Pesak: The Halachah follows the first Tana.

Implied question: We hold that the teachings of R. Eliezer ben Yakov are Kav (few in number) and clean (the Halachah always follows him)!

Answer: Here we do not hold like him, rather, like Rabanan, since Rav Papa (who permits produce that left the Techum and returned, even b'Mezid) holds like Rabanan.

Assertion: It seems that even [if it left] b'Shogeg and it is not in its [initial] place, it seems that the Halachah follows the first Tana who permits.

Source #1: We say that b'Mezid, in its place, all agree that it is forbidden. They argue about b'Shogeg, not in its place. If so, Rav Papa, who permits b'Mezid in its place, all the more so he permits b'Shogeg, not in its place!

Note: Even though we retracted from saying that all agree about Mezid, it is unreasonable to say that we thought that b'Mezid in its place is more stringent than b'Shogeg not in its place, and really, we hold oppositely.)

Source #2: We hold that we do not fine Shogeg due to Mezid, not for Torah laws, and not for mid'Rabanan laws.

Disclaimer: You are forced to say that the reason R. Eliezer ben Yakov forbids b'Shogeg not in its place, is not a fine of Shogeg due to Mezid, for in their place he does not fine Shogeg due to Mezid!

Rather, it is because since they have only four Amos, we decree lest he come to take them out of their four Amos.

Support: The Yerushalmi says that R. Nechemyah says "unless they return to their place b'Shogeg." This is like R. Meir, who says that one who cooked on Shabbos b'Shogeg, it may be eaten.

Implied question: If [a Nochri] brought something [from outside the Techum] for a Yisrael, it is permitted to a different Yisrael, and we say below (47b) that items of Nochrim acquire Shevisah, and we do not decree lest one take it outside the city (outside its Techum)!

Answer #1: We distinguish between a city and four Amos.

Answer #2: When [the Isur] was done through a Nochri, [Chachamim] were not stringent.

Answer #3: Items of Nochrim acquire Shevisah, i.e. they decreed when the owner is a Nochri due to when the owner is a Yisrael. Due to this, we do not decree lest he take it out [of its Techum], for we do not make a decree due to a decree.

Explanation #1: The Yerushalmi establishes this like R. Yehoshua (who says in our Mishnah that if Nochrim brought him to another city and put him in a field where animals graze, he has only four Amos).

Explanation #2 (Rashi): It is even like R. Gamliel, who says that if they put him in a Dir or Sahar, he may go in all of it, even though he was not Shoves in its Mechitzos from before Shabbos;

Chachamim were lenient only there, that he has only four Amos. Here that he has 2000, they were not lenient.

Explanation (Ri): Even within 2000, he moves [things] through throwing, but he may carry normally only within four Amos;

Regarding carrying normally, it is totally breached to a place forbidden to it.

Implied question: Rav Huna holds above (17a) that [the beginning of] Shabbos determines [the law of the entire Shabbos]. Here he was forbidden at the start of Shabbos!

Answer: That is unlike here. Rav Huna agrees that a total Mechitzah made on Shabbos is considered a Mechitzah.

Explanation: When he takes (pulls) from outside to inside, there is no concern lest he be drawn after his item, but when he throws from inside to outside, the item is distanced from him.

Implied question: Rav Huna taught that one may carry only in four Amos!

Answer: That is towards the outside, to carry normally or throw. For this, it is totally breached to a place forbidden to it. Through pulling, he may carry everywhere. Regarding this, it is not totally breached to a place forbidden to it (for the item comes to the place of Heter).

Support: We find like this below (89a). Rav forbids to carry Kelim of the house [taken] to the roof more than four Amos, even though he may carry Kelim of the roof on all the roofs, and it is a place permitted to him.

Explanation: We know the law of [when his measure ends in] the middle of the city from the Mishnah below (61a).

Question: Also a Chatzer is obvious! Why should it be different than a cave? A Mishnah (61a) teaches that for one who measures, we give to him 2000 Amos, even if his measure ends in a cave. This connotes that he is permitted half the cave!

Suggestion: There, we discuss when his measure ended at the end of the cave.

Rejection: It says in the Gemara "he needed to teach the end of the city, for the Mishnah did not teach this"!

Answer: It is not common that Kelim are in a cave. There is more reason to decree in a Chatzer than in a cave.

Question: Why does Rav Huna permit carrying in half of the Chatzer? It is totally breached to a place forbidden to it!

Answer #1 (Rashi): [Rav Huna permits only] to walk [in half of the Chatzer].

Objection #1: The expression "Letaltel (to move)" does not connote [only] to walk!

Objection #2: [Rav Huna already] taught above (42a) that he may walk 2000 Amos in a valley, and we do not decree lest he walk outside of 2000!

Answer #2: Regarding carrying, we can distinguish between a valley and a Chatzer, since for others (who were in the Chatzer), it is considered a Mechitzah, in a Chatzer, [half] is not considered totally breached to a place forbidden to it!

Answer (to Objection #2): If he teaches about walking, like Rashi explained, Rav Huna needed to teach that even though there is more reason to decree in a Chatzer than in a valley, even so we do not decree. (Tosfos Shantz)

Question: Now we want to establish Shmuel like R. Gamliel. Below, Shmuel rules like R. Gamliel only regarding a boat!

Answer: The Gemara could have said "also according to you, this is difficult!"

Question: In a boat, he was Shoves within Mechitzos from before Shabbos, and below it is proven that they argue!

Answer: He holds that Mechitzos [of a boat] are made to keep out the water [so they are not considered Mechitzos].

Explanation: [We ask why he does not say like Rabah] and permit even [if the boat was] stationary.

Question: What was the question? For the same reason that R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva disagree with the reasons [of Rabah and R. Zeira, to permit carrying, each of these Amora'im] disagrees with the other's reason!

Answer: It is fine for R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva. They hold that any place outside the Techum, he has only four Amos. They do not distinguish between a Dir or Sahar, and a boat;

However, Rabah and R. Zeira distinguish between a Dir or Sahar, and a boat. We properly ask why one did not say like the other, that for this reason we can distinguish them.