Siman 248

We learn in the Gemara (19a): "The Sages taught: One may not set sail in a ship less than three days before Shabbat. In what case does this apply? For a matter of choice; but for a matter of mitzvah, it is permitted, and he stipulates with him on the condition that he rests, and he does not rest—these are the words of Rabbi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He does not need to. And from Tyre to Sidon, it is permitted even on the eve of Shabbat." Our teachers disagreed regarding the reason for the prohibition: The Tosafot explained that it is because of swimming, and even within the techum it is prohibited, see there. That is to say, just as one may not swim upon the surface of the water because of a decree lest he make a swimmer’s barrel, as is written in siman 339, so too it is prohibited in a ship, and consequently it is obvious that it is prohibited to cross in a ferry. And this is not like a decree upon a decree, for they are all one decree—not to pass upon the surface of the water by way of floating, whether with his body or by means of a vessel. And since on Shabbat it is prohibited, consequently it is also prohibited before Shabbat, when he will be there on Shabbat. However, before three days they permitted it, for since they only permitted it before three days, he has a reminder, and he will not come to make a swimmer’s barrel; so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book. And the measure of three days is because three days before Shabbat belong to the coming Shabbat (end of the seventh chapter of Gittin). And it further seems to me that the reason is that since he sat there for three days, it has become like a home to him. And according to this explanation, there is no difference between seas and rivers, or between places ten tefachim deep or those that are not deep, or between within the techum and outside the techum as has been written, and for a matter of mitzvah they did not decree.

Our teacher Chananel explained the reason as being due to the prohibition of techumin. That is to say, certainly in a large ship that travels only in water deeper than ten tefachim—it is permitted in any case, for there is no techumin above ten in water, as was written in siman 404; rather, here we are dealing with a small ship, and we fear perhaps the depth of the water is not ten tefachim, and he will go outside the techum. And that which they permitted before three days is because then if he goes outside the techum—he is under duress, but three days before the Shabbat which belong to the Shabbat—it is as if he is acting ab initio to set aside the Shabbat, and even for a devar mitzvah the rabbis did not decree in water, where there is no Torah-level attachment regarding techumin. (Bach)

The Rif and the Rambam in chapter 30 wrote the reason is due to oneg Shabbat, for most of those who go down to the sea during the first three days—their spirit is troubled and their mind is not settled, and there are those who vomit and there are those who lie down without the ability to stand on their feet, and therefore it is forbidden. But for a matter of a mitzvah—they were not concerned with the cancellation of oneg Shabbat, for one who is engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from the mitzvah. And according to this, the prohibition is only in seas and not in rivers, even the largest ones, for it is not the nature of rivers to trouble the spirit of man (Tur), only the sea troubles his mind because of the abundance of salt within it. And as for the fact that the Shas did not mention this—it is because the expression "one may not set sail in a ship" belongs only to seas, which is a voyage to a distance, and not in rivers, and so too in the Mishnah in Eruvin at the beginning of chapter 4: "and their ship set sail in the sea," and on "the depths congealed in the heart of the sea" the Yerushalmi translated: "the voyage of the great sea." And the Rambam in chapter 24, law 6, who wrote: "one may set sail in the great sea on the eve of Shabbat for a matter of a mitzvah etc."—he said "great sea" as a greater novelty, that even in the great sea—for a matter of a mitzvah one may set sail. But this, that for a discretionary matter one may not set sail—it applies in all seas. And therefore, indeed, in chapter 30, law 13, regarding the prohibition, he wrote: "one may not set sail in a ship less than three days" see there, and he did not mention "great sea." (And with what I have written, several precise points are answered, see Bach and reflect.)

The approach of the author of the Ma'or is that the prohibition is because the seas are presumed to be dangerous due to the causes likely to befall those who go down to the sea, as it is written: "Those who go down to the sea in ships... they mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths... then they cry unto the Lord, etc.," and it is destined for the desecration of Shabbat. Therefore, three days before Shabbat, which is called "before Shabbat," it appears as if he makes a condition to desecrate the Shabbat. And the same law applies to setting out for deserts and to any place of danger, for it is near-certain that he will be forced to desecrate the Shabbat, because nothing stands before pikuach nefesh—it is prohibited to set out three days prior. And for this reason as well, the prohibition is only on seas and not on rivers.

The Ramban wrote another reason, namely that we are dealing with a case where the ship travels only for the sake of the Israelite, and the one navigating the ship is forced in every ship to perform labors prohibited by the Torah on Shabbat, such as tying and untying and the like. Therefore, when the Israelite hires it—it appears clearly that he is like his agent to profane the Shabbat; but three days prior—he acts on his own accord. Therefore, in a ship that does not travel for the sake of the Israelite, like our ships—it is permitted for an Israelite to enter it whenever he wishes. (Ran, first chapter of Shabbat). And according to this, our custom and that of the entire world is well-settled, that we set sail in a ship even on Erev Shabbat, and even on Shabbat by means of kinyan shevitah, as will be explained; whereas according to the system of the Rif, the Tosafot, and the Maor, we could not find our hands and feet in this matter. However, according to the system of Rabbeinu Chananel—our custom is also well-settled, for the vast majority of ships do not travel even in rivers in a place that is not ten tefachim deep. (Or perhaps the world relies on the Rashbam in Tosafot, Eruvin 43a, s.v. "halacha," who rejected this Baraita from the halacha, see there; however, the Rishonim did not accept his words at all, see Beit Yosef. Nevertheless, the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot, whom the Tur cited—it appears that he holds like him, as the Gaon Aboab wrote, whom the Beit Yosef cited, but the Beit Yosef rejected his words, see there and examine carefully).

And in order to advocate for the merit of the community of Israel, it appears in my humble opinion that from the body of the baraita itself there is proof for the position of the Ramban, of blessed memory, from that which was taught: "And he stipulates with him on the condition that he rests, and he does not rest." Meaning, that he is obligated to make this condition with the owner of the ship, and if afterwards he leads it on Shabbat—he does not need to protest his action; and this refers to a matter of a mitzvah, when he sets sail on the eve of Shabbat or within three days. (Taz subsection 1) And the reason we did not require this in all other labors when performed through a kibulut is because here the Israelite himself is sitting in it. (ibid.) However, in any event, if it should enter your mind that we are dealing with a large ship that carries cargo and the majority of those sitting in it are not Jews—behold, this is nothing but a mockery and a joke for the Israelite to make a condition with the owner of the ship that he should stop on Shabbat; would they not laugh at him and say to him, "Go out, go out"? And if we say that he should reveal to him that even if he does not obey him he will not care—this is even more puzzling, and there is in this a desecration of the Name of Heaven, as is understood. But according to the words of the Ramban, that the ship goes for the sake of the Israelite—it works out well. And regarding the essence of the dispute between Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel whether one must stipulate, the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch ruled like Rabbi that one must stipulate, and the Tur ruled like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; see there.

However, even according to the approach of the Rif, the Tosafot, and the Maor, our teacher, the Rema, in section 4, taught a merit for the collective of Israel, and that is according to the approach of Rabbeinu Tam—that for an optional matter it is only called when one goes to stroll. But when one goes for commerce or to see the face of his friend—it is considered a matter of mitzvah. This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema: "There are those who say that wherever a person goes for commerce or to see the face of his friend—it is all considered a matter of mitzvah, and it is not considered an optional matter except when one goes to stroll. Therefore, they are accustomed in some places to be lenient regarding the matter of the sailing of ships and the departure of a caravan within three days, because they consider everything a matter of mitzvah, and one should not protest against them, for they have those upon whom to rely." Thus far his words. And even if he has sustenance and goes for commerce for additional profit—it is considered a matter of mitzvah, (Magen Avraham, subsection 19) and all the more so to collect debts that are liable to be lost, and all the more so to go for a minyan of ten. However, regarding a ferry that is called a "param" and a small boat that travels in shallow water, the great authorities disagreed—there are those who prohibit and there are those who permit, and in Ashkenaz they were accustomed to be lenient. (See Sha'arei Teshuva, subsection 1, in the name of the Chavot Yair, and Shav Yaakov, and Avodat HaGershuni, and Nativ Chaim, and the responsa of our teacher, Rabbi Ziskind Rothenberg). Nevertheless, outside the techum—it is obvious that it is prohibited.

Before three days, which is to say on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday—it is permitted even in a boat that is pulled by animals, meaning that the animals pull it at the riverbank by means of ropes. And it is not similar to sitting in a wagon, which is forbidden—lest he cut a branch, since the animals are far from the boat—they did not decree in this case. And it is obvious that the animals belong to a non-Jew, and it is permitted even in a place that is not ten deep, as I wrote in section 2 according to the method of Rabbeinu Chananel, that before three days—it is permitted, see there. And consequently, if a danger subsequently occurs to him—it is permitted to desecrate Shabbat because of pikuach nefesh. And therefore, even if he himself must perform melakhah and lead the boat—it is permitted, since he entered in a permitted manner.

And it has already been explained in a baraita (Shabbat 19a) that to a nearby place, such as from Tyre to Sidon, it is permitted to set sail even on Erev Shabbat in the morning, since it is only a one-day journey, because it is possible to arrive there when there is a favorable wind before Shabbat. Therefore, even if there is currently no favorable wind, he may rely on the fact that there will be a favorable wind (Magen Avraham subsection 5 and Beit Yosef). And if afterward there is no favorable wind and he does not arrive before Shabbat, it is of no consequence, since he entered with permission. But an hour or two before the end of the day it is forbidden, since even by means of a favorable wind he will not arrive. And all of this depends on the distance or proximity of the place, such that the calculation is that by means of a favorable wind it would be within his power to arrive before Shabbat. And in a place where they practiced not to set sail on Erev Shabbat at all, they do not set sail even for a short distance, and the sons cannot change from what the fathers accepted upon themselves not to set sail, even though the time is pressed for them, for their fathers already accepted it upon themselves (Pesachim 50b).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, adopted the approach of the Rif and the Rambam as is his way, that the reason is due to the cancellation of the delight of Shabbat, and specifically during the days. But in rivers—it is permitted, as he wrote in section 3. And nevertheless, he wrote in section 2, that it is specifically when it is not known to us that there are not ten tefachim in their depth. But in a place where it is known to us that from the floor of the ship to the floor of the river is less than ten tefachim—it is forbidden to go outside the techum because of the prohibition of techumin. Thus far his words. But within the techum—it is permitted, and we do not decree lest he go outside the techum. And even though according to their approach this was not mentioned in the Gemara, however, the Rambam in the Responsa explained thus, that when it travels lower than ten—there is a prohibition of techumin, and it will be explained in siman 404. And this which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, required that there must be ten tefachim from the floor of the ship to the floor of the river—there are those who disagree, saying that since there is just a depth of ten tefachim in the river, even if the ship is submerged slightly within the water and there are not ten tefachim from its floor to the floor of the river—we have no concern with it, and especially for one sitting above; nevertheless—the main point for the halacha is like our teacher, the Beit Yosef. (Magen Avraham subsection 7 and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 7). And know that from the precision of his wording it is clear that we do not have to fear lest there are not ten tefachim, but rather that presumably there are ten tefachim, and therefore the prohibition is only if we know clearly that there are not ten tefachim.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: "And so too in a ship where the Israelite will need to come to perform melakha on Shabbat—it is forbidden to enter it three days before Shabbat, even if they are flowing rivers and they are deeper than ten [tefachim]." Thus far his words. That is to say, even though we have adopted the reasoning of the Rif as the primary reason and not other reasons that were explained, and if so, in rivers it should be permitted—this is when it is not known that we will come to the desecration of Shabbat. But in a place where it is likely to come to the desecration of Shabbat—it is forbidden to set sail within three days, and before then it is permitted. And it is not that we know with certainty that he must necessarily desecrate Shabbat, for if so—it would be forbidden even on Sunday, but rather that it is likely, like those who travel in deserts. Therefore, whenever one enters with permission, if it later transpires that he is forced to desecrate Shabbat because of pikuach nefesh—what can he do? (So it appears in my humble opinion). And so wrote the Ri ibn Lev in his responsa, that when it is known with certainty that he will need to desecrate Shabbat—it is forbidden even on Sunday. And so too that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: "Those who go out in a caravan in the desert and everyone knows that they will need to desecrate the Shabbat etc." Thus far his words, the intention is not that it is with certainty, but rather that it is likely that he will come to this. (See Magen Avraham sub-section 14 who brought this in the name of the Ri ibn Lev and in the name of the Radbaz, that with certain desecration of Shabbat it is forbidden, see there, and it is obvious that it is so).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 3: "In a case where it is permitted to set sail on Erev Shabbat, if one entered the ship on Erev Shabbat and established his Shabbat dwelling there, even though it sets sail on Shabbat—it is permitted, provided that he did not leave the ship from the time he established his Shabbat dwelling. And some say that even if he left the ship—it is permitted, for since he established his Shabbat dwelling there on Erev Shabbat—it is permitted afterwards to enter it on Shabbat and set sail. And some say that they perform Kiddush on the ship and afterwards return to their home and sleep there, and the next day they return to the ship and set sail, and such was the custom in some places and one should not protest." Thus far their words, and it requires explanation.

And the explanation of the matters is as follows, for the Bahag wrote: "If he established his shvut from the eve of Shabbat—it is permitted to enter it even on Shabbat." Thus far his words. That is to say, even though in the Gemara they only permitted on the eve of Shabbat in a place where it is permitted, such as for the purpose of a mitzvah, or in rivers according to the opinion of the Rif, or above ten handbreadths according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel, and not on Shabbat itself; and the reason is that this appears like going outside the techum ab initio on Shabbat. And even though there is no techum above ten handbreadths in water—nevertheless, since he established shvut on land and on Shabbat he went far away—it appears like going outside the techum. Therefore, if at twilight he established shvut in the ship—it is like nothing other than his home. Therefore, some permit even to exit it afterwards and enter the city, and the next day to come to the ship, for since at the time of establishing shvut he was in the ship—he did not establish shvut in the city. Only some perform Kiddush there in the ship, in order to publicize that he established shvut there, but this is not a requirement. Only the Rashba hesitates regarding this, and he holds that from the moment he establishes shvut—he should not exit the ship. And the reason is that since the ship is above ten handbreadths—this is not a place for the establishing of shvut, for behold there is a doubt if there is a techum above ten handbreadths, and in water there is certainly no techum above ten handbreadths, and this will be explained in siman 404. If so, how is it relevant that he should establish shvut there? And if so, automatically when he exits afterwards to the city—he establishes the shvut of the city, since he has not yet established shvut. Rather, he must establish shvut there and not exit it. But the custom is like those who disagree with him, that even if he exited it, since he will walk above ten handbreadths—it is also in the ship like the place of his shvut, as he was at the time of establishing the shvut. And there is also a practical difference regarding the shvut: when they arrive the next day at the port—they will be permitted to exit, and this matter will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 404, see there. And this is when he did not exit the ship, but if he exited—it is forbidden, and within the ship—he may always walk, and there and in siman 405 it will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

Those who depart in a caravan in the desert, and it is likely that it may lead to the desecration of Shabbat, whether a Torah-level desecration or a rabbinic-level desecration, and the desecration is due to danger—for example, that the caravan will travel on Shabbat more than the Shabbat techum and he will be afraid to remain alone because of bandits or wild animals, or even if he fears for the theft of his animal, his money, and his clothes, for if he travels on foot or naked he will be in danger, as all these things when they occur, it is permitted to desecrate Shabbat for this, for this is truly pikuach nefesh—nevertheless, this is not a certainty. Therefore, his law is like that of a ship: from Wednesday onwards, it is forbidden; and prior to that, it is permitted; and if afterwards a danger occurs to him, he is permitted to desecrate Shabbat. And for the purpose of a mitzvah, such as one ascending to Eretz Yisrael to dwell therein—and even if his intention is to return, it is also a mitzvah to be for some time in Eretz Yisrael—and if a caravan became available to him, even on Erev Shabbat he may set out with them. And the Israelites speak and stipulate with the leader of the group that they shall stand still on Shabbat, and for the caravan this is not a loss, for it is necessary for them to rest one day from the toil of the way. And if afterwards they did not obey and they travel on Shabbat, he must necessarily go with them because of the danger. And when they enter a city on Shabbat, they are permitted to walk throughout the entire city. For even though one who departs outside the techum has only four amot, this applies to one who departs willfully; but for the purpose of a mitzvah, he has two thousand amot in every direction, as has been written in siman 407. And even if they left him outside the city and he wants to enter, since he went out for the purpose of a mitzvah, he has two thousand amot in every direction. And the same law applies even for a voluntary matter when he departed permissibly, which is on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday—the law is also thus, as has been written there. And so too if he was acting inadvertently and thought it was permitted to depart on Wednesday and Thursday, it is also permitted, for one who says "it is permitted" is considered inadvertent. (Magen Avraham, subsection 18).

During the time when Israel dwelt upon their land, it was taught in a Baraita: (Shabbat 19a) "One may not lay siege to the cities of idolaters less than three days before Shabbat, but if they began—they do not stop; and so Shammai used to say: 'Until it falls'—even on Shabbat." And the reason is also because of the delight of Shabbat, for during the first three days, the men of war are as if bewildered until their minds are settled. And the Tur wrote in siman 249 that for the sake of a mitzvah it is permitted, see there; and this is similar to the law of a ship.