When one brings pitchers of wine from place to place, he may not bring them in a basket or in a box (for it appears similar to a weekday activity), but he may bring them on his shoulder, or in front of him. Likewise, one who brings straw, may not lower the bundle hang down over his back, but must bring it in his hand. One may start using a heap of straw, but one may not start using wood from a backyard.
A Tanna taught: If it is impossible to bring it in an unusual way, it is permitted (to bring in a basket or box).
Rava enacted in Mechuza: Whatever (load) one (normally) carries with a great effort, must be carried (on a festival) with a pitchfork; whatever is (normally) carried with a pitchfork is to be carried (on a festival) by a pole (on two people’s shoulders); whatever is (normally) carried by a pole is to be carried (on a festival) by a hand-held pole (for although it does not make it easier to carry, it is regarded as a deviation); whatever is (normally) carried by a hand-held pole is to be carried (on a festival) with a cloth spread over it; but if it is impossible (to vary the usual procedure), it is permitted, for a master said: If it is impossible (to bring it) in an unusual way, it is permitted.
Rabbi Chanan bar Rava said to Rav Ashi: Did the Rabbis say that on a festival (every work) as far as possible should be done in a different manner? But these women fill their buckets with water on a festival without any deviation, and we do not say anything to them!?
He replied to him: It is because it is impossible (in any other way). For how should it be done? If those, who normally draw water in a large bucket, should be required to draw in a small bucket, then they would be doing more walking! If those, who normally draw in a small bucket, should be required to draw in a large bucket, then you would increase their burden! Should they cover the vessel with a lid, it might fall off and they will have to carry it! Should they tie it (to the bucket), it might become unfastened and they would come to tie it up again! Should they spread a cloth over it, it might become soaked in water and they would come to squeezing! Therefore, it is impossible (otherwise).
Rava son of Rav Chanin said to Abaye: We have learned in a Mishna: We may not clap the hands or slap the thighs or dance (these are forbidden on a festival as a preventive measure so that they should not repair musical instruments), and yet we indeed see that people do this, and we do not tell them anything!?
He replied to him: And according to your opinion, that which Rabbah said: A man (on Shabbos) may not sit down at the edge of a lechi (sidepost), lest an object should roll away and he come to bring it (four cubits in a public domain); yet there are these women who take their water buckets and go and sit at the entrance of an alley and we do not say anything to them!
Rather, concludes Abaye, let the Jews (go their way): it is better that they should err unintentionally than deliberately; here also (I say), let the Jews (go their way): it is better that they should err unintentionally than deliberately.
The Gemora notes: This, however, applies only to a Rabbinical (prohibition) but not to a Biblical (prohibition).
The Gemora, however, rules that this is not so; for whether it (the prohibition) is Biblical or Rabbinical we do not tell them anything; for the additional time to Yom Kippur is a Biblical injunction, yet people eat and drink until dark and we do not say anything to them.
The Mishna had stated: One may start using a heap of straw.
Rav Kahana said: This proves that one (on a festival) may start using (items) for the first time from a storage area (although it was designated to be stored there for a long while for the eventual consumption of animals).
The Gemora asks: With whom does that agree?
The Gemora answers: It is with Rabbi Shimon who does not hold (the law of) of muktzeh.
The Gemora asks: Then consider the last clause: but one may not start using wood from a backyard; this is in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah who holds (the prohibition of) muktzeh.
The Gemora answers: We refer here (the latter part of the Mishna) to cedar and ashucheis (female cedar tree) which are muktzeh on account of monetary loss, where even Rabbi Shimon agrees.
Some recite this in reference to the last clause, as follows: but one may not start using wood from a backyard.
Rav Kahana said: This proves that one (on a festival) may not start using (items) for the first time from a storage area (since it was designated to be stored there for a long while for the eventual consumption of animals).
The Gemora asks: With whom does that agree?
The Gemora answers: It is with Rabbi Yehudah who holds (the law of) of muktzeh.
The Gemora asks: Then consider the first clause: One may start using a heap of straw; this is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon who does not hold (the prohibition of) muktzeh.
The Gemora answers: There (in the first part of the Mishna), it refers to rotted straw (which is not muktzeh, as it is designated to be used as fuel).
The Gemora asks: Rotted straw is indeed capable of being used for cement!?
The Gemora answers: We are referring to a case where there are thorns in it.
The Mishna states: One may not detach wood from a hut, but only from what is adjacent to it.
The Gemora asks: Why may he not detach wood from the hut? It is because he thereby demolishes a tent (by removing its roof)! Then if he takes it from what is adjacent to it, he likewise demolishes a tent!?
Rav Yehudah answered in Shmuel’s name: By the term adjacent, understand it as adjacent to the walls (and not to the roof).
Rav Menashya said: You can even say that they are not adjacent to the walls (but rather to the roof), but this was taught with respect to (tied) bundles (where they were never intended to be part of the roof).
Rabbi Chiya son of Yosef recited a braisa in the presence of Rabbi Yochanan: One may not detach wood from a hut, but only from what is adjacent to it, and Rabbi Shimon permits it. They agree, however, regarding the sukkah of Sukkos, which is used for the mitzvah, is prohibited, unless one correctly stipulated the right of use.
The Gemora asks: And Rabbi Shimon permits it; but surely he is demolishing a tent?
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers: We are referring here to a collapsed hut, and Rabbi Shimon follows his opinion, for he does not hold the prohibition of muktzeh. For it was taught in a braisa: It is forbidden to benefit from the leftover oil in the lamp or a bowl (after the fire has gone out). Rabbi Shimon permits its use. [ This dispute centers on the concept of migu d’iskatzai l’bein hashemashos, iskatzai lekulei yoma, once an item is considered muktzeh right before the onset of Shabbos, it is rendered muktzeh for the entire Shabbos. Rabbi Yehudah, who reflects the first opinion, maintains that something that is muktzeh bein hashemashos is muktzeh for the whole Shabbos, while Rabbi Shimon holds that oil is only muktzeh while the candle is burning. Once the flame is extinguished, the remaining oil is permitted for use.]
The Gemora asks: How can the two cases be compared? There, a man sits and waits that his lamp will go out; but here, does a man sit and wait for his hut to collapse?
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers: We are referring here to a dilapidated hut, so that he had his mind set upon it since the day before.
The braisa had stated: They agree, however, regarding the sukkah of Sukkos, which is used for themitzvah, is prohibited, unless one correctly stipulated the right of use.
The Gemora asks: But does a stipulation help? Surely Rav Sheishes said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: How is it known that the wood of the sukkah is prohibited all seven days (of the festival)? It is said: the festival of Sukkos, for seven days, unto HaShem. And it was taught in a braisa: Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah said: The juxtaposition of the word chag, which alludes to the Chagigah sacrifice, to the word haSukkos, which means the Sukkah, teaches us that just like the Chagigah is sanctified to HaShem (and one cannot benefit from the Chagigah ), so too the Sukkah is sanctified to HaShem (and one cannot derive benefit from the Sukkah). [If it is a Biblical prohibition, surely, a stipulation will not be effective!?]
Rav Menashya the son of Rava answers: The concluding clause refers to an ordinary hut, but the stipulation with respect to a Sukkah is of no avail.
The Gemora asks: Yet is it not valid in the case of a Sukkah? Surely it was taught in a braisa: If one covered the Sukkah according to law and decorated it with colored carpets and tapestries, and hung in it nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates and bunches of grapes, (bottles of) wine, oils, and fine flour, and wreaths of grain, it is forbidden to make
use of them until the termination of the last day of the festival; and if he stipulated about them, everything depends upon his stipulation!?
Abaye and Rava both say: This refers to one who says (before the festival): I will separate from them (the decorations) through the entire twilight, so that the sanctity (of the festival) did not fall upon them; but as to the wood of the Sukkah, since sanctity did fall upon it, it becomes muktzeh for the entire seven days.
The Gemora asks: But in what respect is this different from what was stated: One who designated seven esrogim, one for each of the seven days of Sukkos, Rav maintains that he is permitted to eat the esrog after discharging his obligation, whereas Rav Assi maintains that one can only eat the esrog on the following day.
The Gemora answers: There, where the nights are separated from the days, each day is a separate obligation; but here where the nights are not separated from the days, all the seven days are regarded as one long day.