Clarification: This means at the beginning and not at the end - not.

Clarification (cont.): And it speaks where one only has one k'Zayis of Matzah and no more, where it is preferable to eat it to satisfaction (at the end) so that the taste of Matzah remain in one's mouth.

Conclusion: But if one possesses sufficient Matzah for the entire meal, it is certainly better to eat Matzah to satisfaction at the beginning of the meal and to recite the B'rachah over it, and then at the end of the meal, one eats another k'Zayis of Matzah, in order that the taste of Matzah remains in one's mouth.

Explanation #1: The main Mitzvah is the first Matzah that he eats, which comes to satisfy one's appetite, and it is also good to eat a k'Zayis of Matzah at the end so that the taste of Matzah remains in one's mouth.

Explanation #2: However, even if the main Mitzvah is at the end, it is not surprising that we recite the B'rachah at the beginning to cover the Matzah at the end, since based on the S'vara 'After having filled one's stomach with them, does one then recite the B'rachah?', it is not correct to recite the B'rachah at the end.

Conclusion: And one can recite the B'rachah at the beginning, and cover what one eats at the end, which is the main Mitzvah, as Tosfos explained earlier (on Daf 115. DH 'Maskif') according to Rav Chisda in connection with the two dippings of Maror.

Proof: And in any event, we are forced to say this according to Hillel, who used to eat Matzah together with the Pesach at the end of the meal in order to fulfill the Mitzvah min ha'Torah. If so, at the beginning of the meal the B'rachah that he recited over the Matzah covered the Matzah that he ate together with the Pesach.

Explanation #1: However, according o the explanation that Tosfos cited above, that according to Rav Chisda one needs to look for other vegetables (and not Maror) for the first dipping in order to recite the B'rachah over the Maror by the second dipping ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Here too, one will be obligated to try and obtain Sufganin for the first k'Zayis, in order to recite 'Al Acilas Matzah' at the end.

Explanation #2: Whereas according to the other explanation, that even according to Rav Chisda it is not necessary to look for other vegetables, but may use Maror for the first dipping, and be Yotzei the second dipping with that B'rachah, then here too, one will be able to recite the B'rachah over the Matzah at the beginning, and be Yotzei with the B'rachah over the Matzos Mitzvah at the end.

Question: Why then, do we Pasken 'Ein Maftirin achar Pesach Afokoman', seeing as the taste of the Pesach is stronger than that of Matzah?

Answer: This conforms with the Yerushalmi - which attributes the Mitzvah of eating the Pesach to satisfaction to the fear that one will otherwise come o break a bone, and the Torah writes in Shmos (Chapter 12) "And you shall not break any bones on it", which explains why one may not eat anything after it.

Question: With regard to the Minchah too, the Gemara says in Temurah (Daf 23;) and in Menachos (Daf 21:) that it must be eaten to satisfaction, even though this reason is not applicable there?

Answer: The reason there is so that one does not leave the table pf one's Master hungry.

Answer (cont.): That reason however does not apply to Matzah, as can cannot refer to it as 'the table pf one's Master' to the same extent.

Question: And the Chagigah that comes together with the Pesach, even though there is an opinion which forbids breaking a bone on it, yet it does not need to be eaten to satisfaction ...

Answer: That is because we are only worried about breaking a bone of the Pesach because it is in its first year and therefore tender (and breaks easily), but not the Chagigah.

Conclusion: And the opinion that holds 'Ein Maftirin' both after Matzah and after Pesach, does not hold of the reason of the Yerushalmi, but that so that the taste of Matzah and Pesach should remain in one's mouth.

Rejected Meaning: One cannot explain that he is not Chayav to eat it, because he certainly is Chayav to, since he is Chayav to keep all the Mitzvos.

Correct Meaning: But that he doesn't want to.

Explanation: And it speaks about a Yisrael Mumar at the time of the Shechitah, who then did Teshuvah, and the Gemara now says that even though he is a proper Yisrael, since he was not designated on it at the time of Shechitah, he may no longer eat it, but that he can eat Matzah and Maror.

Explanation (cont.): And an 'Areil', someone whose brothers died as a result of the Milah, is Chayav all the Mitzvos and keeps them all, with the sole exception of the Pesach.

Sugya of Mi she'Hayah Tamei: The Gemara in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (above on Daf 96.) cites both Pesukim "Kol Areil Lo Yochal bo" and "Kol ben Neichar Lo Yochal bo" and asks why we need them both.

Sugya of Mi she'Hayah Tamei (cont.): And it answers that they are needed because, 'Had it mentioned only Areil ... because it is (physically) disgusting ... '.

Refuted Explanation: This seems to mean that the 'Tz'richusa' refers to the actual Pasuk itself.

Refutation: but this not correct, since, why do we need a Tz'richusa? Even they were exactly the same, since when can one learn one La'v from another' ('Ein Mazhirin min ha'Din)? So it is obvious that both Pesukim are necessary?

Correct Explanation: The Tz'richusa must therefore refer to the inferences of the Pesukim - ' "It" he cannot eat, but he can eat Matzah and Maror'. This is how it explains it there:

Correct Explanation (cont.): 'We need them, because had it taught us ... ', meaning that both Pesukim are needed for their inferences ...

Correct Explanation (cont.): Because had it mentioned 'Areil', that it is because his heart is sincere (that he is permitted to eat Matzah and Maror), but ben Neichar I would have thought not.

Correct Explanation (concl.): And had it mentioned 'ben Neichar', that is because it is not disgusting, but 'Areil', I would have thought not.

Implied Question: Even though this is not what the Gemara says ...

Answer: It doesn't matter, since the Gemara is only to inform us they are different, and it is as if one needs the actual Pesukim themselves.

Precedent: And we have a similar format in the first Perek of Bava Kama (Daf 3.) with regard to "Veshilach", implying both Shein and Regel ... .

Question: From the Sugya in Perek Kol Sha'ah (above, on Daf 28.) which implies that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon hold that it is d'Oraysa ...

Question (cont.): One learns it from "Alav", since the Torah writes "Seven days you shall eat on it (Alav) Matzos", and the word 'Alav' is superfluous, to Darshen from it that 'Over and above the Pesach one is Chayav to eat Matzos'.

Question (cont.): The other learns it from "be'Erev Tochlu Matzos".

Answer: We are forced to say that that Machlokes goes according to Rava, and not like Rav Acha bar Ya'akov.

Question: It is nevertheless difficult in that Rebbi yehudah requires a Pasuk for Tamei, Derech Rechokah, Areil and ben Neichar, like Rav Acha, whose opinion is not Halachah; Yet we Pasken like Rebbi Yehudah against Rebbi Shimon?

Implied Question: Even though we Darshen from it (earlier, Daf 83:) 'To give an extra morning for burning it, from which we learn there that 'One is not permitted to burn Kodshim on Yom-Tov'.

Answer: There is an opinion there that derives it in the second Perek of Shabbos (Daf 24:) and in our Masechta (83:) from a different source.

Explanation: Some say that this is the Halachah, seeing as the S'tam Mishnah goes according to him.

Refutation: But this is no proof, since in the second Perek of Megilah (on Daf 20:) we find another S'tam Mishnah that does not.

Refutation (cont.): As the Mishnah says there 'This is the rule - Wherever the Mitzvah applies by night, it can be performed all night' - which comes to include eating the Pesach, which is not like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who says that it must be eaten by mid-night (Chatzos).

Refutation (concl.): And that speaks mi'd'Oraysa', after which it may no longer be eaten.

Explanation Gemara B'rachos: But when the Mishnah at the beginning of B'rachos (Daf 2;) says that 'The burning of the fat-pieces and the limbs may only be burned until Chatzos', that is only mi'de'Rabbanan, even according to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.

Explanation Gemara B'rachos (cont.): Which explains why, even if one delayed burning them until Chatzos, they do not become forbidden, since min ha'Torah they are Kasher until morning, and the Rabanan did not issue a decree to bring them to the Beis ha'Pesul (to be burned) before the specified time.

Support: And it is also evident from Perek ha'Mizbe'ach Mekadesh (Zevachim, 86:) that what Chatzos renders the limbs burned is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Gemara Eizehu Mekoman: The Sugya in Perek Eizehu Mekoman (Ibid. 57:) establishes the Mishnah 'Eino Ne'echal Ela ad Chatzos' like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.

Gemara Eizehu Mekoman (cont.): The Gemara asks there how we know that it is d'Oraysa, maybe it is de'Rabbanan, and the author is Rebbi Akiva?

Chatzos And it answers if so, why does the Tana add the word 'Ela', which it ought to have omitted if it is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Proof: Since earlier there, regarding Todah and Chatas the Tana says 'ad Chatzos' and does not insert 'Ela' ...

Proof: Because even if one transgressed the words of the Chachamim and failed to eat them before Chatzos, they do not become Pasul and one may eat them after Chatzos, as is implied in the first Perek of B'rachos (Daf 9.) ...

Proof (cont.): With regard to the episode where Raban Gamliel's sons returned from the party ... .

Conclusion: In any event, there is a decree, and someone who eats it (the Korban Pesach) after Chatzos contravenes the words of the Chachamim.

Gemara Eizehu Mekoman (concl.): And the text there (in Zevachim) reads 'If so, what does 'Ela' mean? ...

Gemara Eizehu Mekoman (concl.): Moreover, it is like the others, just as the others are d'Oraysa ... ' meaning that just as the other other cases mentioned there 'And it may only be eaten by the designees, and roasted' are d'Oraysa, so too is the case of 'until Chatzos' d'Oraysa, and the author is Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. (See Tosfos Zevachim, 57:, DH 'Ve'iba'is Eima;, ve'Tosfos Megilah, 21. DH La'asuyei').