Foricibly Taken Outside the Techum

Eiruvin (4:1) | Yisrael Bankier | a year ago

The Mishnah (4:1) teaches that if one walks out of the techum, even if he was taken out by force, he not able to walk more than four amot. If he however was returned, then it is considered as if he never left. The Mishnah continues that if he was forcibly taken outside the techum and placed in another city or enclosure, then there is a debate. R' Elazar ben Azarya maintains that he can walk in that entire area. In other words, that entire space is considered like the four amot space he is limited to. R' Yehoshua and R' Akiva however disagree. We shall try and understand the opinion of R' Elazar ben Azarya.

The Bartenura explains that since the space is surrounded by walls, it is considered like four amot. To be clear, he explains that the requirement of walls also applies to the city. In other words, if the person was placed in a city that was not walled, then R' Elazar ben Azarya would agree that he can only walk four amot. It is important to remember, that the city in which one dwells is considered like four amot for the laws of techum, irrespective of whether it is walled. The case in our Mishnah, where one is placed in another city, is therefore treated differently. The city would need to be defined as a reshut ha'yachid much like the parallel case of the enclosure.

Indeed, the Shulchan Arucha rules that the city would need to be walled. The Mishnah Berurah (Biur Halacha s.v. mukefet) explains that this is the opinion of most of the Rishonim. The Ramban however rules that the city need not be walled. The Magen Avraham cites the Riaz, who explains that even the ibur (70 amot strip) at the edge of the city would be considered as being "inside" the city for these purposes.

The Mishnah Berurah continues that the halacha follows the Shulchan Aruch. Nevertheless, considering that the issur techum is rabbinic, in pressing circumstances, one could rely on the more lenient position of the Ramban. The position of the Riaz however, that also includes the ibur is too much of a leniency, considering that the Ramban does not count the ibur.¹

The Mishnah Berurah cites the Ohr Zaruah who bring R' Yoel that comments that he would also be tempted to permit the case where the city did not have a wall. He however continues that even if one requires a wall for the city, even if there was a public domain running through the city, it would be sufficient. Note that the public domain would prevent one from carrying in the city -- even with a shituf mavoi. He explains that the reason is that the permit to walk is not dependent on the permit to carry.

Perhaps the comment of R' Yoel may help us to understand the debate regarding our Mishnah. The Chachamim restricted one from walking two thousand amot outside the city. If one did, then they are limited from walking more than four amot. The issue that our Mishnah addresses is how to relate to an individual that was forcible placed in another location outside the eruv. What mechanism could the Chachamim use to assist the individual in this situation who can only walk four amot? According to most of the Rishonim, considering the individual is outside the techum far away from his shvitah we need to look to another area of halacha that can effectively "shrink" a large space to be considered as if it was four amot. We find that in the laws of carrying objects on Shabbat. If an area is defined as a reshut ha'yachid the one can carry in that entire space. Consequently, the city he is placed in must share the qualities of a reshut ha'yachid. According to the Ramban however, carrying has nothing to do with the law of techumim. Instead we look to the laws of techumim itself to see when a large space, a makom shivtah, can be considered like four amot. For that we find a city qualifies, even if it is not walled nor can one carry in that city.

¹ The Chazon Ish (109:15) however differentiates between two types of ibur. The type the Ramban rejects is the seventy amot perimeter around the city, or when one house extends outside the city, such that limit of the city on that face is extended to that point. The other type of ibur however is the space between two houses that extend on one side of the city or the space between turrets. That is the ibur that the Riaz is referring to, about which the Ramban would agree.

Download