Clarification: This refers to a Se'udas Milah, about which the Medrash says tha it saves a person from the Din of Gehinom and the wedding feast of a Talmid-Chacham or of the daughter of a Kohen to a Kohen.

Clarification (cont.): And it speaks specifically where i is atended by decent people ...

Proof: As the Gemara says in Sanhedrin (Daf 23.) 'The Chachamim of Yerushalayim would not participate in a Se'udah unless they knew with whom they were sitting.

Clarification: If he did not learn from him ...

Conclusion: Because if he did, the Mishnah in Avos (Perek 6) quotes David who referred to Achitofel as his Rebbe, his master, even though he only learned from him two things.

Question: Why do we Pasken like the Bas Kol of Beis Hillel, but not like that of Rebbi Eliezer?

Answer: Because here Beis Hillel were the majority, only Beis Shamai were sharper ...

Answer cont.): Whereas there the Bas Kol went against the majority, so we do not follow it ...

Conclusion: In fact, the Bas Kol only went out in his (Rebbi Eliezer's) honor, as the Gemara says there 'Let them prove me right from Heaven!').

Question: How can the Gemara then establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehoshua, seeing as Rebbi Yehoshua was referring to the Bas Kol of Rebbi Eliezer?

Answer: That is because, his declaration 'Ein Mashgichin be'Bas Kol!' because of 'Lo ba'Shamayim Hi' implies that we never follow a Bas Kol.

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains 'vegetables'.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since the Tana does not specifically say so, like it will shortly say 'They brought before him Matzah'.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems like the explanation of Rabeinu Chananel - that 'They brought the table before him', since one does not bring in the table until after Kidush, and the lettuce is on the table.

Clarification: This means to eat Chazeres (lettuce) by dipping ...

Precedent #1: Like we learned 'The Shamash dips into the intestines'.

Precedent #1: And 'One dips into the vegetables'.

Precedent #2: And the Pasuk too, speaks in this way, when it says (in Yirmiyah 4) "If you paint your eyes into mascara".

Explanation #1: The Rashbam explains that this dipping is not done into Charoses, which has not yet been brought ...

Proof: As we learn in the Seifa 'They brought before him Matzah, lettuce and Charoses'.

Refutation #1: This is no proof however, seeing as it mentions lettuce here, yet it repeats it in the Seifa?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, one needs to dip the lettuce into the Charoses, on account of the Kafa (the poison or the worm)?

Concession: But where the first Tivul is performed with other vegetables, one does not require Charoses, since either vinegar or salt-water will suffice, as was the custom of Rabeinu Tam.

Reason #1: a. Because the Gemara says that Charoses comes to kill the Kafa, and there is no Kafa other than in Maror.

Reason #2): And certainly according to R. Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, who maintains that Charoses comes to commemorate the Pasuk in Sh'mos (1) "And they embittered their lives with cement ... ".

Reason #3: And b. because the concept of Mitzvah does not apply, since it only comes as a recognition.

Refuting Those Who Disagree: And this does not conform with ha'Rav Yosef who wrote in connection with his Seider that 'one should dip in Charoses'. And this is also the opinion of R. Shlomoh and R. Sh'mayah.

Clarification: The Tana refers to the Maror that one eats after the Matzah 'Parperes'.

Meaning: Perperes also means something that draws on the food (like the Mishnah in Avos 'Parpera'os la'Chochmah').

Reason: Since vegetables bring on an apetite.

Conclusion: And since it calls Maror 'Parperes ha'Pas, the Mishnah is hinting that Matzah precedes Maror, as the Gemara explains.

Clarification: Because they removed the table from in front of the person reciting the Hagadah and giving the Seider, the Tana says 'They brought before the Matzah'.

Reason: Removing the table is in so that the son should ask (why), and the father answers him that they will bring the table back in order to perform the second dipping.

Clarification (cont.): That is when the son asks why we dip in twice?

Clarification (cont.): Straight after removing the table one returns it with the Matzah and Maror on it, since one needs to recite in the Hagadah 'This Matzah ...' and 'This Maror' ... '.

Source: Just as the Gemara said earlier (Daf 36.) and will say later (Daf 115:) (It is called) 'Lechem Oni' - because one recites over it many words.

Question: Why does the Charoses, which is R'shus, not negate the Chazeres (Maror) of Mitzvah?

Answer: Since the Mitzvah of Maror was instituted specifically to be dipped in Charoses, on account of the Kafa (the poison or the worm), it cannot be negated by it.

Clarification: Resh Lakish holds that the Mishnah speaks S'tam - even if one is able to find other vegetables, one does not need to bother to search for them, but one may go ahead and perform the two dippings with Maror.

Reason: Because 'Mitzvos require Kavanah'.

Clarification (cont.): And 'since it is not the time (of Maror) ... ' and 'one eats them with the B'rachah of "Borei P'ri ha'Adamah" ' ...

Clarification (cont.): Meaning that one did not recite ' ... al Achilas Maror' ...

Clarification (cont.): Perhaps he did not have Kavanah' - 'Perhaps' is La'v Davka, because he definitely did not have Kavanah for Maror, since the Mitzvah is only due when one performs the second Tivul after the Matzah.

Clarification (cont.): 'Consequently, one needs to dip a second time' - and to recite the B'rachah ' ... al Achilas Maror'.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not mention 'and to recite the B'rachah' ...

Answer: Because of Rav Chisda, who holds in the Sugya that one recites 'al Achilas Maror' at the first Tivul.

Clarification (cont.): And when the Gemara says that 'one eats it with "Borei ha'Adamah" ' - it means that one is not eating it in order to fulfil the Mitzvah of Maror, but in order to be Yotzei 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah'.

Clarification (cont.): 'Because if Mitzvos would not require then one be Yotzei the Chiyuv of Maror with the first dipping.

Implied Question: Even though it was eaten before the Matzah - and the Torah writes ' ... al Matzos u'Merorim ... "?

Answer: The order is not crucial.

Clarification (cont.): 'Why does one need two dippings' (in Maror)? One should rather have looked for other vegetables for the 'recognition' (to encourage the children to ask) of the first dipping, and then eaten Maror by the second dipping after the Matzah?

Conclusion: And the Gemara refutes the proof in that really Mitzvos do not require Kavanah, and one does look for other vegetables because of 'recognition', and in order to eat the Maror after the Matzah.

Conclusion (cont.): And our Mishnah is teaching us that, where no other vegetables are available, even if one uses Maror one dips twice, once, in order to eat the Maror in the correct manner, and once because of 'recognition' ...

Conclusion (cont.): And that we do not desist from eating Maror until the end, and not to worry about 'recognition'.

Clarification: But one is not Yotzei with Vaday ...

Rejected Question: Even though Ma'aser on vegetables is (also) de'Rabbanan, as the Gemara says in 'Kil Sha'ah (above, 35: [in connection with Matzah]) 'But not with Tevel'. And the Gemara there establishes it by Tevel de'Rabbanan; and Maror is compared to Matzah.

Reason for D'mai: And one is also Yotzei Matzah with D'mai ... because if one wanted, one could declare one property Hefker and, in which case one would able to eat it.

Reason for Tevel de'Rabbanan: And the reason that they were stringent by Vaday is because Tevel d'Oraysa the Gemara learns there (Ibid.) from "Lo Yochal alav Chametz" - to preclude this case, which is Asur because of Bal Tochal Tevel', and Matzah is compared to Chametz (See Maharsha).

Clarification: This is a Kashya on Resh Lakish.

Query: Even though Resh Lakish extrapolated from the Mishnah ...

Answer to Query: The Mishnah is speaking specifically where one does not have other vegetables.

Gemara's Conclusion: And the Gemara answers that it is a Machlokes Tana'im ...

Conclusion: And now that there is a Tana who holds like Resh Lakish, he is justified in extrapolating from the Mishnah that Mitzvos Tzerochos Kavanah.

Conclusion (cont.): Since it probably speaks in all cases, even where there are other vegetables.

Clarification: And how much more so two kinds of meat.)

Reason: Because it does not reach the stage of Chimutz, it only (becomes foul and) smells.

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Chananel explains - one roasted, to commemorate the Pesach; the other cooked, to commemorate the Chagigah.

Refutation: But this is not correct, seeing as we Pasken like ben Teima (above on Daf 70.) who holds that (also) 'the Chagigah may only be eaten roasted'.

Source: Since the Mishnah concurs with him.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that both dishes should be cooked

Proof: And this is also the implication of 'Tavshilin'.

Halachah: When the fourteenth falls on Shabbos, only one cooked thing is required, since the Chagigah of the fourteenth does not override Shabbos.

Refutation: The Ri however says that one should not differentiate ...

Reason #1: Since, if one would drop the second cooked thing, it would convey the impression that it is obligatory (and not just a custom).

Reason #2: And Besides, there is reason to suspect that one will continue not to not prepare two cooked things on other years too.

Conclusion: In any event, there is nothing to worry about if one prepares two cooked dishes even where it is not necessary.

Reason: Since there is no reason to worry that, perhaps the Beis-ha'Mikdash will be rebuilt, and people will say 'Last year we commemorated the Chagigah on Shabbos, this year too, let us bring it on Shabbos!'

Reason (cont.): This is because Korbanos are handed over to people who keen to perform Mitzvos. Moreover, when the Beis-ha'Mikdash is rebuilt, Moshe and Aharon will be with us, so nobody will make a mistake.

Nevertheless: On the other hand, one does not warn somebody who desists from preparing two cooked dishes to prepare them.

Clarification: And Rav Huna concurs with Resh Lakish, who requires Kavanah ...

Conclusion: Consequently, even if one has other vegetables, one is permitted to use Maror for the two dippings.