The first disagreement was whether 'he has not fulfilled his obligation' refers to fulfilling the obligation of eating the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter herbs until one explains their significance orally, or if one has not fulfilled the obligation of recounting the Exodus story if the meaning of these commandments is not explained. This is the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law, Chapter 285): "Rabban Gamliel used to say, whoever has not said these three things on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation: the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter herbs. The Passover offering, since our ancestors used to eat it when the Temple stood, etc." The explanation is that now one repeats the answer to 'Ma Nishtana', as I explained above, and on these three things the obligation of the Haggadah is based, to say for this reason when they are placed before you.

Likewise, it is written in Tanya Rabati (Chapter 48): "Rabban Gamliel used to say, whoever has not said these three things on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation: the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter herbs. Since the essence of the Haggadah is based on these three things, and all of them are a remembrance and testimony to Passover."

And similarly, the Meiri explained: "Rabban Gamliel says, whoever has not said these three things on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation – he means, he did not elaborate on this recounting adequately, unless he explained the meaning of these three, and they are, the Passover offering, matzah, and bitter herbs. And he should mention the appropriate verse that corresponds to the meaning of each one. The Passover offering, he should explain its significance based on the fact that the place passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt, as it says, 'And you shall say, it is a Passover sacrifice'. Matzah, based on the fact that they were redeemed and it was left for them, as it says, 'And they baked the dough'." It is evident that he believes that the recounting of the Haggadah is necessary.