Shabbat 124a (קכד.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Elazar says: On the fourteenth

of Nisan

when it occurs on Shabbat,

one may not use a pole; rather, one

places

his hand on his fellow’s shoulder, and his fellow’s hand on his shoulder, and he hangs up the animal and skins it.

This Mishna was taught before the permission regarding utensils was granted; therefore, it was prohibited to use a pole for the purpose of skinning the Paschal offering.

The gelustera! For we learned

in tractate Kelim:

A bolt

with which one locks the door

that has a gelustera at its top,

whose top is thick and suitable for pounding garlic with the thick end.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: One removes it from this doorway

by dragging it,

and hangs

the bolt

on its fellow—

on another door. But it is prohibited to move the bolt explicitly, even though it is an object whose designated use is permitted.

Rabbi Tarfon says:

This bolt

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

And we see from the words of Rabbi Yehoshua that even an object whose designated use is permitted may not be moved for the sake of using the object itself. This Mishna was taught before the permission regarding utensils was granted.

The mortar! This is what we said

above: It is prohibited to move it when there is no garlic in it. Although Abaye and Rava explained above that this Mishna is referring either to moving it from the sun to the shade or to moving it for the sake of its place, in any event, these explanations are strained. The essential explanation is that this Mishna was taught before the permission regarding utensils was granted.

Rabba said: From where

do you know that these Mishnayot were taught before the permission regarding utensils was granted?

Perhaps I will always tell you that they were taught after the permission regarding utensils was granted,

and nevertheless it is prohibited to move them.

The reeds—what is the reason

that they arrange them in the arrangement?

Because of spoilage,

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

During this short interval,

during that brief period in which the old arrangement was left without reeds from Friday night until Shabbat, and the new arrangement was left from Shabbat until the conclusion of Shabbat,

it would not spoil

the bread would not spoil. Therefore, moving these reeds is considered moving an object without a need, and for this reason the Sages prohibited it.

The poles,

which we did not permit people to use on Passover eve when it occurs on Shabbat, this is because

it is possible, as Rabbi Elazar says,

to skin the Paschal offering while it is suspended on the outstretched arms between the shoulders of two people. Therefore, they did not permit the use of poles, which constitutes moving an object without a need, when it is possible to manage without them.

The gelustera,

the reason it is prohibited to move it

is in accordance with Rabbi Yannai.

As Rabbi Yannai said:

Our Mishna is referring

to a courtyard

to which many houses open,

that has not been joined by an eruv,

meaning that an eruv of courtyards had not been made. Utensils that spent Shabbat in a courtyard may be moved throughout that courtyard, but utensils that spent Shabbat in houses may not be moved in the courtyard.

Rabbi Yehoshua,

who said that one removes the bolt,

maintains that the interior of the doorway,

from which one takes the bolt,

is considered like the interior

of the house,

and is deemed

a bolt that spent Shabbat in a house.

And one is moving a utensil

that is a

utensil of the houses, in a courtyard,

and therefore they permitted him only to remove it, but not to move it completely from place to place.

But Rabbi Tarfon maintains that the interior of the doorway

from which he takes the bolt

is considered like the exterior,

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

And a utensil of the courtyard

and a utensil that spent Shabbat in the courtyard

may be moved in the courtyard.

Therefore, it is permitted to move the bolt completely from place to place.

The mortar

is prohibited to move when there is no garlic in it because

it follows the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya,

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

Mishna:

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

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

And in the Gemara we explain its meaning.

Gemara:

And we explain:

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

Rabba said: “For a need,”

which the first tanna permits, means

an object whose designated use is permitted, for the sake of using the object itself. “Without a need,”

which he permits, means

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

But an object whose designated use is prohibited, for the sake of using the object itself—is it permitted?

It is permitted to move it, but

for the sake of its place, it is not

permitted to move it. Rabba follows his position stated above, concerning the Mishna on page 122: A blacksmith’s hammer may be moved in order to crack nuts with it.

And Rabbi Neḥemya comes to say that even an object whose designated use is permitted, for the sake of using the object itself,

that is, for its designated use,

is it permitted?

It is permitted to move it, but

for the sake of its place, it is not. [The source means that an object whose designated use is prohibited may not be moved, since Rabbi Neḥemya permits moving an object only for its designated use, and the designated use of an object whose use is prohibited is for a prohibited purpose.]

Rava said to him: You call it “without a need” when it is for the sake of its place?

But since he needs the place occupied by the utensil, this moving is called moving for a need.

Rather, Rava said: “For a need,”

which the first tanna permits, means

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

which the first tanna permits, means

even

moving it

from the sun to the shade,

so that the utensil will not be damaged.

But an object whose designated use is prohibited—for the sake of using the object itself or for the sake of its place—is it not

permitted to move it? But

from the sun to the shade, it is not.

And Rabbi Neḥemya comes to say that even an object whose designated use is permitted, for the sake of using the object itself or for the sake of its place, is not permitted. [The need to use the object itself means a need for its designated use, and likewise, a need for its place is also considered a need involving its designated use.] But

from the sun to the shade, it is not.

And an object whose designated use is prohibited may not be moved, since this is not its designated use.

Rav Safra, Rav Aḥa bar Huna, and Rav Huna bar Ḥanina were sitting and saying: According to Rabba, in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya,

who maintains that an object whose designated use is permitted 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 an object whose designated use is permitted not moved for the sake of its place?

Rav Safra said to them:

The reason that bowls are moved after the meal is

because it is like a chamber pot

a utensil

for excrement.

Just as they permitted moving a chamber pot for excrement, so they permitted moving any repulsive object for the sake of human dignity. Therefore, dirty utensils may be removed from the table after the meal.

Abaye said to Rabba: According to you, in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya,

who maintain that an object whose designated use is permitted 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

explained it:

The permission is

because it is like a chamber pot for excrement.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava:

We learned in a beraita:

If there is garlic in a mortar, one may move it; but if not, one may not move it.

Granted, according to Rabba, the beraita can be established as referring to a case in which he moves it for the sake of its place, and therefore it is prohibited to move it. But according to you, since an object whose designated use is prohibited may be moved for the sake of its place, why did the beraita prohibit moving it?

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here?

With a case in which he moves it

from the sun to the shade,

and an object whose designated use is prohibited may not be moved from the sun to the shade.

He raised another objection: And they agree

—Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai—that if one

cut meat on it—

on the chopping block, on a Festival—

it is prohibited to move it.

But according to Rava, why is it prohibited to move it for the sake of its place?

And we answer:

Here too,

this beraita is referring to a case in which he wishes to move it

from the sun to the shade.

And we challenge: But we learned

in tractate Beitza:

One may not support

on a Festival

a 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, on a Festival, is designated for burning, and it is therefore

an object whose designated use is permitted;

nevertheless, the Mishna prohibited moving it for the sake of using the object itself.

Apparently, an object whose designated use is permitted, whether for the sake of using the object itself

and all the more so

whether for the sake of its place, is prohibited,

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

And we answer:

There, the reason is that, since on Shabbat

the piece of wood

is an object whose designated use is prohibited

and it is prohibited to move it,

a decree

was enacted:

a Festival

because of

Shabbat.

And if you would say that Shabbat itself should be permitted,

to move the piece of wood,

since an object whose designated use is prohibited may be moved for the sake of using the object itself or for the sake of its place,

according to Rava—

We answer:

These matters

in which we permit moving an object for the sake of using the object itself 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 the sake of using the object itself, but only for the purpose of burning it.

And we express astonishment:

Do we in fact enact a decree

that a Festival be treated like Shabbat?

But we learned: One lowers

one throws

fruits

that have been spread on the roof to dry

through a skylight

into the house when one sees that rain is coming

on a Festival,

when there is no great exertion,

but not on Shabbat.

Apparently, we do not enact a decree that a Festival be treated like Shabbat.

And we challenge:

Do we not enact a decree

that a Festival be treated like Shabbat?

But we learned: There is no difference between a Festival and Shabbat except for food preparation!

Apparently, in all other matters a Festival and Shabbat are alike, and this is because we do enact a decree that a Festival be treated like Shabbat.

And we answer:

This is not difficult.

The apparent contradiction between the Mishnayot is resolved as follows:

This

Mishna that states, “There is no difference between a Festival and Shabbat”

is Rabbi Eliezer’s

opinion, as he maintains that we enact such a decree.

That

Mishna that states, “One lowers”—

is Rabbi Yehoshua’s

opinion, as he maintains that we do not enact such a decree.

As it was taught in a beraita: If a cow and its offspring fell into a pit

on a Festival, and it is impossible to slaughter both of them on the same day:

Rabbi Eliezer says: He brings up the first one

from the pit

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

may not be brought up; rather, he

provides it with sustenance

he assists it

in its place

in the pit

so that it will not die.

Apparently, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that exertion is prohibited on a Festival because of Shabbat.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He brings up the first one

from the pit

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

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

he employs a ruse and brings up the second one

with the intention of slaughtering it.

If he wishes, he slaughters this one; if he wishes, he slaughters that one,

since each of the two is fit for slaughter.

And we see that Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that it is permitted to undertake exertion on a Festival in order to prevent financial loss, and they did not enact a decree that a Festival be treated like Shabbat.

And we reject this:

From where

do you know that this is the dispute?

Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer said there that the second one may not be brought up

and one may not undertake exertion on a Festival

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 impossible to provide it with sustenance, no,

he would not prohibit it, since we do not enact a decree that a Festival be treated like Shabbat.

Alternatively, perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua said

that it is permitted to bring up the second one

only there, where it is possible to employ a ruse,

as it appears as though he is acting for the needs of the Festival, since an observer may say that the first animal he brought up was lean and the second was better than it.

But where it is impossible to employ a ruse,

and everyone knows that his exertion is intended to save his property,

no,

Rabbi Yehoshua did not permit undertaking exertion on a Festival.

And we return to answer:

Rather, Rav Pappa said: This is not difficult; this is the opinion of Beit Shammai, and that is the opinion of Beit Hillel. For we learned

in tractate Beitza: