Berakhot

Rabbis? — You conclude then that the point mentioned is not included in the UNTIL? Look now at the next clause: THE TIME FOR THE ADDITIONAL PRAYERS IS THE WHOLE DAY; R. JUDAH SAYS, TILL SEVEN HOURS, and it has been taught: If a man had two Tefillahs to say, one for musaf  and one for minhah,  he says first the minhah prayer and afterwards the musaf one, because the former is daily and the latter is not daily. R. Judah. however, says: He says the musaf one and afterwards the minhah one, because the [time for] the former [soon] lapses, while the [time for] the latter does not [so soon] lapse.  Now if you say that the point mentioned is included in the UNTIL there is no difficulty: on this supposition you can find a time which is appropriate to both of the Tefillahs.  But if you say that the point mentioned is not included in the UNTIL where can you find a time which is appropriate to both the Tefillahs?  As soon as the time for minhah has arrived, the time for musaf has passed! — What then? You say that the point mentioned is included in the UNTIL? Then there is the [afore-mentioned] difficulty of the first clause — what difference is there between R. Judah and the Rabbis? — Do you think that this MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON mentioned by R. Judah means the second half? It means the first half, and what he meant is this: When does the first half [of the second part of the afternoon] end and the second half begin? At the end of eleven hours less a quarter. R. Nahman said: We also have learnt: R. Judah b. Baba testified five things — that they instruct a girl-minor to refuse,  that a woman may remarry on the evidence of one witness [that her husband is dead],  that a cock was stoned in Jerusalem because it killed a human being,  that wine forty days old was poured as a drink-offering on the altar,  and that the morning daily offering was brought at four hours.  This proves, does it not, that the point mentioned is included in the UNTIL? It does. R. Kahana said: The halachah follows R. Jose because we have learnt in the Select Tractate  as taught by him. 'And concerning the regular daily offering that it was brought at four hours'. Who is the authority for what we have learnt: And as the sun waxed hot it melted:  this was at four hours. You say at four hours; or is it not so, but at six hours? When it says 'in the heat of the day',  here we have the expression for six hours. What then am I to make of 'as the sun waxed hot it melted'? At four hours. Whose opinion does this represent? Apparently neither R. Judah's nor the Rabbis'. For if we go by R. Judah, up to four hours also is still morning;  if we go by the Rabbis, up to six hours is also still morning! — If you like I can say it represents the opinion of R. Judah. and if you like of the Rabbis. 'If you like I can say it represents the opinion of the Rabbis': Scripture says, morning by morning,  thus dividing the morning into two.  'If you like I can say R. Judah': this extra 'morning' indicates that they began [gathering] an hour beforehand.  At any rate all agree that 'as the sun waxed hot it melted' refers to four hours. How does the text imply this? R. Aha b. Jacob said: The text says, As the sun waxed hot it melted. Which is the hour when the sun is hot and the shade is cool? You must say, at four hours. THE AFTERNOON TEFILLAH TILL EVENING. R. Hisda said to R. Isaac: In the other case [of the morning offering] R. Kahana said that the halachah follows R. Judah because we have learnt in the Select Tractate as [taught] by him. What is the decision in this case? — He was silent, and gave him no answer at all. Said R. Hisda: Let us see for ourselves. Seeing that Rab says the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath while it is still day, we conclude that the halachah follows R. Judah!  — On the contrary, from the fact that R. Huna and the Rabbis did not pray till night time, we conclude that the halachah does no follow R. Judah! Seeing then that it has not been stated definitely that the law follows either one or the other, if one follows the one he is right and if one follows the other he is right. Rab was once at the house of Genibah and he said the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath, and R. Jeremiah b. Abba was praying behind Rab and Rab finished but did not interrupt the prayer of R. Jeremiah.  Three things are to be learnt from this. One is that a man may say the Sabbath Tefillah on the eve of Sabbath. The second is that a disciple may pray behind his master. The third is that it is forbidden to pass in front of one praying. But is that so? Did not R. Ammi and R. Assi use to pass? — R. Ammi and R. Assi used to pass outside a four cubit limit. But how could R. Jeremiah act thus, seeing that Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: A man should never pray