TECHUM APPLICATIONS

• The Mishna rules that one who has his fruits in another city and the residents of the city make an eruv with the intention of bringing some of the fruits to him, they are not allowed to, since the fruits have the techum boundary of the owner. If he makes an eruv, it would be permitted. 

  One who invites guests to his house is not permitted to send them home with any leftovers since the food has the techum boundary of the owner. If he assigned ownership of the food to them prior to Yom Tov, it will be permitted. (39b – 40a)

   

  GUARDIAN AND DEPOSITOR

   

• The Gemora presents an argument regarding one who deposits fruits by his friend. Rav maintains that the fruit’s techum boundary is accorded to the guardian and Shmuel holds that the techum is like that of the owner. 

  The Gemora suggests that this dispute follows the same logic as an argument they have elsewhere. The Mishna in Bava Kamma rules that if one brings his property into someone else’s yard with permission, the yard owner will be liable for any damages that occur. Rebbe disagrees and maintains that he will only be liable if he explicitly states that he will be responsible to watch the property. Rav rules in accordance with the Chachamim and Shmuel rules according to Rebbe.

   

  The Gemora proposes that Rav’s opinion regarding techumin is based on the viewpoint of the Chachamim. They maintain that the guardian is considered somewhat of an owner on the object, and that is why he is responsible on the damages and that explains why the techum boundary will be established based on the guardian. Shmuel holds that the guardian does not assume any ownership rights at all and he is not responsible for the damages that incur and the techum boundary is based on the owner, not on the guardian.

   

   

  The Gemora rejects this analogy and states that Rav can hold like Rebbe as well. A guardian who accepts responsibility does assume total authority and the techum boundary will be accorded to him; however, in the Mishna in Bava Kamma, he did not assume responsibility and that is why he is not responsible. Shmuel can be consistent with the viewpoint of the Chachamim. The owner is willing to relinquish a portion of his ownership to the guardian in order that the guardian will be responsible for the damages and he will be exempt, however he has no reason to give the guardian authority in regards to the techum boundary.

   

  The Gemora states that even according to Rav who maintains that the techum boundary is according to the guardian, if the guardian designates a specific area in his house for the owner, the techum boundary will be based on the owner. (40a)