Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 65

MISHNA: When two companies eat their paschal sacrifice in the same house (room), each turning their faces in a different direction while eating thereof, and the warming pot or kettle (containing the water to be mixed with the wine) is in the centre between the two companies, the waiter or servant must close his mouth {i.e., not eat), (in order not to be suspected of eating with both companies), while he waits on the other company to pour out wine for them ; then he must turn his face towards the company he eats with, and he must not eat till he rejoins his own company. It is, however, permitted to a bride to avert her face from the company while eating the paschal sacrifice. GEMARA: This Mishnais in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehudah, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [Exod. xii. 7]: " In the houses, wherein they shall eat it," whence we may infer, that two companies are allowed to eat in one house. Should we assume that one may also eat it in two places of one house, therefore it is also written [ibid. 46] : " In one house shall it be eaten," which signifies that it may be eaten only in one place. Thence the sages declared, that if the ser- vant who roasted the lamb (or the kid) had forgotten, and eaten a piece the size of an olive while he was engaged in roasting it, he should, if he knows his advantage, eat his fill right then and there, for he will not be allowed to eat any more thereof else- where; and if his company wish to show him favor, they can come and sit by him, and thus enable him to eat his fill if he had not already done so. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah. R. Simeon, however, said, that the passage " In the houses wherein they shall eat it," signifies, that a man may eat his pas- chal sacrifice in two different places; but lest a man should also assume that he may eat with two companies, the other passage, " In one house shall it be eaten," is added. If one company was sitting and suddenly a partition was created between them (by the falling of a curtain), those who say that it is permitted to eat the paschal sacrifice in two com- TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 171 panics allow them to eat, but those who say that it is not allowed to eat in two companies do not permit them to do so. If the contrary was the case, i.e., if a partition which had been between them was suddenly removed, those who say that the paschal sac- rifice must not be eaten in two places do not allow them to eat it, while those who say it may be eaten in two places permit them to eat it. R. Kahana was sitting and proclaiming this as a positive rule. Said R. Ashi to him: " This is not a positive rule. The question arises whether the partition which was formed or which was removed produced two companies and two places or not, and this question is undecided." " // is, however, permitted to a bride to avert her face,*' etc. Why so ? Said R. Hyya bar Abba in the name of R. Johanan : " Because she is bashful." R. Huna the son of R. Nathan happened to be a guest of R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak. The latter asked him his name, and he replied : " Rabh Huna." Said R. Na'hman to him: " Let Master sit on a bed," and he did so. A goblet of wine was handed him, and he at once accepted it and drained it in two draughts; but did not avert his face. He was finally asked why, when his name was inquired for, he called himself " Rabh Huna," and he answered: " Such has been my name since my youth." " Why, then, didst thou immediately take thy seat on the bed when requested to do so ? " was the question put to him, and he replied: " Because such is the rule, that whatever the master of the house requests his guest to do, the guest should comply." " Why didst thou at once accept the goblet of wine ? " he was asked again, and the answer was: " Because when a man supe- rior to thyself offers thee anything, thou shouldst at once accept it, while only one that is inferior to thee should be allowed to insist upon thy acceptance." " Why didst thou drain it in two draughts?" "Because a Boraitha teaches: 'One who drains his cup at one draught is a glutton. One who drains it in two draughts shows the proper respect, while one who drains it in three is a conceited man.' " " Why didst thou not at least avert thy face ?" " Because it was expressly taught, that only a bride averts her face." R. Ishmael bar R. Jose happened to be a guest of R. Sim- eon ben R. Jose ben Lakunia, and was given a goblet of wine, which he at once accepted and drained at a draught. The people present said to him: " Does not the Master hold, that one who 172 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. drains his cup at one draught is a glutton ?" and he answered: " This was certainly not said of a goblet so small as this, espe- cially if containing wine so sweet and intended for a stomach of the capacity of mine." R. Huna said: "A company which was appointed to eat the paschal sacrifice — if three had arrived and the rest were still absent — may commence to eat it. If the entire company had been there and gone away without eating the sacrifice, but one had remained, that one may eat it himself." Said Rabha: " This only applies if the three who entered had sent the servant to look for the others and they could not be found." Rabhina said : The three who did eat the paschal sacrifice should also be made to pay for it themselves, and the one man who had re- mained should also pay for more than his share. The Halakha, however, does not prevail according to Rabhina.* * All this is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbenu Hananel and not of Rashi, as it is the more reasonable. CHAPTER VIII. REGULATIONS CONCERNING THOSE OBLIGATED TO EAT THE PASCHAL SACRIFICE WHERE IT MAY BE JIATEN — COMPANIES APPOINTED TO EAT IT, AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND PASSOVER. MISHNA: If a paschal sacrifice had been slaughtered for a woman living in her husband's house, by her husband, and another Iamb had been slaughtered by her father (also counting her in), she must eat that of her husband. If she came to pass the first festival after her marriage at her father's house and her father and husband have each slaughtered a paschal sacrifice for her, she may eat it at whichever place she prefers. If several guardians of an orphan have slaughtered paschal sacrifices for him, the orphan may go and eat it at the house he prefers. A slave belonging to two masters must not eat of the sacrifice of both masters. One who is partly a slave and partly free must not eat of the paschal sacrifice of his master. GEMARA : Does the teaching of this Mishna then mean to signify, that there is such a thing as premeditated choice, i.e., if