Shabbat 124B

אין מוציאין את הקטן ואת הלולב ואת ספר תורה לרשות הרבים, ובית הלל מתירין.

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.

אימר דשמעת להו לבית שמאי הוצאה, טלטול מי שמעת להו? וטלטול גופיה לאו משום הוצאה היא?!

The Talmud 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 Talmud 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.

ואף רב סבר לה להא דרבא. דאמר רב: מר שלא יגנב ⁠— זהו טלטול שלא לצורך, ואסור. טעמא שלא יגנב, אבל לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו ⁠— מותר.

The Talmud 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 Talmud 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.

איני?! והא רב כהנא איקלע לבי רב, ואמר: אייתו ליה שותא לכהנא ליתיב עלה. לאו למימרא דדבר שמלאכתו לאיסור, לצורך גופו ⁠— אין, לצורך מקומו ⁠— לא!

The Talmud 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?