Berakhot 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

Rava said: A cloak

garment] that he placed

folded,

over a chest of books—

it is considered a vessel within a vessel,

because the cloak is not one of the books’ vessels.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

When one wishes to engage in marital relations in a place where there is a

Torah scroll,

covering it is not sufficient; rather,

he must make a partition ten

handbreadths high.

Mar Zutra happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. He saw the place

where Mar bar Rav Ashi’s bed was located,

where a Torah scroll was kept, and he had made a partition ten

so that he could engage in marital relations.

He said to him

—Mar Zutra said to Rav Ashi:

You may say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said

that one who wishes to engage in marital relations must make a partition in front of the Torah scroll only in a situation

where he does not have another house,

but

you, do you not have another house?

Why, then, should you engage in marital relations by relying on the allowance of a partition?

He said to him

Rav Ashi: Indeed, you are correct, but

it had not occurred to me

[until now I had not taken this into consideration].

We learned in the Mishna:

How far must he distance himself from them

from urine

and from excrement?

Four cubits.

Rava said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said:

When they stated that the required distance is “four cubits,”

they taught this only

when they are

behind him, but

when they are

in front of him, he must distance himself as far as his eyes can see

and recite the Shema.

And likewise for prayer,

the required distance depends on whether they are in front of him or behind him.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so? But Rafram bar Pappa said that Rav Ḥisda said: A person may stand

four cubits away

opposite a bathroom

that has no partitions

and pray.

The status of a bathroom is like that of excrement, yet even when it is in front of him he need not distance himself as far as his eyes can see.

The Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here? With a bathroom in which there is no

currently

excrement.

Therefore it is not considered like excrement, and it is sufficient to distance oneself four cubits even when it is in front of him.

The Gemara challenges this interpretation:

Is that so? But Rav Yosef bar Ḥanina said: The bathroom of which they said

that it is prohibited to recite opposite it is one

even though it does not contain

currently

excrement, and

likewise,

the bathhouse of which they said

that it is prohibited to contemplate words of Torah in it is one

even though it does not contain

at that time

a person

who is naked. Necessarily, the bathroom itself renders it prohibited to recite opposite it. If so, why need one not distance himself as far as his eyes can see?

Rather,

the Gemara returns and establishes the allowance to pray opposite a bathroom in a different manner:

What are we dealing with here?

With

a

new bathroom,

which had merely been designated as a bathroom but had not yet been used. Therefore, distancing oneself four cubits is sufficient. But if there is a bathroom in front of him that had already contained excrement, even if it was removed, he must distance himself as far as his eyes can see.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But

this very law

was asked by Ravina

in his question:

If one designated a place as a bathroom, what is the law?

The sides of the uncertainty are as follows: Does

designation

have the power of

designation

to give it the status of a bathroom even though it has not been used,

or

does

designation

not have the power of

designation

to give it the status of a bathroom, and is it permitted to recite opposite it until it is used?

It follows that there is no clear permission to pray opposite a new bathroom.

The Gemara answers:

When Ravina’s question was raised

it concerned only

standing upon it

in a place designated as a bathroom and

praying inside it

[inside it] . But regarding reciting

opposite it, no

Ravina had no uncertainty, because the law follows Rav Ḥisda: as long as it has not been used, it is permitted to recite opposite it . Rav Huna, meanwhile, required one to distance himself as far as his eyes can see only from a bathroom that had already contained excrement.

Rava said: These Persian bathrooms

were made over a pit, with the excrement rolling down a slope into a hollow that was four cubits away from the mouth of the pit—

although they contain excrement

at the bottom of the hollow,

they are considered sealed

and it is permitted to recite opposite them as though there were no bathroom there at all.

Mishna:

A zav

is one who has experienced two or more sightings of zav discharge and must count seven clean days from a sighting of zav discharge; only afterward may he immerse and become pure. It happened

that he experienced a seminal emission

during the seven clean days from the zav discharge. Thus, even if he immerses to purify himself from his seminal emission, the ritual impurity of zav remains upon him [which does not prevent him from studying Torah].

And

likewise,

a menstruating woman who discharged seminal fluid

[that is, after she saw menstrual blood, seminal fluid was discharged from her, originating from intercourse that took place before she became a menstruant; the case is one in which she had already immersed to purify herself from the impurity of the seminal emission resulting from the intercourse itself, and now she becomes impure again through the discharge of seminal fluid]. She is thus impure with the impurity of a seminal emission, and even if she immerses to purify herself from it, she remains impure with menstrual impurity.

And

likewise,

a woman who engaged in marital relations

and is considered impure like one who experienced a seminal emission,

who then saw menstrual blood.

All these women, although immersion to purify them from their seminal emissions does not suffice to purify them from their more serious impurity,

require immersion

to purify themselves from their seminal emissions before engaging in the study of Torah.

And Rabbi Yehuda exempts,

because the Sages did not require immersion before Torah study when the immersion would not purify the person completely.

Gemara:

They raised a dilemma: If one who experienced a seminal emission

after his emission

experienced a zav discharge, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who exempts a zav who experienced a seminal emission during his period of impurity from immersing in order to study Torah,

what

is the law?

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma:

Is it the case that

when Rabbi Yehuda exempted

one who was impure with both zav discharge and seminal emission from immersing for Torah study, this applied specifically

there, in

the case of

“a zav who experienced a seminal emission,”

because at the time of his seminal emission he was already impure with the more serious impurity of zav, and thus

from the outset he was not subject to immersion

for words of Torah

at all,

and since he was not prohibited from studying while in his more serious state of impurity, he is not subsequently prohibited by the less serious impurity of a seminal emission?

But one who experienced a seminal emission and then experienced

later

a zav discharge

would be obligated to immerse for Torah study, since

from the outset,

when he was one who had experienced a seminal emission,

he was

subject to the obligation of

immersion

for words of Torah

at all,

and in such a case

Rabbi Yehuda obligates

him to immerse, even though in the interim he also became impure with the more serious impurity of zav.

Or perhaps, there is no difference.

When Rabbi Yehuda exempts, he exempts in every case in which the person will not become completely pure; it makes no difference which impurity preceded the other.

Come and hear,

that Rabbi Yehuda exempts in every case. For we learned in our Mishna:

“A woman who engaged in marital relations and

later

saw menstrual blood requires immersion, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts”—

but a woman who engaged in marital relations and

later

saw

menstrual blood,

whose impurity from the seminal emission preceded her more serious impurity,

is analogous to a man who experienced a seminal emission and then experienced a zav discharge, and

nevertheless

Rabbi Yehuda exempts

her from immersion for her seminal emission.

Conclude from this

that Rabbi Yehuda also exempts one who experienced a seminal emission and then experienced a zav discharge, because in his view a person is not obligated to immerse in an immersion that does not purify him completely.

The Gemara cites that this is indeed so:

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught explicitly: One who experienced a seminal emission and then experienced a zav discharge requires immersion, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts.

We will return to you, chapter: One Whose Dead

MISHNA:

The morning prayer,

its time is from the beginning of the day

until

the end of the sixth hour , which is

midday

of the day.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Its time is

until the first four hours

of the day, which is one-third of the day.

The time is measured in proportional hours. That is, the day is divided into twelve parts, and each part is considered an hour.

The afternoon prayer,

its time is

until evening .

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Its time is

until pelag haMinha.

This is the midpoint of the time between the beginning of the time of the “minor Minha” and evening.

The evening prayer has no fixed time,

but its time extends throughout the entire night. The Gemara will explain why the tanna used this wording.

And

the time

of

the prayer of the

additional offerings

is

the entire day,

until evening.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The time for the additional prayer is

until seven hours

of the day.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The morning prayer is until midday.

And we raise a contradiction

from a beraita:

Its mitzva

is to recite the Shema

with sunrise

[slightly before sunrise],

so that

he will complete the blessing of Redemption that follows it at sunrise. And

he will join

the blessing of

Redemption to the prayer,

and pray the Eighteen immediately after the blessing of Redemption.

And

then

it follows

that he

prays at the

beginning of the

day.

This is in order to fulfill that which is stated, “They shall fear You with the sun” (above 9b).

This proves that the time for the morning prayer is specifically at the beginning of the day, unlike what is stated in our Mishna, that the time for the morning prayer extends “until midday” .

The Gemara answers:

When that

beraita

was taught,

that one prays at sunrise, it was stated

with regard to the vatikin,

people who cherish mitzvot and seek to perform each matter at its proper time.

And as

Rabbi Yohanan said: The vatikin would complete it,

the recitation of the Shema and its blessings,

with sunrise,

and pray immediately afterward. But this time is not indispensable, and those who pray later pray it afterward. According to the Sages, until midday; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, until four hours.

The Gemara asks:

And

is it true

that everyone,

who are not vatikin, may pray only

until midday, and no later?!

But did Rabbi Mari, son of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, not say in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

One who

erred,

forgot,

and did not pray the evening prayer —

prays two prayers in the morning

[two Eighteen-prayers]: one for the morning prayer and one for the evening prayer.

And similarly, one who forgot to pray

the morning prayer —

prays the afternoon prayer

twice,

which implies that he may pray even during the time of the afternoon prayer, which is after midday.

Accordingly, the Gemara explains:

“He prays throughout the entire day” and

continues—

he may recite the morning prayer even during the time of the afternoon prayer, after midday, but only if he prayed

before midday—

“they grant him the reward for a prayer recited at its proper time.”

Whereas

from that point onward,

although he may pray as a make-up prayer, he receives only

the reward for prayer,

but

they do not grant him the reward for a prayer recited at its proper time.

For its primary time is until midday.

The question was raised: If one erred and did not pray the afternoon prayer, may he pray two evening prayers? The question is whether, even if you say

that Rabbi Yohanan’s ruling is correct—that one who

erred and did not pray the evening prayer prays two prayers in the morning—

one may argue that Rabbi Yohanan said this specifically with regard to the evening and morning prayers,

because

the evening and the following morning

are one day,

as it is written [Genesis 1:5],

“And there was evening and there was morning, one day,”

for the day follows the night.

But here,

one who forgot to pray the afternoon prayer may perhaps not make it up during the following evening, since at night a different day begins, and

prayer takes the place of an offering,

as will be brought below.

And once its day has passed,

its offering is canceled!

That is, just as offerings whose appointed time is on a particular day cannot be sacrificed on another day, so one may not pray the prayer of a particular day on the following day.

Or perhaps, since prayer

is an appeal for mercy,

Or perhaps, since prayer

is intended to arouse

mercy, it may be offered whenever he wishes; he prays and continues! Therefore, he may make it up even during the night after its proper time. The Gemara resolves the question: Come and hear: Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Yitzhak said that Rabbi Yohanan said: If one erred and did not pray the afternoon prayer— he prays two evening prayers, and this does not involve the principle that “once its day has passed, its offering is canceled,”

because prayer is an appeal for mercy.

The objection was raised: It is stated [Ecclesiastes 1:15], “That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is lacking cannot be counted.” And they expounded: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight”— this is one who deliberately canceled the recitation of the evening Shema and the recitation of the morning Shema, or one who canceled the evening prayer or the morning prayer, for he cannot repair what he distorted by omitting the recitation of the Shema and prayer. “And that which is lacking cannot be counted”—

Come and hear a proof: Rav Huna bar Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one erred and did not pray the afternoon prayer—

he prays two evening prayers.

There is no concern here that “once its day has passed, its offering is annulled,”

because prayer is an appeal for mercy.

They raise an objection from a source: It is stated [Ecclesiastes 1:15],

“That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is missing cannot be counted.”

And they expounded:

“That which is crooked cannot be made straight”—

this refers to

one who

this

is one whose companions were counted for a mitzva matter, but

he was not counted among them.

How, then, did Rabbi Yohanan say, “If one erred and did not pray the evening prayer, he prays two morning prayers,” when it is stated concerning it: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight”?

Rabbi Yitzhak said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Here, with what are we dealing?

since he cannot correct what he distorted by omitting the Shema and prayer.

With the verse “That which is crooked cannot be made straight”—it refers to one who

canceled

the prayer

deliberately,

since the law of make-up prayers was stated only with regard to one who forgot.

Rav Ashi said: This too may be inferred, since the verse refers to one who deliberately canceled the prayer. For it teaches in the beraita: “He canceled the morning prayer,” which implies that he canceled it deliberately, and it does not teach: “He erred,” which would indicate an inadvertent omission.

The verse “That which is crooked cannot be made straight” refers to one who

canceled

the prayer deliberately, because the law of a make-up prayer was instituted only for one who forgot. Rav Ashi said: It can also be inferred that the verse refers to one who deliberately canceled the prayer.

For it teaches

in the beraita

“he canceled

the morning prayer,” which implies that he canceled it deliberately,

And we conclude:

“Learn from this!”

Page 26b

The Sages taught: If one erred and did not pray the afternoon prayer on Friday evening,

he prays two prayers on Friday night,

[prayers] of Shabbat.

If one erred and did not pray the afternoon prayer on Shabbat, he prays two weekday prayers at the conclusion of Shabbat. Two weekday prayers.

of Shabbat.

If one erred and did not pray the afternoon prayer on Shabbat—

he prays two weekday prayers on Saturday night

two weekday prayers.

prays on Saturday night

two weekday prayers .

And when he prays two on Saturday night, he makes havdala and says, “You have graced us with knowledge,”