Berakhot

over a chest is like a receptacle within a receptacle. R. Joshua b. Levi said: For a scroll of the Law it is necessary to make a partition of ten [handbreadths].  Mar Zutra was visiting R. Ashi, and he saw that in the place where Mar the son of R. Ashi slept there was a scroll of the Law and a partition of ten [handbreadths] was made for it. He said to him: Which authority are you following? R. Joshua b. Levi, is it not? I presume that R. Joshua b. Levi meant this to apply only where one had not another room, but your honour has another room! He replied: I had not thought of it. HOW FAR SHOULD HE REMOVE FROM IT AND FROM EXCREMENT? FOUR CUBITS. Raba said in the name of R. Sehora reporting Rab: This was meant only if he leaves it behind him, but if he keeps it in front of him he must remove completely out of sight. The same rule applies to Tefillah. Is that so? Has not Rafram b. Papa said in the name of R. Hisda: A man can stand facing a privy [four cubits away] and say the Tefillah? What is referred to here?  A privy in which there is no excrement. Is that so? Has not R. Joseph b. Hanina said: When they spoke of a privy, they meant, even if there is no excrement in it, and when they spoke of a bath,  they meant even if there is no one in it! But in fact what is referred to here?  A new one. But surely this is the very thing about which Rabina asked a question: If a place has been set aside for a privy [but not yet used], what is the rule? Does setting aside count or does it not count?  — What Rabina wanted to know was whether one might stand in it to pray therein, but as to facing it [he was] not [in doubt].  Raba said: These Persian privies, although there is excrement in them, are counted as closed in. MISHNAH. A GONORRHOEIC PERSON WHO HAS AN EMISSION AND A NIDDAH FROM WHOM SEMEN ESCAPES AND A WOMAN WHO BECOMES NIDDAH DURING INTERCOURSE REQUIRE A RITUAL BATH; R. JUDAH, HOWEVER EXEMPTS THEM. GEMARA. The question was raised: What is R. Judah's opinion about a ba'al keri who has become gonorrhoeic? Are we to say that the case in which R. Judah exempted was that of a gonorrhoeic patient who had a seminal issue, because his first condition precludes him from ablution,  but he does not exempt a ba'al keri who becomes gonorrhoeic because in his first condition he does require ablution,  or are we to say that there is no difference? — Come and hear: A WOMAN WHO BECOMES NIDDAH DURING INTERCOURSE REQUIRES A RITUAL BATH: R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, EXEMPTS HER. Now a woman who becomes niddah during intercourse is on the same footing as a ba'al keri who becomes gonorrhoeic, and R. Judah exempts her. This proves [that there is no difference]. R. Hiyya taught expressly: A ba'al keri who has become gonorrhoeic requires ablution; R. Judah, however, exempts him. MISHNAH. THE MORNING TEFILLAH [CAN BE SAID] UNTIL MIDDAY; R. JUDAH SAYS TILL THE FOURTH HOUR. THE AFTERNOON PRAYER  [CAN BE SAID] TILL EVENING; R. JUDAH SAYS, UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON.  THE EVENING PRAYER HAS NO FIXED LIMIT.  THE TIME FOR THE ADDITIONAL PRAYERS  IS THE WHOLE OF THE DAY; R. JUDAH SAYS, TILL THE SEVENTH HOUR. GEMARA. [TILL MIDDAY]. This was contrasted with the following: The proper time for it [the Shema'] is at the rising of the sun, so that ge'ullah should be followed immediately by Tefillah, with the result that he would say the Tefillah in the day time!  — That was taught in reference only to the wathikin; for R. Johanan said: The wathikin used to conclude it [the Shema'] as the sun rose.  And may other people delay till midday, but no longer? Has not R. Mari the son of R. Huna the son of R. Jeremiah b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man erred and did not say the evening Tefillah, he says it twice in the morning. [If he erred] in the morning, he says it twice in the afternoon? — He may go on praying the whole day. But up to midday he is given the reward of saying the Tefillah in its proper time; thereafter he is given the reward of saying Tefillah, but not of saying Tefillah in its proper time. The question was raised: If a man erred and did not say the afternoon Tefillah, should he say it twice in the evening? Should you argue from the fact that if he erred in the evening he prays twice in the morning, [I may reply that] this is because it is all one day, as it is written, And there was evening and there was morning, one day;  but in this case, prayer being in the place of sacrifice,  since the day has passed the sacrifice lapses. Or should we rather say that since prayer is supplication for mercy, a man may go on praying as long as he likes? — Come and hear: For R. Huna h. Judah said in the name of R. Isaac reporting R. Johanan: If a man erred and did not say the afternoon Tefillah, he says it twice in the evening, and we do not apply here the principle that if the day has passed the offering lapses. An objection was raised: That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.  'That which is crooked cannot be made straight'; this applies to one who omitted the Shema' of the evening or the Shema' of the morning or the Tefillah of the evening or the Tefillah of the morning. 'And that which is wanting cannot be numbered': this applies to one whose comrades formed a group to perform a religious act and he was not included with them. — R. Isaac said in the name of R. Johanan: With what case are we dealing here?  With one who omitted deliberately. R. Ashi said: The proof of this is that it says 'omitted', and it does not say, 'erred'. This proves it.