Pesachim 115a — the Talmud in English

Rav Ḥisda raised an objection against it:

and is it so that

after he has filled his stomach with it

from the bitter herb at the first dipping,

he returns and recites a blessing over it?

But surely he has already fulfilled the mitzva of eating bitter herb through the first eating?!

Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: At the outset, he recites a blessing over it

“Who creates the fruit of the earth”

and “concerning the eating of bitter herb,” and he eats.

And afterward, he eats the eating of ḥasa without a blessing,

for it is only for the sake of a distinction for the children.

In Sura they act in accordance with Rav Huna.

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Yehoshua, acts in accordance with Rav Ḥisda.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Ḥisda.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, would seek

was seeking

other vegetables

for the first dipping, in order

to remove himself from a dispute.

For if he takes lettuce [bitter herb] for the first dipping, he enters into the dispute as to when he should recite “concerning the eating of bitter herb.”

Ravina said: Rav Mesharshiya, son of Rav Natan, said to me: Hillel said this in the name of the tradition: A person should not wrap matza and bitter herb together

together

and eat them.

Because we hold

Because we hold:

matza nowadays

is

its obligation is from the Torah.

And

And if

bitter herb

is obligated only

its obligation is only rabbinic

nowadays [as the reason is explained below, 120a].

then the rabbinic bitter herb comes and nullifies the Torah matza

from the Torah!

for in every chewing matza and bitter herb are mixed together in his mouth, and at times the bitter herb is the majority; then it “nullifies” the matza, and a whole olive-bulk of matza does not remain in his eating.

And even according to the one who says that mitzvot do not nullify one another,

for the law of nullification through a majority was not stated with regard to two mitzvot mixed together.

This applies to a Torah mitzva with a Torah mitzva, or a rabbinic mitzva with a rabbinic mitzva,

where the two mitzvot are equal, both being from the Torah or rabbinic.

But

a mitzva

from the Torah and

from the Torah and a

rabbinic

mitzva that became mixed,

the rabbinic one comes and nullifies the Torah one!

for the rabbinic mitzva is considered optional in relation to the Torah mitzva.

And we inquire about it:

Who is the

is the

tan­nnay from whom you heard

that

mitzvot do not nullify one another?

And we answer:

It is Hillel!

For it was taught in a beraita: They said about Hillel that he would wrap

the olive-bulk of the Paschal offering and the olive-bulk of the matza and of the bitter herb

at one time and eat them, as it is stated:

“With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it”

the Paschal offering, that is, at one time.

It follows that Hillel holds that mitzvot do not nullify one another, for otherwise he could not eat them when they were wrapped and mixed together, since each one would nullify the other.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: His colleagues disagree with Hillel!

For it was taught in a beraita: Perhaps he should wrap them at one time and eat them in the manner that Hillel eats them?

The verse says

“With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it”!

And from the fact that Scripture did not say “they shall eat them”—and we would know that this refers to the Paschal offering, since before this it is written, “And they shall eat the flesh on this night”—it implies that he may eat them

even this separately and that separately.

Rav Ashi raised an objection against it: If so,

that the Sages hold as Rabbi Yoḥanan said, that it is forbidden to eat them all in one wrapping,

what is the meaning of “even”

that the Sages said, implying that he may eat them either in one wrapping or in two wrappings?!

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This tannay teaches as follows: Perhaps he does not fulfill his obligation with them unless he wraps them at one time and eats them in the manner that Hillel eats them?

The verse says, “With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it”: even this separately and that separately.

For the tannay of the beraita truly holds that he may eat them either in one wrapping or in two wrappings. However, the substance of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words was not rejected, for he had a tradition that there are Sages who entirely disagree with Hillel and prohibit [eating them] in one wrapping. Rather, they are not the Sages of this beraita, but other Sages.

Now, since the halakha was not stated neither in accordance with Hillel

that it must specifically be in one wrapping,

nor in accordance with the Sages

of Rabbi Yoḥanan [and not those of the beraita], who hold that he eats only in two wrappings,

he recites a blessing

over the matza alone

“concerning the eating of matza”

and eats [this also according to Hillel, as above, for matza nowadays is from the Torah and bitter herb is rabbinic].

This applies even according to Hillel, as stated above, because the matza nowadays is required by Torah law, whereas the bitter herb is required by rabbinic decree.

And afterward he recites a blessing

over the bitter herb alone

“concerning the eating of bitter herb,” and eats [for perhaps the halakha is in accordance with the Sages, that each one must be alone].

because perhaps the halakha is in accordance with the Sages, that each one must be eaten separately.

And afterward he eats the matza and lettuce together without a

blessing,

as a remembrance of the Temple in accordance with Hillel,

in order to commemorate what Hillel would do in the time of the Temple: he would eat everything in one wrapping.

Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said: Everything

that

whose dipping is in liquid,

which he dipped in liquid, such as a vegetable that he dipped in vinegar,

requires washing of the hands.

For hands that have not been washed bear a rabbinic level of impurity, that of a “second degree of impurity.” When they touch a liquid, the liquid becomes impure and assumes the status of a “first degree of impurity,” in accordance with the principle that “anything that disqualifies teruma”—namely, a second degree of impurity—renders liquids a first degree of impurity

For hands that have not been washed have rabbinic impurity upon them at the level of a “second degree of impurity.” And when they touch liquid, the liquid becomes impure and becomes a “first degree of impurity,” according to the rule that “everything that disqualifies teruma—that is, a second degree of impurity—renders liquids impure to become a first degree of impurity [and even non-sacred produce].”