We're holding here סעיף. What? We're holding here סעיף ז'. It's page 47. It seems like we're gonna finish the sichah today, and if that happens, that means that tomorrow will be chazara, and Sunday will be the test. Hm? We'll see. Then we'll see what will happen. This sichah is a Pesach sichah, something that's important for everyone to know. Okay. So we're holding סעיף ז'. דער ביאור הנ״ל אין דעם טעם פון ג' matzot, the explanation the Rebbe gave before the reason for ג' matzot, for three מצות, גיט אויך א הסברה אין א דבר תמוה וואס מ׳געפינט בנוגע צו מצה, will explain something that's strange in halachah concerning matzah. But taking the explanation that the Rebbe gave before, this will explain it. דער דין איז אז בלע מצה יצא. There's a din if you swallowed a matzah without chewing it, you are yatza. ס'איז ניטא קיין חיוב צו מרגיש זיין טעם מצה. There's no din that you have to feel the taste of the matzah. ובלבד נאר ס'איז געווען אכילת מצה, as long as you ate the matzah, meaning אפילו דרך בליעה, even if you swallowed it, איז מען יוצא ידי חובתו. You're yatza. א שטייגער ביי מרור, איז מען נישט יוצא עד שירגיש טעם מרירותא בפיו. But maror, if you take the maror and you swallow it, and you don't feel the taste, you are not yatza. That's the din. בלע מצה יצא, בלע מרור לא יצא. So, so far the din is not strange. I mean, in halachah you have to know what is the difference why by matzah you don't have to feel the taste and here you do, but it's a din that we can understand. אבער לאידך איז דער דין, but on the other hand the din is אז מ'איז נישט יוצא במצה מבושלת. If you take the matzah and you cook it, you're not yatza. אדער אפילו מיט א מצה וואס ס'האט זיך געווייקט אין מי פירות, or even a matzah that you soaked in juice, you're not yatza. What's the reason? ווייל אף על פי שאין צריך שיהא טעם מצה בפיו, even though you don't have to taste the matzah, cuz lichorah the reason why these are no good, if you cook it or you soak it in fruit juice, when you eat the matzah you feel the taste of the juice, you will not feel the taste of the matzah. So that's the reason why it's no good. But the question is we don't have to feel the taste of the matzah. V'ha raya if you swallow it, you're still yatza. So why is it that if you cook the matzah, or if you soak the matzah in מי פירות, you're not yatza? מכל מקום המצה עצמה צריך שיהיה בה טעם מצה. The matzah has to have a taste of מצה, ולא שיופקע טעמה על ידי טעם אחר, not to have the טעם מצה changed by a different taste. So it's a, this is a strange thing. So it comes out from here that the matzah, you do not have to taste, the person does not have to taste a taste of matzah, that's why if he swallowed a matzah, he's yatza. On the other hand, the matzah itself has to keep its taste. If the matzah itself is changed, if the taste of the matzah is changed to a different taste, then you're not yatza. Iz nisht muvan. It's not understood. Di meforshim fregn, like meforshim asks the sheilah. דיווייל אז ביי אכילת מצה פאדערט זיך נישט אז דער אדם זאל מרגיש זיין דעם טעם מצה, since by matzah we don't need that the person should feel the taste of the מצה, פאר וואס דארף די מצה עצמה יא האבן א טעם מצה? So why does the matzah itself have to have a taste? Meila if the din would be that you have to feel the taste of the matzah, so if the matzah changed the taste, then you're not yatza. But if you don't have to feel it, so who cares if it's there? Matzah it is, it didn't change it from being matzah, it's still matzah. Ela mai, it's matzah with a different taste than normal matzah has. So who cares if you don't have to feel it anyway? So this is a sheilah that meforshim ask. But ביאור הפנימי in dem, the pnimiyus'dike, chasidishe answer, what's the halachah answer? So the Rebbe in hearah 50 says, הביאור על פי נגלה, ראה הנסמן בהערה הקודמת. So look what it says in the previous hearah, in hearah 49. So he brings mareh mekomos, the Bach, the Levush, ט״ז, the Magen Avraham, ועוד. And ad kedei kach, the Rebbe says here that the Meiri says The Meiri in Pesachim it says, ויש דאיך שדוחין אף עיקר השמועה לומר שאף בלע מצה לא יצא. Because of this, he says some hold that by matzah also cannot swallow. Because if you say you could swallow the matzah and you don't need to feel the taste, it's a contradiction to this דין that the matzah has to keep this taste of matzah. So some say because of that, בלע מצה לא יצא, מפני שבכל הפרק מצינו שהם מתנים טעם מצה, meaning the Gemara always says you have to have the taste of מצה, לא נכרוך אינש מצה ומרור, that's why you can't mix the matzah and maror together. But the bottom line is that all these poskim they answer the reason al pi nigleh what's the difference, but the Rebbe is asking the קושיא על פי חסידות, why is it that you don't even though you don't have to feel the taste of matzah, nevertheless the matzah itself has to keep its taste? So the biur in them,

דאָס וואָס ביי מצה, מצות אכילת מצה מוז נישט זיין טעם מצה, this that we said that you don't have to feel the taste of matzah is נאָר מצד דעם גברא. That's from the person's perspective. That's what we're saying: The person does not have to feel the taste of matzah, but the matzah itself has to keep its taste. What's the pshat based on what we said before? We said before the inyan of matzah is that the Yidden were not involved in the aliyah and the inyan of Yetzias Mitzrayim. So therefore it's only noge'a to the person, but ביי די יידן in גאולת is גאולת מצרים וואס ס׳איז געקומען מלמעלה אן ענין וועלכע זיי האבן נישט קיין טעם. What did the Rebbe explain before in the inyan of matzah? That matzah represents the fact that the geulah came מלמעלה. And that's why matzah versus wine doesn't have a taam. Why doesn't have a taam? Because it shows that the people were not involved, they had no geshmak in it. So therefore the din that you don't have to feel the taste of matzah is a din mitz ad the people. The people didn't have a geshmak in it, the Yidden didn't have any avodah in it. און דעריבער איז בלויז מוכרח אכילת מצה, that's why all that you have to do is eat the מצה באופן אז עס זאל ווערן דם ובשר כבשרו, you have to eat the matzah, matzah becomes part of you, and you don't have to feel the taste. Because as far as the Yidden are concerned they had no taste in Yetzias Mitzrayim at the time when it happened. The matzah represents the Yetzias Mitzrayim as it happened right in the beginning, which when the Yidden had no taste, so that's what the halachah is, you don't have to taste. אז די גאולה זאל איינס ווערן מיט עצם הניגאל, you have to eat it. Why do you have to eat it? Because it's part of you, that means whatever the Yetzias Mitzrayim represents, you feel it. But the taste is not there because the Yidden did not feel the taste. אָבער לאו דווקא אז חיך אוכל יטעם, yeah, but doesn't mean that your gums have to feel the taste. לאו דווקא אז עס זאל פילן א טעם והנאה פון דער מצה, it doesn't mean that you have to have hanaah from the matzah, that you have to feel the taste of the matzah, because that's not part of what the matzah represents. אָבער מצד דער חפצא, looking at the matzah itself, ציווי השם מאכט די מציאות די מצות מצה מצד דעם אויבערשטן מאכט די מציאות די מצות מצה, but the cheftza, the Eibershter made the mitzvah of מצה, מצד דעם אויבערשטן איז אין דער גאולה געגעבן געווארן דער כח צו איבערשטעלן יידן, אז זיי זאלן ניגאל ווערן אויך מצד זייער מציאות מטומאת מצרים. When did it happen that the Yidden got changed over also? At what point? What did the Rebbe explain before? By Matan Torah. That's where the Yidden were involved. מצד the Eibershter, when He gave the made the יציאת מצרים, בכח in the Yetzias Mitzrayim in the beginning already was this idea that the Yidden are able to elevate themselves too. B'koach, right in the beginning it contained everything of the end. So from the Eibershter's perspective, right in the beginning of Yetzias Mitzrayim there is already bekoach the taste. And again, the taste represents the yidden's involvement. That taste really wasn't there from the yidden's perspective. But the אויבערשטער when He did His part, gave the koach that the yidden should be able to get involved. So if you're looking at it like this, if you're looking at Yetzias Mitzrayim on its own, not in respect to the yidden, is there a metzius of a taste or not? Yeah, not b'foal, but bekoach. In the יציאת מצרים ליגט דער that taste. If you're looking from the iden side, did the iden have the taste? No. M'meila, what comes out l'halacha here? Matzah has a taste and doesn't have a taste at the same time. As far as the iden are concerned, it doesn't have a taste. You don't need to have a taste, you don't have to feel the taste. The matzah itself should have a taste, should have the taste of matzah. That's why the halacha is that a yid, if he swallows the matzah, he's yotzei, that means he didn't feel the taste. On the other hand, the matzah itself cannot change its taste, has to have the taste of matzah. Because b'etzem in the cheftza, see the Rebbe uses here also the gavra and the cheftza, in the cheftza aspect of the matzah, which is the cheftza aspect of Yetzias Mitzrayim, there is the taste there. So, therefore, דער עיקר, און דער עיקר מוז די חפצא מצד עצמה, the cheftz of the matzah must האָבן אַ טעם מצה, it must have a taste. וואָס די גאולה עצמה געגעבן, the geulah itself gave. האָט זי געדאַרפט פריער האָבן. Since it gave the koach for the iden having the taste, so it had to have it. See, the word hoben here is in quotations. So it had to have the כח אויפן טעם, it had to have a koach of taam. דער פועל האָט זיך דאָס אויסגעטאָן ביי אידן ביי מתן תורה. When did that happen actually? ביי אידן ביי מתן תורה. But it had to be contained and b'koach in the beginning, so in the matzah there is a taste. But then the shailah is on the other side. So why can't you be yotzei with matzah that has a taste? for the Yidden shouldn't feel. אף על פי כן קען מען יוצא זיין באכילת מצה נאָר מיט לחם עוני און נישט מיט מצה עשירה. Still the Yidden you cannot be yotzei with מצה עשירה as a taste, דאָס הייסט, אז דער טעם וואָס איז פאַראַן און מוז זיין אין דער מצה, איז דווקא אויס טעם מצה. The taste that you have to have in the matzah, the taste that you have to have in the matzah because the taste is there, but it has to be a taste of matzah. אָבער נישט קיין געשמאַק און תענוג וואָס קומט מצד עפעס וואָס איז נישט מצה ווי דער טעם פון מצה עשירה, but not to have a taste of something else, which is מצה עשירה. So the Yid has to eat a matzah, doesn't have to feel a taste, but the matzah itself has to have a taste. Which taste? Its own taste, the taste of matzah.

Let's learn he'arah 52. It's a little bit lamdanishe thing here. והא דאין יוצא ידי חובת מצה כשבלעה יחד עם מרור בזמן הזה, why is it that if you eat matzah and marror together you're not yotzei? And the reason which is in Shulchan Aruch is המרור שהוא מדברי סופרים מבטל את טעם המצה שהיא מן התורה. Because marror is derabbanan בזמן הזה, matzah is d'oraisa, so the taam of the marror is mevatel the taam of the matzah, because it's a derabbanan and not a d'oraisa. He brings from the Alter Rebbe Shulchan Aruch and Gemara. So, obviously, the problem here is not because the person will not feel the taste of the matzah, because if the reason would be because the, because if the problem would be the person cannot feel the taste of, must feel the taste of matzah, then why do we have to give a reason because marror is derabbanan? You could say simply because marror takes away the taste of the matzah. על כרחך צריך לומר שאין החסרון בענין הרגשת טעם מצה בפי הגברא כפשוטו, it's not because you should have to feel pashut in your mouth the taste of the matzah. שהרי אם כן מאי נפקא מינה במרור דאורייתא מרור דרבנן? What would be the difference if it's de'oraita it would be okay, and if it's derabbanan it's not? על כרחך צריך לומר שהכוונה כאן בדין ביטול השייך לחפצא דמצה. It must be not for the person, it must be for the חפצא מצה. I want to explain this a little bit, it's noga pashut to certain things which I can tell you most people don't know. You're learning now Hilchot Pesach, right? You're learning the hilchot of the seder? What are you guys learning? Hilchot, no, learning first bedikat chametz. Then there's hilchot of the seder. There's a certain halachah that people are not so familiar with. Why do we have korech? We eat matzah for the mitzvah of matzah. Make a ברכה אשר קדשנו על אכילת מצה. Then we eat maror for the mitzvah of maror. Then what's the inyan of korech? Korech is not a zecher for the קרבן פסח. The Hillel sandwich. What did Hillel ta'anah? What was Hillel's shittah? Not בית המקדש. Now, what what what was the din? What do we say? כן עשה הלל בזמן שבית המקדש היה קיים, היה כורך פסח מצה ומרור, when בית המקדש, he ate together. Now we don't have we don't have the קרבן פסח. Okay, so the problem, the קרבן פסח is not there. What is the problem of eating matzah and then maror that we have to eat it together another time? What is it that you're not mekayem according to Hillel? Hillel holds you have to do it together. Okay, fine. So if we ate it separately, we're not yotzei. Which mitzvah are we not yotzei? מצות מרור or the mitzvah of matzah? Okay, let's hold that for a second. According to us, if we eat כורך, why aren't we yotzei with כורך? We're eating the matzah and the maror. It must be that according to Hillel, we're not yotzei with eating separately, and according to us, we're not yotzei if we eat it together, so we have to do it both. Cuz otherwise, why don't we just eat it together and we'll yotzei, you'll yotzei both? Hillel says you're not yotzei eating separate, so we eat together. We eat together, so according to Hillel it's fine, according to us it's fine. What is the problem here? What is that Hillel holds we're not yotzei? Hillel says that we're not yotzei because you have to eat it together. What do we say? Shouldn't eat it together. Why shouldn't we eat it together? Because the maror takes away the taam of the matzah. Why does the מרור מבטל טעם of the matzah? Because matzah is derabbanan, maror is derabbanan, and matzah is deOraita. בזמננו זה מצה is deOraita, why why is maror only derabbanan? Cuz the Torah never said to eat maror. The Torah said, על מצות ומררים יאכלוהו, eat the korban Pesach with matzah and maror. So therefore, maror is not a mitzvah unless you have a korban Pesach. But the Rabbanan made it. And what about matzah? Says על מצות ומררים יאכלוהו, the matzah should also be connected with the korban Pesach. שבעת ימים, we don't we don't eat matzah seven days, no. Cuz matzah has another פסוק, בערב תאכלו מצת. So matzah has a separate din that whether you have a korban Pesach or not, you have to eat matzah, fine. Maror is only derabbanan. So the maror will drain out the taste of the matzah because a derabbanan is mevatel a de'oraita. So that's why, according to us, we cannot yotzei with the Hillel sandwich, we're not yotzei with korech, because it's so we have to eat separate. And according to Hillel, what is it that we're not mekayem if we eat separately? We're mekayem the mitzvah of matzah, but we're not mekayem the mitzvah of maror. We're not mekayem the mitzvah of maror. Why aren't we mekayem the mitzvah of maror if we eat it separately? Cuz the pasuk says על מצות ומררים יאכלוהו, the korban Pesach, but we don't have a korban Pesach. It's a zecher to the korban Pesach. No, this is not. You have an Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch here? Yeah, let's read it inside. Yeah, here, סימן תע״ה. מצות מרור מן התורה אינה אלא בזמן שהפסח נאכל, only when the קרבן אבל בזמן הזה אינה אלא דברי סופרים, שתקנו מצה they made מרור זכר למקדש. אבל חיוב אכילת מצה is בזמן הזה also מן התורה, שנאמר בערב תאכלו מצות. לפיכך, אם כרך אדם כזית מצה וכזית מרור ואכלוסם ביחד, if a person took כזית מצה and ate them together, ואכלם בזמן הזה, לא יצא ידי חובתו. You're not yotzei. שהמרור שהוא מדברי סופרים, מבטל את טעם המצה שהיא מן התורה. אבל בזמן שבית המקדש קיים, נו, what was there, what do you imagine was there? So maror was also דאורייתא, שהמרור הוא גם מן התורה, יצאו ידי חובת מצה וידי חובת מרור. In time of the Beit HaMikdash, when you ate matzah and maror together, was no problem, לפי שמצוה של תורה אינה מבטלת זו את זו. If they're both from the Torah, they're not mevatel each other, ששקולין הן כאחת. They're the same, שכולם מצות הקדוש ברוך הוא הן. ולא עוד, אלא שלפי דעת הלל הזקן, listen to הלל, אין אדם יוצא ידי חובתו מן התורה אלא he wasn't יוצא אלא unless he's כורך פסח כזית פסח, כזית מרור, כזית מצה ואוכלם ביחד. Then he goes weiter. ואף בזמן הזה שהמרור אינו אלא מדברי סופרים ומצות מצה מן התורה, nowadays that we said matzah is d'Oraita and מרור דרבנן, ואם כרכם ביחד ואכלם אינו יוצא ידי חובתו. Nowadays you're not יוצא, אף לפי דעת Hillel. Listen, even according to Hillel, who says in the time of the Beit HaMikdash you were not יוצא מצה or maror if you did not eat them together, nowadays if you do eat them together, you're not yotzei the chovato, because our מרור מבטל is טעם המצה. ואם כן, חייב הוא לאכול כזית מצה בלבדה ובלא מרור. So you have to eat matzah without מרור, כדי לצאת ידי חובת מצה מן התורה. Even according to Hillel, you must eat matzah separately, because if you eat matzah together with maror nowadays, since maror is d'Rabbanan, it's mevatel the mitzvah of matzah. מכל מקום אינו יוצא ידי חובת מרור לפי דעת הלל, אלא אם כן נוטל עוד כזית מצה וכורכם כזית מרור. But according to Hillel, you must eat matzah by itself. You must eat matzah by itself, because if you eat matzah with maror, you're not יוצא מצה, cuz maror is mevatel the matzah. Okay? So you eat matzah by itself. Now if you eat, what? One second, we're gonna weiter. So if you eat matzah, eat matzah by itself. Then he says, according to הלל, מכל מקום אינו יוצא ידי חובת מרור לפי דעת הלל, אלא אם כן נוטל עוד כזית מצה וכורכם כזית מרור ביחד. Hillel says that by eating the the כזית מצה and then כזית מרור separately, you're not yotzei the mitzvah of מרור, שהרי מרור בזמן הזה תקנו חכמים זכר למקדש. The whole reason of maror is a zecher to the מקדש, שהיה אז חיובו מן התורה, in the מקדש חיוב מן התורה, ובזמן שבית המקדש קיים אינו יוצא ידי חובת מרור מן התורה לפי דעת הלל, אם לא כורכן עם המצה. בשעת בית המקדש, you were not יוצא מרור unless you ate it with a matzah and the Pesach. So therefore, לפיכך גם עכשיו צריך לכרכו עם המצה. Therefore you have to eat it with matzah. So comes out according to Hillel, the only way you're yotzei everything according to Hillel, you must need eat matzah separate, why? What's the taste? No, cuz if you're gonna eat matzah and the maror, the problem is that maror is derabbanan nowadays, so if you take מרור דרבנן and de'oraita, the מצוה דרבנן is mevatel the de'oraita. So you must need eat matzah separately. So you eat matzah separately, you're יוצא מצה. If you're gonna eat maror separately, what will be the problem? You're not yotzei what? Maror. You're not יוצא מרור, cuz according to Hillel, maror is nothing but together with matzah. Good, that's exactly what we do. So, oh, why we need a separate maror? One second! We're not only Hillel, we got other opinions too! So מצד הלל, you have to eat matzah, and then you have to eat matzah and maror. Weiter. I'm just saying this is something that people are not clear of. ולפי שחולקין עליו חביריו, על הלל, since the other chachamim argued, ואומרים שאין צריך לכרכם כלל, that you don't have to put them together, לא מן התורה בזמן שבית המקדש קיים, ולא מדברי סופרים בזמן הזה. So other poskim hold other tana'im hold that you don't have to eat it together. ולפי דבריהם אם אכל בתחילה כזית מצה בלבדה, if you first eat מצה, ואחר כך אכל כזית מרור בכריכה עם כזית מצה, if you eat matzah and then you would eat only the korech, what would be according to the other shittot? לא יצא ידי חובת מרור. If you eat matzah and then matzah and maror, you're not yotzei according to us, the others, you're not יוצא מרור. Why? לפי שכזית מצה שבכריכה היא רשות ואין בה שום מצוה. According to the other opinions, the other opinions, when you eat matzah after you ate the kezayit matzah, now you're going to eat korech. What do you have here? You have maror, which you'll have to eat miderabbanan, and then you have matzah. What's the matzah? The matzah that you eat with korech, according to this, what is it? It's nothing. You were already yotzei the mitzvah of matzah. And now there is no need for the matzah according to our opinion, other's opinion. Now you have to eat maror. By putting the matzah together with the maror, what are you doing? You're spoiling the maror. ואין בה שום מ- ולפי דבריהם הרי מבטל טעם המרור שבכריכה, כי שניהם יחד. Because what you are doing is you're eating מצה רשות together with a mitzvah. Just like a מצוה דרבנן is mevatel the mitzvah d'oraita, the reshut is mevatel the mitzvah d'rabbanan. So what should we do according to our opinion? How are you yotzei both mitzvot, matzah and maror? So you eat matzah separately, you eat maror separately. אבל לפי דעת הלל, שהמצה שבכריכה היא חוב מדברי סופרים, the matzah of the korech is a chiyuv because you can't be yotzei the maror without the מצה, אינה מבטלת את טעם המרור, שהוא גם כן חובה מן התורה. So what comes out l'maskana? That according to the others who argue on Hillel, what must you do? You must eat matzah separately and you must eat maror separately. So we have to do that. According to Hillel, what must you do? You must eat matzah you must eat matzah without maror and you must eat maror with matzah. So how are we yotzei all opinions? By doing both. What did you say? What were you saying? Yeah, then it was with Pesach. Then it was with the קרבן פסח. Now it's without It's a zecher. See, actually in our Haggadah it doesn't say, other Haggadot before you say כן עשה הלל they have a three more words: זכר למקדש כהלל. It says zecher, so we don't say these words, but that's what it is. וכיון שלא נפסקה הלכה לא כהלל ולא כחביריו, לפיכך לצאת ידי שניהם, to be yotzei both דעות, צריך אדם First, you have to eat a כזית מצה לבד without maror, you make a ברכה על אכילת מצה, and that you're yotzei the mitzvah of matzah according to who? According to Hillel and according to the others. Yeah, אף לפי דעת הלל. ואחר כך צריך שיאכל כזית מרור בלא מצה and make על אכילת מרור, for what reason? To be yotzei maror the way the others hold. ואחר כך יכרוך Then you mix the matzah and the מרור, זכר למקדש כהלל. Okay. According to Hillel, we have a problem. You make a bracha on the matzah because you're yotzei the matzah. Where is the bracha on the maror? According to we when we make the bracha on the maror itself, according to Hillel, you're not yotzei the mitzvah of maror. So when are we yotzei the mitzvah of maror, of bracha on maror? So he says, ואף לפי דעת הלל הוא יוצא בברכת המצה והמרור שבירך כבר. You're yotzei with that. And that's why you should not talk, this is unless it's מענין הסעודה, after you make על אכילת מצה till after you eat the korech. Ah? Ah? Yeah, it's No, it says bichlal. No, but not there you could, but after washing lemashal before the matzah, we don't. Between matzah and korech we do, because it's מענין הסעודה. Yeah, but it says you shouldn't talk other things, you shouldn't talk. Why can or cannot? Yeah, because we want the מצוה על אכילת מצה to also go later. Yotzei lechol hade'ot on the matzah, but the maror goes together with There is a chiyuv on the matzah, too. According to Hillel, there is a chiyuv to eat matzah together with the maror. Not for the sake of matzah, for the sake of maror. But that's why is the matzah not mevatel the maror? According to Hillel, when you were yotzei already According to us, it's mevatel. According to Hillel, it's not, because it's a chiyuv. It's a chiyuv for the purpose of the maror. Good? But there is a chiyuv. כדי שתעלה ברכה זו ברכת המרור גם לזו פטור. We have a one paragraph to finish. I just want to mention one more thing legabei this inyan that we're saying. Why is מרור דרבנן? היות קרבן פסח. What happened at the time of the Beit Hamikdash if someone didn't have a קרבן פסח? Which was No. If someone lived in Bnei Brak, מעשה ברבי אלעזר ו all these they were in Bnei Brak, they didn't have a קרבן פסח. You could only have a קרבן פסח in Yerushalayim. By them, was מרור דאורייתא or מרור דרבנן? Did they have to eat mid'oraisa מרור or not if they didn't have the קרבן פסח? Because we said the whole reason the מרור בזמן הזה דרבנן because it says על מצות ומררים יאכלהו, the קרבן פסח. They didn't have a קרבן פסח. So, this is a misconception that everyone has. Everyone will tell you, if you stam a person, that maror without the קרבן פסח is a d'rabbanan even in the time of the Beit Hamikdash if you didn't have a קרבן פסח. You were בדרך רחוקה, you were tamei, whatever it is. It's not true. You look through the Alter Rebbe and you look through the diyukim, you'll see. In the Rebbe's Haggadah, one place is mashma it starts off not like that, but the רבי טייטשט זו and you see right away what the pshat is. The din is not that you have to eat the the maror with the קרבן פסח, it has to be at a time when there is, yeah, a קרבן פסח. Since the time of the Beit Hamikdash there is a קרבן פסח, so even if you don't happen to have the קרבן פסח, מרור is d'Oraita. That's why there is one girsa in כן עשה הלל בזמן שבית המקדש היה קיים. What's the next words? היה בזמן ש yeah, what? היה כורך, weiter? I can't hear so good. He says היה כורך פסח מצה ומרור. What do you say? Same same thing. Why change your mind when you said right? We say היה כורך פסח מצה ומרור, but there is another girsa. Some say היה כורך מצה ומרור because you know Hillel himself lived big part of his life in Bavel when they had a Beis Hamikdash, and he didn't eat the קרבן פסח. What did he do those years that he didn't eat the קרבן פסח? He didn't go to Yerushalayim. He was still כורך מצה ומרור for the same reason, because maror is d'Oraita in the time of the Beis Hamikdash even for someone that didn't have have the קרבן פסח. So, it comes out a chidush that we're zecher not to the way it was in the Beis Hamikdash. We are eating matzah and maror together zecher to the זמן בית המקדש. But maror then was d'Oraita. That's what the Rebbe brings from the Chasdei Avraham, right, from Chasdei Avraham or something. Okay, let us finish the last paragraph.

און ווי דאס שפיגלט זיך אפ אין עבודת האדם, מיינט עס אזוי. The way this idea the Rebbe says here in עבודה, טעם מצה is the geshmak in kabalas ol. See, matzah, we have a contradiction. We said before matzah different is different than wine. Wine has a taste, matzah doesn't. Has no taste. Now we're saying there is a טעם מצה. You have to have the טעם מצה. טעם מצה, not having a taam is kabalas ol. If you do something with feeling, with seichel, it's geshmak. Kabalas ol has no taam, but there is a taam of kabalas ol. ניט מצד דעת, נאר לחם עני בדעת. Not daas, but לחם עני. דאס איז ניט דער געשמאק וואס קומט פון שכל אדער מדות. It's not geshmak feeling it comes from שכל, מדות, וואס זיי בריינגען טעם און הנאה, נאר זיין קבלת עול איז ביי אים מיט א געשמאק. טעם מצה is kabalas ol with a geshmak, and that's what you have to have. But you can't mix it with other taste because it's b'koach the taam that he in had later. Yeah, I mentioned it before. Tomorrow will be chazara on the sichah, and then Sunday will be the test. Who need a girsa?