Study Eruvin folio 42A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
R' Neḥemya says: If the produce was returned and is now in its original place, it may be eaten; but if it is not in its original place, i.e., if it is still beyond the Shabbat limit, it may not be eaten.
The Talmud clarifies: What is meant by: In its place? If you say that the produce was returned to its place intentionally, there is a difficulty, as it was explicitly taught in a baraita: R' Neḥemya and R' Eliezer ben Ya’akov say: It is actually prohibited to carry the produce beyond 4 cubits, unl
Rather, does it not mean that the produce was returned to its place unwittingly, and the baraita is incomplete and it teaches the following: With regard to produce that was taken out beyond the Shabbat limit, if it was taken out unwittingly, it may be eaten; but if it was taken out intentionally
In what case is this statement said? In a case where the produce is not in its original place, i.e., it is still beyond the Shabbat limit. But if it was returned and is now in its original place, even if it was returned intentionally, it may be eaten. And R' Neḥemya came to say: Even if the produc
The Talmud rejects this explanation: No, this is not necessarily the case, as the baraita can also be explained as follows: If the produce was returned intentionally to its place, everyone agrees, i.e., both the first tanna and R' Neḥemya, that it is forbidden. However, here they disagree with reg