Question

In Sabbath 123b: “The Rabbis taught: At first they would say that three utensils may be moved on the Sabbath: a fig-cutter, a pot-scum ladle, and a small knife kept on the table. Then they permitted more, and then they permitted more, and then they permitted more, until they said: all utensils may be moved on the Sabbath except for a large saw and a plow peg.” What does “they permitted more, and then they permitted more, and then they permitted more” mean? Abaye said: They permitted an article whose primary function is for a permitted use when needed for its own use; then they again permitted such an article when needed for its place; then they again permitted an article whose primary function is for a prohibited use when needed for its own use—but not when needed for its place. And still, this was only with one hand, not with two hands, until they finally said that all utensils may be moved on the Sabbath, even with two hands. Rava said to him: Since it says “they permitted,” what difference does it make whether it is needed for its own use or for its place? Rather, Rava said: They permitted an article whose primary function is for a permitted use, whether for its own use or for its place; then they again permitted moving it from sun to shade; then they again permitted an article whose primary function is for a prohibited use when needed for its own use and for its place—but not from sun to shade. And still, this was only by one person, not by two people, until they finally said that all utensils may be moved on the Sabbath, even by two people.” Why does it seem that both Abaye and Rava refuse to understand the intent of the baraita literally—namely, that they permitted additional utensils (as the people became stronger in observing the laws of the Sabbath), and then more utensils, until they permitted them all except for the large saw and the plow peg? After all, the baraita opens with types of utensils that from the outset were never included in the prohibition, and ends with those that even in the end were not permitted. It would therefore seem that in between as well they listed for the public additional utensils that were permitted, until all were permitted. And although it does not seem likely that they listed in this way every type of utensil, it could be that they listed groups with similar characteristics, as Abaye and Rava suggested. But from where do they derive the understanding that “they again permitted” refers to a case like moving from sun to shade, and not to types of utensils in the literal sense?

In addition, I did not understand this from Rava’s words: it appears that the reason he disagrees with Abaye is “since it says ‘they permitted,’ what difference does it make whether it is for its own use or for its place?” If so, why did he also disagree with his explanation of the end of the baraita—where according to Abaye they ultimately permitted even moving with two hands, whereas according to Rava they permitted even by two people? That is not part of the argument he stated, so why did he refuse to accept Abaye’s view on that point?… I would appreciate an answer.