מַאי לָאו, דְּאָכְלִי בְּאִיגָּרָא וְאָמְרִי בְּאִיגָּרָא! לָא: דְּאָכְלִי בְּאַרְעָא וְאָמְרִי בְּאִיגָּרָא.
What, is it not the case that they eat the Paschal lamb on the roof and say hallel on the roof, which would mean that roofs have the sanctity of Jerusalem? The Gemara responds: No, there is no proof from here, as it is possible that they eat on the ground and say hallel on the roof.
אִינִי? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין מַפְטִירִין אַחַר הַפֶּסַח אֲפִיקוֹמָן, וְאָמַר רַב: שֶׁלֹּא יֵעָקְרוּ מֵחֲבוּרָה לַחֲבוּרָה. לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: We do not conclude after eating the Paschal lamb with afikoman, and Rav said that this means that after eating the Paschal lamb one may not say: Afikoman, which refers to removing the utensils in order to go eat somewhere else, because they may not uproot themselves from one group to another group. This would indicate that one must complete the entire Passover seder in one place. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. Here, where it says that one may not change places, it is during the time of eating. There, where it says they would say hallel on the roof, it is not during the time of eating.
תָּא שְׁמַע, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: עֲלִיַּית בֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים חֲמוּרָה מִבֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. שֶׁבֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים — כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל נִכְנָס לוֹ פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה, וַעֲלִיַּית בֵּית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים — אֵין נִכְנָסִין לָהּ אֶלָּא פַּעַם אַחַת בְּשָׁבוּעַ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: פַּעֲמַיִם בְּשָׁבוּעַ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: פַּעַם אַחַת בְּיוֹבֵל, לֵידַע מָה הִיא צְרִיכָה.
The Gemara attempts to bring another proof with regard to this issue. Come and hear a resolution to this issue based upon the following baraita: Abba Shaul says: The upper story of the chamber of the Holy of Holies is more stringent with regard to the prohibition to enter it than the chamber of the Holy of Holies itself. How so? With regard to the chamber of the Holy of Holies, the High Priest would enter it once a year on Yom Kippur in order to offer the incense and sprinkle the blood between the staves of the ark, whereas the upper story of the chamber of the Holy of Holies is not entered except for once in seven years; and some say twice in seven years, and some say just one time in a Jubilee, i.e., once in fifty years, to see what it needs in case there are renovations that must be done. This indicates that the sanctity of the upper story was even greater than that of the Sanctuary itself.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מֵהֵיכָל נֵיקוּם וְנִיתֵּיב אִינִישׁ? שָׁאנֵי הֵיכָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתֵּן דָּוִד לִשְׁלֹמֹה בְנוֹ אֶת תַּבְנִית הָאוּלָם וְאֶת בָּתָּיו וְאֶת גַּנְזַכָּיו וַעֲלִיֹּתָיו וַחֲדָרָיו הַפְּנִימִים וּבֵית הַכַּפּוֹרֶת״, וּכְתִיב: ״הַכֹּל בִּכְתָב מִיַּד ה׳ עָלַי הִשְׂכִּיל״.
Rav Yosef said: Can a person get up and ask based on the Sanctuary? The Sanctuary is different, as it is written: “Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the Entrance Hall of the Temple, and of its houses, and of its treasuries, and of its upper rooms, and of its inner chambers, and of the place of the ark cover” (I Chronicles 28:11), and it is written with regard to the plans for the construction of the Temple: “All this is put in writing by the hand of the Lord, Who has instructed me” (I Chronicles 28:19). Therefore, the general rules of sanctity of roofs do not apply to the Sanctuary, as the details of its construction were determined through divine inspiration.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַלְּשָׁכוֹת הַבְּנוּיוֹת בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וּפְתוּחוֹת לַחוֹל — תּוֹכָן חוֹל, וְגַגּוֹתֵיהֶן קוֹדֶשׁ! תַּרְגְּמָא רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּשֶׁגַּגּוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין לְקַרְקַע עֲזָרָה.
Come and hear another possible proof based on the following mishna: With regard to the chambers in the Temple that were built in the sanctified area and open to the unsanctified area of the Temple Mount, their interiors are unsanctified and their roofs are sanctified. This states explicitly that the roofs are sanctified. The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥisda interpreted it as referring to chambers that were built under the Temple courtyard, and their roofs were level with the ground of the courtyard. In this case, the reason their roofs were sanctified is because they were part of the courtyard itself.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: בְּנוּיוֹת בַּחוֹל וּפְתוּחוֹת לַקּוֹדֶשׁ — תּוֹכֶן קוֹדֶשׁ וְגַגּוֹתֵיהֶן חוֹל. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּשֶׁגַּגּוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין לְקַרְקַע עֲזָרָה, הָוְיָא לַהּ מְחִילּוֹת, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְחִילּוֹת לֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ! כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן — בִּפְתוּחוֹת לְהַר הַבַּיִת. כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא — בִּפְתוּחוֹת לָעֲזָרָה.
The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: If the chambers were built in the unsanctified area and open to the sanctified area, their interiors are sanctified and their roofs are unsanctified. And if it should enter your mind to say that this is referring to chambers whose roofs were level with the ground of the courtyard, such chambers would be tunnels, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the tunnels were not sanctified. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that, he was referring to tunnels that were open to the Temple Mount; when that baraita, which says that the interiors were sanctified was taught, it was referring to rooms that open to the Temple courtyard itself.
וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְחִילּוֹת מִתַּחַת הַהֵיכָל חוֹל! כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא — שֶׁפְּתוּחוֹת לַחוֹל.
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The tunnels under the Sanctuary are unsanctified? The Gemara answers: When that baraita was taught, it was pertaining to tunnels that open to the unsanctified area, which are considered unsanctified, as stated previously.
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְגַגּוֹ קוֹדֶשׁ!
The Gemara attempts another proof: Come and hear another proof from the same source cited above: It says in the baraita that the roof of the Sanctuary was sanctified, and the roof of the Sanctuary is not mentioned in the plans for the Temple laid out in the book of Chronicles. Therefore, the answer mentioned earlier, that everything in those plans was based upon divine inspiration, is not relevant. In that case, one should be able to derive that all the roofs were sanctified.
וְתִסְבְּרָא?! וְהָא קָתָנֵי: גַּגִּין הַלָּלוּ אֵין אוֹכְלִין שָׁם קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין שָׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים! וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא גַּגּוֹ קֹדֶשׁ! אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: לְאוֹתָן שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת.
The Gemara responds: And how can you understand it that way? Isn’t it teaching: In the case of these roofs of the courtyard and the chambers located there, one may not eat offerings of the most sacred order and one may not slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity there because they do not have the sanctity of the courtyard? However, that is difficult. It contradicts the previous statement that the roof is sanctified. Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: The roof of the Sanctuary was considered sanctified only because those two measuring rods used to measure cubits were stored there.
דִּתְנַן: שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת הָיָה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה, אַחַת עַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית וְאַחַת עַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית דְּרוֹמִית. זוֹ שֶׁעַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית הָיְתָה יְתֵירָה עַל שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה חֲצִי אֶצְבַּע, וְזוֹ שֶׁעַל קֶרֶן מִזְרָחִית דְּרוֹמִית הָיְתָה יְתֵירָה עָלֶיהָ חֲצִי אֶצְבַּע, נִמְצֵאת יְתֵירָה עַל שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה אֶצְבַּע.
As we learned in a mishna: There were two rods for measuring cubits in the chamber called Shushan the Capital, one in the northeast corner and one in the southeast corner. The one in the northeast corner was longer than the cubit mentioned in the Torah from the time of Moses, which was six handbreadths, by half a fingerbreadth, and the one in the southeast corner was longer than that by another half a fingerbreadth. Consequently, the second measuring rod was longer than Moses’ cubit by a full fingerbreadth.
וְלָמָה הָיוּ אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת קְטַנָּה? שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָאוּמָּנִין נוֹטְלִין בַּקְּטַנָּה וּמַחְזִירִין בַּגְּדוֹלָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹאוּ לִידֵי מְעִילָה. וְתַרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? אַחַת — לְכַסְפָּא וְדַהֲבָא, וְאַחַת — לְבִנְיָנָא.
And why did they construct two measures for cubits, one large and one small? It was so that the artisans who were working in the Temple would take payment according the amount of work they did, as measured by the small cubit, and return it to the Temple through their work, as measured by the large cubit, so they would not come to misuse consecrated property. If they would accept any payment that they did not deserve, they would be misusing consecrated property. Therefore, this system of measuring was instituted in order to slightly reduce their payment and prevent accidental misuse of Temple funds. The Gemara asks: And why do I need two large cubits? The Gemara answers: One, the shorter of the two, was for silver and gold, so that the artisans would not lose too much, and one was for construction.
תְּנַן: הַחַלּוֹנוֹת וְעוֹבִי הַחוֹמָה — כְּלִפְנִים. בִּשְׁלָמָא הַחַלּוֹנוֹת, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּשָׁוְיָה לְקַרְקַע עֲזָרָה. אֶלָּא עוֹבִי הַחוֹמָה, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
We learned in the mishna: The space within the windows and the thickness of the wall were considered to be inside. The Gemara clarifies: Granted, with regard to the windows, you will find it to be sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard when it is level with the ground of the courtyard. But with regard to the thickness of the wall, which must have been significantly above the ground, under what circumstances can you find it to be level with the ground of the courtyard? Even the roofs of chambers in the courtyard were not sanctified; therefore, if the thickness of the wall was not level with the floor of the courtyard, it would certainly not have been sanctified.
מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּבַר שׁוּרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּאֲבֶל חֵל וְחוֹמָה״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שׁוּרָא וּבַר שׁוּרָא.
The Gemara answers: You find it in the case of the low wall on the Temple Mount, which was the same height as the floor of the courtyard. This low wall is mentioned in the Bible, as it is written: “He has made the rampart and wall mourn” (Lamentations 2:8), and Rabbi Aḥa said, and some say it in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina, that this double language of both rampart and wall in the verse is referring to a wall and a low wall that were next to each other. This low wall was the same height as the floor of the courtyard.
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁתֵּי חֲבוּרוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹכְלִין בְּבַיִת אֶחָד, אֵלּוּ הוֹפְכִין אֶת פְּנֵיהֶם הֵילָךְ וְאוֹכְלִין, וְאֵלּוּ הוֹפְכִין אֶת פְּנֵיהֶם הֵילָךְ וְאוֹכְלִין, וְהַמֵּיחַם בָּאֶמְצַע. כְּשֶׁהַשַּׁמָּשׁ עוֹמֵד לִמְזוֹג, קוֹפֵץ אֶת פִּיו וּמַחֲזִיר אֶת פָּנָיו, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֵצֶל חֲבוּרָתוֹ וְאוֹכֵל. וְהַכַּלָּה הוֹפֶכֶת אֶת פָּנֶיהָ וְאוֹכֶלֶת.
MISHNA: Two groups that were eating one Paschal lamb in one house need not be concerned that they will appear to be one group. Rather, these turn their faces this way and eat, and these turn their faces that way and eat. And it is permissible for them to have the boiler from which they pour hot water in the middle, so that the waiter can easily serve both groups. When the attendant who is serving both groups gets up to pour for the group of which he is not a member, he must close his mouth and turn his face so that he does not accidentally eat with the other group, until he reaches his group again and eats with it. And the bride, who is embarrassed to eat in the presence of men she does not know, turns her face away from her group and eats, although this may make it seem as though she is part of a different group.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ בָּהֶם״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַפֶּסַח נֶאֱכָל בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲבוּרוֹת. יָכוֹל יְהֵא הָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֵל בִּשְׁתֵּי מְקוֹמוֹת — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּבַיִת אֶחָד יֵאָכֵל״.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna of the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Upon the houses wherein they shall eat it” (Exodus 12:7). This teaches that one Paschal lamb may be eaten in two separate groups, even if the groups eat it in separate houses. I might have thought that one person who eats from it may eat it in two separate places; therefore, the Torah states: “In one house shall it be eaten [ye’akhel]” (Exodus 12:46).
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: הַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת בְּצַד הַתַּנּוּר, אִי פִּקֵּחַ הוּא מְמַלֵּא כְּרֵיסוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְאִם רָצוּ בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ טוֹבָה — בָּאִין וְיוֹשְׁבִין בְּצִדּוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
From here they stated that if an attendant who was registered for a Paschal lamb ate an olive-bulk of it next to the oven in which it is being roasted, and thereby made himself into an independent group at that location, if he is prudent he will fill his stomach with it because when the Paschal lamb is moved to a different location he will no longer be able to eat it. And if the members of the group wanted to do him a favor so that he may continue eating, they would come and sit at his side. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״עַל הַבָּתִּים אֲשֶׁר יֹאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ בָּהֶם״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֵל בִּשְׁתֵּי מְקוֹמוֹת.
Rabbi Shimon says that the verses should be understood in the opposite manner: “Upon the houses wherein they shall eat it” teaches that one person who eats the Paschal lamb may eat it in two places.