密释纳既说救三餐、两餐、一餐,岂不表明安息日只当吃三餐么?革玛拉 三次驳回:那是指他已吃过一餐、已吃过早餐、已吃过午餐的情形说的,依 拉比希德卡「四餐」的意思仍讲得通。
-
——人可救出够三餐用的。
one rescues food for three meals.
-
这岂不是指他一餐还没有吃过的情形说的么?
What, is this not referring to a situation where he has not yet eaten any meals?
-
可见人安息日单当吃三餐。
Apparently, one is obligated to eat only three meals on Shabbat.
-
革玛拉 驳这话说:不然,那是指他已经吃过一餐的情形说的。
The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a situation where one already ate one meal.
-
这样还剩三餐,正合那说当吃四餐的 拉比希德卡 的意思。
Three meals still remain, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥidka, who requires four meals.
-
革玛拉 又据密释纳下文诘问:火若在早晨着起来,他单可救出够两餐用的。
The Gemara challenges this from the continuation of the mishna: If a fire ignited in the morning, one may only rescue food for two meals.
-
这岂不是指他早晨那一餐还没有吃、而人只当吃三餐——夜里一餐、白日两餐——的情形说的么?
What, is it not referring to a situation where one has not yet eaten one’s morning meal and the obligation is to eat only three meals, one at night and two during the day?
-
革玛拉 驳这话说:不然,那是指他早晨那一餐已经吃过的情形说的。
The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a situation where one has already eaten the morning meal.
-
革玛拉 又据密释纳下文诘问:火若在午后着起来,他可救出够一餐用的。
The Gemara challenges this from the continuation of the mishna: If a fire ignited in the afternoon, one may rescue food for one meal.
-
这岂不是指他午后那一餐还没有吃、而人只当吃三餐的情形说的么?
What, is it not referring to a situation where one has not yet eaten the afternoon meal and the obligation is to eat only three meals?
-
革玛拉 驳这话说:不然,那是指他已经吃过的情形说的。
The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a situation where one has already eaten.