14 Feb THE SHABBOS FERRY

I. Ferries on Shabbos
There have been times
in history when Jewish
communities have
settled on different sides
of a river. The question
arose whether people
could cross the river on
Shabbos. Of course, if there is a bridge that
you can walk across then the issue is fairly
simple. As long as you don’t travel outside
the techum Shabbos (roughly 6/10 of a mile
from the boundary), there isn’t a problem.
However, bridges can be expensive. Small
towns might use other options that raise
halachic questions.
A ferry is a boat that is manually driven
back and forth across the river, from side to
side. In contrast, a reaction ferry is connected
by cable to each side of the river and floats
from side to side. Primarily, the reaction ferry
is propelled by the water current but may
be steered or pushed by a driver. It barely
requires any human intervention. Are you
allowed to use a reaction ferry to cross a river
on Shabbos?
In 1606, Rav Mordechai Ziskind Rotenberg
(Maharam Ziskind) was asked about a
community in which a small river split the
town. When the town’s bridge broke, they

established a reaction ferry in which the
sailor moves the boat only by pulling on the
cable that spans across the river. Can the few
Jews on one side of the river use the ferry on
Shabbos to go to shul? The ferry is the only
way they can pray with a minyan. Maharam
Ziskind notes that the Ran says that the
practice is to establish residency on a boat as
Shabbos begins — even lighting candles on
the boat — and then returning the next day
to travel on the boat. In this way, they do not
violate the techum (boundary) of Shabbos
because their techum is on the boat. However,
Maharam Ziskind says that according to the
Ran, a reaction ferry should be permitted even
without establishing residency on the boat
because the travel is completely within the
techum of a small town. However, he declines
to permit this practice because Rema does not
endorse this view but rather just says not to
object if people follow it. Additionally, he
suggests that the reason to establish residency
on the boat is not to move your techum to the
boat. Rather, it is because once you establish
your residency on the boat, when you return
to the boat on Shabbos day, you are entering
your “house”. Therefore, you would need to
light Shabbos candles on the ferry and then
return during the day.
Additionally, Maharam Ziskind says that
this would only be allowed in order to do a
mitzvah. However, he quotes Rav Ya’akov

Moelin (Maharil, 15th cen., Germany;
Eruvin, par. 7) who astonishingly says that
going to shul is not a sufficient mitzvah to
allow making an eruv techumin. He was
challenged that attending shul should at
least be as much a mitzvah as attending
a celebration. He responded that it is not
because you can pray at home. And you can
see this from the fact that the Sages allowed
hiring gentile musicians to play at a wedding
meal on Shabbos but did not allow that in
shul (contrary to the argument of the early
Reformers). Maharam Ziskind argues based
on this statement of Maharil that going to
shul is not a sufficient mitzvah to allow riding
a ferry even if you light Shabbos candles on
the boat.
III. The Koblenz Ferry
Rav Chaim Yair Bacharach (17th cen.,
Germany; Chavos Yair, no. 115 [112 in
old editions]) was contacted by a rich man
who lived just across the Rhine river from
Koblenz, Germany, where Rav Bacharach
once served as the rabbi. Most of the year,
there was a bridge made of large boats
across the river. However, for about three
months a year, there was ice flowing down
the river that threatened the boats. Instead,
there were ferries that took people across.
Can the rich man hire in advance a ferry
to take him across on Shabbos so he can
attend shul? Like Maharam Ziskind, Rav
Bacharach quotes the Maharil and says
that attending shul is not enough of a
mitzvah to allow this. Even if this man
is the tenth and without him there would
be no minyan in town, and even on Rosh
Hashanah (if this was an issue), he would
not be allowed to take a ferry across the
river to attend shul. However, if there are
reaction ferries built as flat rafts on top of
boats that move almost entirely on their
own, Rav Bacharach allows a Jew to go
on such a ferry if the Jew enters the boat
without saying anything to the ferry driver
and only uses on it in order to attend shul
(and return). Part of the reason to allow
this is that it does not look like any other
kind of boat. Apparently, this did not serve
the needs of the rich man in Koblenz
because he asked the same question to
another rabbi of Koblenz, who joined the
community a few decades later.
In 1698, a year after beginning to serve
as rabbi of Koblenz, Rav Ya’akov Poppers
was asked this same question and he
sent his proposed responsum to a higher
rabbinic authority who replied with his
own responsum (Responsa Shav Ya’akov,
no. 16). Rav Poppers leans towards
permitting usage of the reaction ferry if
there are also gentile passengers so that
any work would be done even without the
Jewish passenger — and even this would
be allowed only if the Jew establishes
residency on the boat as Shabbos begins.
However, his correspondent does not
allow even that and therefore Rav Poppers

refuses to rule leniently in practice.
IV. Conclusion
Rav Gershon Ashkenazi (17th cen.,
Germany; Avodas Ha-Gershuni, no. 123) was
also asked about using a reaction ferry on
Shabbos. He replies that using such a ferry
on Shabbos is rabbinically forbidden because
it still is boat travel, which is forbidden.
Additionally, even though a reaction ferry
can travel across the river on its own, in
practice the ferry driver uses a paddle-like
tool to guide the boat which is forbidden on
Shabbos. Rav Ashkenazi only allows a doctor

to use a ferry for someone sick, even not life-
threatening, because for such a person one

may violate a rabbinic prohibition.
However, Rav Nesanel Weil (the Korban
Nesanel, 18th cen., Germany; Nesiv Chaim,
248) permits using a reaction ferry if you
establish residency on the boat. Rav Weil’s
son found this practice in the city Komik near
the Moldau (Vltava) river. The father and son
exchanged a number of letters on the subject.
The father adopts Maharam Ziskind’s and
Rav Ya’akov Poppers’ lenient considerations
and rules leniently. He also notes that really
he is only justifying a practice that exists in
many communities.
Rav Chaim Yosef David Azulai (Chida,
18th cen., Israel; Machazik Berachah 248:3)
concludes that the vast majority of authorities
rule strictly on this issue despite Rav Weil’s
leniency. Similarly, Rav Chaim Mordechai
Margoliyos (19th cen., Poland; Sha’arei
Teshuvah, Orach Chaim 399:16) concludes that
you should refrain from using a reaction ferry
whenever there is not a clear mitzvah need.