Pesachim 86a — the Talmud in English

What, is it not that they ate

the Pesach offering

on the roof [on the roof],

[of the house],

and they recited

the Hallel

on the roof.

And if so, it follows that the roofs of Jerusalem were sanctified for eating the Pesach offering and kodashim kalim, and this is difficult for Rav, who says: roofs were not sanctified with the sanctity of Jerusalem?

And we answer:

No, it is that they ate

the Pesach offering

on the ground.

That is, inside the houses that were level with the ground,

and

only the Hallel

they recited on the roof.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so

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

But we learned in the Mishna: One does not conclude after the Pesach offering with an afikoman.

And Rav said

to explain the Mishna:

that they should not leave the group

in which they ate the Pesach offering

to

eat other things in

another group [a decree, lest he come to eat the Pesach offering in two places, and in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda on this page, that it is forbidden to eat the Pesach offering in two places; Rashbam below 119b].

And this is the explanation of the Mishna: “One does not conclude after the Pesach offering”: when its time to depart from the meal arrived, that is, after the Pesach offering, one does not depart by means of an “afikoman,” which is an abbreviation of “afiku minaykhu” [take out your utensils], and let us go and eat more in another group. And since this is so, the difficulty is: how is it permitted to leave the place of his eating and recite the Hallel on the roof, [see note ]? And we answer:

one may not end the meal by saying “afikoman,” an abbreviated expression meaning “bring out your utensils,” and let us go eat more in another group. Since this is so, the difficulty arises: How could they be permitted to leave the place where they were eating and recite the Hallel on the roof? [See note below ] And they answer:

It is not difficult:

Here

in the Mishna, where they said that it is forbidden to leave his place of eating, it is speaking

during the eating.

Here,

with regard to the Hallel that they would recite,

after the eating

is when they would recite it [Rashi], and therefore it is permitted, [see note ].

Come and hear:

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

indeed is

more stringent than the Holy of Holies

itself!

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

on Yom Kippur.

And

whereas

into the upper chamber of the Holy of Holies they enter only once in seven years [seven years, and see Rashi’s wording].

[Rashi’s wording differs],

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 and require repair.

We have therefore learned that the upper chamber of the Holy of Holies was sanctified, for if not, they would enter it whenever they wished; yet you said: roofs and upper chambers were not sanctified?!

He said

in answer,

Rav Yosef:

And is it so that

from the Sanctuary [the Temple itself]

[the Temple itself]

a person should arise and establish

[rise and raise an objection] regarding the other places?!

For

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

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

And it is written

there:

“Everything in writing from the hand of the Lord, He gave understanding to me,”

so apparently even its upper chambers are sacred.

Come and hear:

The chambers built in the sacred area

in the Courtyard,

and

which have no entrance to the Courtyard but are

open to the non-sacred

to the Temple Mount:

Thus,

their interior [the inside of the chambers], since it is open only to the non-sacred, is

[the inside of the chambers], since it opens only toward the non-sacred area, is

non-sacred

with regard to the sanctity of the Courtyard, and it is sacred 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, and this is difficult for Rav?!

He interpreted

[explained]

Rav Hisda

that Mishna:

When their roofs

of those chambers

are level with the ground of the Courtyard,

for the chambers are built over underground passages beneath the ground, and therefore their roofs are like the ground of the Courtyard.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

as we answered,

say the latter clause:

The chambers

built in the non-sacred

on the Temple Mount,

and open

only

to the sacred

to the Courtyard,

their interior is sacred

with the sanctity of the Courtyard.

And if it enters your mind that when their roofs are level with the ground of the Courtyard,

then in the latter clause as well it is speaking of such a case.

And if so,

it would be

—

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

underground passages, and

they are

yet Rabbi Yohanan said: Underground passages were not sanctified?!

And we answer:

When Rabbi Yohanan said

that underground passages were not sanctified, that means

in

the underground passages

open to the Temple Mount,

for it was concerning this that Rabbi Yohanan said it above, on page 67, in order to permit a man with a seminal emission, who is sent outside the Temple Mount, to enter the underground passages of the Temple Mount [Rashi].

That statement was taught—

concerning the chambers built in the non-sacred and open to the sacred, whose interior is sacred, which we established as underground passages—

with regard to those open to the Courtyard.

And we still raise an objection:

But was it not taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: The underground passages

that are

beneath the Sanctuary

are

non-sacred, and it arose in our thinking that this is even when they are open to the Courtyard; thus, even underground passages open to the Courtyard are not sacred.

We had assumed that this applies even when they open into the courtyard; thus, even underground passageways opening into the courtyard are not sacred.

And we answer:

That statement was taught: in

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

open to the non-sacred

to the Temple Mount.

Come and hear,

an objection to Rav’s words, who would say that roofs and upper chambers were not sanctified, from the latter clause of that beraita of Rabbi Yehuda that we brought:

And its roof

of the Sanctuary is

sacred,

so even roofs were sanctified, unlike Rav?!

And we reject this:

But can you understand it [would it enter your mind to explain] that what we say, “and its roof is sacred,” is to be understood literally, to say that it was sanctified completely?!

[could it enter your mind to explain] that when we say “its roof is sacred,” this is meant literally, namely, that it was entirely sanctified?

But it was taught: These roofs

of the Courtyard and its chambers:

One does not eat there the most-sacred offerings,

for they may be eaten only in the Courtyard.

And one does not slaughter there lesser-sacred offerings,

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

It is thus explicit in the beraita that the roofs of the Courtyard were not sanctified, so how could it enter your mind to explain that the roof of the Sanctuary is sacred?!

But rather, there is a difficulty

with that which they said in the beraita:

“Its roof

of the Sanctuary

is sacred,”

since we have proved that it is not sacred?! And we answer:

Rav Hama bar Gurya said: It is necessary

to speak of the sanctity of the roof of the Sanctuary

only

to place there sacred vessels belonging to the building.

And for example,

those two cubits

[as he explains below what those two cubits are] 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 upper chambers:

For we learned

in tractate Kelim:

Two cubits

[measuring rods one cubit in length]

were

in the Second Temple

in Shushan the Castle [a building constructed at the height of the gate, with Shushan the Castle depicted upon it],

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

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

This one on the northeastern corner was greater

in its length

than

the cubit

of Moses—

which is six handbreadths by

half a fingerbreadth.

And this one on the southeastern corner was greater than it [than its fellow] by

[than the other one] by

half a fingerbreadth; it follows that it was greater

—this cubit on the southeastern corner—

than that of Moses

by

a fingerbreadth.

And why were

all those two cubits that were

“one large and one small”?!

For the cubit of Moses, which is the precise cubit, is sufficient for us?!

And he explains: in order that

the craftsmen

who undertook to make such and such cubits for the Temple

would take according to the small one [

according to the cubit of Moses], that is to say: the treasurer would stipulate with the craftsmen as follows: “Such and such cubits of construction shall you build for the repair of the House, at such and such payment for each cubit, according to the cubit of Moses].

And would return according to the large one,

that is to say: at the completion of the work, when they would come to calculate the payment, they would calculate for them the price of a large cubit at the price fixed for a small cubit. It follows that they would relinquish from their own, for they would give the Temple a larger work, while taking payment only for a smaller work.

And the reason is:

so that they would not come to misuse

the payment that they received from the Temple treasury, because since it is impossible to make the measurement exact, perhaps they would take payment greater than what was due to them, and they would thereby come to misuse.

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

And the two

large ones

why do I need them,

for one of Moses and one of the large ones is sufficient for us?

One—

this one that was at the northeastern corner, which exceeded Moses’ by only half a finger—

for silver and gold [

for silver and gold], since it is expensive craftsmanship, and it is not good to cause it such a great loss [Rashi, Menahot 98a].

And one—

this one that was at the southeastern corner, which exceeded Moses’ by a finger—

for construction [

construction].

We further raise an objection from our Mishna:

We learned: The windows and the thickness of the wall

of the Courtyard are

as inside.

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 let it be difficult: are these not similar to roofs and upper rooms, and why are they sanctified with the sanctity of the Courtyard?!

And we explain the objection:

Granted,

“the windows”

are not difficult, for:

you can find it that it is level

the window sill was level

with the ground of the Courtyard,

and they are not like roofs.

But the thickness of the wall—how can you find it,

for the wall is higher than the ground?!

And we answer:

you can find it

that the wall was level with the ground of the Courtyard

in a bar shura [

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

For since the ground level inside the Courtyard was higher than its level near the wall—for there were steps there in the Courtyard, as we learned in the second chapter of Middot—if so, you can find that this small wall would be level in height with the ground level of the Courtyard after it had been raised by means of the steps.

And as

it is written: “He mourns

“rampart”

and “wall,” and Rabbi Aḥa, and some say Rabbi Ḥanina, said

to explain the verse: rampart and wall mean

shura and bar shura,

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

Mishna:

Those registered for the Pesach offering who were more numerous than could eat in one group, and who wished to divide and eat in two groups, may divide; provided that one person may not eat in the two groups, as the reason for this law will be explained in the Gemara.

And therefore:

Two groups

of those registered for one Pesach offering

who were eating in one house,

and each one designated its place for itself separately [Meiri].

They are not required to appear as one group. Rather,

these turn their faces this way [

to one side]

and eat.

And these turn their faces that way and eat.

And although eating in this manner is like eating the Pesach offering in two groups, there is nothing to it, for according to the tannai of our Mishna, even eating in two groups is permitted, as was explained.

And

so too they are permitted to place

the boiler—

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

in the middle,

between the two groups, and they need not change from the practice of the entire year, when they would conduct themselves in this way so that it would be convenient for the attendant serving both groups to pour for both of them.

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

And since it is forbidden for one person to eat the Pesach offering in two groups, as was 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 the food is in his mouth [Meiri] .

The attendant then

closes his mouth

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

And

immediately after he poured [Meiri]

he returns

he

his face

toward his group, with his mouth clenched, so that the members of his group will not suspect him that he is eating, and he remains with it clenched

until he reaches his group [

Meiri].

And since there is no prohibition in eating the Pesach offering when these and those turn their faces and eat, even though 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 page b], as the Gemara explains—

turns her face and eats.

Gemara:

The Mishna—

which permitted eating the Pesach offering in two groups—

whose is it?

It is Rabbi Judah’s.

For it was taught:

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

upon

“the houses” [

implying two houses]

which

“they shall eat” [

implying two people]

“it” [

implying one Pesach offering]

in them.

It teaches: that the Pesach

one

is eaten

by many eaters who have divided 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 turned its face away from the other group, and they became like two houses.

The verse states: “In one house”

“it shall be eaten”,

and Rabbi Judah expounds it according to the received tradition, which implies “it shall eat [with the vowel ḥolam and pataḥ].” This teaches you: the individual shall eat only in one house, but the Pesach offering may be eaten even in two places by many eaters who have divided from one another.

From here—

that we have learned: a person shall not eat in two places—

they said:

The attendant,

who roasted the Pesach offering in the oven arranged in a room by itself, and

ate an olive-bulk

from the Pesach offering

beside the oven,

and he is forbidden to eat in another room, where the rest of the members of the group will recline to eat,

if he is wise

the attendant,

he fills his belly from 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 Judah.

Rabbi Shimon says:

the matter is reversed; a person is permitted to eat in two places, but two groups may not eat in two houses.

And this is how he expounds the verses:

“Upon the houses which”

“they shall eat”—

which is the plural expression for the eaters, namely, each and every one of the eaters of the Pesach offering—

“it”—

the expression of one Pesach offering—

in them.

It teaches: that the eater—

eats in two places,

for the Torah permitted each one of the eaters of one Pesach offering to eat in two houses.