יָכוֹל יְהֵא נֶאֱכָל בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲבוּרוֹת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּבַיִת אֶחָד יֵאָכֵל״. I might have thought that a single Paschal lamb may be eaten in two separate groups; therefore, the verse states: “In one house shall it be eaten.”
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the consonantal text of the Torah is authoritative; meaning, the primary understanding of the verse is according to the way it is spelled. If this is the case, the verse may be rendered: In one house shall he eat it [yokhal], referring to the person eating the Paschal lamb. This would indicate that one eating from the Paschal lamb must eat in one location, but the verse does not prohibit dividing the offering between multiple groups. And Rabbi Shimon holds that the vocalized text of the Torah is authoritative. Since the word is pronounced ye’akhel, it is clear that it is referring to the Paschal lamb itself, and the verse requires that the offering be consumed by a single group of people (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).
הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין וְנִפְרְסָה מְחִיצָה בֵּינֵיהֶם, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר פֶּסַח נֶאֱכָל בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲבוּרוֹת — אוֹכְלִין, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין הַפֶּסַח נֶאֱכָל בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲבוּרוֹת — אֵין אוֹכְלִין. The Gemara attempts to clarify this halakha: If members of a group were sitting and eating the Paschal lamb, and a partition was spread between them such that they now constitute two separate groups, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says a Paschal lamb may be eaten in two groups, they may continue to eat; according to Rabbi Shimon, who says a Paschal lamb may not be eaten in two groups, they may not continue to eat because they now constitute two groups.
הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין וְנִסְתַּלְּקָה מְחִיצָה בֵּינֵיהֶן, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר הָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֵל בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת — אוֹכְלִין, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר אֵין הָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֵל בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת — אֵין אוֹכְלִין. On the other hand, if they were sitting in two separate groups separated by a partition, and the partition between them was removed, according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that one who eats the Paschal lamb may eat it in two places, they may eat; according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one who eats the Paschal lamb may not eat it in two places, they may not eat. The removal of the partition defines a new place and it is as though they are eating in a new location.
יָתֵיב רַב כָּהֲנָא קָא פָּשֵׁיט לֵיהּ מִפְשָׁט. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: וְתִיבְּעֵי לָךְ אִיבַּעְיָא: סִילּוּק מְחִיצָה וַעֲשִׂיַּית מְחִיצָה מִי הָוֵי כִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת, וְכִשְׁתֵּי חֲבוּרוֹת דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ. The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana sat and taught this lesson simply, as though it were absolutely clear that erecting a partition divides a group into two distinct groups and removing a partition causes the area to be regarded as a new location. Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: You should raise this dilemma as a question: Does removal of a partition or the construction of a partition in one location during the eating of the Paschal lamb render the place comparable to two locations and cause the people to be considered two groups, or not? In fact, there is no clear answer to this dilemma, and the Gemara concludes: Let the question stand unresolved.
הַכַּלָּה הוֹפֶכֶת אֶת פָּנֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בּוֹשָׁה. It was taught in the mishna that a bride turns her face. The Gemara asks: What is the reason she turns her face? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is because she is embarrassed by other members of the group looking at her.
רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מָה שְׁמָךְ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: רַב הוּנָא. אֲמַרוּ: נִיתֵּיב מָר אַפּוּרְיָא! יְתֵיב, יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ כָּסָא, קַבְּלֵיהּ בְּחַד זִימְנָא וְשַׁתְיֵיהּ בִּתְרֵי זִימְנֵי, וְלָא אַהְדַּר אַפֵּיהּ. In this regard, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, happened to come to the house of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak. They said to him: What is your name? He said to them: Rav Huna, even though using his title appeared to show conceit. They said: Our master may sit on the bed due to his great stature. He sat immediately, despite the fact that common etiquette dictated that he initially refuse. They gave him a cup of wine that he accepted the first time, without initially refusing it. And he drank it in two sips and did not turn his face from the rest of the people who were present.
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא קָרֵית לְךָ רַב הוּנָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ בַּעַל הַשֵּׁם אֲנִי. מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי אֲמַרוּ לָךְ נִיתֵּיב אַפּוּרְיָא יְתֵבְתְּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: כׇּל מַה שֶׁיֹּאמַר לְךָ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עֲשֵׂה (חוּץ מִצֵּא). These actions all appeared to be departures from the common etiquette and surprised his hosts, who said to him: What is the reason you call yourself Rav Huna? He said to them: I am known by that name since my youth, and therefore referring to myself with that title does not indicate conceit. They asked him: What is the reason that when they told you to sit on the bed, you sat immediately and did not initially refuse? He said to them: We have learned that anything the master of the house says to you, you should do, except for an inappropriate request, such as if he says to leave.
מַאי טַעְמָא כִּי יָהֲבִי לָךְ כָּסָא קַבֵּלְתְּ בְּחַד זִימְנָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ: מְסָרְבִין לַקָּטָן, וְאֵין מְסָרְבִין לַגָּדוֹל. מַאי טַעְמָא אִשְׁתֵּיתֵיהּ בִּתְרֵי זִימְנֵי? אָמַר לְהוּ: דְּתַנְיָא, הַשּׁוֹתֶה כּוֹסוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה גַּרְגְּרָן, שְׁנַיִם — דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שְׁלֹשָׁה — מִגַּסֵּי הָרוּחַ. מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אַהְדַּרְתְּ אַפָּךְ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״כַּלָּה הוֹפֶכֶת פָּנֶיהָ״ תְּנַן. They continued to question his conduct: What is the reason that when they gave you the cup, you accepted it the first time and did not politely demur? He said to them: One may refuse a lesser person, but one may not refuse a great person; when an important person makes a request, it is respectful to comply immediately. They persisted in their questioning: What is the reason you drank it in two sips? He said to them: As it was taught in a baraita: One who drinks his cup at one time is a guzzler; drinking it in two sips is proper manners; one who drinks his cup in three sips is haughty, as he thereby demonstrates that he is pampered and indulgent. They continued to question his conduct: What is the reason you did not turn your face in accordance with the common etiquette? He said to them: We learned in the mishna that a bride turns her face; however, there is no reason for anyone else to turn his face.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן לָקוֹנְיָא. יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ כָּסָא, קַבְּלֵיהּ בְּחַד זִימְנָא וְשַׁתְיֵיהּ בְּחַד זִימְנָא. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר הַשּׁוֹתֶה כּוֹסוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה גַּרְגְּרָן? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא אָמְרִי בְּכוֹסְךָ קָטָן וְיֵינְךָ מָתוֹק וּכְרֵיסִי רְחָבָה. The Gemara relates another incident that is somewhat similar to the one just quoted: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, happened to come to the house of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya. They gave him a cup of wine to drink. He accepted it the first time it was offered and drank it at one time. They said to him: Does our master not hold of the halakha that one who drinks his cup at one time is a guzzler? He said to them: They did not say this rule with regard to your small cup, and your sweet wine, and my wide stomach.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה נִכְנָסִין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְיוֹצְאִין אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶחָד. אָמַר רַבָּה: וְהוּא דְּעָיֵיל בְּעִידָּנָא דִּרְגִילִי לְמֵיעַל, וְהוּא דִּרְגַשׁ בְּהוּ דַּיָּילָא. Rav Huna said: Members of a group enter with three, meaning that when there are three members present the waiter must start serving them, and they may leave even with one, meaning that they may leave one at a time, and the waiter must continue serving those who remain until they are finished. Rabba said: And that is true only when the last member of the group entered at a time when it is common to enter the meal and not unusually early or late, and it is true only when the waiter [dayyala] knew about them, i.e., he knew that the members of this group leave one by one as they finish their meals and do not eat the entire meal together.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְנוֹתְנִין שְׂכַר דָּמִים, וְצָרִיךְ הָאַחֲרוֹן לְהוֹסִיף דָּמִים. וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ. Ravina said: And the people who stayed late and extended their meal must give the waiter extra money for the wages he earned during the extra time that he served them, and the last one must add money for the time the waiter stayed to serve him individually. The Gemara notes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Ravina. Rather, the waiter must serve until the last member of the group has completed his meal without additional compensation.
הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ כֵּיצַד צוֹלִין