Shabbat 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

There,

at the time of the afternoon prayer,

drunkenness is uncommon,

as it is not customary to become intoxicated during the daytime hours. Therefore, if one began the meal, he need not interrupt it. But

here,

at the time of the evening prayer, which is at night,

drunkenness is common,

and he is liable to become intoxicated during his meal. Therefore, if the evening prayer were obligatory, we would trouble him to interrupt the meal and pray.

Alternatively: With regard to the afternoon prayer,

he need not interrupt the meal, since

its time is fixed for him

until nightfall. Therefore,

he is apprehensive

and takes care not to delay it beyond its proper time,

and he will not come to be negligent.

But

with regard to the evening prayer,

if it were obligatory, he would interrupt the meal,

since the entire night is the time for the evening prayer.

Therefore,

he is not apprehensive

that the time might pass

and he will come to be negligent

and forfeit the prayer.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

to Abaye: Why, if he loosened his belt, need he not interrupt the meal? Even if the evening prayer is optional, is it

a bother

to return and

tighten his belt again?!

And furthermore,

he challenged him: Why does he need to gird himself again?

Let him stand

this way and pray

[and pray].

And we answer: He must gird himself before praying,

because it is stated: “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel!”

One must adorn himself when standing before the Holy One, blessed be He, in prayer. And a belt is an aspect of adornment.

Rava bar Rav Huna put on his socks

[important footwear on his feet]

and

then

prayed.

In accordance with

what he said: “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel!”

Rava cast off

[threw off]

his cloak

from upon himself before prayer, so that he would not appear like an important person,

and clasped

[embraced]

his hands

with his fingers, like a person distressed by awe of his master,

and prayed. In accordance with what he said:

One must stand in prayer

like a servant before his master.

That is, he conducted himself in the opposite manner from Rabba bar Rav Huna, who adorned himself for prayer.

Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Kahana

who observed the customs of both of them. And this was how he conducted himself:

When there was distress in the world—

he cast off his cloak, clasped his hands, and prayed.

And

he said

to explain his conduct: In a time of distress, one should pray

like a servant before his master.

But

when there was peace

in the world,

he donned

his garments,

covered himself

with his cloak,

and wrapped himself

in a tallit—that is, in a manner of adornment—and then prayed. For he

said: “Prepare to meet your God, O Israel!”

Rava saw Rav Hamnuna prolonging his prayer. He said

about him:

“They abandon eternal life and occupy themselves with temporal life!”

For Torah brings one to life in the World to Come, which is eternal, whereas prayer concerns the needs of temporal life, such as healing, peace, and sustenance.

But he

[Rav Hamnuna]

held: The time for prayer is separate, and the time for Torah is separate!

One should not shorten the time appropriate for prayer on account of Torah study.

Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rav Zeira, and they were engaged in a passage of tradition. The day grew late

[it was delayed]

and the time came

[he hurried]

for Rabbi Yirmeya

to interrupt the study and pray.

Rabbi Zeira applied to him

the verse: Also,

“One who turns his ear away from hearing Torah, his prayer is an abomination!”

And we return to the initial matter:

From when is the beginning of the litigation

which we learned about, that if the litigants began the case they need not interrupt it for the afternoon prayer? Rav Yirmeya and Rav Yona answered this question:

Rav Yirmeya and Rav Yona.

One said: From when the judges wrap themselves!

Out of awe of the Divine Presence, they would wrap themselves in their tallitot and cover their eyes, so that they would not turn their heads this way and that. They did so in order that their minds would be entirely focused upon the case.

And one said: From when the litigants begin presenting their claims!

And we explain:

They do not disagree. This

view, which says “from when the litigants begin,” concerns a case in which

they had already been engaged in another case

beforehand, and had already concluded it, and now they have come to adjudicate a new case. In this situation, one cannot say “from when they wrap themselves,” since they are already wrapped.

And this

view, which says “from when they wrap themselves,” concerns a case in which they

had not already been engaged in a case

beforehand. In such a case, the wrapping is the beginning of the litigation.

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were sitting and studying between the pillars

of the beit-midrash, which supported the upper story.

And every so often they would strike the door bolt

[they would strike the door bar]

and say: If there is

someone

who has a case, let him enter and come

here, and we will adjudicate his case! For adjudicating a case takes precedence over Torah study. [Tosafot].

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna would sit in judgment all day,

and because they fasted all day until they completed adjudicating the cases, since they held that it was not fitting for a judge to interrupt while he was sitting in judgment,

their

hearts grew faint

Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught them,

in order to prevent them from fasting, the following teaching:

“And all the people stood by Moses from morning until evening.” Now would it enter your mind that Moses sat in judgment the entire day?

If so,

when was his Torah studied?

Rather, the verse emerges from its plain meaning. And the verse did not use the expression “from morning until evening”

except to tell you: Any judge who adjudicates a truly righteous judgment

even for a single hour, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he became a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the act of Creation.

For

it is written here, “And all the people stood by Moses from morning until evening,” and it is written there,

in the account of Creation,

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

And we inquire concerning this: Since the judge is not obligated to sit in judgment all day,

until when do they sit in judgment?

And we answer:

Until mealtime.

That is, until the sixth hour, which is the mealtime of Torah scholars, as cited below. [Rif and Rambam, chapter 3 of the Laws of the Sanhedrin, halakha 1].

Rav Ḥama said: What is the verse

from which we derive this?

As it is written: “Woe to you, O land whose king is a child, and whose princes eat in the morning;

fortunate are you, O land whose king is the son of free men, and whose princes eat at the appointed time, with strength and not with drinking.”

This verse concerns judges, for a judge is called a king, as it is written: “A king establishes the land through justice.” Its meaning is as follows: Fortunate are you, O land, whose judges are occupied

with the strength of Torah and not with drinking wine.

That is, they delay their meal because they are occupied beforehand with Torah judgment.

The Sages taught: The first hour

of the day—

the food of Ludaeans!

For they are a famished nation of cannibals. The

second

hour—the food of robbers!

They too are famished; but because they remain awake at night, they are still sleeping during the first hour and eat during the second. [Rashi, Pesaḥim 12b]. The

third

hour—the food of heirs!

They eat their meal earlier than everyone else, since, having inherited great wealth, they are not occupied with worrying and searching for their sustenance. The

fourth

hour—the food of laborers. The

hour

fifth

the food of all people.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Rav Pappa said:

The

fourth hour is mealtime for everyone!

And we answer: Rather, reverse the statements and

teach: The fourth hour is the food of all people, and the fifth hour is the food of laborers.

And we return to the continuation of the beraita: The

sixth hour—

the food of Torah scholars.

From this point onward,

his eating is

like throwing a stone into a wineskin!

It provides no benefit whatsoever to the body.

Abaye said: We said

that it is of no benefit

only

where

he has tasted nothing since morning. But

if

he tasted something since morning, we have no concern!

For then, even if he delays his meal until after midday, it still benefits the body.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: A person may pray his prayer in a bathhouse!

An objection was raised:

There were three rooms in their bathhouses. The innermost room was where they sweated and bathed; the middle room was where they entered after bathing and put on their robes; afterward they went out to the outer room to complete dressing and rest from the exertion of the bathhouse.

And it was taught:

One who enters a bathhouse—

a place where people stand clothed,

which is the outer room—

may recite Scripture and pray there!

That is, it is permitted to recite the Shema there and to pray.

And it is not necessary to say

that it is permitted there to engage in

greeting.

And

likewise, he

puts on

there

tefillin; and it is not necessary to say

that if he had already put them on outside,

he need not remove

them, since the outer room is not considered a bathhouse at all.

A place where people stand

there

naked and clothed,

which is the middle room of the bathhouse, has some of the legal status of a bathhouse. Therefore,

greeting is permitted there

[even though “peace” is one of the names of the Holy One, blessed be He], but

recitation

of the Shema

and prayer are not permitted there. And he need not remove

the

tefillin

if he had already put them on. But

he may not put them on

there initially.

A place where people stand

there

naked,

which is the innermost room of the bathhouse,

greeting is not permitted there,

because this is one of the names of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And it is not necessary to say

that it is forbidden

to recite Scripture and pray. And he removes

the

tefillin

even if he had already put them on,

and it is not necessary to say

that if he is holding them in his hand,

he may not put them on

there initially.

This presents a difficulty to Rav Adda bar Ahava, since from the fact that he stated without qualification, “A person may pray in a bathhouse,” it follows that he permits prayer in all the rooms. [Ran].

And we answer:

When Rav Adda bar Ahava said

that it is permitted to pray there,

he was speaking of a bathhouse in which there is no person.

The prohibition against reciting Scripture and praying applies only when naked people are present, because it is forbidden to utter a sacred matter in the presence of nakedness.

And we reject this:

But Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: A bathhouse of the type they referred to

as forbidden with regard to sacred matters is forbidden

even when there is no naked person in it,

since, as people customarily stand there naked, it has already been established as an indecent place.

Likewise,

a lavatory of the type they referred to

as forbidden with regard to sacred matters is forbidden

even when there is no excrement in it!

Because it had already been cleared out from there.

And we answer:

Rather, when Rav Adda

bar Ahava said that it is permitted to pray in a bathhouse,

he was speaking of a new one

that no one had ever bathed in, and which had merely been designated as a bathhouse. Therefore, it did not yet have the legal status of a bathhouse.

We raise another difficulty:

But

even in this case

Ravina raised a dilemma: If one designated a room as a lavatory

but it had not yet actually been used,

what is the ruling?

Do we say

“designation is effective,”

and the law of a lavatory, in which sacred matters are forbidden, has already taken effect,

or

perhaps

“designation is not effective,”

and it does not become prohibited merely because it was designated, until it is used. Ravina’s dilemma remained unresolved.

And we conclude the challenge:

Is this not likewise the law with regard to a bathhouse,

that one should be uncertain whether even a new one is prohibited? If so, Ravina could have resolved his uncertainty from Rav Adda’s statement [which preceded him], “A person may pray in a bathhouse,” since, if it refers to a new bathhouse, it follows that “designation is not effective.”