Beitzah 10A

אבל היכא דליכא דקר נעוץ ⁠— לא. אי נמי: עד כאן לא קאמרי בית הלל הכא, אלא כיון דמוקצה הוא, בעומד ואומר זה וזה אני נוטל סגי. אבל התם ⁠— לא.

However, where there is no embedded shovel, even Beit Shammai did not permit it. Alternatively, it is possible that Beit Hillel say their opinion only here, since a dove is muktze, which is prohibited by rabbinic law, and therefore when he stands and says: I will take this and that, it is enough. However there, where the prohibition applies by Torah law, they did not say so.

אלא, אי קשיא ⁠— הא קשיא: בית שמאי אומרים: אין נוטלין את העלי, לקצב עליו בשר, ובית הלל מתירין. אלמא גבי שמחת יום טוב בית שמאי לחומרא ובית הלל לקולא, ורמינהי השוחט חיה ועוף, בית שמאי וכו׳! אמר רבי יוחנן: מוחלפת השיטה.

Rather, if there is a difficulty involving a contradiction, this is the difficulty, from a different Mishnah (11a): Beit Shammai say: One may not take a large pestle from a mortar, which is normally used for crushing wheat in the preparation of porridge, for any other purpose on a Festival, e.g., to cut meat on it; and Beit Hillel permit it. Apparently, with regard to rejoicing on the Festival, the opinion of Beit Shammai is stringent, and that of Beit Hillel is lenient. And the Talmud raises a contradiction: With regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a fowl on a Festival, Beit Shammai say: He may dig earth with a shovel and cover the blood, and Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter an undomesticated animal or a fowl, unless he had earth prepared for that purpose while it was still day. It was in this regard that R' Yoḥanan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed.

ממאי? דלמא לא היא: עד כאן לא קאמרי בית שמאי התם אלא היכא דאיכא דקר נעוץ, אבל היכא דליכא דקר נעוץ ⁠— לא, אי נמי: עד כאן לא קאמרי בית הלל הכא אלא, דאיכא תורת כלי עליו, אבל התם לא.

The Talmud rejects this: From where do you know this? Perhaps it is not so. Rather, Beit Shammai say their opinion only there, where there is a shovel embedded and prepared the day before, but where there is no embedded shovel, they did not rule leniently. Alternatively, one can say that Beit Hillel say their opinion only here, with regard to a pestle, which at least has the status of a vessel, and therefore it is not completely muktze. However, there, in the case of slaughtering, Beit Hillel did not issue a lenient ruling.