Pesachim 86b — the Talmud in English

Could it be that

the substance of the Passover offering

is eaten by two groups

in two houses?

The verse therefore states: “In one house”

“it shall be eaten”

[in the reading with two tzeres, and as it is read:] the Passover offering.

To teach you: the beginning of its eating must be in one group, and it may not be divided among two groups; but the eater may eat even in two houses [provided that the offering is eaten by one group], for “it shall be eaten” was stated only concerning the Passover offering.

And we explain their dispute:

Rabbi Judah holds: the determining principle is the written form,

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

And Rabbi Shimon holds: the determining principle is the reading,

according to the vocalization; and the verse is read as referring to the Passover offering and not to the person.

Therefore:

a. Behold, if

they were sitting

as one group and eating the Passover offering,

and a partition was spread between them,

and they became two houses, this is their law:

According to the one who says —

Rabbi Judah —

the Passover offering is eaten by two groups:

These people

eat

from the two sides of the partition, and even though the partition made them into two groups in two houses, since the Passover offering is eaten by two groups.

And there is no concern on account of one person eating in two places [for at first they were eating in the large house and now in a small room, as though new faces had come here], because since no eater sees air that he did not see at first, this is not considered for him a new place [Rashi].

But

according to the one who says —

Rabbi Shimon —

the Passover offering may not be eaten by two groups:

They do not eat,

since they have become two groups.

b.

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 —

the eater eats in two places:

These people

eat.

But

according to the one who says —

Rabbi Judah —

the eater may not eat in two places:

These people

do not eat,

even though they do not move from their places; since each one sees air that he did not see at first [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 decisively;

that is to say: he was stating these laws that we said concerning spreading a partition and removing it as though there were no room for doubt in this, and it was obvious.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana:

But why is this obvious to you, without doubt, in these laws?!

For it would have been appropriate that

you should formulate a question for yourself [say it in the language of doubt: Is it indeed so?], and you should have said as follows:

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

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

are they considered like two places and like two groups?

That is to say: does the removal of a partition make it two places; and does the making of a partition make it two groups, or not?

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

teyku.

We learned in the Mishna:

The bride turns her face

and eats:

And we explain:

What is the reason

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

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: 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

[he happened to arrive]

to

[the house of]

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

[please sit on the bed], which is the place of reclining for distinguished people, whereas the minor, non-distinguished people sit on benches!

And

he sat,

Rav Huna.

They gave him a cup

[they gave him a cup of wine].

Rav Huna accepted it

from them

on the first occasion

[after the first time that they asked him], and he did not wait until they urged him.

And he drank it in two occasions

[he drank the cup in two times], interrupting in the middle of drinking 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:

For what reason did you call yourself

[yourself]

“Rav”

Huna?!

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

from my youth they have called me thus: “Rav Huna” [Rashi].

They further said to him:

For what reason, 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: Everything that the master of the house tells you,

heed his voice and

do, except “Leave,” [see note ].

see the note.

They further said to Rav Huna:

For what reason, when they gave

[when they gave]

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

and did not initially refuse?!

He said to them:

When

one refuses a minor

to accept his words until he urges him,

but one does not refuse a great person.

They further asked him:

For what reason did you drink it

[you drank the cup that they poured for you]

in two occasions?

He said to them: For it was taught in a beraita:

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

And one who drinks in

two

[two times] is

acting with proper conduct.

And one who drinks in three

is

among the arrogant.

They further said to him:

For what reason did you not turn your face

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

He said to them: “The bride turns her face”

is what

we learned

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

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:

But is it so that

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

He said to them: I did not say this concerning your cup

less than a quarter-log

; and

I did not say this concerning

your wine being sweet; and

I did not say this concerning

my belly being broad,

for the belly of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was broad.

The following discussion is explained according to the words of the Meiri, following Rashi’s method.

Rav Huna said: Members of a group

who happened to be in one inn, or who joined together for some reason [and this does not concern Passover, Rashi and Meiri], and who hire a waiter to arrange their matters of food and drink for them,

these people

enter

to eat

as three,

and once three of them have arrived, the waiter must enter and serve them, and he may not refrain from attending to them until all of them arrive, so that he will not need to serve several times, but he serves the three; however, when there are fewer than three, he is not required to attend to them, since they are not fit for a zimun.

And

at the end of their meal

they leave one by one

one

[Rashi], meaning: If after eating one or two continue eating, the waiter must wait for them and serve them, even though all the rest have finished their eating, since this is the way of eaters: one prolongs and one shortens.

Rabba said

concerning Rav Huna’s statement that they enter as three:

a.

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

[Rashi and Meiri]; specifically, when these three came at the proper time and did not come excessively early.

b.

And this is when the waiter sensed them

[he noticed them, and he is called a dayala], meaning: He is not obligated to serve the three except when the waiter notices that they intend to eat, finish, and leave; but if the waiter senses that they intend to prolong their meal until the others also finish, he is not obligated to serve the three until the others also arrive.

Ravina said

concerning Rav Huna’s statement that they leave one by one:

a.

And they give —

the last ones, who prolonged [their meal] —

a monetary fee,

that is: they must participate in his wages with a larger share than the others, since they used him more 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 money

for the waiter.

And the halakha does not follow him

Ravina, for those who prolong [their meal] do not need to give the waiter more money than the others, nor add to his payment, since this is the implicit condition.

We will return to you, chapter “How They Roast.”