Clarification: Rav Chisda also appears to hold that one needs Kavanah.

Clarification (cont.): Even though he holds that it is not correct to recite a B'rachah over the second dipping, seeing as 'one has already eaten one's fill'.

Source: Because if he were to hold 'Ein Tzerichos Kavanah', he should have specifically said that (one does not recite a Br'achah), because one has already been Yotzei with the first dipping, and that if one were to recite a B'rachah by the second one, it would be a B'rachah Levatalah.

Clarification (cont.): One is also not Chayav to search for other vegetables, according to Rav Chisda ...

Clarification (cont.): And according to him, one recites over the first dipping 'Al Achilas Maror'.

Implied Question: Even though the basic Mitzvah of Maror one only fulfils at the second dipping after the Matzah.

Answer: Still, the B'rachah that one recites by the first dipping covers the second dipping, since one ate a little of it at that point.

Precedent: It is similar to the B'rachah over the Shofar that one recites over the first Teki'os ('the Teki'os di'Meyushav'), which cover the B'rachos over the second Teki'os ('the Teki'os di'Me'umad'), which are the main Teki'os, since they are blown when one recites the B'rachos.

Conclusion: It now transpires that all these Amora'im hold that 'Mitzvos require Kavanah'.

Conclusion (cont.): In fact, the Mesader ha'Shas holds like that too, since he sees fit to Pasken like Rav Chisda.

Source: Now if Mitzvos did not require Kavanah, it would be obvious that one does not recite a B'rachah at the second Tivul, seeing as even if one had not recited a B'rachah at the first Tivul, one would still have been Yotzei, in which case to recite a B'rachah again would be a B'rachah le'Vatalah.

Halachah: And the Halachah is not like the father of Shmuel, who holds in Perek Ra'uhu Beis-Din (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 28.) 'Ein Tzerichos Kavanah', since he says that if a person is forced to eat Matzah, he is Yotzei, and the Gemara establishes the case where Persians forced him to eat.

Final Point: Th Gemara there does not cite as proof the case of someone who ate without Kavanah - because when it comes to eating, it does not require Kavanah in the way that Tefilah and Teki'ah do.

Final Point (cont.): And by the same token, the Gemara here does not cite the Beraisos that it cites there (that Mitzvos require Kavanah), because Tefilah and Teki'ah require more Kavanah, as Tosfos explained.

Clarification: It seems that it is not necessary to recite 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah'.

Implied Question: Even though Hagadah is an interruption, as Tosfos explained above, and one is therefore not Yotzei (the B'rachah over Maror) with the B'rachah over the first dipping?

Answer (Explanation #1): Nevertheless, the B'rachah of 'ha'Motzi' covers it, since it falls under the category of 'Things that are brought during the meal to enhance the meal, seeing a vegetables bring on an appetite.

Clarification (cont.): And Maror is also referred to as 'Parperes ha'Pas'.

Proof: And so the Gemara says in 'Keitzad Mevorchin' (B'rachos, Daf 42.) 'Beirach al ha'Pas, Patar es ha'Parperes'.

Proof (cont.): 'Parperes' refers to things that bring on an appetite, such as small fish, dates and vegetables, which they used to eat during the meal between courses.

Conclusion: And that is why it (bread) covers the Parperes, because it comes in the form of a necessity, since through it, one eats more.

Refutation: Nor can one define Parperes as something that comes to accompany the bread (which Maror does not), since that is included in what the Mishnah says there that 'One recites a B'rachah over the Ikar and is exempt from what is secondary'.

Proof #1: Also Rebbi Chiya says there that 'Bread covers all kinds of food'.

Proof #2: And Rav Papa too, rules there the Halachah that 'whatever comes during the meal on account of the meal - with regard to Parperes, as we just explained, does not require a B'rachah, either before or afterwards.

Proof #2 (cont.): Whereas whatever comes not on account of the meal during the meal, such as figs and grapes, which do not come to bring on an appetite or to eat with the bread, but purely for pleasure, require a B'rachah beforehand but not afterwards'.

Explanation #2: Rav Yosef Tuv Ileim explains that the other vegetables come at the beginning in order to exempt the lettuce from its appropriate B'rachah, and one cannot recite two B'rachos over one thing.

Refutation #1: This is not correct however, since they come as a 'Heker' and the principle of 'Chavilos' (See Maharsha) does not apply here, only by two different Mitzvos.

Refutation #2: Moreover, according to Rav Chisda, one recites both B'rachos over the lettuce.

Refutation #3: Moreover, this implies that bread does not exempt it?

Answer to Previous Question: Perhaps he does not consider the lettuce Parperes ha'Pas, since one only eats a k'Zayis of it.

Clarification: How much more so if Maror would not even be de'Rabbanan, that it would negate the Matzah, as is evident later.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in 'ha'Kometz' (Menachos, Daf 23:) permits spiced Matzah, the reason that the spices do not negate is ...

Answer: Because there is only very little of it.

Refutation: Not like those who, in the name of Rashi, forbid spiced Matzos even on the last days of Pesach, because they cause it to rise.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi's explanation tha Rav Ashi amends the words of Rebbi Yochanan ...

Refutation: Because it is preferable to amend a Beraisa, even to omit words, like we amend many Beraisos, than amending the words of Rebbi Yochanan.

Explanation #2: Rav Ashi however, queries the B'nei Yeshivah, who explains that the Rabbanan forbid making a sandwich ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because if they did, what does the 'Afilu' mean?

Conclusion: So what they really hold is the Mitzvah can be fulfilled either way, either by means of a sandwich or each one separately ...

Conclusion (cont.): And they argue with Hillel, who requires specifically a sandwich.

Conclusion (cont.): And the Rabbanan say 'Afilu' on account of Hillel.

Question #1: How do we know that Hillel holds that Mitzvos do not negate each other? Perhaps it is difference here, since the Pasuk revealed (that this is how must eat them)?

Question #2: Moreover, according to the Rabbanan too, 'Ein Mevatlos', seeing as one is Yotzei even if one makes a sandwich?

Answer: Since Hillel holds that Lechatchilah one needs to make a sandwich, and Bedi'eved one is Yotzei even if does not, one must say that normally, they do not negate one another; because if they did, we would need the Pasuk here to permit a sandwich, to teach us that here, they do not negate one another.

Conclusion: Consequently, according to the Rabbanan, who establish the Pasuk by Bedi'eved, we can (indeed) extrapolate that generally, they do negate each other, and here it is different, since the Torah reveals that it is permitted to eat them together.

Reason: If one were to eat them together as a sandwich, Maror de'Rabbanan would negate the Matzah ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas one would eat the Matzah without Maror first, when one would later eat them together, the Matzah, which is now R'shus, would negate the Maror de'Rabbanan.

What One Might Do: If however, we ruled like Hillel, we would do the following: first Matzah on its own, then Matzah and Marror as a sandwich ...

Reason: Because, since, mi'de'Rabbanan, one needs to eat Matzos as a sandwich, it is a de'Rabbanan together with a de'Rabbanan.

Implied Question: Rashi explains that although we Pasken in Chulin (Daf 106.) that 'Someone who washes his hands for fruit is conceited ...

Answer (Explanation #1): Since there is liquid, and we Pasken in Parah (8:7) that 'Whatever invalidates T'rumah, renders liquid Tamei a Rishon', the fruit is like bread, and one needs to wash one's hands like one does for bread (See Maharsha).

Refutation #1: This is not correct however, because if so, when the Gemara asks why we need to wash, seeing as one doesn't touch it?, what difference does that make?

Refutation #1 (cont.): Even if he didn't touch it, seeing as when all's said and done, he ate something that is dipped into a liquid, it is not worse than someone who eats from someone who is feeding him, who nevertheless needs to wash his hands?

Refutation #2: Moreover, did the questioner not know that one needs to suspect that maybe he will touch, as Rav Papa says (on Amud Beis)?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that this dipping is not due to Kedushah and Neki'us (spiritual cleanliness), but in order not to render the liquid a Rishon, in which case it will be forbidden to drink it, because it renders one's body Pasul ...

Source: As we learned in the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 33.) 'Someone who Shechts and no blood emerged ... ', but if blood did emerge, it may not be eaten with Tamei hand (See Maharsha).

Proof: And the Gemara also says regarding sitting down to drink before the meal (B'rachos, Daf 43.) that 'when they brought them wine, each participant washed one hand', in order that the wine should not become Tamei and render him Pasul.

Proof (cont.): Only there washing one hand sufficed (cont. on Amud Beis).

Proof (cont.): Whereas the Maror (i.e. the vegetables), one touches with both hands.

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara says (there) 'They sat down to eat, and they brought them water', because even though they already washed one hand, one now washes both hands.

Implied Question: Even though the Mishnah says in Yadayim (2:1) that 'If one washed one's hand in one go, it is Tahor?'

Answer: One nevertheless needs to wash them both, because the first washing was not on account of Kedushah.

Conclusion: Which explains why the questioner thought that with that washing, we do not decree that perhaps one touched (See Maharsha),

Halachah: According to this, it would seem that one does not recite a B'rachah over this washing ...

Reason #1: Since the Mitzvah to listen to the words of Rebbi Elazar ben Arach (the source for the B'rachah 'Al Netilas Yadayim') does not apply here.

Reason #2: And certainly we, who are not particular not to render ourselves Tamei and not to eat Tamei foods, in which case we do need that washing.

Conclusion: Consequently, anybody who does recite it, recites a B'rachah Levatalah.

Conclusion: The instruction in all the Hagados are that one needs to recite a B'rachah over this washing, but this is not correct as Tosfos explained.

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel defines it as a worm ...

Source: As we learned in a Beraisa (Tosefta in T'rumos, Perek 7) 'The worm in the root of an olive-tree and the vine, and the Kafa in vegetables, and the Yavchushin (a red insect) in wine and vinegar, are all permitted.

Question: We can ask from here on Shmuel, who says at the end of 'Eilu T'reifos' (Chulin, Daf 67.) 'Hops that became wormy whilst they are still attached are forbidden because of "Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz"?

Answer: Shmuel however, holds like another Beraisa which is quoted there.

Question #1: Why does the Gemara there not cite the Beraisa here?

Question #2: Furthermore, how did Shmuel eat Maror on Pesach?

Suggested Answer: And if you will suggest that he examined it to make sure that there were no worms ...

Refutation: If there are no worms, why does one then require Charoses?

Answer: Perhaps Shmuel relied on the majority of vegetables, that do not contain Kafa.

Conclusion: And on account of the danger inherent in Kafa, we are wary of the minority, and require Charoses.

Clarification: 'be'Tivul Sheini' is La'av Davka, since one does it after 'ha'Motzi', which requires washing.

Conclusion: And it only mentions 'Tivul Sheini' because of Tivul Rishon, and the washing in fact, also comes for the need of the dipping.

Question: Why does one need this reason, why not say that it is because the first washing was not due to Kedushah, but only so that one should not render the liquid Tamei?

Answer: The Gemara thought that since one washed one's hands, it ought to help even for bread, since Chulin does not require Kavanah. There this reason is necessary.

Question: Seeing as this Maror is not subject to a Mitzvah mi'de'Rabbanan, why is it not Mevatel the Matzah with which it is eaten?

Answer: Bitul applies only where one chews them together, because then the taste of one of them negates that of the other. But when they are both whole, even if one of them comprises more than the other, it is not Mevatel it.

Clarification: The reason apparently is so that one eats it immediately after the B'rachah, since this B'rachah is on account of an obligation.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas throughout the year, where the B'rachah does not come on account of an obligation, it is not necessary to eat immediately after the B'rachah.

Clarification: Davka their tables which were small, but ours which are large, it would be a great bother to take it out. Consequently, the Minhag is to remove the Seider-plate to the other side, which is akin to removing the table.

Minhag: And as for the Minhag to remove the two cooked items, whilst lifting up the Seider-plate, that is in order it should not seem as if one is declaring Kodshim outside the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Support: And so R. Yosef states in his Hagadah 'One removes from the plate the two cooked items, lifts up the plate and recites "Ha Lachma Anya" '.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because when it says (in the Hagadah) that 'One does not need to lift up the Basar', that applies exclusively to where one recites 'Pesach she'Hayu Avoseinu Ochlin', because that would seem like eating Kodshim (ba'Chutz).

Clarification: And this will prompt him to ask the other questions.

Clarification (cont.): But asking why one is removing the table will not exempt him from saying the 'Mah Nishtanah'.

Conclusion: And in the case of Abaye (who asked that), the Gemara only cites the beginning of his questioning.