Eruvin Chart #3

MOVING OBJECTS THAT WERE REMOVED FROM THEIR TECHUM

		(A) TANA KAMA	(B) REBBI NECHEMYAH
IF THEY ARE STILL OUT OF THEIR TECHUM
1)	REMOVED B'MEZID	They may not be moved	They may not be moved
2)	REMOVED B'SHOGEG	They may be moved	They may not be moved (2)
IF THEY HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO THEIR TECHUM
3)	THEY WERE REMOVED B'MEZID	They may be moved (1) (2nd Answer: They may not be moved)	They may not be moved
4)	THEY WERE REMOVED B'SHOGEG	They may be moved	They may be moved

==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
(1) This is the ruling of Rav Papa. The Gemara is in doubt whether or not an inference can be made from the words of the Tana Kama to support Rav Papa's ruling that it is permitted to move fruit that was removed from its place and returned b'Mezid. The Gemara concludes in both its first explanation and in its third and final explanation that Rav Papa's ruling *can* be inferred from the words of the Tana Kama, and his ruling is the subject of a Machlokes Tana'im (accordingly, the Tana Kama and Rebbi Nechemyah argue on two counts -- see rows (2) and (3)).
(2) The wording of the Gemara, "Even [when returned] in their place, they are *also* permitted b'Shogeg and not permitted b'Mezid" ("bi'Mekoman *Nami* b'Shogeg In b'Mezid Lo") implies that when they are not in their place but are still out of their Techum, the Halachah is the same as when they have been returned to their place and it is permitted to move them when they were removed b'Shogeg. However, it is clear from the words of Rashi (DH Ela Lav, and DH v'Asa) that the word "also" ("Nami") did not appear in his text of the Gemara. (It also does not appear in the Dikdukei Sofrim and other old manuscripts of the Gemara.) Accordingly, when objects were removed from their Techum b'Shogeg and have still not been returned to their original Techum, they are *forbidden* to be moved according to Rebbi Nechemyah.