The Chayei Adam (Klal 68, sif 19) is in doubt if one is obligated to travel to another city to be able to fulfill a mitzvas aseh. The Nishmas Adam proves that one doesn’t need to travel to another city even for a mitzvah de’O’raisa such as shofar and lulav. The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (34b) says: If there are two cities, in one there is shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and in another city there is a minyan with a chazon who can daven Mussaf, one should go to the city where there is shofar, and not to the city with the chazon. The Gemara asks: Surely, it’s obvious, shofar is de’O’raisa and having a chazon is derabonon? The Gemara answers: We are talking about a case, when in the city with a chazon it’s definite that if one goes there, there will be a chazon and Mussaf, and in the city with a shofar there is a doubt if one will actually hear shofar if he goes there. Asks the Nishmas Adam: If one is obligated to travel to another city, how can there be a city where they have a minyan for davening, but they don’t have shofar, surely, they are all obligated to leave and go to a city where there is shofar? It must be, that one isn’t obligated to travel to another city to fulfill a mitzvah.
However, the Achronim (Shu”t Devar Yehoshua 1:1:2, and others) ask on the aforementioned proof, as perhaps one is obligated to go to another city in order to fulfill a mitzvah, and those who were able to in fact did, and the people left in the city are those who are old and weak etc. and unable to travel.
The Shu”t Maharsham (1:209) wants to resolve the doubt of the Chayei Adam from Tosfos in Pesochim (113b). Tosfos brings that Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to enter Eretz Yisroel to fulfill the mitzvos teluyos ba’aretz [commandments connected to the land], so we see one is obligated to go to another city to fulfill a mitzvah. However, the Maharsham refutes this proof, as Moshe Rabbeinu was anyway traveling in the desert and going from place to place and didn’t have any fixed place, so he wanted to rest in Eretz Yisroel. Hower, if one has a fixed place then perhaps it’s ok to stay put.
The Mekor Chaim (Hilchos Pesach 431:1) proves that one must travel to another city to fulfill a mitzvah from a Gemara in Chullin (139b). The Gemara by the mitzvah of shiluach hakan [the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird] suggests that since it says by shiluach hakan, שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך – “you shall send away the mother, and the children you shall take for yourself”, one is obligated to climb mountains and hills to fulfill the mitzvah. The Gemara concludes however, since it says,כי יקרא - “when you chance upon it”, one only has to fulfill the mitzvah if he happens to chance upon a nest. We see from this Gemara, that without the exclusion of כי יקרא, one would be obligated to travel far and wide to fulfill the mitzvah. By shiluach hakan we have a special drosha to say one doesn’t need to travel far and wide, however, by other mitzvos we don’t, therefore, seemingly by other mitzvos one must travel far and wide in order to fulfill the mitzvah, and certainly one must travel to another city.
However, the Maharsham suggests, it could be the mitzvah of shiluach hakan is different as the pasuk says שלח תשלח – “you shall surely send away”, using a double expression of sending away, therefore, one might think one is required to travel far and wide to fulfill the mitzvah, however, when there is no double expression then perhaps it’s obvious that there is no obligation.
However, the Maharsham then says: It could be by shiluach hakan we need a double expression as it’s not certain that if one climbs mountains and hills he will be able to fulfill the mitzvah, however, when it’s certain that one will fulfill the mitzvah by traveling, then perhaps even if the Torah uses a single expression one is still obligated to travel to fulfill the mitzvah.
The Maharsham concludes: We can bring proof from the Medrash (Tzav, 9) that one isn’t obligated to do acts to make him become obligated in a mitzvah. The Medrash says: “Great is peace, as by all mitzvos it says, ‘when you see’, ‘when you encounter’, ‘when it chances upon you’, if the mitzvah comes your way you must observe it, and if it doesn’t you don’t need to. However, when it comes to peace, it says, ‘seek out peace and run after it’, seek it in your place, and run after it if it’s in another place”. We see that besides for when making peace, one doesn’t need to run to another place to be able to do a mitzvah.
The Nishmas Adam suggests two reasons as to why one shouldn’t need to travel to another city before Rosh Hashanah or Succos in order to be able to fulfill the mitzvah of shofar and lulav: 1) If one has a wife and children he certainly doesn’t need to leave home, as the mitzvah of simchas Yom Tov is also de’O’raisa, and the halachah is, a husband is obligated to make his wife happy over Yom Tov, and running to another city certainly doesn’t help achieve this. 2) Before Yom Tov one is not bound to the mitzvos of Yom Tov, and on Yom Tov itself it is too late to go to another city, as it’s outside the techum.
According to these reasons, in the case of a yeshiva bochur, due to the first reason of simchas Yom Tov, since a bochur has no yoke on his head and he has no wife he needs to worry about, and he can fulfill the mitzvah of simchas Yom Tov wherever he is, he would need to travel to another city. However, according to the second reason, on erev Yom Tov there is not yet an obligation of davening tefillah betzibbur in a Yom Tov Sheini minyan, or an obligation of krias haTorah, therefore, why should we obligate the bochur already now to go to another city for the second day of Yom Tov.
