Siman 403

It has already been explained in siman 396 that the place where one rests is not included in the two thousand of the techum; even if he rested in a large city like Antioch, it is not in the calculation. And above in siman 362, it was explained that a mechitza that was made on Shabbat is called a mechitza. According to this, if it happened that one rested in a large valley, and gentiles came and surrounded the valley with mechitzot on Shabbat, and the enclosure was for habitation—for example, there were scattered houses there and they surrounded them for the sake of the houses, such that there was an opening and it was subsequently surrounded, which is an enclosure for habitation—if so, it would be the law that he may walk the entire valley and two thousand amot outside of it.

Nevertheless, it is not so, for our sages, of blessed memory, said (42b) that specifically when one rested within the airspace of the partitions while it was still day, they are considered as four amot, but when one did not rest within the airspace of the partitions—they are included in the count. And the reason appears to be that since the time of acquiring the resting place is at the onset of the Shabbat, for then the boundaries of the techumim are established, therefore if one rested then within the airspace of the partitions—they became as four amot. But if at the time of the onset of the Shabbat one was not within the airspace of the partitions, and behold this place was for him part of the count of the techum—it is impossible to change during Shabbat, and this is according to the way we say: "Shabbat, since it was forbidden—it remains forbidden." And even though regarding one who went outside the techum, who has only four amot, if they placed him during Shabbat within the airspace of partitions—they are considered only as four amot, as will be explained in siman 405, this is because of his exigency, as he has only four amot, they made this as four amot. But this person who has a complete techum—we do not consider it for him as four amot when he did not rest within the airspace of partitions. (Magen Avraham) Furthermore, according to what we explained, this is no comparison at all, for here the primary reason is that this place itself was established at the onset of Shabbat within the count of the techum, which is not the case there.

And what is the law regarding carrying? Behold, since a partition made on Shabbat is a partition—it is permitted to carry in its entirety, for it is a complete reshut hayachid that was enclosed for dwelling, as has been written. However, if this enclosure is more than two thousand amot, and he is not permitted to walk in it more than two thousand, how shall he carry in its entirety? The sages said (ibid.) that he may carry in its entirety by means of throwing. That is to say, to throw there—it is permitted in its entirety, but to carry with his hands—it is permitted only within two thousand, because of the prohibition of walking. And it is simple that throwing is specifically with things that are not his possessions, for his possessions—it is forbidden to take them out beyond his techum, as has been explained, for the animal and the vessels are like the feet of the owners. (Magen Avraham) and this is the system of Rashi there, and the Tosafot disagree as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even to carry in a literal sense is forbidden beyond four amot, even within his techum of two thousand; see there. This is the approach of the Tosafot there, for the reason that since beyond the two thousand it is forbidden for him to carry, it is therefore considered "breached in its fullness to a place forbidden to it"; see there. However, Rashi holds that this is not called "breached to a forbidden place," since even there it is permitted via throwing, and if so, it is a place permitted to him; and that which he is not permitted to carry is because of the walking, and not because of the carrying. (And even though the Gemara there states this reasoning, that is according to the one who forbids carrying in the whole area even via throwing, due to a decree lest he be drawn after his object, and if so, it is completely forbidden to carry beyond the two thousand—it is then rightly called "breached etc."; but not according to that which we establish like Shmuel, that he may carry in the whole area via throwing; so wrote the Taz and he decides like Rashi). (And so wrote the Maharsha there, and so wrote the Perishah, and so the Eliyah Rabbah and the Tosefot Shabbat agreed with the Taz).