📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of Lecture – Chapter 27, Laws of Shabbat (Rambam) – Laws of Techumin
Introduction to the Chapter
Chapters 27–28 deal with the laws of techumin — the fourth mitzvah in the Laws of Shabbat: “not to go outside the boundary on Shabbat.” Techumin is not a melacha, but rather an additional prohibition, similar to hotza’ah but not the same. Chapters 29–30 will deal with kiddush hayom and oneg Shabbat.
—
Halacha 1 – The Essential Law of Techumin
Rambam: “One who goes outside the techum of the city on Shabbat receives lashes, as it says ‘let no man go out from his place on the seventh day.’ This ‘place’ – is the techum of the city. The Torah did not give a measure for this techum, but the Sages transmitted that this techum is outside twelve mil corresponding to the camp of Israel… And from the words of the Sages, one should not go outside the city except up to two thousand amot, for two thousand is the migrash of the city.”
Explanation
The Torah forbids going out from one’s “place” on Shabbat. “Place” means the techum of the city (not four amot). However, the Torah does not give a measure for the techum. The Sages received (“he’etiku”) that the Torah-level measure is 12 mil, corresponding to the camp of Israel. Rabbinically, they established a boundary of 2,000 amot (= 1 mil), based on the migrash of the city.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. The language “he’etiku”: The Rambam doesn’t say “tiknu” (they enacted) or “kiblu” (they received), but rather “he’etiku” – which means transferred, transmitted from one generation to the next. This may indicate that it is a halacha l’Moshe miSinai or an ancient tradition, not a rabbinic enactment.
2. The source of 12 mil – “corresponding to the camp of Israel”: When Moshe Rabbeinu said “let no man go out from his place,” the “place” was the camp of Israel, which was 12 mil in size. But this is only a hint, not an explicit verse – because (a) it doesn’t state explicitly in the Torah that the camp of Israel was 12 mil, this is a calculation of the Sages; (b) the verse “let no man go out” doesn’t explicitly say “outside the camp” but rather “from his place.” Therefore the Rambam says “the Torah did not give a measure” – the measure is not explicit in the verse.
3. Why is it Torah-level if it’s only a hint? This is a difficult question. If the measure of 12 mil is only a hint, why does the Rambam say “he receives lashes from the Torah”? The essential prohibition of going out from one’s place is Torah-level (from “let no man go out from his place”), but the measure of how far one may go is what the Sages “transmitted” through the hint of the camp of Israel.
4. Comparison with shevut (tishbot): Regarding shevut, the Rambam also has a verse as a source (“tishbot”), but he did not say that shevutim are Torah-level – the verse is only a hint/asmachta, and all shevutim are rabbinic. Here, however, with techumin, a portion (beyond 12 mil) is actually Torah-level. The verse of “migrash of the city” is also a hint for the Rabbis’ two thousand amot, but this doesn’t make the two thousand amot itself Torah-level.
5. The position of Rabbi Akiva vs. the Rambam: Rabbi Akiva holds that techumin is Torah-level already at 2,000 amot, based on the verse “and you shall measure outside the city two thousand amot” (Parashat Masei – the open areas of the Levite cities). The Rambam does not rule like Rabbi Akiva, but rather like a Yerushalmi which says: even the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Akiva admit that techumin is Torah-level at 12 mil, but the measure of 2,000 amot is rabbinic, based on the migrash of the city.
6. Dispute among Rishonim: The Ramban and other Rishonim hold that techumin is always rabbinic, even 12 mil. The Rambam stands alone with his position that 12 mil is Torah-level. In practice, both positions are cited.
7. “Medina” in the Rambam: “Medina” in the Rambam always means a city, not a country in the modern sense.
—
Halacha 1 (continued) – Practical Levels and Measurement
Rambam: “Thus you learn – the entire city is like four amot, even if it was like Nineveh, whether it is surrounded by a wall or not surrounded by a wall… And similarly one who walks outside the city may walk two thousand amot in every direction, two thousand amot squared like a square tablet in order to gain the corners… And if he goes outside the two thousand amot even one amah, he receives lashes of rebellion up to twelve mil. But if he goes outside the city more than twelve mil even one amah, he receives lashes from the Torah.”
Explanation
Three levels: (a) within the city itself – one may walk unlimited, even if it’s as large as Nineveh; (b) from 0 to 2,000 amot outside the city – permitted; (c) from 2,000 amot to 12 mil – lashes of rebellion (rabbinic); (d) more than 12 mil – lashes from the Torah.
Novel Points and Explanations
1. “The entire city is like four amot”: Within the city one may walk unlimited. “Place” doesn’t mean a small spot, but the entire city. There is no distinction whether it is surrounded by a wall or not.
2. “Two thousand amot squared like a square tablet – in order to gain the corners”: One doesn’t measure 2,000 amot in a circle (radius), but rather makes a square around the city. Thereby one “gains” the corners – at the diagonals one can go farther than 2,000 amot. This is parallel to the law regarding four amot of hotza’ah in a public domain, where one also makes a square.
3. “Lashes of rebellion” vs. “lashes from the Torah”: The Rambam makes a clear distinction between the rabbinic punishment (lashes of rebellion) and the Torah-level punishment (lashes). This is consistent with his position that 2,000 amot is rabbinic and 12 mil is Torah-level.
—
Investigation: Techumin Above Ten Tefachim
Novel Points
– An investigation is raised: what is the law when someone walks on pillars that are higher than ten tefachim, and each pillar is four by four amot (a domain in itself)? Is there techumin above ten tefachim or not?
– Practical difference: If one goes more than 12 mil above ten, it is a Torah-level doubt (stringent); less than 12 mil is a rabbinic doubt (lenient).
– However: If the pillars/platforms are four by four and ten high – this is a private domain, and there is techumin certainly, because it’s not “above ten” in that sense.
– In practice the question of above ten tefachim is more relevant for a ship or such situations.
—
Halacha: One Who Spent Shabbat in a Pen/Enclosure/Cave – Shevita in a Private Domain That Is Not a City
Rambam (source: Mishna): “One who spent Shabbat in a pen in the desert or in an enclosure or in a cave – he may walk through all of it and outside it two thousand amot in every direction.”
Explanation
Whoever is spending Shabbat in a stable/enclosure in the desert – he may walk in the entire private domain, plus two thousand amot around it.
Novel Points
– Not only a city receives the law of “he may walk through all of it + two thousand amot” – every private domain receives the same law. The pen/enclosure/cave is treated like a city regarding techumin.
—
Halacha: One Who Spent Shabbat in an Open Field – Shevita in a Karmelit/Open Place
Rambam: “One who spent Shabbat in an open field… even if he did not sit there… he has to walk from his place two thousand amot in every direction in a square.”
Explanation
Whoever is spending Shabbat in an open field (karmelit) – he has two thousand amot from his place, but not the entire field.
Novel Points
1. Distinction between a private domain and a field: In a private domain/city – one receives the entire city/domain plus two thousand amot. In a field – one receives only two thousand amot from one’s place. The field is not considered one unit.
2. Even without kinyan shevita: Even when one has not acquired shevita (didn’t intentionally say “here is my place”), one has two thousand amot. Kinyan shevita requires intent, one cannot sleep through it – but even without it, one receives two thousand amot.
3. Two levels: (a) with kinyan shevita – one explicitly says “here is my place”; (b) without kinyan shevita – one slept, one didn’t have intent – also receives two thousand amot.
—
Halacha: Measurement Through Average Steps in a Field
Rambam (source: Gemara): “He walks two thousand average steps, and this shall be for you the Shabbat boundary.”
Explanation
In a field where one cannot formally measure, one may count 2,000 average steps as the Shabbat boundary.
Novel Points
1. This is a leniency, not the essential law: 2,000 average steps is not the same as 2,000 amot – it’s only approximately the same. The true way of measuring is with a rope (chevel) and other formal measurement laws (chapter 28).
2. Why only in a field? Because in a city or private domain one already knows the boundary – it’s a fixed place, people live there, it’s already been measured. But in a field one doesn’t have other information, therefore the Sages permitted relying on average steps.
3. There are positions that say the permission is only for the sake of a mitzvah.
4. Distinction between measuring on Shabbat and counting steps: Counting steps is not “measuring” in the halachic sense (measuring on Shabbat is a different topic).
5. Question: May one rely on average steps also in a private domain where one doesn’t know the measure? It’s not clearly explained, but the reasoning is that in a private domain/city one knows better because it’s a fixed place.
—
Halacha 6 – When the Techum Ends in the Middle of a City or Private Domain
Rambam: “The two thousand amot that he has to walk… if his measurement ended within a dwelling or ship or cave… he only walks that entire measurement, and we don’t say since he entered the measurement within a private domain he may walk through all of it.”
Explanation
When a person is outside a city and his two thousand amot end in the middle of a city or private domain, he may not walk the entire city/private domain — he stops at the end of his two thousand amot.
Novel Points
1. Distinction between “initially” and “finally”: The principle that a city is considered like four amot applies only initially — when the person is spending Shabbat in the city. But finally — when he arrives in the middle of a city within his techum — he does not receive the entire city. He stops where his two thousand amot end, even in the middle of a house.
2. The reasoning: When he is spending Shabbat in a city, the entire city is his four amot. But when he is not spending Shabbat there, he only receives his two thousand amot — the city has no special status for him.
—
Halacha 6 (continued) – When the Entire City/Private Domain Is “Absorbed” Within His Techum
Rambam: “But if that private domain was absorbed within his two thousand amot — all of that private domain is like four amot, and we complete for him the remainder.”
Example from the Rambam: “If he had one thousand amot from his place of shevita, and outside the city up to a city or cave full of one thousand amot or less than one thousand — he measures the entire city or cave as if it were four amot, and walks outside it and we complete for him to one thousand amot minus four amot.”
Explanation
If the entire city/cave/private domain ends within his two thousand amot, the entire city is counted as only four amot, and he receives the rest of his techum after the city.
Novel Points
1. The calculation is literal: The four amot are taken seriously — he subtracts exactly four amot from what remains. In this example: he has 1,000 amot to the city, the city is 1,000 amot, he may walk through the entire city (because it becomes four amot), and afterward he receives another 996 amot (1,000 minus four amot).
2. Condition: This applies only when the entire city is absorbed within his techum. If even one amah of the city goes outside his techum, he does not receive the law of “absorbed” — and he stops in the middle of the city at his techum’s end. This is a great loss, because then he cannot even go to the end of the city.
—
Halacha 7 – One Whose Measurement Ended in Half the City: Carrying vs. Walking
Rambam: “One whose measurement ended in half the city — he may not walk more than half the city, for he has only four amot… but all that place is permitted for carrying, and it is permitted to take out and bring in within it.”
Explanation
Whoever’s techum ends in the middle of a city may not walk farther than his four amot, but he may carry in the entire private domain/city (when there is an eruv or private domain).
Novel Points
1. Fundamental innovation: Hotza’ah can be permitted even when walking is forbidden. The Shabbat boundary forbids walking, but not hotza’ah. Therefore, if he is in a private domain with an eruv, he may carry in the entire private domain, even though he may not walk there.
2. Practically how: He can carry through throwing or via another person, because the object goes a different way than the person’s walking.
3. Objects and techumin: There is a law of techumin for objects — objects also acquire shevita. The Rambam is speaking here of objects that are already in the city (not his objects that came with him), because his objects have the same techum as he does.
—
Halacha 8 – Gentiles Surrounded a Field with a Partition on Shabbat
Rambam: “If he was sitting in a field and had only two thousand amot, and gentiles surrounded it with a partition on Shabbat — if they made it for dwelling, it is permitted to carry in all of it, and he has only two thousand amot.”
Explanation
A Jew is sitting in a field with a two thousand amot techum. Gentiles make a partition around the field on Shabbat. If the partition is for dwelling, he may carry in the entire partition, but he may still only walk two thousand amot.
Novel Points
1. Shevita is acquired on erev Shabbat: When Shabbat entered he only had two thousand amot in the field. The partition that was made afterward doesn’t change his techum. But regarding carrying — because now there is a valid partition for dwelling, it becomes a private domain, and one may carry in the entire partition.
2. The same principle as halacha 7: Hotza’ah/carrying is permitted even when walking is forbidden due to techumin.
3. [Digression: A gentile who does something for a Jew on Shabbat] A question is raised from chapter 6 (Laws of Shabbat) that when a gentile does a melacha for a Jew on Shabbat, one may not benefit from it. What is the law when a gentile makes a partition that permits a halachic matter (carrying) for the Jew? This is a different kind of benefit than a physical benefit — here a halachic situation is changed. This remains an open question.
4. A partition made on Shabbat (chapter 16 halacha 22): A partition that is erected on Shabbat has laws of benefiting from melacha on Shabbat — intentionally forbidden, unintentionally permitted. If benefiting from melacha on Shabbat is forbidden, this should also apply when a gentile makes a partition for Jews. In practice when gentiles make partitions for Jews, it is in a manner where there is no building involved — they set up things in a way that is not a Torah-level melacha.
—
Halacha: One Who Was Coming on the Road to Enter a City
Rambam: “One who was coming on the road to enter a city… if he entered within two thousand amot before Shabbat began… even though he was not in the city on erev Shabbat — he acquires shevita in the city, and may walk through all of it and outside it two thousand amot in every direction.”
Explanation
Someone who was on the way to a city, and he entered the two thousand amot of the city before Shabbat, he receives the entire city plus two thousand amot in every direction, even though he wasn’t actually in the city.
Novel Points
1. Innovation regarding intent: The innovation is that since he has intent to enter the city, he is considered as if he is already in the city, even though he is still outside. Without this intent he would not receive this law — as we see from someone who lives 1,000 amot outside a city, who doesn’t receive the city’s techum but rather his own techum from where he stands.
2. Proof from the sleeping person: The Rambam brings the case of “one who was coming to the city and slept on the way and didn’t know” — he fell asleep on the way and woke up on Shabbat in the techum of the city. Even though he didn’t know he was already in the techum, he can enter the city and use the entire city plus two thousand amot. Why? Because he had intent to enter, and he is de facto in the techum — both together make him “as if he entered it.” This confirms the principle that intent plays a key role in establishing shevita.
—
Halacha: One Who Went Outside the Techum Even One Amah
Rambam: “One who went outside the techum even one amah may not enter… for the four amot that a person has begin from the place where he stands… he sits in his place and only walks within four amot from where his feet stand and outward.”
Explanation
Whoever goes outside even one amah from his Shabbat boundary may not return. He receives only four amot from where he stands — and only outward (farther away), not back in.
Novel Points
1. Four amot go only in one direction: The Rambam holds that a person’s four amot is a “square” in front of him, not around the person. This is consistent with what the Rambam also holds regarding four amot of a public domain.
2. Question about turning around: If four amot is only in front of him, what happens if the person turns around? He may indeed turn around, but he may not go back into the city — this is the innovation.
3. Dispute between Rambam and Ra’avad: The Ra’avad disagrees — he holds that if one went out less than four amot, one can still return. This fits with the Ra’avad’s position that four amot go on all sides around the person, not only in front like the Rambam.
—
Halacha: One Who Was Outside the Techum of the City When It Got Dark
Rambam: “One who was outside the techum of the city when it got dark, even one amah, may not enter.”
Explanation
Whoever was outside the techum of the city when Shabbat entered, even only one amah, may not enter.
Novel Points
– “One foot outside the techum”: The expression “one foot” is a hint to a leniency — if only one foot is outside the techum, it doesn’t yet mean he is outside. But one amah completely outside — yes, that is already outside the techum.
– One cannot argue that he still receives four amot of a person beyond the 2,000 amot. Outside the techum means completely outside the techum.
—
Halacha: One Who Went Outside the Techum Unintentionally
Rambam: “One who went outside the techum unintentionally, such as gentiles testified about him or an evil spirit — he has only four amot.”
Explanation
Someone who went outside the techum not intentionally — e.g., gentiles took him out, or “an evil spirit” — has only four amot.
Novel Points
1. What does “evil spirit” mean? Not a wind that blew him, but rather a kind of insanity/psychotic state that drove him to go out without intent. It is worse than a simple evil inclination.
2. Not a penalty but a law: That one receives only four amot is not a penalty for intentional violation — it is a law that applies even unintentionally. Therefore even “unintentionally” he has only four amot.
3. Returning doesn’t help (intentionally): If he returned intentionally (with his own will) back into the two thousand amot, he doesn’t get back his techum — he remains with only four amot. He has already lost it.
—
Halacha 12 (continued) – Went Outside the Techum Unintentionally and Returned Unintentionally
Novel Points
The key principle: If he went outside the techum unintentionally (accidentally, gentiles, evil spirit), and he returned to his original techum in the same manner — “just as he went out so he returned” — unintentionally, it is as if he never left, and he gets back his entire techum.
The key is when the person “remembers” (regains his awareness). If he remembers outside the techum — he is stuck there (four amot, or the entire private domain if he is in one). If he remembers only after he is already completely back in his original techum — he gets everything back.
Another innovation — private domain: If the gentiles placed him in a private domain (pen and enclosure, surrounded by a wall), he has the entire city to walk. This is consistent with the principle that whoever arrives unintentionally in a private domain receives the entire domain.
—
Halacha 13 – Went Out Intentionally and Returned Unintentionally
Rambam: “One who went outside the techum intentionally, even though he returned unintentionally, such as gentiles or bandits returned him, he has only four amot. And not only that, but even if he went outside the techum intentionally, even though he went out for the sake of a private domain, such as a pen and enclosure, he has only four amot.”
Explanation
One-sided unintentionality doesn’t help. It must be completely unintentional — either in going out or in returning — in order for him to get back his techum. Went out intentionally, even if he returned unintentionally — stuck at four amot. And even if he went out intentionally into a private domain (pen and enclosure) — only four amot.
Novel Points
That one receives an entire private domain is only when one arrived there unintentionally. Went out intentionally into a private domain — doesn’t help.
—
Halacha 14 – One Who Sails on a Ship
Rambam: “One who sails on a ship, even though the ship goes outside the Shabbat boundary, he may walk through all of it. And we don’t view him as if he is walking outside the techum, but rather as if he is standing in one place.”
Explanation
A person on a ship may walk the entire ship, even though the ship travels outside the techum. We consider it as if he is standing in one place — his domain travels with him.
Novel Points
– The same principle would perhaps apply to a car (of course there are other problems with driving on Shabbat).
– Question: What happens when he goes out of the ship? — This has to do with techumin above ten and other questions.
– Perhaps this is also based on the principle that he arrived unintentionally in a private domain.
—
Halacha – Went Out Unintentionally and Was Surrounded by a Partition
Rambam: One who went outside the techum unintentionally, and was surrounded by a partition on Shabbat — he may walk through all of it. If his techum is absorbed within the partition — since their boundaries mixed, he may enter his techum.
Explanation
When a person went out unintentionally and a partition was made on Shabbat around the place where he is, he may walk the entire partition. If the partition reaches into his original techum (absorbed), the entire partition becomes an extension of his techum, and he gets back his entire original techum — as if he returned unintentionally.
Novel Points — Detailed Example
A gentile drags a Jew 3,000 amot outside the city. The same Shabbat a second gentile builds a partition of 2,000 amot that reaches into his original techum. He may walk the entire partition. When he reaches the part of the partition that is already in his original techum — this is as if he returned unintentionally, and he gets back his entire old techum.
—
Halacha – Needed to Relieve Himself
Rambam: “Anyone who has only four amot… if he needs to relieve himself, he may go out, distance himself… and relieve himself and return to his place.”
Explanation
Someone who has only four amot, if he needs to go out for bodily needs, he may distance himself (to a more modest place) and must immediately return. He doesn’t acquire a new place.
Novel Points
1. If while going to relieve himself he enters into some of the techum that he had before (before going out), we consider it as if he never left, and he gets back his entire techum.
2. However: This only helps when he originally went out unintentionally (accidentally, gentiles, etc.). Someone who went out intentionally — even though we let him go out to relieve himself, he doesn’t get back his techum by entering his old techum.
3. Note: The entire techum (2,000 amot) is rabbinic, and the Sages play with the rules according to how they understand is proper. From the Torah the measure is 12 mil, and all these leniencies are “the power of their words” — because it’s rabbinic.
—
Halacha – Went Out with Permission of Beit Din
Rambam: “Anyone who went out with permission of beit din, such as witnesses who came to testify about the sighting of the moon, and similarly one who went out… to save, for a matter of mitzvah… and he has two thousand amot in every direction at that place where he arrived. If he arrived at a city — he is like the people of the city, and he has two thousand amot in every direction outside the city.”
Explanation
Someone who goes out with permission of beit din (testimony of the new month, saving lives, the scapegoat to Azazel, other mitzvot) — he doesn’t receive only four amot like a regular one who goes outside the techum, but rather he receives 2,000 amot from where he arrives. If he arrives at a city, he becomes like one of the people of the city — he receives the entire city plus two thousand amot around it.
Novel Points
1. The distinction between one who goes out with permission and one who goes out without permission: The measure is drastically different — four amot for a regular one who goes outside the techum, versus two thousand amot in every direction for one who goes out with permission.
2. “He is like the people of the city”: When he arrives at a city, he doesn’t only receive two thousand amot from where he stands, but rather he becomes literally like a resident of the city — he receives the entire city as his place, plus two thousand amot around the city.
—
Halacha: “And If They Told Him on the Way the Mitzvah Has Already Been Done”
Rambam: “And if they told him on the way the mitzvah that you are going for has already been done — he has two thousand amot in every direction.”
Explanation
Even if they tell him on the way that the mitzvah has already been done, he still receives two thousand amot, not only four amot.
Novel Points
1. The principle — “with permission” not “agency of mitzvah”: The law is not because he is an agent of a mitzvah (which would mean that when the mitzvah is already done, his status falls away). The law is because he went out with permission — his going outside the techum was permitted from the outset. Therefore, even when the mitzvah is no longer relevant, his status as “one who went out with permission” remains. It is compared to “a good thought, the Holy One blessed be He joins it to the deed” — he went out with good intent, and that alone gives him the status.
2. This is not like “went out by force”: The mechanism is different — it is a law of “with permission,” not of “by force.”
—
Halacha: “And If He Returned to His Place As If He Never Left”
Rambam: “And if he returned to his place — as if he never left.”
Explanation
If he goes back to his original place, he is as if he never went out — he gets back his full techum.
Novel Points
How does this work practically: He is less than 4,000 amot away from his city (he didn’t arrive at any other city). He receives two thousand amot in every direction from where he stands. If those two thousand amot reach into his original two thousand amot (his techum), he can return, and then — “as if he never left” — he gets back his entire original techum.
—
Discussion: Contradiction Between Chapter 27 and Chapter 3 Regarding Returning with Their Weapons
Novel Points
1. A contradiction is shown: In chapter 27 (techumin) it seems that those who go out to war may always return with their weapons. But in chapter 3 (saving lives) there is a different reason — there it seems that one may only return with weapons if one has fear of staying there (danger). This is a contradiction — is it always permitted, or only in danger?
2. Distinction between techum and hotza’ah: It is suggested that chapter 27 speaks about Shabbat boundary (rabbinic), and chapter 3 speaks about hotza’ah (Torah-level). But: if techum is rabbinic, it should be more lenient, not more stringent — so why would one need a special reasoning?
3. The reasoning of “lest they calculate in the future”: In chapter 3 the reason why one may return with weapons is — so that one won’t calculate in the future (one won’t want to go save because one will have to leave the weapons). Question: Why wouldn’t the same reasoning also apply to techum?
4. [Digression: The Gemara’s story with gentiles:] In the Gemara there is a story that the gentiles already “knew the trick” — that Jews leave their weapons when they may not carry them back, and the gentiles ran after and grabbed the weapons. This is the practical background for why Chazal permitted carrying weapons back.
5. A possible answer: The Rambam perhaps holds that in war it is always permitted to return with weapons (because one goes to war, and on the way back one cannot go without a weapon — it’s a practical danger). But this remains open.
—
The lecture concludes with the remark that this is the essence of chapter 27 — the laws of techumin, with the various laws of shevita, going outside the techum intentionally and unintentionally
, returning, one who goes out with permission of beit din, and the practical differences between walking and carrying.
📝 Full Transcript
Chapter 27: Laws of Techumin – The Prohibition of Going Outside the Techum on Shabbat
Introduction to the Chapter
Speaker 1:
Welcome to the Rambam shiur. Today we are taking chapter 27 of Hilchot Shabbat. The Rambam shiur is dedicated by our friend the benefactor Rabbi Yoel Leib Wertzberger, and what is said through the rabbis, the geonim, the tzaddikim among us.
Right. Today now is Sunday afternoon, when all the Jews and gentiles in all of America are sitting by the beach and hanging out. And the wise ones, us with our friends all who listen and learn with us, are sitting by the Rambam and by the Gemara, and we’re learning holy Torah, which is much better than sitting by the beach. Good.
So, basically, at the beginning of Hilchot Shabbat we learned that there are five mitzvot in Hilchot Shabbat. Now we’re coming… we’ve already finished essentially all the laws of “lishbot bashevi’i shelo la’asot bo melacha” (to rest on the seventh day not to do work on it). We also learned “shelo la’anosh b’Shabbat” (not to punish on Shabbat), in a previous chapter, I mean two chapters back, yes, we learned the lav (negative commandment).
Now we’re going to learn the fourth lav, the fourth mitzvah, not the fourth lav, the fourth… the third lav, but the fourth mitzvah, which is “shelo latzet chutz l’gvul b’Shabbat” (not to go outside the boundary on Shabbat), as it was stated in the introduction to the laws. And there are two chapters about this. The next chapters, 27 and 28, discuss the laws of techumin. Chapter 27 discusses what is the prohibition of going outside the techum, what is the measure and what is the prohibition. And chapter 28, the second chapter, discusses all the details of how one measures the techum. Because there is a techum, it has a certain measure, there are many interesting laws about how one measures the techum, one makes squares, and all kinds of laws about how one rounds up and rounds down, and so forth.
After that the next two chapters, 29 and 30, discuss the last mitzvah of Shabbat, which is “lekadesh et hayom” (to sanctify the day), the matter of kiddush, and the matter of oneg Shabbat (Shabbat delight) is chapter 30. And with that we will have finished Hilchot Shabbat. We will have already finished all the melachot, that is except for the matter of techum. It’s not a melacha, but an extra thing.
Speaker 2:
An extra thing. Right.
Speaker 1:
So, it’s interesting. You could say it’s like similar to hotza’ah (carrying out), going out, but it’s not the same thing. So, we’re going to learn what the Rambam says, yes? Let’s learn a bit.
Halacha 1: The Basic Law of Techumin – D’oraita and D’rabbanan
Speaker 1:
“One who goes outside the techum of the city on Shabbat” – if someone goes outside the techum, “the city” always means in the Rambam the town, it doesn’t mean what we call a country that contains within it several cities. Someone goes outside the city on Shabbat, “lokeh” – he receives lashes. This means it’s d’oraita (from the Torah), and it’s a lav. “Shene’emar” (as it is stated), it says in the verse, “al yetzei ish mimkomo bayom hashevi’i” (let no man go out from his place on the seventh day).
What is this “mkomo” (his place)? It’s not going out from a place, it’s not going out from four amot, because that was at the place where they gathered the manna. So what does “al yetzei ish mimkomo” mean here? “Makom zeh” (this place), the place that one is speaking about not going outside of, “techum ha’ir” (the city’s boundary). You should not go outside the techum of the city.
The Measure of Techum – A Hint in the Torah
And now you’re going to ask, ah, what is the techum of the city? The Rambam says like this, and these are interesting words, let’s pay attention: “V’lo natnah Torah shi’ur l’techum zeh” (and the Torah did not give a measure for this techum) – the Torah didn’t give any clear measure for this techum. What does this mean? It’s clearly, this is clearly d’oraita, it’s not only d’oraita, but it’s stated clearly in the verse, as it explains itself that “al yetzei ish mimkomo” doesn’t mean, for example the Ramban says altogether that it doesn’t mean this halachically, it means the prohibition of hotza’ah. No, it means going out, and “makom” doesn’t mean anything other than the techum of the city.
So, whatever the techum of a city is, not only of the city, right? A city is one thing, and the techum is outside the city, right? So, the “makom” means the city plus its techum, plus the area around the city. That’s what it says. What doesn’t it say? It doesn’t say how large the techum is. A city you know what it is, but how large is the techum?
“Lo natnah Torah shi’ur l’techum zeh, ela chachamim he’etiku.” “He’etiku” is an interesting expression. He doesn’t say that the Sages enacted, he doesn’t say that the Sages received. They “he’etiku,” meaning like transferred, transmitted, carried. “Ma’atik” usually means carried from one place to another. Received, perhaps halacha l’Moshe miSinai or the like, they received that techum zeh, this techum that we’re talking about here, the techum of the city, is outside twelve mil.
Where does twelve mil come from? He says, keneged machaneh Yisrael (corresponding to the camp of Israel). When Moshe Rabbeinu speaks to the Jews, he tells them to go ish al mkomo (each man to his place), what is the place he’s talking about? The Jews are in the camp of Israel, and the camp of Israel is twelve mil large. Yes, it says in other places how one makes the calculation that it’s twelve mil.
And then he says, when Moshe Rabbeinu says “lo tetze’u chutz lamachaneh” (don’t go out outside the camp), don’t go outside the camp. It’s interesting, because outside the camp is still the camp, and if you have a city, I don’t know why, but the simple meaning means to say… Before this the Rambam says that it’s not stated. If it were stated clearly, one would say that it’s stated. It’s not stated. It says “ish al mkomo.” One understands that makom means techum of the city, but how large is the techum? The Sages said based on such a hint, there is a hint that the camp of Israel was twelve mil large, meaning techum of the city, don’t go out further from your city chutz lamachaneh, that is like a measure of how much the camp of Israel is.
So it comes out that d’oraita one may not go out more than twelve mil from one’s city.
Discussion: Why Lokeh If It’s Only a Hint?
Speaker 2:
And for this one receives lashes. And who says lokeh? It says one receives lashes.
Speaker 1:
Yes, it’s not so clear. If this is only a hint in the verse, why isn’t this d’oraita? Why does he say “lav shenittan l’tashlumim” (a prohibition given for payment)? But you answered, right? Yes, it doesn’t fall out so clearly. But he said that because it’s not true that one may not go out chutz lamachaneh. He only says that this is the measure of how far one may go out from the camp. So it’s not stated, it’s only a hint. Also true is like we just caught, it’s not stated at all in the Torah that the camp of Israel is twelve mil. That’s also a calculation that the Sages had for some reason.
The Rabbinic Measure – Two Thousand Amot
Speaker 1:
And from the words of the Sages, the Sages enacted less than twelve mil, they said “shelo yetze’u chutz la’ir ela ad alpayim amah” (that they should not go out outside the city except up to two thousand amot). They went from twelve mil to less, how much? One mil, which is two thousand amot. “Aval chutz l’alpayim asur, she’alpayim hu migrash ha’ir.” That is, this is also the source, the techum of the city and migrash of the city, which was given to the Levites, that is the boundary around the city, the place that is still considered to belong to the city, this is also the source in the verse.
Rabbi Akiva, who said that techumin is d’oraita, held that it’s stated in the verse, it’s stated in the verse in Parshat Masei, yes, “umadotem michutz la’ir alpayim amah” (and you shall measure from outside the city two thousand amot). What do you see? That outside a city, he learned in the verse, outside a city there is a migrash, like the area that the city uses, there one can have animals in the city, whatever it is, it’s an empty area, not a built-up area, apart from the laws of the cities that were given to the Levites, where it says there that there was outside two thousand amot of migrash. Rabbi Akiva argued that here it explicitly states that techumin is d’oraita two thousand amot.
But the Rambam… Rabbi Akiva learned that “umadotem” is talking about Shabbat, “umadotem” you should measure for Shabbat. So he had a source, yes. I don’t know where he learned that there, but Rabbi Akiva said techumin is d’oraita, one must look what is the source. The Gemara brings it incidentally, Rabbi Akiva, the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is techumin d’oraita, and his source is the migrash of the city.
But the Rambam doesn’t rule like Rabbi Akiva, he rules yes like a Yerushalmi which says that even the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Akiva say that techumin is d’oraita with twelve mil, but the measure of two thousand amot is still like the migrash of the city that’s stated in the Torah. From this perhaps the Rambam took the measure, or it makes sense because the migrash of the city is two thousand amot, and so forth.
So this is the main matter that techumin according to the Rambam, twelve mil is d’oraita, two thousand mil is d’rabbanan. And the other Rishonim, the Ramban and others, disagree, they say that techumin is always d’rabbanan, even two thousand mil. One must know halachically how we rule, I think we rule, we still bring both opinions, one must know.
Halacha 2: Practical Ramifications – Three Levels
Speaker 1:
Nu, nimtzata lamad (so you have learned), it comes out, that is, since we’ve now said, what he wants to say is, halacha l’ma’aseh (in practical terms) three things come out. That is, what do I mean to say that there is a prohibition of techumin? What is the main prohibition of techumin? There is first of all a matter of a city, then there is outside the city, then there is twelve mil outside the city. Right?
The Rambam says, in chapter 27 halacha 1 the halacha comes out like this, “One who walks outside the techum on Shabbat lokeh makat mardut (receives lashes of rebellion), for the entire city is like four amot.” In the city itself one may walk, there is no prohibition of walking too many steps, because in the city one may walk even if it’s a very large city, even if it were like Nineveh, even if it’s as large as Nineveh, as it says about it “a great city to God,” a very large city, one may, whether it is surrounded by a wall or not surrounded by a wall, there’s no difference whether the city has a wall or not.
Speaker 2:
So you shouldn’t think that “makom” means that it’s something smaller.
Speaker 1:
Yes, but I say “makom,” we spoke about this earlier, “makom” means the city. That’s first of all, in a city one may walk.
Two Thousand Amot Squared – The Corners
“And likewise one who walks outside the city, on Shabbat one may walk two thousand amot in every direction.” And how does one measure the two thousand amot? One makes it “alpayim amah meruba’ot k’tavla meruva’at” (two thousand amot squared like a square board), like a box. Why does one do this? “Kedei sheyishtaker et hazaviyot” (in order to gain the corners), so one should also gain the corners, because the city doesn’t usually end in an exact place. Even when not, even when the city is exactly square, soon we’ll see in the next chapter how one can make even greater innovations with the square.
But simply, like we learned by the four amot of hotza’ah, of “he’evir arba amot birshut harabim” (carried four amot in the public domain), right? A square of four, at the corner, if one goes diagonally, it’s more. Here you say that one makes a whole square of two thousand amot around the city, it comes out that one may walk even further than two thousand amot essentially at the corners. That is “sheyishtaker et hazaviyot.” A bit more. Soon we’ll see later the numbers.
Makat Mardut and Lashes from the Torah
“And if he went out beyond two thousand amot, even one amah, lokeh makat mardut.” Like every time when one transgresses a d’rabbanan one receives makat mardut. “Up to twelve mil.” The law of makat mardut goes until twelve mil, because that’s d’rabbanan. “But if he went out from the city more than twelve mil,” if one went out from the city more than twelve mil, even one amah, even with one amah more than twelve mil, then lokeh min haTorah (receives lashes from the Torah), because then it becomes d’oraita.
Discussion: The Rambam’s Approach in Teshuvat
Speaker 2:
But good. Interesting, earlier when the Rambam said the teshuvat, he also had something like this, something a mixture of d’oraita with d’rabbanan. The essential thing is stated in the Torah, but…
Speaker 1:
No, it was only stated.
Speaker 2:
It wasn’t stated like that in the Rambam.
Speaker 1:
No, it wasn’t stated.
Halacha 2 (Continued): Going Out Beyond Two Thousand Amot – Punishment of Makat Mardut and D’oraita
Speaker 1: You say that one makes a whole square of two thousand amot in the city, it comes out that one walks even further than two thousand amot essentially at the corners. It stands sheer across like it is. A bit more. We’ll see later the numbers.
Further, “And if he went out beyond two thousand amot, they strike him with makat mardut.” Like every time when one transgresses a d’rabbanan one receives makat mardut. “Up to twelve mil.” The law of makat mardut goes until twelve mil, because that’s d’rabbanan. “But if he went out from the city more than twelve mil,” if one went out from the city more than twelve mil, “even one amah,” even with one amah more than twelve mil, “then he receives lashes from the Torah,” because then it becomes d’oraita.
Discussion: The Rambam’s Approach in Mixture of D’oraita with D’rabbanan
Speaker 2: Ah, good. Interesting. Earlier, when the Rambam said the teshuvot, he also had something like this… it was different, but he also had something like this that it’s a mixture of d’oraita with d’rabbanan.
Speaker 1: No. The essential thing is stated in the Torah, and then it can be the Rabbanan added. But there everything is d’rabbanan there. And there it comes out that although it begins with a verse, here it begins with a verse and it is indeed d’oraita, a part of it is d’oraita. Rabbanan can have verses from today until tomorrow, it’s called asmachta and so forth. The Rambam doesn’t hold that there is essentially a d’oraita and any shevut. The two thousand amot is altogether d’rabbanan. Even the verse “teshuvot” that the Rambam said, he didn’t say it’s d’oraita. He only said there’s a source, a hint. Approximately like here you have “migrash ha’ir,” let’s say, is a hint for the Rabbanan, but it doesn’t make it d’oraita. I’m certain that this is the opinion of the Rambam.
Halacha 3: Techumin Above Ten Tefachim
Speaker 1: Now, let’s go further. “One who walks outside the techum.” Let’s know an interesting inquiry. What happens if someone walks in a forbidden world? For example, someone built for him a platform in his walking high. Let’s say, he has a platform is more complicated. He jumps on pillars that are higher than ten tefachim. He jumps on pillars that are ten high. “And they are divided four by four.” If each one is four by four, each one becomes a reshut hayachid (private domain). Four by four amot, right? Not because it becomes a reshut hayachid, because it becomes a separate domain. It’s not like gud asik (extend upward) above ten tefachim. Right, so he’ll say.
There’s a halacha with this, because here there’s a doubt. What is the doubt? The doubt is, there is techumin above ten, and there isn’t techumin above ten. There is a law of techumin higher than ten tefachim. There’s a doubt d’oraita, and therefore the techumin are now from the Torah. If one goes more than twelve mil, but there it would be a doubt d’oraita. Less would be a doubt d’rabbanan. So it comes out apparently. There’s a doubt.
“But if the place has four by four,” if however the pillars are indeed high four by four, then it’s high and wide, high ten. If however the place outside the pillars are actually platforms built high four by four, it’s not called at all above ten tefachim, because so comes out the practical halacha, and there there is a prohibition of techumin, and there he is indeed liable d’oraita if he walks more than two thousand amot.
The law of above ten doesn’t really apply practically in the manner of pillars, but when one travels in a ship or such a thing. Even when one travels in a wagon is a different discussion, there are other things. But it’s also there, true, if there’s also such a thing called above ten, even normal cases, not only when one travels in a ship, but simply that he walks on, what’s it called, on pillars.
Discussion: Techumin in a Karmelit
Speaker 2: The question is about a karmelit whether there is techumin. If one is dry one is not liable, when one is wet then one is liable. What’s the problem? What’s the problem with Shabbat techumin with carrying? The place is a reshut hayachid now. I mean, if there is four by four and it’s ten high.
Speaker 1: If it’s d’oraita a reshut hayachid, then Shabbat techumin which is in a reshut hayachid is no problem. There the laws, how large it is, how it becomes a reshut hayachid, perhaps there are different laws.
Speaker 2: Very good. Further the Rambam says like this, one who rested… do you have the Mishna? One who rested in a pen. Very good.
Halacha 4: One Who Rested in a Pen – Resting in a Reshut Hayachid That Is Not a City
Speaker 1: So this is, this is talking generally when one lives in a city. In a normal case, let’s already put on. In a normal case, a person lives in a city, he has the Shabbat techum, yes? Now we can learn what happens when one doesn’t live in a city. That is, one lives yes, but when Shabbat is he’s not in a city. So what happened? Apparently the two thousand amot originally is talking about a city, and a person lives in a city and outside there is the migrash of the city and so forth. But what if it’s not so?
“One who spent Shabbos in a pen”
“One who spent Shabbos in a pen (dir),” and a pen means a stable, yes, a place where animals are kept. “In a pen that is in the desert, or in a sahar or in a cave,” dir and sahar are the same thing, two types of stables. “Or in a cave” or in a cave. A stable means that it’s an empty open place, right? Or perhaps it’s actually an enclosed stable. It means that it’s a place where animals move around. There’s no difference, the point is that it’s a reshus hayachid. A place that is a reshus hayachid, “he may walk through all of it,” he can go throughout the entire pen, “and outside of it two thousand amos in every direction, squared.” Around the entire reshus he adds on, he can add two thousand amos. That is, the pen gets the same law as a city, that he can go throughout the entire city, and he can go another two thousand amos.
Very good. So any reshus hayachid, it’s not only a city that has the law of a city, rather any reshus hayachid, one gets two thousand amos around the reshus hayachid where you were on Shabbos.
One Who Spent Shabbos in a Valley – Shevisa in a Karmelis
Speaker 1: What about someone who is not sitting in any reshus hayachid, but just in the desert, right? Yes. Or “one who spent Shabbos in a valley (bik’ah),” a karmelis, he is in a karmelis, “even if he did not sit there to acquire shevisa, even though he did not acquire shevisa,” even if he didn’t acquire shevisa, when he acquires shevisa it’s certain that when he acquires shevisa he acquires shevisa for two thousand amos in every direction. But even if he didn’t acquire shevisa, it’s the same thing, “he may walk from his place two thousand amos in every direction, squared.” The bik’ah is not like a reshus hayachid where we say he may go throughout the entire bik’ah, rather in the bik’ah he may go two thousand amos. Right, so in other words there’s another chiddush. That when one is in a city or in a reshus hayachid, one has the entire city or the entire reshus hayachid plus two thousand amos, and when one is in a bik’ah one has only two thousand amos.
Right, good, so here there’s another chiddush, not only that even in a reshus hayachid one can go throughout the entire place plus two thousand amos, but a third chiddush, that even when one is not in any reshus at all, you’re in a bik’ah, wherever you are, wherever you are spending Shabbos, you have two thousand amos in every direction, even without any place to be spending Shabbos. And here there are two levels, here there’s one, you are acquiring shevisa, as we’ll see later when it will say, what does acquiring shevisa mean? That means you say, “I am spending Shabbos here, this is my home, and I can go two thousand amos from this.” Or even if you’re not spending Shabbos, you were sleeping, what does it mean you were sleeping? You’re not spending Shabbos, you don’t know, you don’t have awareness, various things, acquiring shevisa requires awareness, one can’t be sleeping, we’ll see later. But even not, two thousand amos one always has.
Measuring Through Average Steps in a Bik’ah
Speaker 1: So it’s very simple, a city has a techum, we’ll see in the next chapter we’ll see laws about this. One can’t, I mean, if one doesn’t know perhaps one can, but usually a city has, as we said, a migrash, or people have already calculated what the techum is, they’ve placed a sign. This is the normal case of a city, we’ll see explicitly in chapter 28 the laws of how it works. Now, if one doesn’t know, but a normal city one does know, and there are even laws, one can rely if someone said that he remembers that they measured, there are various ways how it works there. When you’re in a bik’ah, you don’t have a place where people live where they’ve already calculated how far it is, so then…
A bik’ah is not a place where… no, one knowledge, that is, the one knowledge, when you’re spending Shabbos in a bik’ah you don’t know, because you don’t have… if he’s spending Shabbos in any random place, he must calculate from there, right? No, he’s speaking of a common case, there are in other places, in a reshus hayachid or in a city that has an eruv, around that people know approximately the techum Shabbos, it’s not in a bik’ah. And how does one know? “Walking two thousand average steps,” he should walk two thousand average steps, “and this shall be your techum Shabbos,” this is the techum of two thousand amos.
Discussion: Is Average Steps a Lechatchila Measurement?
Speaker 2: Oh, I think that this is not just a… this is not advice, because actually perhaps one can rely on this.
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, one might think, there are better ways to know what the techum is, and this is not how the law is. If in such a case he may rely on this type of measurement, it’s not a true measurement. When one measures truly, one doesn’t fulfill it with this type of measurement. One must calculate with a rope, whatever, we’ll see how one truly calculates. There’s no difference, two thousand amos and two thousand average steps are not the same thing. It’s approximately the same thing. If you’re in a stuck situation, the Chachamim let you measure this way, “and this shall be the techum Shabbos.” The Gemara says, “and this shall be the techum Shabbos,” this is your techum Shabbos, but it’s not truly the techum Shabbos, it’s not a way of measuring. The way of measuring has other laws of how one must truly measure. Lechatchila.
Speaker 2: Can you say that this is bedieved?
Speaker 1: Bedieved, a normal person, average steps is approximately two thousand amos, one may rely on this when one doesn’t have another… one doesn’t know something else. Or perhaps in a bik’ah, perhaps in a city one may not rely on this, we need to see.
Speaker 2: In a reshus hayachid, you’re comparing the whole time to a city, you say that a city, around a city there is a known…
Speaker 1: Yes, yes.
Speaker 2: …there is a known techum Shabbos. He wants to say around a reshus hayachid also. He needs to measure, in a reshus hayachid there’s also a fixed place, he needs to measure, yes.
Speaker 1: We need to see. Actually, it’s a kula, it’s not a way of measuring, it’s not…
Speaker 2: What’s different about a bik’ah than…
Speaker 1: As you said. This is always the heter for lack of knowledge, or does it have something specific to do with valleys?
Speaker 2: No, it’s a bik’ah, it’s a place where one doesn’t know. In a reshus hayachid one knows better. Certainly one knows better.
Speaker 1: Why does one know better in a reshus hayachid?
Speaker 2: Because there is a fixed place there, you’re spending Shabbos there every week, whatever, there’s an animal stable there, one knows what goes on there.
Speaker 1: But he knows the measure of techum Shabbos?
Speaker 2: He doesn’t know the measure of techum Shabbos. He doesn’t know the measure of techum Shabbos. Because you’ll see in the next chapter, chapter 6, you’ll see, there’s a whole industry of techum measurers. They build it, this is a kula, this is not, this is not the law of techumin Shabbos, this is a kula that one may do this, presumably because it’s with the Rabbis, and the Rabbis allowed that a person shouldn’t be stuck. This is the first question you’re asking.
Discussion (Continued): Measuring Techum Shabbos Through Average Steps — Law or Leniency?
Speaker 1: I’m telling you, he has a fixed place, he spends Shabbos there every week, but he’s there in an animal part, one knows what goes on there. You don’t know, it’s a question on him, because you’ll see in the opposite chapter of carrying out, you’ll see that there’s a whole industry of techum measurers.
My point is that this is a kula, this is not the law of walking techum Shabbos, this is a kula that one may do this, because this is with the Rabbis, the Rabbis allowed that a person shouldn’t be stuck. What everyone calls it didn’t help, understand? He brings that there are those who say that the heter is only for the need of a mitzvah, for example.
Again, measuring steps, this is the halacha. Average steps. Again, he says that this is a kula. I bring myself a proof of what I’m saying, that this is a certain kula that one may rely on the two thousand average steps, and this is only… I don’t know where you’re getting that it’s a great kula. The Mishna Berura speaks about measurement, he speaks about a kula about the whole problem. He speaks of the halacha, he speaks of the halacha. If one doesn’t know… we learned before whether one may make a loan, whether one may measure on Shabbos. What? No, what are you thinking? This speaks on Shabbos, he speaks of the halacha. Certainly he speaks of the halacha. There’s no connection, this is measuring on Shabbos, we’re talking about counting steps, not any measurement, this is not the topic. I don’t know, we need to check, by me it doesn’t say Yom Tov.
So, I’m telling you that this is a kula. Certainly a kula. Now, okay, until here basically we’ve learned what is the concept of what techum Shabbos means, simply going out beyond the techum, and another two thousand amos around, no difference if you’re in a city, no difference if you’re in a bik’ah, always there are two thousand amos, this is basically what we’ve learned, yes?
Laws 5-6: When His Measure Ends Within a City or Reshus Hayachid
The Principle: One Who Spent Shabbos in a City Versus One Who Comes to a City
Speaker 1: Now we’re going to learn, the person actually, or another person would have seen, the law begins with a person who is outside of a city, he didn’t begin Shabbos in a city, how far may he go if he bumps into a city in the middle of his way. Right? “The two thousand amos that he has to walk, if the measurement of two thousand amos ends within a dwelling or sahar or cave,” or in a reshus hayachid, which then presumably he may go throughout the entire reshus hayachid, or in the city where he may go throughout the entire city. One doesn’t say that then we’ll go, because the city or the place where he may go began within his two thousand amos, he now gets the entire city in addition. It doesn’t work that way. “Rather he walks all of that measurement,” he may only go until the end of his two thousand amos, “and we don’t say since he entered the measurement within a reshus hayachid he may walk through all of it.”
Very good. So the law that we learned that a reshus hayachid lechatchila, or a city, it’s the same thing, the lechatchila place where you are you can go through all of it, this is only initially all of it, not at the end. Right? When you’re in a city, you may go throughout the entire city plus. But you come to a city, you can’t go throughout the entire city, only until the end of your techum, even in a reshus hayachid. Yes, it can happen that a person’s techum Shabbos ends in the middle of a house, he may only go until the middle of that house.
The Reasoning: Why One Who Spent Shabbos in a City Differs from One Who Comes to a City
Speaker 1: But the answer is there where he is in the city, when he begins in the city, he was spending Shabbos in the city, the entire city is his four amos. As opposed to when he wasn’t spending Shabbos in the city, he only gets his two thousand amos.
The Exception: When the City is Encompassed Within His Techum
Speaker 1: But there is one way how it can help him that he comes in the middle of a city. What is that? “But if his measurement ended in part of the city or part of the cave,” if his two thousand amos ends at the edge of the city, in the middle, in the middle, not the corner, in the middle, in part, in a portion of the city. That is, if his two thousand amos ends two blocks into the city, it’s a hundred blocks, there’s no difference. “But if that reshus hayachid is encompassed within his two thousand amos,” that is, the entire thing is within his two thousand amos, then we view the entire reshus hayachid as one four amos, “and we complete for him the remainder.” He has further, after finishing the reshus hayachid he gets more, as much as he needs to have to complete the original. As much as is left over for him from the original. But this is only on a reshus hayachid, not on a city. Ah, it’s also there on a city, I think. Yes, it’s also there on a city, I think it’s the same thing. Look, he’s going to say the example. Ah, true, usually a city is not larger than two thousand amos, but it can be. Look, he’s going to say with his parable.
Example: One Thousand Amos to the City, and the City is One Thousand Amos
Speaker 1: Look, “If he had one thousand amos from his place of shevisa,” he has one thousand amos from his place of shevisa where he was when Shabbos began, or from the city where he is, “and outside the city until another city or cave,” until one comes to another city or another cave, which itself “is full of one thousand amos or less than one thousand,” “he measures the entire city or cave that is less than one thousand, as if the entire one thousand amos goes, “and walks outside of it and completes for him to one thousand amos minus four amos.”
Yes, because the city becomes four amos, and the four amos he subtracts very seriously, literally. He has four amos left, in short, he can subtract, exactly. He subtracts from the city, the city is reduced from how large it is, it becomes only four amos. As long as, as if the entire city can’t be too large, because the entire city must end within his two thousand amos.
In any case, any entire city or entire reshus hayachid that ends within your techum becomes nullified, it becomes the four amos.
Law 7: If the City is Larger Than His Techum
Speaker 1: But this is only when the place, the city or cave, even if the city or cave is less than one thousand amos, how exactly? I’m speaking when he comes into a place where he may go, into a city or a reshus hayachid, and it’s one thousand amos, he may go the entire one thousand amos, and afterward he can go another one thousand amos that is left for him, right? He gives an example, he has one thousand amos left, right?
But if one thousand amos and one ama, it goes out from his techum, not that he walked one thousand amos, and now he goes out even one ama from his techum, into the city, he loses greatly, because the chiddush of this is that the entire city becomes like four amos. But this is only when he has the entire area of the city to walk in it.
Okay, this is only when the city is smaller than his entire techum.
Right. If the city goes out even one mashehu from his four amos, then… it’s a great loss, so much, because then he can’t even go to the end of the city. He can’t even go to the end of the city, because it says, in short, if one comes in the middle of a city your two thousand amos, until there he stops. If the city, your two thousand amos is still the city, the entire city becomes much smaller, and you can go more of what is left for you from your techum minus four amos.
Law 8: One Whose Measure Ended in Half the City — Carrying Without Walking
The Chiddush: Carrying Out is Permitted Even When Walking is Forbidden
Speaker 1: Until here we’ve learned. So now we’re going to see about the person, the person who walked, and there is a reshus hayachid let’s say, or a city that is larger than his techum. This is an interesting case. That is, usually carrying out is smaller than a techum, because carrying out is only in the reshus hayachid, techum is the entire city. But here it can happen that a person whose techum is smaller than the reshus hayachid. He came in the middle of a city, let’s say there’s an eruv, because here is a place where one may carry, or less than four amos in a reshus harabim and the like.
So the Rambam says that one may, yes, he may carry, yes, he may carry, he may not go, but he may throw. He actually may not walk, he only has a few amos, but yes, it’s a reshus hayachid where one may carry, he may indeed carry. What is the language? “One whose measure ended in half the city, he may not walk more than half the city, for he has only four amos, and even if he walks only a little of its measurement, he cannot walk more than four amos. But all that place is permitted in carrying, and it is permitted to carry out and bring in there.”
Discussion: How Can He Carry Without Going?
Speaker 2: Let’s say there’s an eruv, it’s a reshus hayachid, whatever. So the person may not walk, but he can indeed carry. But he also can’t carry, how should he carry, carrying means walking.
Speaker 1: But the answer is, if he has a way through throwing, that is not how he walks, but the object indeed goes with another walking, then one carries the object, one may carry through on top of another person or through throwing. Yes, apparently this is simple. What does carrying out have to do with…
English Translation
Ah, but what then, soon we will see in other places, there is indeed such a thing as techumin (boundaries) for objects. And he says that this must be, we’re not talking about his objects that came with him, because the objects also acquire shevita (resting place), and one may not move them. Objects in the city. Objects in general were not taken out chutz letchum (outside the boundary), just like people. That is, we’ll need to see halachot (laws) about this soon. Right? That we’ve already learned, but a bit and so on. So, this is discussed in other… The Kuntres says that there is no issur hotza’ah (prohibition of carrying out). I mean, it comes out from this that hotza’ah can be mutar b’hotza’ah (permitted in carrying), even when it’s assur b’halicha (forbidden in walking) regarding techum.
Another Example: Surrounded by Non-Jews with a Partition on Shabbat
Speaker 1: They bring another case where one may move and carry, but may not walk. “If one was sitting in a valley, and he only had two thousand amot (cubits). Non-Jews surrounded him with a partition on Shabbat, if they made it for dwelling, it is permitted to carry within all of it, but he only has two thousand amot.” That is, non-Jews surrounded the place with a partition, and they made it for themselves. What does this have to do with it? Did they make it for him? He doesn’t know… That is, the use of the… Interesting. I don’t know if we learned such a thing. We learned like this… No, as you say, let’s say first the halacha, then what you say.
Explanation of the Halacha: Shevita is Acquired on Erev Shabbat, but a Partition Permits Carrying
Speaker 1: The halacha is like this: He may only walk the two thousand amot in the entire valley. Even though it’s through a partition, even though the valley has now become a reshut hayachid (private domain). Why? Because shevita is acquired on erev Shabbat. Because when Shabbat came, he only had two thousand amot in the valley. But the shevita doesn’t hold exactly with how it was on erev Shabbat, because the shevita became a reshut hayachid through partitions. Therefore, it’s permitted to carry within the entire partition, on his prohibition, and it’s permitted to carry for dwelling. If they surrounded it for dwelling, which would make a kosher partition, then carrying is permitted, but walking he may not.
Question: A Non-Jew Who Makes a Partition on Shabbat — Permitted to Benefit?
Speaker 2: You’re asking an interesting thing, that we learned in, I don’t know anymore, Chapter 6 much earlier, that if a non-Jew does something for a Jew, one may not benefit. Especially if he makes a halachic thing. In the cases that we learned there, he lights a candle, or he makes a ramp to descend from the ship, such sorts of things. But I don’t remember what the halacha is if a non-Jew makes a partition, where the partition permits the Jew to do something halachically. Do you understand what I’m saying? I don’t know, we need to look. We thought, something in Chapter 6 wasn’t such a case, at least. But I remember that yes, we already spoke about a partition that non-Jews made on Shabbat, right? In the laws of hotza’ah, in Chapter 14?
Speaker 1: They learned the halacha that a partition can be made even on Shabbat? They had when people are a partition, no? Yes, the side has partitions that even a Jew may make on Shabbat. But there is perhaps a halacha about making a partition on Shabbat, one may not. That is, but if I remember regarding the matter of…
A Partition Made on Shabbat – Chapter 16, Halacha 22
Speaker 1: In the laws of hotza’ah in Chapter 14 we learned the halacha that a partition can be made even on Shabbat.
Speaker 2: Yes, there are partitions that even a Jew may make on Shabbat. But there is perhaps a halacha about making a partition on Shabbat, one may not. But I remember, regarding the matter of hotza’ah it doesn’t matter.
Speaker 1: “It is permitted to set up partitions of people on Shabbat,” yes. “A partition made on Shabbat” it says… Ah, but the Rambam doesn’t say about a non-Jew. In Chapter 16, Halacha 22 it says that a partition that is made on Shabbat is kosher, if a Jew made it b’meizid (intentionally) one may not use it, just like any melacha (work) that a Jew does b’meizid. If he does it b’shogeg (unintentionally), one may use it. But so that it shouldn’t be forbidden to carry, in short, he’s talking about a Jew who makes a partition on Shabbat. It sounds yes, that benefit from melacha is indeed benefit from a melacha, according to this a non-Jew should also be forbidden. Okay, I don’t know.
But presumably, how are there non-Jews who go around making partitions so that Jews should be able to carry? When non-Jews make partitions, it’s not necessarily that if for example there’s no building in this, they set up some things in a manner… Okay.
So this is basically what we learned now is, what did we just learn? Like principles of… Just an interesting halacha, there can be a carrying that goes further than the techum and he may carry. Okay.
One Who Was Coming on the Road to Enter a City – Halacha 9-10
One Coming on the Road and Entered Within Two Thousand Amot Before Shabbat
Speaker 1: “One who was coming on the road to enter a city”, someone was on the way to enter the city. The difference is whether he came by sea or by land, b’charava he came on the land. Interesting why he goes further into this here. “If he entered within two thousand amot before Shabbat was sanctified”, a person has the entire city plus two thousand amot. What happens when he wasn’t in the city on erev Shabbat, but he was within the two thousand amot close to the city? “Even though he wasn’t in the city on erev Shabbat”, he wasn’t in the city on erev Shabbat when Shabbat came, he gets the same halacha that he gets the entire city plus the two thousand amot in every direction. It has nothing to do with being specifically in the city. Rather, since he is within the two thousand amot close to the city, it means as if he is resting in the city.
Innovation: The Intent Helps
Speaker 1: But this is only if he is coming on the road. That is, if he was initially resting outside, but just here it means because he has his intent to enter the city. So if he is already… I’ll ask you, a city is not including its techum Shabbat. If someone lives a thousand amot outside a city, his techum is around from there. He can’t say I’m still part of the city. But if he is coming on the road, as I understand the halacha, and I need to check, his intent is to come into the city, as long as he is already in the techum of the city it means he was resting in the city, not that he was resting outside. Right? I don’t know, I need to look at the halacha about someone who is still too… That is I’m saying, it’s not simple that a city is with its two thousand amot, that is the techum Shabbat. The innovation is that since he was in his intent, it means already as if he was in the city.
That’s what I mean. Yes, he can enter on Shabbat and walk the entire city plus the techum Shabbat, the two thousand amot from the city.
One Who Was Coming to a City and Slept on the Road
Speaker 1: “One who was coming to a city and slept on the road”, he was going to enter the city and he fell asleep on the way in, “and it wasn’t known to him”, he woke up on Shabbat, “and when he awoke he found himself within the city”, he woke up and found that he is in the city. He didn’t know that he is in the city.
Speaker 2: Yes, what does this mean? How can he sleep and not know? He walks sleeping, the person? What’s happening with this person?
Speaker 1: No, he was on the way to the city and he fell asleep, and when he woke up he saw that the place where he slept was already within the techum Shabbat.
Speaker 2: Ah, he didn’t know where he is, and now he caught on. Okay.
Speaker 1: “Behold he may enter it”, he can enter the city, “and walk all of it”, he can use the entire city, he acquires shevita in the entire city, “and outside it two thousand amot in every direction”, he gets another two thousand amot afterward. Why?
Speaker 2: No. The city means according to law like this.
Speaker 1: Even though he didn’t know that he is already in the two thousand amot of the city, it still means that he was according to law in the city. “Therefore he acquires shevita in the new city like him, as if he entered into it.” He was in the techum, and his intention was also to be in the techum, even though he didn’t know that he is in the techum, that is enough.
Ah, so from here I took my idea that it has something to do with the intent. You see that the intent helps so much, therefore that he doesn’t know that he is in the techum, it already means that he is in the city, therefore he can walk like the law of the entire city.
So, yes. And now we’re going to learn what happens when a person went out outside his two thousand amot.
One Who Went Out Outside the Techum – Halacha 11
Went Out Even One Amah – May Not Enter
Speaker 1: Right, so let me try to say something. So, until now we learned that even when a person is outside the techum, it still means as if he is already in the techum. But now we’re going to learn that this only helps in such a manner: when there is a city, and you go outside the city, as long as you have intent to come to the city. But if you are out of your entire techum, then there is no “grace period”, you don’t have any place around the techum that still means within the techum somehow.
“One who went out outside the techum even one amah may not enter.” You may not go back in. Let’s think, he is one amah away from the new city… ah, no, he went out. He was in his techum, and he went out. He would still be in his techum, because he can stay in the techum of the two thousand amot, but he already went out one amah outside the techum, he already has no more place, he is “out of space”. He may not go back into his techum Shabbat. Why?
Four Amot Only Go Outward, Not Back
Speaker 1: “For the four amot that a person has, their beginning is from the place where he stands.” How do we calculate that a person has four amot of a person? That is, let’s say what he means to ask. As later we will see, I mean the next few halachot, it’s brought that if someone has no techum, a person walks only four amot. So the language always says, he may walk four amot. The person asks, I only went out one amah, I may walk four amot, I want to walk four amot back into the techum. The Rambam says, no, the four amot only go one way.
“Therefore, once he went out outside the techum one amah, the beginning of the place where he stands” the bear means that he can go further, but he can’t go back. The four amot don’t go back.
Four Amot in Front of Him, Not Around the Person
Speaker 1: Four amot, even, very interesting, even four amot of reshut harabim (public domain) we learned from the Rambam, they were debating then, I don’t remember what they meant there, but there we learned, even by four amot of the public the Rambam also said that it’s in front of him, he indeed has a box in front of him, but not behind, not around the person. Four amot for a person, not that there are four amot around the person, but there is a square of four amot in front of the person. So I remember it plainly says in the laws of four amot of the public.
“Therefore, one who goes out outside the techum one amah or more, sits in his place, and doesn’t walk except within four amot from where his feet stand and outward.” They can only walk within the four amot from where his foot stands now.
Question: If He Turns Around?
Speaker 2: Very interesting, if he turns around, then may he?
Speaker 1: I don’t have, I don’t understand the halacha. What does it help that the person gives himself a turn? Then further are the four amot… the amot that he already walked. What doesn’t it help? He may do that seemingly, but he may not go back into the city, that is the innovation.
One Who Was Outside the City’s Techum When It Got Dark
Speaker 1: “One who was outside the city’s techum when it got dark”, it became Shabbat, he was outside the city’s techum, “even one amah, behold he may not enter”, he may not enter, even if it’s only one amah away, he may not enter.
Again, the same thing. No, the city’s techum means outside the 2,000 amot. Don’t tell me that he now gets another four amot, that besides the 2,000 amot he has the four amot which is a person’s domain. He doesn’t have, because he is outside the techum, and outside the techum even one amah outside the techum, means he is completely outside the techum.
But what? He could only have had the 2,000 amot to be able to enter the city. He can walk in the city. His techum Shabbat ended in the city. And there is a walk on your measurements as I heard.
One Foot Outside the Techum
Speaker 1: Seemingly, “one foot outside the techum”, this is already walked in with one foot into the techum. Or by the previous one, he only went out with one foot, let’s say. “One foot outside the techum” is a hint, that he had the leniency. One foot is still in the four amot. One foot is out. With one foot outside doesn’t yet mean outside the techum. But one amah, yes, that is basically the innovation.
Dispute Between Rambam and Raavad
Speaker 1: I also see that the Raavad disagrees on the law of one amah. The Raavad holds yes, that if one went out less than four amot, one can still go back. So it’s implied, I don’t clearly understand the Raavad. He has the four amot on other sides, not only on one side as the Rambam held. We need to see if it’s… Yes.
Very good.
One Who Went Out Outside the Techum Unintentionally – Halacha 12-13
Went Out Unintentionally – Has Only Four Amot
Speaker 1: “One who went out outside the techum unintentionally”. Until here one learned halachot, the main laws of techumin, which means how far one is in the techum. Now one is going to learn interesting ways how a person is outside the techum, but there is a way that he has a way out, he can go back. Let’s see.
Yes. “One who went out outside the techum unintentionally” – he didn’t know that he is going out outside the techum – “such as if non-Jews testified about him or an evil spirit”. Who carries such a person outside the techum? An evil spirit means he was in a bad mood and he went out, he didn’t stop himself. An evil spirit means something like insanity. I made it sound a bit extreme. An evil spirit doesn’t mean that a spirit came and made him fly. That’s what I mean to say. An evil spirit means he was in some psychotic state, something like that. Every time there is a yetzer hara (evil inclination), this is something worse.
Yes, same thing. He didn’t know that he is now going out of the techum. He didn’t notice that there is the techum, or something like that. He also says “he has only four amot”. We don’t say that it’s only a penalty when a person knows, but it’s a law, and the law is even when it was unintentional. But the interesting thing begins when he returned.
Returned Intentionally – Has Only Four Amot
Speaker 1: Now, all this intentionally, if he went back to the techum, went back into the two thousand amot, he still has only four amot, and it doesn’t come back with going back in, he already lost it.
But I see yes,
Halacha 12 (Continued) – Went Out Outside the Techum Unintentionally and Returned
And the law is even when it was unintentional.
But the interesting thing begins when he returned. If he went back to the techum, he went back into the two thousand amot, he still has only four amot. He doesn’t get it back by going back in, because this is already lost.
But I see here, if the people, the non-Jews or the evil spirit, it’s the same thing, or the unintentional, anyway, the same, “just as he went out so he returned”, then it’s as if he didn’t go out. Then the whole thing becomes… It didn’t happen at all, it was a mistake, he went out, and we count as if he is still in the techum Shabbat.
Innovation: The Key is When One Remembers
And we have another proof from a reshut hayachid. If those who carried him out placed him in a reshut hayachid, “non-Jews who placed non-Jews in a pen or enclosure surrounded by a wall, they have the laws of enclosure, he has the entire city to walk”.
And likewise, “if he went out to one of them unintentionally and remembered while he was within it”, he entered the techum Shabbat, in the city, unintentionally, and he remembered when he is inside, “he walks all of it”, he has the entire place.
So in other words, going out… he is outside, he has only four amot, he can’t go back in. But if he finds himself inside, after he already went out, then he may. So basically it’s like I see here, the same thing. It’s the same concept basically.
English Translation
When a person goes out without awareness, negation of awareness, in the matter of the ways, it doesn’t help. If he… that is, he remembered somewhere, if he remembers with awareness outside the techum, he’s stuck there. Stuck there means either four amos, or if it’s a reshus hayachid he can go through the entire reshus hayachid, right?
When there’s a way that he returns to his original techum, but he didn’t remember then, but then he gets back his awareness, or the non-Jew, whatever, but after he’s completely back in his original techum, then he gets his entire original techum. Otherwise he’s stuck where he remembered. Basically, the remembering, that makes the problem. You shouldn’t remember. But whatever, do you understand what I mean? Yes?
Anyway, it’s there. Now one can see further. That is, if he did know that he’s going out, it turns out that unilateral without awareness doesn’t help. It must be a complete without awareness in order for it to return. Yes? Thirteen.
Halacha 13 – Went Out With Awareness and Returned Without Awareness
“If one went outside the techum with awareness, even though he returned without awareness, such as if non-Jews or bandits brought him back, he has only four amos. And not only that, but even if he went outside the techum with his awareness, even though he went out for the need of a reshus hayachid, such as a pen or enclosure, he has only four amos.”
That is, what was said earlier makes sense. No, everything fits with what I understand earlier. Because they said earlier that one only gets when one arrived there without awareness. You went out without awareness into a new reshus, it doesn’t help you. It only helps if you would have arrived without awareness. Understand?
Halacha 14 – One Who Sails on a Ship
Now he learns a certain halacha about a ship.
“One who sails on a ship, even though the ship goes outside the techum Shabbos, he may walk through all of it. And we don’t view him as if he’s walking outside the techum, but rather as if he’s standing in one place.”
Right. What’s the point of this halacha? One may travel on a ship, that’s the point. And we don’t look at it as if he’s going around more than techum Shabbos, but we look at it as if he’s just the whole time in the ship. Yes. Because his reshus travels with him, whatever, his ship. So one must know that a car would also be the same thing. Could be. We won’t travel in a car on Shabbos, it’s a different problem, but… perhaps he has a techum of outside the techum Shabbos. Could be. The simple meaning is he’s outside? He is indeed outside, but he has the entire reshus. He’s outside, but he has his entire reshus. On the ship he may walk. He went out from the ship. He went out from the ship. That is, going out from the ship has to do with the question of the ship, techumin above ten, other things. That is, I think that perhaps comes in the halacha that just as he arrived without awareness in a new reshus hayachid.
Discussion: What Does This Have to Do With This?
What does this have to do with this? He was already more than this, he was already in this from erev Shabbos apparently.
One Who Went Outside the Techum Without Awareness and Was Enclosed by a Partition on Shabbos
One who went outside the techum without awareness, he went out outside the techum but without awareness, as we learned earlier, and was enclosed by a partition on Shabbos, the place where he now arrived was surrounded by a partition on Shabbos, he may walk through all of it, he can go around the entire partition. But this is basically the same as the halacha we learned earlier, that if one is placed without awareness into a partition he may walk. But here it says that now it’s like when he arrives in a city, in a techum from outside, right? Because if it’s a departure of two thousand, then he’s stuck, right? Yes, is what I’m saying correct? Or is it a new prohibition? Yes.
This explains that it’s the same idea apparently. This is as if the law of coming without awareness, like when you’re outside a city and you come inside, which if it’s enclosed within the techum it helps, if your techum ends in the middle of the city you’re stuck only two thousand amos. Is what I’m saying correct?
Innovation: The Partition Becomes an Extension of Techum Shabbos
And if his techum that goes out, ah, the same thing, enclosed, exactly the same halacha. Enclosed within the partition that was made without his awareness, right, he went out from his techum, on Shabbos, he’s enclosed in the partition, since their techumin mixed, this is the simple meaning that when he ends the techum Shabbos he’s already in the partition, since he may walk through the entire partition, behold this one enters his techum.
Ah, this is the simple meaning. Not that he has a new partition, the measure of his height behold he is like one who went out, he can go as much as he could have gone out from his techum Shabbos. It’s interesting, the entire partition becomes an extension of his techum Shabbos. Right, it’s an extension, it’s as if he didn’t go out. That is, let’s say, a person went out, a non-Jew dragged him out two thousand, far out from his city, three thousand amos, and on that same Shabbos came a second non-Jew and built a partition, how big, a thousand, two thousand amos that goes into his techum Shabbos, he may walk the entire partition that they made. Now, when he finished the partition, he’s still in the partition, let’s say, but he finds himself already in his techum Shabbos, this is as if he returned without awareness, it becomes exactly as if he would have returned, as if he returned without awareness, he gets back his old techum, as if he didn’t go out.
Halacha 15 – Needed to Relieve Himself
Already, now we’re going to learn, the Jew who unfortunately may not go more than four amos, like one who went out outside the techum, what exactly this means. He says, “Anyone who has only four amos within four amos”, the person about whom it was said that he has only his four amos, “if he needs to relieve himself”, what happens if he needs to go out? They permit him that he doesn’t need to stand in his four amos, a relief. This is a leniency from the Sages, because the whole thing is rabbinic, “behold this one goes out”, he can go out, “distances”, he doesn’t say how much, he distances a bit, as much as is necessary, that he should remain in his place, “and relieves himself and returns to his place”.
Could be he distances until he finds a place that’s more modest, because where you are here is perhaps not such a modest thing. But he must immediately return, he goes back into his four amos, and he won’t acquire that place. But, right, he doesn’t acquire any new place. But, there is, “and if he entered into part of the techum that he had before he went out to distance himself for his needs”, we’re talking about a case where four amos away from him there’s a new city, but he may not go there because he has only one amah, let’s say. But he does go, because he was permitted to go out for his needs, and he entered with permission into the new techum, so when he returns he may already enter. Like one who went out we reckon it as if he didn’t go out from the techum at all.
Discussion: Charity That Goes Around
There’s a charity that goes around making collections near the end of the techum. No, there are things that make sense, it’s not just anything. Ah, one can say let’s say, I don’t know what he means by this, one doesn’t tell him that you must specifically this is done. Anyway, I don’t know the names. But the Rambam says so, right?
Condition: Only When He Didn’t Go Out With Awareness
This is only when he didn’t go out with awareness, right? And this is when he didn’t go out initially with awareness. This only helps, very good. But one who goes out with awareness, it doesn’t help. Even if he was already yesterday in those four amos, it doesn’t help that… understand, with awareness here means when he went looking for the place where to go relieve himself? No, no, no. We’re talking about the original going out. The entire permission that he may return when he distanced himself for his needs is only for one who went out by mistake or by force or by non-Jews. But one who went out with awareness, even if they let him, they give him a bit of space where he can go out, but he didn’t enter into the “didn’t go out,” he doesn’t get back the entire techum. Right, so apparently this is the halacha.
Halacha 16 – Went Out With Permission of Beis Din
Now we’re going to learn another manner of one who does get an entire techum even though he went out, that is that he went out with permission of beis din or in some manner. Yes, the whole thing is rabbinic, so the Sages play according to how they understand that it’s correct.
Discussion: What is Biblical?
The simple meaning is apparently that what is biblical the measure is no question. For example a person walked outside the two thousand miles and he needs to do his business there, there’s no question that he’s liable. That’s what I would have thought. Because all these things it says since it’s their words, this is further so since it’s their words, that they have nothing on which to rely and the like.
Yes, anyone who went out with permission of beis din, he went out with permission of beis din. Such as? Such as witnesses who came to testify about the sighting of the moon, which the law is that they may go out on Shabbos. And so one who goes out to save from the hand of non-Jews or bandits to save for a matter of mitzvah. Ah, I don’t know yet the Gemara, what else can there be? Soon we’ll see in the next halacha to save lives, but what else is there? I don’t know. Some mitzvos that one may go out outside the techum besides this? Ah, one goes out to take the scapegoat. As I said, okay. “He has this time but all the distance in any place that he reaches”. The place where he arrives, unlike an ordinary person who arrives has only his four amos, because he went out from the train. But you, because you went out from the train,
Halacha 16 (Continuation): One Who Goes Out With Permission of Beis Din – Two Thousand Amos in Every Direction
Speaker 1: I won’t look up the Gemara, what else can there be? I would have thought to see in the next halacha, to save lives, but what else is there? I don’t know. Some mitzvos that one may go out outside the techum besides this? We’ll have to see there, okay.
Now, “and he has two thousand amos in every direction in that place that he reached”. The place where he arrives. Without this it would have been, if when a person arrives he has only his four amos, if he only walked from the techum. But here, because he went out with permission of beis din, they give him the two thousand amos in every direction in the place where he arrives.
And therefore if he reaches a city, he finished going, even in a general manner he wouldn’t have been allowed, because the city was outside his techum Shabbos. That is, he would have been only until the two thousand amos, or two thousand amos, right, four amos, right, to enter the city. But because he went out with permission of beis din, we say yes, that after he arrived in the city, he’s like one of the people of the city, “and he has two thousand amos in every direction outside the city”, he gets the entire city, plus the two thousand amos. Ah, good.
Halacha: “And If They Told Him on the Way the Mitzvah Has Already Been Done” – He Still Gets Two Thousand Amos
Another innovation in the halacha, “regarding one who goes out with permission.” That is, going out with permission is not only when he did the mitzvah, even when they no longer needed him. Yes? “And if they told him on the way”, they told him… still on the way, that is he didn’t arrive yet. When he already arrived at the city, one can understand. They told him on the way “the mitzvah has already been done that you’re going for”, they already sanctified the month for example. Yes, or they already saved that person. “He has two thousand amos in every direction”.
Innovation: The Law is Because He Went Out With Permission, Not Because He’s an Agent of a Mitzvah
Why does this come to him? It’s not a law because he’s an agent of a mitzvah, but the law is because he went out with permission. That is, the agent of a mitzvah, you can say like a good thought the Holy One Blessed Be He joins to the deed, I don’t know. He went out with a good intention. Right, we don’t say that the going out is lost, and going out by force is not exactly. No.
Halacha: “And If He Returned to His Place As If He Didn’t Go Out”
“And if he returned to his place, as if he didn’t go out”. If he wants to go back into the place from where he was thrown out, what are we talking about? The same person. Right, but where is he? He arrived somewhere less than four thousand amos away from his city, let’s say, right? So they give him two thousand amos in every direction. He didn’t arrive at any city, right? Because if he arrived at a city it’s apparently simple. He says that even if he didn’t arrive at a city, he gets the two thousand amos, not just four amos. Now he can go two thousand amos, not only that, but if those two thousand amos end within two thousand amos of his original, he can further return as if he went out.
Discussion: Contradiction Between Chapter 27 and Chapter 3 Regarding Returning With Their Weapons
Speaker 2: But they’re further. All who go out to an optional war return to their place, so they apparently learned that they may always. No? The old Shabbos obstacles? So, so animals are worse?
Speaker 1: Where was the previous halacha, do you remember? When they learned by saving lives. Did you bite already? All the way in the beginning? Do you remember that there’s such a halacha that they may even return? So how does that work?
Speaker 2: Those who know, it’s… I don’t understand, I’m asking which saving lives. Here there would have been a kal vachomer.
Speaker 1: Permitted to return, chapter 3, very good. So here it states a different reason. So here it states a different reason. Here it implies that it’s only if one is afraid to stay there. So it’s a contradiction.
Speaker 2: There we spoke about techum Shabbos, there we spoke about carrying. Okay, and is it worse? On techum Shabbos isn’t there the same reasoning? On techum Shabbos isn’t there the same reasoning, the consideration for the future? Why not? If there’s the consideration for the future, then one may perhaps, but then there isn’t the reason. I don’t understand the question, something I’m missing. One must know whether… on techum is it more stringent? Just the opposite, techum is rabbinic, it should be more lenient.
Speaker 1: Even according to their words, in any case their words stand. I’m not sure. He brings that it’s about saving life, it’s obviously. In general, if it’s about saving life, one must again say that saving life should also… carrying. We’re not talking about that. I don’t understand why I don’t see anyone asking this question. It must be that we’re talking about the problem, right? Or do you think I’m crazy?
The Gemara’s Story With Non-Jews
Ah, he brings that there was a story in the Gemara that the non-Jews already knew the trick. They knew that the Jews leave their weapons there if they’re not allowed, so they ran after them and grabbed them. But that’s the simple meaning.
Possible Answer: By War It’s Always Permitted
No, it could be that the Rambam holds it’s always, because he thinks into it, one goes to a war, and on the way back one can go without weapons. There are stories, I don’t know, they killed every last enemy, I don’t know if it was so, it means that they were successful. Let’s say for today.
Conclusion
Anyway, this is chapter 27, the main halachos of techumin.