Berakhot 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

But did Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: A person should never pray

opposite [near]

his teacher,

because by doing so he appears as though their status is equal,

and

likewise

he should not

pray

behind his teacher

because there is arrogance in that as well .

And

so

it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: One who prays behind his teacher, and one who greets his teacher

in the manner in which he greets every person [saying to him, “Peace be upon you,” and not saying, “Peace be upon you, my teacher”] ,

and one who returns his teacher's greeting

in the manner in which he returns the greeting of any other person,

and one who disputes the authority of his teacher,

and one who says

a matter that he did not hear from his teacher —

causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel!

It follows that it is prohibited to pray behind one's teacher. How, then, did Rabbi Yirmeya do so?

The Gemara answers:

The case of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba was different, for

he was not a full-fledged student of Rav, but

a student-colleague

of Rav

he was,

and therefore he was not obligated to accord him the honor due to a student toward his teacher.

And

this is demonstrated by the following:

for this is what Rabbi

Yirmeya bar Abba said to Rav

after Rav had recited the Shabbat evening prayer on Friday evening:

“Have you withdrawn

from labor before dayfall, since you accepted Shabbat upon yourself through your prayer?”

And he said to him

Rav:

“Yes, I have withdrawn,”

from labor, even though it was still Friday.

The Gemara infers that Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rav, “Have you withdrawn?” in the second-person form,

and did not say, “Has my teacher withdrawn?”

as a student ordinarily addresses his teacher; necessarily, he was Rav's “student-colleague.”

Regarding Rabbi Yirmeya's question itself, the Gemara wonders:

And

why

must

a person

withdraw

from labor after reciting the Shabbat evening prayer before dayfall on Friday?

But did Rabbi Avin not say: Once Rabbi recited

the evening prayer

of Shabbat on Friday evening

while it was still day.

And

afterward

he entered the bathhouse and emerged, and reviewed chapters with us, and it was still not

yet

dark.

The Sages had decreed that bathing and inducing perspiration are prohibited on Shabbat, and nevertheless Rabbi bathed after reciting the Shabbat prayer. This proves that one need not refrain from Shabbat prohibitions before dayfall, despite having prayed.

The Gemara answers:

Rava said:

The incident involving Rabbi refers to a case in which

he entered

the bathhouse only in order

to perspire, and it was before the decree

prohibiting perspiration

had been enacted.

At that time, it was permitted to enter the bathhouse to perspire even on Shabbat itself, but he was required to refrain from the other Shabbat prohibitions from the moment he recited the Shabbat prayer.

The Gemara raises a further objection:

“Is that so?”

Is one prohibited from labor on Friday after reciting the Shabbat prayer?

But Abaye permitted Rav Dimi bar Liva'i to smoke baskets with sulfur

[to fumigate utensils with sulfur] after he had recited the Shabbat prayer on Friday, even though this is a full-fledged Shabbat labor.

The Gemara answers:

That

incident—after the Shabbat prayer—

was a mistake,

for he had not knowingly accepted the addition to Shabbat upon himself through the prayer. Rather, it was a cloudy day, and he prayed because he thought that Shabbat night had already arrived; afterward the sun emerged and the mistake became clear. Since his acceptance had been made in error, it did not prohibit him from labor. The Gemara wonders:

And

does

the acceptance of Shabbat through

an error

really lapse

and become nullified?

But Avidan said: Once the sky became covered with clouds

on Friday evening,

and

the people

thought that it had become dark, and they entered the synagogue and recited

the evening prayer

of the conclusion of Shabbat, while

it was still

Shabbat, and

afterward

the clouds dispersed and the sun shone, and they came and asked Rabbi, and he said: Since they had prayed—

they had prayed,

and he did not require them to pray again, despite the fact that the weekday prayer they had recited on Shabbat had been offered in error [for they had thought that night had already arrived].

Although the weekday prayer did not enable them to regard the day as the conclusion of Shabbat and thereby permit them to perform labor, they fulfilled through it their obligation to pray the weekday prayer, even though they had recited it in error. If so, when one recites the Shabbat prayer on Friday in error, he likewise fulfills the obligation of the Shabbat prayer, and it should be considered an acceptance of Shabbat, since the Shabbat prayer is considered an acceptance of Shabbat . Why, then, did Abaye permit Rav Dimi to fumigate baskets?

The Gemara answers: In fact, a prayer recited in error is not considered a prayer, and therefore it is not considered an acceptance of Shabbat.

The congregation is different, for

even when they recited the prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat in error,

we do not burden them

to pray again .

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abin said: Rav recited

the evening prayer

of Shabbat at

pelag ha-minha on

Friday evening.

And Rabbi Yoshiyya recited

the evening prayer

of the conclusion of Shabbat at

pelag ha-minha on

Shabbat .

that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush that one accepts in prayer or in Kiddush

The Gemara considers: Regarding

Rav,

who

recited the Shabbat prayer on Friday evening:

Does he also

recite

the

Kedusha [the kiddush]

over a cup

before nightfall, since he accepted the sanctity of Shabbat upon himself?

Or

perhaps

he does not recite Kedusha over a cup,

because kiddush over a cup applies only on Shabbat itself, and accepting the addition to Shabbat is insufficient.

The Gemara resolves the matter:

Come and hear, for Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: A person may recite the Shabbat prayer on Friday evening, and

he may also

recite Kedusha over a cup,

and the halakha is in accordance with his view.

The Gemara further discusses: concerning

Rabbi Yashya

, who

recites

the prayer

of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat—

whether he

recites

also

Havdala over the cup

from pelag haMinha.

Or

perhaps

he does not recite Havdala over the cup,

because it is still Shabbat.

The Gemara resolves this:

Come and hear, as Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may recite the prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat, and he

also

recites Havdala over the cup!

Rav Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rav said: Beside this pillar Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, prayed

the evening prayer

of Shabbat on Friday evening.

When Ulla came, he said: The incident took place beside a date palm, and not beside a pillar.

When Ulla came, he said: The incident took place beside a palm tree, and not beside a pillar .

And it was not Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who

was the subject of the incident,

but Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei.

.

And he did not

pray the evening prayer

of Shabbat on Friday evening

as he

did,

but

he prayed the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat

as he did .

We learned in the Mishna:

The evening prayer has no fixed time.

The Gemara discusses this:

What does “has no fixed time” mean?

If you say

that this is with regard to the time of prayer,

as, if he wishes, he may pray throughout the entire night,

then

let the tanna teach: “The evening prayer is for the entire night,”

and why did the tanna alter his wording?

The Gemara concludes:

Rather, what does “has no fixed time” mean—

that its obligation is not fixed,

and this is in accordance with the one who says that the evening prayer is optional!

And similarly we find

that Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The evening prayer,

the tanna’im disagreed concerning it.

Rabban Gamliel says: It is obligatory

for it.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is optional.

Abaye said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion that says, “

the evening prayer is

obligatory.”

And Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion that says:

the evening prayer is

optional!

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a certain student who came before Rabbi Yehoshua,

and

said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehoshua:

Optional

it is!

That

student

came before Rabban Gamliel and said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory?

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

Obligatory

it is!

The

same student said to Rabban Gamliel:

But Rabbi Yehoshua told me

that it is

optional!

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

Wait until the masters of shields enter

[that is, scholars who contend with one another in halakha]

the study hall!

When the masters of shields entered,

the questioner stood and asked: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory?

Rabban Gamliel said to him: It is obligatory

it is!

Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there

among

you anyone who disagrees on this matter?

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No!—

Everyone agrees with you that it is obligatory.

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

But they told me in your name that it is optional

it is!

Rabban Gamliel said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

Yehoshua, stand on your feet, and let them testify against you

Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: If I were alive and he were

[the same student who said this in my name]

dead,

I would deny that I had said this, because

the living can deny the dead.

But now that I am alive and he is alive,

against my will I must admit that I told him that the evening prayer is optional, for

how can the living deny the living?

Rabban Gamliel sat and taught, while Rabbi Yehoshua

remained

standing on his feet

throughout the entire lecture,

until all the people murmured

when they saw Rabbi Yehoshua’s distress,

and said to Hutzpit the translator

[who stood before Rabban Gamliel and conveyed his lecture to the public]:

Stop

[stop] translating!

And

Hutzpit stood and fell silent.

They said: How long shall we continue to distress Rabbi Yehoshua,

and allow Rabban Gamliel to distress him?

And after all,

last Rosh HaShana he distressed him

Rabban Gamliel distressed Rabbi Yehoshua, when they disagreed concerning the sanctification of the month, and he ordered him to come before him with his staff and money pouch on the day that, according to Rabbi Yehoshua’s calculation, was Yom Kippur [see Rosh HaShana 25a].

Likewise,

in Bekhorot

[36a], in the incident involving Rabbi Tzadok,

he distressed him,

when Rabbi Tzadok came to ask about a blemish that had developed in the firstborn of his animal, and Rabbi Yehoshua permitted it, while Rabban Gamliel subsequently prohibited it for him. There too, at the end, Rabbi Yehoshua denied his own statement, and Rabban Gamliel made him stand throughout the entire lecture.

And

here too

again

he distressed him.

Come, let us remove him

Rabban Gamliel from the position of Nasi!

And

whom shall we appoint

as Nasi in his place? Should we

appoint Rabbi Yehoshua

as Nasi?

It would not be appropriate to do so, for Rabbi Yehoshua is

the subject of

the

incident,

and this would cause Rabban Gamliel excessive distress .

And what if we

appoint Rabbi Akiva

as Nasi?

Perhaps

Rabban Gamliel would become angry with him and

punish him, for

he

does not have

Rabbi Akiva

ancestral merit

to protect him from punishment, since he was descended from converts [see Sanhedrin 96a].

Rather, let us appoint Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

Because

he is wise

[see Hagiga 3a, where Rabbi Yehoshua said: There is no generation bereft of Torah when Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya is present].

And he is wealthy

[see Shabbat 54a: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would tithe twelve thousand calves from his herd every year].

And he is the tenth generation from Ezra

the Scribe.

And the need for these qualities is as follows:

He is wise—

if he is challenged,

he can answer the challenge.

He is wealthy—

if he has the means to serve at the emperor’s court

and intercede before him for the benefit of Israel,

he too

[Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya]

will go and serve.

And he is the tenth generation from Ezra—

he possesses ancestral merit,

and for this reason

Rabban Gamliel cannot

Rabban Gamliel

punish him.

They came and said to him,

to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya:

Would the Master be pleased to become head of the academy?

He said to them: Let me go and consult with the members of my household!

He went and consulted with his wife

[his wife].

She said to him,

even if they appoint you today,