Dozing Off

MISHNA: With regard to one who reads the Megilla out of order, reading a later section first, and then going back to the earlier section, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he read it by heart, or if he read it in Aramaic translation or in any other language that he does not understand, he has not fulfilled his obligation. However, for those who speak a foreign language, one may read the Megilla in that foreign language. And one who speaks a foreign language who heard the Megilla read in Ashurit, i.e., in Hebrew, has fulfilled his obligation. If one read the Megilla at intervals, pausing and resuming, or while he is dozing off, he has fulfilled his obligation. If one was writing a Megilla, or expounding upon it, or correcting it, and he read all its words as he was doing so, the following distinction applies: If he had intent to fulfill his obligation with that reading he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If one reads from a Megilla that was written not with ink but with sam or with sikra or with komos or with kankantom, or from a Megilla that was written not on parchment but on neyar or on diftera, a kind of unprocessed leather, he has not fulfilled his obligation. He does not fulfill his obligation unless he reads from a Megilla that is written in Ashurit, i.e., in the Hebrew language and using the Hebrew script, upon parchment and with ink.

§ It is taught in the mishna: If one read the Megilla while he is dozing off, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case of dozing off? Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a situation in which one is asleep yet not fully asleep, awake yet not fully awake. If someone calls him he answers. And he is in a mental state in which he does not know how to provide an answer that requires logical reasoning, but when people remind him about something that has happened, he remembers it.

The Sages taught in a baraita: Until when may one eat and drink on communal fasts, when one fasts during the day but not the preceding evening? Until dawn. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Until the call of the rooster, which is before dawn. Abaye said: They taught this ruling, that one may eat all night, only if he has not finished his evening meal, as he may continue eating the same meal all night. However, if he has finished his meal, he may not eat any more. Rava raised an objection to Abaye from a baraita: If one finished his meal and stood up, nevertheless, he may eat more. This shows that one may in fact eat throughout the night, even if he has finished his meal. Abaye answered: There the baraita is referring to a situation where he has not yet removed or cleared the table, and therefore it is as though he has not yet finished his meal. Some say a slightly different version of this discussion. Rava said: They taught this ruling only if he did not sleep after eating, but if he slept he may not eat anything else that night. Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: If one slept and arose from his sleep during the night, he may eat. Rava explained: There the baraita is referring to one who was merely dozing, and was not fully asleep. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of dozing? Rav Ashi said: One is asleep but not fully asleep, awake but not fully awake. This means that if they call him he will answer, but he cannot give a coherent reason. And when we remind him of something that just happened he remembers it.

§ The Gemara addresses the matter itself cited in the previous discussion. Rav Yehuda said: A sleeping man has not acquired his yevama, as the verse states: “Her brother-in-law will have intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that he does not acquire her unless he intends to act for the sake of sexual intercourse. Since a sleeping man does not intend to engage in sexual intercourse, he does not acquire his yevama. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that one acquires his yevama through sexual intercourse regardless of whether he was awake or asleep? The Gemara answers: Say the baraita in the following emended form: Whether she was awake or asleep. The woman’s awareness is not a necessary component in order to perform levirate marriage. The Gemara asks further: Wasn’t it taught in another baraita that one acquires his yevama through sexual intercourse regardless of whether he was awake or he was asleep and regardless of whether she was awake or she was asleep? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here when the baraita says that a sleeping man acquires his yevama? It is referring to a man who is dozing. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of dozing? Rav Ashi said: One is asleep but not asleep, awake but not awake, when, if they call him, he will answer, but he is unable to provide a reasonable answer. And when they later inform him of what happened, he remembers it. The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabba cited earlier in order to discuss the matter itself that Rabba addressed. Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall is liable to pay four of the five types of indemnity that must be paid by one who damaged another, and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. He is liable to pay for injury, pain, loss of livelihood, and medical costs. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as the Master said: One is not liable to pay for shame unless he intends to humiliate his victim. Consequently, one who fell from a roof accidentally is not liable to pay for the shame he caused the woman. Rava said: If he intended to press his sexual organ into a wall, and he accidentally pressed it into his yevama, he has not acquired her, as he did not intend to engage in an act of sexual intercourse. However, if he intended to press his sexual organ into an animal, and he pressed it into his yevama, he has acquired her, as he at least intended to act for the purpose of sexual intercourse in general, i.e., for some form of sexual intercourse.

MISHNA: If some of the participants at the seder fell asleep, thereby interrupting their meal, they may eat from the Paschal lamb when they awake. If the entire company fell asleep, they may not eat any more. If they all fall asleep, this is considered a complete interruption, and if they were to resume their meal it would be akin to eating the offering in two different places. Rabbi Yosei says: If they dozed they may eat from the Paschal lamb when they awake, but if they fell fast asleep they may not eat from it. The Sages further said: The Paschal lamb after midnight renders one’s hands ritually impure, as it becomes notar, an offering that remained after the time when they may be eaten has expired; and the Sages ruled that both piggul, offerings that were invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being sacrificed, and notar render one’s hands ritually impure. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: If they dozed they may eat from the Paschal lamb, but if they fell asleep they may not eat from it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of dozing? Rav Ashi said: One is asleep but not asleep, awake but not awake, when, if they call him, he will answer, but he is unable to provide a reasonable answer. And when they later inform him of what happened, he remembers it. The Gemara cites a related episode: Abaye was sitting before Rabba, and he saw that Rabba was dozing off after he had begun to eat the final obligatory piece of matza. He said to him: Is the Master sleeping? Rabba said to him: I am dozing, and we learned in the mishna: If they dozed, they may eat from the Paschal lamb, but if they fell fast asleep they may not eat from it.

MISHNA: There are seven substances that one applies to the stain on a garment to ascertain whether it is a blood stain or a dye, as these seven substances remove the blood. They are: Tasteless saliva, and liquid from split beans, and urine, and natron, and borit, Cimolian earth [kamonya], and potash [eshlag]. If one immersed the garment with the stain whose nature is unknown and then handled ritually pure items with the garment, and then applied these seven substances to the stain and it did not disappear, that stain is presumably from a dye, and therefore the ritually pure items are pure, and he need not immerse the garment again, as there is no impurity. If the stain disappeared or if it faded, that is a blood stain, and the ritually pure items that he handled are impure, and he must immerse the garment again. What is tasteless saliva? It is saliva that emerges from the mouth of any person who tasted nothing all night, when he first awakens in the morning. Liquid from split beans is created through the chewing of split beans that divided naturally, not by human hand, which is then applied to the stain. The urine that is an effective detergent is specifically urine that fermented for three days. And one must rub each and every one of the substances three times over the stain, and one must apply them separately, and one must apply them in the order they are listed in the mishna. If one applied them in a manner that is not in their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing. One cannot determine by means of that examination whether it is blood or a dye.

§ The mishna teaches: What is tasteless saliva? A tanna taught in a baraita: What is the definition of tasteless saliva? Any saliva where the person had not tasted anything since the evening. Rav Pappa, who was sitting before Rava, thought to say: This is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that he did not eat anything all night long. Rava said to him: Is it taught: One who had not tasted anything in the evening, which would indicate that it is referring only to one who did not eat since nightfall? No, the baraita teaches: Where the person had not tasted anything since the evening, which means even if he ate after nightfall, but did not eat for the rest of the night. This serves to exclude a case where he arose early in the morning and ate, as in such a case it is no longer tasteless saliva. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is tasteless saliva? Any saliva where the person did not eat any food and he passed the middle of the night and he was in a state of sleep. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the matter depends on whether or not he had sleep? But didn’t we learn in a baraita: Even if he slept the entire day, that is not tasteless saliva; but if he was awake the entire night, that is tasteless saliva? This indicates that sleep is not a critical factor in producing tasteless saliva. The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction by explaining that there, in the latter clause of the baraita, it is referring to a case where he was awake all night and did not sleep properly, but was dozing off and on. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of dozing? Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a situation in which one is asleep and yet not fully asleep, and awake and yet not fully awake. If someone calls him he answers, and he is in a mental state in which he does not know how to provide an answer that requires logical reasoning, but when people remind him about something when he is in that state that has happened previously he remembers it. A tanna taught in a baraita: If one rose early in the morning and learned aloud his chapter of the Torah, that saliva in his mouth is not tasteless saliva, as speech weakens the strength of the saliva. And how much learning and talk removes the strength of the saliva? Rav Yehuda bar Sheila says that Rav Ashi says that Rabbi Elazar says: Any case where he uttered most of his normal amount of speech that he usually says in three hours.

The Gemara relates: Ravin and Rav Huna were sitting before Rav Yirmeya. And Rav Yirmeya was sitting and dozing as the two students conversed. And Ravin sat and said: The difference between a garter and ankle chains is that a garter is worn on one leg, and ankle chains are worn on two legs. Rav Huna said to him: These garters and those ankle chains are both worn on two legs. And when she wears garters on both legs they place a chain between them, and they become vessels with the legal status equal to that of ankle chains. And Ravin asked: And does the chain that is connected to it render it a vessel? If a garter without a chain is not considered a vessel, why would the addition of a chain render it a vessel that can become ritually impure? And if you say the reason for this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that a metal vessel that makes a sound is considered a vessel and can become ritually impure? As it is stated: “Every thing that passes through the fire, you shall make it pass through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that does not pass through the fire you shall make to go through water” (Numbers 31:23). And the Sages interpret the verse homiletically: Every thing [davar], even speech [dibbur]; in other words, even an object that makes a sound shall pass through fire to become purified because it is a vessel. However, this case is not similar. Granted, there, they require the vessel for the purpose of its sound and it performs an action. However, here, what action does the chain perform? Although it creates a sound, the chain serves no purpose. He said to him: Here, too, the chain is performing a purposeful action, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There was one family in Jerusalem whose daughters’ strides were lengthy, and as a result their hymen membranes would fall away. In order to solve this problem they made them ankle chains and they hung a chain between them so that their strides would not be so large and, indeed, their hymen membranes would no longer fall away. Meanwhile, Rabbi Yirmeya awoke from their voices and said to them: Correct, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said likewise.