Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 321) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 24) include this prohibition as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Having covered all the prohibitions associated with the performance of labor on the Sabbath, in this and the next chapter the Rambam focuses on another Biblical prohibition associated with the Sabbath—the prohibition against departing from one’s location. With regard to this prohibition, it is also significant to consult Hilchot Eruvin, Chapters 6-8, which mention extending the Sabbath limits mentioned here through a convention of Rabbinic origin known as eruv t’ chumim.

A mil is approximately one kilometer.

According to the Rambam, as a safeguard to the prohibition ofthe Torah. According to the other view, as an independent prohibition.

See Numbers 35:5.

Nineveh is used as a classic example of a metropolis because of the description of the city’s size in the Book of Jonah (3:3, 4:11). Significantly, the Talmud (Eruvin 61b) gives Antioch as the example, and not Nineveh.
The entire city is considered to be the person’s “place,” in the wording used in Exodus (loc. cit.). Hence, as long as he stays within the city’s confines, or goes less than two thousand cubits beyond them, he is not considered to have “left his place.”
With the expression, “whether or not, it is surrounded by a wall,” the Rambam touches on a Halachic point of particular relevance in the diaspora where it is not common for a city to have an eruv. There is a question if the term “city” used throughout this chapter refers to all cities, or only to those surrounded by a wall.
The rationale behind the latter thesis is that only when a city is surrounded by a wall is it a private domain, and fit to be described as a person’s “place.” When the city lacks a wall, the person’s place is his individual domain. See Rashi, Eruvin 61b, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 396:1.
The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to these halachot, and more specifically, in his gloss to Hilchot Eruvin 7:4), explains that the Rambam does not subscribe to this restriction, and considers even a city without a wall as “one’s place” even if it is forbidden to carry within it.

There is a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Mishnah (Eruvin 4:8) whether the city B is considered to be the center of a circle with a radius of two thousand cubits, or the center of a square whose sides are twice that length. The Rambam follows the latter opinion, thus expanding the permitted area to include the corners of the square. The determination of the limits of the city’s boundaries from which these two thousand cubits are measured is discussed at the beginning of the following chapter.

The Maggid Mishneh states that although the corners of the square are included, one is allowed to walk 2800 cubits (the approximate distance to the corner of the square) only when one is, in fact, pointed in the direction of that diagonal. One may not arbitrarily rotate the area encompassed by the square so that one will always be walking along its diagonal.

This is the punishment given for the violation of a Rabbinic prohibition.

Since a public domain and a carmelit extend only to a height of ten handbreadths, the Sages questioned whether or not this same concept applied with regard to the Sabbath limits.

A surface less than four handbreadths by four handbreadths is not comfortable to use. Therefore, it is a matter of question (Rashi, Eruvin 43a).

The Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh cite one of the Rambam’s responsa, which states that this entire question applies on dry land only. On the sea or on a, river, all authorities agree that if the sea or river is more than ten handbreadths deep, the Sabbath limits do not apply.
The rationale for this leniency is that the laws concerning the Sabbath limits are also derived from the encampment of the Jews in the desert, and there the Sabbath limits were measured only on the land, and more particularly, in a public domain. When a domain is classified within the category of carmelit, e.g., seas and rivers, the establishment of the Sabbath limits is merely Rabbinic in origin. Therefore, since the case at hand—whether the Sabbath limits apply above ten handbreadths—is a point in question, we follow the principle: When in doubt regarding a point of Rabbinic law, the more lenient view should be followed. (See Chapter 30, Halachah 13 and notes, for a further discussion of this issue.)

Eruvin 43a uses the expression, “lt is like thick ground.”

The intent is a private domain that is located outside a city and that was enclosed for the purpose of dwelling, or that is less than 5000 square cubits (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh). (See Chapter 16, Halachah 12, and Hilchot Eruvin 7:4.)
Halachah 2 emphasizes that a person’s “place” can refer to the entire city in which he lives. Similarly, in this instance, since this private domain is a distinct entity, it is considered to be the person’s “place,” and the calculation of a person’s Sabbath limits begins from the end of its borders.

I.e., a carmelit that is not enclosed (Chapter 14, Halachah 4). Needless to say, the same laws would apply in a public domain (Maggid Mishneh).
In this instance, the four square cubits surrounding the place where he is standing at the commencement of the Sabbath is considered his “place,” and the two thousand cubits are calculated accordingly (Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh).

This point is the subject of a difference of opinion among our Sages (Eruvin 4:5). There are opinions that maintain that a person must consciously acquire his place on the Sabbath. Otherwise, he is allowed to move within a square of four cubits alone. Eruvin 46a substantiates the opinion that the Rambam quotes as halachah.

The Hagahot Maimoniot quotes sources that allow a person to proceed throughout a domain—but no further—even though his Sabbath limits end within that domain. This view is also cited by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 408:1).

These concepts also apply in regard to a city. If it is included within the two thousand cubits of a person’s Sabbath limits, it is only considered as four cubits. In this context, the commentaries clarify that when the urban area of a city is included within a person’s. two thousand cubits, but the city possesses some pasture land that extends beyond the two thousand cubits, the pasture land is not significant, and the city is still counted as four cubits (Ra’avad, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh).

In this instance, we have based our translation on Rav Kapach’s Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, because the precise meaning of the wording employed in the standard printed text is extremely difficult to comprehend.

Needless to say, this ruling applies when the town is surrounded by an eruv. Eruvin 42b states that it is necessary to state this law, lest one think that this would be forbidden lest a person be drawn after the article he threw.

As stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 22, an enclosure that is erected on the Sabbath is significant—and therefore, the person is allowed to carry within it. Nevertheless, the erection of such an enclosure does not have any effect on the extent of a person's Sabbath limits, because these are established at the commencement of the Sabbath.

See Chapter 16, Halachah 1.

This refers to a classic instance recorded in the Mishnah, Eruvin 4:2, Once, when several Rabbis were traveling together with Rabban Gamliel on a ship, they had not reached port before the commencement of the Sabbath. After the ship docked, the Sages asked Rabban Gamliel if they might disembark or not. He assured them that they might, because at the commencement of the Sabbath, he had looked to see that they were within two thousand cubits of the city.

Regardless of its size, even if it is more than 2000 cubits. It is considered as if the person had already entered the city before the commencement of the Sabbath.

This also refers to a classic instance that occurred concerning Rabbi Tarfon. Eruvin 45a states that he was on his way to a city when night fell on Friday. Unsure of whether or not he was within the city limits, he did not p, roceed any further and spent the night in the fields. In the morning, the shepherds found him and told him, “Rabbi, the city is right in front of you. Why don’t you enter?” He indeed did so, and lectured in the house of study throughout the entire day.
The Ra’avad questions why the Rambam quotes the story of Rabbi Tarfon, which is a baraita, rather than the Mishnah, Eruvin 4:4. The Mishnah states that a person who was journeying toward a city, but sat down to rest at nightfall, may enter the city on the Sabbath, if he has already passed within its Sabbath limits. Although the person was unsure whether or not he entered the Sabbath limits, since he was actually within those limits and desired to be in the city on the Sabbath, he is given the privileges of the city’s inhabitants.
If, however, the person did not have a desire to be within the nearby city, or specifically stated “This is my place for the Sabbath,” he may walk no more than 2000 cubits from that specific place, despite the fact that he is within the city limits. Since he consciously segregated himself from the inhabitants of the city, he is not granted their privileges (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch and Ramah, Orach Chayim 400:1).

This refers to a person who left the city’s Sabbath limits either intentionally, for purposes not directly associated with a mitzvah, unintentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, as mentioned in the following halachah.

A key to the understanding of this halachah and the questions it has raised among the commentaries is the principle of הַבְלָעַת תְּחוּמִים, the overlapping of boundaries. What this means is that when a person has a Sabbath limit already established, but leaves—either intentionally or because of forces beyond his control—he is given a new Sabbath limit in which he may walk. If the boundaries of that new limit overlap into his previous Sabbath limit, he may return there and walk freely within that limit.
To apply these principles to the case at hand: When a person leaves his Sabbath limits voluntarily, the place at which he stops is considered to be his base for the remainder of the Sabbath. He is granted only four cubits in which to walk. Moreover, the Rambam maintains that this does not mean that the person may walk four cubits in all directions, but that he may walk four cubits in one of the four directions. Once he walks four cubits to one side, however, he may not walk four cubits in the other direction. In the case of a person who willfully departs from the Sabbath limits, he is considered to have chosen the four cubits in front of him. Therefore, it is only within these four cubits that he may walk; he may not turn back in the direction of his original place at all.
This is the explanation given by the Maggid Mishneh for the Rambam's ruling. The Maggid Mishneh questions, however, the restriction imposed by the Rambam: Why must we say that the person is restricted to the four cubits in front of him? The person has the choice of four cubits in any direction. If he chooses the four cubits behind him, he will be able to reenter his previous Sabbath limits, and, based on the principle of הַבְלָעַת תְּחוּמִים mentioned above, he would then be able to conduct himself as any other member of the city. Why prevent him from utilizing this option?

Since the person is outside the city’s Sabbath limits, he is more than two thousand cubits away. Thus, he cannot enter the city unless he transgresses and goes beyond his own Sabbath limits.

In Halachot 5 and 7. The Maggid Mishneh raises an obvious question: Since the person is located more than two thousand cubits outside the city, how is it possible for his Sabbath limits to end within the city? [Significantly, when quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:3) omits this clause.]
The Maggid Mishneh answers that this refers to a situation in which a person was traveling to a city when night fell on Friday, and consciously decided to be considered as an individual, rather than as a member of the city. (See the notes on Halachah 10.)
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam is speaking of a second location, a town other than the one that the person originally desired to enter. The Or Same’ach offers a unique explanation, stating that this refers to a situation where the person was more than two thousand cubits outside the city, and thus beyond its Sabbath limits. Nevertheless, there was a large cave included within his two thousand cubits. Since that cave is considered to be only four cubits, it is possible that his own Sabbath limits will extend into the city.

He may conduct himself as a member of the city with regard to its Sabbath limits. Although the Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. :2) follow the Rambam.

More literally, this phrase would be rendered as “an evil spirit.” Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Eruvin 4:1, the source for this halachah), which interprets this phrase as referring to “any malfunction in a person’s intellectual functioning, whatever the cause may be.”

And he may walk within its limits at will. Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 405:8), which follows the ruling of Rabbenu Asher and allows a person to walk through his city at will, even if he returned voluntarily. The rationale is that since this was his original Sabbath limit, it is as though he had never departed.

e this was his original Sabbath limit, it is as though he had never departed. 32. In this instance, we apply the principle that an entire domain can be considered to be four cubits. This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion in the Mishnah cited above, and there are Geonim who follow the more stringent ruling and restrict the person to four cubits in this situation as well. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 405:6) and the other later authorities follow the Rambam’s decision.

For Eruvin 43b equates acting without awareness of the prohibition involved to being taken away forcefully by gentiles.

Needless to say, according to the ruling ofthe Shulchan Aruch mentioned previously in Note 31, one would be allowed to walk freely in such circumstances.

The Maggid Mishneh relates that the Rashba differs with this decision, maintaining that, in this instance, we should also apply the principle that an entire domain can be considered to be four cubits. It is, however, the Rambam’s view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 405:6).

This ruling also reflects a classic incident related by the Mishnah (Eruvin 4:1): Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yehoshua were on a ship that left the port of Plandarsin on the Sabbath. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar walked throughout the ship despite the fact that it had traveled beyond their original Sabbath limits. (This follows the ruling in Halachah 12, that if gentiles take a person outside his Sabbath limits, but place him in an enclosed area, he may walk throughout the entire area. The gentiles took the Sages outside their Sabbath limits, but since the ship was enclosed, they were allowed to walk throughout its confines.)
The Mishnah continues, stating that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua remained within the four cubits in which they were standing. Nevertheless, the Mishnah explains that this was merely a stringency they accepted upon themselves and not a binding obligation.
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7) accepts the more lenient view and allows one to proceed throughout a ship’s confines. lt must be emphasized, however, that this leniency applies only when there are barriers around a ship’s deck. When the barriers surrounding a ship’s deck are removed, one may proceed throughout the ship only when it is moving. If it is anchored, the passengers may move only four cubits.

As stated in Halachah 8, and in Chapter 16, Halachah 22, an enclosure that is erected on the Sabbath is significant. Therefore, this situation is considered analogous to that of a person who leaves his Sabbath limits unintentionally and enters an enclosed domain.

The Rambam does not grant the person any greater leniency than if he had been located in that place when the Sabbath began, and afterwards gentiles surrounded it with an enclosure. (See Halachah 8.)
The Ra’avad and the Rashba differ and explain that greater leniency should be granted in this instance. Halachah 8 is speaking about establishing a person’s place at the beginning of the Sabbath. Hence, if the enclosure is not erected at that time, it is not significant. This halachah is speaking about a person who is removed from his Sabbath limits against his will. Since we follow the principle that any enclosure is considered to be merely four cubits—whatever the size of that enclosure—he should be granted permission to walk throughout its limits, and 1996 cubits beyond it.

In this instance as well, the Rambam is referring to a well known Talmudic incident. Eruvin 43b relates that Rav Nechemiah, one of Rav Nachman’s students, had taken a Sabbath stroll, and while lost in thought had strayed beyond the Sabbath limits.
“Your student, Nechemiah, is beset by disturbance,” Rav Chisda told Rav Nachman.
“Make a human partition around him [see Chapter 16, Halachah 23] and let him enter,” Rav Nachman replied.

Note the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 406:1), which questions if this leniency applies when the person must urinate, or if it applies only when h. e must defecate.

Here we see how important the consideration of human dignity is. Even the prohibitions of our Sages—which the Torah obligates us to fulfill—are waived because of it (Rashi, Eruvin 41b).
This would appear to indicate that, according to the Rambam—who rules that the Sabbath limit of twelve mil has its source in the Torah—a person who travels more than twelve mil beyond his Sabbath limits may not move beyond four cubits, even to relieve himself (Minchat Chinuch, Mitzvah 24).

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states that one may intentionally move toward one’s Sabbath limits in search of a private place to relieve oneself. Nevertheless, if such a place presents itself before one is able to return to his Sabbath limits, he must avail himself of it. He may then move far enough away so as not to be bothered by the odor, but then he must confine himself to a square of four cubits.

As mentioned in Halachah 13, even if he was returned to his Sabbath limits by gentiles, the restrictions against his walking freely are not lifted.

See Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 3:2-4, which describes how witnesses who saw the new moon should proceed to Jerusalem to give testimony, even if it is necessary to violate the Sabbath laws.

Rosh HaShanah 2:6 explains that this refers to individuals who leave their Sabbath limits in an attempt to save lives—e.g., a midwife or a person who goes to rescue people from drowning, from an attack, or from an avalanche, as mentioned in the following halachah.

Rosh HaShanah (ibid.) explains that originally such people were considered to be individuals who leave their Sabbath limits voluntarily, and therefore could proceed no more than four cubits. Rabban Gamliel was the one who granted this leniency.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 23, where these concepts have been explained.