Q&A: Pesachim 115
Pesachim 115.
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Hillel’s view is that commandments do not nullify one another if their level of obligation is the same (Torah-level with Torah-level / rabbinic with rabbinic), but if one is Torah-level and one is rabbinic (bitter herbs and matzah nowadays), then they do nullify one another and should not be eaten together.
The reason that commandments nullify one another is that the taste of the bitter herbs nullifies the taste of the matzah (see Rashi and Tosafot), and in essence you did not eat “matzah” but rather “matzah mixed with bitter herbs.”
If that is the reason, why does the law change when the commandments are of the same level of obligation? Even in Temple times, when bitter herbs were Torah-level, if you ate the bitter herbs and the matzah together, then you did not eat matzah but a mixture of matzah and bitter herbs!
Why does the nature of the obligation affect the question of mixture / the taste of the eating?
Answer
It seems to me that this is connected to the question whether rabbinic prohibitions apply to the object itself or to the person. The taste as such is of course not affected by this, but the halakhic significance assigned to the taste is affected by the question whether it is Torah-level (in the object itself, in reality itself) or rabbinic (in the person). If it is in the person, then in reality we have the taste of bitter herbs, but not the taste of the commandment of bitter herbs.
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand.
If so, the question becomes even stronger—if rabbinic bitter herbs are only a commandment on the person and not on the object, and it has no taste of the “commandment of bitter herbs,” then all the more so it should not have the power to nullify the taste of the Torah-level matzah?
Indeed, correct. I didn’t notice that.
Perhaps when bitter herbs are rabbinic, their taste is the real-world taste. When that nullifies the matzah, there is no taste of matzah here. But when bitter herbs are Torah-level, their taste is the taste of the commandment of bitter herbs, and that combines with the taste of the commandment of matzah rather than nullifying it.
And it seems even more likely that if one eats matzah and bitter herbs together, this itself is the definition of the commandment—to eat both of them. So why should the taste of one nullify the other? Only when the commandment is to eat matzah and you eat bitter herbs with it do the bitter herbs nullify the taste of the matzah, and then you do not have the taste you were required to eat. But when the obligation is to eat both of them by Torah law, then that combination is one single taste, and that is exactly what needs to be eaten. Therefore nullification is not relevant here. By contrast, when bitter herbs are rabbinic, then the Torah-level definition of the commandment nowadays is to eat the Paschal offering and not a combination. And if you eat bitter herbs together with it, that nullifies the taste of the matzah, so it turns out that you did not eat what you were required to eat.
However, this assumes that the Torah-level definition of the commandment is to eat the combined taste, and not simply to eat matzah and to eat bitter herbs—“they shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs.” And perhaps this is connected to Hillel’s practice of making a sandwich, but this is not the place to elaborate.
“The definition of the commandment is to eat both of them” — but the Talmud argues that according to the Rabbis they are not eaten together.
In light of this, one should discuss the parameters of nullification with rabbinic commandments in general. And perhaps it falls under the principle that whatever the Sages instituted, they instituted in the manner of Torah law, but this is not the place to elaborate.