אקמטרא ככלי בתוך כלי דמי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי ספר תורה צריך לעשות לו מחיצה עשרה מר זוטרא איקלע לבי רב אשי חזייה לדוכתיה דמר בר רב אשי דמנח ביה ספר תורה ועביד ליה מחיצה עשרה אמר ליה כמאן כרבי יהושע בן לוי אימר דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי דלית ליה ביתא אחרינא מר הא אית ליה ביתא אחרינא אמר ליה לאו אדעתאי:
atop a chest is like a vessel within a vessel. On a similar note, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who wishes to engage in marital relations in a room in which there is a Torah scroll, must erect a partition ten handbreadths high. The Gemara relates: Mar Zutra happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi and he saw that in the bed chamber of his son Mar bar Rav Ashi, there was a Torah scroll, and a partition of ten handbreadths had been erected for it. He said to him: In accordance with whose opinion did you do this? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? Say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said this only as a makeshift solution in exigent situations, when he has no other room in which to place it, but don’t you, Master, have another room where you could place the Torah scroll? He said to him: Indeed, that did not enter my mind.
כמה ירחיק מהן ומן הצואה ארבע אמות: אמר רבא אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא לאחוריו אבל לפניו מרחיק מלא עיניו וכן לתפלה
We learned in the mishna: And, how far must one distance himself from urine and from feces in order to recite Shema? Four cubits. Rava said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said: They only taught that it is sufficient to distance oneself four cubits when the feces are behind him, but if they are before him he must distance himself to the point that it is no longer within his range of vision; and the halakha is the same for prayer.
איני והא אמר רפרם בר פפא אמר רב חסדא עומד אדם כנגד בית הכסא ומתפלל הכא במאי עסקינן בבית הכסא שאין בו צואה
The Gemara challenges this: Is that so? Didn’t Rafram bar Pappa say that Rav Ḥisda said: One may stand opposite a bathroom and pray. The Gemara resolves this contradiction: With what are we dealing here? With a bathroom that has no feces, and therefore there is no need to distance himself to that extent.
איני והאמר רב יוסף בר חנינא בית הכסא שאמרו אף על פי שאין בו צואה ובית המרחץ שאמרו אף על פי שאין בו אדם אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בחדתי
The Gemara asks again: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Yosef bar Ḥanina say: The bathroom to which the Sages referred in all of the halakhot of distancing oneself was even one in which there were no feces, and the bathhouse to which the Sages referred in all of the halakhot of uttering sacred matters, was even one in which there was no naked person. Rather, with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a new structure, built as a bathroom but not yet used for that purpose.
והא מיבעי ליה לרבינא הזמינו לבית הכסא מהו יש זימון או אין זימון כי קא מיבעי ליה לרבינא למיקם עליה לצלויי בגויה אבל כנגדו לא
The Gemara asks: Wasn’t this already raised as a dilemma by Ravina: One who designated the structure for use as a bathroom, what is its legal status? Is designation effective or is designation not effective? The Gemara replies: When Ravina raised the dilemma, it was whether or not one may stand and pray inside it, but he had no dilemma whether or not one may pray opposite it.
אמר רבא הני בתי כסאי דפרסאי אף על גב דאית בהו צואה כסתומין דמו:
Rava said: These Persian bathrooms, even though they contain feces, they are considered as sealed, as they are constructed on an incline so the feces will roll out of the bathroom underground.
מתני׳ זב שראה קרי ונדה שפלטה שכבת זרע והמשמשת שראתה נדה צריכין טבילה ורבי יהודה פוטר:
MISHNA: Continuing the earlier discussion of the halakhot of immersion for Torah study and prayer for one who experienced a seminal emission, the mishna discusses a case where individuals who were already impure with a severe form of ritual impurity are exposed to the impurity of a seminal emission as well. They are required to immerse themselves and purify themselves of the impurity of the seminal emission even though they remain impure due to the more severe impurity. Consequently, even a zav, whose impurity lasts at least seven days, who experienced a seminal emission, for which, were he not a zav, he would be impure for only one day; a menstruating woman who discharged semen, despite the fact that she is already impure with a severe impurity unaffected by her immersion; and a woman who engaged in conjugal relations with her husband and later saw menstrual blood, all require immersion. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts them from immersion.
גמ׳ איבעיא להו בעל קרי שראה זיבה לרבי יהודה מהו כי פטר רבי יהודה התם בזב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא אבל בעל קרי שראה זיבה דמעיקרא בר טבילה הוא מחייב או דילמא לא שנא
GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the students of the yeshiva: One who experienced a seminal emission and was therefore required to immerse himself, who later saw a discharge that rendered him a zav; according to Rabbi Yehuda, what is his legal status? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: When, in our mishna, Rabbi Yehuda exempted a zav who saw a seminal emission from immersion, that was because from the outset he was not fit for immersion, as the immersion would not be effective in purifying him from the impurity of a zav; however, one who experienced a seminal emission, who later saw a discharge that rendered him a zav, who was fit for immersion and only later became impure with the severe impurity of a zav, would Rabbi Yehuda require immersion? Or perhaps there is no difference and he is exempt from immersion in both cases?
תא שמע המשמשת וראתה נדה צריכה טבילה ורבי יהודה פוטר והא משמשת וראתה נדה כבעל קרי שראה זיבה דמיא וקא פטר רבי יהודה שמע מינה תני רבי חייא בהדיא בעל קרי שראה זיבה צריך טבילה ורבי יהודה פוטר:
In order to resolve this dilemma, come and hear the last case of the mishna: A woman who engaged in conjugal relations with her husband and later saw menstrual blood requires immersion. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts them from immersion. Isn’t the woman who engaged in conjugal relations with her husband and later saw menstrual blood like one who experienced a seminal emission, who later saw a discharge that rendered him a zav, as in both cases there is a less severe ritual impurity followed by a more severe impurity; and nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda exempts. Conclude from this that Rabbi Yehuda does not distinguish between the cases. And indeed, Rabbi Ḥiyya explicitly taught: One who experienced a seminal emission who later saw a discharge that rendered him a zav requires immersion, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts.
הדרן עלך מי שמתו
May we return to thee : He whose dead !
מתני׳ תפלת השחר עד חצות רבי יהודה אומר עד ארבע שעות תפלת המנחה עד הערב רבי יהודה אומר עד פלג המנחה
MISHNA: This mishna determines the times beyond which the different prayers may not be recited. According to the Rabbis, the morning prayer may be recited until noon. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited only until four hours after sunrise. According to the Rabbis, the afternoon prayer may be recited until the evening. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited only until the midpoint of the afternoon [pelag haminḥa], i.e., the midpoint of the period that begins with the sacrifice of the daily afternoon offering and ends at nightfall, which is the end of the afternoon.
תפלת הערב אין לה קבע ושל מוספים כל היום רבי יהודה אומר עד שבע שעות:
The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night and is not fixed to a specific hour. According to the Rabbis, the additional prayer may be recited all day. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be recited only until seven hours after sunrise.
גמ׳ ורמינהו מצותה עם הנץ החמה כדי שיסמוך גאולה לתפלה ונמצא מתפלל ביום
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that the morning prayer may be recited only until a few hours into the day. The Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a baraita: The mitzva is to recite the morning Shema with sunrise so that he will juxtapose redemption, which is mentioned in the blessings following Shema, to the Amida prayer, which is recited immediately after sunrise, and find himself praying in the daytime. Clearly, the time to recite the morning prayer is immediately after sunrise.
כי תניא ההיא לותיקין דאמר רבי יוחנן ותיקין היו גומרים אותה עם הנץ החמה
The Gemara responds: This baraita does not establish a binding halakha. Rather, it taught that rule specifically with regard to those who are scrupulous in fulfillment of mitzvot [vatikin]. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Vatikin would finish reciting the morning Shema with sunrise, but those who are not vatikin may recite their prayers later.
וכולי עלמא עד חצות ותו לא והאמר רב מרי בריה דרב הונא בריה דרבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן טעה ולא התפלל ערבית מתפלל בשחרית שתים שחרית מתפלל במנחה שתים
The Gemara asks: Does everyone hold that one may recite the morning prayer only until noon and no later? Didn’t Rav Mari, son of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who erred and did not recite the evening prayer, prays in the morning prayer two Amida prayers; one who erred and did not recite the morning prayer, prays in the afternoon prayer two Amida prayers? Apparently, the morning prayer may be recited until the evening, at least in the event that he forgot to recite it in the morning.
כולי יומא מצלי ואזיל עד חצות יהבי ליה שכר תפלה בזמנה מכאן ואילך שכר תפלה יהבי ליה שכר תפלה בזמנה לא יהבי ליה
The Gemara answers: Indeed, one may continue praying for the entire day. However, if he prayed until noon, they give him a reward for reciting the prayer at its appointed time. If he prayed from there on, they give him a reward for reciting the prayer. They do not give him a reward for reciting the prayer at its appointed time.
איבעיא להו טעה ולא התפלל מנחה מהו שיתפלל ערבית שתים אם תמצא לומר טעה ולא התפלל ערבית מתפלל שחרית שתים משום דחד יומא הוא דכתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד אבל הכא תפלה במקום קרבן היא וכיון דעבר יומו בטל קרבנו או דילמא כיון דצלותא רחמי היא כל אימת דבעי מצלי ואזיל
On the topic of one who forgot to pray and seeks to compensate for the prayer that he missed, a dilemma was raised before them in the study hall: One who erred and did not recite the afternoon prayer, what is the ruling? May he recite in the evening prayer two Amida prayers? The Gemara articulates the sides of the dilemma: If you say that one who erred and did not pray the evening prayer prays in the morning prayer two Amida prayers, perhaps that is because the evening and the morning are both part of one day, as it is written: “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5); the evening and the following morning constitute a single unit. But here, in the case under discussion, perhaps prayer is in place of sacrifice. Since in the case of sacrifice we say, since its day passed, his sacrifice is invalid and there is no way to compensate for the missed opportunity, the same should be true for prayer. Or, perhaps, since prayer is supplication, any time that one wishes, he may continue to pray?
תא שמע דאמר רב הונא בר יהודה אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן טעה ולא התפלל מנחה מתפלל ערבית שתים ואין בזה משום דעבר יומו בטל קרבנו
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who erred and did not recite the afternoon prayer, prays in the evening prayer two Amida prayers and there is no element of: Its day passed, his sacrifice is invalid.
מיתיבי מעות לא יוכל לתקן וחסרון לא יוכל להמנות מעות לא יוכל לתקן זה שבטל קריאת שמע של ערבית וקריאת שמע של שחרית או תפלה של ערבית או תפלה של שחרית וחסרון לא יוכל להמנות זה שנמנו חביריו לדבר מצוה ולא נמנה עמהם
With regard to the possibility to compensate for a prayer that he failed to recite at its appointed time, the Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita. The meaning of the verse: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (Ecclesiastes 1:15), is as follows: That which is crooked cannot be made straight refers to one who omitted the evening Shema and the morning Shema, or the evening prayer, or the morning prayer. And that which is wanting cannot be numbered [lehimanot] refers to one whose friends reached a consensus [nimnu] to perform a mitzva and he was not part of their consensus [nimnu] and, consequently, he missed his opportunity to join them in performance of the mitzva. This baraita clearly states that there is no way to compensate for a missed prayer.
אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן הכא במאי עסקינן שבטל במזיד
To resolve this difficulty, Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With what are we dealing here in this baraita? We are dealing with a case where one intentionally failed to recite the prayer. Only then he has no remedy. However, one who failed to pray due to error can compensate for the missed prayer by reciting the next prayer twice.
אמר רב אשי דיקא נמי דקתני בטל ולא קתני טעה שמע מינה:
Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise as it teaches omitted and did not teach erred. This indicates that the halakha is different in the case of error. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this.