direction, is if the Rosh, what the Rosh asks a kasha on the Rashbam's understanding of what our afikomen is. The Rashbam said that our afikomen is זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח. The Rosh says, no, that doesn't make sense, why don't you eat it with maror and charoses? It must be zecher l'pesach. And yet, when the Rosh tells you what he thinks, he says, and I think that ikar matzah is barishona. I think that you're יוצא מצוות מצה דאורייתא of matzah barishona. So you see clearly in the Rosh that somehow or other these two questions are linked: when you're being יוצא עיקר מצוות מצה and what our afikomen is, that those two questions are linked. And right, that's also obviously going to be the answer why the Rashbam in this context is telling us when ikar matzah is. Right? So all our difficulties seem to be pointing in that same direction that somehow or other these two questions are linked. The question of what the afikomen is, whether it's זכר למצה הנאכלת עם הפסח or zecher la-pesach, that is pivotal for the question of whether or not ikar matzah in terms of matzah d'oraisa ba-achrona or ba-rishona. Right? You see that's why the Rashbam is mixing in that issue in the middle of this sugya and you see when the Rosh disagrees with what the correspondence is of our afikomen, so then he says והילכך נראה לי דעיקר מצה בראשונה. So clearly these two issues are linked. But the question is, what's the connection? L'chora they have nothing to do with each other. The okay. So take a look earlier on קט"ו עמוד א' for a moment. The Gemara has as follows.

אמר אבינא אמר לי רב משרשיא בריה דרב נתן הכי אמר הלל משמיה דגמרא.

Around ten lines down.

לא ניכרך איניש מצה ומרור בהדי הדדי וניכול משום דסבירא לן מצה בזמן הזה דאורייתא ומרור דרבנן ואתי מרור דרבנן ומבטלי ליה למצה דאורייתא. ואפילו למאן דאמר מצות אין מבטלות זו את זו הני מילי דאורייתא בדאורייתא דרבנן בדרבנן אבל דאורייתא דרבנן אתי דרבנן ומבטלי ליה לדאורייתא.

So we eat matzah, then we eat maror, then we eat korech. So Hillel says, Hillel the Amora says, why can't you just take a shortcut and just begin with korech? Why do you have to eat matzah, maror then korech? And in general, or lav davka that scenario, but Hillel says as follows. Hillel says you can't eat matzah d'oraisa together with maror because even if you hold that מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו, if you eat simultaneously foods which represent two different mitzvos, even if you hold that מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו and you don't have to worry about the ta'am of one being overwhelmed and batel to the ta'am of the other, that's only true if the mitzvos are both d'oraisa or both d'rabbanan, they're of equal rank. But if one's a d'oraisa, one's a d'rabbanan, so then there will be a problem of bittel because bittel is whenever you have a clash. So you have two d'oraisas, there's no clash, they're the same. You have one d'oraisa and one's only d'rabbanan then there is a clash, there will be bittel, and here the maror d'rabbanan is going to overwhelm the matzah d'oraisa. Fine. Says the Gemara, so Hillel the Amora alludes to a position, to a machlokes about whether mitzvos are mevatlos or מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו. So says the Gemara

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

Who's the Tanna who thinks mitzvos are not מבטלות זו את זו? Hillel, Hillel the Tanna.

דתניא אמרו עליו על הלל שהיה כורכן דבת אחת ואוכלן שנאמר מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו.

So Hillel, zecher l'mikdash k'Hillel. Hillel used to eat b'kricha. He used to eat Rashbam says pesach, matzah, u-maror b'kricha. And Hillel apparently from the fact that he used to eat b'kricha is of the opinion that מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו. Right? That's what the Gemara is saying. From the fact that he ate b'kricha he was apparently of the opinion מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו. We'll see in a minute exactly what the Gemara's inference is.

אמר רבי יוחנן: חולקין עליו חביריו על הלל דתניא יכול יהא כורכן דבת אחת ואוכלן כדרך שהלל אוכלן תלמוד לומר על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו 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 בזו לידי חובתו אלא אם כן כורכן דבת אחת ואוכלן כדרך שהלל אוכלן תלמוד לומר על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו אפילו זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו.

So according to Rav Ashi's understanding, what do the Rabbanan d'Hillel, what do they hold? That you can eat b'kricha but you don't have to eat b'kricha, right?

יכול לא יצא בזו לידי חובתו אלא אם כן כורכן? תלמוד לומר על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו.

It could have just said yochal because it already mentioned the basar, it already mentioned that you're eating the basar. on matzos and merorim. What's the yochluhu in the singular, even though you're only eating one at a time, you're also yotze? Fine. So you have a machlokes Hillel and the Rabbanan that Hillel says the Torah's telling us to eat be-kericha and the Rabbanan say that, no, you can eat be-kericha, but there's no need to eat be-kericha, right? Okay. So says Tosfos: so where does the Gemara see here a machlokes about mitzvos mevatlos or אין מבטלות זו את זו? Take a look at the Tosfos dibbur hamaschil אלא אמר רב אשי, two lines into the Tosfos: ve-im tomar at the end of the line.

ואם תאמר מנלן דסבר הלל דאין מבטלות דלמא שאני הכא דגלי קרא.

Hillel doesn't say misvara that you eat be-kericha. Hillel interprets the pasuk, that the pasuk is telling us to eat be-kericha. So how do you know that Hillel holds in general

מצות אין מבטלות זו את זו? ועוד הא רבנן נמי אין מבטלות דאמרי ככה נמי יצא.

And what's more, where do we see that Hillel as opposed to the Rabbanan thinks mitzvos ein mevatlos? The Rabbanan also say you can eat be-kericha. The only difference is Hillel mandates the kericha and the Rabbanan say kericha is an option. But even the Rabbanan say you can eat be-kericha, so even according to the Rabbanan we should be able to infer that מצות אין מבטלות זו את זו. So Tosfos gives a gevaldige teretz.

ויש לומר מדסבר דלכתחילה יש לו לכרוך ובדיעבד נפק כי לא כרך אם כן בעלמא אין מבטלות דאי מבטלות אם כן אצטרך קרא הכא להתיר כריכה ולומר דהכא לא מבטלי. והילכך לרבנן דמוקי קרא בדיעבד שמעינן דבעלמא מבטלות ושאני הכא דגלי קרא.

So Tosfos gives a gevaldige teretz. Tosfos says as follows: the Rabbanan and Hillel have the same pasuk. Hillel understands that the pasuk is telling us that we're supposed to eat be-kericha. The Rabbanan understand the pasuk that it's telling us we may eat be-kericha. We don't have to, but we may eat be-kericha. So what underlies that machlokes? How is it that Hillel reads the pasuk that we have to eat be-kericha and that the Rabbanan read the pasuk that we may eat be-kericha? So Tosfos says that's gufa what the Gemara is telling us. Hillel thinks in svara that מצות אין מבטלות זו את זו. Hillel doesn't need a pasuk to tell him that you may eat be-kericha. In svara he knows that מצות אין מבטלות זו את זו. If there's a pasuk, the pasuk must be telling you that you're supposed to eat be-kericha. The Rabbanan in svara think מצות מבטלות זו את זו. So the Rabbanan say you have a pasuk, so you can't jump and say a bigger chiddush. No, first say the most basic thing. The most basic thing is that the pasuk is telling us that you may eat be-kericha. So that's the pshat in this sugya, right? Hillel thinks in svara mitzvos ein mevatlos, so he takes the pasuk as telling us a chiyuv, a mitzva. The Rabbanan think mitzvos mevatlos, so they take the pasuk as a heter. Okay. Now let's just note a kasha of the Maharsha here. The Maharsha has a kasha on Tosfos. He says the pshat is a wonderful pshat, but just one little detail in Tosfos he says isn't clear. Why does Tosfos say that Hillel's din of kericha is only lechatchila? Right? If you take a look again in the lashon of Tosfos, so Tosfos says

ויש לומר מדסבר דלכתחילה יש לו לכרוך ובדיעבד נפק כי לא כרך.

How does Tosfos know that Hillel's din of kericha is only lechatchila? No, the Maharsha says the pashtus is that Hillel's din of kericha is me'akev, that it's an absolute chiyuv. And it doesn't affect Tosfos's pshat in the Gemara kihu zeh, right? Tosfos's pshat in the Gemara would be just as successful if they would say from the fact that Hillel darshans the pasuk not as a heter but as an absolute chiyuv, so memaila you see that he holds in svara mitzvos ein mevatlos. From the fact that the Rabbanan darshan it as a heter, you see that they hold in svara mitzvos mevatlos. So it doesn't affect Tosfos's pshat. There's nothing in terms of the pshat they're saying in the Gemara which forces them to say it. And he says ayen baze be-Mordechai because if you look in the Mordechai, so you find that the Mordechai says exactly Tosfos's pshat, but with this difference: they say that according to Hillel... you must, not l'chatchila, you absolutely l'ikuva must be koreich. Okay, so let's leave that kasha aside for the moment. Okay. So again, so what do you have here in the Gemara? That we're inferring from Hillel and the Rabbanan the positions of mitzvos ein mevatlos and mitzvos mevatlos respectively. Fine. And what's the inference? As Tosafos explains, Hillel takes the passuk as a mitzvah, so apparently you don't need a passuk le'hateira. Rabbanan take the passuk as a heter, it allows you to be koreich, apparently that needs a passuk. Fine. Okay. But the question here is, what mitzvos are we talking about? When you eat Pesach Matzah u'Maror together, so what mitzvos in the plural are we talking about? There's one mitzvah of

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות על מרורים יאכלהו.

There's one single mitzvah. So what do you mean of from the fact that Hillel says it's a chiyuv and not a reshus, from the fact that the Rabbanan say it's a reshus otherwise you couldn't do it, none of that makes sense. It's all one mitzvah. מצוות מבטלות זו את זו would mean when it's two different mitzvos, when it would be ich veis Maaser Sheni and kodshim. So that's two different mitzvos. But let's say there's one mitzvah and the one mitzvah says, one mitzvah says you're supposed to smear the peanut butter on the bread. So then you can't clear whether or not the peanut butter is mevatel the bread or the bread is mevatel the peanut butter because they're the same mitzvah. They're part and parcel of the same mitzvah. So too

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות על מרורים יאכלהו,

it's one mitzvah to eat Pesach Matzah u'Maror together. So the whole sugya, how is there any, how is the issue of מצוות מבטלות אין מבטלות at all relevant to eating Pesach Matzah u'Maror be'krichah? So what do you have to say? Likhora, you have to say as follows. So you see from here, you see from here the following. That when Hillel ate be'krichah, so let's just review one elemental fact. Bizman habayis, as is true bizman hazeh, there was also an independent mitzvah of ba'erev tochlu matzos. So leaving aside the fact that Korban Pesach necessitated Matzah u'Maror, the same way bizman hazeh we pasken מצה בזמן הזה דאורייתא because ba'erev tochlu matzos is an independent mitzvah, so bizman habayis there was also an independent mitzvas Matzah. So bizman habayis they had at least two mitzvos achilah. Not only did they have a mitzvas achilas Pesach, they also had an independent mitzvas achilas Matzah. So what you see from this Gemara is that Hillel's krichah, he was also mekayem his ba'erev tochlu matzos in his krichah. Because without that, then there's no מצוות מבטלות זו את זו or מצוות אין מבטלות זו את זו in the sugya because it's all the same mitzvah. That's, the Rambam says, the Rambam says that both in Sefer Hamitzvos and in Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah, he says that Maror isn't a separate mitzvah because it's just a prat in mitzvas achilas Pesach. And that's why in Sefer Hamitzvos he says to explain why he doesn't count it as a mitzvah, and in Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah in perek zayin, so the Rambam says

אכילת מרור אינה מצווה מן התורה בפני עצמה אלא תלויה היא באכילת הפסח שמצוות עשה אחת לאכול בשר הפסח על מצה ומרורים.

Fine. So according to the Rambam, what מצוות מבטלות זו את זו are we talking about in kuf tes vav? So the answer has to be, the answer has to be likhora, that you see that אמרו עליו על הלל שהיה כורכן כאחת ואוכלן means not just that this is how he was mekayem his mitzvas Pesach מצוות פסח על מצות ומרורים, but this is how he was mekayem his independent mitzvas Matzah also ba'erev tochlu matzos. That's clear. That's clear. It's a question... But okay so that's a question taka, how did Hillel know that that was the mashmaus of the posuk? Meileh that the posuk clearly implies that you're eating pesach matzah and maror together, so that we hear,

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות על מרורים.

Okay, so it's a whole sandwich. But okay so that's a question taka, how does Hillel know that that's the mashmaus? But it's clear that that's what Hillel was darshening. Hillel was darshening is that the matzah d'oraisa should be used for the matzah of korban pesach. That's what Hillel's din of kreichah is. So with that, we don't have enough to answer the Maharsha in this sugya yet, but you come back now to our sugya of afikoman. So now you understand very well. What did the Rashbam say? The Rashbam says, Shmuel says, אמר רבא אמר שמואל אין מפטירין אחר מצה אפיקומן. Fine. So the Rashbam ozes an explanation, what's this matzah afikoman? This matzah after which you can't have afikoman. So the Rashbam says, I think that the matzah besof haseuda is זכר למצה הנאכלת עם פסח. Fine, he was supposed to talk about that. That was main inyan of the yom. Now, once the Rashbam says that, if the matzah that we eat at the end is זכר למצה הנאכלת עם פסח, so we want to simulate that as much as possible. We want to, we want to replicate that as as as precisely as possible. The מצה הנאכלת עם פסח, Hillel's מצה הנאכלת עם פסח was what? Was his matzah d'oraisa. Was his matzah of baerev tochlu matzos. And the raya, the Gemara in kuf tes-vov is drawing inferences about mitzvos mevatlos or ein mevatlos from Hillel's kreichah. So alkorchach you see that the matzah of Hillel's kreichah wasn't only the ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות, but it was also the matzah of baerev tochlu matzos. Ah, says the Rashbam, once we realize that our matzah besof haseuda is זכר למצה הנאכלת עם פסח, so that dictates you should realize that this is not just a ta'amei mitzvah of of matzah, of matzah what we call afikoman, but this dictates the whole seder. It's because of that that ikker matzah bachrona. Because Hillel's matzah, which he ate together with the pesach, was was was his matzah d'oraisa. So if our מצה הנאכלת עם פסח, if our matzah besof haseuda is זכר למצה הנאכלת עם פסח, then that's going to have to be the matzah d'oraisa. And that's why the Rosh doesn't ask the kasha of why are you postponing mitzvos matzah, right? What we thought was the most glaring difficulty in the Rashbam. So the Rosh didn't ask, 'cause the Rosh understood very well that the reason the Rashbam is saying ikker matzah bachrona is because he holds that it's זכר למצה הנאכלת עם פסח. The only thing is the Rosh says, but I think it's zecher l'pesach. If it's only zecher l'pesach, not זכר למצה הנאכלת עם פסח, so then then there's no need to postpone ikker matzah. Then you don't have to have ikker matzah bachrona, you can have ikker matzah barishona. And that's why the Rosh says, once I I show you that the Rashbam is wrong about what the matzah besof haseuda is, it's not זכר למצה הנאכלת עם פסח, but it's zecher l'pesach, so then mimeila as a davar pashut it follows that our ikker matzah will be barishona rather than bachrona. Okay. Now, let's come, is there some other matzah that's not necheles im pesach? What would Rashbam? He says it's zecher. Yeah, Hillel had the same had the same problem we do. Hillel also ate matzah b'techilas haseuda. Hillel did the same thing we did. He washed, he made hamotzi, and presumably he also made al achilas matzah because לאחר שמילא כריסו ממנו אוכל ומברך. Then he ate korban chagiga, and then when he was ready for korban pesach that it would be al hasova, so then he ate, then he ate korban pesach together with matzah and maror. But when he ate matzah barishona, he wasn't being yotzei the. independent mitzvah Matzah at that point because Hillel, eichshehu, the mashmaus of the pasuk for Hillel was not simply that when you're eating Korban Pesach that you eat Korban Pesach with its Matzah, but that the Matzah you should use for the Korban Pesach is the independent mitzvah Matzah. Okay. Now to answer the Rashbam, excuse me, to answer the Maharsha on Kuf Tes Vav, we need one other what one other piece here. And that is as follows. Again, the Rambam says in Sefer Hamitzvos and in Perek Zayin of Chometz U'matzah that Maror bizman habayis was not an independent mitzvah. That it was simply a detail. The parsha of Kadesh or the parsha of Vehaya Ki Yeviacha is not a separate mitzvah. It's part of Mitzvas Tefillin. It's part of Mitzvas Tefillin. Maror was not a separate mitzvah, it was part of Mitzvas Achilas Pesach. Okay. Fine. So in the stencils, in the of Velvel's Shiurim in the fifth of the fifth volume of the stencils, so it's quoted there that Reb Velvel learned peshat in a couple of Rashis that Rashi disagrees with this. And that Rashi thought, Rashi thinks that bizman habayis Maror was an independent mitzvah. And the reason Maror bizman hazeh is only derabbanan is not because since there's no Pesach, obviously there's no Maror, is that Mitzvas Maror is only noheges when Mitzvas Pesach is noheges. And Reb Velvel has a couple of Rashis that he learns peshat in like that. Take a look, one of them is on למד ט עמוד ב. The Gemara in למד ט עמוד ב has a question as follows. According to Rabbi Akiva, excuse me, according to Rebbi Yosi HaGlili, you can't be yotzei in Yerushalayim with Matzah shel Maaser Sheni because it has to be בכל מושבותיכם תאכלו מצות, it has to be that the Matzah you eat, you could eat anywhere. And since Matzah shel Maaser Sheni you can only eat in Yerushalayim, you can't eat it bechol moshavos, so you can't be yotzei with Matzah which you made from Maaser Sheni. Okay, fine. So now the Gemara is miba'ei lei like this: according to Rebbi Yosi HaGlili, what about Maror of Maaser Sheni? So the Gemara says, does the din only apply to Matzah de'oraisa? What does the din also apply to Maror derabbanan? Fine. So the question is, the de'oraisa and derabbanan means what? So Rashi has trei lishonos. The first lashon is Matzah de'oraisa means the fact that the Matzah is Maaser Sheni is de'oraisa because that you're maphrish terumos and maasros from the Chamesha Minei Dagan is de'oraisa, but maaser yerek is only derabbanan. So that's one peshat in Rashi, right? That the de'oraisa derabbanan is not the mitzvah of achilas matzah and achilas maror, but is rather the terumos u'maasros shebo. That's one lashon. The second lashon in Rashi is no, the de'oraisa derabbanan means the mitzvah. Means the mitzvah. Matzah where the mitzvah is de'oraisa, maybe there we have a chumra of bechol moshavos. But by Maror where the mitzvah's only derabbanan, you don't. So Rashi says he doesn't like that second peshat and says but bizman hazeh that Maror is derabbanan, we don't have Maaser Sheni either. So what's the metzius that we're talking about? So therefore Rashi says the peshat must be that we're talking about bizman habayis and de'oraisa derabbanan means that the Maaser Sheni of Matzah is de'oraisa and the Maaser Sheni of Maror is only derabbanan. Because if you say that it means that the mitzvah of Matzah is de'oraisa as opposed to the mitzvah of Maror is only derabbanan, but when you have Maaser Sheni, the mitzvah of Maror is also mide'oraisa. So says Reb Velvel, why? Let's say someone was tamei or let's say someone was bederech rechoka. Why is it so hard for Rashi to figure out that you could have had a Maror derabbanan bizman habayis? So maybe you could have answered that the that the pshat in Rashi is because Rashi holds that מי שהיה טמא או בדרך רחוקה was מחויב במרור מדאורייתא בזמן הבית because Rashi holds that maror was an independent deoraisa and the only reason it's not deoraisa bizman hazeh is because since it's hukash lepesach it's only נוהג בזמן שהפסח נוהג which derech agavdik I think as Reb Velvel points out is the literal reading of the Gemara in קוף כף עמוד אלף. The literal reading of the Gemara in קוף כף עמוד אלף is more like this havana which he attributes to Rashi than it is in the Rambam. Be that as it may, so Reb Velvel says there is a dissenting view which holds that maror bizman habayis was an independent mitzvah. Now, assume for a minute that our Tosafos on Kuf Tes Vav agrees with that, not with the Rambam. They hold that maror bizman habayis was an independent deoraisa as well. If that's the case, so then the Maharsha's kushya is no kushya at all. Because what is the Maharsha's tayna? The Maharsha's tayna is like this: the Torah tells you you have to eat Pesach, Matzah, and Maror together. Why does Tosafos read that as a din lechatchila? So the teretz now is as follows: if Tosafos holds, they certainly hold that matzah bizman habayis was also an independent deoraisa. Everyone agrees with that, right? And remember, what were we medayek from the Gemara? That Hillel's kricha was to use the independent mitzvos matzah together with the Pesach, right? That's what Hillel's kricha was. Well now, if Tosafos is also of the opinion that maror bizman habayis is an independent deoraisa, so then Hillel's kricha, Hillel's kricha is take these three independent mitzvos of Pesach, Matzah, and Maror and bekorecham beyachad. Now, if that's what Hillel's kricha is, so then it's mistaber that it's only a din lechatchila because the Rambam has such a klal in Sefer Hamitzvos. If the Torah tells us the relationship between two things, if they're two chalakim of the same mitzvah, so then the svara peshuta is that they're מעכב זה את זה. If they're separate mitzvos, so then the svara peshuta is they're not מעכב זה את זה. In what sense are Pesach, Matzah, and Maror going to be independent mitzvos if you absolutely must eat them together? The svara peshuta if you're talking about independent mitzvos and the Torah's telling you what the relationship, the Torah's telling us here in the pasuk of kricha what the relationship is between Pesach, Matzah, and Maror. So if they're not independent mitzvos, if they're components of the same mitzvah, so then the Maharsha is a hundred percent correct that the pasuk is telling us a hiyuv le'ikuva. But if they're all independent mitzvos, so then the svara peshuta is on the contrary that the Torah is only, if the Torah's telling you what the relationship is, let's say between the matzah deoraisa which is its own mitzvah and the Pesach deoraisa. So then the svara peshuta is that the Torah's telling you a lechatchiladikke din. איך ווייס א משל למה הדבר דומה, semichas geulah litefillah. So Krias Shema uvirchosha are a separate unit, and Shmoneh Esrei is a separate unit. Ella mai, there's an enhanced kiyum by being masmich the geulah litefillah. But clearly that's only gonna be a din lechatchila because each one is its own unit, each one is its own chelek of tefillah. So too, if Pesach, Matzah, and Maror bizman habayis, if each of the three was an independent mitzvah, then it's very mistaber what Tosafos says, that the whole hiyuv kricha is only a lechatchiladikke hiyuv. If, let's say you say like the Rambam, then the Maharsha is right. The Rambam doesn't say this for other reasons because he has a totally different mahalakh for other reasons. But if you say like the Rambam in terms of mitzvas maror, so then the Maharsha is right because then if the Torah is telling us what the relationship is between two chalakim of the same mitzvah, so then there's every reason to think the Torah's telling us that you're mechuyav to do it. But if the Torah's telling us what the relationship is between separate independent independent mitzvos, so then the sevara peshuta is the Torah is telling us a din l'chatchila, not not l'ikuva. What'd you say that there is a tanai when you're talking about separate mitzvos? So, forgetting Tosafos for a second, so there's no real hefresh anymore that matzah has to be a mitzvah. Because our hefresh was from the Gemara in Pesachim that מצוות מבטלות זו את זו. But once you say that maror is a separate mitzvah, so the hefresh falls away. No, because there's no more reason to think if Hillel's kreicha was the independent mitzvah maror, there's no more reason to think that it wasn't the independent mitzvah matzah as well. So it doesn't - it doesn't detract from - from what we said. Once you say maror is - you don't - the point is that that according to the Rashbam, to make sense of the Rashbam and the Rosh, you don't have to attribute to them that there was an independent mitzvah maror bizman haBayis. But the fact that there is wouldn't detract from the peshat, because if Hillel's kreicha was the independent mitzvah maror, but it wasn't the independent mitzvah matzah - no, it would have been that either. So either way, you're left with that teretz that Hillel's kreicha, again, minimally, l'chol hadeios, the chidush of Hillel was that he only ate matzah once leshem chiyuv and that he was yotzei all his chiyuvim - all his chiyuvim haLayla, he was yotzei with that one kreicha. And that's what the Rashbam says. So mimaila, if we're simulating the מצה נאכלת עם הפסח, well, that מצה נאכלת עם הפסח was a matzah d'Oraisa. So then that's when we should be eating our matzah d'Oraisa as well. Okay. Okay.