拉维纳 以密释纳「须落定在某物之上」相诘。玛雷马尔 答:那说的是滚动之物——滚的东西末了本不落定;至于这从三掌以内经过的,本可说它既终必落定,便算已落定,所以 拉瓦 特特教明仍须实在落定。
-
我们在密释纳里学过的,岂不正是这一层么?拉比约哈难 论那一条说:所定那一层之责,是就它落定在某物之上说的——就是说那东西须实在落下来,掷它的人才有责。
Isn’t that what we learned in the mishna, with regard to which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That liability is when it came to rest atop something, which means that the object must actually land in order for the one who threw it to be liable.
-
玛雷马尔 对 拉维纳 说:你说的是滚动那一件么?
Mareimar said to Ravina: Are you saying it is a case of rolling?
-
滚动的东西作不得凭据,因为滚的东西末了本不落定。
One cannot cite proof from a rolling object because a rolling object will not ultimately come to rest.
-
至于这一件——那东西是从离地不到三掌处经过的——我本要说:它既终必落定,纵然还没有落定,也算作已经落定的东西了。
However, with regard to this object, which passed within three handbreadths of the ground, I would say: Since it will ultimately come to rest, even though it has not yet come to rest, it is considered as an object that came to rest.
-
所以 拉瓦 特特教明:连那样的情形,非等它实在落定在某物之上,人也不算有责。
Therefore, Rava teaches us that even in that case one is not liable until it actually comes to rest upon something.