Siman 397

Every person has permission to go out on Shabbat beyond the city two thousand amot, and this is the techum Shabbat. The rabbis supported this from a verse, as it is written: "Let no man go out from his place" — these are the two thousand amot. (51a.) As it is written regarding the boundaries: "And you shall measure outside the city on the east side two thousand cubits," and so for all sides, "and the city shall be in the midst" — as is explained in Parashat Massei. Thus, two thousand amot is called the surroundings of the city, and this is "Let no man go out from his place" — from the place of the city. And two thousand amot is a mil, and according to the measurement of our country Russia, it is a Russian parsa which they call a verst, which is five hundred sazhens. And every sazhen is four amot of the Gemara, as we explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 218.

And according to the opinion of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 27, there is also a techum from the Torah, and that is three parsaot—twelve mil. This is the wording of the Rambam: "One who goes outside the techum of the city on Shabbat receives lashes, as it is said: 'Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.' This 'place' is the techum of the city, and the Torah did not give a measure for this techum. However, the sages transmitted that this techum is beyond twelve mil, corresponding to the camp of Israel, and thus Moshe our teacher said to them—do not go outside the camp. And by the words of the scribes, a person may not go outside the city except up to two thousand amot. But beyond two thousand amot is forbidden, for two thousand amot is the open space of the city." Thus far his words. And this is the approach of the Yerushalmi in chapter 3, halacha 4; see there. And whether there is this measure from the Torah regarding kelim as well will be explained in siman 404. However, most of our teachers agreed that in our Shas it is explicitly proven that there is no Torah basis for techumin, and it does not hold like the Yerushalmi. (And even regarding the Rif at the end of the first chapter who cited this Yerushalmi, the Ramban wrote at length to explain that, on the contrary, the intention of the Rif is that our Talmud does not hold so; see there, and this is the opinion of most of the poskim.)

If the day became sanctified upon him in a valley and he does not know the techum shabbat—he may walk two thousand average paces, which is the length of two shoes: one shoe for the place where the foot stands, and one shoe between foot and foot. (Magen Avraham) And this is the techum shabbat, for a pace is half an amah. And know, that the walking is in a straight line, for however the path curves—it is not in the calculation. And there are times when walking according to the path will be much more than the techum shabbat, but in a straight line it will not yet be the techum shabbat. And since the vast majority of paths curve, the measurement of techumin will be explained in the next siman with the help of Heaven.

And know, that even though eruvei chatzerot and shitufei mevo'ot are not relevant on Yom Tov, nevertheless, techumin are equal on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And the reason for the matter appears to me to be that the definition of eruv and shituf is because of hotza'ah, and on Yom Tov there is no prohibition of hotza'ah, and they also did not want to restrict carrying on Yom Tov, as this is necessary for ochel nefesh. But regarding techumin, it appears that the sages did not want a Jewish man to walk as much as on a weekday, so that he would involve himself more in the delight of Shabbat and in Torah. And this reason is relevant on Yom Tov as well, and therefore in all the laws of techumin—Shabbat and Yom Tov are equal.

And just as a person is not permitted to walk on Shabbat and Yom Tov more than two thousand amot, so too his vessels and his animal—it is forbidden to lead them outside the techum of the owners, for the animal and the vessels are like the feet of the owners (Beitzah 37b). And if their owners made an eruv toward one direction—no person can lead them toward another direction, even one step into a place where the owners cannot go. And above in siman 305 it was explained whether it is permitted to hand over an animal to a non-Jew in a place where there is concern that he will take it outside the techum; see there.

One who hands over his animal to his son—it is like the feet of the father, because it is the way of people to deposit their vessels in the hands of their sons, and their intention is not to hand them over into their domain, unless he explicitly specified that he is handing it over into his domain. And there is no difference between an adult son and a minor, or between one who is supported at his father's table and one who is not supported, and all the more so when he hands it over to his wife or to one of the members of his household, for it is like the feet of the owners. And one who hands over his animal to a shepherd—it is like the feet of the shepherd, even if he handed it to him on Shabbat or Yom Tov, because it stands for this purpose from while it is still day, and even to a non-Jewish shepherd. And if he handed it over to two shepherds, even from the eve of Yom Tov—it is like the feet of its owners, because neither of them acquired it. And even if he says on Yom Tov that his primary intention was for this shepherd, nevertheless, since he did not clarify his words from the eve of Yom Tov—it is like the feet of the owners. (Magen Avraham, subsection 5)

And a fattened ox standing for slaughter is like the feet of the one who purchased it to slaughter it on Yom Tov, for such was the intent of the owner on the eve of Yom Tov—that whoever would purchase it on Yom Tov, it should stand in his domain. And it is obvious that he acquired it without a transaction, or he fixed the price on the eve of Yom Tov, or the price was known, for on Yom Tov it is forbidden to conduct a transaction. Furthermore, even if its owner slaughtered it on Yom Tov and distributed the meat to the buyers, each of the buyers may take his portion to the place where he is permitted to go, for with this intent it stood from the eve of Yom Tov.

Nevertheless, two people who purchased an animal in partnership on the eve of a Yom Tov and slaughtered it on Yom Tov, even though they divided the meat between them—nevertheless, all the meat is according to the feet of both of them; that is to say, neither of them can take the meat to a place where the other is forbidden to go. The reason is because during twilight they drew their techumim from one another, as every limb draws from its fellow. This is not similar to the previous law, where on the eve of Yom Tov everything was in the possession of the owner, except that we say his intention was that whoever would purchase from him on Yom Tov, the meat would stand in that person's possession from now. However, it is not relevant to say they draw from one another, since the name of the owners was not designated upon it on the eve of Yom Tov, which is not the case for two who purchased on the eve of Yom Tov—where the name of the owners was designated upon it. And if they purchased an animal on Yom Tov from the town's cattle herder, such as if he has permission to sell the meat—it has the techum of the town. And even if this herder made an eruv of four thousand cubits toward one side—it does not prevent any of the townspeople who purchased from him from taking it to the opposite direction, for from yesterday they established it in the possession of the townspeople, since they are accustomed to purchasing from him, and it does not stand in the possession of the herder except for an ox standing for grazing, and not one standing to be sold and slaughtered. And since all the town's animals are found there—the intention of all of them is that they should have the town's techum of two thousand cubits in every direction, and see in section 17.

Vessels that are designated for one of the brothers in the house—they are like his feet. And those that are not designated for one of them—they belong to all of them, and they cannot take them except to a place where all of them may go. And this is regarding brothers after the death of their father, when they are together in the estate of their father's house, for when their father is alive—everything is in his domain and in his techum.

Two who borrowed a garment from one person on the eve of Yom Tov, this one to go in it in the morning and that one to go in it in the evening—the techum of both of them is upon the garment, and they cannot take it except to a place where both are permitted to go. And if this one made an eruv at the end of two thousand cubits to the east and that one at the end of two thousand cubits to the west—they may not move it beyond four cubits, or in a city—they may not move it from the city wall and outward. And one who borrows a vessel from his fellow on the eve of Yom Tov, even if he did not take it until the night—it is like the feet of the borrower, since he promised it to him on the eve of Yom Tov—it stands in his domain at the time of the acquisition of the eruv. Therefore, even if he returned it to him on Yom Tov—it remains in the domain of the borrower. But when he designated it on the eve of Yom Tov to return it to him on Yom Tov—it is in the domain of both of them, for it is no less than two borrowers. But if he borrowed it from him on Yom Tov, and he did not designate it on the eve of Yom Tov, even though he is accustomed to lending it to him—it is in the domain of the owner, for it is not similar to that of a partnership, which is essentially of both of them.

A woman who borrowed water and salt from her friend for her dough, or spices for her pot on Yom Tov—the dough and the cooked food are like the feet of both of them. We do not say that the water and salt are nullified regarding the dough, or the spices regarding the pot, for since they came to improve the dough and the pot, it is considered like "kind in its own kind," and it is not nullified in the case of a "thing that has permitters," even regarding a rabbinic prohibition, for in the evening it will be completely permitted. And if the food will spoil by the evening, or if it was on the first day and it will spoil by tomorrow evening—they are nullified, and we do not adjudicate in this case the law of a "thing that has permitters," as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 102, see there. And if she borrowed some cooked food from her on Yom Tov and mixed it with her own cooked food—this is like the feet of both of them, and we do not follow the majority and minority. (Rashi in Beitzah 39a explained: A thing that has permitters—tomorrow they may take it or today they may eat it here. Thus far his words. And according to this, for the second reason, it is not relevant that it would spoil by tomorrow. However, it seems to me that the primary reason is the first reason, for according to the second reason, it is not appropriate to call this a "thing that has permitters," for here it was never prohibited, and it is like that which is in Yevamot 82a, if it is permitted for a kohen it is permitted, see there well and delve into it.)

If one took a coal from his fellow on Yom Tov—he may not carry it except according to the feet of the giver. But if he lit a candle or a piece of wood from the flame of his fellow—it is according to the feet of the one who lit it, for a flame has no substance, and for all matters there is no substance in a flame, except regarding prohibitions of benefit where they were stringent regarding a flame, as written in Yoreh Deah siman 162, see there.

The sages taught in the Mishnah: (Beitzah 39a) A cistern belonging to an individual is like the feet of the individual, for since they are his waters, they are like the feet of the owner. And one belonging to that city is like the feet of the people of that city, two thousand cubits in every direction. (Rashi) And it implies that even if one of the people of the city made an eruv, he cannot carry them beyond the two thousand cubits, and thus wrote the Tur; see there. However, the Rashba and the Ran, of blessed memory, wrote that if some of the people of the city—this one made an eruv to the north and this one to the south—this one carries to the north and this one to the south, for this cistern is like a cistern of partners, and there is bereirah in matters of rabbinic law, and we say it has been clarified that these waters that he drew yesterday were destined for his portion. And if one of the city drew water and gave it to him, they are like the feet of the one who drew it, for he acquired them. And if another man came who was not of the people of the city and drew for himself, he may not move them from their place, because the people of the city make eruvei techumin, as this one made an eruv to the north, and this one to the south, and this one to the west, and this one to the east. (See Beit Yosef) And this is certainly puzzling, for most of the city presumably did not make an eruv, and why should the one who draws not have two thousand cubits in every direction? This requires further study. And a cistern of hefker is like the feet of the one who draws. And know, that this applies to a cistern of collected waters, for regarding a well of a spring, they do not have shevitah, because they are not at rest and they move, and anything that moves does not acquire shevitah, as will be explained.

Flowing rivers and springing fountains—they are like the feet of the one who draws [the water], because they do not have their own shvitat, since they are moving; and how could they acquire shvitat, for they do not rest. And even if they do not go out from the place of their springing to flow further (Magen Avraham subsection 13) like our wells—nevertheless, they do not rest in their place. Therefore, they are like the feet of the one who draws, like a hefker pit, even if they have owners. And regarding them, [the rule] "like the feet of the owners" is not applicable, for if the owners themselves were moving—they would not acquire shvitat, and vessels are no better than they themselves. And since they have no shvitat, therefore even if they were flowing from outside the city's techum and coming inside the techum—one may draw from them on Shabbat, and it goes without saying on Yom Tov, and they are like the feet of the one who draws. And therefore, rains that fall near the city, and certainly inside the city—they are like the feet of the people of that city, for they did not acquire shvitat in the ocean or in the clouds, because there they are moving. (Eruvin 46a) And "near the city" is called within the techum. (Magen Avraham ibid.) And why are they like the feet of that city? Because the people of the city—their minds are upon them. And it seems to me that this is only during the time of the rains. But rains that fell outside the city's techum—they are like the feet of the one who draws. (And in the Gemara it is explicitly implied that on Yom Tov—the rains are like the feet of every person, and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah and the Machatzit HaShekel. But in the Yam Shel Shlomo and in the Magen Avraham it is as I have written, and according to what I have written it is well, and delve into it.)

If one filled water from a public pit for the sake of his fellow—it is like the feet of the one who filled it. For even though we hold: "One who lifts a lost object for his fellow—his fellow has acquired it," and if so, it should have been like the feet of the one for whom it was filled, nevertheless, it is not so. For the reason his fellow acquired it is because of the principle: "Since he could acquire it for himself, he can acquire it for another," (Bava Metzia 10a) and since he only acquired it through his power—it is like his feet. (Magen Avraham subsection 14 in the name of Tosafot)

One who had produce deposited in another city distant from him, and the residents of that city made an eruv in a manner that they are permitted to come to him—nevertheless, they may not carry with them any of his produce to bring them to him, for any deposited item is considered to be in the domain of its owner, and they are situated outside the owner's techum, and it is forbidden to move them from their place. And it is not similar to a loan, where the object is like the techum of the borrower, because the borrower borrows for his own benefit to use it, therefore they are in his domain for the entire duration of the loan. But a deposit is for the benefit of the depositor, and therefore remains in his domain. However, even a deposit is only like its owner regarding techumin when he designated a specific corner for the deposit with the bailee, where the deposit shall be placed, for in such a case the responsibility of guarding is not upon the bailee. But otherwise, since the responsibility for the deposit is upon the bailee, it is necessary that the deposit be in his domain regarding techumin, for how shall he guard it when he does not have permission to take it to the place where he goes? Therefore, it is within the techum of the bailee.

One who invited guests to his home on Yom Tov—they may not carry portions in their hands to a place where the host is unable to go, unless he granted them legal possession of their portions on the eve of Yom Tov through another person. For if not so, even though it was his intention from the eve of Yom Tov to invite them to his home—nevertheless, all the food and drink remain in his domain, and they possess the techum of the owner and not the techum of the guests. And know, that which was explained in section 8 regarding two people who purchased an animal in partnership—the meat is according to the feet of both of them; this applies only to living creatures, because the techumin derive from one another. But regarding other things, when they purchased them in partnership on the eve of Yom Tov and divided them on Yom Tov, such as wine and flour and anything that does not possess a life force—each one may carry his portion to a place where he is permitted to go, and we say the matter has been clarified that from the eve of Yom Tov this half was prepared for his portion, for regarding Rabbinic law we hold that there is bereirah, and techumin is Rabbinic.