Talmud for Shabbat 247:20

אלא אמר רב פפא לא קשיא הא בית שמאי הא בית הלל דתנן בית שמאי אומרים

— but surely a <i>log</i> on a Festival is an article whose function is for a permitted purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it is used for fuel. ');">¹⁷</span> which shows that an article whose function is for a permitted purpose 'may not [be handled] whether required itself or its place is needed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even the first is forbidden here, and the second all the more so. ');">¹⁸</span> — There this is the reason: since on the Sabbath it is an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose, is it preventively forbidden on Festivals on account of the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the former is permitted, it may be thought that the latter too is permitted. ');">¹⁹</span> And should you say, Let the Sabbath itself be permitted, since an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose may be [handled] when required itself or its place is required, — that is only where it comes within the category of a utensil, but not where it does not come within the category of a utensil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A log does not rank as a utensil. ');">²⁰</span> Yet do we enact a preventive measure? Surely we learnt: Produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spread out on the roof to dry. ');">²¹</span> may be dropped down through a skylight<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is about to rain. ');">²²</span> on Festivals, but not on the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Bez. 35b. Thus we do not argue as in n. 5. ');">²³</span> — Do we then not preventively prohibit? Surely we learnt: The only difference between Festivals and the Sabbath is in respect of food for consumption?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may be prepared on Festivals, e.g., by baking, cooking, etc., but not on the Sabbaths. Thus on all matters they are alike. ');">²⁴</span> — Said R. Joseph, There is no difficulty: the one is [according to] R. Eliezer; the other, R. Joshua. For it was taught: If an animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it'. ');">²⁵</span> and its young fall into a pit, — R. Eliezer said: One may haul up the first in order to kill it, and for the second provisions are made where it lies that it should not die. R. Joshua said: One hauls up the first in order to kill it, but he does not kill it, then he practises an evasion and hauls up the second, and kills whichever he desires.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 117b for notes. Just as R. Joshua permits both animals to be brought up so he permits one to lower the produce on a Festival to avoid financial loss. ');">²⁶</span> How so? Perhaps R. Eliezer rules [thus] only there, because provisions can be made, but not where provisions can not be made. Or perhaps R. Joshua rules thus only there, since an evasion is possible; but not where an evasion is impossible? Rather said R. Papa: There is no difficulty: one is [according to] Beth Shammai; the other, Beth Hillel. For we learnt, Beth Shammai say:

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat