Another question asked on the yesod of the Maharal is that the gemara [ל"ו] says that one is not yotzei with matza of bikkurim because it says בכל מושבותיכם which excludes bikkurim matza which cannot be eaten בכל מושבותיכם. Asks the gemara - there is another reason why bikkurim matza is no good for Pesach - it says לחם עוני and that requires matza that can be eaten when one is an אונן [like the word עוני] and bikkurim must be eaten only bi-simcha. ותיפוק ליה משום לחם עוני!!
But wait!! According to the Maharal that shouldn't bother us because the requirement of לחם עוני is a separate din while בכל מושבותיכם is necessary and critical - so what is the gemara's question??! You can't say that לחם עוני is enough to exclude matza of Bikkurim and you don't need בכל מושבותיכם because בכל מושבותיכם is מעכב while לחם עוני is not.
One way to get around this problem is to say that the requirement of בכל מושבותיכם is ALSO a separate requirement and not intrinsic to the שם מצה. That would also solve the problem of אינה ראויה לשבעה that we expanded upon in part 1. We can say that אינה ראויה לשבעה is only a דין לכתחילה just like לחם עוני and indeed ותיפוק ליה משום מצה עשירה [see previous post].
But it is QUITE a dochak [Italian for "forced"] to say that all of the dinim in the gemara are only lichtchilah dinim.
And the Maharal's proof that מצה עשירה is matza from the fact that menachos are made with oil and are called matza is also not compelling because with regard to menachos it doesn't say לחם עוני but with regard to Matza on Pesach it does, so maybe לחם עוני defines Pesach matza??
In the Maharal's defense I will say that I learned a little bit of his Gvuros Hashem on the airplane and I was MAMESH MAMESH in shomayim. So add that to my "Book Of The Month Club" - every month until you finish it.
To be continued - I hope:-).