(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 18

ERUVIN 16-20 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.


QUESTION: Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah says that the area enclosed by Pasei Bira'os must not be more than Beis Se'asayim (5000 square Amos) in order to be considered a Reshus ha'Rabim. The Rabanan argue and maintain that only areas which were not originally enclosed for residential purposes must not be larger than Beis Se'asayim. However, areas such as the enclosure of Pasei Bira'os, an animal corral, storage area behind houses, and a Chatzer may be larger than Beis Se'asayim since they were originally enclosed for residential purposes.

What sort of residential purposes do these areas serve? Do people live in the area enclosed by Pasei Bira'os, or in animal barns, storehouses, and courtyards? How do we define an area that was "Hukaf l'Dirah" -- "enclosed for residential purposes?"


(a) From his commentary on the Mishnah here, it is not clear how RASHI (DH l'Ginah and DH v'Chatzer) defines "Hukaf l'Dirah." On one hand, he considers a cattle barn to be considered enclosed for residential purposes, even though he does not mention any personal use for which a man would use such an area. On the other hand, he writes that Pasei Bira'os are considered Hukaf l'Dirah because the water of the well is fit for *human* consumption. Similarly, later Rashi writes that an animal corral is Hukaf l'Dirah "because the shepherd sleeps there at night" (19b, DH Dir).

At the end of the Sugya (22a), Rashi (DH Kol Avir) says that an area is considered Hukaf l'Dirah as long as "its use is for human activity, for entering and exiting constantly." It would appear that Rashi defines Hukaf l'Dirah as any area that was enclosed for *consistent and frequent human use*. Since men constantly go in and out of animal barns, it is considered fenced in for human use. The RITVA seems to agree with this definition of Hukaf l'Dirah when he writes, "Since the shepherd stands with them (the animals) all the time, the area is considered Hukaf l'Dirah."

According to this definition, it must be that a storehouse ("Muktzah") is considered Hukaf l'Dirah because a person frequently goes in to get wood that is stored there (BI'UR HALACHAH OC 358:1).

(b) RABEINU YEHONASAN writes that inside the enclosed area used as a cattle barn there is a house in which the shepherd lives. It seems from his words that an area is only Hukaf l'Dirah if a person actually lives there, and it is not sufficient for a person to just enter and exit it frequently.

(c) The RASHBA writes that an animal corral is considered fenced in for residential purposes because the *animals* live there. The NODA B'YEHUDAH (OC 2:47) cites the OR CHADASH who also says that an animal dwelling is considered a residential area. (See BI'UR HALACHAH OC 358:1, DH l'Dirah.)

QUESTION: What does it mean that Hashem originally wanted to create two humans, then made only one? And why did He later make the one again into two? How can we say that Hashem changed His mind?
(a) The RASHBA (TESHUVOS HA'RASHBA 1:60) explains that when the Gemara says that Hashem "thought about creating two" and then created one, it means that He carefully planned out whether to create them as one or as two. It does not mean that He changed His mind, but rather, that His creation was done with foreplanning and thorough consideration. Why, then, did He later end up making two humans? The Rashba offers two explanations:
1. The two that were eventually created were not the same two of His original plan. Originally, Hashem considered the implications of creating man and woman as two completely *separate species* that could not propagate together, nor would they serve as counterparts to each other. Hashem decided not to create two types of humans and instead He created one being, meaning one species of human beings, which included both man and woman.

2. Alternatively, Hashem originally considered creating man and woman *from the start* as two individual entities (albeit of the same species), but in the end He decided that both man and woman should come from one body in the start. The reason for this decision was so that man and woman would feel eternally bonded to each other. Again, Hashem never changed His mind, so to speak. Rather, His infinite wisdom pondered all of the possible ways of creating the human being before deciding to do it one way.

(b) The VILNA GA'ON (Berachos 61a) explains that when the Gemara says that Hashem initially "thought to create two," it means that when He created one, He already had in mind to eventually make two out of that one. The end-goal and final purpose of Hashem's creation is always the first and the beginning of His thoughts. "Hashem thought about creating two" means that His original thought was actualized later when He took two out of one. ("b'Machashavah" refers to the ultimate purpose of Creation, for "Sof Ma'aseh, b'Machashavah Techilah"). If man and woman were created as one, it would not have been possible for a person to fulfill his ultimate purpose of immersion in Hashem's Torah and service of Hashem, because his responsibilities would be too great. Therefore, Hashem created man and woman separately so that they could share the responsibilities and enable each other to accomplish their respective goals. The creation of one in the middle was just a step to get to the final two (for the reason given by the Rashba, a:2).


QUESTION: The Gemara refutes the suggestion that Manoach was an Am ha'Aretz. Even though it says that he "walked behind his wife," that means that he followed his wife's advice, just as we find that "Elkanah went after his wife" and "Elisha went after a woman." These great Tzadikim would certainly not have *walked* behind a woman, rather the verse mean that they followed women's advice.

This is the text of our Gemara, which Rashi also had. However, as the marginal note in the Vilna Shas points out, TOSFOS in Berachos deletes from the Gemara the verse about Elkanah following his wife, because there is no such verse! How, then, did Rashi explain this text? To what verse is the Gemara referring?

ANSWER: REBBI ELAZAR MOSHE HOROWITZ explains Rashi as follows. When Rav Nachman first stated that Manoach was an Am ha'Aretz because he walked after his wife, the Gemara was not sure whether that meant that he was an Am ha'Aretz because he *walked behind a woman*, or that he was an Am ha'Aretz because he *followed the advice of a woman* or because he *walked behind a woman." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak challenged the assumption that only an Am ha'Aretz follows the advice of women on the grounds that Elkanah followed the advice of his wife with regard to leaving the young Shmuel at home for his first two years. It is clear from the actions of Elkanah, who was a Navi, that it is permissible and even advisable to follow the advice of one's wife.

The Gemara then goes on to show that if the verse does not mean that Manoach should not be called an Am ha'Aretz for walking behind a woman either. We find a verse which says that Elisha "walked behind a woman," and that verse certainly means that he *gave in to her request*. So, too, with regard to Manoach, the verse means that he followed her advice.

(From Elisha alone we do not see that there is nothing wrong with following the *advice* of a woman because he was simply *requested* to come and revive the youth. The woman did not offer him *advice* to follow. Elkanah and Manoach, though, were given advice by their wives. Therefore, the Gemara proves from Elkanah that it is permissible to follow the advice of a woman, and from Elisha that when the verse says that he "followed her" it simply means that he followed her request or advice.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that after the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the world may only use two letters of the Name of Hashem (Yud and Heh). In what way was the whole Name used before the Churban, and in what way was it no longer used after the Churban?

(a) RASHI explains that in the Beis ha'Mikdash, it was permitted for the Kohanim to pronounce the full Name of Hashem during Birkas Kohanim. After the Churban, it is no longer permitted to use the Shem Hashem even during Birkas Kohanim, and instead the Kohanim pronounce the Name of Hashem the way we pronounce it. It is only permitted to pronounce the Name spelled Yud and Heh, not the 4-letter tetragrammatton.

(b) The MAHARSHA alludes to the Midrash which Rashi cites at the end of Parshas Beshalach, that when Amalek is in the world, the throne of Hashem is not complete and His Name is spelled with only the Yud and Heh. When the Beis ha'Mikdash is built there is a tremendous Giluy ha'Shechinah, as open Nisim occur in the Beis ha'Mikdash and in the world. While the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing, Amalek overpowers the influence of Klal Yisrael in the sense that the Name is not complete -- the world does not recognize the full greatness of Hashem, but rather it is hidden, "Haster Aster...." The full greatness of Hashem being hidden in the natural course of the world is referred to as the Shem not being complete. The ineffable, four-letter Name of Hashem represents the greatness of Hashem being visible to all (as Rashi says at the beginning of Parshas Va'era, "Shem Hashem Lo Nodati Lahem").

(c) RAV REUVEN MARGOLIOS (in HA'MIKRA V'HA'MESORA) suggests a novel interpretation forthis Gemara. Often we find names in Tanach that end with letters from the Shem of Hashem, such as "Yirmiyahu" and "Yeshayahu." Even though names may end with either the letters Yud and Heh and Vav or just the letters Yud and Heh in the times of the Beis ha'Mikdash, after the Churban of the first Beis ha'Mikdash we only find names that end with Yud and Heh (such as "Nechemyah" ben "Chakalyah" and "Zecharyah" etc.). Rav Reuven cites dozens of examples to demonstrate the consistency of his suggestion.

Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646