Pesachim 114b (קיד:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

Reish Lakish said:

The fact that it is written in the Mishna that one eats bitter herbs twice

means: mitzvot require intent!

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

And therefore, regarding the first dipping of the bitter herbs,

since:

a.

he eats it before the time of the obligation of bitter herbs

for the principal mitzva of bitter herbs applies only after eating matza, as it is written: “With matza and bitter herbs shall he eat it.”

b. And he did not recite over it the blessing “on eating bitter herbs”; rather,

“Who creates the fruit of the earth”

is what he recites over it

as he does over other vegetables, eating them merely for the sake of eating.

And

since we can say

perhaps [certainly, Tosafot]

he did not intend

he did not intend

when eating the first time

for the

sake of eating

bitter herbs; therefore, he must dip again

return to dipping and eat bitter herbs once more

for the sake of bitter herbs.

For if it enters your mind that

“a mitzva does not require intent,”

then even if he did not intend that he was performing the act for the sake of a mitzva, he would nevertheless have fulfilled his obligation. If so,

why do you need two dippings?

He already dipped it

once

one time

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

And we reject this:

From where [do you know this]?

Perhaps mitzvot truly do not require intent,

and indeed he fulfilled his obligation of bitter herbs by eating the bitter herbs during the first dipping.

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

I can answer you:

So that it will serve as a sign for the children,

so that they will be aroused to ask questions. Although there is already a sign in the first dipping, an additional dipping is nevertheless performed so that the sign will be more pronounced.

And if you would say: If so, let him teach us

that the first dipping is performed with

other vegetables,

and only the second dipping with bitter herbs. For even in that manner there would be a sign for the children, since he performs two dippings; why does it state that both are performed with bitter herbs?

And this is understandable if mitzvot require intent: He stated it that way in order to teach us that he does not fulfill the mitzva of bitter herbs through the first dipping, since he did not intend it for the sake of the mitzva. Rashbam.

That is not difficult.

For

if he had taught us [that the first dipping is performed with] other vegetables, we would have said

specifically

where other vegetables are available is it necessary to perform two dippings.

But

when he has

only bitter herbs, he need not perform two dippings,

because in that case he would be performing the mitzva of eating bitter herbs before its proper time [which is after eating matza], and it is not advisable to do so even for the sake of providing a sign for the children.

It therefore teaches us that even

when he has only

bitter herbs,

nevertheless

two dippings are necessary, so that it will serve as a sign for the children.

And furthermore, Reish Lakish, who said that mitzvot require intent, encounters a difficulty:

For

it was taught in a beraita: If one ate them

the bitter herbs while they were

demai, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Since demai is permitted to the poor, it is suitable for him, as he could declare his property ownerless and thereby become poor.

If he ate them without intent,

meaning that he did not intend to fulfill his obligation,

he has fulfilled it.

If he ate them in installments,

meaning that he did not eat the entire olive-bulk of bitter herbs at once, but rather half an olive-bulk at one time and half an olive-bulk at a second time,

he has fulfilled it.

Provided that he does not delay between one eating and the next for longer than the time required for

eating a peras [

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

Is it not explicitly stated in the beraita that mitzvot do not require intention?

And we answer:

It is the subject of a dispute between tannaim,

as we find one tanna who holds that mitzvot require intent, and Reish Lakish follows his view.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Although he dipped with bitter herbs

during the first dipping, because he had no other vegetables,

it is a mitzva to bring before him

another time

bitter herbs, charoset, and two cooked dishes,

in order to fulfill the mitzva of bitter herbs, since he did not fulfill it through the first eating, as he did not intend it for the sake of the mitzva, and mitzvot require intent.

We raise an objection:

But still, from where

do we know that Rabbi Yosei holds that mitzvot require intent?

Perhaps Rabbi Yosei holds that mitzvot do not require intent.

And the reason that two dippings are required is

so that there will be a sign

for the children,

as we said with regard to the Mishna. What advantage does Rabbi Yosei have over the Mishna?!

And we answer:

If so,

if it is merely rabbinic and is done for the sake of providing a sign for the children,

why

does he say “it is a mitzva”?

Rabbi Yosei should have said, “They bring before him.” From the fact that he said “it is a mitzva,” it follows that it is a mitzva from the Torah to fulfill the mitzva of bitter herbs.

It follows that Rabbi Yosei holds that mitzvot require intent.

We raise another question:

What are

“two cooked dishes”

mentioned in our Mishna and in the beraita cited above? Which cooked dishes are they?

Rav Huna said: Spinach,

a dish made from spinach,

and rice,

a dish made from rice. That is, even such cooked dishes suffice, and certainly dishes consisting of various types of meat.

Rava would seek out

specifically

spinach

and rice,

although he could also fulfill the requirement with other types of cooked dishes,

since this teaching came from Rav Huna’s mouth!

Because of his affection for Rav Huna, he did this to demonstrate that the halakha follows him, and that spinach and rice are also suitable.

Rav Ashi said: Learn from Rav Huna

who said that rice is cooked on Passover and there is no concern that it is leavened:

There is no one who is concerned about the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri,

which follows.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: Rice is a type of grain, and one is liable for its leavening,

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

with karet.

And one fulfills his obligation with it on Passover,

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

Hezekiah said: Even a fish and the egg upon it

are sufficient. It was customary to spread an egg over the fish. Although this resembles a single cooked dish, nevertheless one thereby fulfills the requirement of two cooked dishes.

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

Passover

sacrifice, and one as a remembrance of the

sacrifice of

the Festival-offering,

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

Ravina said: Even a piece of meat and its broth

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

The Gemara now discusses the law concerning the blessing over eating bitter herbs.

This

is obvious: Where other vegetables are available,

which he takes for the first dipping,

he recites over the other vegetables

“Who creates the fruit of the earth,”

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

and eats,

intending that this blessing should also exempt the bitter herbs that he will eat afterward.

And afterward, he recites the blessing

“concerning the eating of bitter herbs”

over the bitter herbs that he eats after the matza for the sake of the mitzva of bitter herbs,

and eats.

But

where there is nothing other than lettuce,

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

what

is the ruling? When does he recite “concerning the eating of bitter herbs”?

Rav Huna said: Initially, over the bitter herbs he recites

during the first dipping [which is performed only as a sign for the children]

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

And afterward,

when he eats the lettuce for the sake of the mitzva of bitter herbs,

he recites over it

“concerning the eating of bitter herbs,” and eats.