Eruvin 42A

רבי נחמיה אומר: במקומן ⁠— יאכלו, שלא במקומן ⁠— לא יאכלו.

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.

מאי במקומן? אילימא: במקומן ⁠— במזיד, והא קתני בהדיא, רבי נחמיה ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומרים: לעולם אסורין עד שיחזרו למקומן שוגגין. בשוגג ⁠— אין, במזיד ⁠— לא.

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, unless it was returned to its place unwittingly. By inference, only if it was returned unwittingly is it indeed permitted, but if it was returned intentionally, it is not permitted.

אלא לאו: במקומן ⁠— בשוגג, וחסורי מחסרא, והכי קתני: פירות שיצאו חוץ לתחום, בשוגג ⁠— יאכלו, במזיד ⁠— לא יאכלו.

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, it may not be eaten.

במה דברים אמורים ⁠— שלא במקומן, אבל במקומן ⁠— אפילו במזיד יאכלו. ואתא רבי נחמיה למימר: אפילו במקומן נמי, בשוגג ⁠— אין, במזיד ⁠— לא.

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 produce was returned and is now in its original place, a distinction applies. If it was returned unwittingly, yes, it is permitted; but if it was returned intentionally, it is not.