Pesachim 115a (קטו.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Hisda challenged this:

and is it so that

after he has filled his stomach with it

from the maror eaten with the first dipping,

he returns and recites a blessing over it?

But he has already fulfilled the mitzva of eating maror with the first eating?!

Rather, Rav Hisda said: Initially, he recites a blessing over it

“Who creates the fruit of the earth”

and “concerning the eating of maror,” and he eats it.

And ultimately, he eats the ḥasa without a blessing,

since it is only eaten in order to establish a distinction for the children.

In Sura, they acted in accordance with Rav Huna.

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with Rav Hisda.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Hisda.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, would seek out

he would look for

other vegetables

for the first dipping, in order

to remove himself from the dispute.

For if he were to take ḥazeret [maror] for the first dipping, he would enter into the dispute concerning when one should recite the blessing “concerning the eating of maror.”

Ravina said: Rav Mesharsheya, son of Rav Natan, said to me: Hillel said the following in the name of the tradition of the Gemara: One should not wrap matza and maror together

together

and eat them.

Because he holds

that

matza nowadays

is an obligation

from Torah law.

And

if

the maror

is an obligation only

by rabbinic enactment

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

and the rabbinic maror comes and nullifies the matza

which is required by Torah law!

For matza and maror are mixed together in his mouth with every chew, and sometimes the maror is the majority; in that case it “nullifies” the matza, and a complete 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,

meaning that the principle of nullification in a majority does not apply to two mitzvot mixed together,

this applies to a Torah-law mitzva mixed with a Torah-law mitzva, or a rabbinic mitzva mixed with a rabbinic mitzva,

where the two mitzvot are equal, both being either from Torah law or by rabbinic enactment.

But

a mitzva

from Torah law and

a

rabbinic

mitzva that have become mixed together—

the rabbinic mitzva comes and nullifies the Torah-law mitzva!

The rabbinic mitzva is considered a non-mitzva in relation to the Torah-law mitzva.

We inquire:

Who

is the

tanna from whom you heard

that

mitzvot do not nullify one another?

And we answer:

It is Hillel!

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

the olive-bulk of the Paschal offering, the olive-bulk of the matza, and the olive-bulk of the maror

at once, and eat them, as it is stated:

“With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it”

the Paschal offering, meaning, at once.

Thus, Hillel held that mitzvot do not nullify one another, for otherwise he could not have eaten them wrapped and mixed together, since each one would nullify the other.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Hillel’s colleagues disagree with him!

As it was taught in a beraita: One might have thought that he should wrap them together at once and eat them in the manner in which Hillel ate them.

The verse states

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

And from the fact that the verse did not say “they shall eat them”—and we would know that the statement refers to the Paschal offering, since it is written immediately beforehand, “And they shall eat the meat on this night”—it follows that he may eat them

even this one separately and that one separately.

Rav Ashi challenged this: If so,

if the Rabbis hold as Rabbi Yoḥanan said, that it is prohibited to eat all of them in a single wrapping,

what is the meaning of “even”

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

Rather, Rav Ashi said: This tanna teaches as follows: One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with them unless he wraps them together at once and eats them in the manner in which Hillel ate them.

The verse states: “With matzot and bitter herbs shall they eat it”—even this one separately and that one separately.

The tanna of the beraita indeed holds that one may eat them either in a single wrapping or in two separate wrappings. However, the essential statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan was not rejected: He had received a tradition that there were Sages who completely disagreed with Hillel and prohibited eating them in a single wrapping. Those Sages, however, are not the Sages of this beraita, but other Sages.

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

who requires specifically a single wrapping,

nor in accordance with the Rabbis

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

he recites a blessing

over the matza alone

“concerning the eating of matza”

and eats it [

this applies even according to Hillel, as explained above, since matza nowadays is required by Torah law whereas maror is required by rabbinic enactment].

And afterward he recites a blessing

over the maror alone

“concerning the eating of maror,” and eats it [

because perhaps the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis, who require that each one be eaten separately].

And afterward he eats matza and ḥasa 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, when he would eat everything in a single wrapping.

Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said: Any

thing

whose dipping is in a liquid,

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

requires the 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

even [and even non-sacred produce].