Pesachim 86a (פו.) — the Talmud in English

Is it not that they ate

the Paschal offering

on the roof

the rooftop],

and recited

the Hallel

on the roof?

And if so, it follows that the roofs of Jerusalem were sanctified for eating the Paschal offering and kodashim kalim, and this presents a difficulty for Rav, who said: Roofs were not sanctified with the sanctity of Jerusalem?

And we answer:

No, they ate

the Paschal offering

on the ground.

That is, inside houses whose floors were level with the ground,

and

only the Hallel

did they recite on the roof.

And we ask:

Is that so

as you said: They are permitted to leave their place during the eating in order to recite the Hallel elsewhere?

But didn’t we learn in the Mishna: One may not conclude after the Paschal offering with an afikoman?

And Rav said

to explain the Mishna:

That they may not leave the group

in which they ate the Paschal offering

to

eat additional foods in

another group

The decree is lest one come to eat the Paschal offering in two places, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s view on this page that it is prohibited to eat the Paschal offering in two places; Rashbam, below 119b].

And this is the explanation of the Mishna: “One may not conclude after the Paschal offering”: When the time has come for it to be dismissed from the meal, that is, after the Paschal offering, one may not dismiss oneself by means of an “afikoman,” which is an acronym for “bring out your utensils,” and let us go and eat more in another group. And since this is so, the following difficulty arises: How was it permitted to leave the place where one ate and recite the Hallel on the roof? [See note ] And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here,

in the Mishna, where it says that it is prohibited to leave the place where one ate, it is speaking

during the eating.

Here,

with regard to the Hallel that they recited,

after the eating

is when they recited it [Rashi], and therefore it is permitted. [See note ]

Come and hear:

Abba Shaul says: The upper chamber of the Holy of Holies

is

more stringent than the Holy of Holies

itself!

For into the Holy of Holies the High Priest entered only once a year,

on Yom Kippur.

And

whereas

into the upper chamber of the Holy of Holies they entered only once in seven years

seven years; see Rashi’s wording].

And some say: Twice

in seven years.

And some say: Once in a Jubilee,

in order

to know what it requires,

lest the wall split open and require repair.

We have therefore learned that the upper chamber of the Holy of Holies was sanctified, for otherwise they would enter it whenever they wished. Yet you said: Roofs and upper chambers were not sanctified?

He said,

responding,

Rav Yosef:

Does it really follow that

from the Sanctuary

the Temple itself]

a person should get up and derive a ruling

let a person get up and raise a difficulty] concerning the other places?

For

the Sanctuary is different, as it is written: “And David gave Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of its houses, and of its treasuries, and its upper chambers”

“and its inner chambers and the House of the Ark-cover.”

And it is written

there:

“All this, in writing from the hand of the Lord, He gave me understanding.”

It is evident that even its upper chambers are holy.

Come and hear:

The chambers built in the sacred area

in the Temple courtyard,

and

which have no entrance to the courtyard but are

open to the non-sacred area,

to the Temple Mount:

It follows that

their interior

the inside of the chambers], since it is open only to the non-sacred area, is

non-sacred

with regard to the sanctity of the courtyard, and is sanctified only with the sanctity of the Temple Mount, for we follow the entrance [Rashi].

And

whereas

their roofs,

since those chambers are built in the sacred area, are

sacred

with the sanctity of the courtyard.

We have therefore learned that even the roofs of the courtyard were sanctified, presenting a difficulty for Rav?

Rav Ḥisda interpreted

the Mishna

as referring

to that Mishna:

To roofs

of those chambers

that are level with the ground of the courtyard,

for the chambers are built over tunnels beneath the ground; therefore their roofs are considered like the ground of the courtyard.

And we ask:

If so,

as we have answered,

say the latter clause:

The chambers

built in the non-sacred area

on the Temple Mount,

and open

only

to the sacred area,

to the courtyard,

their interior is sacred

with the sanctity of the courtyard.

And if it might enter your mind that this refers to roofs level with the ground of the courtyard,

then the latter clause, too, is speaking of a similar case.

And if so,

they would be

and]

those chambers built in the non-sacred area and open to the sacred area

tunnels, and

yet

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Tunnels were not sanctified?

And we answer:

When Rabbi Yoḥanan said

that tunnels were not sanctified, this means

tunnels

that are

open to the Temple Mount,

for it was in this context that Rabbi Yoḥanan said it above, on page 67, in order to permit a man who experienced a seminal emission, who is sent outside the Temple Mount, to enter the tunnels of the Temple Mount [Rashi].

When that baraita was taught—

concerning chambers built in the non-sacred area and open to the sacred area, whose interior is sacred, as we established it with reference to tunnels—

it was referring to those open to the courtyard.

And we still ask:

But wasn’t it taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: Tunnels

that are

beneath the Sanctuary

are

non-sacred?

And we had assumed that this applies even when they are open to the courtyard; thus, even tunnels open to the courtyard are not sacred.

And we answer:

When that baraita was taught, it was referring to

tunnels that extended beneath the eleven cubits behind the House of the Ark-cover and at their end were

open to the non-sacred area,

to the Temple Mount.

Come and hear,

a difficulty against Rav, who said that roofs and upper chambers were not sanctified, from the latter clause of that baraita of Rabbi Yehuda that we cited:

And its roof

of the Sanctuary is

sacred;

it follows that even roofs were sanctified, contrary to Rav?

And we reject this:

But can you understand it

as: Could it enter your mind to interpret the statement “and its roof is sacred” literally, meaning that it was sanctified completely]?

But wasn’t it taught: These roofs

of the courtyard and its chambers:

One may not eat there the most sacred offerings,

for they may be eaten only in the courtyard.

And one may not slaughter there offerings of lesser sanctity,

for the place of their slaughter is the courtyard alone; and this is because this baraita holds that roofs and upper chambers were not sanctified [Rashi, Shevuot].

It is therefore explicit in the baraita that the roofs of the courtyard were not sanctified. How, then, could it enter your mind to interpret the roof of the Sanctuary as sacred?

But then there is a difficulty

with what the baraita said:

“Its roof

of the Sanctuary

is sacred,”

since we have established that it is not sanctified? And we answer:

Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: It was necessary

to state the sanctity of the roof of the Sanctuary

only

to permit placing there sacred vessels belonging to the building.

And this is like

those two cubits

as will be explained immediately: What are those two cubits?] that were placed on the roof of the courtyard, which was sanctified for the purpose of placing them there [Tosafot], but not for vessels belonging to the altar [Rashi].

And as we find that those two cubits were placed on roofs and in upper chambers:

For we learned

in tractate Kelim:

Two cubits

measuring rods, each one cubit long]

were

in the Second Temple

in Shushan the citadel

a structure built above the gate, on which Shushan the citadel was depicted],

one on the northeastern corner, and one on the southeastern corner.

This one on the northeastern corner was larger

in length

than

the

measure of Moses—

which is six handbreadths, by

half a finger.

And this one on the southeastern corner was larger than it

than the other one] by

half a finger; it follows that it was larger—

this cubit on the southeastern corner—

than Moses’ measure

by

a finger.

And why were there

two such cubits in general, which were

“one large and one small”?!

Is not Moses’ cubit, which is the precise cubit, sufficient for us?!

And he explains: In order

that the craftsmen

who undertook to perform the work, constructing a certain number of cubits for the Temple, would

take according to the small cubit [

Moses’ cubit]; that is, the treasurer would stipulate with the craftsmen: “Build this many cubits of construction for the repair of the sacred property, at this many coins per cubit, according to Moses’ cubit” [Rashi, Menahot 98a].

And they would return according to the large cubit;

that is, when the work was completed and they came to calculate the payment, they would calculate for them the cost of a large cubit at the price stipulated for a small cubit. Consequently, they would waive part of their due, since they provided the Temple with more extensive work but received payment only for the smaller amount of work.

And the reason is:

so that they would not come to misuse

the funds they received from the Temple treasury. For since it is impossible to measure with absolute precision, perhaps they would take payment greater than what was due to them, and thereby come to misuse sacred property.

And the Gemara explains the words of the Mishna in tractate Kelim:

And why do we need

two

large cubits?

Is not one of Moses’ cubits and one of the large cubits sufficient for us?

One—

the one at the northeastern corner, which exceeded Moses’ cubit by only half a fingerbreadth—

was for silver and gold [

silver and gold], since this was costly craftsmanship, and it was not appropriate to cause them such a substantial loss [Rashi, Menahot 98a].

And one—

the one at the southeastern corner, which exceeded Moses’ cubit by a fingerbreadth—

was for construction [

building].

We now raise an objection from our Mishna:

We learned: The windows and the thickness of the wall

of the Courtyard are

considered like the interior.

Rashi, in his commentary on the Mishna, did not mention that our Mishna is discussing the matter with regard to the courtyard. However, from the wording of the Gemara here it is clear that the Mishna is also discussing the windows and the wall of the courtyard, Tal Torah; see also the note on the Mishna.

And this is difficult: Are these not similar to roofs and upper chambers? Why, then, are they sanctified with the sanctity of the Courtyard?!

And we explain the objection:

Granted,

“the windows”

are not difficult, because

you can find a case in which it was level

the windowsill

with the ground of the Courtyard,

and therefore it is not like a roof.

But as for the thickness of the wall, how can you find such a case?

After all, the wall is higher than the ground.

And we answer:

You can find a case

in which the wall was level with the ground of the Courtyard

in the bar shura [

shura means wall], a small wall inside the larger wall.

For since the ground inside the Courtyard was higher than the ground adjacent to the wall, as there were steps there in the Courtyard, as we learned in the second chapter of Middot, it is possible to find a case in which that small wall was level in height with the ground of the Courtyard after it had been raised by means of the steps.

And as

it is written: “And he mourned

the rampart

and the wall,” and Rabbi Aha said, and some say Rabbi Hanina:

to explain the verse, “rampart and wall” means

the shura and the bar shura;

the rampart is the bar shura, and the wall is the shura.

MISHNA:

Members of a Paschal offering group who were too numerous to eat in a single group, and who wished to divide and eat in two groups, may divide, provided that one person may not eat in both groups; the reason for this law will be explained in the Gemara.

And therefore:

Two groups

of members of one Paschal offering

who were eating in one house,

with each group designating its own place separately [Meiri],

need not appear as a single group. Rather,

these turn their faces this way [

to one side]

and eat,

and those turn their faces that way and eat.

Although eating in this manner is equivalent to eating the Paschal offering in two groups, there is no problem, since according to the tanna of our Mishna, even eating in two groups is permitted, as explained.

And

they are likewise permitted to place

the hot-water urn—

from which both groups draw hot water for diluting the wine—

in the middle,

between the two groups, and they need not deviate from the practice followed throughout the year, when it was placed there so that the attendant serving both groups could conveniently pour for them both.

For although it separates the two groups, we are not concerned about this.

And since it is prohibited for one person to eat the Paschal offering in two groups, as explained,

therefore: When

the attendant is standing

with one group, with which he began eating, in order

to pour

wine for the other group, while food is in his mouth [Meiri],

the attendant

closes his mouth

so that he will not appear to be eating at all.

And

immediately after pouring [Meiri] he

returns

his

face

toward his group, keeping his mouth closed so that the members of his group will not suspect him of eating, and he keeps his mouth closed

until he reaches his group [

Meiri].

And since there is no prohibition against eating the Paschal offering when each group turns its face away from the other and eats, although they are like two groups,

therefore:

The bride—

who is embarrassed to eat before the members of the group because they look at her [Rashi on the following amud], as the Gemara explains—

turns her face away and eats.

GEMARA:

The Mishna—

which permitted eating the Paschal offering in two groups—

who is its author?

It is Rabbi Yehuda.

As it is taught:

It is written: “And they shall take from the blood and place it on the two doorposts and on the lintel,

on

‘the houses’ [

implying two houses]

which

‘they shall eat’ [

implying two people]

‘it’ [

implying one Paschal offering]

in them.”

This teaches: The one Paschal offering

one

is eaten

by many eaters who have separated from one another, in two houses or

in two groups,

which are like two houses.

One might have thought that the eater—

eats

he himself

in two places,

for example, he eats first in one room and continues eating in another room; or he eats with one group and continues eating with a second group—in the same room—which has turned its face away from the other group, and they have become like two houses.

The verse states: “In one house

shall it be eaten,”

and Rabbi Yehuda expounds it according to the received spelling, which implies “shall he eat” [with the vowel holam and patah]. This teaches you that an individual may eat only in one house, but the Paschal offering may be eaten even in two places by many eaters who have separated from one another.

From here—

we learn that a person may not eat in two places—

they said:

The attendant,

who roasted the Paschal offering in an oven arranged in a room by itself,

ate an olive-bulk

of the Paschal offering

beside the oven,

and he is prohibited from eating in the other room, where the rest of the group will sit to eat;

if he is wise,

the attendant

fills his stomach with it

beside the oven.

And if the members of the group wished to do him a favor,

so that he would not eat alone, they

come and sit beside him

and eat with him,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says:

The matter is reversed: It is permitted for a person to eat in two places, but two groups may not eat in two houses.

And this is how he expounds the verses:

“On the houses which

‘they shall eat’”—

which is phrased in the plural, referring to the eaters, namely, each and every one of those who eat the Paschal offering—

“it”—

referring to a single Paschal offering—

in them.

This teaches: That the eater

eats in two places,

since the Torah permitted each of the eaters of one Paschal offering to eat in two houses.