11b.1
引密释纳
「酒榨那里也是一样」——密释纳末一句。
-
在酒榨那里也是一样。
and the same is true in the wine press.
← 安息日卷总目·第一章 安息日的出运
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 12 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。
「酒榨那里也是一样」——密释纳末一句。
在酒榨那里也是一样。
and the same is true in the wine press.
区间区当怎么论？阿巴耶 说一例，拉瓦 说不然——岂可为防一条防禁再立一条。
就着这一段密释纳所教的，众贤面前起了一疑：论这条 哈拉哈，区间区 的身分当怎么论？
In light of the halakha that was taught in this mishna a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the legal status of a karmelit in this matter?
人可不可以站在这一区里，而饮 区间区 的水呢？
Is it permissible to stand in one domain and drink from a karmelit or not?
阿巴耶 说：这一件与那一件一例——众贤既禁人由私人区饮公共区的水、又反过来禁，那么由 区间区 饮到别一区，也照样是禁的。
Abaye said: That case is equal to that case, i.e., the same way that the Sages prohibited drinking from the private domain to the public domain and vice versa, so too, they prohibited drinking from the karmelit to another domain.
拉瓦 说：那并不禁。
Rava said: It is not prohibited.
从 区间区 挪到别一区，这一禁本身不过是拉比的一条防禁。
It, the prohibition to carry between a karmelit and another domain, itself is merely a rabbinic decree.
我们岂可为防一条防禁，再立一条防禁呢？
And will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree?
众贤在按 妥拉 之律成区的那两处（公共区与私人区）虽立了这样的禁，在按拉比之律才成区的 区间区 上，却没有立同样的禁。
Although the Sages prohibited doing so in one of the domains by Torah law, i.e., the public and the private domains, a similar decree was not issued in a karmelit, which is a domain by rabbinic law.
阿巴耶 的凭据：「酒榨那里也是一样」——酒榨非公非私，岂不正是区间区？
阿巴耶 说：我这条 哈拉哈（就是防禁及于 区间区）是从哪里说的呢？
Abaye said: From where do I say that halakha, i.e., that the decree applies to a karmelit?
是从《移入纹卷》（合界 卷）那一段密释纳末了所学的：在酒榨那里也是一样。
From that which we learned at the end of the mishna in tractate Eiruvin: And the same is true in the wine press.
这就要问：就安息日诸区而论，酒榨是什么身分呢？
The question arises: What is the status of the wine press in terms of the domains of Shabbat?
你若说它是私人区，那我们前头已经学过了。
If you say that it is the private domain, we already learned that in the mishna.
你若说它是公共区，那也已经学过了。
If it is the public domain, we already learned that as well.
那么，这酒榨岂不正是一个 区间区 么？
Rather, isn’t this press a karmelit?
可见密释纳把 区间区 也一并禁了。
Apparently, a karmelit was also prohibited in the mishna.
拉瓦 与 拉夫舍舍特：那一句本不干安息日，说的是十一奉献之律。
拉瓦 说：我们在密释纳里学的那句「在酒榨那里也是一样」，与安息日诸 哈拉哈 不相干。
Rava said: That which we learned in the mishna: And the same is true in the wine press, is not relevant to the halakhot of Shabbat.
它说的是十一奉献那一类律。
It refers to the matter of the halakhot of tithes.
拉夫舍舍特 也说：我们所学那句「在酒榨那里也是一样」，说的是十一奉献的事；因为我们在一段密释纳里学过：人按理可以就着酒榨直接饮那葡萄汁而不必分出十一，无论那汁是兑了热水的（兑了热水，剩下的酒便倒不回榨里去，一倒进去满榨的酒都坏了），还是兑了冷水的（那样倒得回去，也不坏别的酒），他都免于分十一。
And Rav Sheshet also said: That which we learned in the mishna: And the same is true in the wine press, refers to the matter of tithes, as we learned in a mishna: One may ab initio drink grape juice directly on the press without tithing, whether the juice was diluted with hot water, even though he will then be unable to return the leftover wine to the press, as it would ruin all the wine in the press, or whether the juice was diluted with cold water, in which case he could return the leftover wine without ruining the rest, and he is exempt.
这样饮算作随便一饮，凡不是正经一餐的，都免分十一。
Drinking that way is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is exempt from tithing.
这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。
That is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
拉比撒督之子拉比以利亚撒 却说两样情形都当分出十一。
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, obligates one to separate the tithe in both cases.
众拉比说：两样有分别——兑了热水的，剩下的既倒不回榨里去，他就当分十一，因为那如同正经一饮，正经一饮是当分十一的。
And the Rabbis say: There is a distinction between these two cases; when the wine was diluted with hot water, since he cannot return what is left of the wine to the press, he is obligated to tithe, as it is like fixed drinking for which one is obligated to tithe.
兑了冷水的，他就免分十一，因为剩下的还倒得回榨里去，那算作随便一饮，随便一饮是免分十一的。
However, when the wine was diluted with cold water, he is exempt, because he returns the leftover wine to the press, and it is incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing.
我们这一段密释纳说「在酒榨那里也是一样」，意思是：惟有他的头与大半身子在榨里的时候，才许他不分十一而饮；那一条与安息日的事全不相干（拉比奴·哈纳内尔）。
Our mishna, which says: And the same is true in the press, means that only if his head and most of his body was in the press is he permitted to drink without separating the tithe, and that halakha is not at all related to matters of Shabbat (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).
再证 阿巴耶：针别在衣上本非常法，众贤仍为防一禁而再立一禁。
为帮 阿巴耶 的说法，革玛拉 举我们本卷密释纳所学的：安息日前夕入夜时，裁缝不可带着针出去，恐怕他忘了身上带着针，安息日已到还带着它出到公共区去。
As proof for Abaye’s opinion, the Gemara states that which we learned in our mishna: The tailor may not go out with his needle adjacent to nightfall on Shabbat eve, lest he forget that he is carrying the needle and go out with it to the public domain even after Shabbat begins.
这里说的岂不是针别在衣裳上的情形么？
Is it not speaking here in a case where the needle was stuck in his clothing?
那样，他纵带着针出到公共区去，按 妥拉 之律也不有责——那不是搬东西的常法；照那样搬出去，不过为拉比的一条 安息之禁 所禁罢了。
In that case, even if he was to go out into the public domain with the needle, he would not be liable by Torah law, since that is not the typical manner of carrying out; carrying out an object in that manner is prohibited only by rabbinic decree [shevut].
饶是如此，众贤不但立禁不许安息日带着针出去，还为防那一条禁而再立一条，连安息日前夕入夜时也不许裁缝带着针出去。
Nevertheless, not only did the Rabbis issue a decree to prohibit going out with the needle on Shabbat, they issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree and prohibited the tailor from going out with his needle adjacent to nightfall.
可见就安息日出运诸 哈拉哈 而论，众贤是会为防一条防禁而再立一条的（托萨福）。
Apparently, the Sages institute a decree to prevent violation of another decree with regard to the halakhot of carrying out on Shabbat (Tosafot).
既然如此，论 区间区 诸 哈拉哈，众贤也照样立了防禁——这就是 阿巴耶 说法的凭据。
Consequently, with regard to the halakhot of karmelit, the Sages issued a decree as well, and this is proof for Abaye’s opinion.
革玛拉 驳这一说：不然，密释纳说的是他手里拿着针的情形，那便是十足的出运之工了。
The Gemara rejects this: No, the mishna is referring to a case where he is holding the needle in his hand, which constitutes performance of the full-fledged prohibited labor of carrying out.
另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 明说「针别在衣上」；答：那是 拉比犹大 的意思——匠人照本行常法搬即有责。
你来听另一个凭据，就是一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里明明教过的：裁缝不可带着别在衣裳上的针出去。
Come and hear another proof from that which was taught explicitly in the baraita: The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck in his clothing.
这说的岂不是安息日前夕出去、而众贤为防一禁再立一禁的情形么？正如 阿巴耶 所说。
Is it not speaking of a case where he goes out on Shabbat eve, and the Sages issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree, just as Abaye said?
革玛拉 驳道：不然，那一段所教的单是就安息日当天的出运说的。
The Gemara rejects this: No, when that was taught in the baraita, it was only with regard to carrying out on Shabbat itself.
革玛拉 再问：另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是明明教过：安息日前夕入夜时，裁缝不可带着别在衣裳上的针出去——那正是众贤为防一禁再立一禁，如 阿巴耶 所说么？
The Gemara asks further: Wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: The tailor may not go out with his needle stuck in his clothing on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and the Sages issued a decree to prevent violation of another decree, just as Abaye said?
革玛拉 驳道：那一段是谁的意思呢？
The Gemara rejects this: Whose opinion is cited in this baraita?
是 拉比犹大 的意思。他说：匠人照本行的常法把东西搬出去，纵使别人不那样搬，那匠人也有责，因为他是照自己习常的样式搬出去的。
It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: A craftsman who carries out an object in the manner common to his craft, even if others do not generally carry it out in that manner, the craftsman is liable, because he carried the object out in a manner standard for him.
六样行头：针、木屑、绳、羊毛、样毛、耳中之钱——拉比梅伊尔 判免责而禁，拉比犹大 判匠人有责。
因为一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：裁缝不可带着别在衣裳上的针出去；木匠不可带着夹在耳后当尺用的木屑出去；梳毛的不可带着耳上那根捆毛用的绳子出去；织工 不可带着耳上那一绺羊毛出去（那是他做活用的）；染工不可带着颈上那一束样毛出去；兑钱的不可带着耳中那一枚第纳尔出去。
As it was taught in a baraita: The tailor may not go out with his needle that is stuck in his clothing, and a carpenter may not go out with the wood chip that is behind his ear for use as a measuring stick, and a comber of wool may not go out with a cord with which he ties bundles of wool and which is usually placed that is on his ear, and a weaver [gardi] may not go out with a bit of wool [ira] that is on his ear which he uses for the purpose of his work, and the painter may not go out with the sample of dyed wool that is on his neck, and a money changer may not go out with the dinar that is in his ear.
这几样的 哈拉哈 是：他若带出去了，按 妥拉 之律免责，按拉比之律却是禁的。
In all of these cases the halakha is that if he went out, he is exempt by Torah law, but it is prohibited for him to do so by rabbinic decree.
这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。
This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
拉比犹大 说：匠人在安息日照本行的常法把东西搬出去，按 妥拉 之律有责；别人照那样搬出去，免责，却仍是禁的。
Rabbi Yehuda says: A craftsman who carries out an object in the manner common to his craft on Shabbat is liable by Torah law; any other person who carries it out in that manner is exempt, but it is prohibited for him to do so.
两段 《巴拉伊塔》 论漏症者的兜袋：一判免责，一判当献赎罪祭。
既提到 拉比梅伊尔 与 拉比犹大 论「非常法搬运」之争，革玛拉 便举出两段相关的 《巴拉伊塔》 彼此相违之处。
Since the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the legal status of one who carries out an object in an atypical manner was mentioned, the Gemara discusses a contradiction between two related baraitot.
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：漏症者 安息日不可带着他那兜袋出去——那袋是他系在下体上、承接所漏之物的。
It was taught in one baraita: The zav may not go out on Shabbat with his pouch that he ties to his organ in order to absorb his emission.
他若带出去了，按 妥拉 之律免责，按拉比之律却是禁的。
And if he went out, he is exempt by Torah law but it is prohibited for him to do so by rabbinic law.
另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里却教过：漏症者 安息日不可带着他那兜袋出去。
And it was taught in another baraita: The zav may not go out on Shabbat with his pouch.
他若无心带了出去，就担献赎罪祭之责。
And if he went out unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
拉夫约瑟：一段合 拉比梅伊尔，一段合 拉比犹大。
拉夫约瑟 说：这不难。
Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult.
两段 《巴拉伊塔》 并不相违——那判他免责的一段，是照 拉比梅伊尔 的意思；那判他有责的一段，是照 拉比犹大 的意思。
There is no contradiction between the baraitot, as this baraita, which deems him exempt, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir; that, the other baraita, which deems him liable, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
阿巴耶 驳：兜袋本就那样带，非「非常法」；犹如常人凿成一卡夫之器，岂能不判他有责。
阿巴耶 对 拉夫约瑟 说：你所听见 拉比梅伊尔 判免责的，是就「不照常法搬出去的东西」说的。
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Say that you heard that Rabbi Meir deems him exempt with regard to an object that is not carried out in its typical manner.
至于本来就那样搬出去的东西，你何曾听他判过免责呢？
However, with regard to a matter that is carried out in its typical manner, did you hear that he deems him exempt?
针照例是拿在手里搬的。
In general, one carries out a needle in his hand.
拉比梅伊尔 所免的，是把针别在衣裳上搬出去的人——纵是匠人也免。
Rabbi Meir exempts one who carries it out in his clothing, even if he is a craftsman.
但 漏症者 这兜袋，虽不拿在手里，却向来就是那样带的；纵依 拉比梅伊尔，那也是十足的出运之工。
However, this pouch of a zav, even though it is not held in his hand, is always carried out in that manner, and, even according to Rabbi Meir, that constitutes a bona fide act of carrying out.
你若不这样说——若说各样工作可以照不同的样式做——那么一个 常人 在安息日把一块木头凿成一个容一 卡夫 的器皿，你难道也要说 拉比梅伊尔 不判他做成了安息日所禁的工作，因为他不是匠人、所凿的也不合匠人的规矩么？
As, if you do not say so, that the specifics of various prohibited labors can be performed in different manners, in the case of a layman [hedyot], who carved out a vessel the size of a kav in a piece of wood on Shabbat, would you say that Rabbi Meir also does not deem him liable for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat because he is not a craftsman and he did not craft the vessel according to the standards of a craftsman?
那常人分明是尽自己所能做成了一件十足的工作，他是有责的。
Certainly, the layman performed a full-fledged labor to the best of his ability and he is liable.
拉夫哈姆努纳：两段各说一种漏症者——见过两次的要袋验第三次，见过三次的用不着。
倒是 拉夫哈姆努纳 说：这不难，两段 《巴拉伊塔》 说的是两样情形。
Rather, Rav Hamnuna said: This is not difficult, as the two baraitot are referring to two different cases.
这里，那判他按 妥拉 之律有责的一段，说的是已见过两次漏症的 漏症者。
Here, in the baraita that deemed him liable by Torah law, it is referring to a zav who experienced two sightings of an emission.
人要在洁净之礼里担献祭之责，须见过三次才算。
Liability to bring an offering as part of the purification process is only after he sees three emissions.
所以这样的 漏症者 用得着那兜袋，好察验自己是否见了第三次。
Therefore, the zav requires the pouch in order to ascertain whether or not he experienced a third emission.
那里，那判他免责的一段，说的是已见过三次的 漏症者。
However, there, in the baraita that deems him exempt, it is referring to a zav who already experienced three sightings.
在他，再见一次与否已无关轻重。
For him there is no significance whether or not he experiences an additional emission.
所以那兜袋于他无足轻重，他也无心把它带出去。
Therefore, the pouch is insignificant and he has no interest in carrying it out.
见过三次的也要袋来数洁净之日；答：那一段单说他见第三次的当日。
革玛拉 问：那两段 《巴拉伊塔》 里，见过两次的 漏症者 用得着那袋来察验第三次，故判有责；见过三次的 漏症者 岂不也用得着那袋，好数那几个洁净之日么？两者有什么分别呢？
The Gemara asks: What is different about a zav who had two sightings, who is liable, as he requires the pouch for the purpose of examination to ascertain whether or not he experienced a third sighting, and a zav who already experienced three sightings and requires the pouch for the purpose of counting clean days?
他要得洁净，须数满七日不再见漏症。
In order to become ritually pure, he must count seven clean days without experiencing an emission.
既然如此，见过三次的 漏症者 也用得着那袋，好察验自己是否又见了一次。
If so, even a zav who had three sightings requires the pouch, in order to ascertain whether or not he experienced another emission.
革玛拉 答：那一段单是就他已见第三次的那一日说的。
The Gemara answers: That baraita was only needed for that day when he already saw his third emission.
无论如何，那一日总算不得洁净之日。
In any case, that day will not be a clean day.
那一日他不也要袋以免污衣？拉比泽拉：这位坦拿以为「单为免污」不算正用。
革玛拉 问：便是那一日，那 漏症者 岂不也用得着那袋，免得衣裳被所漏之物污了么？
The Gemara asks: Doesn’t even that zav need the pouch so that his clothes will not get soiled by the emission?
他虽不为断律用它，日用上却用得着。
Although he does not need the pouch for a halakhic determination, he needs it for practical considerations.
拉比泽拉 说：这位 坦拿 正是那说「凡单为免污而用的，算不得一样正用、不足以使那物成为真器皿」的。
Rabbi Zeira said: This tanna is the one who said that any usage intended to prevent filth is not considered a special purpose that will render a certain object an actual vessel.
因为我们在一段密释纳里学过：人在下雨时把一个盆搁在墙上，他若是为叫雨水把盆冲净而搁的，那就落在「若有水浇在……」那一节之内——那水的身分如同他自愿浇在果子种子上的水一样。
As we learned in a mishna: One who places a bowl on the wall while it is raining, if he did that so that the bowl would be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse: “If water be placed.” The water has the legal status of a liquid that he poured of his own volition on fruit and seeds.
那样，果子种子便能沾染不洁，正如经上写着：「若有水浇在种子上，那尸体有一点掉在其上，这种子就与你们不洁净了」（利未记 11:38）。
It renders them liable to become ritually impure, as it is written: “If water be placed upon seed and any of their carcass fell on it, it is impure to you” (Leviticus 11:38).
他若搁那盆是为着
However, if he placed the bowl so