Daf Ditty Eruvin 16: Circling the Wagons

1
MISHNA: If a caravan is camped in a field, and the travelers seek to construct partitions to render
the area fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat, one surrounds the area with three ropes, one
above another, and a third one above the other two. One is permitted to carry within the
circumscribed area provided that there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between one
rope and the next.

The measure of the ropes and their combined thickness must be greater than a handbreadth,
so that the entire partition, consisting of three ropes and the empty spaces between them, will be
ten handbreadths high.

Alternatively, one may surround the area with boards that stand upright, provided that there
will not be a gap of three handbreadths between one board and the next.

2
When the Sages issued this ruling, they spoke exclusively of a caravan; this is the statement of
Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that a partition of this kind, which consists of only horizontal or
vertical elements, is permitted exclusively in exigent circumstances. Otherwise, full-fledged
partitions are required. However, the Rabbis say: They spoke of a caravan in the mishna only
because they spoke in the present, citing the most typical case. Those traveling in caravans were
typically unable to erect full-fledged partitions, so they would surround their camps with ropes or
boards. However, the halakha in the mishna applies in all cases.

‫ְבֵּﬠֶרב ַמאי‬: ‫ָבֵּﬠי ַרב ַהְמנוָּנא‬. ‫עוֵֹמד ְמרוֶּבּה ַﬠל ַהָפּרוּץ ִבְּשִׁתי — ָהֵוי עוֵֹמד‬, ‫ֲהֵרי ָאְמרוּ‬: ‫?ָאַמר ַרב ַהְמנוָּנא ָאַמר ַרב‬

3
GEMARA: Rav Hamnuna said that Rav said: It was concluded in the previous mishna that the
Rabbis said that in the case of a partition that consists only of warp, i.e., vertical, elements, if the
standing segment of the partition is greater than the breached segment, the fence is considered
standing. Rav Hamnuna raised a dilemma: What is the halakha in the case of a partition that
consists only of woof, i.e., horizontal, elements? Is it also considered standing if the standing
segment is greater than the breached segment, or not?

‫ ְוִאי ִאיָתא — ְלָמה ִלי ָיֵתר ַﬠל ֶטַפח‬. ‫ֶשׁ ְיּהוּ ַהֹכּל ֲﬠָשָׂרה ְטָפִחים‬, ‫ִשׁיעוּר ֲחָבִלים ְועוְֹבָיין ָיֵתר ַﬠל ֶטַפח‬: ‫ָתּא ְשַׁמע‬, ‫?ָאַמר ַאָבֵּיי‬

Abaye said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: The measure of the
ropes and their combined thickness must be greater than a handbreadth, so that the entire
partition will be ten handbreadths high. And if it is so that, in a case where the standing segment

4
is greater than the breached segment, the partition is considered standing even in the case of a
fence that consists of horizontal elements, why do I need ropes with a combined thickness of
greater than a handbreadth?

‫ָפּחוֹת ֵמַא ְרָבָּﬠה ְוֶחֶבל ַמֶשּׁהוּ‬, ‫ָשׁה ְוֶחֶבל ַמֶשּׁהוּ‬n‫ָפּחוֹת ִמְשּׁ‬, ‫ָשׁה ְוֶחֶבל ַמֶשּׁהוּ‬n‫ֶליְﬠֵבּיד ָפּחוֹת ִמְשּׁ‬.

Instead, let one leave a space slightly less than three handbreadths, and place a rope of any size,
leave another space slightly less than three handbreadths, and place another rope of any size,
leave a third space slightly less than four handbreadths, and place a third rope of any size. The
ropes between which there is a space less than three handbreadths should be considered joined,
based on the principle of lavud. The entire partition should be considered standing because the
standing segment, measuring six handbreadths, is greater than the breached segment, which
measures four handbreadths.

‫ָהֵוה ֵליהּ ִכְּמִחיָצה ֶשַׁהְגָּד ִיים בּוְֹקִﬠין ָבּהּ‬, ‫ ְוִתיְסְבָּרא ?ַהאי ָפּחוֹת ֵמַא ְרָבָּﬠה ֵהיָכא מוֵֹקים ֵליהּ ?ִאי מוֵֹקים ֵליהּ ַתַּתּאי‬.

The Gemara presents a difficulty: And how can you understand that this would be effective?
Where does he position the space of slightly less than four handbreadths? If he positions it at
the bottom, its legal status is like that of a partition through which goats pass, which is not a
valid partition.

5
 ‫ָאֵתי ַאֵוּיָרא ְדַּהאי ִגּיָסא וְּדַהאי ִגּיָסא וְּמַבֵטּל ֵליהּ‬, ‫ִאי מוֵֹקים ֵליהּ ִﬠיַלּאי‬.

If he positions it at the top, then the air on this side, above the uppermost rope, and on that
side, below that rope, come and negate it. As there are more than three handbreadths between
them the upper and lower ropes, they are not joined together based on the principle of lavud. The
four handbreadths below the uppermost rope and the airspace above it combine to negate the
connection.

‫ָשְׁמַﬠְתּ ִמיַנּהּ עוֵֹמד ְמרוֶּבּה ַﬠל ַהָפּרוּץ ִמְשֵׁתּי‬. ‫ָהֵוה ֵליהּ עוֵֹמד ְמרוֶּבּה ַﬠל ַהָפּרוּץ ִמְשֵׁתּי רוּחוֹת‬, ‫ִאי מוֵֹקים ֵליהּ ְבִּמיְצֵﬠי‬
‫!רוּחוֹת ָהֵוי עוֵֹמד‬

If he positions it in the middle, then the standing segment of the partition is greater than the
breached segment, provided that the standing portions on the two sides of the breach are
combined. However, if each side is considered separately, the breach is greater than the standing
portion. If it is nevertheless deemed a partition, conclude from it that even if the standing segment
is greater than the breached segment only when the standing segments on the two sides of the
breach are combined, the partition is considered standing. However, that circumstance was raised
as a dilemma and remained unresolved.

‫וְּשַׁבק ַבּהּ ַא ְרָבָּﬠה‬, ‫ָשׁה‬n‫ַוֲחַקק ַבּהּ ְשׁ‬, ‫ְכּגוֹן ְדַּא ְייִתי ַמְחֶצֶלת ְדָּהֵוי ִשְׁבָﬠה וַּמֶשּׁהוּ‬: ‫ֶאָלּא ַרב ַהְמנוָּנא ָהִכי ָקא ִמיַבְּﬠָיא ֵליהּ‬
‫ָשׁה‬n‫ ְואוְֹקֵמיהּ ְבָּפחוֹת ִמְשּׁ‬, ‫וַּמֶשּׁהוּ‬.

Rather, Rav Hamnuna raised the following dilemma: What is the halakha in a case where one
brought a mat that is seven handbreadths and any additional amount, and carved in it a hole
three handbreadths wide, and left four handbreadths above the hole and any additional amount
below it, and positioned the mat less than three handbreadths off the ground?

‫ְמִחיָצה ְתּלוָּיה ַמהוּ ֶשַׁתִּתּיר ְבּחוּ ְרָבּה ?ֲאַמר‬: ‫ְכִּדְבָﬠא ִמיֵנּיהּ ַרִבּי ַטְבָלא ֵמַרב‬. ‫ְמִחיָצה ְתּלוָּיה ִאיַבְּﬠָיא ֵליהּ‬: ‫ַרב ָאֵשׁי ָאַמר‬
‫ַקל הוּא ֶשֵׁהֵקלּוּ ֲחָכִמים ְבַּמ ִים‬, ‫ֵאין ְמִחיָצה ְתּלוָּיה ַמֶתֶּרת ֶאָלּא ַבַּמּ ִים‬: ‫ֵליהּ‬.

Rav Ashi said: The dilemma he raised is with regard to the legal status of a ten-handbreadth
partition suspended off the ground. That dilemma is similar to that which Rabbi Tavla raised
as a dilemma before Rav: Does a suspended partition act as if it were a partition that reaches
the ground and render it permitted for one to carry in a ruin? Rav said to him: A suspended
partition renders it permitted for one to carry only when it is suspended over water, as there is
a leniency introduced by the Sages with regard to water.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:

The Mishna (16b) introduces the concept of Lavud, an idea that can be useful not only in making
an Eiruv, but in building a Sukka, as well (see Sukka 16b). Lavud means “solid” and it expresses
the legal fiction which views separate parts as being united, if the gap between them is less than
three tefahim. According to the Mishna, if three ropes are strung across – with three tefahim
between the ground and the bottom one and three tefahim between each rope – and the ropes
themselves add up to a width of a tefah, then we view the ropes as a ten-tefah high wall for the
purpose of the Eiruv (or a Sukka). The same rule applies to posts that are placed at a distance of

6
three tefahim or less from one-another. In the Mishna, there is a difference of opinion over where
this rule applies.

When the Sages issued this ruling, they spoke exclusively of a caravan; this is the statement of
Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that a partition of this kind, which consists of only horizontal or
vertical elements, is permitted exclusively in exigent circumstances. Otherwise, full-fledged
partitions are required. However, the Rabbis say: They spoke of a caravan in the mishna only
because they spoke in the present, citing the most typical case. Those traveling in caravans were
typically unable to erect full-fledged partitions, so they would surround their camps with ropes or
boards. However, the halakha in the mishna applies in all cases.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, this type of wall will work only for a Shayara, a caravan of travelers
– which was the case discussed in the previous Mishna (15b) – but not for an individual.

The Hakhamim believe that the wall is valid under all circumstances, and that the Mishna
mentioned the case of the Shayara “because they spoke in the present [tense],” i.e. that they
related it to the most common case, but it is not meant to exclude other cases.

While it is common for us to find an argument among the amoraim in the Gemara about whether
a case in the Mishna is meant to be limited to a specific situation, it is less common to find such a
discussion among the tannaim, who were closer to the source of the ruling.

Nevertheless, in our case both Rabbi Yehuda and the Hakhamim had the tradition from an early
Mishna that the law was taught in the context of travelers – a Shayara. Their disagreement is
whether the Mishna meant that case specifically, or merely presented it as a practical example from
which no conclusion should be reached.

Jastrow

7
– ropes of partition may be made from ropes that are strung less than three handbreadths apart
from each other. A partition of this kind is effective in all places, not only in the case of a
caravan. This halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

Shulchan Aruch

RAMBAM Hil Shabbes 16:8

How is this? Behold, [if] one enclosed [an area] with poles and there is not three handbreadths
between one pole and another; or if one enclosed [it] with ropes and there is not three between one
rope and another—that is surely a full-fledged partition, even though it is only vertical without the
horizontal, or horizontal without the vertical. But the height of the poles must be ten; or if one
enclosed with ropes, the height from the ground to the top rope must be ten—as a partition cannot
be less than ten. And all of these measurements are a law given to Moses at Sinai.

8
Steinzaltz (OBM) puts in one diagram worth a thousand words…

9
Rav Hamnuna asked whether the principle of "Omed Merubah Al ha'Parutz" ("the closed
part is greater than the breached part") can validate a Mechitzah when the closed part and
the breach are both horizontal.

The Gemara wonders how this question would be applicable. Rav Ashi explains that Rav
Hamnuna was asking about a Mechitzah Teluyah, a hanging partition which is open at the
bottom. Even though the bottom is open, the rest of the partition is intact and is larger than
the open area on bottom.

We know that Rav says that a Mechitzah Teluyah works only when it hangs over a body of
water. Rav Hamnuna wanted to know if the rule of Omed Merubah Al ha'Parutz can be
used to validate such a Mechitzah.

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

RASHI explains that Rav Hamnuna's question involved a mat ten Tefachim tall which was
suspended more than three Tefachim above the ground, which thus made it a Mechitzah
Teluyah. The open space on bottom was smaller than the height of the mat itself.
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand. Since the case he is explaining is a case of
Omed Merubah, why does he say that the mat was "ten Tefachim" tall? It would have made
more sense to explain Rav Hamnuna's question as referring to a case where the mat itself

1
Daf Advancement Forum

10
was a little more than five Tefachim, and the open space on bottom was a little less than five
Tefachim, making this a case of "Omed Merubah al ha'Parutz" similar to the cases that the
Gemara discussed until now!

TOSFOS HA'ROSH explains that the Gemara had previously suggested that the question of
Rav Hamnuna referred to a case of "Omed Merubah Al ha'Parutz" when there were six
Tefachim of partition on top and three and a half Tefachim open on bottom. The Gemara
rejected that possibility because "Gediyim Bok'in Bah," young goats can walk underneath the
partition and thus invalidate it. How, then, can the Gemara suggest now that Rav Hamnuna
was asking about a Mechitzah of just over five Tefachim with an open space on bottom of
just under five Tefachim?

If, in the case where only three and a half Tefachim are open on bottom, the Mechitzah is
invalid due to "Gediyim Bok'in Bah," then certainly a Mechitzah with almost five Tefachim
open on bottom should be invalid!

For this reason, Rashi explains that the mat itself is ten Tefachim tall. The Gemara before
referred to a mat less than ten Tefachim tall, in which case the space underneath the mat had
to join with the mat in order to create a ten-Tefach-tall Mechitzah. If young goats can walk
through the open part, it is clear that the open part cannot be considered part of the
Mechitzah.

In the Gemara's conclusion, on the other hand, there is already a Mechitzah of ten Tefachim
(that is, the mat). The only question is whether we consider that Mechitzah to reach the
ground through "Gud Achis" or not. In such a case the fact that goats walk though the open
part on bottom might not invalidate the Mechitzah, since there are both ten Tefachim of
Mechitzah and more Mechitzah than open space ("Omed Merubah Al ha'Parutz") under it.

That is, Rav said that a Mechitzah Teluyah is not considered a Mechitzah when it is hanging
over dry land. Rav Hamnuna was asking whether Omed Merubah can change that and make
the Mechitzah work even over dry land.

A camp of a caravan may rely on a special leniency when constructing its surrounding wall
before Shabbos.

If the itinerants want to make an enclosure for their caravan in order to permit carrying when
they stop traveling for Shabbos, they may surround the caravan with three ropes, one above the
other, as long as the space between successive ropes is less than three Tefachim. While Rebbi

11
Yehudah normally requires walls that have actual material both vertically and horizontally, he is
lenient in the case of a caravan.

The Gemara declares that any partition that does not contain pieces that run vertically and
horizontally (‫ ) וערב שתי‬is not a partition.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 360:1

Shulchan Aruch rules that a person who will spend Shabbos in the wilderness may circumscribe
his camp with a partition that is comprised of either boards or poles that stand only vertically or
only horizontally2.

As long as he does not enclose a space of more than two beis seah he may carry in the enclosed
area. If a caravan will encamp in the wilderness for Shabbos they may circumscribe an area even
larger than two beis seah as long as the circumscribed area does not include two beis seah that is
unused.

This halachah leads to a discussion regarding the usability of police barriers or other movable
barriers that are composed of poles that are vertical but held in place with a horizontal pole on top
and on the bottom. Is this considered an inferior partition (‫ )גרועה מחיצה‬or not?

Pri Megadim writes that a partition that was constructed with vertical poles with a single
horizontal pole to hold the vertical ones in place is considered a superior quality partition (‫גמורה‬
‫) מחיצה‬.

2
Daf Digest

12
Accordingly, a police partition that contains two horizontal poles, one on top of the vertical poles
and one on the bottom, is certainly a superior partition.

However, Chazon Ish strongly disagrees with Pri Megadim’s position. Any time one constructs a
partition that is composed of horizontal poles or ropes there must be something that stands
vertically to hold the horizontal items in place.

According to Pri Megadim what is the Gemara’s case of a horizontal partition that would be
considered an inferior partition? Therefore, although Sha’ar Hatziyun cites Pri Megadim’s
position as authoritative, one should not rely upon it and such partitions should be considered
inferior.

However, if one has three superior quality partitions and on the fourth side one utilizes an inferior
quality partition, one may carry relying on those partitions.

Apparently, the members of the caravan could simply construct a ‫ הפתח צורת‬by having the top
rope strung across the top of the posts. This way, they would not have to worry about stringing
the ropes in a way to accommodate ‫ לבוד‬.

Nevertheless, Tosafos (earlier 11a) points out that we cannot rely upon this arrangement. We are
afraid that the rope would get dislodged when an animal bumps into it, or that the string may be
blown out of position by a strong wind. This rope would have to be quite loose, in order to allow
camels to cross below it, and such a rope would be susceptible to being moved out of position
due to the wind.

Therefore, the Mishna recommends the three horizontal ropes be arranged to form a wall.

Piskei Rid explains that the Mishna does not suggest making a ‫ הפתח צורת‬because we are
dealing with the need to enclose a linear distance greater than ten amos, which cannot be bridged
with a ‫ הפתח צורת‬according to Rav and Rav Yochanan (11a).

Even according to Reish Lakish who does allow this, our Mishna could be speaking about a case
where the rope was already attached to the side of the posts, in which case a ‫ הפתח צורת‬is no
longer appropriate.

Even if the top rope is placed on top of the pole, the Mishna does not allow the ‫הפתח צורת‬
manner of arranging the fence, because we are afraid that the people will place the rope along the
side.

13
This is why the only alternative is to have three ropes set up within three tefachim of each other.
It is possible that Reish Lakish holds that we can bridge a linear distance of more than ten with a
‫ הפתח צורת‬even if the rope is along the side of the post (in opposition to Rav Chisda, ibid.).

Nevertheless, we do not rule according to this opinion ‫ לכתחילה‬,as is stated in the Yerushalmi.

“Circle the wagons” or “circle your wagons” means that members of a team or
group must work together to protect themselves from some outside danger.
Generally, they prepare for a possible attack.

14
Laager
The English word laager comes from the obsolete Afrikaans word lager (now laer), which comes
from the German word Lager ("camp" or "lair"). The word refers to the ancient defensive
formation used by travelers throughout the world in dangerous situations in which they would
draw wagons into a circle and place cattle and horses on the inside to protect them from raiders or
nocturnal animals. Laagers were extensively used by the Voortrekkers of the Great Trek during
the 1830s. The laager was put to the ultimate test on 16 December 1838, when an army of
25,000 Zulu Impis besieged and were defeated by approximately 470 Voortrekkers in the aptly
named Battle of Blood River.

In 19th century America, the same approach was used by pioneers who would "circle the wagons"
in case of attack.

Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman army officer and historian of the 4th century, describes a Roman
army approaching "ad carraginem" as they approach a Gothic camp.
Historians interpret this as a wagon-fort. Notable historical examples include the Hussites, who
called it vozová hradba ("wagon wall"), known under the German translation Wagenburg ("wagon
fort/fortress"), tabors in the armies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Cossacks, and
the laager of settlers in South Africa (above).

15
Similar, ad hoc, defensive formations used in the United States were called corrals. These were
traditionally used by 19th century American settlers travelling to the West in convoys
of Conestoga wagons. When faced with attack, such as by hostile Native American tribes, the
travellers would rapidly form a circle out of their wagons, bringing the draft
animals (sometimes horses, but more commonly oxen) and women and children to the center of
the circle.
The armed men would then man the perimeter, the circled wagons serving to break up the enemy
charge, to create a certain amount of concealment from observation and shelter from
enemy firearms fire. The wagons would also slow down and separate any warrior who attempted
to get into the circle, although they never formed a perfect barricade as a true wall would. This
tactic was popularly known as "circling the wagons", and this is still an idiomatic expression for a
person or group preparing to defend themselves against attack or criticism.

The Wagon Box fight has gained legendary status over the years as a tumultuous and successful
defensive stand by woodcutters and their 27th Infantry escort. ... [T]he garrison at Phil Kearny
had constructed a protective corral of wagon beds to protect livestock and serve as a defensive
position in case of Indian attack.3

3
John H. Monnett (2008). Where a Hundred Soldiers Were Killed: The Struggle for the Powder River Country in 1866 and the
Making of the Fetterman Myth. UNM Press.

16
During my advance officer training in the National Guard reserve we studies the history of
defensive tactics which inevitably brought us to the notion of the convoy and its roots in 19th
century Indian wars.

17
18
Circling the Wagons as a Psychological Archetype
Beth Luders writes:4

Do you remember those old Western TV flicks where the bad guys are wildly closing in on the
pioneers in their covered wagons? Billows of gritty dust. Horses galloping at full throttle. Bullets
and arrows zipping all around. Maybe, if you’re like me, you feel like this is your life right now.

“Circle the wagons! Circle the wagons!”

Back in the day when under attack, the pioneers would turn their prairie schooners into a tight
circle, unhitch the horses, and draw every man, woman, child, cow, and horse into the middle of
the ring. Then they had the advantage to fire back at their unprotected assailants. (Today we’d nab
our cell phones and lattes and call OnStar®.)

4
An evangelical writer from Nebraska: https://www.bethlueders.com/

19
I’ve had to circle my wagon a bunch lately. My computer hard drive screeched to its death. The
electric hedge trimmer mauled my fingertip. Dear friends are terribly ill. I’m sure you can relate
to times of drawing inward and stepping out of the fracas around you.

Even Ancient People Huddled Up

I can think of numerous times in the Bible where the people circled their wagons . . . er, chariots:
Moses and the children of Israel just before the Red Sea parted (Exodus 14); David and his men
retreating to a cave to escape their enemies (1 Samuel 22); the disciples after Jesus died (Luke 24).
Circling our wagons is not a sign of giving up but getting a better vantage point. We huddle up to
regroup and recharge and rethink our next steps. We just have to be wise about what and who we
allow into our wagon circle huddle.

‫ ְלעוָֹלם‬,¡‫חוֵֹסי ָב‬-‫יב ְו ִיְשְׂמחוּ ָכל‬ 12 So shall all those that take refuge in Thee rejoice, they shall
;‫ָﬠֵלימוֹ‬ ¡‫ְוָתֵס‬ --‫ְיַרֵנּנוּ‬ ever shout for joy, and Thou shalt shelter them; {N}
.¢‫ ֹאֲהֵבי ְשֶׁמ‬,¢‫ְוַיְﬠְלצוּ ְב‬ let them also that love Thy name exult in Thee.

Psalm 5:12
describes what happens when we include God at the center of our wagon circle: “. . . You’ll
welcome us with open arms when we run for cover to you.”
I like those odds. God with open arms and me with my cell phone in airplane mode.

Summer Jones responded heartfully, describing the metaphor perfectly.

This example is such a great word picture. Life is not always rises. There are such trials along our
life’s Journey that at times it is easy to despair. Sometime it has felt as if I am walking in peanut
butter or “post holing” through deep snow. It has taken all the emotional energy I could summon
to put one foot in front of the other when wishing I could curl up in bed and hide.

I would ask God for strength to go on and wonder how he could let thus happen to me. All I wanted
was to adopt some kids who needed hope and a future. I had no idea what I was in for when we
brought our daughters home from Ukraine. They had been so very traumatized that they were full
of rage. To have my love and caring for our girls be not only rejected but have vitriol and verbal
abuse doled our daily fir years has been incredibly painful.

20
Living in my home in s hostile environment almost destroyed me. I became someone who I did not
recognize. I am usually an outgoing person reaching out to others. This experience drained 99%
of my emotional energy. I needed people to reach out to me as I didn’t have the strength. However,
I found that most are in their own battles and need others to initiate. I used to initiate but just
didn’t have the strength anymore. At the same time we left Seattle after 26 years there, leaving
good friends, clients, etc. we were suffering from the financial situation the recession had wreaked
on us and our business.
In addition, my mom was in Denver dying of Alzheimer’s and I could do nothing to help her. I lost
a very good friend who moved here and we had taken in. After two years she apologized from
being mean and cruel to my husband and I. I appreciated that but don’t know if the friendship can
be put back together. Thus is sad. Iven with all the sorrows in life there are also joys and new
friends whom God brings into our lives. It takes more emotional reserves to build new friendships
and sometimes we have to dig deep when our well has been almost drained.

Did we “circle our wagons” to conserve our energy? Absolutely! Bruce did not feel the “peanut
butter and Post holing like I did as he did not experience our daughter’s anger toward their birth
mother for all the abuse she wreaked on them. That anger was transferred to me. For years I felt
as I were just surviving daily. I would sometimes think of those who were walking in a much worse
reality than I….those running for their lives from ISIS with their kids and belongings on their
backs….no place to live or to get food or water.

It would break my heart to see this. My heartache and sorrow was mostly emotional…which is bad
enough when one lives with hostility daily. However, these people running for their lives didn’t
have time to agonize emotionally over what they were going through. They just had to get through
it and survive. If they had children or loved ones I cannot even imagine the helpless, hopeless
feeling of watching their children or wife suffer at the hand of others and be helpless in the face
of that horror.

Well, I have gone on too long sharing my thoughts here.

Although not totally out of my deep deep valley I am feeling my strength return gradually.
Your thoughts on circling the wagons in hard times as did our forefathers elicited many
thoughts. I went on too long. I am thankful to God for supporting my husband and I and helping
us get settled in Colorado Springs. I didn’t know how we would do it but just that we were

21
supposed to move here. I don’t see everything clearly yet but hindsight is sharper than hindsight.
I am thankful! Thank you for your thoughts on this blog.

22