How far/close can one distance the beams for the well from the well? Is there a difference between a well (from a spring) and a cistern (rain water)? Does it make a difference if it belongs to an individual or if it is communal? What is the approach of Chanania, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and is it clear that our mishna doesn’t hold like each of them? What is the etymology of the word diomed? The gemara then brings a few other words relating to the root “dio”, meaning two. In this conext the gemara brings eight statements of Rabbi Yirmia ben Elazar (one will be in the next daf). 1. Man was created as two images of man and woman and then split. The gemara then brings a debate regarding this issue (was woman created from an appendage/tail of man) and analyzes/questions the different approaches. The gemara is grappling with the differences of the description of the creation of woman from Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 in Genesis. 2. When Adam was excommunicated after he sinned, he gave birth to evil spirits. 3. Don’t say all the praise of a person to his/her face. 4. Better to be fed bitter food by the hand of God than to have sweet food given to you by other people (be dependent on others for food). 5. If those in the house learn Torah at night, the house will not be destroyed. 6. Once the Temple was destroyed, the full name of God was no longer used – only the two letters that spell “yah“. 7. When Babylonia was destroyed, it affected the neighbors negatively but when the capital of the Israelite kingdom was destroyed it affect the neighboring area positively.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Eruvin 18
לְהַרְחִיק כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם.
to distance the boards from the well and expand the enclosed area by any amount, i.e., as much as one wishes, provided that he increases the number of upright boards between the double posts. Rabbi Yehuda says: The partitioned area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, which is an area of five thousand square cubits.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא אָמְרוּ בֵּית סָאתַיִם אֶלָּא לְגִנָּה וּלְקַרְפֵּף, אֲבָל אִם הָיָה דִּיר אוֹ סַהַר אוֹ מוּקְצֶה אוֹ חָצֵר — אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית חֲמֵשֶׁת כּוֹרִין, אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִין מוּתָּר. וּמוּתָּר לְהַרְחִיק כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין.
The Rabbis said to him: They only spoke of an area of two beit se’a with regard to a garden or an enclosure used for storing wood, scrap, and the like [karpef]. But if it was a pen [dir], or a stable [sahar], or a backyard, or a courtyard in front of the house, even if it had an area of five beit kor or even ten beit kor, it is permitted. And it is permitted to distance the boards and expand the enclosed area by any amount, provided that one increases the upright boards between the double posts.
גְּמָ׳ לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָא, דְּתַנְיָא: עוֹשִׂין פַּסִּין לְבוֹר וַחֲבָלִין לִשְׁיָירָא. וַחֲנַנְיָא אוֹמֵר: חֲבָלִין לְבוֹר, אֲבָל לֹא פַּסִּין.
GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, as it was taught in a baraita: One may arrange upright boards around a water cistern and ropes around a caravan. Ḥananya disagrees and says: One may set up ropes for a cistern, but not upright boards.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא חֲנַנְיָא בּוֹר לְחוּד בְּאֵר לְחוּד.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, a cistern of collected rain water has a discrete law, as the water will eventually be consumed and the upright boards will become unnecessary; and a well of spring water has a discrete law, as the water is constantly renewed and the upright boards will remain useful.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״חֲנַנְיָא אוֹמֵר: עוֹשִׂין חֲבָלִין לְבוֹר וּפַסִּין לִבְאֵר״, מִכְּלָל דְּלַחֲנַנְיָא לָא שְׁנָא בּוֹר וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּאֵר — חֲבָלִין אִין, פַּסִּין לָא. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָא?
Some say a different version of the previous passage: From the fact that the baraita does not teach: Ḥananya says: One may set up ropes around a water cistern and boards around a well, by inference, according to the opinion of Ḥananya, there is no difference between a cistern and a well. In both cases, ropes are indeed permitted, whereas upright boards are not. Let us say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא חֲנַנְיָא, לְמַאי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא — קָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ.
The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, he was only replying to that which the first tanna had said; since the first tanna had spoken only of a cistern, there was no need for Ḥananya to fully clarify his own position and distinguish between a cistern and a well.
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דִּתְנַן: אֶחָד בְּאֵר הָרַבִּים וּבוֹר הָרַבִּים וּבְאֵר הַיָּחִיד עוֹשִׂין לָהֶן פַּסִּין. אֲבָל בּוֹר הַיָּחִיד — עוֹשִׂין לוֹ מְחִיצָה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The Gemara further suggests: Let us say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in a mishna: In each of the cases of a public well, a public cistern, and a private well, one may arrange upright boards for them, but in the case of a private cistern, one must establish a proper partition for it ten handbreadths high; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
וְאִילּוּ הָכָא קָתָנֵי: לְבֵירָאוֹת. לְבֵירָאוֹת — אִין, לְבוֹרוֹת לָא.
Whereas here in the mishna it teaches: One may arrange upright boards for a well, from which one may infer that for a well, yes, it is permitted to use posts, but for a cistern, no, it is not permitted. This is opposed to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, which maintains that posts may be arranged for a public cistern.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בְּאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים דִּפְסִיקָא לֵיהּ, לָא שְׁנָא דְּרַבִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּיָחִיד — קָתָנֵי. בּוֹר מְכוּנָּסִין דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ — לָא קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara rejects this argument as well: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the tanna of the mishna teaches the case of a well of spring water, which he can teach in a distinct manner because there is no difference whether it belongs to the public and there is no difference whether it belongs to an individual, as it is always permitted. However, he did not teach the case of a cistern containing collected rain water, which he could not teach in a distinct manner because there is a difference between a public cistern and a private one. However, it cannot be proven from here that he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva.
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין עוֹשִׂין פַּסִּין אֶלָּא לִבְאֵר הָרַבִּים בִּלְבַד, וְאִילּוּ הָכָא קָתָנֵי לְבֵירָאוֹת — לָא שְׁנָא דְּרַבִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּיָחִיד!
The Gemara further suggests: Let us say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One may only arrange upright boards for a public well, whereas here the mishna states: For wells. The plural term implies that there is no difference if the well belongs to the public, and there is no difference if the well belongs to an individual.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, מַאי בֵּירָאוֹת — בֵּירָאוֹת דְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara also rejects this line of reasoning: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, to what is the mishna referring when it says wells? It is referring to wells in general, but the tanna means to include only public wells.
מַאי דְּיוֹמְדִין? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: דְּיוֹ עַמּוּדִין.
The mishna had mentioned double posts [deyomadin]: The Gemara asks: What are deyomadin? Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: Two [deyo] posts [amudin], which are put together to create a single corner piece.
דְּיוֹ לִמְנוּדֶּה שֶׁבַח זוֹנִית נִתְקַלְקֵל בְּמִידָּה שְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָן.
Having cited Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar’s statement with reference to the prefix deyo, the Gemara cites other statements of his. Two, to one who was ostracized, praise, nourishment, ruin, attribute, three, are mnemonics for the following statements by Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar.
תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל הַשִּׁיתִין פְּטוּרִין, חוּץ מִן הַדְּיוֹפְרָא. מַאי דְּיוֹפְרָא? אָמַר עוּלָּא: אִילָן הָעוֹשֶׂה דְּיוֹ פֵּירוֹת בַּשָּׁנָה.
We learned there in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: All inferior figs are exempt from being tithed, even if they are of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], as even if the seller is an am ha’aretz, he must certainly have already separated tithes from them, since the loss incurred by tithing is negligible, except for deyufra. The Gemara asks: What is deyufra? Ulla said: A tree that yields two [deyo] harvests of fruit [peirot] each year.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: דְּיוֹ פַּרְצוּף פָּנִים הָיָה לוֹ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״. כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע וְגוֹ׳״, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר פַּרְצוּף, וְחַד אָמַר זָנָב.
Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Adam was first created with two [deyo] faces, one male and the other female. As it is stated: “You have formed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me” (Psalms 139:5). Similarly, it is written: “And the tzela, which the Lord, God, had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22). Rav and Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzela: One said: It means a female face, from which God created Eve; and one said: Adam was created with a tail [zanav], which God removed from him and from which He created Eve.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף — הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״?
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that tzela means face; it is understandable that it is written: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before.” However, according to the one who says that tzela means tail, what is meant by the verse: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before”?
כִּדְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אָחוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, וָקֶדֶם לְפוּרְעָנוּת.
The Gemara answers that this verse is to be understood as bearing a moral message, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: Behind means Adam was created at the end of the act of creation; and before means that he was first for punishment.
בִּשְׁלָמָא אָחוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית — דְּלָא אִיבְּרִי עַד מַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, אֶלָּא וָקֶדֶם לְפוּרְעָנוּת מַאי הִיא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם קְלָלָה — הָא בַּתְּחִילָּה נִתְקַלֵּל נָחָשׁ, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְקַלְּלָה חַוָּה, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְקַלֵּל אָדָם!
The Gemara asks: Granted, it is understandable that Adam was behind, or last, in the act of creation, meaning that he was not created until the sixth day, Shabbat eve. However, before, or first, for punishment, what does this mean? If you say that he was punished first because of the curse pronounced in the wake of the sin involving the Tree of Knowledge, there is a difficulty. Wasn’t the snake was cursed first, and afterward Eve was cursed, and only at the end was Adam cursed?
אֶלָּא לַמַּבּוּל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמַח אֶת כׇּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה מֵאָדָם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה וְגוֹ׳״.
Rather, this refers to the punishment of the Flood, as it is written: “And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, creeping things and fowl of the heaven” (Genesis 7:23). This indicates that the punishment began with man.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּיצֶר״ תְּרֵין יוֹדִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״וַיִּיצֶר״?
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was originally a face or side of Adam; it is understandable that it is written: “Then the Lord God formed [vayyitzer] man” (Genesis 2:7). Vayyitzer is written with a double yod, one for Adam and one for Eve. However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is conveyed by spelling vayyitzer with a double yod?
כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: אוֹי לִי מִיִּצְרִי, אוֹי לִי מִיּוֹצְרִי.
The Gemara responds: This is interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, as Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: This comes to emphasize that which one says to himself in every circumstance: Woe unto me from my evil inclination [yetzer] if I perform the will of my Maker, and woe to me from my Maker [Yotzri] if I perform the will of my inclination.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״?
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, it is understandable that it is written: “Male and female, He created them, and blessed them, and called their name Man in the day when they were created” (Genesis 5:2), which indicates that from the very beginning of their creation, He fashioned two faces, one for the male and the other for the female. However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is the meaning of the verse: “Male and female, He created them”?
לְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ. דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״, וּכְתִיב: ״(כִּי) בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אוֹתוֹ״. בַּתְּחִלָּה עָלְתָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה לִבְראוֹת שְׁנַיִם, וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא אֶחָד.
The Gemara answers: It can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between the verses: On the one hand it is written: “Male and female, He created them,” in the plural, and on the other hand it is written: “So God created man in His own image, for in the image of God He created him” (Genesis 1:27), in the singular. At first, the thought entered God’s mind to create two, and ultimately, only one was actually created.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּסְגּוֹר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״וַיִּסְגּוֹר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה״?
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, it is understandable that it is written: “And He took one of his sides and closed up the flesh in its place” (Genesis 2:21). However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is meant by the verse: “And He closed up the flesh in its place”?
אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ.
Rav Zevid said, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: It was necessary to say that the fleshed closed up only with regard to the place of the incision.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּבֶן״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף — מַאי ״וַיִּבֶן״?
The Gemara challenges the other opinion: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail; it is understandable that it is written: “And the Lord God built the tzela” (Genesis 2:22), as it was a completely new building. However, according to the one who said that Eve was a complete face or side, what is the meaning of: “And He built”? What needed to be built?
לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא. דְּדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקִּילְּעָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁכֵּן בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם קוֹרִין לְקַלָּעִיתָא בַּנָּיְיתָא.
The Gemara responds: This must be interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interpreted homiletically the verse: “And the Lord God built the tzela.” This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided for Eve her hair, and then brought her to Adam, as in the coastal towns, they call braiding hair building.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים״, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבְּנָאָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה כְּבִנְיָין
Alternatively, the verse: “And the Lord God built,” can be understood as a description of Eve’s basic shape, as Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it is taught in a baraita: This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, built Eve like the structure
אוֹצָר, מָה אוֹצָר זֶה רָחָב מִלְּמַטָּה וְקָצָר מִלְמַעְלָה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת — אַף הָאִשָּׁה רְחָבָה מִלְּמַטָּה וּקְצָרָה מִלְמַעְלָה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אֶת הַוָּלָד.
of a storehouse. Just as a storehouse is built wide on the bottom and narrow on top, in order to hold produce without collapsing, so too a woman is created wide on the bottom and narrow on top, in order to hold the fetus.
״וַיְבִיאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת לָאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, מִכָּאן לַגָּדוֹל שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת לַקָּטָן וְאַל יֵרַע לוֹ.
The Gemara cites an exposition of the end of the previously cited verse: “And brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22). This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, was Adam the first man’s best man, attending to all his wedding needs and bringing his wife to him. From here we learn that a greater individual should serve as a best man for a lesser individual and should not feel bad about it as something beneath his dignity.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ סָגֵי בְּרֵישָׁא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּזָכָר סָגֵי בְּרֵישָׁא, דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יְהַלֵּךְ אָדָם אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ. נִזְדַּמְּנָה עַל הַגֶּשֶׁר יְסַלְּקֶנָּה לִצְדָדִין. וְכׇל הָעוֹבֵר אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה בַּנָּהָר — אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Eve was a face or side of Adam, which one of them walked in front? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to say that the male walked in front, as this is proper behavior, as it was taught in a baraita: A man should not walk behind a woman on a path, even if she is his wife. If she happens upon him on a bridge, he should walk quickly in order to catch up to her and consequently move her to his side, so that she will not walk before him. And anyone who walks behind a woman in a river, where she has to lift up her skirt in order to cross, has no share in the World-to-Come.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּרְצֶה מָעוֹת לְאִשָּׁה מִיָּדוֹ לְיָדָהּ אוֹ מִיָּדָהּ לְיָדוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּסְתַּכֵּל בָּהּ, אֲפִילּוּ דּוֹמֶה לְמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁקִּיבֵּל תּוֹרָה מֵהַר סִינַי — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם. וְעָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה רָע״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.
The Sages taught: With regard to one who counts out money for a woman from his hand into her hand or from her hand into his hand, in order to look upon her, even if in other matters he is like Moses our teacher, who received the Torah from Mount Sinai, he will not be absolved from the punishment of Gehenna. The verse says about him: “Hand to hand, the evil man shall not go unpunished” (Proverbs 11:21). One who hands money from his hand to her hand, even if he received the Torah from God’s hand to his own, like Moses, he will not be absolved from the punishment of Gehenna, which is called evil.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מָנוֹחַ עַם הָאָרֶץ הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּקׇם וַיֵּלֶךְ מָנוֹחַ אַחֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ״.
Rav Naḥman said: From the following verse, it is known that Samson’s father, Manoah, was an ignoramus, as it is stated: “And Manoah arose, and went after his wife” (Judges 13:11), which shows that he was unfamiliar with the principle that one must not walk behind a woman.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי אֶלְקָנָה דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶלְקָנָה אַחֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ״, הָכִי נָמֵי? וְגַבֵּי אֱלִישָׁע דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּקׇם וַיֵּלֶךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ״, הָכִי נָמֵי?
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak strongly objects to this: If that is so, if the verse relating to Manoah is understood literally, what will one say about the verse with regard to Elkana, the father of the prophet Samuel, as it is written: “And Elkana walked after his wife.” Does this verse mean that Elkana was also an ignorant person? And what of the verse with regard to the prophet Elisha, as it is written: “And the mother of the child said: As the Lord lives, and as your soul lives, I will not leave you; and he arose and followed her” (ii Kings 4:30). Does this verse mean that Elisha was also an uneducated person?
אֶלָּא: אַחֲרֵי דְּבָרֶיהָ וַעֲצָתָהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי — אַחֲרֵי דְּבָרֶיהָ וַעֲצָתָהּ.
Rather, certainly each of these verses means that he followed her words and advice. If so, here too, the verse concerning Manoah may be similarly interpreted. He did not literally walk behind his wife, but rather he followed her words and advice.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּלְמַאי דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן מָנוֹחַ עַם הָאָרֶץ הָיָה, אֲפִילּוּ בֵּי רַב נָמֵי לָא קְרָא. דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתָּקׇם רִבְקָה וְנַעֲרוֹתֶיהָ וַתִּרְכַּבְנָה עַל הַגְּמַלִּים וַתֵּלַכְנָה אַחֲרֵי הָאִישׁ״, וְלָא לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ.
Rav Ashi said: And according to what Rav Naḥman said, that Manoah was an ignoramus, he did not even read the basic Torah stories that children learn in school. As it is written: “Rebecca arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man” (Genesis 24:61); they followed him and did not walk before the man.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַחֲרֵי אֲרִי וְלֹא אַחֲרֵי אִשָּׁה. אַחֲרֵי אִשָּׁה וְלֹא אַחֲרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲחוֹרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְלֹא אֲחוֹרֵי בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמִּתְפַּלְּלִין.
On this topic, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is preferable to walk behind a lion, and not behind a woman. And it is preferable to walk behind a woman and not behind idolatry. When a procession honoring idolatry is passing in the street, it is better to walk behind a woman than appear to be accompanying the idolatry. It is preferable to walk behind idolatry and not behind a synagogue at a time of prayer. By walking behind a synagogue at a time of prayer and not entering, one appears as though he were denying the God to Whom the congregation is directing its prayers.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כָּל אוֹתָן הַשָּׁנִים שֶׁהָיָה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּנִידּוּי, הוֹלִיד רוּחִין וְשֵׁידִין וְלִילִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְחִי אָדָם שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דְּעַד הָאִידָּנָא לָאו כְּצַלְמוֹ אוֹלֵיד.
Having cited an aggadic statement of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar, the Gemara cites other statements of his: Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: All those years during which Adam was ostracized for the sin involving the Tree of Knowledge, he bore spirits, demons, and female demons, as it is stated: “And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth” (Genesis 5:3). By inference, until now, the age of one hundred thirty, he did not bear after his image, but rather bore other creatures.
מֵיתִיבִי, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן חָסִיד גָּדוֹל הָיָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁנִּקְנְסָה מִיתָה עַל יָדוֹ, יָשַׁב בְּתַעֲנִית מֵאָה שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וּפֵירַשׁ מִן הָאִשָּׁה מֵאָה שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וְהֶעֱלָה זִרְזֵי תְּאֵנִים עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ מֵאָה שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: Adam the first man was very pious. When he saw that death was imposed as a punishment because of him, he observed a fast for a hundred thirty years, and he separated from his wife for a hundred thirty years, and wore belts [zarzei] of fig leaves on his body as his only garment for a hundred thirty years. If so, how did he father demons into the world?
כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן הָהוּא, בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע דַּחֲזָא לְאוּנְסֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yirmeya made his statement, he meant that those destructive creatures were formed from the semen that Adam accidentally emitted, which brought the destructive creatures into being.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מִקְצָת שִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנָיו, וְכוּלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו. מִקְצָת שִׁבְחוֹ בְּפָנָיו, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אוֹתְךָ רָאִיתִי צַדִּיק לְפָנַי בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה״,
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar further said: Only some of a person’s praise should be said in his presence, and all of it may be said not in his presence. Only some of his praise should be said in his presence, as it is written: “And the Lord said to Noah, come, you and all your house into the ark, for you have I seen righteous before Me in this generation” (Genesis 7:1).
כּוּלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, דִּכְתִיב: ״נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה בְּדוֹרוֹתָיו״.
And all of it may be said not in his presence, as it is written: “These are the generations of Noah; Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:9). When not referring to him in his presence, God refers to Noah as a righteous and perfect man.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ״ — אָמְרָה יוֹנָה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, יִהְיוּ מְזוֹנוֹתַי מְרוֹרִין כְּזַיִת וּמְסוּרִין בְּיָדְךָ, וְאַל יִהְיוּ מְתוּקִין כִּדְבַשׁ וּתְלוּיִן בְּיַד בָּשָׂר וָדָם. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״טָרָף״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״הַטְרִיפֵנִי לֶחֶם חוּקִּי״.
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the dove came in to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf, plucked off [taraf]; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth” (Genesis 8:11)? The dove said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let my food be bitter as an olive but given into Your hand, and let it not be sweet as honey but dependent upon flesh and blood. He adds this explanation: Here it is written: Taraf. And there it is written: “Remove far from me falsehood and lies; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me [hatrifeni] my allotted portion” (Proverbs 30:8).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל בַּיִת שֶׁנִּשְׁמָעִין בּוֹ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה בַּלַּיְלָה, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ נֶחְרָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא אָמַר אַיֵּה אֱלוֹהַּ עוֹשָׂי נוֹתֵן זְמִירוֹת בַּלָּיְלָה״.
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Any house in which the words of Torah are heard at night will never be destroyed, as it is stated: “But none says: Where is God my Maker, Who gives songs in the night” (Job 35:10). The verse implies that one who sings songs of Torah in his house at night will not need to lament the destruction of his home.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, דַּיּוֹ לָעוֹלָם שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּשְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּל הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּהַלֵּל יָהּ הַלְלוּיָהּ״.
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar further said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, it is enough for the world to use in its praise of God, or in greeting one another with the name of God, only two letters of the Tetragrammaton, namely yod and heh, as it is stated: “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord [Yah]. Halleluya” (Psalms 150:6), without mentioning the full name of God, comprised of four letters.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: נִתְקַלְּלָה בָּבֶל — נִתְקַלְּלוּ שְׁכֵינֶיהָ, נִתְקַלְּלָה שׁוֹמְרוֹן — נִתְבָּרְכוּ שְׁכֵינֶיהָ. נִתְקַלְּלָה בָּבֶל נִתְקַלְּלוּ שְׁכֵינֶיהָ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשַׂמְתִּיהָ לְמוֹרַשׁ קִיפּוֹד וְאַגְמֵי מָיִם״. נִתְקַלְּלָה שׁוֹמְרוֹן נִתְבָּרְכוּ שְׁכֵינֶיהָ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשַׂמְתִּי שׁוֹמְרוֹן לְעִי הַשָּׂדֶה
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: When Babylonia was cursed, its neighbors were cursed along with it. When Samaria was cursed, its neighbors were blessed. He explains: When Babylonia was cursed, its neighbors were cursed, as it is written: “I will also make it a possession for wild birds, and pools of water” (Isaiah 14:23), and the arrival of predatory animals brings harm to the surrounding neighbors as well. When Samaria was cursed, its neighbors were blessed, as it is written: “Therefore I will turn Samaria into a heap of rubble in the field
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Eruvin 18: If She Walks in Front of You, You May Not Follow
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Eruvin 18
לְהַרְחִיק כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם.
to distance the boards from the well and expand the enclosed area by any amount, i.e., as much as one wishes, provided that he increases the number of upright boards between the double posts. Rabbi Yehuda says: The partitioned area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, which is an area of five thousand square cubits.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא אָמְרוּ בֵּית סָאתַיִם אֶלָּא לְגִנָּה וּלְקַרְפֵּף, אֲבָל אִם הָיָה דִּיר אוֹ סַהַר אוֹ מוּקְצֶה אוֹ חָצֵר — אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית חֲמֵשֶׁת כּוֹרִין, אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִין מוּתָּר. וּמוּתָּר לְהַרְחִיק כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין.
The Rabbis said to him: They only spoke of an area of two beit se’a with regard to a garden or an enclosure used for storing wood, scrap, and the like [karpef]. But if it was a pen [dir], or a stable [sahar], or a backyard, or a courtyard in front of the house, even if it had an area of five beit kor or even ten beit kor, it is permitted. And it is permitted to distance the boards and expand the enclosed area by any amount, provided that one increases the upright boards between the double posts.
גְּמָ׳ לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָא, דְּתַנְיָא: עוֹשִׂין פַּסִּין לְבוֹר וַחֲבָלִין לִשְׁיָירָא. וַחֲנַנְיָא אוֹמֵר: חֲבָלִין לְבוֹר, אֲבָל לֹא פַּסִּין.
GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, as it was taught in a baraita: One may arrange upright boards around a water cistern and ropes around a caravan. Ḥananya disagrees and says: One may set up ropes for a cistern, but not upright boards.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא חֲנַנְיָא בּוֹר לְחוּד בְּאֵר לְחוּד.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, a cistern of collected rain water has a discrete law, as the water will eventually be consumed and the upright boards will become unnecessary; and a well of spring water has a discrete law, as the water is constantly renewed and the upright boards will remain useful.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״חֲנַנְיָא אוֹמֵר: עוֹשִׂין חֲבָלִין לְבוֹר וּפַסִּין לִבְאֵר״, מִכְּלָל דְּלַחֲנַנְיָא לָא שְׁנָא בּוֹר וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּאֵר — חֲבָלִין אִין, פַּסִּין לָא. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָא?
Some say a different version of the previous passage: From the fact that the baraita does not teach: Ḥananya says: One may set up ropes around a water cistern and boards around a well, by inference, according to the opinion of Ḥananya, there is no difference between a cistern and a well. In both cases, ropes are indeed permitted, whereas upright boards are not. Let us say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא חֲנַנְיָא, לְמַאי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא — קָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ.
The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, he was only replying to that which the first tanna had said; since the first tanna had spoken only of a cistern, there was no need for Ḥananya to fully clarify his own position and distinguish between a cistern and a well.
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דִּתְנַן: אֶחָד בְּאֵר הָרַבִּים וּבוֹר הָרַבִּים וּבְאֵר הַיָּחִיד עוֹשִׂין לָהֶן פַּסִּין. אֲבָל בּוֹר הַיָּחִיד — עוֹשִׂין לוֹ מְחִיצָה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The Gemara further suggests: Let us say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in a mishna: In each of the cases of a public well, a public cistern, and a private well, one may arrange upright boards for them, but in the case of a private cistern, one must establish a proper partition for it ten handbreadths high; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
וְאִילּוּ הָכָא קָתָנֵי: לְבֵירָאוֹת. לְבֵירָאוֹת — אִין, לְבוֹרוֹת לָא.
Whereas here in the mishna it teaches: One may arrange upright boards for a well, from which one may infer that for a well, yes, it is permitted to use posts, but for a cistern, no, it is not permitted. This is opposed to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, which maintains that posts may be arranged for a public cistern.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בְּאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים דִּפְסִיקָא לֵיהּ, לָא שְׁנָא דְּרַבִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּיָחִיד — קָתָנֵי. בּוֹר מְכוּנָּסִין דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ — לָא קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara rejects this argument as well: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the tanna of the mishna teaches the case of a well of spring water, which he can teach in a distinct manner because there is no difference whether it belongs to the public and there is no difference whether it belongs to an individual, as it is always permitted. However, he did not teach the case of a cistern containing collected rain water, which he could not teach in a distinct manner because there is a difference between a public cistern and a private one. However, it cannot be proven from here that he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva.
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין עוֹשִׂין פַּסִּין אֶלָּא לִבְאֵר הָרַבִּים בִּלְבַד, וְאִילּוּ הָכָא קָתָנֵי לְבֵירָאוֹת — לָא שְׁנָא דְּרַבִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּיָחִיד!
The Gemara further suggests: Let us say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One may only arrange upright boards for a public well, whereas here the mishna states: For wells. The plural term implies that there is no difference if the well belongs to the public, and there is no difference if the well belongs to an individual.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, מַאי בֵּירָאוֹת — בֵּירָאוֹת דְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara also rejects this line of reasoning: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, to what is the mishna referring when it says wells? It is referring to wells in general, but the tanna means to include only public wells.
מַאי דְּיוֹמְדִין? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: דְּיוֹ עַמּוּדִין.
The mishna had mentioned double posts [deyomadin]: The Gemara asks: What are deyomadin? Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: Two [deyo] posts [amudin], which are put together to create a single corner piece.
דְּיוֹ לִמְנוּדֶּה שֶׁבַח זוֹנִית נִתְקַלְקֵל בְּמִידָּה שְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָן.
Having cited Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar’s statement with reference to the prefix deyo, the Gemara cites other statements of his. Two, to one who was ostracized, praise, nourishment, ruin, attribute, three, are mnemonics for the following statements by Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar.
תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל הַשִּׁיתִין פְּטוּרִין, חוּץ מִן הַדְּיוֹפְרָא. מַאי דְּיוֹפְרָא? אָמַר עוּלָּא: אִילָן הָעוֹשֶׂה דְּיוֹ פֵּירוֹת בַּשָּׁנָה.
We learned there in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: All inferior figs are exempt from being tithed, even if they are of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], as even if the seller is an am ha’aretz, he must certainly have already separated tithes from them, since the loss incurred by tithing is negligible, except for deyufra. The Gemara asks: What is deyufra? Ulla said: A tree that yields two [deyo] harvests of fruit [peirot] each year.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: דְּיוֹ פַּרְצוּף פָּנִים הָיָה לוֹ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״. כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע וְגוֹ׳״, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר פַּרְצוּף, וְחַד אָמַר זָנָב.
Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Adam was first created with two [deyo] faces, one male and the other female. As it is stated: “You have formed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me” (Psalms 139:5). Similarly, it is written: “And the tzela, which the Lord, God, had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22). Rav and Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzela: One said: It means a female face, from which God created Eve; and one said: Adam was created with a tail [zanav], which God removed from him and from which He created Eve.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף — הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״?
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that tzela means face; it is understandable that it is written: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before.” However, according to the one who says that tzela means tail, what is meant by the verse: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before”?
כִּדְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אָחוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, וָקֶדֶם לְפוּרְעָנוּת.
The Gemara answers that this verse is to be understood as bearing a moral message, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: Behind means Adam was created at the end of the act of creation; and before means that he was first for punishment.
בִּשְׁלָמָא אָחוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית — דְּלָא אִיבְּרִי עַד מַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, אֶלָּא וָקֶדֶם לְפוּרְעָנוּת מַאי הִיא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם קְלָלָה — הָא בַּתְּחִילָּה נִתְקַלֵּל נָחָשׁ, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְקַלְּלָה חַוָּה, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְקַלֵּל אָדָם!
The Gemara asks: Granted, it is understandable that Adam was behind, or last, in the act of creation, meaning that he was not created until the sixth day, Shabbat eve. However, before, or first, for punishment, what does this mean? If you say that he was punished first because of the curse pronounced in the wake of the sin involving the Tree of Knowledge, there is a difficulty. Wasn’t the snake was cursed first, and afterward Eve was cursed, and only at the end was Adam cursed?
אֶלָּא לַמַּבּוּל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמַח אֶת כׇּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה מֵאָדָם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה וְגוֹ׳״.
Rather, this refers to the punishment of the Flood, as it is written: “And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, creeping things and fowl of the heaven” (Genesis 7:23). This indicates that the punishment began with man.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּיצֶר״ תְּרֵין יוֹדִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״וַיִּיצֶר״?
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was originally a face or side of Adam; it is understandable that it is written: “Then the Lord God formed [vayyitzer] man” (Genesis 2:7). Vayyitzer is written with a double yod, one for Adam and one for Eve. However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is conveyed by spelling vayyitzer with a double yod?
כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: אוֹי לִי מִיִּצְרִי, אוֹי לִי מִיּוֹצְרִי.
The Gemara responds: This is interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, as Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: This comes to emphasize that which one says to himself in every circumstance: Woe unto me from my evil inclination [yetzer] if I perform the will of my Maker, and woe to me from my Maker [Yotzri] if I perform the will of my inclination.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״?
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, it is understandable that it is written: “Male and female, He created them, and blessed them, and called their name Man in the day when they were created” (Genesis 5:2), which indicates that from the very beginning of their creation, He fashioned two faces, one for the male and the other for the female. However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is the meaning of the verse: “Male and female, He created them”?
לְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ. דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״, וּכְתִיב: ״(כִּי) בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אוֹתוֹ״. בַּתְּחִלָּה עָלְתָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה לִבְראוֹת שְׁנַיִם, וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא אֶחָד.
The Gemara answers: It can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between the verses: On the one hand it is written: “Male and female, He created them,” in the plural, and on the other hand it is written: “So God created man in His own image, for in the image of God He created him” (Genesis 1:27), in the singular. At first, the thought entered God’s mind to create two, and ultimately, only one was actually created.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּסְגּוֹר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״וַיִּסְגּוֹר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה״?
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, it is understandable that it is written: “And He took one of his sides and closed up the flesh in its place” (Genesis 2:21). However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is meant by the verse: “And He closed up the flesh in its place”?
אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ.
Rav Zevid said, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: It was necessary to say that the fleshed closed up only with regard to the place of the incision.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּבֶן״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף — מַאי ״וַיִּבֶן״?
The Gemara challenges the other opinion: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail; it is understandable that it is written: “And the Lord God built the tzela” (Genesis 2:22), as it was a completely new building. However, according to the one who said that Eve was a complete face or side, what is the meaning of: “And He built”? What needed to be built?
לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא. דְּדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקִּילְּעָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁכֵּן בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם קוֹרִין לְקַלָּעִיתָא בַּנָּיְיתָא.
The Gemara responds: This must be interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interpreted homiletically the verse: “And the Lord God built the tzela.” This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided for Eve her hair, and then brought her to Adam, as in the coastal towns, they call braiding hair building.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים״, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבְּנָאָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה כְּבִנְיָין
Alternatively, the verse: “And the Lord God built,” can be understood as a description of Eve’s basic shape, as Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it is taught in a baraita: This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, built Eve like the structure
אוֹצָר, מָה אוֹצָר זֶה רָחָב מִלְּמַטָּה וְקָצָר מִלְמַעְלָה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אֶת הַפֵּירוֹת — אַף הָאִשָּׁה רְחָבָה מִלְּמַטָּה וּקְצָרָה מִלְמַעְלָה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל אֶת הַוָּלָד.
of a storehouse. Just as a storehouse is built wide on the bottom and narrow on top, in order to hold produce without collapsing, so too a woman is created wide on the bottom and narrow on top, in order to hold the fetus.
״וַיְבִיאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת לָאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, מִכָּאן לַגָּדוֹל שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת לַקָּטָן וְאַל יֵרַע לוֹ.
The Gemara cites an exposition of the end of the previously cited verse: “And brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22). This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, was Adam the first man’s best man, attending to all his wedding needs and bringing his wife to him. From here we learn that a greater individual should serve as a best man for a lesser individual and should not feel bad about it as something beneath his dignity.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ סָגֵי בְּרֵישָׁא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּזָכָר סָגֵי בְּרֵישָׁא, דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יְהַלֵּךְ אָדָם אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ. נִזְדַּמְּנָה עַל הַגֶּשֶׁר יְסַלְּקֶנָּה לִצְדָדִין. וְכׇל הָעוֹבֵר אֲחוֹרֵי אִשָּׁה בַּנָּהָר — אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Eve was a face or side of Adam, which one of them walked in front? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to say that the male walked in front, as this is proper behavior, as it was taught in a baraita: A man should not walk behind a woman on a path, even if she is his wife. If she happens upon him on a bridge, he should walk quickly in order to catch up to her and consequently move her to his side, so that she will not walk before him. And anyone who walks behind a woman in a river, where she has to lift up her skirt in order to cross, has no share in the World-to-Come.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּרְצֶה מָעוֹת לְאִשָּׁה מִיָּדוֹ לְיָדָהּ אוֹ מִיָּדָהּ לְיָדוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּסְתַּכֵּל בָּהּ, אֲפִילּוּ דּוֹמֶה לְמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁקִּיבֵּל תּוֹרָה מֵהַר סִינַי — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם. וְעָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״יָד לְיָד לֹא יִנָּקֶה רָע״ — לֹא יִנָּקֶה מִדִּינָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.
The Sages taught: With regard to one who counts out money for a woman from his hand into her hand or from her hand into his hand, in order to look upon her, even if in other matters he is like Moses our teacher, who received the Torah from Mount Sinai, he will not be absolved from the punishment of Gehenna. The verse says about him: “Hand to hand, the evil man shall not go unpunished” (Proverbs 11:21). One who hands money from his hand to her hand, even if he received the Torah from God’s hand to his own, like Moses, he will not be absolved from the punishment of Gehenna, which is called evil.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מָנוֹחַ עַם הָאָרֶץ הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּקׇם וַיֵּלֶךְ מָנוֹחַ אַחֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ״.
Rav Naḥman said: From the following verse, it is known that Samson’s father, Manoah, was an ignoramus, as it is stated: “And Manoah arose, and went after his wife” (Judges 13:11), which shows that he was unfamiliar with the principle that one must not walk behind a woman.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי אֶלְקָנָה דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶלְקָנָה אַחֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ״, הָכִי נָמֵי? וְגַבֵּי אֱלִישָׁע דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּקׇם וַיֵּלֶךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ״, הָכִי נָמֵי?
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak strongly objects to this: If that is so, if the verse relating to Manoah is understood literally, what will one say about the verse with regard to Elkana, the father of the prophet Samuel, as it is written: “And Elkana walked after his wife.” Does this verse mean that Elkana was also an ignorant person? And what of the verse with regard to the prophet Elisha, as it is written: “And the mother of the child said: As the Lord lives, and as your soul lives, I will not leave you; and he arose and followed her” (ii Kings 4:30). Does this verse mean that Elisha was also an uneducated person?
אֶלָּא: אַחֲרֵי דְּבָרֶיהָ וַעֲצָתָהּ, הָכָא נָמֵי — אַחֲרֵי דְּבָרֶיהָ וַעֲצָתָהּ.
Rather, certainly each of these verses means that he followed her words and advice. If so, here too, the verse concerning Manoah may be similarly interpreted. He did not literally walk behind his wife, but rather he followed her words and advice.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּלְמַאי דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן מָנוֹחַ עַם הָאָרֶץ הָיָה, אֲפִילּוּ בֵּי רַב נָמֵי לָא קְרָא. דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתָּקׇם רִבְקָה וְנַעֲרוֹתֶיהָ וַתִּרְכַּבְנָה עַל הַגְּמַלִּים וַתֵּלַכְנָה אַחֲרֵי הָאִישׁ״, וְלָא לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ.
Rav Ashi said: And according to what Rav Naḥman said, that Manoah was an ignoramus, he did not even read the basic Torah stories that children learn in school. As it is written: “Rebecca arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man” (Genesis 24:61); they followed him and did not walk before the man.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַחֲרֵי אֲרִי וְלֹא אַחֲרֵי אִשָּׁה. אַחֲרֵי אִשָּׁה וְלֹא אַחֲרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אֲחוֹרֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְלֹא אֲחוֹרֵי בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמִּתְפַּלְּלִין.
On this topic, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is preferable to walk behind a lion, and not behind a woman. And it is preferable to walk behind a woman and not behind idolatry. When a procession honoring idolatry is passing in the street, it is better to walk behind a woman than appear to be accompanying the idolatry. It is preferable to walk behind idolatry and not behind a synagogue at a time of prayer. By walking behind a synagogue at a time of prayer and not entering, one appears as though he were denying the God to Whom the congregation is directing its prayers.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כָּל אוֹתָן הַשָּׁנִים שֶׁהָיָה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּנִידּוּי, הוֹלִיד רוּחִין וְשֵׁידִין וְלִילִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְחִי אָדָם שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ״, מִכְּלָל דְּעַד הָאִידָּנָא לָאו כְּצַלְמוֹ אוֹלֵיד.
Having cited an aggadic statement of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar, the Gemara cites other statements of his: Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: All those years during which Adam was ostracized for the sin involving the Tree of Knowledge, he bore spirits, demons, and female demons, as it is stated: “And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth” (Genesis 5:3). By inference, until now, the age of one hundred thirty, he did not bear after his image, but rather bore other creatures.
מֵיתִיבִי, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן חָסִיד גָּדוֹל הָיָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁנִּקְנְסָה מִיתָה עַל יָדוֹ, יָשַׁב בְּתַעֲנִית מֵאָה שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וּפֵירַשׁ מִן הָאִשָּׁה מֵאָה שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וְהֶעֱלָה זִרְזֵי תְּאֵנִים עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ מֵאָה שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: Adam the first man was very pious. When he saw that death was imposed as a punishment because of him, he observed a fast for a hundred thirty years, and he separated from his wife for a hundred thirty years, and wore belts [zarzei] of fig leaves on his body as his only garment for a hundred thirty years. If so, how did he father demons into the world?
כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן הָהוּא, בְּשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע דַּחֲזָא לְאוּנְסֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yirmeya made his statement, he meant that those destructive creatures were formed from the semen that Adam accidentally emitted, which brought the destructive creatures into being.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מִקְצָת שִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנָיו, וְכוּלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו. מִקְצָת שִׁבְחוֹ בְּפָנָיו, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אוֹתְךָ רָאִיתִי צַדִּיק לְפָנַי בַּדּוֹר הַזֶּה״,
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar further said: Only some of a person’s praise should be said in his presence, and all of it may be said not in his presence. Only some of his praise should be said in his presence, as it is written: “And the Lord said to Noah, come, you and all your house into the ark, for you have I seen righteous before Me in this generation” (Genesis 7:1).
כּוּלּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, דִּכְתִיב: ״נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה בְּדוֹרוֹתָיו״.
And all of it may be said not in his presence, as it is written: “These are the generations of Noah; Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:9). When not referring to him in his presence, God refers to Noah as a righteous and perfect man.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ״ — אָמְרָה יוֹנָה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, יִהְיוּ מְזוֹנוֹתַי מְרוֹרִין כְּזַיִת וּמְסוּרִין בְּיָדְךָ, וְאַל יִהְיוּ מְתוּקִין כִּדְבַשׁ וּתְלוּיִן בְּיַד בָּשָׂר וָדָם. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״טָרָף״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״הַטְרִיפֵנִי לֶחֶם חוּקִּי״.
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the dove came in to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf, plucked off [taraf]; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth” (Genesis 8:11)? The dove said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let my food be bitter as an olive but given into Your hand, and let it not be sweet as honey but dependent upon flesh and blood. He adds this explanation: Here it is written: Taraf. And there it is written: “Remove far from me falsehood and lies; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me [hatrifeni] my allotted portion” (Proverbs 30:8).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כׇּל בַּיִת שֶׁנִּשְׁמָעִין בּוֹ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה בַּלַּיְלָה, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ נֶחְרָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא אָמַר אַיֵּה אֱלוֹהַּ עוֹשָׂי נוֹתֵן זְמִירוֹת בַּלָּיְלָה״.
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Any house in which the words of Torah are heard at night will never be destroyed, as it is stated: “But none says: Where is God my Maker, Who gives songs in the night” (Job 35:10). The verse implies that one who sings songs of Torah in his house at night will not need to lament the destruction of his home.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, דַּיּוֹ לָעוֹלָם שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּשְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּל הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּהַלֵּל יָהּ הַלְלוּיָהּ״.
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar further said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, it is enough for the world to use in its praise of God, or in greeting one another with the name of God, only two letters of the Tetragrammaton, namely yod and heh, as it is stated: “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord [Yah]. Halleluya” (Psalms 150:6), without mentioning the full name of God, comprised of four letters.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: נִתְקַלְּלָה בָּבֶל — נִתְקַלְּלוּ שְׁכֵינֶיהָ, נִתְקַלְּלָה שׁוֹמְרוֹן — נִתְבָּרְכוּ שְׁכֵינֶיהָ. נִתְקַלְּלָה בָּבֶל נִתְקַלְּלוּ שְׁכֵינֶיהָ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשַׂמְתִּיהָ לְמוֹרַשׁ קִיפּוֹד וְאַגְמֵי מָיִם״. נִתְקַלְּלָה שׁוֹמְרוֹן נִתְבָּרְכוּ שְׁכֵינֶיהָ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשַׂמְתִּי שׁוֹמְרוֹן לְעִי הַשָּׂדֶה
And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: When Babylonia was cursed, its neighbors were cursed along with it. When Samaria was cursed, its neighbors were blessed. He explains: When Babylonia was cursed, its neighbors were cursed, as it is written: “I will also make it a possession for wild birds, and pools of water” (Isaiah 14:23), and the arrival of predatory animals brings harm to the surrounding neighbors as well. When Samaria was cursed, its neighbors were blessed, as it is written: “Therefore I will turn Samaria into a heap of rubble in the field
