That’s not how we should talk to one another TB Shabbat 124

Today’s daf Shabbat TB 124 uses key concepts concerning muktzeh to explicate the Mishnah on daf 124a. They are:

A utensil whose use is permitted on Shabbat, כלי שמלאכתו להיתר.

A utensil whose use is forbidden on Shabbat, כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and is muktzeh.

A utensil itself whose use is permitted on Shabbat, דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו.

A utensil whose use is permitted on Shabbat is permitted to be moved because the space it occupies is needed for some other purpose, דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך מקומו.

A utensil whose general use is forbidden on Shabbat, but can be repurposed for a Shabbat activity, is permitted דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו.

A utensil whose general uses forbidden on Shabbat whose space is occupies is needed for some other purpose, דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך מקומו.

 Moving an object from sunlight to shade in order to protect it, מחמה לצל.

Now Rava and Abaye disagree and how to apply these concepts. Abaye holds the position that a utensil itself whose use is permitted on Shabbat, דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו is permitted to be moved because the space it occupies is needed for some other purpose, דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך מקומו; however, one may not move it from the sunlight to the shade. One may use a utensil whose general use is forbidden on Shabbat, but can be repurposed for a Shabbat activity, דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו, but not move it for any other purpose at all.

Rava holds that a utensil itself whose use is permitted on Shabbat, דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו is permitted to be moved because the space it occupies is needed for some other purpose, דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך מקומו and is permitted to move it from the sunlight to the shade. One may use a utensil whose general use is forbidden on Shabbat, but can be repurposed for a Shabbat activity, דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו may be moved it for the space it occupies; however, one may not move it from the sunlight to the shade. The Shulkhan Arukh poskins according to Rava’s position (Oreckh Hayyim 308, halkhah 4).

Interestingly enough, the amoraim argue whether the area where the object is located affects its muktzeh status. “Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: With regard to a small earthenware shard, it 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.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rava holds the most lenient position saying that once an object loses its muktzeh designation it is always permitted.

A story is told that Rava is consistent with his viewpoint. “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.” (Sefaria.org translation) I hope that the Gemara is showing us a negative example in order that we shouldn’t imitate it. Both the sages and Rava use inflammatory language which probably only worsen the conversation and perhaps the relationship. If they both had used a kinder and gentler tone, each side’s position would have been heard, understood, and appreciated.