Parallel
פסחים 86
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Does that not mean that they ate on the roof and recited [the Hallel] on the roof? No: they ate on the ground and recited [it] on the roof. Yet that is not so, for surely we learned: You must not conclude after the Paschal meal [by saying] ‘To the aftermeal entertainment!’ and Rab said: [That means] that they must not remove from one company to another? — There is no difficulty: there it is at the time of eating; here it is not at the time of eating. Come and hear: Abba Saul said: The upper chamber of the Holy of Holies was more stringent than the Holy of Holies, for the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year, whereas the upper chamber of the Holy of Holies was entered only once a septennate — others say, twice a septennate — others say, once in a Jubilee — to see what it required? -Said R. Joseph: Shall a man stand up and raise an objection from the Hekal! The Hekal is different, because it is written, Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch [of the Temple], and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper rooms thereof, and of the inner chambers thereof, and of the place of the ark-cover; and it is written, All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Lord hath made me wise by His hand upon me. Come and hear: [With regard to] the chambers built in the sacred area and opening into the non-sacred area, their inside is non-sacred, while their roofs are sacred? — R. Hisda explained this [as meaning] where their roofs were level with the ground of the Temple Court. If so, consider the second clause: [As to] those built in the non-sacred [area] and opening into the sacred [area], their inside is sacred, while their roofs are non-sacred. Now if you think that it means where their roofs are level with the ground of the Temple Court, then they are cellars, whereas R. Johanan said: The cellars were not sanctified? — R. Johanan said this only in respect of those opening into the Temple Mount; [whereas] that was taught in respect of those opening into the Temple Court. But it was taught, R. Judah said: The cellars under the Hekal were non-sacred? — That was taught where they opened into the non-sacred [area]. Come and hear: And its roof is sacred? — Now is that logical: surely he teaches: As for these roofs, you may not eat there sacrifices of the greater sanctity, nor kill there sacrifices of the lesser sanctity. But in that case ‘its roof is holy’ presents a difficulty? — Said R. Hama b. Guria: [That was taught] in respect of those two cubits. For we learned: There were two cubits [measures] in Shushan the Castle, one on the north-east corner and one on the south-east corner. That on the north-east corner exceeded [the cubit] of Moses by half a fingerbreadth, while that on the south-east corner exceeded it [sc. the first cubit] by half a fingerbreadth, so that it exceeded [the cubit] of Moses by a fingerbreadth. And why was one large and one small? So that the workers might receive [contracts] by the small [measure] and deliver [the work] by the large one, to avoid liability to a trespass-offering. Any why two? One was for [work in] gold and silver, while the other was [or building. We learned: THE WINDOWS AND THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL ARE AS THE INSIDE. As for the windows, it is well, this being possible where they were level with the ground of the Temple Court; but how is the thickness of the wall conceivable? — It is possible in the case of the inner wall, as it is written, But he hath made the rampart and the wall to mourn, which R. Aha — others say, R. Hanina — interpreted: the wall proper and the minor wall. MISHNAH. IF TWO COMPANIES ARE EATING IN ONE ROOM, THESE MAY TURN THEIR FACES IN ONE DIRECTION AND THOSE MAY TURN THEIR FACES IN ANOTHER DIRECTION, WITH THE BOILER IN THE MIDDLE. WHEN THE WAITER RISES TO MIX [THE WINE], HE MUST SHUT HIS MOUTH AND TURN HIS FACE AWAY [FROM THE OTHER COMPANY] UNTIL HE REACHES HIS OWN COMPANY. BUT A BRIDE MAY TURN HER FACE AWAY AND EAT. GEMARA. Who is [the author of] our Mishnah? — It is R. Judah. For it was taught: Upon the houses wherein they shall eat it: this teaches that a Paschal lamb may be eaten in two companies. You might think that the eater may eat in two places, therefore It is stated, In one house shall he eat it. Whence it was said: If the waiter ate as much as an olive at the side of the oven, if he is wise he eats his fill of it; but if the members of the company wish to do him a favour, they come and sit at his side: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: ‘Upon the houses wherein they shall eat it:’ this teaches that the eater may eat in two places. 38
—
You might think that it may be eaten in two companies. Therefore it is stated, ‘In one house shall it be eaten.’ Wherein do they differ? R. Judah holds: The traditional [non-vocalized] text is authoritative; while R. Simeon holds: The text as read [as vocalized] is authoritative. If they were sitting [in one company], and a partition was spread between then, — on the view that [one] Paschal lamb may be eaten in two companies, they may eat [thus]; [but] on the view that [one] Paschal lamb may not be eaten in two companies, they may not eat [thus]. If they were sitting , when the partition was removed from between them: on the view that the eater may eat in two places, they may [go on] eating [thus]; but on the view that the eater may not eat in two places, they may not [go on] eating. R. Kahana sat [and] stated this as a definite ruling. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: You should [rather] ask it as a question: Does the removing of a partition or the setting up of a partition transform it into two places or two companies [respectively] or not? The question stands over. THE BRIDE TURNS HER FACE AWAY etc. What is the reason? — Said R. Hiyya b. Abba in R. Johanan's name: Because she is modest. R. Huna the son of R. Nathan visited the home of R. Nahman b. Isaac. They asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘Rab Huna,’ replied he. ‘Would you, Sir, sit down on the couch,’ said they, and he sat down. Then they offered him a goblet, which he accepted at the first [invitation] but he drank it in two times, without turning his face away. They asked him, ‘What is the reason that you called yourself Rab Huna?’ [He replied:] ‘That is my name.’ ‘What is the reason that when they told you to sit on the couch you did sit?’ Said he to them: ‘Whatever your host tells you, do.’ ‘What is the reason that when a goblet was offered you you accepted it at the first invitation?’ Said he to them: ‘One must show reluctance to a small man, but one must not show reluctance to a great man. ‘Why did you drink it in two times?’ — Said he to them: ‘Because it was taught: He who drinks his goblet in once is a gourmand; in two times, shows good breeding; in three times, is of the arrogant. Why did you not turn your face away?’ — ‘We learned, A BRIDE TURNS HER FACE AWAY,’ replied he. R. Ishmael Son of R. Jose visited the home of R. Simeon b. R. Jose b. Lakunia. They offered him a goblet, which he accepted at the first invitation and drank in one draught. Said they to him: ‘Do you not agree that he who drinks his goblet in one draught is greedy’? Said he to them: ‘This was not said when your goblet is small, your wine sweet, and my stomach broad’. R. Huna said: The members of a company enter three at a time, and depart even singly. Rabbah observed: But that is only if they enter at the time when people generally enter, and providing that the attendant had taken notice of them. Rabina said: And they must make their [full] payment; and the last must pay extra. But the law does not agree with him. [
—