Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 17:4

משנה: כָּל־הַכֵּלִים נִיטָּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת חוּץ מִן הַמַּסָּר הַגָּדוֹל וְיָתֵד שֶׁל מַחֲרֵישָׁה. כָּל־הַכֵּלִים נִיטָּלִין לְצוֹרֶךְ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר אֵין נִיטָּלִין אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ: MISHNAH: All implements may be taken on the Sabbath except for the large saw and the blade of the plough⁶Work tools which are expensive to replace cannot be taken for other uses. Since the intended use is forbidden on the Sabbath, they cannot be used on the Sabbath.. All implements may be taken whether for a need or not for a need; Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need⁷They can be moved either because the implement is needed or because it stands at a place which is needed for other things..

הלכה: רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה דְאָמַר אֵין נִיטָּלִין אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ: רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. חַד אָמַר. לְצוֹרֶךְ. לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ. שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר אֵינָן נִיטָּלִין אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. לְצוֹרֶךְ. לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ וּלְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ. שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ. רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר אֵין נִיטָּלִין אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ גּוּפוֹ וּלְצוֹרֶךְ מְקוֹמוֹ. תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל הַמְּלֵאִין שֶׁמְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ וְעַל הָרֵיקָנִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּדַעְתּוֹ לְמַלּוֹתָן. וְעַל מַה נֶחְלְקוּ. עַל שֶׁאֵין בְּדַעְתּוֹ לְמַלּוֹתָן. שֶׁבֶּית שַׁמַּי אוֹסְרִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. אַתְיָא דְבֵית שַׁמַּי כְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. אַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ. הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. וְלֹא הֲלָכָה כְבֵית שַׁמַּי. HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah who said, “they may be taken only for a need.⁶²Since the discussion in the Shabbat.124a">Babli 124a concentrates on interpreting R. Nehemiah’s opinion, it seems that the Babli agrees with this Babylonian statement.” Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. One said, for a need, for a need of itself; not for a need, not for a need of itself. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself. But the other said, for a need, for a need of itself or of its place; not for a need, not for a need of itself or of its place. Rebbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself or of its place⁶³Shabbat.124a">Babli 124a.. It was stated⁶⁴A similar statement (by Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel instead of R. Jehudah) is in Tosefta Yom Ṭov 1:11, but where it is only agreed that full containers can be moved for a need.: Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one moves full [containers] for no need and about empty [containers] which he intended to fill. Where did they disagree? About those which he has no intention to fill, where the House of Shammai prohibit and the House of Hillel permit. Does the House of Shammai come to parallel Rebbi Nehemiah? You say, practice follows Rebbi Nehemiah, but practice does not follow the House of Shammai⁶⁵If the “need” referred to by R. Nehemiah were only the use of the object itself then one would have to conclude that R. Nehemiah follows the teachings of the House of Shammai, which could not define practice in the presence of a contrary statement of the House of Hillel. It follows that R. Nehemiah accepts moving implements not only for a need of themselves but also to remove any item, which in itself could not be moved, if the place where it was standing was needed..