Pesachim 114b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

Reish Lakish said:

that which is written in the Mishna, that one eats ḥazeret twice,

that means: mitzvot require intention!

For one must intend, when performing the mitzva, that he is performing the act for the sake of the mitzva, and if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And therefore, at the first dipping of the ḥazeret,

since:

a.

it is not at the time of the obligation of maror that he eats it,

for the principal mitzva of maror is only after eating matza [as it is written, “with matzot and maror shall he eat it”]].

b. And he also did not recite over it “concerning the eating of maror,” but

with “Who creates the fruit of the earth”

it is that he eats it

like other vegetables, for the sake of eating alone.

And

And

perhaps [and certainly, Tosafot]

he did not intend

he did not intend

at the first eating

for the sake of

for the sake of the mitzva of eating

maror; therefore, he needs to dip again,

to dip again and eat ḥazeret again

for the sake of maror.

For if it enters your mind

that “a mitzva does not require intention,”

and even if he did not intend that he was performing it for the sake of a mitzva, he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation, then

why do you need two dippings?

But he has already dipped it

already

one time

when eating the karpas, and fulfilled through it the mitzva of eating maror!? And although he ate the maror before the matza, he has fulfilled it after the fact.

And we reject this:

From where [is this]?

Perhaps, in truth, mitzvot do not require intention,

and in truth he fulfilled his obligation of maror by eating the ḥazeret at the first dipping.

And as for what you said: “Why do I need two dippings?”

I will say to you:

so that there should be a distinction for the children,

so that they will be aroused to ask. And although there is already a distinction in the first dipping, nevertheless, one performs another dipping so that the distinction will be stronger.

And if you will say: if so, let him teach us

that he performs the first dipping with

other vegetables

and only the second dipping with maror. For even so there is a distinction for the children, that he performs two dippings; why, then, did he state that both of them are with ḥazeret? [

And granted, if mitzvot require intention, it is understandable that he said this, in order to teach us that he does not fulfill the mitzva of maror through the first dipping, since he did not intend for the sake of the mitzva. Rashbam].

This is not difficult.

For

if he had taught us [the case of] other vegetables, I would have said

specifically

where there are other vegetables is it that we require two dippings.

But

when he has

only ḥazeret, he does not require two dippings,

for then it turns out that he is preceding the mitzva of eating maror before its time [which is after eating matza], and it is not proper to do so even for the sake of a distinction for the children.

It teaches us that even

when he has only

ḥazeret,

nevertheless

we require two dippings, so that there should be in it a distinction for the children.

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty against Reish Lakish, who said that mitzvot require intention;

it was taught in a baraita: if he ate them

the maror when it was

demai, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Since demai is permitted to the poor, it is fit for him, for he can declare his property ownerless and become poor.

If he ate them without intention,

without intending to fulfill his obligation,

he has fulfilled it.

If he ate them in halves,

without eating the entire olive-volume of maror at once, but rather half an olive-volume one time and half an olive-volume a second time,

he has fulfilled it.

Provided that he does not delay between one eating and the other more than the measure of

eating a pras [which is the measure of time for eating three or four eggs].

which is the amount of time required to eat three or four eggs].

Is it not explicit in the baraita that mitzvot do not require intention?

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim,

for we find one tanna who holds that mitzvot require intention, and Reish Lakish holds like him.

For it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yose says: although he dipped ḥazeret

at the first dipping, because he did not have other vegetables,

it is a mitzva to bring before him

again

ḥazeret, and ḥaroset, and two cooked dishes,

in order to fulfill the mitzva of maror, since he did not fulfill it through the first eating, for he did not intend for the sake of the mitzva, and mitzvot require intention.

And we raise a difficulty:

And still, from where

that Rabbi Yose holds that mitzvot require intention?

Perhaps Rabbi Yose holds that mitzvot do not require intention.

And this—that we require two dippings—

is so that there should be a distinction

for the children,

as we said in the Mishna; and what is Rabbi Yose better than the Mishna?!

And we answer:

If so,

that it is only rabbinic and for the sake of a distinction for the children,

what is the meaning of

“it is a mitzva”?

Rabbi Yose should have said, “They bring before him.” And from the fact that he said “it is a mitzva,” it implies that it is a mitzva from the Torah to fulfill the mitzva of maror.

Learn from this that Rabbi Yose holds that mitzvot require intention.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the meaning of

“two cooked dishes”

that are mentioned in our Mishna and in the above baraita? Which cooked dishes are they?

Rav Huna said: silka,

a dish of spinach,

and aruza,

and a dish of rice. That is, even such dishes, and certainly dishes of types of meat.

Rava would seek

he would specifically seek

[to have] silka

and aruza,

even though he could also fulfill the obligation with other types of cooked dishes,

since it emerged from the mouth of Rav Huna!

And because of his affection for Rav Huna he did this, in order to show that the halakha is in accordance with him, that one may also use silka and aruza.

Rav Ashi said: learn from Rav Huna

who said that one cooks rice on Passover and there is no concern of ḥametz in this:

there is no one who is concerned for this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri,

which follows.

For it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: rice is a species of grain, and one is liable for its leavening,

if it became leavened and he ate it on Passover, he is liable for it

with karet.

And a person fulfills his obligation through it on Passover,

for if he made matza from rice and ate it on the first night, he has fulfilled his obligation of matza.

Ḥizkiya said: even a fish and the egg that is upon it,

for they were accustomed to spread egg on the fish. And although this resembles one cooked dish, nevertheless through this he has fulfilled the obligation of two cooked dishes.

Rav Yosef said: two types of meat are required: one as a remembrance of

the offering of

Passover, and one as a remembrance of

the offering of

the festival offering,

which they would bring on the eve of Passover together with the Passover offering, so that the Passover offering would be eaten when one was satiated.

Ravina said: even a piece of meat and its cooking broth,

a piece of meat and the broth in which it was cooked are also considered two cooked dishes.

And now the Gemara discusses the law of the blessing over eating maror.

This is

obvious: where there are other vegetables,

which he takes for the first dipping,

he recites a blessing over the other vegetables

“Who creates the fruit of the earth,”

for it is forbidden to derive benefit from this world without a blessing,

and he eats,

and intends through this blessing also to exempt the maror that follows.

And afterward, he recites the blessing

“concerning the eating of maror”

over the ḥazeret that he eats after the matza for the sake of the mitzva of maror

and eats.

But

where there is only lettuce,

and he eats it both for the first dipping and for the second dipping,

what [is the law]?

When does he recite “concerning the eating of maror”?

Rav Huna said: initially, he recites a blessing over the maror

at the first dipping [which is only for the sake of a distinction for the children]

“Who creates the fruit of the earth,” and eats.

And finally,

when he eats the lettuce for the sake of the mitzva of maror,

he recites a blessing over it

“concerning the eating of maror,” and eats.