Location

Tosfos Pesachim (3b) says that one who does not have land is exempt from korban Pesach. The Achronim struggle to find a source for the law of Tosfos. 

In the post 'What Makes A Kahal' it was cited the concept that only those living in Eretz Yisrael constitute a kahal. The Keren Orah takes this idea and says Tosfos understood that being part of the kahal is a necessary component of the obligation of korban pesach. Since it says ושחטו אותו כל קהל עדת ישראל, the Pesach requires one who is considered part of the קהל - living inside Eretz Yisrael.

Bris Of Chesed

 Chafetz Chaim p. Beshalach

I would like to say a little different peshat. Rav Solevetchik in Festival of Freedom pg. 22 recounts that people who lived in concentration camps had no ability to have compassion, sympathy or feelings of chesed. It was total self survival mode. He explains that it why the Torah emphasizes sharing the korban Pesach with a group. It is the act of doing chesed that can bring people from slaves into independent beings capable of moving beyond pure self survival. I would suggest that according to the Tana Devei Eliyahu Klal Yisrael realized this problem and made a pact to ensure that they would not descend into the pure slave mindset of self survival. נחית בחסדך, because of the chesed done with each other, that allowed Klal Yisrael to maintain a semblance of a free person and therefore they were able to be redeemed and did not just descend totally into slave mode with no way out. 

Good Or Bad

Found at the very end of the Haggadah Siach Yitchak he deals with the contradictions if those that left Egypt were considered to be very lowly or on a high level

This is the Midrash Shir Hashirim (1:25) שחורה אני במצרים ונאוה אני במצרים meaning although externally we were black with sins, intenally we were good. 

The Erev Pesach Holiday

The Gemarah Arachin (10a) says Pesach does not half full Hallel every day as opposed to Sukkot for on Sukkot there are different korbanot every day as opposed to Pesach. Rav Dovid Solevetchik ask so what, each day is still a מועד so why should it not have Hallel? 

The Rishonim beginning og Makom Shenahagu cite the Yerushalmi that Erev Pesach is assur to do work after midday since the korban Pesach is offered then. In other words, the day one brings a korban is assur to do work (the Rishonim argue is this is a Bibical law or Rabbinic - see Tosfos, Ran etc.) The Rambam Yom Tov (8:17-18) says עֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח אַחַר חֲצוֹת, שֶׁהָעוֹשֶׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה אַחַר חֲצוֹת מְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁמַּכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת אִם לֹא נִדּוּהוּ. לְפִי שֶׁיּוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בְּנִיסָן אֵינוֹ כִּשְׁאָר עַרְבֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֲגִיגָה וּשְׁחִיטַת קָרְבָּן.לְפִיכָךְ יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אָסוּר בַּעֲשִׂיַּת מְלָאכָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, כְּמוֹ חֻלּוֹ שֶׁל מּוֹעֵד. Why does he compare it to chol hamoed, why is this law in the laws of Yom Tov if it is a korban law? 

Rav Wahrman (Oros Hapesach siman 18) explains :

Erev Pesach itself is a holiday. He says the korban creates the holiday. Rabbi Brown says a similar idea in Moadanay Moshe siman 2; he says the korban is a siman that it is a moad. 

The Rambam Kli Mikdash (6:9-10) says regarding those who donate wood to the mizbaoch that on those days they can't do work but he says this is a minhag. This seems to contradict the aforementioned Rambam that Erev Pesach is an issur because of the korban but as R. Brown explains, according to the above explanation of the Rambam it is not difficult for a regular korban creates an issur of minhag as to keep one's thought occupied with the korban and Erev Pesach is a real issur due to it being a moad. 

What we see is that a chiuv korban can create a form of holiday. The same can be said for the korbanot of the holidays. The korbanot are a siman of the kedusha of the day. Yes, every day of Pesach is a moad, but the fact that the korbanot are the same means that it is all one long holiday. As the Alter Rebbe says (490:6) that all the days of Pesach are secondary to the first day. However, Sukkot which has different korbanot every day is a unique holiday every day. 

Cup Of Kiddush II

This post is an addendum to the post from last year 'The Cup Of Kiddush' where it was explained why the Magen Avraham assumes that the first of the four cups assumes the status of the 4 cups and therefore can't be recited before the time for the Haggadah and therefore kiddush can only be said after nightfall. However, why would the Magen Avraham not explain that one must wait for nightfall in order to fulfill קידוש במקום סעודה since one can't eat until nightfall as the Taz does? The assertion of the Taz is that in order to be קבמ"ס it has to be the timeframe to eat seudas Shabbos. However, this is not agreed upon. The Maharal Gevurot (Ch. 48) holds that to fulfill seudas Shabbos the meal must be eater into the night even though he allows one to say kiddush before nightfall. It is clear he holds one can say kiddush, eat the meal (even though it does not count for seudas Shabbos) and then eat bread after nightfall. (The Taz (291:6) holds one can fulfill seudas Shabbos before nightfall.) Clearly, he holds even though it is too early to fulfill seudas Shabbos, it does not mean one can't fulfill קבמ"ס. This would indicate the Mahara"l holds קבמ"ס is not a דין in seudah for one can eat a meal to occupy accompany the kiddush even though it is not a "seudas Shabbos." This is the opinion of the M.A. as well for he writes in 267:1 in the name of the Shl"a like the Mahara"l that one must eat bread after nightfall to fulfill seudas Shabbos. Hence, he can't say like the Taz that it won't be קבמ"ס if one can't eat the meal yet, for it is no different that saying kiddush before nightfall every Shabbos. (The Taz might mean that on Pesach night one can't eat anything at all and hence it is not קבמ"ס as opposed to when it is just to early to fulfill seudas Shabbos but one can eat Though in theory one may be able to have a bit of mezonos, וצ"ע.) 

From Poor To Rich

The Gemara in Pesachim (36a) teaches that matzah ashirah, matzah kneaded with wine, oil, or honey may not be eaten on יום טוב ראשון, but is permitted ביום טוב שני. Rashi explains that יום טוב ראשון  here does not literally mean the entire first day; rather, it refers specifically to the first night, when there is a Torah obligation to eat matzah. At that time, the matzah must fulfill the requirement of לחם עוני.

Rabbenu Channanel seems to hold that the halacha of לחם עוני applies the entirety of the night. This may be since he holds that לחם עוני is not a law merely describing the matzah but a law in the Haggadah. The Haggadah demands the presence of matzah - what matzah? לחם עוני. Hence the Haggadah obligates the eating of לחם עוני (one can also explain the Rach's opinion that all the matzah eaten at the Seder is part of the kium mitzvah of eating matzah and hence all the matzah should be לחם עוני.)  

The Rambam (Chametz 5:20) however is of the opinion that entire first day of Yom Tov one can not eat מצה עשירה. This fits with the simple read of the Gemarah, בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן but why would there be a law against מצה עשירה the entire first day?

The Briskor Rav points from the terminologies of the Rambam it emerges that he doesn't hold that לחם עוני defines the matzah of the obligation of the first night, but rather it is a separate דין to have לחם עוני and that is why it is not limited to the matzah of the obligation. The דין of לחם עוני doesn't define the matzah of the mitzvah but rather is a separate halacha with its own dinim. 

This approach is reflected in the Maharal Gevurot Ch. 48 that holds someone who does not have regular matzah for the seder should still eat מצה עשירה for although there will be no kium of לחם עוני it will still be a kium of eating matzah. Based upon this he does not allow for eating מצה עשירה on Erev Pesach (not like Tosfos Pesachim 35b and 99b.)  

It is also clear that in the הו"א of the Gemarah that לחם עוני applies all seven days. It is clear (as the Chidushay HaRan and R' Dovid point out) that the Gemarah initially holds that the law of לחם עוני is not a law in the matzah of them mitzvah but rather is a separate law. Furthermore, the Nemukay Yosef and R' M'lonil understand that there is an actual opinion in the Gemarah that one may not eat מצה עשירה all 7 days for all 7 days one is required to eat לחם עוני. 

However, this still doesn't explain why this דין of לחם עוני should apply the first day? What is unique about the first day?   

Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky connects this to the Gemarah (28a, 96a) that mentions the issur chametz is Egypt was one day. למאי נ"מ? He suggests that the issur of chametz from Egypt lasts even now - and that issur is not based upon the fact that dough didn't rise but is because of a דין of לחם עוני. However, it is not clear why would the issur of the first day be linked to לחם עוני?  

Rav Yaakov notes that with this Rambam we can answer the contradiction in the Haggadah if we eat matxah since it is what was eaten in Egypt as said in the beginning of the Haggadah or because there was no time for the matzah to rise as said in מצה זו? The answer is that there are two matzos. There is the matzah that we eat the first day - and that is the matzah eaten for to remember the matzah eaten as we were leaving Egypt. The matzah the rest of the days of Pesach is since there was no time for the matzah to rise. 

The possuk in Reah (16:3) says תאכל עליו מצות לחם עני כי בחפזון יצאת מארץ מצרים למען תזכר את יום צאתך מארץ מצרים כל ימי חייך. The לחם עוני is connected to the day of leaving Egypt. The leaving of Egypt, as the Ramban (Bo 12:12) notes, started at night but was completed during the day. The first day in its entirety was devoted to getting out of Egypt. Based upon this we can say the source for the first day is not from the issur of chametz but rather since the entire first day is considered the time of leaving Egypt. 

What is the nature of this dual leaving- in the night and the day? The dual nature is not just a historical sequence but a spiritual model. At night, darkness limits vision, one can't see properly and things are unclear. This is how the geulah began. In the nighttime phase, Bnei Yisrael followed Hashem not because they had reached a mature recognition of His truth. They followed simply because it was a way out of Egypt. It was a redemption as a way out of slavery.  As explained in the maamer of Pesach 5719 (second night), this stage is marked by kabbalas ol without daas, movement without clarity, acceptance rooted in bittul rather than comprehension.

In daylight one can see properly, distinguish directions and move with intention.  In the day there is clarity, resolve, and conscious commitment. The daytime leaving of Egypt represents the stage where the Jewish people follow Hashem not simply because He is pulling them out but because they themselves perceive that it is the best to follow Hashem (see maamer 5719 second night Pesach.)

We begin counting the Omer only after the first day of Pesach. The Sefer HaChinuch asks: why don’t we start counting from the very first day of Pesach? The answer is that the first day was devoted entirely to leaving Egypt. Only once we were safely out could we begin the process of internal growth and self‑refinement. This also explains why the Gemara records that R’ Yehoshua instructed his children specifically to prepare matzah ashirah only after the first day. On the first day we must eat לחם עוני because, at that stage, our role was pure submission to Hashem. It was a moment of complete bittul, without asserting our own identity. Hashem took us out, and our task was simply to follow. After that first day, however, the work changes. We are still in the “matzah mode” of humility and simplicity, but now we can begin to add some some ashirus. This represents taking our own independent strengths, personality, and capabilities and using them in the service of Hashem. It is still Pesach, still rooted in bittul, but now flavored with our own contributions.

Cheftzah Of Chametz

The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot לא תעשה  number 198 and #199 counts a prohibition of eating chametz and a seperate prohibition of eating chametz that has been absorbed in a mixture. The Ramban asks why is there a separate mitzvah not to eat חמץ בתערובת, if there is an amount of כזית בכדי אכילת פרס then by all issurim it is considered as if the issue is intact, we should not need a special prohibition here and if it's less than that amount, it is nullified?

The answer can be found in the laws of chametz. It is subject to debate how to understand the rulings of the Rambam. But it is possible that the Rambam rules according to the opinion of R' Eliezer in the Gemarah Pesachim (42-43) that chametz which is in a mixture carries the lav but not the punishment of kares. This is also fits with the Michelta that the Rambam himself in Sefer Hamitzvot 198 quotes ולשון המכילתא: "כל מחמצת לא תאכלו - לרבות כותח הבבלי ושכר המדי וחמץ האדומי. יכול יהו חייבין עליהן? תלמוד לומר: "חמץ" - מה חמץ מיוחד שהוא מין גמור, יצאו אלו שאינן מין גמור. למה באו? לעבור עליהן בלא תעשה. It clearly states there is a lav but no kares for chametz in a mixture. Once we see that there is a מיעוט to exclude the mixture of chametz from kares we would have said that chametz in a mixture does not have a שם חמץ. Therefore, we need a new derasha to renter the chametz into the status of issur even in a case of כזית בכדי אכילת פרס. However, it still needs explanation for in a תערובת there is a halacha of טעם כעיקר telling us that the taam of chametz is considered like the chametz itself so how can we say the derasha is referring to and excluding a case of כזית בכדא"פ? 

Why would there be this split that there would be a lav but no kares? We see that there are two aspects to the issur of chametz. Chametz is prohibited like any other forbidden food and is there is a כזית בכדי אכילת פרס it is assur. However, the kares punishment is meted out only for eating pure chametz. The kares punishment is not for eating merely forbidden chametz but for eating pure chametz. In other words, for the lav one is obligated on the mere taste of the issur, it doesn't have to be a cheftzah of chametz but for the kares one is obligated only for eating a cheftzah of chametz. In light of this the Rambam understands that this split to establish the lav separate from the kares is derived from כל מחמצת. That introduces a new issur on the חמץ בתערובת even though it is not bonified kares prohibited chametz.   

The Minchas Chinuch (12) points out that the Rambam in the list of the mitzvot in the beginning of Chametz U'Matzah mentions the issur on chametz from erev Pesach but not the issur on a mitzure of chametz. He derives from there the issur of כל מחמצת only kicks in on Pesach itself. This would fit well assuming the issur on תערובת חמץ is its own unique issur and not just a גילוי that it is the regular issur of chametz. 

The Rambam (1:7) says האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל. ואף על פי כן אינו חייב כרת או קרבן אלא על כשיעור שהוא כזית. The Achronim aks why do we need a possuk to tell us that the issur of chametz is even on a minute amount, that is the general law of חצי שיעור אסור מן התורה? According to this, the Rambam may have understood that chametz that does not meet the bar of a chiuv kares because it is less than the shiur doesn't have a qualitative amount to be defined as a cheftzah of chametz and therefore a new possuk is required to determine it is assur.  

The prohibition on a mitzture of chametz is derived from כל מחמצת לא תאכלו. The Rambam as mentioned in 'Chametz as דבר שיש לו מתירין' holds that the chumrah of דבר שיש לו מתירין applies by chametz even to a מין בשאנו מינו due to the possuk of כל מחמצת. What does the Rambam see in this possuk about דשיל"מ?

Rav Leib Malen (siman 11) cites the Pri Chadash understands the Rambam rules that when it comes to chametz, it is assur if it כזית בכדי אכילת פרס is present even if there is no טעם of the issur. In light of this, says Rav Leib, we see that for chametz being מבטל the טעם doesn't suffice. The difference between מין במינו ושאינו מינו is that מין במינו there is no ביטול of the טעם and hence if it is a דשיל"מ it is more strict but for מבשא"מ when there is no more טעם the issur is gone entirely and the chumrah of דשיל"מ is not imposed for the issur is not in existence any more. But when it comes to chametz we see in the law of כל מחמצת that even without טעם the issur remains intact so the rule of דשיל"מ will apply even for מין בשאינו מינו. This works according to the peshat of the Pri Chadash. According to above peshat in the Rambam that the Rambam is referring to a regular case of כזית בכא"פ we would have to say that Rambam means is that even though the taste of chametz should not be assur, only the cheftzah of chametz itself, nonetheless כל מחמצת teaches us it is assur. So too, when it comes to דשיל"מ, the bar of bittul is raised. It is not enough to eradicate the shem chametz but any trace of chametz in a taaroves remains forbidden. 

New Wine How Many Berachot

The Magen Avraham (175:1) cites from the Maharil that one should not say הטוב והמטיב during the Seder for it looks like adding to the number of cups. The Pri Migadim says that if one switches wine for the cups itself, according to Ashkenazik custom that one says הגפן for each of the cups, then one says both הגפן and הטוב והמטיב. The Shaar Hatzion (175:3) cites this. This would be the M.A. לשיטתו according to how R' Akiva Eger points out that he holds in theory one can say both the beracha of הגפן and הטוב והמטיב together. However, according to those that hold one says הטוב והמטיב when there is no הגפן said, then in this case one will only say הגפן. (It is interesting that in Shaar Hatzion #2 he cites the logic of R.A.E. but in #3 he goes with the understanding of the M.A.) 

Chametz As דבר שיש לו מתירין

The Gemarah Pesachim (30a) concludes that chametz is not batal on Pesach. The simple read of the Gemarah is since the law in general is that מין במינו is not batal there is a gezerah on Pesach to say even שלא במינו is not batal. Many Rishonim rule however that is general במין במינו is batal and try to justify the pesak of the Gemarah with the bottom line pesak. 

The approach of the Ramban (Milchamos) is to come with an entire new reason why chametz should not be batel and that is due to the rule of דבר שיש לו מתירין אינו בטל and since the chametz will become mutar after Pesach it is not batal on Pesach. The Ramban asks on himself that there is a Rabbinic issur on chametz not gotten rid of before Pesach, so how is it דשיל"מ if it will not become mutar? He answers the Rabbinic law is meant to serve as a chumrah, not as a קולא to remove the din of דשיל"מ. The Ran asks that this answer doesn't work for the entire din of דשיל"מ is Rabbinic so it has to work within the Rabbinic rules? 

In the post 'After Pesach Chametz' there was a chakirah presented if the issur of chametz after Pesach is an extension of the issur on Pesach itself or a new issur. Rav Leeb Malin (siman 10) says that the Ramban holds the nature of the prohibition of chametz after Pesach is a new issur, not a new prohibition. Hence, the issur on Pesach itself is an issur that is דשיל"מ, there is just a new issur that kicks in after Pesach. This explanation only works if the law of דשיל"מ is a lomdus like the Ran in Nedarim (52a) explains. It if is a simple sevarah to eat something in a state of definitive heter instead of relying on bittul like Rashi Betzah (3a) explains then that should apply no matter what the geder of the issur is. It theory one can explain that is why those that don't like the Ramban saying it is a דשיל"מ. However, since the Ran himself asks on the Ramban, he would have to be asking with the understanding that chametz שעבר עליו הפסח is a continuation of the issur on Pesach.    

The Mordechai Pesachim (תקעג) says that chametz is not a דשיל"מ since it will become prohibited next year. At face value this is difficult to understand, so what it will become assur again in the future, there is plenty of time when one can eat the chametz in a state of heter? The Mordechai would seem to make sense in the understanding of the Ran Nedarim that a דשיל"מ is not batul due to the din of מין במינו in a halachik sense. Since the issue itself will become mutur by itself with the passage of time that proves that the issur is not innate and it is like the heter itself and will not be batal. In light of this the Mordechai may mean that chametz on Pesach is an innate issur, the fact that it becomes mutar after Pesach is not because the issur goes away but rather that the entire shem of the issur is chametz on Pesach and if its not Pesach, there is no issur. The fact that the issur comes back next Pesach in fact proves the issur does not go away but the cheftzah of the issur is tied to the timeframe (in בעניין חמץ בפסח אם הווי דבר שיש לו מתירין footnote 5 he says such an explanation in the name of Rav Shmuel Rozovsky.) [It is noteworthy that the Rema YD 102:4 and clearly R' Akiva Eger understand this Mordechai is a general rule for any issur that will come back again, not just a local severah for chametz on Pesach.]

The Rambam in Maachalos Assuros (15:9) says that chametz is not batal because it is a דבר שיש לו מתירין. According to Rav Leeb Malen that would be because he holds of the lomdus severah in דשיל"מ. The Bach (YD siman 102 #4) proves from the Rambam that even when the food will spoil we still impose the rule of דשיל"מ since the Rambam rules even from the beginning of Pesach the chametz is not batal due to the rule of דשיל"מ even though it will spoil. According to the practical severah of Rashi in that case it should be batal, this would be further proof the Rambam agrees to the Ran. 

The Rambam continues in law 12 יֵרָאֶה לִי, שֶׁאַפִלּוּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין - אִם נִתְעָרֵב בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, וְלֹא נָתַן טַעַם - מֻתָּר. לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין חָמוּר מִטֶּבֶל, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקְּנוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאַל תִּתַּמָּהּ עַל חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אָסְרָה "כָּל מַחְמֶצֶת" (שמות יב, כ); לְפִיכָךְ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנ. Achronim ask if the Rambam has a possuk why does he need the Rabbinic reason of דשיל"מ? Presumably the Rambam means the possuk to be an asmachtah to explain why the rule of דשיל"מ applies to chametz even for מין בשאינו מינו. But what does the Rambam see in כל מחמצת that says it shouldn't be batal?  

What Is Maror

ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות על מררים יאכלהו

Rashi explains מרורים as: “כל עשב מר נקרא מרור”—any bitter plant is called maror. This implies that maror (or marorim) in the pasuk is a general term encompassing any bitter herb, rather than referring to a specific species.However, the Mishnah in Pesachim (39a) enumerates specific vegetables that can be used for maror: ואלו ירקות שאדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח: בחזרת, בתמכא, ובחרחבינא, ובעולשין, ובמרור. Additionally, the Gemara records different lists according to other opinions. This suggests that maror is not simply any bitter vegetable, but refers to certain recognized varieties. (Presumably the identification of these species was transmitted by mesorah.) A way to reconcile Rashi with the Mishnah is found in the Ritva, who cites the Re’ah who maintains that the term maror in the Mishnah is itself generic and refers to all bitter plants, and the Mishnah’s list is illustrative rather than exclusive. Alternatively, the view of אחרים in the Gemara כל ירק מר יש לו שרף ופניו מכסיפין may align with Rashi. According to אחרים any bitter herb with these characteristics is valid for the mitzvah.

The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 473:5) rules that one should use the species listed in the Mishnah. The Rema, however, adds that if these species are unavailable, one may use any bitter vegetable. The Gra explains that this allowance is based on the opinion of אחרים. The Magen Avraham writes that in such a case, one should not recite a berachah, because several opinions hold that one does not fulfill the mitzvah with arbitrary bitter herbs. He argues that even Rashi may only mean that all bitter plants are called maror, but not that they are necessarily valid for the mitzvah. One of his proofs comes from Sukkah (13a), which states that if maror has a שֵׁם לְוַוי (a descriptive modifier), one cannot fulfill the mitzvah with it. The Magen Avraham says that this implies that the mitzvah requires a specific form of maror, otherwise, why should a שם לווי make it invalid if any bitter herb were acceptable?  According to the opposing view, one would need to assert that a shem levai signals a form of bitterness not consonant with the Torah’s intended taste profile (see R’ Akiva Eger to Sukkah; Rav Kook, Mishpat Kohen §14). [See also Mishnas Yaavetz siman 17 makes this point a machlokes in the Gemarah.]

It is also notable that the Shulchan Aruch presents the Mishnah’s list in an order of preference, with the earlier items being optimal. The Rambam, by contrast, makes no mention of such a hierarchy. This suggests that the Rambam views all species listed in the Mishnah as equally defined forms of maror, with no basis for preference among them. The Shulchan Aruch, however, appears to hold that while only the Mishnah’s species qualify as maror, those whose taste more strongly reflects bitterness are more ideal for fulfilling the mitzvah.

Questions

The Mishna in Pesachim (116a) says מזגו לו כוס שני וכאן הבן שואל אביו ואם אין דעת בבן אביו מלמדו מה נשתנה הלילה הזה מכל הלילות.  The Rashbam says (in first peshat) כאן במזיגת כוס שני הבן שואל את אביו אם הוא חכם מה נשתנה עכשיו שמוזגין כוס שני קודם אכילה.  In other words, the pouring of the second cup causes questions and the main question is about the pouring of the cup.  The questions of מה נשתנה of for the child that does not take the initiative and ask questions on his own.  Accordingly, the Rashbam understands the Gemarah (115b) that says when a question is asked by the child it exempts from מה נשתנה at face value for the מה נשתנה is only necessary if no questions have been asked.  

Tosfos takes a different approach.  Tosfos (115b) says even after a child asks a question on his own, there is still a requirement to say the מה נשתנה. In other words, Tosfos understands that there is a takkanah to say the מה נשתנה and that must be said even if other questions have been asked.  It would seem Tosfos holds that Chazal insisted specifically the questions of the מה נשתנה be used. 

That may be because in Tosfos's view the obligation of questions Or Tosfos may not hold that one needs specifically the 4 questions but one's questions but be based upon the mitzvot of the night not other events.  

The Alter Rebbe (473:40) says יִתְעוֹרְרוּ לִשְׁאֹל גַּם כֵּן שְׁאָר הַשְּׁאֵלוֹת: "מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה וְכוּ'", לְקַיֵּם לְבָנָיו מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: "כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר לֵאמֹר מָה הָעֵדֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וְגוֹ', וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ וְכוּ'"  It is part of the mitzvah to have questions and answers at the Seder. Earlier (#14) in discussing karpas he says אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה מִצְוָתָהּ לְאָמְרָהּ דֶּרֶךְ תְּשׁוּבָה עַל שְׁאֵלוֹת שֶׁשְּׁאָלוּהוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ וְגוֹ', וְאָמַרְתָּ לְבִנְךָ עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ וְגוֹ.'  Why does he change the pessukim of the source of the need for questions?  There are two different types of questions that can be asked at the Seder.  One is just bewilderment at the general strangeness of the events that we do and the other type are specifically related to the mitzvot of the night.  The karpas is not related to the mitzvot of the night, it is just something we do to evoke questions about the events of the Exodus.  That is the possuk of the generic עבדים היינו but questions specific to the mitzvot of the night are derived from מָה הָעֵדֹת וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים.  This is fulfilled by the מה נשתנה but can not be fulfilled by general questions and that may be why Tosfos requires the מה נשתנה to be asked (see Rishimos Shiurim siman 100.)    

The Alter Rebbe (473:43) says וְעִקַּר נֹסַח הַהַגָּדָה שֶׁתִּקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים חוֹבָה עַל הַכֹּל, הוּא מִתְּחִלַּת "עֲבָדִים הָיִינוּ.  There is a precise text that Chazal enacted to said and that is the Haggadah which starts at עבדים היינו.  What about the מה נשתנה?  It would seem although the questions of מה נשתנה are a key part of the Seder, the precise wording of the questions is not part of the takkanah of Haggadah.   

The Rambam says in his seder Haggadah that the second cup is poured before the beginning of Maggid.  In addition, the Rambam (8:2) says the one leading the seder says the מה נשתנה.  This indicates that the Rambam is of the opinion that the questions of מה נשתנה are indeed part of the Haggadah (see also הוספות ללקו"ש חלק ג.)  Accordingly, the Rambam omits the Gemarah on 115b for he holds the מה נשתנה must be said as it is part of the Haggadah.  

Rav Chayim says that one of the differences between the general mitzvah of זכירת יצ"מ and סיפור is that the Haggadah must be said דרך שאלה ותשובה.  It would seem that he understands that is a Bibical difference.  It is clear from the Alter Rebbe that the שאלה is not part of the integral part of the Haggadah text that Chazal enacted but maybe one can suggest he may agree that it is a necessary component of the Haggadah but there is on defined text? 

The Yarech L'Moadim suggests a possibility according to the Shulchan Aruch who holds that one pours the cup of wine before עבדים היינו that he can agree in principle to the opinion of the Rambma that the Haggadah is said over the second cup of wine but he holds the questions of מה נשתנה are not part of the Haggadah.  He quotes from Derech Sicha that Rav Chayim Kanievsky said that in fact only the עבדים היינו has to be said after nightfall, not the questions for the questions are only a means of getting to the answer.  This line of reasoning for sure does not work with the Rav Chayim for the suggestion here is that the questions are not part of the Haggadah.   

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,  kiddush can only be done after nightfall as well since kiddush must be done at a time when one is able to eat the סעודה- the rule of קידוש במקום 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.)   

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 point 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.

After Pesach Chametz

Chametz שעבר עליו הפסח is prohibited due to a קנס.  The halacha (448:3) is that it is prohibited to everyone even to benefit from the chametz. However, there are Rishonim that hold it is only prohibited for the one who keeps the chametz and those that hold it is not prohibited בהנאה (see beginning of shiur of Rav Asher Weiss.)  

The Pri Migadim (434:9) says that chametz owned by kids would not be prohibited after Pesach since the קנס on chametz שעבר עליו הפסח would not be imposed on kids. In the פתיחה כוללת he is unsure about this halacha.

All of these issues may hinge on the geder of the קנס of the Chachamim.  Did the Chachamim place  an issur on the cheftzah of chametz that was kept over Pesach as an extension of the issur of chametz and if so it is across the board and carries all the stringencies of chametz on Pesach.  Or it is an issur on the gavra for violating the issur and if so it can have it may only apply to the one who kept the chametz and may only carry an issur achilah or may not apply to kids.  (We can sharpen the chakirah more and even if it is an issur cheftzah, is it an extension of the issur chametz with all of its laws or is it an new issur and may not carry an issur hanah (like the Briskor Rav's difference between the issur chametz Erev Pesach in the fifth hour or the sixth hour.)

Thoughts On Karpas

We eat karpas as a strange thing to eat a vegetable before the meal in order encourage children to why we are doing karpas.  The Bach (673) gives three explanations as to what is the answer to the question of we are doing karpas at the seder.  1.  It is the way of בני חורין to eat vegetables before a meal in order to whet the appetite.  2. The answers is that we eat a snack since its going to be a while until the meal.  3. He cites the Maharal (Gevuros 50) that it is not the karpas itself that is strange for it is normal to eat a vegetable at the beginning of the meal, rather it will make the eating of maror strange for we already ate a vegetable for karpas.  This approach is already mentioned in the Rishonim, and Rabbenu Dovid says this is supported from the ma neshtana which we say שתי פעמים, the strangeness is the eating of two vegetables, not the karpas itself.  (However, it does create another difficulty since the ma neshtana is recited before the maror, why would there be a question?)  According to this approach, the answer is we are eating maror since it is a mitzvah.  

These two approaches should come into play in the discussion the Tur has in siman 483 if one doesn't have wine and has to say the kiddush on matzah, when is karpas eaten.  The Tur says in that case karpas should be eaten before kiddush for if it is eaten afterward, there will be nothing strange for the vegetable is bein eaten after the bread.  However, according to the Maharal, the point is just to make the second eating of the vegetable as the maror a funny event and that can still take place even if the karpas is eaten after the matzah.  The Maharal's approach in fact is the simple read of the Gemarah (114b) that since even if one can be yotzei maror with the karpas we eat again as a היכר for the kids.  In other words, it is the second eating that is strange.  See Chazon Eish who tries to align the other approach with the Gemarah. 

The opinion of the Rambam (Matzah 8:2) and Rav Amram Gaon is that karpas should be dipped in charoses.  Tosfos disagrees for we use charoses for maror only to remove the poison in the maror (115a,) which does not apply for the karpas.  So why do the Rambam and Rav Amram hold one must use charoses?  

The Bach (ibid) suggests that there is some degree of poison that exists in all vegetables.  

The Ritva on the Haggadah says יש להם לאכול מן הירקות המרים, ונהגו לאכול כרפס, ויש לנו לטבלו בחרוסת, ... והטיבול הזה הוא זכר לוימררו את חייהם בעבודה קשה בחומר ובלבנים.  According to the Ritva the karpas is a bitter vegetable to remember the slavery in Egypt.  In light of this it may very well be that is why the Ritva says to dip it is charoses which is also meant to serve as a remembrance to the slavery (see Rishimos Shiurim of Rav Kamlenson siman 75.)  It comes out the Ritva holds karpas is connected to being slaves in Egypt while the Bach in one approach holds we eat karpas as a means of demonstrating freedom so they view karpas from opposite sides.  

The Rambam is of the opinion that everything eaten as a mitzvah through the seder, matzah, korech, maror, karpas, is dipped in charoses.  Why does he hold that way?  The Rambam (7:11) says הַחֲרֹסֶת מִצְוָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים זֵכֶר לַטִּיט שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְדִין בּוֹ בְּמִצְרַיִם. ... וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתָהּ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח.  Here the Rambam says it is a mitzvah for the charoses to be present on the table durnig the Haggadah.  As the Alter Rebbe puts it (473:20)  וְתִקְּנוּ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְפָנָיו חֲרֹסֶת בִּשְׁעַת אֲמִירַת הַהַגָּדָה, שֶׁהַחֲרֹסֶת הוּא זֵכֶר לַטִּיט שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ בּוֹ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּמִצְרַיִםק וְזֵכֶר לַתַּפּוּחַ כְּמוֹ שֶׁ[יִּ]תְבָּאֵר, לְכָךְ צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְּסַפֵּר שִׁעְבּוּד מִצְרַיִם.  In other words, there is a halacha that the table should be adorned with charoses as a remembrance to the shibud and then there is another halacha of dipping in the charoses which the Rambam delineates in Chapter 8.  In light of this it is understandable that the Rambam holds the halacha of dipping things in charoses is not a halacha in the item being dipped, but it is a halacha in charoses as a way of enhancing the remembrance of the shibud that all dippings of the night should be done in charoses (ibid siman 79,80.)  

According to to Tosfos (114a,) the Rosh and Tur that hold we don't dip in charoses why do they require a dipping at all?  The Migdal Oz (8:8) says שאין אכילה חשובה בלא טיבול.  In other words, to define it as a eating that will be acknowledged dipping is required.  

The Ritva (presumable lishitaso that it is a bitter vegetable,) asks how can one say a ha'adamah on the vegetable if it is not fit for consumption and vegetables which are not edible are shehakol?  He answers that כי בלילה הזה מצותו קובעתו ועושה אותו כאילו מידי דחזי, כיון שאנו חייבים לאוכלו, since we have to eat it, on this night it is deemed fit.  In the Haggadah Naftali Sheva Ratzon (which is one of the commentaries on the Haggadah on Sefaria) says a derush idea, "This is an allusion to a Midrash: when the Israelite women gave birth in the fields and the Egyptian soldiers would come to kill the children, the ground would swallow up the infants. The Egyptians would then bring oxen to plow up the ground in order to find them. After they left, they broke through the ground and sprouted up like weeds, as it says “I caused thee to multiply as the plants of the field.” (Ezekiel 16:7) In order to remember this great miracle, we eat greens and recite the blessing boray peri ha’adamah even though it is not necessary to recite this blessing under these circumstances."    

The Rambam (8:2) is of the opinion that one must eat a cazais of karpas.  That would presumably be because every time we find an act of eating it entails eating a cazais.  Many Rishonim disagree with the Rambam and do not require a cazais because one is not obligated to eat karpas for the sake of eating it but merely as a means of inspiring questions.  This issue may have its roots as to the nature of the point of karpas.  According to the approach that the karpas eating itself is to arouse questions then its whole purpose is defined as a question starter and it would not require a cazais.  However, the Maharal notes according to his approach that the eating of karpas is to to encourage questions about the maror, it is logical that it will only make the eating of maror strange if an act of actual eating, meaning a cazais took place beforehand.  In line of this thought, if the Rambam holds like the Maharal, it is possible to suggest another reason for why he requires the karpas to be dipped in charoses and that is to drive home the home the point that the marror is a second vegetable eating parallel to that of the karpas which will inspire questions (ibid siman 76.)   

The Ritva says proof that there is no act of eating required but it is merely necessary to taste a little bit because we do not say a birchas hamitzvah before eating karpas.  It is noteworthy that even though we say on the karpas the regular beracha of ha'adamah, the Tur (484) is of the opinion that even one who is not eating the karpas currently may say the beracha for others .  The Taz explains that even though the karpas is not technically a mitzvah, once there is a takkanah to do it, its beracha is like a birchas hamitzvah where one can say it for others.  In other words, it is not a mitzvah but it is a chiuv.  The Ritva also must hold this way for he says it is not a mitzvah but as cited before he says מצותו קובעתו which must mean it is a Rabbinic obligation in order to inspire questions.  The Baal Ha'Etur (cited in the Tur) that holds one can't say the beracha unless partaking in the karpas, in other words, it is a regular birchas hanehin would seem to view the karpas as not a geder of a takkanah but as a minhag.  The Rambam that holds one must eat a cazais may hold due even though the point is to arouse questions (even if we don't say he holds like the Maharal,) once it is an obligation, it requires a cazais like any other act of eating.  

The Klal And The Individual

There are two types of korbanos.  There are korbanos of the tzibbur such as the korban tammid where one korban is offered for the entity of Klal Yisrael.  There is another type of korban which is a korban yachid where a private indivdual has an obligation or offers to bring a korban of his one.  The Rambam splits these two categories into the different books, the book of Korbanot which deals with the individual korbanot and the book of Avodah which coves the communal obligations.  The korban pesach is an interesting korban in that it is a korban yachid offered by every individual but at the same time it is qualified as a korban tzibbur (the Yerushalmi says that is why it overrides Shabbos, see also Yoma (51a) פסח נמי אתי בכנופיא.)  (See about this in this book pg. 192-196 (in the pg. numbers on top,) article קורבן הפסח and sicha of the Rebbe volume 18 Behaloscha sicha 2.)  Or in another words as the Rebbe clarifies in a footnote based upon the Rogatchover's breakdown (מפענח צפונות פרק ד,) normally a tzibbur is a sum that is greater than the sum of its parts but in the korban pesach the tzibbur is the combination of all the individuals lumped together.  

The Rebbe goes on to explain the "טעם פנימי" for why this duality is present in the korban pesach.  Pesach is the time of the birth of Klal Yisrale and therefore the korban pesach carries two elements of Klal Yisrael.  On the one hand it is the body of Klal Yisrael, the tzibbur that is of vital importance but at the same time every individual also is important in his/ her own right.  These two perspectives are alluded to by Hillel in Avos אם אין אני לי מי לי, everyone has their own mission and is important in their own right but at the same time, וכשאני לעצמי מה אני, one has to be acting as part of the klal, one's actions as a yachid has to have a place as part of the general klal.  This dichotomy or paradox of acknowledging both the individual and the tzibbur is fraught with tension but is the goal.   

This paradox is also highlighted by the parshios of Vayakhel and Pekuday.  The name Vayakhel means a gathering yet the parsha details every individual vessel used in the Mishkan and the name Pekuday means every individual but the parsha is all about all the pieces coming together?  The Rebbe explains (volume 21 ) that the the parsha of Vayakhel highlights that even though there are individual vessels, they were not made purely with intent for their own function but also to function as part of the general Mishkan.  Conversely, Pekuday demonstrates that after there is an entire Mishkan structure, one should not just view all the individual parts as losing their own self worth in the totality of the building, but that the totality enhances the importance of the individual.  This is also hinted to by the fact that Vakayhel Pekuday are often combine but also are sometimes separate parshios.  There is a klal and individuals and both are of importance.