He said to him: In truth, ...it is similar to the conclusion of the blessing, and Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who recites havdala must say an expression that is similar to the conclusion near the conclusion of the blessing, to emphasize the connection between the blessing and its conclusion. And the scholars of Pumbedita say that one must say a phrase similar to the beginnings of blessings near their conclusions. With regard to the previously cited dispute, the Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? Since the beginning and end of a blessing generally address the same topic, what is the difference between these two opinions? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is in the case of a Festival that occurs after Shabbat, as one concludes this havdala with the phrase: Who separates between sacred and sacred. The one who said that one must mention an expression similar to the beginnings of blessings near their conclusions would say that one is not required to say: Between the sanctity of Shabbat and the sanctity of the Festival You have distinguished, before concluding the blessing, as the beginning of the blessing refers simply to the sacred and the profane. And according to the one who said that one must say a phrase similar to the conclusions of blessings near their conclusions, one is required to say: Between the sanctity of Shabbat and the sanctity of the Festival You have distinguished.

Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has chosen us from all peoples and has raised us above all tongues and has sanctified us with His commandments. And You have given us, Lord our God, appointed times for happiness, holidays and special times for joy, this Festival of Matsot, our season of freedom, a holy convocation in memory of the Exodus from Egypt. For You have chosen us and sanctified us above all peoples. In Your gracious love, You granted us Your special times for happiness and joy.

Blessed are You, O Lord, who sanctifies Israel and the appointed times.

With regard to additions to prayers formulated by the Sages, the Gemara relates that a particular individual descended before the ark as prayer leader in the presence of Rabbi Ḥanina. He extended his prayer and said: God, the great, mighty, awesome, powerful, mighty, awe-inspiring, strong, fearless, steadfast and honored. Rabbi Ḥanina waited for him until he completed his prayer. When he finished, Rabbi Ḥanina asked him: Have you concluded all of the praises of your Master? Why do I need all of this superfluous praise? Even these three praises that we recite: The great, mighty and awesome, had Moses our teacher not said them in the Torah and had the members of the Great Assembly not come and incorporated them into the Amida prayer, we would not be permitted to recite them. And you went on and recited all of these. It is comparable to a king who possessed many thousands of golden dinars, yet they were praising him for silver ones. Isn’t that deprecatory? All of the praises we could possibly lavish upon the Lord are nothing but a few silver dinars relative to many thousands of gold dinars. Reciting a litany of praise does not enhance God’s honor.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: If one steeps pomace and produces tamad that has the taste of wine, what is the blessing that one should recite before drinking it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: Do you hold that such a beverage is wine? It is merely a sharp-flavored beverage, not wine. §...§ Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says: One may recite the sanctification of the Shabbat day only over wine of a quality that is fit to be poured as a libation upon the altar. The Gemara asks: This statement is said to exclude what? If we say it is to exclude the use of wine fresh from one’s press, i.e., grape juice, which has not yet fermented, that is difficult. But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach: One may not bring wine fresh from his press as a libation ab initio, but if one brought it as a libation, it is valid after the fact. And since if one brought it as a libation it is valid after the fact, we should also be able to use it for the sanctification of the Shabbat day, even ab initio.

Shmuel said that the phrase: “The bread of affliction [leḥem oni]” (Deuteronomy 16:3) means bread over which one answers [onim] matters, i.e., one recites the Haggadah over matza. That was also taught in a baraita: Leḥem oni is bread over which one answers many matters. Alternatively, in the verse, “leḥem 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 matza. Alternatively: Just as the manner of a poor person is that he heats the oven and his wife bakes quickly, before the small amount of wood they have is used up, so too here; when baking matza, he heats the oven and his wife bakes quickly so the dough doesn’t rise. This is why matza is called the poor man’s bread.

(6) And afterwards he recites the blessing over [washing] the hands and [washes] his hands a second time - since he removed his mind [from the first washing] at the time of the reading of the Haggadah. And he takes two [matsa] wafers, divides one of them, places the broken one inside the whole one and recites the blessing, "who brings forth bread from the land." And because of what does he not recite the blessing over two [whole] loaves, as on other holidays? Because it is stated (Deuteronomy 16:3), "bread of poverty": Just like the way of the poor person is with a piece (and not a whole loaf), so too here is it with a piece. And afterwards he wraps the matsa and bitter herbs to be [like] one, dips it in charoset, recites the blessing, "Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded us about the eating of matsas and bitter herbs" and eats them. And if he eats the matsa by itself and the bitter herbs by themselves, he recites a blessing upon this one by itself and upon that one by itself.

Ravina said: ...Therefore, each and every one is a distinct mitzva in its own right. In other words, each cup is treated separately and one is not considered to be drinking in pairs.

And he recites the blessing, "who creates the fruit of the vine," [drinks it] and does not taste anything afterwards the whole night except for water. And he should pour a fifth cup and say the Great Hallel (Psalms 136) upon it, from "Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good" (Psalms 136:1) to "Upon the rivers of Babylon" (Psalms 137:1). And this cup is not obligatory like the [other] four cups. And he can finish the Hallel in any place that he desires, even though he is not in the place of the meal.

(5) 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 [pasaḥ] 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 matza 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 mishna 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 forefathers. The mishna 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: Halleluya. At this point one recites the hallel that is said on all joyous days. Since one does not complete hallel at this point in the seder, the mishna asks: