Eruvin 100b ~ Spousal Rape

After a discussion about walking on grass on Shabbat, the Talmud switches to another topic entirely. Spousal rape:

עירובין ק, ב

ואמר רמי בר חמא אמר רב אסי אסור לאדם שיכוף אשתו לדבר מצוה שנאמר ואץ ברגלים חוטא

Rami bar Chamah said in the name of Rav Asi: It is prohibited for a man to force his wife in the conjugal mitzvah, [i.e., sexual relations,] as it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” (Proverbs 19:2). [The term “his feet” is understood here as a euphemism for intercourse.]

This statement of Rav Asi is codified in all of the major codes of Jewish law. And as we will see, it is cited in a decision of the Israeli Supreme Court which ruled spousal rape to be, well, rape. First, Maimonides, in his Mishnah Torah:

משנה תורה, הלכות דעות ה׳:ד׳

וְלֹא יֶאֱנֹס אוֹתָהּ וְהִיא אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה אֶלָּא בִּרְצוֹן שְׁנֵיהֶם וּבְשִׂמְחָתָם

A husband may not force himself sexually on his wife, if she does not consent. Rather [intercourse] should be with the consent and happiness of both husband and wife…

The Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) addresses this in two separate rulings:

שולחן ערוך אבן אורח חיים ר״מ:י׳

אם הי' לו כעס עמה אסור לשמש עד שיפייסנה ויכול לספר עמה קודם תשמיש כדי לרצות

A man is forbidden to have intercourse with his wife if he is angry with her…

שולחן ערוך אבן העזר כ״ה:ב׳

ולא יבעול אלא מרצונה ואם אינה מרוצה יפייסנה עד שתתרצה

He may not have intercourse without her consent, and if she is not interested he should appease her until she is interested.

A History of Spousal Rape Law

So spousal rape (also called marital rape) has been forbidden in Judaism since talmudic times. But other legal traditions did not consider it a crime until recently. Take for example, criminal law in England, as outlined in The History of the Pleas of the Crown (vol. 1, ch. 58, p. 629), written by Lord Hale and published in 1736.

But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.

Hale had died 60 years earlier, but as Chief Justice his words reflected common law of the time. It remained the law of the land until it was formally overturned by a ruling in Britain’s House of Lords in 1992, which found that there were no grounds against “declaring that in modern times the supposed marital exemption in rape forms no part of the law of England.”

“The remaining and no less difficult question is whether, despite that view, this is an area where the court should step aside to leave the matter to the Parliamentary process. This is not the creation of a new offence, it is the removal of a common law fiction which has become anachronistic and offensive and we consider that it is our duty having reached that conclusion to act upon it.”

— R. v R [1991] UKHL 12. House of Lords. (23 October 1991)

Spousal Rape In ameRican law

In 1962 the American penal code still exempted spousal rape as a crime. Back then a man could only be guilty of rape if the victim was “not his wife”:

§ 213.1. Rape and Related Offenses. (1) Rape. A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if…

This changed over the next thirty years, and today spousal rape is recognized as a crime in all fifty states, although the circumstances and reporting requirements vary, and they are sometimes different to those in which the victim is not the spouse.

In New York for example, the exemption of spousal rape was ruled unconstitutional in 1984, in a ruling from the New York Court of Appeals. A man had forced sexual intercourse with his wife while they were separated (and after the wife had obtained a protection order from the court that required him to move out and remain away from the family home). The husband raised the spousal exception as a defense for rape. Here is part of the that ruling:

We find that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between marital rape and non-marital rape. The various rationales which have been asserted in defense of the exemption are either based upon archaic notions about the consent and property rights incident to marriage or are simply unable to withstand even the slightest scrutiny. We therefore declare the marital exemption for rape in the New York statute to be unconstitutional.

Spousal Rape in Israeli Law

In 1980 Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that spousal rape was a crime as heinous as any other kind of rape. One of the three justices, David Bechor (1910-2000) cited a number of Jewish sources, including Maimonides’ Mishnah Torah and the Shulchan Aruch. He also cited Ravi Asi on this page of Talmud, as well as a number of contemporary rabbis. Here is an excerpt of the opinion of Justice Bechor, and you can read the entire decision here.

...סקירת התלמוד מלמדדת אותנו, שקיון יחסי אישות באונס אינו מותר והנו בגדר עבירה...המסקנה אליה הגעתי, עולה בקנה אחד גם עם עקרונות היסוד של כבוד האישה כאדם חופשי ולא כשפחה, הנתונה לחסדי בעלה בעניין כה רגיש ועדין, עקרונות אשר, לדאבון הלב, לא מומשו בחקיקה ובפסיקה של מדינות נאורות ומתקדמת בעולם

A review of the Talmud teaches us that forced sexual relations are not  permitted and are unlawful…the conclusion at which I arrive is also in keeping with the fundamental principles that a woman is to be respected as a human being and not as a servant, who depends on her husband’s kindnesses in this sensitive area. Sadly, these principles have not been enshrined in the laws of many enlightened and advanced nations…

There are, regrettably, areas in which Jewish marital law has not caught up with modern notions of justice and equality. But on the subject of spousal rape Jewish law set a precedent which was adopted only hundreds of years later by modern western legal systems. Rav Asi’s ruling, cited by the Israeli Supreme Court, is succinct. No means no.

Eruvin 76b ~ Mathematical Error

The Talmud is discussing the necessary dimensions of a window that would allow two private domains separated by a wall to merge as one. Rabbi Yochanan rules that a round window must have a circumference of at least twenty-four tefachim. Then we learn of a mathematical rule stated by the “Rabbis of Caesarea.”

ערובין עו,ב

עיגולא מגו ריבועא ריבעא ריבועא מגו עיגולא פלגא

A circle that comes out of a square - one fourth; a square that comes out of a circle- one half

Rashi explains the second part of this cryptic statement: One half of the square’s perimeter is what you lose by going from a circle’s perimeter to that of a square that fits inside of it. Consider a circle, says Rashi, with a circumference (i.e. a perimeter) of 24 (inches, meters, amot, whatever). Inside of this circle is a square. The perimeter of the square will be 16. Half of 16 is 8, and the circumference of the circle is 8 more than the perimeter of the square. Another way of thinking about this is that in this particular geometric setup, the circumference of the circle will be always be 1.5 times larger than the perimeter of the square.

But this is not correct. In the circle below, the value of the diameter d is also the same as the value of the hypotenuse of an isosceles triangle of length 4. And as you can see, following the simple math, it isn’t. According to Rashi, d=8, but in fact d=5.65.

The same discussion appears in the tractate Sukkah (8a) and Tosafot in both places notes that the Rabbis of Caesarea, together with Rabbi Yochanan who cites the rule in their name, were wrong. There is also an error in Rashi, whose explanation we have just seen..

תוס עירובין עו, ב

דהא קא חזינא דלאו הכי הוא שכל האורך והרוחב לא הוי אלא תרי אמה…וקשה היאך טעו דייני דקיסרי הא קא חזינן דלאו הכי הוא

It is not true that an [isosceles] triangle with sides [one unit long] has a hypotenuse of two…how could the Rabbis of Caesarea have made such an error, for we can measure and see that this is not correct…

“A square inside a circle inside a square”

To save Rabbi Yochanan, the Rabbis of Caesarea and Rashi from this embarrassing error, Tosafot suggests that the Rabbis of Caesarea were never discussing the circumference; instead, they were discussing the area. And they were discussing a square that is inside a circle that is inside a square. Like this:

Tosafot suggests that the phrase “A circle that comes out of a square - one fourth” (עיגולא מגו ריבועא ריבעא) means that the area of the inner circle is one fourth less than the outer square.

Tosafot also suggests that the phrase “a square that comes out of a circle- one half” (ריבועא מגו עיגולא פלגא) means that the area of an inside square is one half that of the outside square. Here is the demonstration, assuming that π=3.

Another Rashi with wrong math

In a couple of pages, (Eruvin 78a) we read

עירובין עח, א

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כותל עשרה צריך סולם ארבעה עשר להתירו רב יוסף אמר אפילו שלשה עשר ומשהו

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a wall is ten handbreadths high, it requires a ladder fourteen handbreadths high, so that one can place the ladder at a diagonal against the wall. The ladder then functions as a passageway and thereby renders the use of the wall permitted. Rav Yosef said: Even a ladder with a height of thirteen handbreadths and a bit is enough, [as it is sufficient if the ladder reaches within one handbreadth of the top of the wall].

Here is Rashi’s explanation:

עירובין עח, א רשי

סולם ארבעה עשר - שצריך למשוך רגלי הסולם ארבעה מן הכותל לפי שאין סולם זקוף נוח לעלות

A ladder that is 14 handbreadths high: The feet of the ladder need to be placed four handbreadths from the wall

Here is a diagram of the setup, and the problem with Rashi:

This error is noted by Tosafot (loc. cit.)

צריך סולם ארבעה עשר להתירו - פי' בקונטרס שצריך למשוך רגלי הסולם ארבעה מן הכותל ולא דק דכי משיך ליה י' טפחים נמי מן הכותל שהוא שיעור גובה הכותל יגיע ראש הסולם לראש הכותל דארבעה עשר הוא שיעור אלכסון של י' על י' דכל אמתא בריבועא אמתא ותרי חומשי באלכסונא

A ladder 14 handbreadths heigh is needed - Rashi explains that the feet of the ladder need to be placed 4 handbreadths from the wall. This is not accurate. For when the feet of the ladder are placed ten handbreadths from the wall, (a larger measure) the ladder will still reach the top of the wall. Because the length of the diagonal [i.e.the hypotenuse] is 14 handbreadths in a 10x10 [right angled] triangle. Because for every unit along the sides of square, the diagonal will be 1.4

What Tosafot is getting at is that in a 1x1 right angled triangle, the hypotenuse must be √2. But √2 is an irrational number, meaning the calculation never ends. However, an irrational number is not useful for our real-world measurements, and so Tosafot rounds √2 to 1.4, just as in the Talmud the value of π, another irrational number, is rounded to 3. (Shalom Kelman, a loyal Talmudology reader, sent us another explanation of the errors which you can read here.)

What to make of these Errors?

We have reviewed two mathematical errors made by the Rabbis of Caesarea and Rashi, but how should we view them? As ignorance, mistaken calculations, or something else?

In his classic 1931 work Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy, (p58) W.M Feldman is firmly in the "Rashi was ignorant” camp.

It is however, most remarkable that although Rashi displayed great genius in mathematical calculation, he was quite ignorant of the most elementary mathematical facts. He was not aware that the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third, for he says if a ladder is to be placed 4 spans from the foot of a wall 10 spans high so as to reach the top, then the ladder must be 14 spans high, (i.e. the sum of the two lengths), which of course is absurdly incorrect, the real minim length of the ladder must be only √(4x4)+(10x10)= √116=10.7 spans.

Judah Landa, in his book Torah and Science suggests that the Rabbis of Caesarea (and Rashi too, I suppose) had mistaken calculations. They did not give mathematics “the serious attention it deserved and that as a consequence their knowledge of it suffered.” Later commentators, like Tosafot and Maimonides knew that π was slightly greater than three, and Tosafot “demands to know why the Rabbis of Caesarea made statements without attempted verification by measurement and experiment.”

no error here

Rabbi Moshe Meiselman believes that the rabbis of the Talmud were incapable of making an error. Of any sort. In his book Torah, Chazal & Science he dedicates eight pages and copious footnotes to explain why, in fact, there were no errors in any of the math found on today’s page of Talmud. Among the sources he cites is a commentary on the Talmud written by the fifteenth-century Rabbi Simeon ben Tzemach Duran, better known as the Tashbetz. In his Sefer Hatashbetz, he addresses the parallel discussion in the tractate Sukkah:

ובתוס' תרצו כי התלמודיים טעו בדבריהם של רבנן דקסרי …וכל זה חיזוק וסמך שאין בכל דברי רז"ל דבר שיפול ממנו ארצה כי הם אמת ודבריהם אמת

Tosafot explains that the Talmud believed that the Rabbis of Caesarea were mistaken…but there is not a single error in all the words of the Sages, for they are true and their words are true…

Rabbi Meiselman concludes that not one of the commentaries on the Talmud “suggests that any of the Chachamim [Sages in the Talmud] made elementary errors in calculation or were ignorant of basic principles.”

Rabbi Meisleman aside, Rashi certainly seems to have made an error in his calculations. But why should this bother us? Of the hundreds of thousands of words written by Rashi, commenting on and explaining the entire Hebrew Bible and Babylonian Talmud, an error or two is hardly unexpected. (Just ask any author who has proof-read her manuscript a dozen times only to find a typo in the published book.) Did Rashi misunderstand, or was he ignorant of Pythagoras and his Theorem? In the end it doesn’t matter much. We all make mistakes. I only hope I make as few of them as Rashi did. Now that would be an accomplishment.

Eruvin 64 ~ Wine and Cognitive Function

In this page of Talmud we begin a long digression about the effects of wine, both good and bad. There is a dispute whether wine precludes a rabbi from rendering a legal decision. Rabbi Yehuda thought it did, but Rav Nachman thought the idea ridiculous. He claimed that he could only render a legal ruling after he had drunk some wine.

עירובין סד, א

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שתה רביעית יין אל יורה אמר רב נחמן לא מעליא הא שמעתא דהא אנא כל כמה דלא שתינא רביעתא דחמרא לא צילא דעתאי 

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: If one drank a quarter-log of wine, he may not issue a halakhic ruling, as the wine is liable to confuse his thinking. With regard to this second statement, Rav Nachman said: This halakha is not excellent, as concerning myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear. [It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings.]

What are we to make of Rav Nachman’s statement that he could only render a legal decision after he had some wine. Does alcohol indeed sharpen the mind?

Nope.

In study after study, alcohol actually impairs you cognitive function. (You can see more evidence of this if you joined me in the Emergency Department on a Saturday night.) For example, one study, published in 2000, demonstrated that alcohol impaired both the speed of information processing and as well as higher order cognitive abilities. While the study only used twenty subjects, I think we can all agree that these findings would be replicated in a larger population (see above regarding the ED). The authors concluded that

Alcohol administration resulted in impaired performance on perceptual organization, synthesis of thought, abstract thought, decision making and attention to detail, but not on short-term memory, visual memory, freedom from distractibility and anxiety and visuo-motor coordination.

It is of course, precisely the powers of abstract thought, decision making and attention to detail that are needed in order to render a fair legal decision of any sort. Another review of the action of alcohol on vigilance concluded that “nonverbal, spatial information processing are very sensitive to low doses of alcohol.” Alcohol is involved in over half of all fatal car crashes in the US and so on and so on. Alcohol does nothing to sharpen the mind.

“...results show that alcohol impaired visual information processing, attention, abstract reasoning and visuo-motor coordination...
...the results indicate that all stages of information processing are impaired independently...”

— Tzambazis, K. Stough, C. Alcohol impairs speed of information processing and simple and choice reaction time and differentially impairs higher order cognitive abilities. Alcohol & Alcoholism 2000. 35( 2 ) 197-201.

Rav Nachman and the CAGE Questionnaire

Why then did Rav Nachman believe that he could only render a legal decision after he’d had some wine? Here is one possibility: for people who have a drinking problem, the addiction to alcohol can lead to nasty withdrawal symptoms, that can only be alleviated with …more alcohol. Today, one of the four screening questions that are asked using the CAGE questionnaire to detect a possible drinking problem is “have you ever felt the need to drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves?” It is precisely the need for alcohol in order to “think straight” (or to have the illusion of thinking straight) that is a warning sign of potential alcoholism.

Rav Nachman (d.~320C.E.) was a wealthy man, who had high self-esteem. He claimed that if anyone was worthy of being the Messiah in his generation “he must be like me” (אמר רב נחמן אי מן חייא הוא כגון אנא, see Sanhedrin 98b). He also owned an enormous wine cellar (see Berachot 51b). Of course none of this proves that Rav Nachman had what today we would call alcoholism, but it is an interesting idea to ponder.

Does Exercise help eliminate alcohol?

Elsewhere on today’s page of Talmud we read that exercise can increase the elimination of alcohol.

עירובין סו,ב

אמר רמי בר אבא דרך מיל ושינה כל שהוא מפיגין את היין

Rami bar Abba said: Walking a path of a mil, and similarly, sleeping even a minimal amount, will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. 

These observations are perfectly reasonable. Alcohol is eliminated in the body by the liver, although the rate at which it does so varies. It is faster in those who drink regularly, and slower in those who are alcohol naive. In general, the elimination rate is around 10-15mg/dL/hr in alcohol naive people and around 20mg/dL/hr or higher in those with chronic alcohol use. Try as you might, there is really nothing you can do to speed up this rate of elimination.

Does exercise help, as Rami bar Abba suggested? Well, there is one study that looked at this very question. In rats, which were fed alcohol mixed into their liquid diet “with use of a kitchen wire whisk and bowl.” They were then made to run on a little rodent treadmill and blood was removed from their tails at various time intervals. The researchers, from the University of Texas at Austin, concluded that “…running exercise for periods of at least 60 min will increase rates of ethanol clearance compared with rates measured at rest.” So if you are a rat with a hangover, a vigorous run for an hour might help you feel better. But what about us?

Well, it depends how much you exert yourself. A study published in 1982 tested the rates of alcohol elimination in a very small group of volunteers, who got drunk and hopped on an exercise bike. It found that

prolonged physical exercise produces an enhanced ethanol elimination if the intensity and duration of exercise are sufficient. But this finding has hardly any pathological meaning.The reasons for the enhanced elimination of blood alcohol are probably to be found in the elevated body temperature caused by physical exercise and in a supplementary loss of alcohol by perspiration and exhalation. The muscles are not able to utilize ethanol either directly or indirectly.

Time-dependent elimination of alcohol

Sleep does nothing to speed up the metabolism of alcohol either. But what if Rami bar Abba was not suggesting an activity, but rather a length of time? Perhaps he is in effect saying that the alcohol wears off in about the time it takes to walk a mil, or have a short nap. That certainly makes physiological sense. To which Rav Nachmun pointed out that this time period only applied after a small amount of wine (“a quarter log”). Any more than that could not be eliminated in such a short period. Also physiologically correct.

But Rami bar Avuha (not the same Rami as before) noted that if you are really intoxicated, you would need more time to sober up.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁתָה כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, אֲבָל שָׁתָה יוֹתֵר מֵרְבִיעִית — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ טוֹרַדְתּוֹ וְשֵׁינָה מְשַׁכַּרְתּוֹ. 

Rav Nachman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They only taught this with regard to one who has drunk a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, this advice is not useful. In that case, walking a path of such a distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him.

Of course so long as you stop drinking, there is no way that a nap will further raise your alcohol level, but again, if you have drunk enough and take a nap you may wake with an awful hangover, which may make you feel as if you were intoxicated.

Time dependent elimination of alcohol at various doses. For “one drink” you might substitute a quarter log of wine.” For “four drinks” you might substitute the more potent “Italian wine.”

The Talmud is full of conflicting statements about wine and its intoxicating effects. In tomorrow’s page of Talmud Rav Chaninah claimed that the relaxed feeling a person gets after drinking wine put him in the same mindset as the Creator of the universe:

עירובין סה, א

אמר רבי חנינא כל המתפתה ביינו יש בו מדעת קונו שנאמר וירח ה׳ את ריח הניחוח וגו׳ 

Rabbi Chanina said: Whoever is appeased by his wine, i.e., whoever becomes more relaxed after drinking, has in him an element of the mind-set of his Creator, who acted in a similar fashion, as it is stated: “And the Lord smelled the sweet savor, and the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake” (Genesis 8:21).

And according to Rav Chanan bar Papa it is a sign of prosperity if “wine flows like water” in the house (Eruvin 65a). But rabbis also pointed out the dangers of drinking to excess. One explanation for the deaths of the sons of Aaron the High Priest (described in Lev.10) is that they were drunk when they performed in the Mishkan. Elsewhere we have discussed how the Talmud described alcoholic liver disease, and how it precluded a Cohen from service in the Temple. Like many things, wine would be taken in moderation. That lesson, taught in Avot D’Rabbi Natan, was true in talmudic times, and remains so in ours too.

אבות דרבי נתן 37:5

ח׳ דברים רובן קשה ומיעוטן יפה. יין מלאכה שינה ועושר ודרך ארץ ומים חמין והקזת דם 

There are eight things which are dangerous in excess but good in moderation: wine, work, sleep, [having] wealth, sexual relations, [bathing in] hot water, and bloodletting.

---

Want more? Here are some other Talmudology posts that also discuss alcohol and its effects:

Cohanim and alcoholic liver disease

The healing effects of alcohol

Too drunk to say no

Talmudology Redux ~ Could the Vilna Gaon Have Stayed Awake Over Sukkot?

The Vilna Gaon, (lit. The Genius of Vilna) lived from 1720-1797, and today, the 19th of Tishrei, is the Hebrew anniversary of his death. He was one of the leading talmudic and halakhic authorities of his time. His works are widely studied to this day, and his legal opinions are often cited. Today’s question is: did the Vilna Gaon stay awake for several consecutive days one Sukkot? Here is the background:

The Vilna Gaon.

In January 1788 the Vilna Gaon was involved in the kidnapping of a young Jewish man who had converted to Christianity. For his role in the kidnapping Rabbi Eliyahu (the given name of the Gaon) was arrested and held for over a month.  The case was later tried, and on September 15, 1789 (sic) the Gaon of Vilna, together with others involved in the kidnapping, was sentenced to twelve weeks in jail.  Although it is unclear how long he was imprisoned, he was there over Sukkot, and the Lithuanian authorities were hardly in the practice of providing imprisoned Jews with a sukkah.  But since one is not permitted to sleep outside of the sukkah, what was the Gaon to do?  Simple.  He’d stay awake, and by doing so he would not transgress the prohibition of sleeping outside the sukkah.  Here’s how the episode is described in the work Tosefet Ma’aseh Rav published in 1892. 

Our Leader, teacher and Rabbi may he rest in peace, when he was imprisoned on Sukkot, tried with all his strength, and walked from one place to another, and held his eyelids open, and made an extraordinary effort not to sleep outside the sukkah – not even a brief nap – until the authorities released him to a sukkah.

We don’t know for how many nights the sixty-nine year-old Rabbi Eliyahu stayed awake, but is such a claim even plausible? As it turns out, it is.

The World Record for Staying Awake

The world record for staying awake is an amazing eleven days. Eleven days – that’s 264 hours (and 24 minutes to be precise) without sleep. It was set in 1965 by Randy Gardner, who was then seventeen years old. Gardner seems to have suffered little if any harm by his marathon period of sleep deprivation. But don’t try and beat the record. The Guinness Book of Records no longer has an entry for staying awake – because it is considered too dangerous an ordeal to undertake. (You can hear a review of sleep deprivation stunts in general and a wonderful interview with Gardner himself here.)

The Health Risks of Sleep Deprivation

What are the health risks of prolonged sleep deprivation? A 1970 study of four volunteers who stayed awake for 205 hours (that’s eight and a half days!) noted some differences in how the subjects slept once they were allowed to do so, but follow-up testing of the group conducted 6-9 months after the sleep deprivation showed that their sleep patterns were similar to the pre-deprivation recordings.

Although Randy Gardner and these four volunteers seem to have suffered no long-term health consequences of staying awake for over a week, scientists have long noted that sleep deprivation is rather bad for the body. Or to be more precise, the bodies of unfortunate laboratory rats who are not allowed to sleep. In these animals, prolonged sleep deprivation causes the immune system to malfunction. This results in infection and eventual lethal septicemia. The physiologist who kept these rats awake noted that there are “far-reaching physical implications resulting from alterations in immune status [which] may explain why sleep deprivation effects are risk factors for disease and yet are not well defined or specifically localized.” In other words, sleep deprivation makes rats really sick, but we don’t know how, or why…

One possible explanation was suggested in 2013 by a group from the University of Rochester Medical Center. They demonstrated that during sleep, the space between the cells of the brain (the interstitial space) increased by up to 60%, allowing toxic metabolites to be cleared. This raises the question of whether the brain sleeps in order to expel these toxic chemicals, or rather it is the chemicals themselves that drive the brain to switch into a sleep state.

The extracellular (interstitial) space in the cortex of the mouse brain, through which cerebral spinal fluid moves, increases from 14% in the awake animal to 23% in the sleeping animal, an increase that allows the faster clearance of metabolic waste products and toxins. From Suzana Herculano-Houzel. Sleep it out. Science 2013: 342; 316

Not having any sleep is bad for your health - but so too is going without enough sleep. Chronic restriction of sleep to six hours or less per night can produce cognitive performance deficits equivalent to up to two nights of total sleep deprivation. So be sure to get a full night's rest.

Hard, But Not Impossible

The world record set by Randy Gardner has implications for a talmudic decision. In the tractate Shavuot (26b) Rabbi Yochanan ruled that since it was impossible to stay awake for more than three days, any vow to do so is considered to have been a vow made in vain – and punishment follows swiftly.  Here is how the ArtScroll Talmud explains this ruling, (based on the explanation of the Ran).

Since it is impossible for a person to go without sleep for three days, the man has uttered a vain oath. Hence, he receives lashes for violating the prohibition (Exodus 20:7): לא תשא את שם ה׳ אלוקיך לשוה, You shall not take the Name of Hashem, your God, in vain. And since the oath -being impossible to fulfill -has no validity, he is not bound by it at all and may sleep immediately.

Maimonides codified this law and also assumed that it is impossible to stay awake for three consecutive days. 

רמב"ם הלכות שבועות פרק ה הלכה כ

נשבע שלא יישן שלשת ימים, או שלא יאכל כלום שבעת ימים וכיוצא בזה שהיא שבועת שוא, אין אומרין יעור זה עד שיצטער ויצום עד שיצטער ולא יהיה בו כח לסבול ואח"כ יאכל או יישן אלא מלקין אותו מיד משום שבועת שוא ויישן ויאכל בכל עת שירצה

If a person swore that he would not sleep for three days, or would not eat anything for seven days, or something similar, this is considered a false oath. We do not tell the person to stay awake until it is impossible to do so, or fast for as long as possible until the discomfort is too great to bear, and then allow him to eat or sleep. Rather he is punished with lashes immediately for making a false oath, and is then allowed to sleep or eat as much as he wants…

Based on Randy Gardner’s feat, Rabbi Yochanan was incorrect when he ruled that it was impossible to stay awake for three days. It's certainly not impossible, but that hardly means it's a good idea to try. 

It also means that the story of the Gaon of Vilna’s sleepless nights in that cold prison might indeed have occurred. Still it is best not to disrupt your usual sleep patterns. Perhaps that is why Rabbi Chaninah ben Chachina'i in Masechet Avot  (3:4) taught that one who stays awake at night "will forfeit with his life."  Now that's a warning to heed.

רבי חנינא בן חכינאי אומר הנעור בלילה ... הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו

HAPPY SUKKOT FROM TALMUDOLOGY

“Sleep deprivation reduces learning, impairs performance in cognitive tests, prolongs reaction time, and is a common cause of seizures. In the most extreme case, continuous sleep deprivation kills rodents and flies within a period of days to weeks. In humans, fatal familial or sporadic insomnia is a progressively worsening state of sleeplessness that leads to dementia and death within months or years. ”

— Lulu Xie et al. Sleep Drives Metabolite Clearance from the Adult Brain. Science 2013. 342.317