אַקַּמְטְרָא — כִּכְלִי בְּתוֹךְ כְּלִי דָּמֵי. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה — צָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ מְחִיצָּה עֲשָׂרָה. מָר זוּטְרָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי, חַזְיֵיהּ לְדוּכְתֵּיהּ דְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי דְּמַנַּח בֵּיהּ סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וַעֲבֵיד לֵיהּ מְחִיצָה עֲשָׂרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי? אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ בֵּיתָא אַחֲרִינָא, מָר הָא אִית לֵיהּ בֵּיתָא אַחֲרִינָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אַדַּעְתַּאי.

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.

כַּמָּה יַרְחִיק מֵהֶן וּמִן הַצּוֹאָה — אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב סְחוֹרָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לַאֲחוֹרָיו, אֲבָל לְפָנָיו — מַרְחִיק מְלֹא עֵינָיו, וְכֵן לִתְפִלָּה.

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.

אִינִי?! וְהָא אָמַר רַפְרָם בַּר פָּפָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: עוֹמֵד אָדָם כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא וּמִתְפַּלֵּל! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ צוֹאָה.

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.

אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חֲנִינָא: בֵּית הַכִּסֵּא שֶׁאָמְרוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ צוֹאָה וּבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אָדָם! אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּחַדְתֵי.

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.

וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרָבִינָא: הִזְמִינוֹ לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, מַהוּ? יֵשׁ זִימּוּן, אוֹ אֵין זִימּוּן? כִּי קָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרָבִינָא: לְמֵיקַם עֲלֵיהּ לְצַלּוֹיֵי בְּגַוֵּיהּ אֲבָל כְּנֶגְדּוֹ — לָא.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי בָּתֵּי כִּסָּאֵי דְּפָרְסָאֵי אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית בְּהוּ צוֹאָה — כִּסְתוּמִין דָּמוּ.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ זָב שֶׁרָאָה קֶרִי, וְנִדָּה שֶׁפָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְהַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שֶׁרָאֲתָה נִדָּה — צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר.

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.

גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בַּעַל קֶרִי, שֶׁרָאָה זִיבָה לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַהוּ? כִּי פָּטַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָתָם בְּזָב שֶׁרָאָה קֶרִי, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָאו בַּר טְבִילָה הוּא. אֲבָל בַּעַל קֶרִי שֶׁרָאָה זִיבָה, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא בַּר טְבִילָה הוּא מְחַיַּיב, אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שְׁנָא.

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע הַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת וְרָאֲתָה נִדָּה צְרִיכָה טְבִילָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר. וְהָא מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת וְרָאֲתָה נִדָּה כְּבַעַל קֶרִי שֶׁרָאָה זִיבָה דָּמְיָא, וְקָא פָּטַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּהֶדְיָא: בַּעַל קֶרִי שֶׁרָאָה זִיבָה צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר.

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

מַתְנִי׳ תְּפִלַּת הַשַּׁחַר עַד חֲצוֹת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד אַרְבַּע שָׁעוֹת. תְּפִלַּת הַמִּנְחָה עַד הָעֶרֶב, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד פְּלַג הַמִּנְחָה.

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.

תְּפִלַּת הָעֶרֶב אֵין לָהּ קֶבַע. וְשֶׁל מוּסָפִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁבַע שָׁעוֹת.

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.

גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהוּ: מִצְוָתָהּ עִם הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּסְמוֹךְ גְּאוּלָּה לִתְפִלָּה, וְנִמְצָא מִתְפַּלֵּל בַּיּוֹם!

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.

כִּי תַּנְיָא הַהִיא לְוָתִיקִין. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וָתִיקִין הָיוּ גּוֹמְרִים אוֹתָהּ עִם הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה.

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.

וְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא עַד חֲצוֹת וְתוּ לָא, וְהָאָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: טָעָה וְלֹא הִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית — מִתְפַּלֵּל בְּשַׁחֲרִית שְׁתַּיִם, שַׁחֲרִית — מִתְפַּלֵּל בְּמִנְחָה שְׁתַּיִם.

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.

כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא מְצַלֵּי וְאָזֵיל, עַד חֲצוֹת, יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ שְׂכַר תְּפִלָּה בִּזְמַנָּהּ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, שְׂכַר תְּפִלָּה — יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ, שְׂכַר תְּפִלָּה בִּזְמַנָּהּ — לָא יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ.

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: טָעָה וְלֹא הִתְפַּלֵּל מִנְחָה, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית שְׁתַּיִם? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר, טָעָה וְלֹא הִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית מִתְפַּלֵּל שַׁחֲרִית שְׁתַּיִם, מִשּׁוּם דְּחַד יוֹמָא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד״, אֲבָל הָכָא תְּפִלָּה בִּמְקוֹם קׇרְבָּן הִיא, וְכֵיוָן דְּעָבַר יוֹמוֹ בָּטַל קׇרְבָּנוֹ. אוֹ דִילְמָא כֵּיוָן דִּצְלוֹתָא רַחֲמֵי הִיא, כׇּל אֵימַת דְּבָעֵי מְצַלֵּי וְאָזֵיל.

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, its 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?

תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: טָעָה וְלֹא הִתְפַּלֵּל מִנְחָה — מִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֵין בָּזֶה מִשּׁוּם דְּעָבַר יוֹמוֹ בָּטַל קׇרְבָּנוֹ.

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, its sacrifice is invalid.

מֵיתִיבִי. ״מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקֹן וְחֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִמָּנוֹת״: ״מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקֹן״ — זֶה שֶׁבִּטֵּל קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שֶׁל עַרְבִית וּקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית, אוֹ תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל עַרְבִית אוֹ תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית. ״וְחֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִמָּנוֹת״ — זֶה שֶׁנִּמְנוּ חֲבֵירָיו לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, וְלֹא נִמְנָה עִמָּהֶם.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — שֶׁבִּטֵּל בְּמֵזִיד.

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.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״בִּטֵּל״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״טָעָה״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.