אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַקָּטָן וְאֶת הַלּוּלָב וְאֶת סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.

One may neither carry a child nor a lulav nor a Torah scroll out to the public domain on a Festival, and Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Hillel permit carrying objects from one domain to another on a Festival for purposes other than preparing food.

אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לְהוּ לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי הוֹצָאָה – טִלְטוּל מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לְהוּ?! וְטִלְטוּל גּוּפֵיהּ, לָאו מִשּׁוּם הוֹצָאָה הִיא?!

The Gemara rejects this: Say that you heard Beit Shammai prohibit carrying out an object from one domain to another; did you hear that they prohibited moving an object? The Gemara rejects that distinction: And isn’t the prohibition of moving itself a decree issued due to the prohibition of carrying out? One who prohibits carrying out certainly prohibits moving an object as well.

וְאַף רַב סָבַר לָהּ לְהָא דְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רַב: מַר שֶׁלֹּא יִגָּנֵב – זֶהוּ טִלְטוּל שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ, וְאָסוּר. טַעְמָא – שֶׁלֹּא יִגָּנֵב, אֲבָל לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ וּלְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ – מוּתָּר.

The Gemara adds: And even Rav holds in accordance with this halakha of Rava, as Rav said: Moving a hoe so that it will not be stolen; that is an example of moving an object not for a specific purpose, and it is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason that it is prohibited is that it is moved so it will not be stolen; however, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, it is permitted.

אִינִי?! וְהָא רַב כָּהֲנָא אִיקְלַע לְבֵי רַב, וַאֲמַר: אַיְיתוּ לֵיהּ שׁוּתָא לְכָהֲנָא לֵיתֵיב עֲלֵיהּ. לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּדָבָר שֶׁמְּלַאכְתּוֹ לְאִיסּוּר לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ – אִין, לְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ – לָא?

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Kahana happen to come to the house of Rav, and he said: Bring a net for Kahana so that he may sit on it? Is that not to say that with regard to an object whose primary function is prohibited, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, yes, it is permitted to move it; and for the purpose of utilizing its place, no, it is prohibited?

הָכִי אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁקוֹלוּ שׁוּתָא מִקַּמֵּי כָּהֲנָא, וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָתָם מֵחַמָּה לַצֵּל הֲוָה.

The Gemara answers that this is what he said to them: Remove the net from before Kahana. That is a case of moving for the purpose of utilizing its place. And if you wish, say instead: There, it was a case of moving the object from the sun to the shade, as it was in a place where it could have been damaged. One might have mistakenly concluded that this was the reason that they were moving the net. Rav specified that the net was being moved for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, not to indicate that moving it for the purpose of utilizing its place is prohibited, but to indicate that moving from the sun to the shade is prohibited.

רַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל הֲוָה לֵיהּ הַהִיא בֵּי סַדְיוֹתָא בְּשִׁמְשָׁא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְטַלְטוּלִינְהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שָׁרֵי. אִית לִי אַחֲרִינָא. חֲזוּ לְאוֹרְחִין. אִית לִי נַמִי לָאוֹרְחִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גָּלִית אַדַּעֲתִיךְ דִּכְרַבָּה סְבִירָא לָךְ, לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – שָׁרֵי, לְדִידָךְ – אֲסִיר.

The Gemara relates that Rav Mari bar Raḥel, had felt cushions in the sun on Shabbat. Rav Mari came before Rava and said to him: What is the ruling with regard to carrying them? Rava said to him: It is permitted. Rav Mari said to Rava: I have others, and I do not need these cushions specifically. Rava said to him: Even so, these cushions are suitable for guests. Rav Mari said to him: I also have others for guests and therefore would be moving the cushions so that they would not be ruined in the sun. Rava said to him: You have revealed your opinion that you hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabba. For everyone else, it is permitted to move the cushions in this situation; however, for you, it is prohibited, as it is inappropriate to permit one to perform an action that he considers prohibited.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַשִׁי אָמַר רַב: מַכְבְּדוֹת שֶׁל מֵילְתָא – מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָן בַּשַּׁבָּת, אֲבָל שֶׁל תְּמָרָה – לֹא.

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: With regard to brooms made of fine wool garments, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat because it is permitted to use them. However, brooms made of date-palm fronds, no, they may not be moved. It is prohibited to fill holes in the ground.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף שֶׁל תְּמָרָה. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ וּלְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ – בְּהָא לֵימָא רַב “שֶׁל תְּמָרָה לֹא״? וְהָא רַב כְּרָבָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא מֵחַמָּה לַצֵּל, בְּהָא לֵימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר “אַף שֶׁל תְּמָרָה״?! לְעוֹלָם מֵחַמָּה לַצֵּל, אֵימָא: וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר.

Rabbi Elazar says: It is permitted to move e ven those made of date-palm fronds. The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If you say that this is referring to moving it for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, would Rav say a broom made of date-palm fronds, no, it may not be moved? Doesn’t Rav hold in accordance with the opinion of Rava? Rather, this is referring to moving the broom from the sun to the shade, and that these brooms are in a place where they can be damaged. However, it is still puzzling: In this case, would Rabbi Elazar say that even brooms made from date-palm fronds may be moved? The Gemara answers: Actually, this is referring to moving them from the sun, where they will be damaged, to the shade. Emend this and say: And so too, Rabbi Elazar said, like Rav, that it is prohibited.

מתני׳ כָּל הַכֵּלִים הַנִּיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת – שִׁבְרֵיהֶן נִיטָּלִין עִמָּהֶן, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ עוֹשִׂין מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה.

All vessels that may be moved on Shabbat, their shards may be moved along with them, as long as they are suited for some purpose.

שִׁבְרֵי עֲרֵיבָה – לְכַסּוֹת בָּהֶן אֶת פִּי הֶחָבִית, שִׁבְרֵי זְכוּכִית – לְכַסּוֹת בָּהֶן אֶת פִּי הַפַּךְ.

Shards of a large bowl may be used to cover the mouth of a barrel. Shards of a glass vessel to cover the mouth of a cruse.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ עוֹשִׂין מֵעֵין מְלַאכְתָּן; שִׁבְרֵי עֲרֵיבָה – לָצוּק לְתוֹכָן מִקְפָּה, וְשֶׁל זְכוּכִית – לָצוּק לְתוֹכָן שֶׁמֶן.

Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as they are suited for a purpose similar to their original use. Shards of a large bowl must be suited to pour soup into them, and shards of a glass vessel must be suited to pour oil into them.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרוּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, דְּמָר סָבַר: מֵעֵין מְלַאכְתָּן – אִין. מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת – לָא. וּמָר סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחֶרֶת.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This dispute in the mishna is only with regard to a case where the vessels broke on Shabbat eve, as this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that if they are suited for a purpose similar to their original use, yes, it is permitted, and for some other use, no, it is prohibited. And this Sage, the Rabbis, hold: Even if they are suited for some other use, it is also permitted.

אֲבָל נִשְׁבְּרוּ בַּשַּׁבָּת – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּרִין. הוֹאִיל וּמוּכָנִין עַל גַּבֵּי אֲבִיהֶן – מוּתָּר.

But if the vessels broke on Shabbat, everyone agrees they are permitted. The reason for this is since they were designated for Shabbat use and consequently considered prepared at the onset of Shabbat due to their original vessels, it is permitted to move the shards as well.

מוֹתִיב רַב זוּטְרַאי: מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים.

Rav Zutrai raised an objection from a baraita : One may kindle a fire on a Festival with whole vessels, but one may not kindle a fire with shards of vessels.

דְּנִשְׁבְּרוּ אֵימַת? אִילֵימָא דְּנִשְׁבְּרוּ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב – עֵצִים בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא לָאו – בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְקָתָנֵי “מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִים בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵּלִים״!

The Gemara seeks to clarify: Vessels that were broken when? If you say that they were broken before the Festival, why is it prohibited to light a fire with them? They are pieces of ordinary wood. Isn’t this referring to a case where they broke on the Festival, and it is taught: One may kindle a fire on a Festival with whole vessels, but one may not kindle a fire with shards of vessels. The legal status of a vessel broken on a Festival, and all the more so one broken on Shabbat, is more stringent, not less.

אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרוּ בַּשַּׁבָּת, דְּמָר סָבַר: מוּכָן הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר: נוֹלָד הוּא. אֲבָל מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּרִין הוֹאִיל וְהוּכְנוּ לִמְלָאכָה מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This dispute in the mishna is only with regard to a case where the vessels broke on Shabbat, as this Sage, the Rabbis, holds it was prepared before Shabbat as part of the original vessel, and this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that it is an item that came into being on Shabbat. Since they were not shards before Shabbat, they are a new entity and are set-aside. However, if they were broken from before the onset of Shabbat everyone agrees that it is permitted to move them, since they were prepared to serve some function while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat.

תָּנֵי חֲדָא: מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים. וְתַנְיָא אִידָךְ: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים כָּךְ מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים. וְתַנְיָא אִידָךְ: אֵין מַסִּיקִין לֹא בְּכֵלִים וְלֹא בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים.

With regard to the halakhot of Festivals, it was taught in one baraita : One may kindle a fire with whole vessels, but one may not kindle a fire with shards of vessels. And it was taught in the other baraita : Just as one may kindle a fire with vessels, so too, one may kindle a fire with shards of vessels. And it was taught in yet another baraita : One may neither kindle a fire with vessels nor with shards of vessels.

הָא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָא – רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה.

The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction between the baraitot : This baraita , which distinguishes between vessels and broken vessels, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside on a Festival. That baraita , which permits kindling with both vessels and shards, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside on a Festival. This third baraita , which prohibits kindling with both vessels and shards, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who prohibits moving a vessel for any purpose other than its designated function.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָנֵי לִיבְנֵי דְּאִישְׁתַּיּוּר מִבִּנְיָינָא – שָׁרֵי לְטַלְטוּלִינְהוּ, דַּחֲזוּ לְמִיזְגָּא עֲלַיְיהוּ. שְׁרַגִינְהוּ – וַדַּאי אַקְצִינְהוּ.

Rav Naḥman said: With regard to these bricks that remained from the building after construction was completed, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat, because they are suited for one to sit on them. And if one arranged them in a pile, he certainly thereby set them aside from his consciousness, and it is prohibited to move them.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֶרֶס קְטַנָּה מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בֶּחָצֵר, אֲבָל בַּכַּרְמְלִית – לֹא. וְרַב נַחְמָן דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּכַּרְמְלִית, אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – לֹא. וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: With regard to a small earthenware shard, is permitted to move it on Shabbat in the courtyard, because there are vessels there that need to be covered; but in a karmelit , no, one may not move it, because typically there are no vessels there and there would be no use for the shard. And Rav Naḥman himself said: Even in a karmelit it is permitted, but in the public domain, no, it is prohibited. And Rava said: Even in the public domain, it is permitted.

וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ; דְּרָבָא הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בְּרִיתְקָא דִּמְחוֹזָא, אִתְוַוסַאי מְסָאנֵיהּ טִינָא, אֲתָא שַׁמָּעֵיהּ שְׁקַל חַסְפָּא וְקָא מְכַפַּר לֵיהּ, רָמוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן קָלָא. אֲמַר: לָא מִיסְתַּיָּיא דְּלָא גְּמִירִי, מִיגְמַר נַמִי מִגְמְרִי?! אִילּוּ בֶּחָצֵר הֲוָאי – מִי לָא הֲוָה חַזְיָא לְכַסּוֹיֵי בֵּיהּ מָנָא? הָכָא נַמִי – חַזְיָא לְדִידִי.

And Rava follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rava was walking in the street of Meḥoza and his shoes became dirty with clay. His servant came, took a shard of earthenware from the street, and wiped the clay off. The Sages raised their voice at him to reprimand him. Rava said: Is it not enough for them that they did not learn, but they are also teaching others? If the shard was in a courtyard, wouldn’t it be suited to cover a vessel with it? Here too, the shard is also suited to me, and moving it should not be prohibited.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְגוּפַת חָבִית שֶׁנִּכְתְּתָה – מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בַּשַּׁבָּת. תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: מְגוּפָה שֶׁנִּכְתְּתָה – הִיא וּשְׁבָרֶיהָ מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ בַּשַּׁבָּת, וְלֹא יִסְפּוֹת מִמֶּנָּה שֶׁבֶר לְכַסּוֹת בָּהּ אֶת הַכְּלִי וְלִסְמוֹךְ בָּהּ כַּרְעֵי הַמִּטָּה, וְאִם זְרָקָהּ בָּאַשְׁפָּה – אָסוּר.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to the clay seal of a jug that was broken, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. That was also taught in a baraita : With regard to the clay seal that was broken, it is permitted to move it, and its shards are permitted to be carried on Shabbat. And one may not break a shard from it to cover a vessel with it or to support the legs of a bed with it. And if one threw it into the garbage dump, it is prohibited to move it because he set it aside from his consciousness.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב פַּפָּא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, זָרֵיק לֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ – הָכִי נַמִי דְּאָסוּר? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פַּפָּא:

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: If that is so, if one throws his cloak into the garbage dump, would you also say that it is prohibited to move it because it is set-aside? Isn’t the cloak still fit for use, and its status is not dependent on his intention? Rather, Rav Pappa said: