Siman 405

The sages taught in the Mishnah: (end of chapter 4) "One who went outside the techum, even one amah—he may not enter," and so the Rambam ruled in chapter 27, law 11, as did the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And there is a great question regarding this: Do we not maintain that every person has four amot aside from the techum, as is written in siman 396? And in siman 407 it will be explained regarding one who went outside the techum for a matter of a mitzvah, for saving a life, or the like—that the sages gave him a techum of two thousand amot in the place where he is. And we maintain that if the new techum is slightly absorbed within the old techum—he may return to his previous techum, and so the language is common in the Shas (44b): "Absorption of techumin is a significant matter." If so, here too, when he went out one amah, behold he still has three amot within his techum, and why should he not return to his techum by way of absorption?

And behold, the Bartenura and our teacher Yonatan explained that this Tanna does not hold of the absorption of techumin, see there, and according to this, the halacha is not like this Mishnah. However, from the words of Rashi, of blessed memory, another intention is clarified to me, for he explained: "One who went out beyond the techum—intentionally and knowingly, not for the sake of a mitzvah." Thus far his words. And his intention is clear, that we do not say "absorption of techumin is a significant matter" except for one who went out under duress or for a mitzvah matter, and not intentionally and not for a mitzvah matter.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, resolved the difficulty in another manner, and this is his wording: "One who went out... shall not enter, for the four amot that a person has begin from the place where he is standing; therefore, since he went out beyond his techum one amah or more—he shall sit in his place, and he has only four amot to walk from where his feet stand and outward." Thus far his words. And they found difficulty with his words (the Maggid Mishneh and the Kesef Mishneh), for it was explicitly taught in a Mishnah (45a) regarding one who was sleeping on the way and did not acquire a shevitah—that he has four amot, and in whichever direction he desires. And in my humble opinion, it seems that there is no difficulty at all, for we hold that even one who is sleeping acquires a shevitah, as I wrote in siman 401, and even according to the one who holds that one who is sleeping has only four amot, and can choose whichever direction he desires—certainly this is so, for what difference does it make to us in this law. But regarding one who walks outside the techum, how can we permit him to return back to enter his techum; on the contrary, we say to him: "Go on your way." (And perhaps this is also the intention of the Maggid Mishneh, see there). And according to this, it is possible that according to the Rambam, even in a case of constraint the law is so, or it is possible to say that in a case of constraint he holds like Rashi, and this is not called a constraint.

The Ra'avad, of blessed memory, wrote there, that this is called an accident to cross slightly outside the techum, and in truth he may choose whichever direction he desires and enter his techum entirely, and the Mishnah is dealing with a case where he already chose for himself the four amot further on, see there. And similarly, it was explained in the Hagahot Maimoniot (letter 7) in the name of the Ri, and this is his wording: "He shall not enter as if he had not gone outside the techum, but four amot—he has all around him, and he is permitted to enter within his first techum up to his four amot." Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: I do not judge him as if he did not go outside the techum, rather he is certainly outside the techum. However, he has four amot, and it is within his authority to choose whichever direction he desires. And if he indeed chose the side of his techum—he shall walk his four amot, and automatically afterward he may walk the entire techum. (We have explained all the positions with the help of Heaven, and see Magen Avraham subsection 1, and reflect on this.)

And likewise, one for whom the day became sanctified while he was outside the techum of the city, even by one amah—he may not enter to be like the people of the city, as has been explained in siman 400, and he may only walk two thousand amot in every direction from the place where the day became sanctified for him. And in this, it is obvious that the matter of the four amot is not relevant, for he acquires a shevitah in his place like all those who rest. And the sages said that if one foot is within the techum and one foot is outside the techum—it is as if his entirety is within the techum, and they supported this from a verse in the Gemara. (Ibid. "If you restrain your foot because of the Shabbat," see there.)

One who went outside the techum unintentionally, meaning not willfully but rather that he erred or was preoccupied—it is permitted to make a partition of people for him, as has been written in siman 362, for an encirclement of people is considered a partition, by means of people who made an eruv for that direction, who are able to go there and shall encircle him all around like a partition. And there will be a benefit that if the partition extends until within his techum, he may enter his techum, for it will be explained that one who goes outside the techum under duress and enters within partitions may walk throughout all of it, even if it is very large and even more than two thousand cubits. And they were lenient in this because he has only four cubits, as has been written in siman 403, see there. And this is provided that those who are being used for the partition do not know that they were stood there for the sake of a partition, and the reason for this matter we explained in siman 362, see there. And this is regarding one who went out under duress, but if he went out willfully, it is forbidden and there is no benefit for him in this, for even if they bring him into a partition, it is forbidden for him to walk throughout all of it, because he did not rest within the airspace of partitions while it was yet day, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

This rule that one who goes beyond the techum has only four amot—there is no distinction between one who went out intentionally or unintentionally; even if bandits took him out or an evil spirit came upon him—he has only four amot. And so we learned in the Mishnah at the beginning of chapter 4. And likewise if he went out by means of some other duress or if he went out inadvertently, and if afterward they returned him to within the techum—it is as if he did not go out, and if they returned him into the city—the entire city is for him like four amot, and beyond it two thousand amot in every direction. And this is specifically where he went out by means of duress and returned by means of duress. But if he went out intentionally, even though he returned by means of duress, or if he went out under duress and returned intentionally—he has only four amot.

However, if he went out intentionally, and they returned him under duress to his city where he spent the Shabbat, and it is enclosed by partitions and enclosed for a dwelling—that it was settled and afterward enclosed—behold, the entire city is for him like four amot, but from the city and outward, it is forbidden for him to go even one amah. For within the city it was permitted because he spent the Shabbat within the air of the partitions from while it was still day, and in such a case even if he went out intentionally and returned intentionally, for this is impossible to forbid to him, but outside the city it is forbidden, for he lost his techum when one of them was intentional. And if he went out under duress and returned under duress, even if they returned him into his techum in a city where he did not spend the Shabbat, it all becomes for him like four amot, and the techum returns to him as before. And even though he did not spend the Shabbat within the air of the partitions from while it was still day, since he was under duress in the going and also in the returning, it all becomes for him like four amot, because they were lenient with him in this.

And so too if bandits took him out beyond the techum, and placed him in a pen or a stable or a cave or a city surrounded by a wall and surrounded for the purpose of dwelling, even if they are beyond the techum—all of these become for him like four amot, and he may walk through the whole of it. But if he went out beyond his techum intentionally and entered one of these—he has only four amot, and it is forbidden for him to walk through the whole of it, for how could we make them like four amot when the whole of it is beyond his techum? Rather, in a case of duress they were lenient for him in this, that even in such a case we consider it for him like four amot, but not when he went out willfully. But if they brought him into the outskirts of a city—it does not become like four amot (Magen Avraham, subsection 6) even under duress, for only regarding the calculation of the techumin is it considered like the city, and not to make them like four amot, as it is not surrounded at all.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: "One whose ship set sail at sea—he may walk through all of it, since he spent the Shabbat within the airspace of partitions. And if the walls of the ship were breached on Shabbat, if it is moving—he may walk through all of it, and if it is stationary—he may walk within it only four amot." Thus far his words. And behold, the Rambam did not mention this law at all, since there is no techumin above ten tefachim, and the Tur mentioned it, because he ruled in the previous siman that there is techumin above ten. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who ruled there that there is no techumin above ten, did not need this at all, and why when it is stationary may he walk within it only four amot? However, his intention is this: that he entered it on the eve of Shabbat, but it traveled several times at less than ten tefachim, or that he went out twice to the dry land, and consequently his law is like one who went outside the techum and is not considered as one under duress; therefore, when the walls are intact—he may walk through all of it, since he spent the Shabbat within the airspace of partitions while it was still day. But if he went to another ship or to a fenced area, since he did not spend the Shabbat within the airspace of the partitions while it was still day—he has only four amot. And when the walls of the ship were breached while it is stationary—consequently his law is like one who went outside the techum, who has only four amot. But when it is moving—it is permitted to walk through all of it, because with every single leap it is more than four amot, and the ship is constantly taking him from these four amot and placing him into another four. (Gemara 42b: "Rabbi Zira said since the ship takes him etc." see there, and see Magen Avraham subsection 7 and his words require great scrutiny, and delve into this)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "And if in its middle it has partitions of ten, but at its head it does not have them—we follow the middle. And even if it has none at all, but there is enough in it to carve out ten—we say we carve to complete" thus far his words. And this refers to 'the walls of the ship were breached,' for those at its head are judged like the holes of a reshut hayachid, and we require that the breached part not be greater than the standing part, and that the breach not be greater than ten cubits. (Magen Avraham, subsection 10). And that which he wrote 'that we say we carve to complete' is astonishing, for we hold that we do not say we carve to complete, as is written in siman 345, and this is explicitly explained in Shabbat (7b), that Rabbi Meir holds we carve, and the Rabbis hold we do not carve, and the halacha is like the Rabbis. (ibid. subsection 11). And it appears to my humble opinion that this is not carving as in general, but rather this is its explanation: that if beneath the floor of the ship upon which they stand there is another space—this space joins with the walls that were breached and remained less than ten, to complete them as if they themselves are ten tefachim, and this is merely an example of carving to complete.

He further wrote in section 5: "And similarly, if one entered a ship and the ship went out beyond the techum, and it returned back to the port from which it set sail — he is as if he did not go out, for it is as if bandits took him out and returned him." Thus far his words. That is to say, for example, where the ship was standing on the shore, and he entered on Shabbat to sit in it and not to sail, such that he entered permissibly, and the owner of the ship sailed it beyond the techum to a place that is not ten deep and returned — it is for him like the law of one whom they took out and returned. And it comes to teach us that even though he entered of his own will — nevertheless, since he entered to sit in it, which was completely permissible — we judge him as one under duress. (See Magen Avraham subsection 5, who depicted also in such a case where it was below ten at twilight and he acquired a residence there, and it sailed on Shabbat and returned.)

Produce that was taken outside the techum and returned—even if done intentionally, they have not lost their place, for the produce is considered under duress. Therefore, if it is Yom Tov, when carrying is permitted—the entire city is for them like four amot, and outside of it two thousand amot in every direction as at the beginning. And if it is Shabbat—they are permitted to be eaten in their place, even for that Israelite who returned them for his own need intentionally, since the produce is under duress. And it is not similar to one who cooks on Shabbat, which is forbidden, as that is a Torah prohibition. And even though for one who immerses his vessels or tithes on Shabbat they also penalized him, and this is a rabbinic prohibition, nevertheless regarding techumin, where no change was made to the objects themselves and they are now in their place—they did not penalize him. And in several matters they were more lenient regarding techumin than in other prohibitions, such as one who comes from outside the techum for the sake of this Israelite, it is permitted for another Israelite, later in siman 515, and likewise regarding the matter of "the time it takes to prepare them," as the Tosafot wrote in Eruvin. (39b end of the heading starting with "ei," see there. And the Magen Avraham in subsection 14 exerted himself to establish it in a case where he has no other fruit, see there, but in any such case he should have specified it, and see Eliyah Rabbah and Tosefet Shabbat, and it appears to me as I have written, and examine it closely.)

And as long as the fruits have not been returned and they are outside their place, if they were taken out unintentionally—they are permitted to be eaten but are forbidden to be moved beyond four amot. And who may eat them? Those who made an eruv for that side. And if he took them out intentionally—they are forbidden to be eaten even for one who did not take them out, and some permit them for one who did not take them out, and thus the Acharonim agreed. (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 16) However, in the Yerushalmi, chapter 4 of Eruvin (halacha 1), it implies like the first opinion, see there. (And by means of a non-Jew, it is certainly permitted.)