Many Words

The Gemarah (36a) says the derash of Shmuel that לחם עוני is שעונין עליו דברים הרבה.  Many words are said over the matzah.  What are the many words said over the matzah?  Rashi says the Haggadah and Hallel while Rabbenu Chananel says it refers to when we say מצה זו שאנו אוכלים על שום מה.  These two interpretations are not just a machlokes as to what words are being referred to but reflect two different understandings of the derasha.  One may say the derasha telling us a law in matzah, that the eating of matzah is incomplete unless it is accompanied by words and that is the view of the Rach, that when one eats matzah the explanation of matzah must be said (one can debate if this derash would actually mean that is one didn't say the explanation of matzah if one actually didn't fulfill matzah or is lacking in the optimal fulfillment of the mitzvah as the Ramban (Milchamos beginning of Berachot says.)  Rashi on the other hand, understands that this is a halacha in סיפור יציאת מצרים.  When one does not have the matzah present for the סיפור, then one is lacking in the סיפור.  

As an outgrowth this affects the understanding of the statement of Rabban Gamlienl כל מי שלא אמר שלשה דברים בפסח לא יצא ידי חובתו - which chiuv?  According to the Ramban following in the footsteps of the Rach, it refers to the obligation of matzah, maror and pesach.  According to the Rambam (Chametz U'Matzah 7:5) it refers to the obligation of Haggadah for he does not hold that the matzah itself needs words attached to it.  

These two approaches may be reflected in a difference in the Rishonim explaining why the matzah is brought back for the recitation of the Haggadah.  The Tosfos (114a) say in order to say מצה זו על שום, (and the Bach 473 adds we are afraid we will forget to bring it back at that point in the Haggadah, so we do it at the beginning of the Haggadah.)  In other words, it is only necessary to have the matzah present for the sake of the matzah but Rabbenu Dovid says it is in order for the matzah to be present during the sippur yitzias mitzraim. 

The Rambam (8:6) cites the derasha of דרכו של עני בפרוסה and not דברים הרבה and in addition he has yachatz done right before the eating of the matzah, not before the Haggadah, indicating that he holds that the derasha of דברים הרבה is rejected before the derasha of פרוסה and there is no need to have any part of the Haggadah said before broken matzah.  The Rambam (8:4) also does not hold of the matzah being present during the entirety of the Haggadah but has it brought back right before saying מצה זו.  Our custom to do yachatz before the Haggadah and keep the broken piece on the table, the Alter Rebbe explains (473:36) is because we hold both derashot stand.  It needs to be a piece of matzah and at the same time, the Haggadah must be said over it therefore we break it before starting the Haggadah.  However, it is noteworthy that the Beis Yosef and the Ritva in the Haggadah say that we do yachatz before הא לחמא עניא since we are say הא לחמא עניא we want a live demonstration of the poor man's bread.  Why do they not say because of the דין of דברים הרבה?  In Yarach L'Moadaim siman 34 he cites his son and son-in-law suggest that the fulfillment of lechem עוני as a פרוסה is a din in the maaseh achilah of matzah that is has to be an eating of a pauper which is a פרוסה .  However, the law of עוני meaning דברים הרבה needs only the actual cheftzah of מצה not the פרוסה. 

 The Gemarah (115b-116a) has additional derashot about לחם עוני that it is like the word עני to indicate that one uses a broken piece of matzah or that just as a pauper lights throws the bread in the oven fast before it rises, so too matzah can't rise.  Those derashot tell us about the nature of the matzah so it is logical to assume the derasha of עונין עליו דברים הרבה also is about the matzah itself.  However, the Michilta (cited in the Haggadah) says בעבור זה לא אמרתי אלא בשעה שיש מצה ומרור מנחם לפניך which is the possuk of the mitzvah of סיפור יציאת מתרים indicating that there is a law in sippur that the matzah must be there.  This may be a source to say that matzah is needed for the fulfillment of sippur.  One may in fact argue that these are two halachot.  The halacha of דברים הרבה is a law in the matzah while the law in בשעה שיש מצה לפניך is a law in sippur.  In the Briskor Haggadah it says the Briskor Rav explained the law of דברים הרבה is a law in sippur (and he compares it to kiddush said over wine,) and it concludes therefore, he was מקפיד that the matzah that was eaten be everyone should be one the table during the Haggadah.  The "therefore" is difficult for if it is just a law in sippur, it should suffice with some matzah on the table, why does all the matzah that is eaten have to be there, that would indicate it is a law in matzah?  It would seem that maybe the Briskor Rav held both elements are true, there is a law in sippur for the matzah to be present and there is a law in the matzah that is eaten that words must be recited over it (based upon בזמן שמצה ומרור מונחים לפניך', בגדרי מצות יחץ', there is room to be מפלפל in many of the points.) 

R' Brown points out (Moadanay Moshe siman 23) that these two approaches are inversed regarding if the Haggadah must be said over the second cup of wine.  The Alter Rebbe says (473:40) וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לֶאֱחֹז הַכּוֹס בְּיָדוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לִ"לְפִיכָךְ" כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן צָרִיךְ לִמְזֹג מִיָּד קֹדֶם הַתְחָלַת אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁאֲלוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת  This is based upon the Tur following the interpretation of Rashi and Rashban (116a.)  In other words, there is no need to have a cup of wine present at the time of the recitation of the Haggadah, we only pour it in advance to encourage questions.  However, the Rambam (7:3) says that the Haggadah is said over the second cup.  In other words, part of the takkanah of the cup is that the Haggadah should be said over it.  This is why the Rambam in the text of his Haggadah has the second cup poured already before the הא לחמא עניא.       

The Cup Of Kiddush

Tosfos in the beginning of Arvei Pesachim explains that one has to wait until nightfall to eat the matzah since regarding the korban pesach it says it must be eaten בלילה הזה and mazah is equated to pesach via a hekesh.  What about the kiddush ,the first cup of wine, does that have to be done only after nightfall?  The Taz (472:1) says that since matzah must be eaten after nightfall so too kiddush since kiddush must be done at a time when one is able to eat the סעודה.  The Magen Avraham says since kiddush is the first of the four cups of wine and the four cups of wine are connected to matzah.  It is unclear in the words of the M.A. why are the 4 cups connected to matzah?  The Alter Rebbe adds that the 4 cups are Rabbinic and the takkanah follows after the din Torah of matzah.  In other words, the Taz uses a technical law in kiddush to say the kiddush must be connected to the seudah so it must be done at night while the Magen Avraham says intrinsically the four cups are connected to the matzah.  (This is how the Mishna Berura seems to explain it as two distinct sevarot but the Alter Rebbe uses also the words of the Taz in his explanation, and he may have understood they are saying the same thing.)  Why do they give two different explanations?  

The first cup of wine is both the first cup of wine and the cup of kiddush.  The M.A. views the kiddush itself as subjugated to the rules of the four cups while the Taz is of the opinion that even though the four cups may be connected to the Haggadah, the kiddush itself in theory could have been said earlier if not for kiddush במקום סעודה.  

The Tur (483) cites a machlokes Rishonim if one who does not have wine says kiddush on bread like any other Shabbos or Yom Tov or since there is a takkanah of 4 cups, one may not say kiddush on bread at all.  This would seem to parallel the same issue, if kiddush is kiddush just it also happens to be one of the 4 cups, one can say kiddush even without wine if necessary.  On the other hand, if one is of the opinion that the kiddush of Pesach night becomes incorporated only within the rubric and rules of the 4 cups, one would not be able to say kiddush on bread (see sicha second night of Pesach 5725, עיונים בלומדות כלל ה.) 

Korech II

The Briskor Rav (Grach stencil) asks according to the Rishonim that hold Hillel requires maror to be eaten in a כריכה how can we say the beracha on just eating maror alone if we are concerned for the opinion of Hillel?  He says it must be that the takkanah of maror nowadays is to eat maror by itself even according to Hillel.  He proves this from the Rambam as well who follows the opinion of Hillel (the way the Maggid understands the Rambam) yet says (8:8) it is a mitzvah diRabbanan to eat maror nowadays. And hence the כורך that we do is a mere זכר למקדש. However, he himself notes this approach fits with the Bach but not with the Shulchan Aruch who says the beracha of matzah and maror covers the korech as well. 

The Rambam (8:6) rules that in the times of the Mikdash one could eat the matzah and maror together or separately.  If so, nowadays even before כורך one has fulfilled their obligation and why eat כורך?  (This is the same issue the Chiddushay HaRan has with Tosfos who holds even according to Hillel one can be yotzei the mitzvot separately.)  According to Rav Schochet the answer would be that yes, one can fulfill the obligations without a כריכה but the additional mitzvah of כריכה is lost and we eat כורך to fulfill that mitzvah.  In the Haggadah of Rav Solevetchik he suggests a similar idea but not as a sperate kium of korech but that there are two obligations of matzah.  There is the obligation of בערב תאכלו מצות and that is fulfilled by eating the matzah by itself but for the kium of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו it has to be eaten together with the maror.  So one eats כורך as a זכר למקדש when there could be a true fulfillment of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו (which can't be applied today when maror is only Rabbinic.)  Therefore, the כורך is not a fulfillment of the basic mitzvah of matah and maror which have their own independent obligation but is a fulfillment of a separate din and one does not to cover the כורך with the beracha of matzah and maror.  However, it comes out from what he is saying that the זכר למקדש is applicable both on the matzah and the maror.   

The Tur (475) cites the Manhig holds when eating כורך one must do הסבה since one is eating matzah.  He cites his brother is unsure if הסבה should be done or not. The Beis Yosef says in his view it is obvious that הסבה is required since Hillel would have been doing הסבה as part of his fulfillment of matzah.  So what is the possibility of the Tur's brother that one does not need הסבה?  We see from the Manhig that he does not agree with the reason of the Beis Yosef that the eating of כורך should be patterned after the way Hillel ate it but he says since it includes matzah, הסבה is required. Presumably, the reason to say it is not required is since כורך contains maror.  And that is how the Alter Rebbe (575:20) explains.  In other words, if כורך is done only to ensure maror can be eaten wrapped as it is done Biblically, then כורך will not require הסבה, but if it is also to ensure an additional kium in matzah of על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו, then it would be required.  A noted in the footnotes to the Shulchan Aruch Harav, the Rambam (7:8) when he lists when הסבה is required does not mention כורך indicated that הסבה is not required then.  This would indicate however, that the Rambam holds כורך is done just as a זכר למקדש for the maror, not as a kium in the matzah.  The Alter Rebbe (472:20) mentions another sevarah to require הסבה and that is since the כורך is a zecher to the korban pesach.  This is only according to the opinions that כורך would include the pesach which the Rambam does not hold of.  However, the same Rambma (7:8) makes no mention of הסבה in the eating of the korban pesach indicating he doesn't hold it would require הסבה at all.  Why not? Rav Kamlenson (Rishimos Shiurim siman 67) suggests that since the eating of the korban pesach itslef demonstrates חירות there was no need for Chazal to make a takkanah to eat in a way that demonstrates חירות.    

Korech I

The Gemarah says that there is no definitive pesak halacha in the disagreement between Hillel and the Rabbanan is the mitzvot are to be fulfilled with כורך or independently and therefore we do both.  What would Hillel wrap together?  Rashi and Rashbam (115a) hold that Hillel would wrap together the Pesach, marrot and matzah.  The opinion of the Rambam (8:7) however, is that Hillel would eat only the matzah and marror together.  

The Tur (475) writes הרוצה לקיים מצוה מן המובחר לא יסיח עד שיעשה כריכה כהלל כדי שתעלה לו ברכת מצה ומרור לכריכה כהלל דהא משום דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר עבדינן לחומרא כתרוייהו ה"נ לענין ברכה צריכין למיעבד שיעלה לשניהם ובשיחת חולין צריך ליזהר אבל טול ברוך לא הוי הפסק.  Since we are not sure if the law follows the Chachamim or Hillel, one should not talk between the beracha and korech.  The Bach says the Tur means it is a nice thing to not talk and have the beracha go on korech but in reality there is no issue for one does korech as a mere zecher liMikdash but it is not the real mitzvah even according to Hillel for we do not have korban pesach and even Hillel will have to agree the mitzvot are fulfilled independently.  However, the Taz (475:7) says that it would seem this is לעיכובא and if one speaks, one would have to say a new beracha.  What is the peshat in the Taz?  

The Gemarah proves from the fact that Hillel holds one can bundle the various mitzvot of the night with their different tastes, that he holds the tastes of various mitzvot don't  nullify each other.  However, that applies to mitzvot of the same level of obligation.  Nowadays that there is no korban Pesach, maror is only a Rabbinic obligation and can no be consumed together with the matzah.  So Hillel should be the same as the Rabbanan?  Tosfos (Pesachim 115a) says according to Hillel, we would first eat matzah by itself and then eat matzah together with maror.  How does Tosfos solve the issue, if you ate the matzah already you fulfilled your obligation and the maror is then going against matzah that is not obligatory? The Pri Migadim (475 M.Z. 7) says the opinion of Tosfos is like the Rambam and therefore according to Hillel the takkanah to eat marror nowadays is patterned after it was done in the mikdash and therefore the obligation of marror would carry with it another obligation of eating matzah.  Says the P.M., this is the basis for the opinion of the Taz that eating korach is part of the mitzvah of eating maror and not a mere zecher liMikdash.   

The opinion of Tosfos is that both according to the Rabbanan and Hillel one can fulfill the mitzvah of matzah and maror whether eaten separately or in a sandwich, the machlokes is only which way is better to do.  Being that this is the case, the Pri Migadim's explanation is problematic, for Tosfos says even without the korech the mitzvah is fulfilled according to Hillel, so since we eat matzah and maror each independently before korech, the korech is no longer needed for the mitzvah?  In addition,  the Ran takes issue with Tosfos for if in his view one can be yotzei the mitzvot independently according to Hillel, why would there be a takkanah to do them together if Hillel agrees even in the times of the Mikdash one already fulfilled their obligation?

Rabbi Ezra Shochet (Ohalay Torah journal volume 917) suggests that there are two laws according to Hillel (in the view of Tosfos) for fulfilling maror.  There is an obligation to eat matzah and maror each independently and that point is agreed by all.  The machlokes between Hillel and the Rabbanan is if there is an additional mitzvah of כריכה.  So when Tosfos says that one can fulfill maror without korech he means the mitzvah of maror but there would not be a fulfillment of them mitzvah of כריכה.  It is that kium which we are obtaining by eating matah and maror together.  In other words, we are not eating matzah again to fulfill the optimal mitzvah of korech, we are doing it to fulfill the mitzvah of having a כורך and that we do as a zecher to the Bibical mitzvah of having maror in a כורך.  

The opinion of the Ramban (Milchamos,) Chidushay HaRan etc. is that according to Hillel one can not fulfill the mitzvah of maror without a korech.  It should follow then that according to Hillel there is no way to fulfill maror nowadays since one can't eat it with the matzah which has a Torah obligation and if one already ate matzah, then there is no obligation at all to eat matzah.  So, they explain we eat כרוך as a זכר למקדש.  In other words, according to Hillel we would have a takkanah to eat matzah and marror as a זכר למקדש.  They could have said like the Pri Migadim suggested that the Rabbanan would give an obligation to eat matzah in a korech in order to fulfill matzah properly.  Why do they not say that?  Rav Shochet suggests that they hold like the opinion of Rashi that according to Hillel the pesach is part of the sandwich and since that is impossible and the kricha will not be fulfilled anyway, there is no point is making a takkanah to eat maror and matzah in a kricha and are forced to say we only eat it as a זכר למקדש.  This would be the approach of the Bach.  What is unclear to me is that in the world of Hillel the Rishonim say we would do the maror together with matzah.  In other words, there would be a takkanah to eat the matzah together with the maror as the zecher liMikdash even though it is an incomplete mitzvah.  So, why would we not say the same thing for us that do like Hillel and say that we do matzah with maror as a takkanah of zecher limikdash?  In other words, not like the Bach that we eat korech as a zecher to past times, but there is a takkanah of doing the mitzvah of maror zecher liMikdash just like we say according to Hillel? As will be explained in essence that is the approach of R' Braun in the Alter Rebbe.    

The Alter Rebbe paskens (475:16) like Rashi that the korech of Hillel is pesach, matzah and maror. However, in the next halacha he says that according to Hillel we eat korech in order to fulfill the obligation of maror.  (That's why he says in sif 18 the beracha of matzah and maror also goes on the korech and one should not speak in the middle.)  What is the point of doing korech with just matzah and maror if that doesn't fulfill the mitzvah of maror anyway since it is not being eaten with the pesach?  In other words, how can the Alter Rebbe say like Tosfos that we ate korech to fulfill the mitzvah according to Hillel (whether that means the mitzvah of kricha or the mitzvah of maror,) if that can't be fulfilled anyway since there is no korban Pesach?  He should say we eat the korech only as  zecher liMikdash like the Ramban and Ran?  And why does he say the beracha of matzah also goes on the korech, the korech is only done to fulfill the mitzvah of maror, what does it have to do with them matzah? 

Rabbi Shochet suggests that the Alter Rebbe holds there is an independent mitzvah of korech and that is only fulfilled with all three items of koran pesach, matzah and maror together.  However, he holds that what Tosfos writes is true even according to Rashi that the mitzvah is all three because the mitzvah of maror is said to be done in a kricha (according to Hillel.)  So, therefore we are fulfilling the mitzvah of maror which is to be done is a kricha when we do korech.  In order to fulfill this law, there is a takkanah to eat matzah again in order to be able to fulfill the kricha.    

Rabbi Yeshayu Braun is not happy with this idea that there is a din in maror that it must be eaten in a kricha  irrespective of the general law of everything being eaten in a kricha according to Hillel.  He says the peshat in the Alter Rebbe is that the entire mitzah of maror, the Alter Rebe says in sif 15 is a זכר למקדש.  In other words, the maror we eat is not a takkanah to remember the bitterness of slavery but to fulfill the mitzah as was done in the Mikdash.  Hence, we are faced with  a problem according to Hillel for that is impossible since there is no korban Pesach? Therefore, the Chachamam had to make a taakkanah to do a kricha which is the mostly closely patterned after how it was done in the Mikdash in order to be able to fulfill the "maror of the Mikdash."  For this takkanah it was necessary to make an obligation of matzah and maror to be eaten together.  In other words, donig korech is a takkanah in order to facilitate a מעין of the true fulfillment of maror.  With this idea he explains why we say זכר למקדש כהלל, why do we say it, and why does the Alter Rebbe say to say it before eating the korech, why are we not worried about it being a הפסק like the Mishna Berura asks?  Since the korech is not actually doing the cheftzah of the mitzvah in the Mikdash since we are lacking the Pesach, in order to acknowledge its function as a זכר למקדש we proclaim our actions are a זכר למקדש  and is not considered a הפסק for it is part of creating the זכר למקדש.  .  

However, in the end, the Taz backs down for the Tur indicates that speaking does not disqualify the korech bidieved.  Rabbi Braun wants to say not like R' Schochet that the P.M.'s explanation of Tosfos is standing even in the initial thought process of the Taz and we are forced to explain there is some kium even after eating matzah and maror.  Rather, the Pri Migadim is mainly coming to address the conclusion of the Taz in which he agrees the korech comes only as a zacher to what Hillel did.  However, even Rabbi Braun is forced to acknowledge that the Pri Migadim's words also came to address the first approach of the Taz that the korech is more than a mere zecher and in that approach the Rabbinic takkanah of korech would be more strict that the true Bibical enactment and it would be מעכב.   

Vakiyra and The Pesach

Rashi says that Hashem appears to Moshe with the term vayikra, a term of affection as opposed to Bilam who Hashem appears to him ויקר a term of coincidence and impurity.   The difference between Moshe and Bilam is a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon why is one letter used to sum up the difference?  

The difference between vayikra and vakayar is indicative of the difference of how Moshe and Bilam relate to Hashem.  Vakiyra means that there is a connection between Hashem and the person.  Vaykar means that G-d merely needs to relate a message.  Moshe's desire is to connect to Hashem and therefore Hashem talks to him, vakiyra.  Bilam has abilities but he does not use them to connect to Hashem, he merely receives messages.   

This message is give at the beginning of the book of korbanot since the essence of korbanot is to enhance  one's relationship to Hashem.  One brings a korban for an inadvertent sin because that indicates one was not connected to Hashem at the time of the sin otherwise one would not have stumbled into a sin.

Why is it of all korbanot we have a zecher for the Pesach and there is a long recitation of the korban Pesach which we don't due generally for other holiday offerings?  Because the essence of our relationship with Hashem begins at Pesach.  Korbn pesach is the korban that most clearly demonstrates vayikra, that close bond between Hashem and Klal Yisrael. (based upon sicha of Rav Shimshon Pinkus on Pesach.)   

The Calling

Rashi says לכל דברות ולכל אמירות ולכל צוויים קדמה קריאה.  The Sifsay Chachamim says this alludes to three times it says ויקרא, one here which is דיבור, the אמירה is by the burning bush, ויקרא אליו אלקים and the ציווי is at Matan Torah, ויקרא ה למשה ראש ההר.  What is the lesson of the ויקרא?  And why in these three places is ויקרא used?  The Tanchuma connects this vayikra to the first vayikra in Chumash, ויקרא אלהים לאור יום.  What is the meaning of this equation?  

The Shem MiShmuel (5671) says מאמר כ"ק אבי אדומו"ר זצללה"ה שפירש ההפרש שבין ויקר שנאמר בבלעם לויקרא שנאמר במשה, כי לשון ויקר היינו שהדיבור בא אליו למקומו ולא נתעלה ע"י הדיבור ונשאר בלעם הרשע כמו שהי' עומד מבחוץ, אבל לשון ויקרא הוא שקרא אותו שיקרב הלום, ונתעלה לקראת הדיבור עכת"ד.  Vayikra means to call someone to come closer, when Hashem calls to someone, he is bringing them closer, raising them up.   

These three instances of callings to Moshe are Hashem's way of raising up Klal Yisrael through the leader, Moshe Rabbenu.  The three callings are pivotal moments in the advancement of Klal Yisrael.  The first time is when Moshe is being selected as the leader to take the Jews out of Egypt.  The second time is Matan Torah, the monumental moment when the heavens and earth meet via the giving of the Torah.  In order to elevate Klal Yisrael to be able to be ready for this moment there needed to be a vayikra.  Korbanot as well is the the way a person can elevate the physical domain to become closer to Hashem and that also requires an elevation to make it happen. The comparison to the vaykira of light is the message of all the vayikra's that Moshe experienced.  When one is in a state of darkness, in a state where they need a boost, Hashem creates the light for the person to be elevate himself. 

Mitzvas Maror

The Rambam (Chametz 7:12) says אכילת מרור אינה מצוה מן התורה בפני עצמה אלא תלויה היא באכילת הפסח. שמצות עשה אחת לאכול בשר הפסח על מצה ומרורים.  In Sefer Hamitzvot (#56) as well he says המרור נגרר לאכילת פסח, ואינו נמנה מצוה בפני עצמה.  It would seem from the Rambam that since maror on a Bibical level only applies when we have the korban pesach (Pesachim 120a) it is not viewed as its own mitzvah but rather as an extension of the mitzvah of pesach.  However, the Yiraim and Smag (see Rav Perlow on mitzvah 47-49) and Toafos Re'am) do count maror as a sperate mitzvah.  In other words, altough there is a תנאי that maror can only be eaten with the korban pesach, the maror is its own commandment.  The Avnei Nezer (O.C. 534) asks but the Gemarah (28b, 120a) says that an ערל טמא ומי שהיה בדרך רחוקה even though they don't eat the pesach they still eat maror?  He understands from the Rambam (Korban Pesach 9:8) that it is a heter to eat maror but not an obligation.  This approach is already suggested by R' Avraham son of the Rambam in the teshuvot printed in back of Frankel Sefer Hamitzvot. 

The simple read of the Gemarah in Pesachim (91b) is that even according to the opinion of R' Shimon that holds woman are patur from korban pesach, they are still obligated in maror.  The Briskor Rav proves from Rashi there that indeed that is how he holds and he supports this thesis from a Rashi (39b.)  The Briskor Rav aligns Rashi with the opinions that hold maror is an independent mitzvah. He says the Rambam will understand as many Rishonim do that the Gemarah is really referring to matzah and maror is just thrown in since it is an expression to say matzah and maror together.    

Based upon this Rambam that maror is not an independent mitzvah but rather as part of the laws of the korban pesach, Rav Chayim (stencil) explains why the Rosh would entertain that one would not need to eat a cazais of maror since it is not a mitzvah to eat the maror itself but it is a part of the eating of the pesach.  

However, The Rebbe in the Hagadah (on Tzafon) says that even according to the Rambam if a person could not eat the pesach there is still an obligation of maror and he sends you to Pesachim (91b), Kiddushin (37b,) Tosefta end of Chapter 2 and Tafnas Paneach (On the Rambam Chametz U'Matzah 7:2.)  Rav Zevin (Igros volume 17 pg. 41) askes how does it make sense to say the Rambam hold that one can eat maror without pesach if the Rambam clearly says maror is part of pesach.  The Rebbe just says in response that the Rogatchover says that the Rambam holds maror is linked to the pesach only so far as that if the pesach is not offered at all, then there is no maror but if the pesach is offered in general, just an individual has an exemption, that person still has an obligation of maror and the Rogatchover was well aware of the Rambam's that Rav Zevin is quoting.  It is noteworthy that the Rebbe does not ponit to the Gemarah on 120a that an ערל וטמא eat maror.  Presumably there is understandable to learn that it is merely a reshus to eat the maror as the Avnei Nezer argues. However, it is very hard to understand how on can justify the Rambam holding that maror can exist as a stand alone obligation if he considers it part of the pesach?  However, it is notable that this position may be supported from the ruling of the Rambam (Chametz U'Matzah 8:6) that one says a beracha before eating the marar even in the times of the mikdash.  If the maror is only a detail in pesach why would it receive its own beracha? It would seem even according to the Rambam maror is an obligation, וצ"ב.