..........

With regard to a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, Rav said that the proper order of the blessings follows the acronym

Yod, Kuf, Nun, Heh:

Yayin (wine)

Kiddush (sanctifying the day)

Ner (candle)

Havdalah

and Shmuel said the proper order is:

Yod, Nun, Heh, Kuf:

Yayin (wine)

Ner (candle)

Havdalah

Kiddush (sanctifying the day)

And Rabbah said that the correct order is Yod, Heh, Nun, Kuf:

Yayin (wine),

Havdala

Ner (candle)

Kiddush

And Levi said the order is

Kuf, Nun, Yod, Heh:

Kiddush,

Ner (candle)

Yayin (wine)

Havdalah

And the Rabbis say the order is

Kuf, Yod, Nun, Heh:

Kiddush,

Yayin (wine)

Ner (candle)

Havdalah.

Mar, son of Rabbana, said the order is Nun, Kuf, Yod, Heh:

Ner (candle)

Kiddush

Yayin (wine)

Havdalah.

The Sage named Marta said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua that the proper order is Nun, Heh, Yod, Kuf:

Ner (candle)

Yayin (wine)

Havdalah

Kiddush

With regard to this issue, the father of Shmuel, Abba ben Abba, sent a letter to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi:

Teach us, our Rabbi. How should one recite the order of havdalah when a Festival occurs after Shabbat?

Rabbi (Yehudah HaNasi) sent him the following response: This is what Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yossi, said, who said it in the name of his father, who himself said it in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya:

The proper order of the blessings is

Nun, Heh, Yod, Kuf:

Ner (candle)

Havdalah,

Yayin (wine), and

Kiddush.

Rabbi Ḥanina said that the following parable serves to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: This is comparable to a king who is exiting a city and a governor is entering. Etiquette dictates that the inhabitants of the city first escort the king out of the city to take leave of him in a dignified fashion, and afterward they go out to greet the governor. Similarly, one should first recite Havdalah, to take leave of Shabbat, and only then recite Kiddush over the Festival, whose sanctity is lesser than that of Shabbat.

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? What is the proper order of the blessings? The Amoraim accept Rav’s opinion that one should recite Kiddush before Havdalah; however, they disagree about the blessing of time, which is generally relevant in such cases and which Rav did not address.

Abaye said that the proper order is:

Yod, Kuf, Zayin, Nun, heh:

Yayin (the blessing over wine),

Kiddush,

Z'man (the blessing for time),

Ner (the blessing over the candle), and Havdalah.

And Rava said the order is:

Yod, Kuf, Nun, Heh, Zayin:

Yayin (the blessing over wine),

Kiddush,

Ner (the blessing over the candle),

Havdalah, and

Z'man (the blessing for time),

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.

....

.......

We learned in the Mishnah that even the poorest of Jews should not eat until he reclines. It was stated that Amoraim discussed the requirement to recline.

Everyone agrees that matzah requires reclining, i.e., one must recline when eating matzah, and maror (bitter herbs) do not require reclining.

With regard to wine, it was stated in the name of Rav Nachman that wine requires reclining, and it was also stated in the name of Rav Nachman that wine does not require reclining.

The Gemara explains: And these two statements do not disagree with each other:

This statement is referring to the first two cups,

and that statement is referring to the last two cups.

However, it was not clear which two cups require reclining according to Rav Nachman.

Some say the explanation in this manner and some say it in that manner.

The Gemara elaborates: Some say it in this manner, that the first two cups require reclining, as it is now that freedom begins. Since reclining is a sign of freedom, while discussing the exodus from Egypt it is appropriate to drink while reclining. By contrast, the last two cups do not require reclining, because what was already was. In other words, by this point one has completed the discussion of the Exodus and has reached the latter stages of the seder.

And some say it in that manner and claim that on the contrary, the last two cups require reclining, as it is at that time that there is freedom. However, the first two cups do not require reclining, as one still says: We were slaves. The Gemara concludes: Now that it was stated so, and it was stated so, i.e., there are two conflicting opinions and it cannot be proven which two cups require reclining, both these sets of cups and those require reclining.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of reclining. Lying on one’s back is not called reclining.

Reclining to the right is not called reclining, as free people do not recline in this manner. People prefer to recline on their left and use their right hand to eat, whereas they find it more difficult to eat the other way.

And not only that, but if one reclines to the right, perhaps the windpipe will precede the esophagus. The food will enter the windpipe, and one will come into danger of choking.

.........

The Sages taught in a Baraita:

All are obligated in these 4 cups, including men, women, and children.

Rabbi Yehudah said: What benefit do children receive from wine? They do not enjoy it. Rather, one distributes to them

roasted grains and nuts on Passover eve, so that they will not sleep and also so they will ask the four questions at night.

They said about Rabbi Akiva that he would distribute roasted grains and nuts to children on Passover eve, so that they would not sleep and so they would ask.

It was taught in a Baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: One grabs the matzot on the nights of Passover. One should eat them very quickly on account of the children, so that, due to the hasty consumption of the meal, they will not sleep and they will inquire into the meaning of this unusual practice.

It was taught in a Baraita: They said about Rabbi Akiva that in all his days he never said to his students that the time had come to arise from their learning in the study hall. Instead, he would continue to teach as long as they were willing to listen. This was true except for the eves of Passover and the eve of Yom Kippur, when he would stop teaching.

The Gemara explains the reasons for these exceptions: On the eve of Passover, he would stop on account of the children, so that they would go to sleep during the day, so that they would not be tired and sleep at night.

And on the eve of Yom Kippur, he would stop so that his students would remember to feed their children.

The Sages taught: A man is obligated to gladden his children and the members of his household on a Festival, as it is stated: “And you shall rejoice on your Festival, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow that are within your gates” (Deuteronomy 16:14). With what should one make them rejoice? With wine. Rabbi Yehuda says: One should enable each member of his household to rejoice with an item that pleases them, men with what is fit for them and women with what is fit for them.

Rabbi Yehudah elaborates: Men with what is fit for them, i.e., with wine. And as for the women, with what should one cause them to rejoice?

Rav Yosef teaches: One should delight them with new clothes, in Babylonia with colored clothes and in Eretz Yisrael with the pressed linen clothes that are manufactured there.

It was taught in a Baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When the Temple is standing, rejoicing is only through the eating of sacrificial meat, as it is stated: “And you shall sacrifice peace-offerings and you shall eat there and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 27:7). And now that the Temple is not standing and one cannot eat sacrificial meat, he can fulfill the mitzvah of rejoicing on a Festival only by drinking wine, as it is stated: “And wine that gladdens the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15).

................................

........

MISHNAH:

The Tanna describes the beginning of the Passover Seder: The attendants poured the wine of the first cup for the leader of the seder.

Beyt Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the sanctification of the day, (i.e., the kiddush for the Festival: "Who blesses Israel and the Festivals"/ "M'kadesh Yisrael v'ha-z'manim), and thereafter he recites the blessing over the wine (i.e. "Who creates fruit of the vine"/ "Borey p'ri ha-gafen.")

And Beyt Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine (i.e. "Who creates fruit of the vine"/ "Borey p'ri ha-gafen.") and thereafter recites the blessing sanctifying the day ("Who blesses Israel and the Festivals"/ "M'kadesh Yisrael v'ha-z'manim)

GEMARA:

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: These are the matters of dispute between Beyt Shammai and Beyt Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal:

Beyt Shammai say: When reciting kiddush over wine, one recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and thereafter recites a blessing over the wine, because the day causes the wine to come before the meal.

And Beyt Shammai offer an additional reason. The day has already been sanctified and the wine has not yet come.

And Beyt Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine first and then afterwards, recites a blessing over the day, because the wine causes kiddush to be recited. Since one does not recite kiddush without wine or bread, clearly the wine is the primary feature of the ritual.

Alternatively (i.e. Beyt Hillel give an alternative reason for blessing wine before sanctifying the day), the blessing over wine is recited frequently and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and there is a general principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice coincide, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice ("Tadir v'she-eyno tadir, tadir kodem.")

The Tosefta concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beyt Hillel.

The Gemara asks:

What is "alternatively"? Why did Beyt Hillel cite an additional reason?

The Gemara explains: And if you say that there Beyt Shammai cite two reasons, and here Beyt Hillel offer only one; therefore, Beyt Hillel said they are two reasons here too: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice coincide, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice.

It was taught in the Tosefta: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beyt Hillel.

The Gemara comments:

It is obvious that this is so, as a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beyt Hillel. Why was it necessary for the Tosefta to state that in this particular case the halakha is in accordance with their opinion?

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that this Tosefta was taught before the Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that principle. And if you wish, say instead that this statement was indeed issued after the Divine Voice emerged, and the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that one disregards a Divine Voice when deciding halakha. Just as Rabbi Yehoshua disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beyt Hillel. Therefore, it was necessary to state that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Beyt Hillel here.

....................................

......

MISHNAH:

The attendants brought vegetables before the leader of the seder prior to the meal, if there were no other vegetables on the table. He dips the chazeret into water or vinegar, to taste some food before he reaches the dessert of the bread, i.e., the bitter herbs, which were eaten after the matzah. They brought before him matzah and chazeret and charoset, and at least two cooked dishes in honor of the Festival. The Tanna comments that this was the practice, although eating charoset is not a mitzvah, but merely a custom.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok says: Actually, it is a mitzvah to eat charoset. And in the period when the Temple stood and they offered the Paschal lamb, they brought before him the body of the Paschal lamb.

GEMARA:

Reish Lakish said: That is to say that mitzvot require intent (kavannah). One who performs a mitzvah must do so with the intent to fulfill his obligation. The proof of this from the Mishnah is that since one does not eat the maror at the time of his obligation to eat bitter herbs, he eats it after reciting only one blessing: "Who creates fruit of the ground" ("Borey p'ri ha-adamah"). And clearly the reason is that perhaps he did not intend to fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs, and therefore he needs to dip it again for the purpose of bitter herbs.

For if it could enter your mind that mitzvot do not require intent, why do you need two dippings? But he has already dipped the lettuce once.

The Gemara rejects this contention: From where do you know that this is the case? Perhaps I can say that actually mitzvot do not require intent. And that which you said, "why do I need two dippings?", perhaps the reason is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children ("heykera l'tinokot"), which will cause them to inquire into the difference between this night and all others.

And if you say: If so, let the Tanna teach us this halakha with regard to other vegetables as well, as there is no obvious reason that lettuce is chosen for this distinction.

In response, I would say that had the Mishnah taught us about other vegetables, I would have said that it is only where there are other vegetables that one requires two dippings, one for the other vegetables and one for the bitter herbs; however, if one has only chazeret, he does not require two dippings, as one dipping is sufficient.

Therefore, the Mishnah teaches us that even if one has just chazeret he requires two dippings, so that there be a conspicuous distinction for the children.

And furthermore, it was taught in a Baraita: On Passover, if one ate vegetables of doubtfully tithed produce, i.e., he bought the vegetables from an ahm ha’aretz, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them without the intent of the mitzvah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them in halves, by eating half an olive-bulk of bitter herbs, pausing, and then eating an additional half an olive-bulk, he has fulfilled his obligation.

And the Gemara adds: With regard to this last case, one who eats an olive-bulk in halves, that is the halakha, provided that he does not pause between eating the first half an olive-bulk and the other half an olive-bulk more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If one takes longer than this amount of time, the two parts of bitter herbs cannot combine.

This Baraita indicates that even if one eats the bitter herbs without intention he has fulfilled his obligation, which presents a difficulty for Reish Lakish.

The Gemara answers: The issue of whether or not mitzvot require intent is a dispute between Tannaim, as it was taught in a Baraita:

Rabbi Yossi says: Although one has already dipped the chazeret once, it is a mitzvah to bring before him chazeret and charoset, and two cooked dishes. Apparently, he lacked intention during his first consumption of lettuce, and therefore he must be given additional lettuce with which to fulfill his obligation.

The Gemara asks: And still this is no conclusive proof, as from where do I know that Rabbi Yossi is of the opinion that mitzvot require intent? Perhaps Rabbi Yossi maintains that mitzvot do not require intent, and the reason that we require two dippings is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children.

The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, for what reason does Rabbi Yossi use the term "mitzvah"? There is no mitzvah from the Torah to provide a distinction to stimulate the curiosity of the young ones. The mitzvah is to eat bitter herbs, and evidently this individual must return and eat them again because he lacked intention the first time.

...................

With regard to the halakha of eating vegetables, the Gemara clarifies:

It is obvious that where there are other vegetables available besides bitter herbs, at the first dipping one recites over the other vegetables the blessing, "Who creates the fruit of the ground" ("borey p'ri ha-adamah") and eats, with the intention of including in this blessing the bitter herbs he will eat later.

And then, at the second dipping, he recites the blessing "Who commanded us over eating bitter herbs" ("v'tzivanu al achilat maror") on the lettuce and eats it. However, what is the halakha where there is only lettuce available? When should one recite each blessing?

Rav Huna said: One initially recites the blessing: "Who creates fruit of the ground" ("borey p'ri ha-adamah") over the bitter herbs (i.e., the lettuce) and eats them. And ultimately, after the matzah, one recites the blessing: "Who commanded us over eating bitter herbs" ("v'tzivanu al achilat maror") over the lettuce and eats it.

Rav Chisda strongly objects to this opinion: Do you think that after one fills his belly with lettuce, he then recites another blessing over it?

Rather, Rav Chisda said: Initially one recites two blessings over the lettuce: "Who creates fruit of the ground" ("borey p'ri ha-adamah"), and: "Who commanded us over eating bitter herbs" ("v'tzivanu al achilat maror"), and he eats it; and later in the seder, he eats lettuce without a blessing.

The Gemara comments: In Sura, they act in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna.

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Chisda.

The Gemara summarizes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Chisda.

The Gemara relates that Rav Acha, son of Rava, would seek other vegetables for Passover to preclude himself from taking sides in the dispute. He first recited only the blessing: "Who creates fruit of the ground" ("Borey p'ri ha-adamah"), and later added the blessing: "Who commanded us over eating bitter herbs" ("v'tzivanu ahl achilat maror"), thereby satisfying all opinions.

Ravina said: Rav Mesharshiya, son of Rav Natan, said to me that (the Amora) Hillel said as follows, citing tradition: A person should NOT wrap matzah and bitter herbs together and eat them. He ruled in this manner because he maintains that today, after the destruction of the Temple, the obligation to eat matzah applies by Torah law, and the obligation to eat bitter herbs without the Paschal lamb applies by rabbinic law. And if one were to wrap them together, the bitter herbs, whose obligation applies by rabbinic law, would come and nullify the matzah, whose obligation applies by Torah law.

And even according to the one who says that mitzvot do not nullify each other, that principle applies only to a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by Torah law with another food whose obligation applies by Torah law, or to a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law with another food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law. However, in a case of a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by Torah law with another food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law, the food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law comes and nullifies the food whose obligation applies by Torah law.

The Gemara asks:

Who is the Tanna that you heard say that mitzvot do not nullify each other? It is Hillel, as it was taught in a Baraita: They said about (the Tanna) Hillel that he would wrap matzah and bitter herbs together and eat them, as it is stated: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that these two foods should be consumed together.

Rabbi Yochanan said:

Hillel’s colleagues disagree with him, as it was taught in another Baraita: I might have thought that one should wrap matzot and bitter herbs together and eat them in the manner that Hillel eats them; therefore the verse states:

“They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,” meaning that one may eat even this (i.e. the matzah) by itself, and that (i.e. the bitter herbs) by themselves.

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this proof:

If so, if the Sages disagree with Hillel and maintain that mitzvot nullify each other, what is the meaning of the word "even" ("afilu") in this Baraita?

This wording indicates that Hillel’s opinion is not rejected entirely, but that one fulfills his obligation even if he eats the items without combining them.

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

This is what this Tanna is teaching: I might have thought that one fulfills his obligation with them only if he wraps matzot and bitter herbs together and eats them in the manner that (the Tanna) Hillel eats them. Therefore, the verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,” i.e., one fulfills his obligation even if he eats the matzah by itself and the bitter herbs by themselves.

The Gemara comments:

Now that the halakha was stated neither in accordance with the opinion of Hillel nor in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, one recites the blessing:

"Who commanded us over eating matzah" ("v'tzivanu al achilat matzah") and eats matzah to fulfill his obligation. And then he recites the blessing: "Who commanded us over eating bitter herbs" ("v'tzivanu al achilat maror"), and eats the lettuce as bitter herbs. And then he eats matzah and lettuce together without a blessing in remembrance of the Temple, in the manner of Hillel in the days of the Temple, who ate matzah and bitter herbs together with the Paschal lamb

.......

/ ......

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said:

Matzah must be placed before each and every participant at the Seder. (In the days of the Talmud, each participant in a Seder would recline on a couch at his own personal table). Likewise, bitter herbs must be placed before each and every participant, and charoset must be placed before each and every participant. And during the seder, before the meal, one shall remove the table only from before the one reciting the Haggadah. (The other tables, which correspond to the seder plates used nowadays, are left in their place).

Rav Huna says: All of the aforementioned foods, i.e., matzah, bitter herbs, and charoset, must also be placed only before the one who recites the Haggadah. When the time comes to eat these items, all the other participants receive a portion from him.

The Gemara comments: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna.

The Gemara asks: Why does one remove the table? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: So that the children will notice that something is unusual and they will ask: Why is this night different from all other nights?

The Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before Rabbah when he was still a child. He saw that they were removing the table from before him, and he said to those removing it: We have not yet eaten, and you are taking the table away from us?

Rabbah said to him: You have exempted us from reciting the questions of: Why is this night different [Ma Nishtanah], as you have already asked what is special about the Seder night.

Shmuel said that the phrase: “The bread of affliction [lechem oni]” (Deuteronomy 16:3) means bread over which one answers [onim] matters, i.e., one recites the Haggadah over matzah.

That was also taught in a Baraita: Leḥem oni is bread over which one answers many matters.

Alternatively, in the verse, “lechem oni” is actually written without a vav, which means a poor person. Just as it is the manner of a poor person to eat a piece of bread, for lack of a whole loaf,/

so too, here he should use a piece of matzah.

.....The Mishnah states that they bring the charoset to the leader of the seder, although eating charoset is not a mitzvah.

The Gemara asks: And if it is not a mitzvah, for what reason does one bring it to the seder?

Rabbi Ami said: It is brought due to the poison in the bitter herbs, which is neutralized by the charoset.

......

The Mishnah states: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that eating charoset is a mitzvah.

The Gemara asks: What is the nature of this mitzvah?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Levi says: It is in remembrance of the apple, as apple is one of the ingredients in charoset. The verse states: “Who is this who comes up from the wilderness, reclining upon her beloved? Under the apple tree I awakened you” (Song of Songs 8:5), which is an allusion to the Jewish people leaving Egypt.

And Rabbi Yochanan says: The charoset is in remembrance of the mortar used by the Jews for their slave labor in Egypt.

Abaye said: Therefore, to fulfill both opinions, one must prepare it tart and one must prepare it thick. One must prepare it tart in remembrance of the apple, and one must prepare it thick in remembrance of the mortar.

It was taught in a Baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The spices used in the charoset are in remembrance of the hay that our forefathers used for building in Egypt, and the charoset itself is in remembrance of the mortar.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: When selling charoset, the small shopkeepers in Jerusalem would say as follows: Come and take spices for yourselves for the mitzvah.

......

.......

MISHNAH: The attendants poured the second cup for the leader of the Seder, and here the son asks his father the questions about the differences between Passover night and a regular night. And if the son does not have the intelligence to ask questions on his own, his father teaches him the questions.

The Mishnah lists the questions:

Why is this night different from all other nights?

As on all other nights we eat leavened bread and matzah as preferred;

on this night, all our bread is matzah.

As on all other nights, we eat other vegetables;

on this night we eat bitter herbs.

As on all other nights, we eat either roasted, stewed, or cooked meat;

but on this night all the meat is the roasted meat of the Paschal lamb.

As on all other nights, we dip the vegetables in a liquid during the meal only once;

however, on this night, we dip twice.

And according to the intelligence and the ability of the son, his father teaches him about the Exodus.

When teaching his son about the Exodus. He begins with the Jewish people’s disgrace ("g'nut") and concludes with their glory ("shevach"). And he expounds from the passage: "Arami oved avi"

"An Aramean tried to destroy my father” (Deuteronomy 26:5) (This is the declaration one recites when presenting his first fruits at the Temple) until he concludes explaining the entire section.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: If his son is wise and knows how to inquire, his son asks him. And if he is not wise, his wife asks him. And if even his wife is not capable of asking or if he has no wife, he asks himself. And even if two Torah scholars who know the halakhot of Passover are sitting together and there is no one else present to pose the questions, they ask each other.

....,,,.

The Mishnah (above) taught:

He begins with the Jewish people’s disgrace ("g'nut") and concludes with their glory ("shevach").

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term "disgrace" (g'nut)?

Rav said that one should begin by saying: "At first our forefathers were idol worshippers" ("Mi-t'chilah ovdey avodah zarah hayu avoteynu"), before concluding with words of glory.

And Shmuel said: The disgrace ("g'nut") with which one should begin his answer is: "We were slaves" ("Avadim hayinu")

..........

......

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel would say: Anyone who did not say

...continued from bottom of 116a:

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel would say: Anyone who did not say/ these three matters on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation: The Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs.

When one mentions these matters, he must elaborate and explain them:

The Paschal lamb is brought because the Omnipresent passed over [pasach] the houses of our forefathers in Egypt, as it is stated: “That you shall say: It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Paschal offering for He passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses” (Exodus 12:27).

Rabban Gamliel continues to explain: The reason for matzah is because our forefathers were redeemed from Egypt, as it is stated: “And they baked the dough that they took out of Egypt as cakes of matzot, for it was not leavened, as they were thrust out of Egypt and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual” (Exodus 12:39).

The reason for bitter herbs is because the Egyptians embittered our forefathers’ lives in Egypt, as it is stated: “And they embittered their lives with hard service, in mortar and in brick; in all manner of service in the field, all the service that they made them serve was with rigor” (Exodus 1:14).

The Tanna of the Mishnah further states: In each and every generation a person must view himself as though he personally left Egypt, as it is stated: “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). In every generation, each person must say: “This which the Lord did for me,” and not: This which the Lord did for my ancestors.

The Mishnah continues with the text of the Haggadah. Therefore we are obligated to thank, praise, glorify, extol, exalt, honor, bless, revere, and laud [lekales] the One who performed for our forefathers and for us all these miracles: He took us out from slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, from mourning to a Festival, from darkness to a great light, and from enslavement to redemption. And we will say before Him: Halleluyah....

.......

MISHNAH: One does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of afikoman?

Rav said: It means that a member of a group that ate the Paschal lamb together should not leave that group to join another group. One who joined one group for the Paschal lamb may not leave and take food with him. (According to this interpretation, afikoman is derived from the phrase "afiku minaycho"="take out the vessels".) The reason for this prohibition is that people might remove the Paschal lamb to another location after they had begun to eat it elsewhere. This is prohibited, as the Paschal lamb must be eaten in a single location by one group.

And Shmuel said: It means that one may not eat dessert after the meal, like mushrooms for me, and chicks for Abba, Rav. It was customary for them to eat delicacies after the meal. (According to this interpreation afikoman is derived from the phrase "afiku minei"="bring out a variety of types of sweets.")

And Rav Ḥanina bar Sheila and Rabbi Yochanan say: Afikoman refers to foods such as dates, roasted grains, and nuts, which are eaten during the meal.

It was taught in a Baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan: One does not conclude by eating after the Paschal lamb foods such as dates, roasted grains, and nuts.

Rav Yehudah said that Shmuel said an additional halakha: Nowadays, when we have no Paschal lamb, one does not conclude after matzah with an afikoman.

The Gemara asks: We learned in the Mishnah that one does not conclude after the Paschal lamb with an afikoman

The Gemara infers from the Mishnah:

It is after the Paschal lamb that one may not conclude with an afikoman; however, after matzah, one may conclude with an afikoman.

This statement of the Mishnah apparently contradicts Shmuel’s ruling.

The Gemara rejects this contention: That is an incorrect inference, as the Mishnah is stated in the style of: "Needless to say."

("La mi-baya kaamar").

The Mishnah should be understood as follows: Needless to say that one may not conclude with an afikoman after eating matzah, as the taste of matzah is slight. If one eats anything else afterward, the taste of the matzah will dissipate. However, after the Paschal lamb, which has a strong taste that is not easily removed, one might think that we have no problem with it. Therefore, the Mishnah teaches us that it is prohibited to conclude with an afikoman after the Paschal lamb as well.

............

................................

MISHNAH: If one recited the blessing over the Paschal lamb (which is: "Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the Paschal lamb"), he has also exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Festival peace-offering of the 14th of Nissan (which is: "Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the offering." )

However, if he recited the blessing over the Festival offering, he has not exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Paschal lamb. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: This blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over this one, and that blessing does not exempt that one, as there is a separate blessing for each offering.

~~~

GEMARA: The Gemara explains the opinions of the Tannaim in the Mishnah....

The Gemara discusses another case concerning the order of the blessings: Rabbi Simlai attended a Pidyon HaBen ceremony (the redemption of the firstborn son). The celebrants raised a dilemma before him with regard to the blessings. First they noted that it is obvious that the blessing over the redemption of a firstborn son, which is: "Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us over the redemption of the firstborn son", is certainly recited by the father of the son, as he is the one obligated to redeem his son.

However, with regard to the second blessing: "Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, "Who has given us life [shehecheyanu], sustained us, and brought us to this time", does the Kohen recite this blessing, or does the father of the son recite it?

The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma. It can be suggested that the Kohen recites the blessing, as he benefits from the five sela he receives when the boy is redeemed. The blessing of shehecheyanu is generally recited by the one who receives the benefit.

Or, perhaps the father of the son recites shehecheyanu, as he is the one who performs the mitzvah?

Rabbi Simlai did not have an answer readily available, and he went to ask this question in the study hall. The scholars said to him that the father of the son recites the two blessings: Over the redemption of the son and shehecheyanu.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the father of the son recites two blessings.

HADRAN ALACH

"ARVEY PESACHIM"

U-S'LIKAH LEH

MASECHET PESACHIM.