← 安息日卷总目·第十三章 织造者
这不是译本，是辅读层。中文承载文本本身，并逐句标出哪些是塔木德自己的话、 哪些是 施泰因扎尔茨 补入的解释，以及哪些地方翻译必然有所流失。
谢法利亚 的 威廉·戴维森 版用 <b> 标出塔木德原文，其余为
施泰因扎尔茨 补入。下面的比例是逐句从这个标记算出来的，不是判断。
这一面每读 4 句，只有一句以塔木德自己的话为主。把这件事藏起来， 读者会以为自己读的是塔木德；标出来，他才知道自己站在哪里。
那样的情形是有的：衣上有一处袋样的凸起，妨碍缝合，人就把它撕开、把凸出的一截掖到缝底下去。
革玛拉 讲明：那样的情形是有的——衣上有一处袋样的凸起，妨碍缝合。
The Gemara explains: It is found in a case where a pocketlike protrusion impedes sewing.
所以人把那衣服撕开，把凸出的一截掖到缝底下去。
Therefore, one tears the garment and tucks the protruding portion under the seam.
密释纳：怒中撕衣、或为死了的亲属撕衣的，无责；凡安息日行毁坏之工的，都无责。毁坏而为修补的，便有责，量与成全之工一样。漂洗、梳、染、纺以「双 西特」为量；织两根线以一 西特 为量。
人在怒中撕自己的衣服，或为死了的亲属伤痛而撕衣的，无责。
One who rends his garment in his anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt.
凡人安息日行毁坏之工的，也都无责。
And anyone else who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt.
但人行毁坏之工是为着修补的，便有责；他的有责之量，与人行那成全之工的量一样。
And one who performs a labor destructively in order to repair is liable, and his measure for liability is equivalent to the measure for one who performs that labor constructively.
人漂洗、人梳、人染、人纺羊毛，有责之量是「双 西特」那么宽——就是食指与中指之间那一段的两倍。
The measure that determines liability for one who whitens, or one who combs, or one who dyes, or one who spins wool is the full width of a double sit, which is the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger.
人织两根线，有责之量是一 西特。
And for one who weaves two threads, the measure that determines liability is one sit.
密释纳说为死了的亲属撕衣的无责，一条 《巴拉伊塔》 却说有责，并说他虽干犯安息日，那撕衣之责却已尽了。答曰这不难：判有责的指自己当为之守丧的亲属，判无责的指不相干的死人。
我们在密释纳里学过：人在怒中撕衣，或为死了的亲属伤痛而撕衣的，无责。
We learned in the mishna: One who rends his garment in anger or in anguish over his dead relative is exempt.
革玛拉 引一条 《巴拉伊塔》 与此相违：人在怒中撕自己的衣服，或在守丧之中、或为死了的亲属伤痛而撕衣的，都因安息日行了禁工而有责。
The Gemara raises a contradiction to this based on a baraita: One who rends his garment in his anger or in his mourning or in his anguish over his dead relative is liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat.
他虽因撕衣干犯了安息日，那为死人撕衣之责却已尽了。
And even though he desecrates Shabbat by tearing his garment, he nevertheless fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment in mourning.
可见人为死人伤痛而撕衣是有责的。
Apparently, one is liable for rending his garment in anguish over the dead.
革玛拉 答：这不难；那条判他有责的，是就他自己当为之撕衣的亲属说的。
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this mishna, which states one is liable for rending his garment, is referring to his own dead relative for whom he is obligated to tear his garment.
那条判他无责的，是就与他不相干的死人说的。
And that mishna, which states one is exempt for rending his garment, is referring to any unrelated dead person.
密释纳岂不是说「他的亲属」么？答曰：所指是那些依 妥拉 之律不必守丧的亲属。又难：死的若是 妥拉 学者，众人都当撕衣——一条 《巴拉伊塔》 说学者死了，众人都如同他的亲属。答曰：密释纳所教单指那死的不是学者的情形。
革玛拉 问：我们在密释纳里学的岂不是「为死了的亲属」么？
The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in the mishna: Over his dead relative?
革玛拉 答：其实密释纳所说「他无责」的，正是就他自己的亲属说的；不过所指的是那几样依 妥拉 之律不必守丧的亲属。
The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna, which says that he is exempt, is referring to his own dead; however, it is referring to those relatives who are not subject to the obligation of mourning by Torah law.
革玛拉 问：纵是如此，那死的若是一位 妥拉 学者，人也当为他的死伤痛撕衣，因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：一位 妥拉 学者死了，众人都是他的亲属。
The Gemara asks: And even so, if the dead person is a Torah scholar, one is obligated to rend one’s garment in anguish over his death, as it was taught in a baraita: When a Torah scholar dies, everyone is his relative.
革玛拉 问：你心里岂能说众人都是他的亲属么？
The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that everyone is his relative?
倒不如说：众人都算作如同他的亲属一样——就是说众人都为他撕衣，众人都为他袒露肩头，众人都在街市上为他吃那举哀之筵，如同居丧的人一样。
Rather, say: Everyone is considered to be like his relative, in the sense that everyone rends his garment in anguish over him, and everyone bares his shoulder over him in mourning, and everyone eats the mourner’s meal over him in the public square as mourners do.
一位 妥拉 学者之死，于以色列人人都是自家的损失。
The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew.
革玛拉 答：密释纳所以要教这条 哈拉哈，单指那死的不是 妥拉 学者的情形。
The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the dead person is not a Torah scholar.
那死的若是正直人，凡在旁的都当撕衣——一条 《巴拉伊塔》 说人的儿女何以夭亡：因他不曾为死了的正直人哀哭。凡为正直人哀哭的，他一切的过犯都蒙赦免。答曰：密释纳所教单指那死的不是正直人的情形。
革玛拉 问：那死的若是一位正直人，凡在他临终时在旁的，岂不都当为他的死撕衣么？
The Gemara asks: And if he was an upright person, aren’t all those present at his death obligated to rend their garments over his death?
因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：人的儿女何以年幼就死呢？
As it was taught in a baraita: Why do a person’s sons and daughters die when they are young?
他们死了，是要叫他为一位正直可敬之人的死哀哭举丧。
They die so that he will cry and mourn over the death of an upright worthy person.
革玛拉 问：他们死了是要叫他哀哭么？
The Gemara asks: They die so that he will cry?
难道预先从他手里取了当头，好保得住他尽那责任么？
Is security taken from him in advance to ensure that he fulfills his obligation?
倒不如把这话改过来说：那是因为他不曾为死了的正直人哀哭举丧；因为凡为死了的正直人哀哭的，众人便因他这样敬重死者，赦免他一切的过犯。
Rather, emend the statement and say: It is because he did not cry or mourn over an upright person who died, as anyone who cries over an upright person who died, they forgive him for all his transgressions because of the honor he accorded to the deceased.
虽然如此，这仍难讲，因为人本当为正直人的死撕衣。
Nevertheless, it is difficult, as one is required to rend his clothing over the death of an upright person.
革玛拉 答：密释纳所以要教这条 哈拉哈，单指那死的不是正直人的情形。
The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the deceased was not an upright person.
人若正站在临终之人旁边、看着魂离体，也当撕衣——拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说那如同眼看 妥拉 书卷被焚。答曰：密释纳所教单指他不在旁的情形。
革玛拉 问：人若正站在将死之人旁边、看着他魂离体，他也当撕衣，因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：人在魂离体的时候站在死者旁边的，当撕自己的衣服。
The Gemara asks: And if one is standing close to the deceased when the soul leaves the body, he is obligated to rend his garment, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who is standing over the deceased at the time of the departure of the soul is obligated to rend his garment.
这与什么相似呢？
To what is this similar?
与眼看一卷 妥拉 书被火焚烧相似。
It is similar to a Torah scroll that was burned.
革玛拉 答：密释纳所以要教这条 哈拉哈，单指他在魂离体的时候不在旁边的情形。
The Gemara answers: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where he is not standing there at the time of the departure of the soul.
「为死人」一层虽解开了，「怒中撕衣」两处仍相违。答曰：那条判有责的合 拉比犹大——他说安息日行「不为那工本身」的禁工也有责；这条判无责的合 拉比西缅——他说那样的无责。
革玛拉 再问：论「为死了的亲属」那一层，这样解是讲得通了。
The Gemara asks further: This works out well in terms of resolving the contradiction with regard to his dead relative.
但密释纳判「怒中撕衣的无责」与那条 《巴拉伊塔》 判「怒中撕衣的有责」，两下仍旧相违。
However, the contradiction between the ruling in the mishna that one who rends his garment in his anger is not liable, and the ruling in the baraita that one who rends his garment in his anger is liable, is still difficult.
密释纳免了怒中撕衣之人的责，那条 《巴拉伊塔》 却判他有责。
The mishna exempts one who rends garments in anger, while the baraita deems him liable.
革玛拉 答：论「怒中」，密释纳与那条 《巴拉伊塔》 相违这一层也不难：那条判他有责的合 拉比犹大 的意思，这条免他之责的合 拉比西缅 的意思。
The Gemara answers: The contradiction between his anger in the mishna and his anger in the baraita is also not difficult, as this ruling in the baraita that deems him liable is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that ruling in the mishna that exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
革玛拉 细说：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 是从 拉比犹大 的——他说人安息日行了那不为那工本身而行的禁工，仍是有责的。
The Gemara elaborates: This ruling in the baraita follows Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one who performs a prohibited labor on Shabbat that is not needed for its own sake is liable for performing it.
所以人在怒中撕衣便有责。
Therefore, one who rends his garment in anger is liable.
这条免他之责的密释纳，是合 拉比西缅 的意思——他说人行那不为那工本身而行的工，是无责的。
That ruling in the mishna which exempts him is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one who performs a labor that is not needed for its own sake is exempt for performing it.
拉比犹大 判有责，是就成全之工说的，岂就毁坏之工说过？拉比阿维恩 说怒中撕衣也算成全——那可平他的怒。又诘：那样撕法岂是可行的么——希勒法·巴尔·阿格拉 说怒中撕衣毁器散钱的，你当看他如拜偶像的一样，据诗篇 81:9。
革玛拉 问：你所听见 拉比犹大 判「不为那工本身而行的也有责」，是就成全之工说的；你可曾听见他就毁坏之工也判有责么？
The Gemara asks: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that one is liable for performing a labor not needed for its own sake in the case of a constructive act; did you hear him deem one liable in the case of a destructive act?
拉比阿维恩 说：人在怒中撕衣这一件，也算是成全的，因为他这样行便把怒气平了下去。
Rabbi Avin said: This case, where one rends his garment in anger, is also constructive, because in doing so he assuages his anger.
撕了衣服他心里就宁静了；所以可说他从这撕衣之举上得了益，那便算作一件成全之事。
Rending his garment calms him; therefore, it can be said that he derives benefit from the act of rending, and it is consequently a constructive act.
革玛拉 问：那样撕法难道竟是可行的么？
The Gemara asks: And is it at all permitted to tear in that manner?
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教说，拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 奉 希勒法·巴尔·阿格拉 之名、希勒法·巴尔·阿格拉 奉 拉比约哈难·本·努里 之名说：人在怒中撕自己的衣服，或在怒中摔破自己的器皿，或在怒中把自己的钱撒了，你当看他如同拜偶像的一样，因为那正是恶念的手段么？
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Ḥilfa bar Agra, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: One who rends his garments in his anger, or who breaks his vessels in his anger, or who scatters his money in his anger, should be like an idol worshipper in your eyes, as that is the craft of the evil inclination.
今日它对他说行这个，明日又对他说行那个，直到末了他再管不住自己，它便对他说去拜偶像，他就去拜偶像了。
Today it tells him do this, and tomorrow it tells him do that, until eventually, when he no longer controls himself, it tells him worship idols and he goes and worships idols.
拉比阿维恩 说：哪一节经文暗指这事呢？
Rabbi Avin said: What verse alludes to this?
「在你当中不可有别的神，外邦的神你也不可下拜」（诗篇 81:9）。
“There shall not be a strange god within you, and you shall not bow to a foreign god” (Psalms 81:10).
那在人身子里头的「别的神」是什么呢？
What is the strange god that is within a person’s body?
当说那就是恶念。
Say that it is the evil inclination.
人不可在怒中撕自己的衣服，因为他这样行便是从顺着恶念上得着快意。
One may not rend his garments in anger, because in doing so he is deriving pleasure from satisfying the evil inclination.
所论单指他为叫家里人惧怕而作的样子——那样他仍管得住自己。正如 拉夫犹大 要显怒便扯衣上的线头，拉夫阿哈·巴尔·雅各 摔已破的器皿，拉夫舍舍特 把小鱼扔在使女头上，拉比阿巴 打破一个瓶盖。
革玛拉 答：所以要论到这一层，单指他为叫家里的人惧怕而这样行的情形。
The Gemara answers: It is only necessary to discuss this in a case where one does so to instill fear in the members of his household.
他要叫他们看出自己极其发怒，就撕东西、摔东西，其实心里并没有那样怒。
In order to show them that he is very angry, he tears and breaks objects even though he is not that angry.
那样的情形他仍管得住自己，不至于落在恶念的手里。
In that case he maintains control of himself and is not in danger of succumbing to the evil inclination.
正如所讲的那件事：拉夫犹大 要显出自己的怒来，便把衣上的线头扯了下来。
It is like the incident where Rav Yehuda sought to display his anger and he pulled threads off his garment.
拉夫阿哈·巴尔·雅各 摔的是已经破了的器皿，拉夫舍舍特 把小鱼扔在使女头上，拉比阿巴 打破了一个瓶盖。
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov smashed broken vessels, Rav Sheshet threw small fish on his maidservant’s head, and Rabbi Abba broke the lid of a jug.
这几位贤者所毁的都极有限，不过作出发怒的样子罢了。
All of these Sages caused minimal damage in creating the impression that they were angry.
为正直人流泪的，圣者数点他的眼泪、收在府库里（诗篇 56:8）。懒于为学者举哀的，该活埋（约书亚记 24:30，那山向他们发怒）；拉比约哈难 说他必不得长寿，是照量而报——据以赛亚书 27:8「בְּסַאסְּאָה」，一 塞亚 还一 塞亚。
既论到为正直人与 妥拉 学者举哀之律，革玛拉 就引 拉比西缅·本·帕齐 奉 拉比约书亚·本·利未、又奉 巴尔·卡帕拉 之名所说的：凡为一位正直人落泪的，圣者（愿他称颂）必数点他的眼泪，收在自己的府库里，因为经上说：「我几次流离，你都记数；求你把我眼泪装在你的皮袋里。这不都记在你册子上么」（诗篇 56:8）。
Apropos the laws of mourning for an upright person and a Torah scholar, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: Anyone who sheds tears over an upright person, the Holy One, Blessed be He, counts his tears and places them in His treasury, as it is stated: “You have counted my wanderings, put my tears into your bottle, are they not in your book?” (Psalms 56:9).
拉夫犹大 奉 拉夫 之名说：凡懒于为一位 妥拉 学者举哀的，把他活埋了也是该的，因为经上说：「以色列人将他葬在他地业的境内，就是在以法莲山地的亭拿西拉，在迦实山的北边」（约书亚记 24:30）。
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who is lazy in eulogizing a Torah scholar, it is fitting to bury him alive, as it is stated: “And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnat-seraḥ, which is in the hill-country of Ephraim, on the north of the mountain of Ga’ash” (Joshua 24:30).
这教明那山曾向他们发怒、要杀他们，因为他们没有好好地为他举哀。
This teaches that the mountain raged against them to kill them because they did not eulogize him appropriately.
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 奉 拉比约哈难 之名说：凡懒于为一位贤者举哀的，必不得长寿；他所受的报应正是照着量还的。
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whoever is lazy in eulogizing a Sage does not live a long life, and his punishment is measure for measure.
他既不把那贤者的死放在心上，天上也就不把他的死放在心上。
Since he was unconcerned with the death of the Sage, in the heavens they will be unconcerned with his death.
圣者（愿他称颂）正是这样行事的，因为经上说：「你打发他们去，是相机宜与他们相争〔בְּסַאסְּאָה〕」（以赛亚书 27:8）；众贤从「与他们相争」一语推出神必降罚，又从上文的 סַאסְּאָה 一字推出他是照量而报的——一 塞亚 还一 塞亚。
The Holy One, Blessed be He, conducts Himself in this manner, as it is stated: “In full measure [besase’a], when You send her away You contend with her” (Isaiah 27:8), and the Sages derived that God punishes from the words: “You contend with her,” and He does so measure for measure, se’a for se’a, from the word sase’a in the verse above.
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 以士师记 2:7「众长老在约书亚之后多年还活着」相诘。拉比约哈难 说：巴比伦人哪，你读书当细些——那是多日，不是多年。又问申命记 11:21「使你们的日子增多」岂也如此？答曰：祝福之言另当从宽讲。
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 向 拉比约哈难 出一难：经上说：「约书亚在世的日子，和约书亚死后、那些见耶和华为以色列人所行大事的长老还在的时候，百姓都事奉耶和华」（士师记 2:7）——可见那些长老虽没有好好地为约书亚举哀，仍得了长寿。
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is stated: “And the nation worshipped the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the Elders, who lived many days after Joshua” (Judges 2:7), indicating that the Elders lived long lives even though they did not eulogize Joshua properly.
拉比约哈难 对他说：巴比伦人哪，你读书当细些。
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Babylonian, you should be more precise in your reading.
他们所多的果然是日子，却不是年岁。
They indeed lived many days; however, they did not live many years.
其实他们连那一年也没有活满。
In fact, they did not live to the end of that year.
他又问：那么论这一节——「使你们和你们子孙的日子在耶和华向你们列祖起誓要赐给他们的地上得以增多，如天覆地的日子那样多」（申命记 11:21）——你也要说所应许的不过是多日、不是多年么？
Again he asked: But then with regard to the verse “So that your days and the days of your children will multiply on the land which the Lord your God swore to give to your fathers, as the days of the heavens over the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21), would you also say that here the reward is to live many days but not years?
他回他说：祝福之言另是一样，当从最宽处讲。
He answered him: A blessing is different and should be interpreted in its most expansive sense.
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 又奉 拉比约哈难 之名说：弟兄中若死了一个——
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 又奉 拉比约哈难 之名说：弟兄中若死了一个——
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one of the brothers dies,