QUESTION: The Beraisa (end of 41b) discusses the Halachah concerning fruit that was taken out of its Techum of 2000 Amos on Shabbos. The Tana Kama maintains that one is permitted to eat the fruit as long it was not taken out of its Techum intentionally, b'Mezid, and it is still outside of its Techum. Rebbi Nechemyah argues and says that it is prohibited to eat the fruit unless it was taken out unintentionally, b'Shogeg, and it has now been returned to its Techum.

What is the Halachah?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Michlal), the ROSH, and other Rishonim rule leniently and write that one may eat the fruit provided that it was not taken out of its Techum intentionally, and it is still outside of its Techum. They base their ruling on the fact that Rav Papa says that fruit that was taken out intentionally and then returned to its Techum is permitted, and the Gemara implies that when the fruit is still outside of its Techum but was taken there unintentionally, there is more reason to permit it than when the fruit was returned to its place but taken out intentionally. We therefore rule like the Tana Kama, and in every case the fruit may be eaten, except for when it was taken out b'Mezid and is still outside of its Techum. This is also the Halachah as recorded by the SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 405:9).

OPINIONS: Rav Huna and Rav Nachman argue about a case in which a person was standing in an open area, in which he was Koneh Shevisah and was able to walk 2000 Amos in every direction, and Nochrim built a fence on Shabbos around him 3000 Amos away (thereby turning the entire area into a Reshus ha'Yachid).

According to Rav Nachman, the person may carry (that is, he may throw) an object throughout the entire enclosed area of 3000 Amos, but he is not allowed to walk outside of his Techum of 2000 Amos. According to Rav Huna, since he is not allowed to walk outside of his Techum, he may not throw an object past his 2000 Amos, lest he forget and walk after his object. Rav Huna adds that not only may he not throw outside of his 2000 Amos, but he is also prohibited from carrying inside his 2000 Amos, because it is considered an area that opens entirely into a place in which it is forbidden to carry -- "Parutz b'Milu'ah l'Makom ha'Asur Lah." Therefore, the person may carry only in the area of four Amos around him.

The Halachah follows the more lenient opinion (that of Rav Nachman); one is permitted to carry throughout the entire enclosed area. However, the Rishonim argue what Rav Nachman means when he says that one is permitted to carry throughout the entire area.

(a) RASHI (DH Metaltel b'Chulah) writes that one may carry throughout the 2000 Amos in the normal manner of carrying, and the reason why he must throw the object if he wants to carry it farther than 2000 Amos is because he is not allowed to walk beyond that limit. According to Rav Nachman, his 2000-Amah area is not considered to be "Parutz b'Milu'ah l'Makom ha'Asur Lah," and thus he may carry within his 2000 Amos.

This is also the ruling of the RITVA.

(b) TOSFOS (DH u'Metaltel) maintains that Rav Nachman permits only throwing even within the 2000 Amos. Tosfos explains that since one is not permitted to carry beyond the 2000 Amos (because he cannot walk there) and he may only throw things there, it is considered "Parutz b'Milu'ah l'Makom ha'Asur Lah" as far as carrying is concerned. Only as far as throwing is concerned is the person's 2000 Amos considered to be open to a place in which one is permitted to carry.

Tosfos' proof appears to be from the Gemara later (42b) in which Rav Huna -- who prohibits both carrying and throwing in the 2000 Amos -- says that it is permitted to pull an object from outside one's 2000 Amos to inside his 2000 Amos. Why does the Gemara here say that one's 2000-Amah area is considered "Parutz b'Milu'ah l'Makom ha'Asur Lah" if he is allowed to carry in that area in some form (by pulling an object from there to inside his Techum)? It must be that it is possible for an area to be considered "Parutz b'Milu'ah l'Makom ha'Asur Lah" for some forms of carrying while for other forms of carrying it is not considered "Parutz b'Milu'ah l'Makom ha'Asur Lah."

QUESTION: Rav Nachman (42a) rules that one may carry by throwing an object outside of the 2000-Amah limit of his Techum when Nochrim built a fence around him on Shabbos.

The Gemara proposes that Rav Nachman follows the opinion of Raban Gamliel, who says in the Mishnah (41b) that a person who was taken out of his Techum to a Dir or Sahar (different types of enclosed areas) is permitted to walk around in the entire enclosed area. Even though one who is taken to a Bik'ah (an open area) may not walk more than four Amos, Raban Gamliel maintains that there is no Gezeirah prohibiting him from walking outside of his four Amos in a Dir or Sahar lest he err and think that he may also walk outside of his four Amos in a Bik'ah. Similarly, Rav Nachman maintains that there is no Gezeirah prohibiting one from carrying (by throwing) beyond his 2000-Amah Techum lest he pursue his object and walk beyond his Techum.

RASHI (DH Lo Gazrinan) discusses the opinion of Rav Nachman. Rashi asks how can the Gemara say that Rav Nachman holds like Raban Gamliel? Raban Gamliel says that one may walk in the entire area of the Dir or Sahar, even though at the onset of Shabbos he was not dwelling within the Mechitzos of that area. Rav Nachman, however, says that if the Nochrim built a fence around him at a distance of 3000 Amos away, he may not walk within the entire enclosed area (but only in his original 2000 Amos) since he was not dwelling within those Mechitzos at the onset of Shabbos!

In his first answer, Rashi says that Rav Nachman indeed does not agree with Raban Gamliel entirely. Rav Nachman maintains that one is not permitted to walk within the entire enclosed area of Mechitzos when he was not dwelling in the area of those Mechitzos at the beginning of Shabbos, while Raban Gamliel maintains that one does not need to be dwelling within the Mechitzos of the area at the beginning of Shabbos in order to be permitted to walk there on Shabbos. Rav Nachman agrees with Raban Gamliel only insofar as he does not make a Gezeirah to prohibit throwing. That is, the only reason why we would expect Raban Gamliel to prohibit walking more than four Amos in the Dir or Sahar is because of a Gezeirah lest one walk more than four Amos in a Bik'ah, but we find that Raban Gamliel does not hold of such a Gezeirah. Similarly, the only reason why we would expect Rav Nachman to prohibit throwing outside of 2000 Amos is because of a Gezeirah that one might carry outside of 2000 Amos, yet we see that Rav Nachman does not hold of such a Gezeirah. In that respect he agrees with Raban Gamliel.

Why does Rashi give such an answer? Rashi earlier (42a, DH Mehalech Bah Alpayim) says that even Raban Gamliel agrees that one is limited to four Amos if he was not dwelling within the Mechitzos of that area when Shabbos entered. The only reason he may walk the entire enclosed area of the Dir or Sahar is because in that case he was an Ones and was forced out of his Techum and taken to that area against his will. Since he was an Ones, the Rabanan were not stringent with him and did not prohibit him from walking beyond four Amos. However, when one is within his original Techum and still has his 2000 Amos (such as in Rav Nachman's case), there is no need to be lenient and give him the entire enclosed area! Accordingly, Raban Gamliel's ruling does not apply in the case of Rav Nachman, and even Raban Gamliel would agree that the person is limited to his Techum of 2000 Amos when Nochrim built a fence around him on Shabbos! Indeed, this is what Rashi says here as his second answer. Why does Rashi find it necessary to give another explanation? (Moreover, the text of Rashi as quoted by the Ritva and other Rishonim mentions only the first answer.) (RITVA, MAHARSHAL)

ANSWER: The SEFAS EMES answers that Rashi's logic is applicable only if Raban Gamliel holds that the letter of the law is that one may not walk throughout the entire Dir or Sahar, and the Rabanan gave a special dispensation to one who was forced against his will to leave his Techum. The Rabanan gave this dispensation only in this case and allowed him to walk throughout the entire Dir or Sahar.

However, at this point in the Gemara, the assumption is that Raban Gamliel's ruling (that one is permitted to walk throughout the entire enclosed area) is the letter of the law (me'Ikar ha'Din), and that even if one was not dwelling within the Mechitzos at the onset of Shabbos, nevertheless the entire area enclosed by those Mechitzos is considered to be his four Amos. The only reason why Raban Gamliel would not permit walking in the entire Dir or Sahar is because of a Gezeirah lest one walk throughout a Bik'ah (and we see that Raban Gamliel maintains that there is no such Gezeirah).

Consequently, Rashi here cannot explain that if one never left his original 2000 Amos, then he may not walk in the entire Dir or Sahar according to Raban Gamliel. Why should he not be allowed to walk there, if no Gezeirah prohibits it? Walking in the entire area of a Dir or Sahar is not a special dispensation given by the Rabanan, but it is the letter of the law!

In contrast, Rashi's explanation earlier (on 42a) was according to the conclusion of the Gemara here. The Gemara concludes that one may walk throughout the entire area of an enclosed area (that is, the entire area is considered his four Amos) only when he was dwelling within those Mechitzos at the onset of Shabbos, and even Raban Gamliel agrees with this. The only reason Raban Gamliel permits one to walk throughout the entire Dir or Sahar is because the Rabanan gave a special dispensation for someone stranded outside of his Techum, and they did not require him to remain confined to four Amos. However, normally a person should not have the right to walk throughout the entire Dir or Sahar because he was not dwelling within that area at the onset of Shabbos.