The Gemara responds that there is a difference between the cases. There, at the time of the afternoon prayer, drunkenness is uncommon, as it is unusual to drink excessively during the day. However, here, in the case of the evening prayer, drunkenness is common, and therefore there was room to issue a decree requiring one to interrupt his meal to recite the evening prayer. Alternatively, it is possible to explain that with regard to the afternoon prayer, since its time is fixed, he is anxious, and he won’t come to be negligent and forget to pray. However, with regard to the evening prayer, since all night is the time for the evening prayer, he is not anxious, and he will come to be negligent. Rav Sheshet strongly objects to this: Is it a burden to tie his belt? In addition, if it is a burden, let him stand that way, without a belt, and pray. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to wear a belt while praying, since it is stated: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel” (Amos 4:12). One must prepare and adorn himself when standing before God.

Since the verse: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel,” was cited with regard to the obligation to prepare and adorn oneself before prayer, the Gemara cites that indeed Rava bar Rav Huna would don expensive socks and pray and he said he would do this as it is written: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel.” On the other hand, Rava would not do so; rather, in his prayer he would remove his cloak and clasp his hands and pray. He said that he would do so as a slave before his master, who appears before him with extreme submission. Rav Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana, when there is suffering in the world, would remove his cloak and clasp his hands and pray. And he said that he did so as a slave before his master. When there is peace in the world, he would dress, and cover himself, and wrap himself in a significant garment, and pray, and he said that he did so in fulfillment of the verse: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel.”

Speaking of prayer, the Gemara relates that Rava saw Rav Hamnuna, who was prolonging his prayer. He said about him: They abandon eternal life, the study of Torah, and engage in temporal life, prayer, which includes requests for mundane needs. The Gemara explains: And Rav Hamnuna held that the time for prayer is distinct and the time for Torah is distinct. The time that one devotes to prayer is not at the expense of the time devoted to Torah study. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira and they were engaged in the study of halakha. The time for prayer was approaching and it was getting late and Rabbi Yirmeya was hurrying to conclude the subject that they were studying in order to pray. Rabbi Zeira read this verse as applying to Rabbi Yirmeya: “One who turns his ear from hearing Torah, his prayer is also an abomination” (Proverbs 28:9).

We learned that if one enters to sit in judgment adjacent to minḥa, he need not interrupt the trial and pray. The Gemara clarifies: From when is it considered the beginning of a trial? Rabbi Yirmeya and Rabbi Yona disagreed. One said that it begins from when the judges wrap themselves in their prayer shawls, as judges were accustomed to do before sitting in judgment. And one of them said that the beginning of judgment is from when the litigants begin articulating their claims. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. Rather, this amora, who says that it is from when the litigants begin, refers to a case where they were already engaged in a previous trial, and the judges were already wrapped in their prayer shawls. And that amora, who says that it is from when the judges wrap themselves in their prayer shawls, refers to a case where they were not engaged in a previous trial, and, as a result, the trial begins when they wrap themselves in the prayer shawls.

Speaking of judgment, the Gemara relates that Rav Ami and Rav Asi would sit and study between the pillars beneath the study hall. And each and every hour they would knock on the bolt of the door and say: If there is someone who has a case that requires judgment, let him enter and come before us. The Gemara also relates that Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna would sit in judgment all day and their hearts would grow weak from hunger. Therefore, Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav from Difti taught them a baraita with regard to the verse: “And it was the next day and Moses sat to judge the people and the people stood over Moses from the morning until the evening” (Exodus 18:13). Does it enter your mind that Moses would sit and judge all day long? If so, when was his Torah study accomplished? Rather, surely the verse is coming to tell you: Any judge who judges a true judgment truthfully, even if he sits in judgment only one hour, the verse ascribes to him as if he became a partner to the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the act of Creation, as by means of a true judgment he upholds the world (Me’iri). This conclusion is derived by means of a verbal analogy [gezera shava]: It is written here: “And the people stood over Moses from the morning until the evening.” And it is written there, in the act of Creation: “And it was evening and it was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). The evening and part of the morning are considered a whole day. With regard to this issue as well, it is sufficient for the judges to sit in judgment for only part of the day and there is no need for them to starve themselves by sitting in judgment all day.

The Gemara questions further: Until when do they sit in judgment? What is the usual time that court adjourns? Rav Sheshet said: Until mealtime, noon. Rav Ḥama said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “Woe to you, land that your king is a lad and your ministers eat in the morning. Happy are you, land that your king is free and your ministers eat on time in strength and not in drunkenness” (Ecclesiastes 10:16–17). He interprets the verse: The ministers in a proper country sit to eat only after they engaged in the strength of Torah and in judgment and not in the drunkenness of wine.

The Sages taught in a baraita: Eating in the first hour of the morning is the time of eating for Ludim, who are members of a nation of cannibals, and they are ravenous and hurry to eat. The second hour is the time of the eating of robbers. Since they spend the night stealing, they eat early in the morning. The third hour is the time of eating for heirs, i.e., people who inherited a lot of money and do not work for their sustenance. Their only preoccupation in the early hours of the morning is eating. The fourth hour is the time of eating for workers. The fifth hour is the time of eating for all people.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Pappa say that the fourth hour is mealtime for all people? Rather, emend the statement and say: The fourth hour is the time of eating for all people. The fifth hour is the time of eating for workers who do not have time to eat beforehand. The sixth hour is the time of eating for Torah scholars as, until then, court is in session. The Gemara adds: One who eats from then on is as if he is throwing a stone into a barrel, meaning that by then it does not contribute to the body’s health. Abaye said: We only said that eating from the sixth hour on is not beneficial, when he did not taste anything in the morning; however, if he tasted something in the morning, we have no problem with it.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: A person may, ab initio, recite his prayer in the bathhouse. The Gemara raises an objection from what was taught in the Tosefta: One who enters the bathhouse, in the first room, a place where all people stand dressed, it is like any other place and reading the Torah and prayer are permitted there, and, needless to say, in that room greeting [shalom] others is permitted. And he may don phylacteries there, and, needless to say, if he was already donning phylacteries that he need not remove them.

In the next room, a place where people dress and undress and they stand both naked and dressed, greeting others is permitted there. However, reading the Torah and prayer are not permitted there. And if one was already donning phylacteries there, he need not remove the phylacteries. However, he may not don phylacteries there ab initio.

In the innermost room, which is a place where people stand naked, greeting others is not permitted there, and, needless to say, reading the Torah and prayer are prohibited there. And if he is donning phylacteries there, he must remove the phylacteries, and, needless to say, he may not don them there ab initio. Apparently, the Tosefta contradicts the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava as he was, no doubt, referring to the innermost room in the bathhouse, which alone is referred to simply as a bathhouse, and, according to him, one may pray there ab initio.

The Gemara answers: When Rav Adda bar Ahava said his halakha, he was referring to an empty bathhouse in which there are no people. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina say: With regard to the bathhouse in which they said that it is prohibited to pray, the prohibition exists even though there are no people in it? With regard to the bathroom in which they said that it is prohibited to pray, the prohibition exists even though there are no feces in it. Certainly, since the place serves a repugnant purpose, it is inappropriate to pray there at any time.

The Gemara answers: Rather, when Rav Adda made his statement, he was referring to a new bathhouse that had not yet been used for bathing. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Ravina raise a dilemma before Rav Adda with regard to this matter: A place that one designated as a bathroom, what is its legal status as far as praying there is concerned? Is there designation as a significant and determining factor in this case? Or, is designation not a halakhically significant matter? And the dilemma was not resolved for him. Is the same not true with regard to the bathhouse? Doesn’t the same dilemma exist there? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps