Laws of Resting on Yom Tov, Chapter 5 — Carrying on Yom Tov and Techumin

Opening

We are learning Hilchos Shabbos Yom Tov Chapter 5, the fifth chapter. Very good.

We will thank the sponsors of the shiur, the listeners of the shiur, first and foremost the patron of the shiur who helps us, who always stands by us, and he has made it so that the shiur should be a success, our friend R’ Yoel Leib Weltzberger, may his merit protect us and stand by us.

Introduction to Chapter 5

We are now learning the fifth chapter in Hilchos Shabbos Yom Tov. We have already learned, the general rule is that everything that is forbidden on Shabbos is forbidden on Yom Tov, except for ochel nefesh (food preparation). There were in this various detailed laws. The last chapter we learned about lighting and extinguishing fire and so forth.

What we are going to learn in this chapter is basically two things, if I understand correctly. Ah, they perhaps have a certain connection, they both speak about hotza’ah (carrying). One is regular hotza’ah, and one is hotza’ah in terms of the laws of techumin (Shabbos boundaries).

We learned that hav’arah (lighting fire) and hotza’ah are the two only ones of the 39 melachos, all other things just like Shabbos is Yom Tov, except preparing food for the purpose of ochel nefesh one may. There are two things that even not for the purpose of ochel nefesh one may, like lighting fire and hotza’ah, but there are within this itself still various limitations. It’s not such a free-for-all that one can do any kind of hav’arah, as we learned in the previous chapter. And here we are going to learn that also with hotza’ah it’s not so simple, one cannot carry out everything, there are limitations in this, and this we are now going to learn.

And afterwards the topic of techumin, which one can, by the way, it’s not the same prohibition, there is a prohibition of techumin on Yom Tov just like Shabbos, but since one may carry, it’s relevant much more how far one wants to go, one needs to know many details of techumin for Yom Tov, which although seemingly the same details should be for Shabbos, but it’s less relevant.

Halacha 1: Carrying on Yom Tov — Large Burdens and Changing the Manner

The Rambam’s Rule: Carrying is Permitted but with Limitations

The Rambam says as follows: Even though carrying was permitted on Yom Tov even not for a need, although hotza’ah was permitted on Yom Tov even not for a need, as we learned ho’il since it was permitted, but it doesn’t mean that one can do whatever one wants. One should not carry out a large burden, that is to say mitoch, ho’il is ho’il mitoch since it was permitted, yes.

But the Rambam says, what may one not do? One should not carry large burdens in the manner that he does on weekdays — one should not take out large heavy packages as one does during the week, rather one must change — one must do it differently.

The Reason for the Prohibition

The Rambam explained that the reason that they permitted hotza’ah on Yom Tov even not for a need is so that a person should not feel like he is locked in, rather he can do and bring things. The Ra’avad said that the reason is because on Yom Tov one needs to carry mishloach manos (gifts of food).

In any case, for one of these two reasons they are lenient with hotza’ah. For one of these two reasons they limit that one should not do it “in the manner that he does on weekdays.” They indeed let a person have a certain freedom and he should be able to carry, but it doesn’t mean that today is a weekday.

Comparison with Tiltul (Moving Objects)

It could also be that it’s because we learned regarding tiltul that one should not do everything, but we’ll put that aside. I thought, one can think that this is like on Shabbos. On Shabbos there is also a prohibition of dragging things, there it’s not relevant to hotza’ah, it’s completely forbidden, but even in the eruv one may not clear out an entire storehouse and the like.

But on Yom Tov they said the opposite, that the idea is that one may indeed. But one may indeed, but not that it should bring the opposite effect. That means, we want it to be happy. That one may carry can accomplish that, but if one lets it go completely it will continue to not be happy, because one will be busy all day carrying. It should bring the fine line, and this is what we’re going to say here. There are things that one may not do.

As long as one can make a change, it shouldn’t look like during the week, one should do it with a change. And if it’s impossible to change, if one cannot do it with a change, then yes it is permitted.

Examples of Change

The Rambam says, How so? One who brings jugs of wine from place to place, someone brings bottles of wine from one place to the other. Normally during the week, he would make it easier for himself, and he would bring a large basket, and put all the jugs in it. He should not bring them in a basket or in a box, he should not carry it in a basket, rather he brings it on his shoulder or in front of him, he should hold it on his shoulder, or on his garment, in front of him, and carry it that way. It should be a change, it shouldn’t be like a porter carries things.

The same thing, One who carries straw, usually if someone carries straw, he would take the bundle of straw and put it on his shoulder. He should not do it therefore. He should not sling the box behind him, put the box, the bundle of straw, on his shoulder, rather he carries it in his hand, he should carry it in his hands.

And similarly — the same thing, a burden that their way is to carry it on a pole, packages that usually one would carry on a pole, on a stick. I know, for example large clusters of grapes one would carry on a pole with two people. One should not do so, rather he should carry it on his back behind him. And conversely, and that which their way is to carry behind them, is the opposite, he should carry it on his shoulder, he should hold it on the side, on the shoulder. And that which their way is to place on the shoulder, each thing one should look at how one does during the week, one should do it a bit differently, it shouldn’t look like the weekday manner. Things and that which their way is to place on the shoulder, he should carry it in his hands in front of him. Or he should spread his garment over them, or he should drag it with his garment, and so all similar things with a change in the action, it should be different.

If Impossible to Change — Permitted

Interestingly, he says further, And if it’s impossible to change, if it’s not applicable, then yes, he carries and brings in his usual way. Initially one should, but it’s not forbidden. The obligation that one should do differently did not come to forbid if there is no choice. As Rav Yitzchak always says that the Chachamim don’t want one to remain stuck, if they permitted to carry one may carry, but when there is a way one should not do it.

Question of the Tosafos: Comparison with Clearing a Storehouse on Shabbos

I see here on the page, interestingly, he brings the ma’aseh rav from Tosafos. Tosafos asked a question from the topic of clearing that we learned. We learned in the laws of Shabbos that one may drag as much as one wants, one may not clear out a storehouse, but one may indeed drag. It doesn’t say any limitation that one must drag not in the usual way, with a change when one is clearing a storehouse. And what comes out that this is Yom Tov sounds worse.

Tosafos explained that on Shabbos we’re talking about going only in the courtyard, no one is going to see it. Yom Tov where one can drag outside, then it’s worse. And we remember that there is also a distinction. Ah, it’s a matter of maris ha’ayin (appearance)? It’s not a matter that the person should not… It’s both.

Distinction Between Shabbos and Yom Tov: Reducing Walking Versus Reducing Burdens

There is a distinction, because on Shabbos we learned that if there is an option that one should drag all at once in a bunch, or many times, although it will become a burden, one should do it to reduce walking, carry less frequently. But on Yom Tov, when he says one should carry on his shoulder, he will have to take the jugs of wine that he cannot put in a bundle, one needs to carry more, it requires more effort, it is otherwise more effort, if it is otherwise increasing the walking, because it is more effort, it looks more weekday-like, and it has to do with the appearance.

The Rema: Only From Place to Place

The Rema indeed says, he brings, that the prohibition is only from place to place, when one goes outside, when one sees and one shouldn’t be seen. At home, there is no prohibition. It’s a prohibition for people, it shouldn’t look weekday-like. Right.

So it looks, so it comes out with these matters.

Discussion: Practical Application Today

It’s interesting, I don’t know exactly how one fulfills all these laws today. For example, someone says, you want to carry something to shul? Carry something with a shopping cart. For example, I can tell you, an idea, would you use a shopping cart? A carriage? No, a carriage for the baby yes, but not a shopping cart. It’s a weekday thing. Or such a hand truck that one uses sometimes, I don’t know.

But here we see clearly that even when it’s more effort. The Rambam says regarding for example, giving many small amounts of tzedakah is harder for the person. Carrying many times small coins, small vessels of wine is harder. But we don’t worry here about hard, we worry that it shouldn’t look. There is harder, and there is what they call increasing the walking. I don’t know if it’s actually harder, it’s more that… more work, it takes longer, or more effort. It takes longer, and one must walk more, but it’s less, one sweats. It’s less, as if it’s less effort.

The thing that “their way is to carry it” is not just random, it’s because that’s the practical way. But still, don’t do the practical way, do it otherwise harder, but it shouldn’t look like the usual way. It’s a bit less practical, so it seems.

Speaker 1: It’s generally, so, I don’t know if, have you ever had in all the stories such a question on Yom Tov? I know indeed, today everything a person carries generally, one takes in a bag and holds in the hands.

Speaker 2: No, the Chassidic Jews do that. I mean, if one sets up something large… I mean if one has a wagon, if one has some vessel… I want to go shopping carriage, such a thing. How?

Speaker 1: It would make sense that it should be in today’s psak, but one doesn’t use any shopping carriage on Yom Tov. Perhaps it almost doesn’t happen anyway, but… if someone carries a meal somewhere, I know.

It could be that today it’s enough that one doesn’t carry it with a car. During the week one would carry everything with a car. On Yom Tov one doesn’t carry with a car. So that is already the not in the manner done on weekdays. But as the Rambam speaks explicitly, all these things that one must change the manner.

Carrying on an Animal — Forbidden Entirely

But on an animal one should not bring at all, on an animal one should not carry at all, so as not to engage in the manner done on weekdays, one should not do in the manner done on weekdays.

It’s interesting, on the animal he doesn’t tell us the “if impossible to change.” Let’s say it’s a heavy thing, and one must have an animal. There isn’t the leniency that one doesn’t carry such large things on Yom Tov, basically. That is the answer.

Okay, another thing. Yes.

Leading an Animal with a Stick, a Blind Person with His Stick, a Shepherd with His Bag

Further, the Rambam says, One does not lead an animal with a stick. An animal is already mentioned… Sometimes one takes the animal itself, perhaps one is going to slaughter it. Or one may not carry the animal with a stick with which one drives it, because it looks like one is going to the market, as we learned regarding the laws of Shabbos, that one may not go when an animal has a bell or something, because it looks like he is going to market with the animal, some such kind of law.

The same thing, and a blind person should not go out with his stick, a blind person should not go out with his stick, and not a shepherd with his bag, and the shepherd who shepherds animals should not go out with his bag, with his sack, in which he puts the food for the dogs, yes, seemingly.

Going Out with a Chair — Man and Woman

And also there is when one goes and carries with a stick, such a walker that one can sit on. One does not go out with a chair, one doesn’t go out with a bench, neither a man nor a woman, so as not to do in the manner done on weekdays, this is how one goes during the week, that one carries oneself with a bench. Or one carries with it, the attendant carries a bench, I know. I don’t want it to be in the manner done on weekdays.

When Many Need Him — Goes Out with a Chair and Even with a Palanquin

Who? But what is… what is a leader, a tzaddik, or someone who many need him, for him one may indeed carry a bench, he goes out with a chair after him. And not only that, but we find doing on the small, one may carry him on the bench, or even with a palanquin, one may even bring a large rabbinical bench. Or even with a palanquin, one may even carry… a palanquin means such a canopy, such a beautiful structure, like a palanquin of a chuppah. I mean it’s probably such a… an ohel? Such a chair.

Speaker 2: No, but what can it mean? A large rabbinical bench.

Speaker 1: No, and one carries a person on it. He doesn’t walk, the rebbe… You sit as it once was by the… today there is also in certain places. You know what you see by Tashlich there is the custom that rebbes one carries with a 900-pound stand, one brings a truck, one hires a company, a production company, one carries the rebbe’s bench. On Yom Tov one may do it without a truck. But even that, the rebbe’s… Why may one do that? It’s an extra leniency on a bench. He stands a way to ride on a bench seemingly. That means, one places him up on the bench and one carries it. It’s a palanquin. Okay.

What is the reason that for a chacham that many need him that it is an extra leniency?

Speaker 2: Or because that means not like weekdays?

Speaker 1: So it seems. No, it’s a leniency. So one says, it’s more a need. For this need they further permitted. One cannot say that the rebbe should not come to shul on Yom Tov with his whole entourage.

Speaker 2: A rebbe needs to come with a whole entourage?

Speaker 1: And it’s not any disrespect to Yom Tov, it’s in honor of the rebbe. I don’t know, it is a bit of disrespect to Yom Tov, but it’s permitted because of this. I mean still. No, it doesn’t say that one should do it differently. On the chacham it doesn’t say that one should do it differently.

Speaker 2: Perhaps it’s something a special leniency for the honor of the many?

Speaker 1: Right, it’s a leniency, a special leniency. What is the problem? On Yom Tov the rebbe gives a drasha, Yom Tov is a time when one learns a portion. It was the order, but specifically Yom Tov is an order. Yes, on Yom Tov there are the rebbes’ tisches and the like.

Halacha 4: Ladder of a Dovecote — Appearance and Joy of Yom Tov

Speaker 1: Another thing: One does not carry the ladder of a dovecote from dovecote to dovecote in the public domain. They already learned earlier that there is a thing called dovecotes. These are such little structures where birds should nest. And there is a ladder that one carries from one dovecote to the other. So on Yom Tov one may indeed go take the chickens or the eggs that are already ready to cook on Yom Tov. So a person will think that he will take the ladder and carry it, but one may not. Why? Lest they say he is carrying it to fix his roof. When a person sees someone walking around… We’re talking about someone also in a public place, ah, he says in the public domain, in the courtyard one may, but in the public domain, if one sees someone walking with the ladder, they will think that he is fixing his roof, he is doing boneh (building), he is doing a matter of maris ha’ayin. Uhm. One may not, but in a private domain one may carry it.

Discussion: The Rambam’s Distinction Between Public and Private Domain

Speaker 1: Interestingly, many times there is the law that something that is forbidden as maris ha’ayin is also forbidden. The Rambam says specifically, Even though wherever the Sages forbade, usually one would not make such a leniency, one would say such a leniency. There is a rule that wherever the Sages forbade maris ha’ayin, even in the innermost chambers it is forbidden, for example, one may not hang up a towel, which would look like it was washed, one may not hang it even in one’s own house. But why here if so, why may one indeed carry in a private domain a dovecote? He says, so as not to prevent the joy of Yom Tov, a special leniency. An interesting distinction, no?

Speaker 2: Yes.

English Translation

Speaker 1: That means, the joy of Yom Tov (simchas Yom Tov) doesn’t permit the prohibition. Simchas Yom Tov is a very important thing. That means, simchas Yom Tov doesn’t nullify the essence of maris ayin (appearance of wrongdoing), but the detail that once maris ayin has been prohibited even inside, in the home, that they did permit. Because he needs to be able to bring his birds from the dovecote sometimes.

Speaker 2: Yes, but it only helps for a private domain (reshus hayachid).

Speaker 1: The mitzvah of simchas Yom Tov doesn’t remove the prohibition of maris ayin, it only removes… It appears that the prohibition in the innermost chambers (b’chadrei chadarim) is a new level in the prohibition. We don’t say that they prohibited everything. They started with maris ayin, and then there’s another level of stringency of b’chadrei chadarim. And here one may.

I don’t understand what the Rambam says, because they can… He says as you say, when you make a prohibition with maris ayin, it’s something that generally is forbidden. A person says a clever thing, ah, but I’m at home? No. But there is such a thing as a prohibition in the public domain (reshus harabim), it doesn’t have to initially be a prohibition. So, I see that there are other poskim (halachic authorities) who do speak about this. What does this mean? What does the Raavad say, for example?

But in such a case as this, says the Rambam, this would have been forbidden without the answer of simchas Yom Tov. Let’s say generally when it’s not Yom Tov. Says the holy Raavad, “He says so, but the Gemara didn’t say so”. The Rambam indeed says so, but the Gemara doesn’t say so. “They didn’t distinguish in this matter”, and the Gemara makes it dependent that either it’s permitted in both, or it’s forbidden in both, and the halacha is that it’s permitted in both. So the Raavad doesn’t agree with the Rambam’s distinction between reshus hayachid and reshus harabim.

So it says in the Shulchan Aruch, I think, like the Raavad, that it’s truly permitted because of simchas Yom Tov. Interesting. Presumably the Rambam had something major to think this way. If one looks in the Maggid Mishneh one will see what is the source of the Rambam’s position. Okay.

Halacha 5: Fruits on His Roof — How to Move Them

Speaker 1: Further, section 5, halacha 5. It could be that in the Shulchan Aruch it’s already different, they look at it as if it’s not at all… I don’t know, when you see a Jew walking with his shtreimel with his ladder, you know he’s doing it for simchas Yom Tov, he’s not going to go fix the roof now. In short, they say it depends on how one learns the Gemara. Okay, very good.

The Rambam says further, “One who had fruits on his roof”, they used to put fruits on the roof to dry, “and needs to move them to another place”, one needs to move them from that roof. There is about how one can do it. There is about how one does it during the week, one shouldn’t do it on Yom Tov in the way one does it during the week.

He says thus, “He shouldn’t spread them from roof to roof”, meaning, the way one usually does it looks like one person stands on the roof and another on the other roof, and one passes it over, even though he went a way that isn’t such a great effort. Also, “nor should he lower them with a rope from the windows”, or one shouldn’t lower it, roll it with a rope from the windows, or take it down with ladders, “so that he shouldn’t do it the way he does on a weekday”. But what then? “He may move them”, what may one do? “He may move them through a skylight from place to place on the roof”, on the same roof.

To another roof one may not, but one may move it around on the same roof, “on the roof”.

Speaker 2: Even with a skylight means a window? Or how is there a window?

Speaker 1: A skylight (arubah) is a skylight, a window in the roof.

Speaker 2: How is this “on the roof”? From one corner of the roof to the other corner of the roof?

Speaker 1: Or he’s telling you two things. He already meant two things: either to put it into the home through a skylight, or to carry from place to place within the roof. He says it means that one may drag it to the place where you have the window, the skylight that you’re saying, and throw it inside the home. Even if the skylight is in another place on the roof, he drags it there, and there he puts it into the opening of the roof.

Slaughtered an Animal in the Field

Speaker 1: Another such rule: Slaughtered an animal in the field, one slaughtered, one may slaughter on Yom Tov, but one shouldn’t bring the slaughtered animal on a pole or on a bed, putting the whole animal on a bed or on a pole. That’s how one would do it apparently during the week, one drags the whole animal. Rather limb by limb, instead one should bring pieces at a time.

Halacha 6-7: Sending Gifts on Yom Tov — Since It Was Permitted for Need, It Was Permitted Not for Need

Speaker 1: Now, now we’re going to learn which things one may send to people on Yom Tov. That the permission to… It should actually be carrying not for need (hotza’ah shelo l’tzorech). We learned that shelo l’tzorech is permitted, but here we’re going to see that it’s not so simple.

Says the Rambam, Anything that one only uses on a weekday, things that one has benefit from, even if one only has benefit during the week, even something that isn’t made for Yom Tov use, even though one doesn’t use it on Yom Tov, it’s something that one doesn’t have benefit from on Yom Tov, such as tefillin — on Shabbos and Yom Tov one doesn’t put on tefillin — but still it’s permitted to send them to one’s friend on Yom Tov. One may send it, because about this the verse said, “However, since it was permitted for need, it was permitted not for need” (ach mitoch she’hutrah l’tzorech hutrah shelo l’tzorech), one doesn’t need the tefillin on Yom Tov, but one may carry it inside. And it’s a simchas Yom Tov, the Jew rejoices with our going to receive holy tefillin.

Speaker 2: Is it permitted in carrying (b’tiltul)? I remember in the laws of Shabbos, in the Shulchan Aruch they speak about this, because it’s not fit to use for something else, one may not use tefillin, it’s a holy thing.

Speaker 1: But we learned in the laws of Shabbos explicitly about one who was stuck outside with his tefillin, that he may carry it home. There it was all about the public domain. But it didn’t say there that tefillin is muktzeh. Okay, there it wasn’t relevant, because there it was about saving tefillin. Apparently when it speaks about saving tefillin, saving holy things.

Says the Rambam, needless to say that something that one uses on Yom Tov, a thing that one does have benefit from on Yom Tov because one may, such as wines, oils and fine flours, it’s certainly already permitted to send them. But anything that one doesn’t use on a weekday until one does work with it that is forbidden to do on Yom Tov, a thing where the order is that one should have benefit from on Yom Tov, they permitted it with labors (melachos). I don’t know why he throws in here the word “on a weekday” (b’chol), “one doesn’t use it on a weekday.”

Again, the distinction is thus: a thing that one uses during the week, but one doesn’t need to do a melacha in the meantime, even though on Yom Tov one can’t use it, one doesn’t have anything from it, about that one sends. Then a person can say, okay, the same thing, something that needs to be ground and the like, which we’ll see in the next section, but during the week, you can both grind it and use it. He says, no, even though it’s fit for him on a weekday, but one must do a melacha that is forbidden on Yom Tov. On a weekday one may do melachos, but then one doesn’t send it on Yom Tov.

He explains, How so? One doesn’t send grain on Yom Tov, raw grain one may not send on Yom Tov. Why? Because one doesn’t eat it on a weekday unless one grinds. Grain one can only have benefit from if one does grinding beforehand, one makes flour from it. And there is a law that it’s forbidden to grind on Yom Tov, one may not grind on Yom Tov. Therefore if you send something that one can’t have benefit from? One may not, about this there is no permission of mitoch. But one may send legumes (kitniyos), legumes one may, because one cooks them on Yom Tov and eats them, one can, because cooking or roasting legumes one may on Yom Tov. The same thing animals, beasts and fowl, even alive, even living ones, one may also, because it’s permitted to slaughter on Yom Tov, and so all similar cases.

Halacha 8: Limitations on How to Send Gifts

Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, Anything that is permitted to send on Yom Tov, this is another limitation on how not to send gifts on Yom Tov. Even a thing that one may send on Yom Tov, Anything that is permitted to send on Yom Tov, says the Rambam, when one sends it to one’s friend as a gift, when he sends a gift, interesting that in the laws of Yom Tov they call gifts “teshura.” I haven’t found it so in other places, also earlier, sending a teshura.

Halacha 9: General Law — One Who Makes an Eruv Techumin for Yom Tov, His Animal and Vessels and Fruits Are Like Him

Perhaps about this he wrote “teshura,” which is a nice etymology: you should send with song (b’shira). As it says there, Yaakov Avinu sends to Esav, he says, arrange it, “and put space between herd and herd”. Send it, there’s a way how one sends a gift, one sends such a situation. You shouldn’t send it that way.

What does the row (shura) mean? Says the Rambam, “A row is no less than three people”. One sends gifts through three people who carry gifts. He explains. “How so, if one sent to his friend animals or wines by the hand of three or four people together one after another” — he sends to someone a huge gift, a bunch of wines for example, they shouldn’t do it with the ceremonial way of standing one under the other and bringing gifts. “All of them walking in one row, this is forbidden, so that he shouldn’t do it the way he does on a weekday”. That’s the way one does it on a weekday.

But “if he sent three types by the hand of three people together, this is permitted”. That means, simply sending, the first prohibition of a row is specifically with a thing that… they go in one row, it’s obviously the same thing. Three people carrying pieces of animal, it makes a big impression on the eyes. The prohibition of it is because that’s the way one carries it on a weekday. He says it looks like a further shipment. In short, it’s not Yom Tov-like.

But simply that three different types, and one sends with three people, that’s not the prohibition. It’s not a situation of a row, it’s simply three people bringing three things.

—

So now we’re going to learn the rest of the chapter. It’s actually very many details of very simple… I mean the rules are very clear, generally.

The Rambam already said that also eruv techumin is, just as it’s forbidden on Shabbos it’s forbidden on Yom Tov to go out beyond the boundary (chutz l’techum). And Yom Tov is presumably much more relevant, because one may carry, even shelo l’tzorech one may carry. On the other hand it’s also much easier, because he can take his bread with him, he can go while… if one walks one doesn’t need bread. One is making an eruv with one’s feet (merubah b’raglo), one doesn’t need. Okay.

But that’s only eruv Yom Tov. It doesn’t help on Yom Tov. On Yom Tov it doesn’t help. We already learned in the laws of eruvin, even the second day of Yom Tov, how one can make an eruv on Yom Tov when one may not go out beyond the boundary.

The novelty is that on Yom Tov, often one carries things around. Relevant to Yom Tov, actually relevant to Shabbos is the same law. If it’s a large private domain, eruv techumin can also be in a private domain we learned.

Yes, but you’re right that it’s not actually relevant to Shabbos almost, because if it’s a private domain you can almost always go through the entire private domain, except for rare exceptions. If his boundary ended in the middle of a private domain or rather in the middle of a city, then it can be.

In any case, we learned indeed that in the laws of Shabbos there is also the law that his vessels are like him (kelav k’moso), but on Yom Tov it’s more practically relevant. And the practical difference says that he makes an eruv, then it changes.

There’s a law in eruv techumin that just as a person may not go out beyond the boundary, also if your vessel or a thing went out beyond the boundary, you may not and it came back within the boundary, you may not use it. There isn’t a thing that belongs outside the boundary. Even beforehand, a second person won’t be allowed to take it for example. A second person has a different boundary, yes, because you made an eruv techumin, you’re not exactly the same boundary as the city. But even a second person may not take your thing.

So the law is, One who makes an eruv techumin for Yom Tov, meaning one makes an eruv, meaning if he lives in a city, it’s also the same law, but it’s not relevant the distinction. His animal and his vessels and his fruits are like him, all things that were his are vessels, are animals, are fruits. And like him, and one may only take them within two thousand amos in every direction from the place of his eruv. His fruits, his animals, or his vessels a second person may not even take, except from his place of eruv, from his boundary.

Objects go after the owners. The owners of the animals and vessels. That’s the rule.

Now one needs to know, understand the problem, first one needs to know who is called the owner of each thing. Then we’ll know other ways to work out the details of the thing.

—

Halacha 10: Ownerless Objects and Objects of a Non-Jew

Ownerless Objects — Like the Feet of Whoever Acquired Them

So first of all, ownerless objects (chaftzei hefker). What is a thing that is ownerless? To whom does it belong? How may one carry ownerless property?

The answer is, They are like the feet of whoever acquired them. Whoever acquires the ownerless property, even on Yom Tov, then it’s as if he acquired it, whatever eruv he has.

Objects of a Non-Jew — They Acquire Rest in Their Place

And objects of a non-Jew, what are the objects of a non-Jew? It doesn’t belong to any Jew. They acquire rest in their place, and they have two thousand amos in every direction. That means, it doesn’t say that the Jew who picks it up takes it with his boundary, but whatever the vessels or the objects of the non-Jew were, there one may not carry the objects further than two thousand amos from where they were.

Why? A decree about non-Jewish owners because of Jewish owners. Actually it appears, a non-Jew, yes? A non-Jew actually doesn’t acquire rest, he doesn’t have a boundary like him. But when one finds an object that belongs to a non-Jew, the Sages decreed that one should treat it like an object of a Jew, and therefore it doesn’t go like the feet of the non-Jew but, like the feet of… the one who found it? No, in its place, whatever it was resting.

Yes, it’s worse than a Jew. A regular object of a Jew doesn’t have its own opinion as it were. It’s nullified to the person. It’s not nullified to the person, but it’s its own. Where it lies, there it lies. There that one is so strong.

A non-Jew is nothing. Because a Jew elevates every object he has. A non-Jew doesn’t rest, he doesn’t have Shabbos, one can’t say go after him. But therefore, according to the basic law one could have carried the objects whatever, because it doesn’t have rest, it didn’t rest. But one can’t have that a non-Jew should be more lenient than a Jew, so the Sages decreed that whatever it is, not according to its owners, but whatever the vessels are, there one will be able to carry two thousand amos, no more, or whatever the law is.

—

Halacha 10 (continued): Fruits That Went Out Beyond the Boundaries and Returned — They Didn’t Lose Their Place

Now, we learned that a person who went out beyond the boundary and returned, if it was willingly, we learned that he becomes stuck, because he lost his boundary. But fruits are not so.

He says, Fruits that went out beyond the boundaries and returned, even intentionally, didn’t lose their place. Even if a person took it out intentionally, they go back to where they were.

Why? Because they are like a person who went out by force and returned by force. We learned a law, a person, that if both the going out and the return were by force, he goes back to where he was, he doesn’t lose anything. Most fruits there is indeed… so therefore, fruits are always by force a second time, therefore one can’t have any claims on the fruits out of the boundary, can depend on the person. But now we’re speaking of the rest of the fruits.

So, it’s… one who can’t shout always means by force, yes? He couldn’t shout about the matter that they shouldn’t all fall. Yes.

Okay. I could have thought to make a penalty on the person, but we’re speaking now that even another person will carry it, it has nothing to do with the person.

—

Halacha 11: One Who Gives His Animal to a Shepherd — Like Whose Feet?

Now there are various cases where one gives an animal to a second person, one needs to know whose boundary it goes.

One who gives his animal to his son, a person gives his animals to his son, that means he should take care of them, whatever. It’s like the feet of the shepherd, because then he gives it over completely, the shepherd may take it where he may go.

Gave it to two shepherds, one gave it to two shepherds, then it’s like the feet of its owner, it remains with the owner.

Why? Because neither of them acquired it. A thing can’t belong to two places at once. Two kings don’t use one crown, I don’t know. It remains with the owner. Yes, good.

—

Halacha 12: One Who Invited Guests to Him on Yom Tov — The Meal Is Like the Feet of the Host

Interesting story, more so than perhaps relevant, One who invited guests to him on Yom Tov. A person invited guests for Yom Tov. Yes? So they want to take home their portions, I don’t know if they want to go somewhere with it. So this is he allows.

It’s Yom Tov, People Want to Send Mishloach Manos

It’s Yom Tov, people want to send mishloach manos (gifts of food). They should not carry portions by hand to a place where the ba’al haseudah (host) cannot go there. The ba’al haseudah has his techum Shabbos (Sabbath boundary), wherever it is. The guests should not take the food further than his techum.

Why? Because the entire meal follows the feet of the ba’al haseudah, not the feet of the guests. The fact that I invited guests doesn’t give them the right to take my food wherever they want to go.

If someone does want, he does want his guests to be able to take the meal to their place, he must, unless he transferred ownership to them of these portions on erev Yom Tov. He must make a kinyan (acquisition) through another person, that he becomes the one who makes the acquisition, he must give it to someone who is, yes, his adult son, or someone who is not in his domain, who should acquire it for them, then it becomes theirs, and then it can go.

Discussion: Why Doesn’t the General Permission to Eat Help?

But this is always the rule, that when someone invites guests, and it’s not explicit that he transferred ownership to them, as it says there in the verse “ve’el kelyecha lo titen” (and you shall not put it in your vessel), when you come into someone’s field, you have permission to eat. But you don’t acquire it, true.

But here you see that he actually lets them take it home, but he lets them, unless he transferred ownership to them. No, he doesn’t need to transfer ownership. Transfer ownership means he gives it for their domain, for their ownership. Even if it’s the normal practice that they can take their leftovers, but still it doesn’t mean that it’s become regularly theirs.

Perhaps it’s like this in a case of choice, it’s not that he even had in mind to invite them on erev Yom Tov, but still, the meal, generally speaking, belongs to the… yes, the resting place of the meal belongs to the ba’al habayis (homeowner), to the ba’al haseudah. That’s how it looks.

Okay, let’s continue.

—

Halacha 13: One Whose Fruits Were Deposited in Another City — His Fruits Are Like Him

And similarly, another case, one whose fruits were deposited in another city, a Jew had fruits in a second city, a deposit, and the people of that city made an eruv to come to him, the other people made an eruv so they could come to him.

But his fruits belong to him. The fruits don’t have an eruv. The people have an eruv. The other people, the friends who live in the next city have an eruv. But he doesn’t have an eruv. Their eruv doesn’t help for the fruits, even if they are the guardians. Even if they are the guardians, one might think perhaps that it has to do with the guardian, we’ll soon see that there is a way that it does depend on the guardians.

But generally speaking, a simple deposit still belongs to the one who deposited it, and therefore it is… they should not bring them, because his fruits are like him, and as if his fruits are resting outside his techum. That’s the story, right? Even though they are in the hands of those who made an eruv, even though they are there the guardians or whatever, it doesn’t help.

Deposit — The Eruv of the Guardians Doesn’t Help

Speaker 1: Their eruv doesn’t help for the fruits, even if they are the guardians. Not their fruits, even if they are the guardians.

The deposit, one might think that it does depend on the guardians, but generally speaking, a simple deposit still belongs to the one who deposited it, and therefore it is they should not bring them their fruits, because his fruits are like him, and as if his fruits are resting outside his techum. That’s the story, right?

Even though they are in the hands of those who made an eruv — even though they are there the guardians or the rebbe, it doesn’t help.

In what case are we speaking — in when he designated for them a corner, if there is a certain place where he put down his fruits at their place in the city, at their home. But if he did not designate for them — if he gave them to guard, but they can move it around as they want, perhaps apparently, that’s the point.

They have a certain right to move it around, then it’s like a shepherd, as we saw that the discussion doesn’t have to do with ownership. So one thinks that yes, he gave them the ownership to carry around the fruits. They are like the feet of the one with whom they are deposited, because he gave it over to them, they should decide where it should lie, they should determine where it should lie. They decide, and now they made an eruv, they can bring it to him.

—

A Well of Water — Laws of Techumin

Speaker 1: And let’s learn a bit of laws about a well, what is a well of water, how far one may carry the water, all the water in the well.

This is a well belonging to an individual — it follows the feet of its owner, that’s simple. A well of that city — what is in the middle field? There is a well of olei Bavel (those who came up from Babylonia). They already saw this well in the laws of Shabbos, there one may make a bucket chain.

It follows the feet of the one who draws — because anyone who drew from it carries it to the place where he walks.

Speaker 2: The feet of those who made it a city means leniently, not stringently, not that each person can take it on his Pesach as he wants, he can take the water.

Speaker 1: Yes, but instead he has anyway in the techum. But, but one goes this way, one goes that way, each person can take water from there. Because each water that someone takes, if he made an eruv you mean, one of the people.

Speaker 2: Yes, could be.

Speaker 1: When it’s olei Bavel, which is designated for everyone, they made wells, whoever is oleh regel (goes up for the festival), should be able to drink from this well, as we learn about digging wells, it is like the feet of the one who draws, because anyone who drew from it carries it to the place where he walks, because it’s al da’as (with the intention), when a Jew who goes there comes.

Rivers that flow, and springs that bubble up — not a well that a person made, but a river or what is… is like the feet of every person, that means to say also like the feet of the one who draws, right? Whoever takes from it is that, because it has no resting place at all, because it flows, it runs. After you take it, you can take it wherever you can go.

And if they were coming from outside the techum into the techum, even on Shabbos one may draw from them — even if the water still comes down from a river, who knows from outside the techum, also one may draw on Shabbos, even on Shabbos one may draw. Because one says, we learn at the beginning of Shabbos, we’re talking if there is an eruv, or it never acquired a resting place. Right.

—

An Ox of a Shepherd and an Ox for Fattening

Speaker 1: Now an ox, an ox of a shepherd — there is an ox that he grazes, as we learned earlier about the shepherd, not an ox that is prepared for eating, meanwhile it’s for grazing. It is like the feet of the people of that city, it belongs to the city.

Ah, he says like this, an ox of a shepherd means a person sells it to be slaughtered on Yom Tov, but he only sells it to the people of the city, they know that he has an ox, therefore when they buy it it’s still from their techum.

But an ox for fattening — a person has an ox, officially an ox from oxen, it is ready for sale to anyone, then it is like the feet of the one who took it to slaughter it on Yom Tov, anyone who comes to buy the ox can take it wherever he goes.

Why? Because the intention of its owner is to sell it to other people besides the people of his city. The ox that is ready, it’s already stuffed for slaughter, he intends to sell it to anyone, because it is publicized, and everyone hears about it and comes to take it — it’s publicized that he has oxen that can be slaughtered, so therefore from the outset on erev Yom Tov he already, it is for whoever will buy it.

And similarly if its owner slaughtered it on Yom Tov — that means, let’s say now he himself sells his meat, and sold its meat. Further, each and every one of the buyers carries his portion to the place where he goes, because the intention of its owner from erev Yom Tov was thus — that means, he transfers ownership as if from erev Yom Tov of the pieces.

Here we see, one can transfer ownership even of a piece of the living animal, that tomorrow he will slaughter it and he will cut it into pieces.

Speaker 2: What is transfer ownership? Perhaps the word never means like there is, it’s always the potential customers.

Speaker 1: Yes, perhaps not kinyan da’as (acquisition of intention). Da’as ba’alav (the owner’s intention), that’s to whom it belongs for resting. And this is his intention, that people from other cities should buy from him, it turns out that this ox is like a well of olei Bavel that is designated for everyone. That’s basically what we say about olei Bavel, that whoever takes it, it belongs to him. Okay.

—

A Coal and a Flame

Speaker 1: The coal — everyone’s coal, follows the feet of its owner, not the feet of the borrower. Okay, I don’t know exactly what the halacha is. But the flame follows the feet of whoever has it. Such a particle. Fire is not a thing, not a substance, doesn’t acquire a resting place. One who lights a candle from his friend’s candle, carries it to any place he wants.

If you take the coal, if you take the coal, if you take the coal, it’s like benefit that draws, it’s something running, it’s a thing. One, the mothers also learned earlier such laws, a coal, you take a coal, even if I lend it to you, what is the difference, it’s my coal, it has an object. It’s an object.

It’s relevant in practice, meaning if a person comes with his own coal and he lights it with the other’s fire, we don’t say that the fire is… I may because it’s two thousand amos, he may carry it wherever he wants.

Speaker 2: Where he belongs, yes.

—

One Who Borrows Vessels from His Friend

Speaker 1: What about a borrower? I mean that all these can continue further.

A borrower, one borrows vessels from his friend on erev Yom Tov, he borrows a vessel on erev Yom Tov. Even though he didn’t give it to him until Yom Tov — he gave it to him, in practice he received it on Yom Tov, it follows the feet of the borrower. Again, we see all these laws that one doesn’t need to acquire a resting place so actually before, as long as the intention is that it goes to the other, it goes already.

He borrowed from him on Yom Tov — if he only asked for the vessel on Yom Tov, yes, here sha’al can be translated asked, but it means he borrowed. Even though it is always his practice to borrow from him vessels on Yom Tov — everyone knows that Yom Tov comes and he borrows my… I don’t know. But it doesn’t help. Right, it doesn’t help. It follows the feet of the lender.

Why? When it became Yom Tov it was still the ownership of the lender. Although we see here the whole time that if he knows that the other will take it, it helps. But this only helps for things that… he has at a merchant, but he borrows. He does a favor. It doesn’t mean that you are now the owner, because you’re going to borrow.

But it’s different, as if, let’s say someone has something that he lends out for a gemach (free loan society), perhaps it will indeed be for whoever will borrow. Here we’re talking as if, what it is a certain person, he lends out.

—

Two Who Borrowed One Garment — Like the Feet of Both

Speaker 1: Now like this, what if two people borrowed one bekeshe (long coat)? There are two rebbes who lead tishes (Chassidic gatherings), they didn’t have the financial ability to buy extra white bekeshes for both, so they made a deal.

Two people who borrowed one garment, and one borrowed from him to wear it in the morning, and the second borrowed from him to wear it in the evening — and in the morning he takes it, and in the afternoon the other takes it at night. Then it becomes worse for them. They saw earlier that one cannot be like the feet of both, but here indeed it will be.

This vessel follows the feet of both borrowers — I don’t know why such a stringency occurs here, can you say? This vessel follows the feet of both borrowers, and he may only carry it to a place where both of them can carry it. If we already saw in the very first kindness, why shouldn’t we say that this is like a lender, like a piece before, what is different about a garment than a…

Speaker 2: No, a lender is always like the feet of the borrower, that’s what he says. But there are two borrowers on erev Yom Tov we’re talking about here, yes?

Speaker 1: No, no, no, Yom Tov, yes, yes. Therefore he didn’t transfer ownership to both fully, because he wants to remain…

Speaker 2: Both yes fully. That’s the opposite, both yes fully. It becomes both, and it becomes stuck.

Speaker 1: But each one made a limitation only that the other should also be able to, because the homeowner has in mind that it’s now for this one, but the other will also take it there, it doesn’t become given fully.

I say, we learned in the laws of eruvin, knew such cases. I don’t remember the reasoning why it stands like this? There is such a thing that a person can have two eruvin, yes? Give two agents, and both, the case is both, he becomes stuck like the feet of both. The same thing here, the garment belongs to both, because one cannot count one day, they learned, one cannot make an eruv for half a day, so it’s both, and therefore it’s limited by both of the people, right? One can only take it to a place where both of them can go how so, but the Rambam calculates the calculation.

If the first made an eruv and distanced a thousand amos from the place of the garment to the east — the first is a thousand amos to the east, and the second five hundred amos to the west. So when the first takes it, he may only carry it to the east up to a thousand and five hundred amos from the place of the garment — he may only take it up to a thousand and five hundred amos.

The first who has one at a thousand amos away, he may actually only, he may take it up to his thousand amos, I guess, I don’t understand. Again, he may only take it, he may not take the entire two thousand amos. That’s the point. His eruv is two thousand amos back away, he may actually go another two thousand amos further, but he may not. He may only go one and a half, because he is stuck with the other eruv.

And the end of the techum that this one who made an eruv to the west can walk in it. The same thing, when the second takes this vessel, he may only carry it to the west up to a thousand amos from the place of the vessel. And the end of the techum that this one who made an eruv to the east can walk in it. Therefore if this one made an eruv at a distance of two thousand from the garment to the east, and this one at a distance of two thousand to the west — these may not move it from its place, it can become completely stuck. If each one is at the end of each one’s eruv, he won’t be able to move it from its place, because it goes like the feet of both.

Speaker 2: Nebach (pity) on the two rebbes.

Speaker 1: Okay, you made them rebbes, and now one must pity them. Well, I’ll try to understand how two people borrowed and moved away. Okay.

—

A Woman Who Borrowed Water and Salt and Made a Dish — Like the Feet of Both

Speaker 1: The same thing, another case of like the feet of both, a woman who borrowed from her friend water and salt and kneaded dough and baked — her dough and her dish follow the feet of both, it’s an interesting case, she borrowed ingredients, and she made from the ingredients a cake or a kugel. So then her dough and her dish follow the feet of both, why? Because he has the ingredients, and she, both of them, have the cake, and it seems that making the cake gives some new ownership. I’ll understand why.

Speaker 2: Yes, they become like partners, he says.

Speaker 1: We’re talking presumably when they remain partners, or I think perhaps when he gave him the entire pot of water. Because if he only gives water, he won’t bring back the same water, it’s a different type.

Speaker 2: No difference, but now the prohibition is, I did the work and you did the ingredients, as it were.

Speaker 1: We’re talking perhaps actually when they become partners in it? Not clear. There are inquiries about this in the Gemara also. But that’s the halacha in practice, it doesn’t become nullified.

Discussion: Difference Between Milk and Water

Speaker 2: I say that it’s very different from the milk, because the milk will eventually come back. Here, the water, he won’t bring back the same water, he’ll bring other water.

Speaker 1: Okay, but the water, the cake, belongs to her, he must pay back, whatever. I’ll have to pay back other water. That doesn’t mean that the water belongs to her, but that’s how it looks here. It could be actually in a way… It belonged to her from yesterday, it doesn’t change in the middle of Yom Tov to whom it belongs.

Okay.

—

Two Partners Who Slaughtered an Animal — Like the Feet of Both

Speaker 1: And similarly, the same thing, two people are partners. This is simpler. Two people who were partners in an animal and slaughtered it on Yom Tov, even if they divided it — the entire animal follows the feet of both. But now we’ll learn an interesting distinction. Here too one could have said that now it’s clarified that the portion was his, but now it doesn’t look like that. And therefore he’ll explain it in the next halacha, that there are ways that a partnership can be divided, and there are ways that it cannot be divided.

Partnership in an Animal Versus a Barrel — The Distinction of Bereirah

The same thing, two people are partners. This is simpler. Two who bought an animal in partnership and slaughtered it on Yom Tov, even if they divide it afterwards, all the meat follows the feet of both.

But now we’ll learn an interesting distinction. Here too one could have said that now it’s clarified that the portion was always his good, but now not so. We’ll explain this in the next halacha, that there are ways of partnership that can be divided, and there are ways that cannot be divided.

A Barrel — There Is Bereirah in Rabbinic Matters

Let’s see. But if they bought a barrel in partnership and divided it on Yom Tov, if one takes a barrel of wine, then you’re right. Each one’s portion follows his feet. Why? Since techumin are rabbinic, as we already learned in the laws of eruv this principle, there is bereirah (retroactive clarification) in rabbinic matters, and it is considered as if the portion that came to this one was clarified for him and separated in the barrel from erev Yom Tov as if he said.

Although on erev yom tov one didn’t know which glass of wine each person would take from the barrel, nevertheless there is yesh breira (retroactive determination), we go back retroactively as if it was already his portion with him and his portion with him.

The Question: Why Not by an Animal?

So if that’s the case, why can’t an animal do the same thing, as if the portion that came to this one was clear to him and separated… What does breira mean? Breira means that we calculate as if on erev Shabbos one already knew which piece is yours, which piece is yours, and each one slaughtered his own.

So if that’s the case, why can’t an animal in partnership do the same thing? They slaughtered on yom tov, let’s say further, yesh breira, I had the feet of the animal, you had the head of the animal. What’s the problem?

The Novel Insight — “The Secret of a Soul”

An interesting chiddush (novel insight), here we learn the secret of a soul. “And you cannot say so regarding an animal, that this portion that came to him” even if we consider it as having been separated in the animal while it was alive, let’s say yes, as if it was clear, yesh breira, but it doesn’t help.

“For each and every limb draws sustenance from the portion of every other limb, the animal drinks as one, for each and every limb draws from the other.” One limb, the foot of an animal, receives vitality also from the hand of the animal. Every living thing is like this, it’s one whole thing.

So even though… and I say I already had the hands on erev yom tov, but my foot must receive from your hand. So “it turns out that each and every limb is mixed from his portion and the portion of his fellow.”

A living thing cannot be completely divided into parts. Because each part sustains all the other parts, like a foot and a tooth.

Connection to Chapter 1 — An Animal Half Owned by a Non-Jew

Therefore, we had a similar law in Chapter 1, an animal that is half owned by a non-Jew and half by a Jew, that it’s impossible to eat an olive’s worth without the slaughter of the non-Jew, that’s one thing.

Which is not the case with dough, which can be divided. A living thing cannot be divided, because everything must come to the whole.

There it’s more practical, because one cannot… you know, you understand, you see more the… in both cases we see the thing that a living thing is one.

The Moral Lesson

May it be His will that we should always be one, and already, there should no longer be any baseless hatred.

—

Thus concludes Chapter 5.