Shabbat 124b — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai say ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

one may not take out

on a Festival when it is not necessary

the child, the lulav, or a Torah scroll into the public domain.

For the labor of carrying out was not permitted on a Festival any more than on Shabbat, except for carrying out that is for the need of food.

And Beit Hillel permit

even carrying out that does not involve the need of food, for they hold that a Festival should not be likened to Shabbat.

And that Mishna of “There is no difference” is according to Beit Shammai. Whereas that Mishna of “They spread out” is according to Beit Hillel.

And we reject this:

Say that you heard from Beit Shammai

that they equate a Festival with Shabbat with regard to the labor of

carrying out.

But with regard to

moving

muktzeh—

did you hear from them

that they equate a Festival with Shabbat? And from where is it established that the Sages prohibited moving on a Festival just as it is prohibited on Shabbat?

And we answer:

And

because

moving itself—is it not because of carrying out?

For everything that they decreed concerning muktzeh was because of carrying out, lest one come to carry out on Shabbat. And if you permit moving on a Festival, they will also come to permit carrying out. Therefore, one may not distinguish between moving and carrying out.

And Rav too held this, the view of Rava

that an object whose designated use is for a prohibited activity may be moved for the sake of its use or for the sake of its place.

For Rav said: Master—

a shovel, if he wishes to move it so

that it not be stolen,

which is similar to moving it from the sun to the shade—

this is moving not for a need, and it is forbidden.

And we infer: The reason

that he moves it

so that it not be stolen

is therefore it is forbidden; but for the sake of its use or for the sake of its place, even though it is an object whose designated use is for a prohibited activity,

it is permitted.

And this is in accordance with Rava’s statement, that an object whose designated use is for a prohibited activity may also be moved for the sake of its place.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so?

How can you say that Rav permitted an object whose designated use is for a prohibited activity for the sake of its place?

But Rav Kahana happened to come to Rav’s house. And Rav said

to

bring a trap

for

Rav

to

Rav Kahana, so that he might sit

so that he would sit

upon it.

And from the fact that Rav had to explain that they should bring the trap so that he would sit upon it, does this not mean that

he came to say

that an object whose designated use is for a prohibited activity—for the sake of its use, yes,

only for this purpose is it permitted to move it. But

for the sake of its place—

no!

And therefore Rav emphasized that the moving was for the sake of its use.

And we answer:

No.

There is no proof from there. Rather,

this is what he said to them

Rav:

Take the trap,

take the trap from the place where it stood,

from before

Rav

Kahana,

so that there would be a place there for Rav Kahana to sit. And this means that the moving was for the sake of its place.

And if you wish, say:

that which Rava had to say that they should move it so that Rav Kahana would sit upon it,

there, it was from the sun to the shade,

for the trap was in a place where it could be damaged. And there was room to err and think that Rav permitted moving from the sun to the shade; therefore Rav explained his words, that the permission to move was for the sake of its use, but from the sun to the shade it is in truth forbidden to move.

Rav Mari bar Rachel had those felt cushions

felt cushions

in the sun,

lying in the sun and liable to be damaged.

He came before Rava. He said to him

Rav Mari to Rava:

What is the ruling concerning moving them,

is it permitted to move them from the sun to the shade?

He said to him

Rava:

It is permitted!

And Rava followed his own reasoning, that an object whose designated use is permitted may be moved from the sun to the shade.

He said to him

Rav Mari:

I have

I have cushions

other

ones, and I have no need of them.

He said to him

Rava:

See

these cushions

for guests.

Rav Mari said to him:

I also have

cushions

for guests,

and I have no need of them.

He said to him

Rava:

You have revealed your mind

you have revealed your opinion

that you hold like Rabba,

that an object whose designated use is permitted, when it is not needed for its use, is forbidden to move; therefore you said to me that you have no need of the cushions.

And therefore:

according to everyone—

it is permitted

to move them, for an object whose designated use is permitted may be moved from the sun to the shade.

But

according to you,

who hold like Rabba, that an object whose designated use is permitted is forbidden to move from the sun to the shade, for you it is

forbidden.

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Brooms made of cloth,

a broom made of cloth with which the table is cleaned—

it is permitted to move them on Shabbat.

But

brooms

of palm branches,

with which the floor is swept [and it is forbidden to sweep the house on Shabbat, because when he sweeps the house he fills the depressions with earth, and this is leveling depressions [which is building on Shabbat]]—

no!

That is, it is forbidden to move them.

Rabbi Elazar says: Even those of palm branches

it is permitted to move them.

And we explain:

With what are we dealing?

If you say

that he moves them

for the sake of its use or for the sake of its place.

And

would Rav say in this case that those of palm branches are not permitted!?

But Rav—

he holds like Rava,

that an object whose designated use is for a prohibited activity may be moved for the sake of its use.

Rather,

that he moves them

from the sun to the shade.

And therefore the Rabbis prohibited it.

And we refute: Would

Rabbi Elazar say in this case: even

brooms

of palm branches

are permitted to move!? But concerning an object whose designated use is for a prohibited activity, there is no one who holds that it is permitted to move it from the sun to the shade.

And we answer:

Actually, when he moves them

the case is when one moves them

from the sun to the shade.

And

say

that this is how we should read it:

And Rabbi Elazar likewise said,

in accordance with the words of the Rabbis, that brooms made of cloth may be moved, but brooms made of palm branches, whose designated use is for a prohibited activity, may not be moved.

Mishna:

All vessels that may be moved on Shabbat—

their fragments may be moved together with them,

for they are permitted to be moved whether they broke on Shabbat or before Shabbat,

provided that they perform something resembling a function,

that they be suitable for some function, even if it does not resemble their previous function.

For example,

fragments of a kneading trough

in which dough is kneaded, if they are suitable

to cover with them the mouth of a barrel.

And likewise

fragments of glass,

if they are suitable

to cover with them the mouth of a jug.

Rabbi Judah says:

the fragments may be moved only

provided that they perform

that it be possible to perform with them

something resembling their function

the first, previous one.

For example:

fragments of a kneading trough, if they are now suitable

if they are now suitable

to pour thick soup into them,

thick soup.

And those of glass,

fragments of glass, if they are now suitable

to pour oil into them.

When the fragments and the vessels serve as a receptacle.

Gemara:

Rav Judah said that Shmuel said: The dispute

of the first tanna and Rabbi Judah is when

they broke

the vessels

on the eve of Shabbat.

For one master,

Rabbi Judah,

holds

that only when the fragments serve

something resembling their function, yes.

Only then may they be moved. But when they are suitable for performing only

something resembling another function—

no,

they may not be moved.

And one master,

the first tanna,

holds: even

when the fragments serve

something resembling another function.

But if they broke on Shabbat—

everyone agrees that they are permitted,

even when they do not serve something resembling their previous function. For

since they were prepared

the fragments

along with their fathers—

it is permitted

to move them. For at the onset of Shabbat, while the vessels were whole, they were permitted to be moved.

And this reasoning, that the condition of the whole vessel on the eve of Shabbat makes it easier to move its fragments on Shabbat, is reasoning concerning the “name of the vessel” in relation to its preparedness.

The reason that a vessel fragment is muktzeh is because it was not “prepared” on the eve of Shabbat for use as a vessel fragment. But since it had the name of a vessel upon it at the onset of Shabbat and was “prepared” for use on Shabbat, this name and its preparedness did not leave it during Shabbat, even when it broke [and provided that it is suitable for some function, for if it is not suitable for use it is muktzeh because of itself].

It is possible that this is the explanation of Rashi’s words at the beginning of tractate Beitza and at the end of tractate Shabbat, who holds that the seeds of fruits may be moved from upon the table, since the “name of the fruit” is still upon them, even after the fruit has been eaten and only the seeds remain].

Rav Zutrai raised an objection

from that which we learned in a beraita:

One may fuel

on a Festival

with whole vessels,

for they are suitable to be moved.

But one may not fuel with fragments of vessels,

for they are muktzeh.

And we explain:

That they broke—

when?

When?

If you say that they broke on the eve of the Festival—

why may one not fuel with them? But

they are merely wood,

and they are not muktzeh, since from the eve of the Festival they stood ready for fuel.

Rather, is it not that they broke

on

the Festival. And it teaches: One may fuel with whole vessels, but one may not fuel with fragments of vessels.

And we do not say that the fragments of the vessels were prepared along with their fathers at the onset of the Festival; rather, we say that they are nolad, and it is forbidden to move them.

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows:

Rav Judah said that Shmuel said: The dispute

of the first tanna and Rabbi Judah is when

they broke on Shabbat.

For one master,

the first tanna,

holds: It is prepared

along with its father.

And one master,

Rav Judah,

holds: It is nolad

and it is forbidden to move them.

But if they broke

broke

on the eve of Shabbat—

everyone agrees that they are permitted

to be moved, since they were prepared for a function while it was still day.

One [tanna] taught

a beraita:

One may fuel with whole vessels, but one may not fuel with fragments of vessels.

And another taught

in another beraita:

Just as one may fuel with whole vessels, so one may fuel with fragments of vessels.

And another taught,

a third beraita:

One may fuel neither with whole vessels nor with fragments of vessels.

And we explain:

This

that was taught, one may fuel with whole vessels but not with fragments of vessels—

it is Rabbi Judah

who holds that there is muktzeh and nolad.

And therefore, with whole vessels he may fuel, since they are not muktzeh. But with fragments of vessels it is forbidden to fuel, because they are nolad.

This

that was taught, one may fuel with both—

it is Rabbi Shimon,

who holds neither of muktzeh nor of nolad. Therefore he may fuel even with fragments of vessels.

This

that was taught, one may not fuel even with whole vessels—

it is Rabbi Nehemiah,

who holds that a vessel may be moved only for its designated use, and ordinary vessels are not designated for fuel.

Rav Nahman said: These bricks

bricks

that remained from construction,

which remained after the construction was completed and from then on were no longer intended for building with them—

it is permitted to move them

to move them, since

they are suitable for sitting upon them.

They are suitable for sitting upon, and they have the status of a vessel.

But if he

arranged them,

he arranged the stones one upon another—

he certainly set them aside

for another building project, and it is forbidden to move them.

Rav Nahman said that Shmuel said:

a piece of

small pottery—

it is permitted to move it in a courtyard,

because vessels are commonly found there, and the pottery is suitable for covering them; therefore the pottery has the status of a vessel.

But in a karmelit [

that is, even in a place where it is permitted to move within it, such as within four cubits,] since vessels are not commonly found there and the pottery has no use—

no.

Rather, it is forbidden to move it.

And Rav Nahman himself said: Even in a karmelit

it is permitted to move the pottery. For there are people who sit there, and the pottery has a use for covering spittle, and it has the status of a vessel.

But in the public domain—

no!

There the pottery has no use, and therefore it is forbidden to move it there, even within less than four cubits.

And Rava said: Even in the public domain

it is permitted to move it less than four cubits. Since in a courtyard it has the status of a vessel, even when it is in the public domain the status of a vessel does not leave it.

And Rava proceeded

and went

according to his own reasoning.

For Rava was walking along a path

in the public domain

that was muddy.

His shoes became soiled with mud,

his shoes became dirty with mud.

His attendant came,

his attendant,

took a shard of pottery

and took a piece of pottery

and wiped it for him,

and wiped the mud with the pottery.

The Sages raised their voices against him,

they rebuked him—the Sages’ attendant—for this, because he had moved the pottery in the public domain.

He said

Rava:

Is it not enough

it is not enough

that they have not learned

that they do not know what is permitted and what is forbidden,

they also teach the error thoroughly

they teach this error to others!?

If it had been in a courtyard

the pottery,

would it not have been suitable

suitable

to cover a vessel with it

a vessel, and it would have been permitted to move it?

Here too it is suitable

this pottery

of mine

to wipe with it. And although this use is not common, nevertheless, since this pottery has the status of a vessel in a courtyard, this is sufficient to permit moving it in the public domain in order to wipe with it.

Rav Judah said that Shmuel said: A lid

a stopper

of a barrel that was broken

the barrel

it is permitted to move

the lid, for it is suitable for covering a vessel.

It was also taught so: A lid

whose barrel was broken,

it—

the lid—

and its fragments

of the barrel

are permitted to be moved on Shabbat,

for they are suitable for covering vessels.

But one may not detach a fragment from it,

and one may not repair it or remove the protrusions from the fragment in order

to cover the vessel with it, or to support

or to support with this smooth box-like fragment

the legs of the bed.

For by removing the protrusions he makes a vessel out of the piece of pottery, and this is striking with a hammer.

And if he threw

this lid

into the refuse,

the status of a vessel left it and it is

forbidden

to move it.

Rav Pappa raised an objection to this: From now on,

since throwing the lid is effective in removing the status of a vessel from it,

let him throw his garment

if he threw the garment into the refuse on Shabbat, would

it likewise be forbidden

to move it? Certainly throwing a garment into the refuse does not remove the garment from the status of a vessel.