Pesachim 86b (פו:) — the Talmud in English

Could it be that

the principal portion of the Paschal offering

may be eaten by two groups

in two houses?

The verse states: “In one house”

“it shall be eaten”

[read with the vowel tzeirei, and therefore referring to] the Paschal offering.

This teaches you that the initial portion of its consumption must take place in one group, and it may not be divided between two groups. However, an individual may eat in two houses [provided that the offering is eaten by one group], since the word “it shall be eaten” was stated only with regard to the Paschal offering.

And we explain their dispute:

Rabbi Yehuda holds: There is a basis for deriving the halakha from the written form,

the verse is expounded according to its spelling, which implies: a person shall eat.

And Rabbi Shimon holds: There is a basis for deriving the halakha from the vocalized reading,

according to the vowels; and the verse is read as referring to the Paschal offering and not to the person.

Therefore:

a. If

they were sitting

as one group and eating the Paschal offering,

and a partition was erected between them,

so that they became two houses, this is their law:

According to the one who says—

Rabbi Yehuda—

the Paschal offering may be eaten by two groups:

These people

may eat

from the two sides of the partition. Although the partition made them two groups in two houses, the Paschal offering may indeed be eaten by two groups.

There is no concern that one person is eating in two places [as they initially ate in the large house and now in a small room, as though a new situation had arisen], for since none of the diners sees air that he did not see initially, this is not considered a new place for him [Rashi].

But

according to the one who says—

Rabbi Shimon—

the Paschal offering may not be eaten by two groups:

They may not eat,

since they have become two groups.

b.

If they were sitting

as two groups in two houses

and the partition between them was removed,

this is their law:

According to the one who says—

Rabbi Shimon—

a person who eats may eat in two places:

These people

may eat.

But

according to the one who says—

Rabbi Yehuda—

a person who eats may not eat in two places:

These people

may not eat,

even though they do not move from their places. Since each one sees air that he did not see initially [the air beyond the partition], the two places have become like a new place, and it is forbidden to eat in another place.

Rav Kahana was sitting and resolving it categorically;

that is, he stated these laws that we mentioned concerning the erection and removal of a partition as though there were no doubt whatsoever about them, and as though they were obvious.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana:

Why, then, is this obvious to you, without any doubt, with regard to these laws?!

It would have been appropriate that

you should raise the question as an unresolved problem [that is, state it in the language of doubt: Is this indeed so?], and you should have said:

that is, state it as a question: Is this in fact so? And you should have said:

The removal of a partition and the erection of a partition—

are they considered like two places and like two groups?

That is: Does the removal of a partition make it two places, and does the erection of a partition make it two groups, or not?

And we conclude: Indeed, it is a matter of doubt, and

the matter shall stand unresolved.

We learned in the Mishna:

The bride turns her face

and eats.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that she wishes to turn her face away from the other members of the group?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Because she is embarrassed

to eat in front of the members of the group, because they look at her.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, happened to come

[to the house]

of

[that is, to]

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak.

They said to him: What is your name?

And

he said to them: Rav Huna.

They said

to him:

Let the Master sit on the couch

[the bed, which was the place where distinguished people reclined; whereas lesser, less distinguished people sat on benches]!

And

he sat,

Rav Huna.

They gave him a cup

[of wine].

Rav Huna accepted it

from them

on the first occasion

[after they asked him once], and he did not wait until they urged him repeatedly.

And he drank it in two sittings

[he drank the cup in two portions], interrupting his drinking in the middle of the cup.

And he did not turn his face

[he did not turn his face] to another side, but drank in front of them.

They said to him

to Rav Huna:

Why did you call yourself

[that is, refer to yourself]

“Rav”

Huna?!

He said to them: I am a bearer of the name,

that is what I have been called since childhood: “Rav Huna” [Rashi].

They said to him further:

Why, when they said to you: “Let the Master sit on the couch”—

which is a manner of arrogance and authority [Tosafot]—

did you sit?!

He said to them: Whatever the master of the house tells you,

listen to him and

do it, except “Leave.” [See the note .]

see the note.

They further said to Rav Huna:

Why, when they gave

[when they presented]

you with a cup, did you accept it on the first occasion,

and did not initially refuse?!

He said to them:

When

a lesser person is involved, one refuses

to accept his offer until he urges one repeatedly,

but one does not refuse a great person.

They further asked him:

Why did you drink it

[the cup that they poured for you]

in two sittings?

He said to them: As it is taught:

One who drinks his cup all at once is a glutton.

And one who drinks it in

two

[two times] is

behaving properly.

And one who drinks it in three

is

among the arrogant.

They said to him further:

Why did you not turn your face

when you drank, as is the accepted practice [Maharsha, as a possible explanation; see also Sefat Emet]?!

He said to them: It is “the bride” who turns her face,

as

we learned

in our Mishna, but it is not the practice of a man to turn his face away.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, happened to come to the house of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonia:

They gave him a cup; he accepted it on the first occasion, and drank it on the first occasion.

They said to him:

Is it really so that

the Master does not hold: One who drinks his cup all at once is a glutton?!

He said to them: They did not state this with regard to a small cup,

less than a revi’it

; and

they did not state it with regard to

your wine being sweet; and

they did not state it with regard to

my belly being broad,

for Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, had a broad belly.

The following passage is explained according to the Meiri, following Rashi’s approach.

Rav Huna said: A group of people

who happened to be staying at one inn, or who joined together for some reason [this is not referring to the Paschal offering, Rashi and the Meiri], and who hire a servant to arrange their food and drink,

these people

may enter

to eat

in groups of three,

and once three of them have arrived, the servant must enter and serve them. He may not refrain from attending to them until everyone has arrived, so that he will not have to serve them several times; rather, he serves the three. But when there are fewer than three, he is not required to serve them, since they are not eligible for a zimmun.

And

at the end of their meal,

they may leave one at a time

one

[one at a time, Rashi]. That is: If after eating one or two continue eating, the servant must wait for them and serve them, even though everyone else has finished eating, since this is the way of diners: one extends his meal and another shortens it.

Rabba said

concerning Rav Huna’s statement that they may enter in groups of three:

a.

And this is when they enter at the time when people enter

[Rashi and the Meiri]; this applies specifically when these three arrived at the appropriate time and did not arrive much earlier than usual.

b.

And this is when the attendant sensed their intention

[the servant sensed their intention, and he is called a dayyala], that is: He is not obligated to serve the three unless the servant senses that they intend to eat, finish, and leave. But if the servant senses that they intend to prolong their meal until the others have also finished, he is not obligated to serve the three until the others arrive as well.

Ravina said

concerning Rav Huna’s statement that they may leave one at a time:

a.

And they give—

the last ones, who prolonged their meal—

monetary payment,

that is: They must contribute a larger share toward the servant’s wages than the others, since they made greater use of him than the others [the meaning of the Meiri’s words].

b.

And it is necessary

for the last one,

who prolonged his meal,

to add payment

to the servant’s wages.

But the halakha does not follow him,

Ravina, for those who prolong their meal do not have to give the servant more money than the others, nor do they have to add to his wages, since this is the implicit arrangement.

We will return to you, chapter “How the Paschal Offering Is Roasted.”