THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
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.
1) RESIDENTIAL AREAS
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
2) TWO THAT ARE ONE
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.
(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).
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.
3) FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF WOMEN
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
4) THE TWO-LETTER NAME OF HASHEM
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
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
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
(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.