Shabbat 124a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Elazar says: On the fourteenth

of Nisan

when it occurs on Shabbat

he does not use a stick, but

places ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

his hand upon his fellow’s shoulder, and his fellow’s hand upon his shoulder, and he hangs [the animal] and flays it.

And this Mishna was taught before the permitting of the vessels; therefore it was forbidden to use a stick for the purpose of flaying the Paschal offering.

A galustera! For we learned

in tractate Kelim:

A bolt

with which they lock the door

that has a galustera at its head,

whose head is thick and suitable for pounding garlic with its thick side.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He removes it from this doorway

by dragging

and hangs

the bolt

on its fellow—

on another door. But to move the bolt directly is forbidden, even though its use is for a permitted purpose.

Rabbi Tarfon says:

This bolt

is like all the utensils and may be moved in the courtyard.

And we see from Rabbi Yehoshua’s words that even a utensil whose use is for a permitted purpose is forbidden to move for its bodily use. And this Mishna was taught before the permitting of the vessels.

A mortar! This is what we said

above, that it is forbidden to move it when there is no garlic in it. And even though Abaye and Rava explained above that this Mishna is speaking either of moving it from the sun to the shade or for the sake of its place, nevertheless, these explanations are strained. The main point is that this Mishna was taught before the permitting of the vessels.

Rabba said: From where

do you know that these mishnayot were taught before the permitting of the vessels?

Perhaps I will always tell you that they were taught after the permitting of the vessels,

and nevertheless it is forbidden to move them.

The reeds—for what reason

do they arrange them on the pile?

Because of preventing decay,

so that they should not decay [and we do not rely upon the miracle that the showbread would remain fresh as on the day it was placed].

During this small amount of time,

during that short time in which the old pile remained without reeds, from the night of Shabbat until Shabbat, and the new pile remained from Shabbat until the end of Shabbat,

it does not decay

—the bread would not decay. Therefore this moving of the reeds is considered moving without a need, and therefore they forbade it.

The sticks,

which we did not permit using on Passover eve that occurs on Shabbat—the reason is

that it is possible according to Rabbi Elazar

to flay the Paschal offering while it is hanging upon the outstretched forearms between the shoulders of two people. Therefore they did not permit using sticks, which is moving without a need, when it is possible without it.

A galustera,

the reason it is forbidden to move it is

in accordance with Rabbi Yannai.

For Rabbi Yannai said:

Our Mishna is speaking

in a courtyard

to which many houses open,

which is not joined

—and we are dealing with a courtyard in which an eruv of courtyards was not made. For utensils that spent Shabbat in the courtyard may be moved in the courtyard, but utensils that spent Shabbat in the houses may not be moved in the courtyard.

Rabbi Yehoshua,

who said that he removes the bolt,

holds: Within the doorway,

from where he takes the bolt,

is considered as inside,

like within the house,

it is deemed,

and the bolt is considered a utensil that spent Shabbat in the house,

and one moves a utensil

of a house

in a courtyard;

therefore they permitted him only to remove it, but not to move it with a complete movement.

And Rabbi Tarfon holds: Within the doorway,

from where he takes the bolt,

is considered as outside,

and it is like a utensil that spent Shabbat in the courtyard.

And a utensil of the courtyard

and a utensil that spent Shabbat in the courtyard

he moves in the courtyard.

Therefore it is permitted to move the bolt with a complete movement.

A mortar

the reason it is forbidden to move it when there is no garlic in it is that

it is Rabbi Nehemiah’s [opinion],

who holds that a utensil may be moved only for its designated use.

Our Mishna:

All the utensils may be moved whether for a need or without a need.

Rabbi Nehemiah says: They may be moved only for a need.

And in the Gemara we explain it.

Gemara:

And we explain:

What is “for a need,” and what is “without a need”?

Rabba said: “For a need,”

which the first tanna permits, means

an object whose use is for a permitted purpose, for its bodily use. “Without a need,”

which he permits, means

an object whose use is for a permitted purpose, for the sake of its place.

And an object whose use is for a prohibited purpose, for its bodily use—yes,

it is permitted to move it, but

for the sake of its place, no,

it was not permitted to move it. And Rabba follows his reasoning above, in the Mishna on page 122: that a blacksmith’s hammer may be moved in order to crack nuts with it.

And Rabbi Nehemiah came to say: Even an object whose use is for a permitted purpose, for its bodily use,

that is, for its designated use,

yes,

it is permitted to move it, but

for the sake of its place, no. [

But a utensil whose use is for a prohibited purpose is forbidden to move, for Rabbi Nehemiah permits only for its designated use, and in a utensil whose use is prohibited, its designated use is for a prohibited purpose.]

Rava said to him: “For the sake of its place”—you call this “without a need”?

But since he needs the place of the utensil, this moving is called “for a need.”

Rather, Rava said: “For a need,”

which the first tanna permits, means

an object whose use is for a permitted purpose, whether for its bodily use or for the sake of its place. “Without a need,”

which the first tanna permits, means

even

moving

from the sun to the shade,

so that the utensil should not be ruined.

And an object whose use is for a prohibited purpose, for its bodily use and for the sake of its place—no,

it is permitted to move it, but

from the sun to the shade, no.

And Rabbi Nehemiah came to say: Even an object whose use is for a permitted purpose, for its bodily use and for the sake of its place—no. [

And this “bodily use” means for its designated use, and likewise the sake of its place is also considered like its designated use.] But

from the sun to the shade, no.

And a utensil whose use is for a prohibited purpose is forbidden to move, for this is not its designated use.

Rav Safra, Rav Aha bar Huna, and Rav Huna bar Hanina sat and said: According to Rabba, in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah,

who holds that a utensil whose use is for a permitted purpose may not be moved for the sake of its place,

these bowls

which were used for eating, after the meal,

how do we move them

and how do we remove them from the table? Is it not the case that a utensil whose use is for a permitted purpose is not moved for the sake of its place?

Rav Safra said to them:

This that we move bowls after the meal is

like the case of a chamber pot

a utensil

of excrement.

And just as they permitted moving a chamber pot of excrement, so they permitted moving every repulsive thing for the sake of his honor. Therefore dirty utensils after the meal may be removed from the table.

Abaye said to Rabba: To my master, according to Rabbi Nehemiah,

who holds that a utensil whose use is for a permitted purpose may not be moved for the sake of its place,

these bowls

after the meal

how do we move them

?

Rabba said to him: Our colleague Rav Safra

our colleague

interpreted it:

the permission is

like the case of a chamber pot of excrement.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava:

We learned in a beraita:

If there is garlic in a mortar, it may be moved; but if not, it may not be moved.

Granted, according to Rabba we can establish the beraita as referring to a case in which he moves it for the sake of its place, and therefore it is forbidden to move it; but according to you, since a utensil whose use is for a prohibited purpose may be moved for the sake of its place, why did the beraita forbid moving it?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing?

When he moves it

from the sun to the shade,

and a utensil whose use is for a prohibited purpose is forbidden to move from the sun to the shade.

He raised an objection: And they agree

Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai that if

one chopped upon it—

on the upper stone, meat on the Festival—

it is forbidden to move it.

And why is it forbidden to move it, according to Rava, for the sake of its place?

And we answer:

Here too,

this beraita is also speaking of when he wishes to move it

from the sun to the shade.

And we raise a difficulty: But what of that which we learned

in tractate Beitza:

One may not support

on the Festival

the pot with a beam,

a piece of wood,

and likewise with a door

one may not support it with a piece of wood.

But a piece of wood, which on the Festival stands for kindling, is

an object whose use is for a permitted purpose,

and nevertheless the Mishna forbade moving it for its bodily use.

It follows that an object whose use is for a permitted purpose, both for its bodily use

and all the more so

for the sake of its place, is forbidden,

and this is difficult both according to Rabba and according to Rava.

And we answer:

There, this is the reason: Since on Shabbat

the piece of wood

is an object whose use is for a prohibited purpose

and it is forbidden to move it,

a decree

we decree

the Festival

in accordance with

Shabbat.

And if you would say: Shabbat itself should be permitted

to move the piece of wood,

for after all, an object whose use is for a prohibited purpose, for its bodily use and for the sake of its place, is permitted

according to Rava?

And we answer:

These words

that we permit moving it for its bodily use apply

where it has the status of a utensil,

but

where it does not have the status of a utensil,

such as a piece of wood, which does not have the status of a utensil,

no,

they did not permit moving it for its bodily use, but only for kindling.

And we are astonished:

Do we decree

the Festival in accordance with Shabbat?

But we learned: One lets down

one throws

fruits

spread out to dry on the roof

through a skylight

into the house when one sees that rains are coming

on the Festival,

when there is no great exertion,

but not on Shabbat.

It follows that we do not decree the Festival in accordance with Shabbat.

And we raise a difficulty:

Do we not decree

the Festival in accordance with Shabbat?

But we learned: There is nothing between the Festival and Shabbat except food preparation alone!

It follows that in the other matters the Festival and Shabbat are equal, and this is the reason that we decree the Festival in accordance with Shabbat.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

The contradiction between the mishnayot:

This

which we learned, “There is nothing between the Festival and Shabbat”

is Rabbi Eliezer’s

opinion, who holds that we decree.

This

which we learned, “One lets down”—

is Rabbi Yehoshua’s

opinion, who holds that we do not decree.

For it was taught in a beraita: The one and its offspring, which fell into a pit

on the Festival, and it is impossible to slaughter both of them on one day.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He brings up the first

from the pit

with the intention of slaughtering it, and he slaughters it. And the second

is forbidden to bring up, but

he provides it with sustenance—

he assists it

in its place

in the pit

so that it should not die.

It follows that Rabbi Eliezer holds that they forbid exertion on the Festival on account of Shabbat.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He brings up the first

from the pit

with the intention of slaughtering it, but he does not slaughter it

afterward. And since he did not slaughter the first, and the second is fit to be slaughtered,

he uses a stratagem and brings up the second

with the intention of slaughtering it. And

whether he wishes, he slaughters this one; whether he wishes, he slaughters that one,

for each of the two is fit for slaughter.

And we see that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is permitted to undertake exertion on the Festival because of monetary loss, and they did not decree the Festival on account of Shabbat.

And we reject this:

From where

do you know that they disagree about this?

Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer said there only this far

that it is forbidden to bring up the second and undertake exertion on the Festival,

but only because it is possible to provide it with sustenance

in its place, and there is no need to bring it up;

but where it is not possible to provide it with sustenance, no,

he did not forbid it, for we do not decree the Festival on account of Shabbat.

Alternatively, Rabbi Yehoshua said only this far

that it is permitted to bring up the second, but

there it is possible through a stratagem,

for it appears as though he is doing it for the need of the Festival, as one who sees says that the first one he brought up was lean and the second was better than it.

But where it is not possible through a stratagem

and everyone knows that his exertion is in order to save his property,

no,

Rabbi Yehoshua did not permit undertaking exertion on the Festival.

And we return to answer:

Rather, Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult; this is Beth Shammai, and that is Beth Hillel. For we learned

in tractate Beitza: