1) COMBINING DIFFERENT TYPES OF MAROR
QUESTION: The Mishnah lists a number of different types of vegetables which one may use for the Mitzvah of Maror. The Mishnah concludes that small amounts of different vegetables may be combined to make a k'Zayis of Maror. The Mishnah continues and says that vegetables of Demai, Ma'aser Rishon from which Terumah has been separated, and Ma'aser Sheni and Hekdesh which were redeemed, may be used for Maror.
The Mishnah earlier (35a) lists five types of grain that may be used for Matzah. However, the Mishnah there does not mention, as the Mishnah here does, that different types may be combined to make a complete Shi'ur. Why does the Mishnah there omit this law?
ANSWERS:
(a) The BARTENURA writes that when the Mishnah here says that different vegetables join to make a Shi'ur, it also refers to the Mishnah earlier that lists the different types of grain that may be used for Matzah.
This answer is difficult. The Mishnah earlier mentions the Halachah of using Matzah which is Ma'aser Sheni, even though the Mishnah here mentions the same Halachah with regard to Maror. According to the Bartenura, the Mishnah earlier should either omit both Halachos (and rely on the Mishnah here), or it should mention both Halachos.
Perhaps the Bartenura means that it is obvious that the different types of grain may be combined to make a complete a Shi'ur. The Mishnah here mentions that different types of vegetables may be combined for Maror only because it wants to teach that a person must eat a total Shi'ur of a k'Zayis of Maror. Since the Torah does not mention the word "Achilah" with regard to Maror, we might have thought that one is not required to eat a k'Zayis of Maror. The Mishnah therefore teaches that one is required to eat a k'Zayis of Maror. (The ROSH (10:25) writes that one must eat a k'Zayis of Maror because he recites the blessing, "Al Achilas Maror," and "Achilah" is defined as a k'Zayis.) In contrast, with regard to Matzah, the Torah explicitly uses the word "Achilah," and thus it is obvious that one must eat a k'Zayis. (M. KORNFELD)
(b) The RAN writes that it is not necessary for the Mishnah to teach that different types of grain may be combined to make a Shi'ur of Matzah. It is necessary, however, to teach this law with regard to Maror. Since the purpose of eating Maror is to taste the bitterness of the vegetable, and each type of vegetable has its unique taste, we might have thought that different types do not combine. The Mishnah therefore teaches that they do combine.
(c) The RASHASH suggests that if the Mishnah earlier would have said that the five grains combine to make a k'Zayis, we might have thought that only those types combine. The Yerushalmi states that even Orez (rice) and Dochen (millet) combine with the other five types of grain to make a k'Zayis, as long as most of the k'Zayis is comprised of one of the five grains mentioned in the Mishnah. For this reason, the Mishnah there omits specific mention that the five types of grain combine to make a Shi'ur.
(d) The SEFAS EMES offers a novel explanation. He suggests that these words of the Mishnah do not mean that the different types of vegetables may be combined to make a Shi'ur of Maror. Rather, they refer to the Mishnah's previous statement, that certain vegetables may not be used for Maror, such as vegetables that were pickled (preserved in vinegar) or cooked. The Mishnah now adds that although those vegetables may not be used by themselves for Maror, they may be combined with acceptable types of Maror to make a Shi'ur.
The logic for this Halachah is as follows. The reason why one may not use cooked vegetables for Maror is because they lose their bitter taste as a result of being cooked. However, when a cooked vegetable is combined with a vegetable valid for use as Maror, the bitter taste (of the raw vegetable) is present in the mixture. The Sefas Emes speculates that although one must eat a k'Zayis of Maror to fulfill the Mitzvah, perhaps the bitter taste does not have to emanate from the entire k'Zayis of the Maror.
The Sefas Emes concludes that this is a very novel interpretation of the Mishnah, and the Halachah might not follow this interpretation. It seems more logical to explain that the reason a cooked vegetable is not valid for Maror is because it simply is not considered Maror at all, and not because it loses its bitter taste. (Cooked Matzah is also not valid, even though there is no taste requirement with regard to Matzah.)
2) HALACHAH: THE TYPE OF MAROR ONE MUST USE TO FULFILL THE MITZVAH
OPINIONS: The Mishnah states, "These are the vegetables with which a person fulfills his obligation [to eat Maror] on Pesach: Chazeres, Tamcha, Charchavina, Ulshin, and Maror." The Gemara cites the opinion of Acherim that "every bitter vegetable [with which one may fulfill the Mitzvah of Maror] emits a milk-like sap when cut, and the vegetable's color is whitish." Rav Huna says that the Halachah follows the opinion of Acherim.
The Gemara implies that any bitter vegetable (which meets the criteria of having a milk-like sap when cut and a pale color) is acceptable for use for the Mitzvah of Maror. RASHI on the Chumash (Shemos 12:8) indeed states that the word "Maror" in the Torah refers to "any bitter vegetable."
However, the MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 473:15) and REBBI AKIVA EIGER (Sukah 13a) ask that the Gemara in Sukah (13a) contradicts this inference. The Gemara there states that one does not fulfill the Mitzvah with Maror that has a "Shem Levai" -- a modifying name, "such-and-such Maror." Only generic "Maror" may be used for the Mitzvah, for that is what is mentioned in the Torah.
If one may use any bitter vegetable, it should make no difference what the Maror is called. Why does the Gemara in Sukah say that the Maror must not have a modifying name?
ANSWERS:
(a) The ME'IRI in Sukah (13a) explains that the Gemara here clearly sets forth an order of preference for what type of Maror one should use on Pesach. Chazeres is the first choice, either because it is the most bitter, or because its name alludes to the mercy that Hash-m showered upon the Jewish people when He took us out of Egypt. The Gemara in Sukah does not mean that one does not fulfill his obligation at all with Maror that has a "Shem Levai." Rather, it means that Chazeres with a "Shem Levai" is not considered to be the choice type of Maror. (RASHI in Sukah indeed explains that the Gemara there refers to a particular type of Chazeres. Tosfos there questions Rashi's basis for explaining that the Gemara refers to a type of Chazeres. Perhaps Rashi there understands the Gemara like the Me'iri.)
(b) It seems that there is a dispute among the Tana'im with regard to the types of Maror that one may use. The Tana of the Mishnah here implies that only the five species listed may be used. The Gemara in Sukah seems to follow the opinion of the Tana of the Mishnah here, who says that Maror must be a specific type of herb, the name of which is "Maror." If it has a "Shem Levai," it is no longer "Maror." In contrast, the Gemara here follows the opinion of Acherim that any bitter vegetable may be used for the Mitzvah of Maror.
HALACHAH: What type of Maror should one use for the Mitzvah? The RIF and RAMBAM do not mention the opinion of Acherim. They quote only the five species listed in the Mishnah. It seems that they maintain that the Halachah follows the view of the Mishnah and not Acherim. The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 479:5) rules like this as well; he mentions only the five types of Maror and no more.
However, the Gemara here clearly states that the Halachah follows the opinion of Acherim. Why, then, do the Rif, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch not mention that other types of bitter vegetables may be used?
1. The BI'UR HALACHAH writes that today we are not expert in what vegetables fall into the category of "bitter vegetables." Therefore, we do not use any vegetable other than those that are specifically mentioned in the Mishnah.
2. Perhaps the RIF and RAMBAM understand the Gemara differently. They understand that Acherim do not argue with the Mishnah. Rather, Acherim argue only with the opinions of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, cited immediately before theirs. Rebbi Yehudah says that anything that emits sap qualifies as Maror. Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says that anything that has a whitish color qualifies as Maror. Acherim respond that those are not signs of Maror, because "all vegetables" have both of those signs. Rather, only the five types mentioned in the Mishnah may be used. (M. KORNFELD)
3. Some Rishonim do record the ruling of Acherim, such as the MAHARAM CHALAVAH. Perhaps the Rif and Rambam agree that the Halachah follows the opinion of Acherim. They understand that the Mishnah itself alludes to that opinion when it mentions the word "Maror" in the list of acceptable vegetables. The word "Maror" refers not to a particular species of vegetable (as Rashi explains), but to anything bitter -- as the RE'AH (cited by the RITVA) and ME'IRI explain. Accordingly, when the Rif and Rambam quote the five types mentioned in the Mishnah, their list indeed includes any bitter vegetable, because that is the definition of "Maror."
The REMA explicitly writes that a person who does not have any of these five types may use any other type of Maror. The authorities agree that, b'Di'eved, if one does not have any of the five types mentioned in the Mishnah, he may use any bitter vegetable.
39b----------------------------------------39b
3) FULFILLING THE MITZVAH WITH MAROR OF "MA'ASER SHENI"
QUESTION: The Gemara questions whether one may fulfill the Mitzvah of Maror by eating Maror of Ma'aser Sheni. Even though one may not eat Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Matzah (because Ma'aser Sheni may not be eaten in all places), perhaps Matzah is difference, since the Mitzvah is mid'Oraisa, while Maror is mid'Rabanan. RASHI explains that the Gemara means that the Mitzvah to separate Ma'aser Sheni from wheat is mid'Oraisa, and therefore the law is more stringent with regard to using Ma'aser Sheni for the Mitzvah of Matzah. The obligation to separate Ma'aser Sheni from vegetables (Maror), however, is mid'Rabanan, and thus perhaps Maror of Ma'aser Sheni may be used.
RASHI earlier (36b, DH Af Ma'aser Sheni) writes with regard to Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni that, mid'Oraisa, the wheat of Ma'aser Sheni may be redeemed and eaten in all places, because the law of "Mechitzos Liklot" is only mid'Rabanan (see Insights to Pesachim 36:2). According to Rashi, the law that Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni may not be eaten in all places is also only mid'Rabanan! Why, then, does the Gemara suggest that Maror is different because the obligation to separate Ma'aser Sheni from vegetables is mid'Rabanan? In both cases -- Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni and Maror of Ma'aser Sheni -- it is only a Halachah mid'Rabanan that prevents the produce from being eaten in all places. (OR CHADASH)
ANSWER: Perhaps Rashi understands the Gemara as follows. The Gemara asks that since the requirement to separate Ma'aser from vegetables is mid'Rabanan, and the law of "Mechitzos Liklot" is mid'Rabanan, perhaps the Rabanan did not institute "Mechitzos Liklot" at all for Ma'aser of vegetables. Accordingly, Ma'aser Sheni of vegetables may be eaten in all places, even mid'Rabanan. This is the Gemara's intention when it asks whether "k'Ein d'Oraisa Takun" -- did the Rabanan institute "Mechitzos Liklot" even for Ma'aser of vegetables which is mid'Rabanan? If they did make such an enactment, then those vegetables may not be eaten in all places, and thus perhaps one may not fulfill his obligation to eat Maror with those vegetables. (M. KORNFELD)