← 安息日卷总目·第十五章 这几样结
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 13 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。
——单指那鞋还合作寻常之用、就是还穿得的情形；这里却不合作寻常之用了。
——那鞋还合作寻常之用、就是还穿得的情形。
it is fit as a utensil for its usual purpose, i.e., it can be used as footwear.
这里那鞋却不合作寻常之用了。
However, here it is not fit as a utensil for its usual purpose.
拉比约哈难 果真说哈拉哈依 拉比犹大（外带断了就洁净）么？他岂不是说过「哈拉哈依无名的密释纳」？密释纳明说：染了漏症者踏践之不洁的凉鞋，断一耳而补好，仍不洁；断第二耳而补好，就不再传那一等不洁，只因与自己相触而仍不洁。可见内带外带并无分别。
革玛拉 问：拉比约哈难 果真说过这条 哈拉哈 依 拉比犹大 的意思——就是外边那根带子断了，那凉鞋便洁净了——么？
The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan in fact say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that if the outer strap broke the sandal becomes pure?
拉比约哈难 岂不是说过：哈拉哈依那不题名的密释纳断么？
Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna?
我们在一条密释纳里学过：凉鞋若染了 漏症者 踏践所传的不洁，它的一耳断了，人又把它补好，这凉鞋仍带着踏践所传的不洁，因为断一耳并不使那凉鞋成为无用，它仍是器皿。
And we learned in a mishna: A sandal that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he repaired it, this sandal is still impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading, since a broken ear does not render the sandal useless and it remains a utensil.
它的第二耳又断了，人又把它补好，它就洁净了——洁净是说它不再像那因踏践而成不洁之源的器皿那样，把不洁传给别的物件，因为两耳都断了，它就不再是器皿了。
If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading does, since when both ears tear it is no longer a utensil.
只是它自己仍带着踏践所传的不洁，因为它触着了不洁的器皿，就是触着了它自己。
However, it is itself ritually impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading due to contact with a vessel that is impure, i.e., contact with itself.
这凉鞋如今既只断着一耳，它仍算是能受不洁的器皿，就如同从它先前的样子染上了不洁一般。
Since the sandal now has only one torn ear, it is still considered a utensil which is capable of contracting impurity, and it is as if it contracted impurity from itself in its previous state.
这话岂不是表明：断的是内带还是外带并无分别，因为断一耳并不叫那凉鞋不能再用么？
Is this statement not an indication that there is no difference whether it was the inner strap or the outer strap that broke, as no single ear that breaks terminates the sandal’s use?
这就与 拉比约哈难 所说的相违了。
This contradicts Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.
答曰那条密释纳单指内带说的——内带断了，连 拉比犹大 也认它仍不洁。诘曰：那么外带断了当怎样断呢？若说洁净，密释纳何不就在本件里分明说「这话指内带说的，外带断了就洁净」呢？拉夫以撒·本·约瑟 说：把我们的密释纳讲作四耳四带的凉鞋，「第二耳」就是外边的第二耳——这样讲才不至驳倒 拉比约哈难 的话。
革玛拉 驳这话说：不然，这条密释纳单是指内边那根带子说的。
The Gemara rejects this: No, this mishna is referring specifically to the inner strap.
内带断了的时候，连 拉比犹大 也认那凉鞋仍是不洁的。
When the inner strap breaks, even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the sandal remains ritually impure.
革玛拉 问：那么外带断了，这条 哈拉哈 当怎样断呢？
The Gemara asks: However, if the outer strap breaks, what is the halakha?
是说那凉鞋洁净了么？
Is it that the sandal is pure?
若是这样，密释纳与其教说「第二耳断了，人又补好，它就洁净了，不再像那因踏践而成不洁之源的器皿那样传不洁；只是它自己因触着不洁的器皿而仍带着不洁」，何不就在这一件里分作两层说：这话是指哪一样说的呢？
If so, instead of teaching: If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure as a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading; however, it is itself ritually impure due to contact with a vessel that is impure due to contact with an object that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading, let him make a distinction within the case itself: In what case was this statement said?
是指内带断了的情形说的。
In a case where the inner strap breaks.
外带若断了，那凉鞋就洁净了。
However, if the outer strap breaks, the sandal becomes ritually pure.
拉夫以撒·本·约瑟 说：把我们的密释纳讲作那有四耳四带的凉鞋罢——所说「第二耳断了」，指的是外边的第二耳。
Rav Yitzḥak ben Yosef said: Let our mishna be interpreted as referring to a sandal that has four ears and four straps, and it can be explained that when it says that the second one broke, it was referring to the second outer one.
这样讲是值得的，免得把 拉比约哈难 的话驳断了。
It is worthwhile to interpret it this way so as not to break, i.e., contradict, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.
拉文 从以色列地来说：拉夫哈难·巴尔·阿巴 奉 拉夫 之名说哈拉哈依 拉比犹大，拉比约哈难 说不依。诘曰 拉比约哈难 既照 拉比犹大 讲，可见他执依他断。答曰：那是两位不同的阿摩拉各奉 拉比约哈难 之名而说的。
拉文 从以色列地到巴比伦来的时候传说：拉夫哈难·巴尔·阿巴 奉 拉夫 之名说：这条 哈拉哈 依 拉比犹大 的意思断。
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related that Rav Ḥanan bar Abba said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
拉比约哈难 却说：这条 哈拉哈 不依 拉比犹大 的意思断。
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
革玛拉 问：拉比约哈难 果真这样说过么？
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this?
从 拉比约哈难 照 拉比犹大 的意思讲那一件看来，可以断定他是执「哈拉哈依 拉比犹大」的。
From the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan provided an explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, conclude from it that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
革玛拉 答：那是两位不同的 阿摩拉 各奉 拉比约哈难 之名而说的。
The Gemara answers: They are different amora’im who made their statements in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
《器皿卷》一条密释纳说：寻常人家的木器，破到能漏出一个石榴那么大就洁净了。希兹基亚 问：器上穿了一个能漏出橄榄的孔，补好了；又穿一个，又补好；如此下去，几个孔合起来够漏一个石榴那么大——当怎样断呢？是合算而洁净呢，还是因前孔已补而仍不洁呢？
革玛拉 又引一段与上文那条 哈拉哈 相关的议论。
The Gemara cites another discussion related to the previous halakha.
我们在《《器皿卷》》卷的一条密释纳里学过：寻常人家所用的木器，凡染了不洁的，破到能漏出一个石榴那么大，就藉着破损洁净了。希兹基亚 问：器上穿了一个能漏出一个橄榄那么大的孔，人把它塞住了；又穿了一个能漏出一个橄榄那么大的孔，人又把它塞住了；这样下去，直到诸孔合起来够漏出一个石榴那么大——这该怎样断呢？
We learned there in a mishna in tractate Kelim: All ritually impure wooden utensils belonging to ordinary homeowners become pure through breaking the utensil if they have holes the size of pomegranates. Ḥizkiya asked: What is the halakha when a utensil was perforated with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and then it was perforated again with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and this went on until the total area of all the holes completed a space large enough for a pomegranate to emerge?
就是说：我们是说诸孔合起来既有一个石榴那么大，那器就洁净了呢；还是说前一个孔在后一个孔穿成以先已经塞住，那器仍是不洁的呢？
In other words, do we say that because the sum of the areas of all the holes adds up to the size of a pomegranate, the utensil is pure, or do we say that since the previous hole was filled before the next hole was formed, the utensil remains ritually impure?
他的门生 拉比约哈难 对他说：夫子曾教我们凉鞋那一条——断一耳补好仍不洁，断第二耳补好就不再传那一等不洁，只因触着自己而仍不洁。我们曾问夫子：头一耳断了何以仍不洁？因为第二耳还是完好的。那么第二耳断的时候，头一耳既已补好，也只断着一耳。
他的门生 拉比约哈难 对他说：夫子啊，你曾教我们说：凉鞋若染了 漏症者 踏践所传的不洁，它的一耳断了，人又把它补好，这凉鞋仍带着踏践所传的不洁。
Rabbi Yoḥanan, his student, said to him: Master, you taught us that with regard to a sandal that became ritually impure by impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears broke and he repaired it, this sandal remains ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading.
它的第二耳又断了，人又把它补好，它就洁净了——洁净是说它不再像那因踏践而成不洁之源的器皿那样，把不洁传给别的物件。
If the second ear broke and he repaired it, the sandal is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading does.
只是它自己仍带着踏践所传的不洁，因为它触着了不洁的器皿，就是触着了它自己。
However, it is itself ritually impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading due to contact with a vessel that is impure, i.e., contact with itself.
我们曾问夫子说：头一耳断了的时候有什么不同，以致那凉鞋仍是不洁的呢？
And we said to you: What is different when the first ear breaks that the sandal remains impure?
是因为第二耳还是完好的。
It is because the second one is intact.
照样，第二耳断的时候，头一耳已经补好了，那时也只断着一耳。
So too, when the second ear breaks, the first one is repaired, and there is only one torn ear.
夫子那时对我们说：那凉鞋所以洁净，是因为「新面孔来了」——两耳都补过的凉鞋，在律上已不是原先那只，乃是一只新凉鞋。这里论那穿了又塞、塞了又穿的器皿，也当照样说「新面孔来了」而算洁净。
夫子那时对我们说：那凉鞋所以洁净，是因为这里来了一副新面孔。
And you said to us in this regard that the reason the sandal is pure is because a new face has arrived here.
两耳都补过的凉鞋，在律上已不算原先那一只，乃是一只新凉鞋。
The legal status of the sandal with the two repaired ears is not that of the original sandal; it is a new sandal.
这里论那几次穿孔、每次又塞住的器皿也是一样：我们何不照凉鞋那样说「这里来了一副新面孔」，因而算它洁净呢——因为补过的凉鞋是一件新物，不是原先那一只了。
Here too, with regard to a utensil that was perforated several times and sealed each time, let us say with regard to the sandal as well that a new face has arrived here, and it is ritually pure because the repaired sandal is a new entity and not the original sandal.
希兹基亚 听了这话，赞叹说：这不是人，是天使。也有人说他说：这是个十全的人。相类地，拉比泽拉 奉 拉瓦·巴尔·齐穆纳 之名说：前人若算天使之子，我们便是人子；前人若算人子，我们便如驴子——所说的还不是 拉比哈尼纳·本·多撒 的驴、拉比非尼哈·本·雅伊珥 的驴，乃是寻常的驴。
希兹基亚 因 拉比约哈难 这一句大为叹服，就论他说：这不是人，是天使。
Ḥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoḥanan’s comment that he exclaimed about him: This is not a human being, but an angel.
也有人说他说的是：这是个十全的人。
Some say that he said: This is an ideal human being.
与此相类，拉比泽拉 奉 拉瓦·巴尔·齐穆纳 之名说：前几代的人若算作天使之子，我们便是人的儿子。
On a similar note, Rabbi Zeira said that Rava bar Zimuna said: If the early generations are characterized as sons of angels, we are the sons of men.
前几代的人若算作人的儿子，我们便如同驴子一般。
And if the early generations are characterized as the sons of men, we are akin to donkeys.
我所说的还不是 拉比哈尼纳·本·多撒 的驴，也不是 拉比非尼哈·本·雅伊珥 的驴——那两头驴都是格外灵慧的——乃是说我们如同寻常的驴子。
And I do not mean that we are akin to either the donkey of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa or the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair, who were both extraordinarily intelligent donkeys; rather, we are akin to other typical donkeys.
密释纳说可系酒瓶油瓶的口。这本是明的。所以要说这条哈拉哈，是为那瓶有两个口的情形：恐怕你说其中一个可以撇下不用、那口上的结便成了永系而当禁；故教我们说不是这样。
我们在密释纳里又学过：安息日可系酒瓶或油瓶的口。
And we learned in the mishna: It is permitted to tie the spouts of wine or oil jugs.
革玛拉 说：这本是明明的。
The Gemara says: This is obvious.
革玛拉 讲明：所以必须教这条 哈拉哈，是为着那瓶有两个耳、就是两个口的情形。
The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it, the jug, has two ears, i.e., two spouts.
恐怕你说：其中一个他可以撇下不用，那一口上的结便算永系而当禁；所以密释纳教我们说：不是这样。
Lest you say: One of them, he voids it consequently defining the knot on that opening permanent and therefore prohibited, it teaches us that this is not the case.
密释纳又说可把布蒙在肉锅上系住。这本是明的。所以要说，是为那布上有一根绳、可以掀开一角倒出食物的情形：恐怕你说一个口既够用，他便把那系布的结撇下不解；故教我们说不是这样。
我们在密释纳里又学过：人连把布蒙在肉锅上系住也是许的。
We also learned in the mishna that it is even permitted to tie a garment to cover a pot of meat.
革玛拉 说：这本是明明的。
The Gemara says: This is obvious.
革玛拉 讲明：所以必须教这条 哈拉哈，是为着那布上有一根绳、人可以掀开一角把食物倒出来的情形。
The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to teach this halakha a case where it has a string with which one could open a flap and empty the food.
恐怕你说：一个口既素常够用，他便把那系布的结撇下不解；所以密释纳教我们说：不是这样。
Lest you say that since a single opening usually suffices he voids the knot with which he ties the garment, it teaches us that this is not the case.
密释纳又说 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 许人在门口横系一条绳拦住牲畜。这本是明的。所以要说这条哈拉哈，是为那门口有两条绳的情形：恐怕你说——
我们在密释纳里又学过：拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 说，人可在门口横系一条绳，拦在牲畜前头，不叫牠出去。
We also learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One may tie a rope across an entrance before an animal so that it will not go out.
革玛拉 说：这本是明明的。
The Gemara says: This is obvious.
革玛拉 讲明：所以必须教这条 哈拉哈，是为着那门口有两条绳的情形。
The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the entrance has two ropes.
恐怕你说——
Lest you say