120b.1
解答
革玛拉 答：拉夫那句话是照密释纳里 拉比西缅·本·纳纳斯 的意思说的。
-
革玛拉 答：拉夫 那句话，是照密释纳里 拉比西缅·本·纳纳斯 的意思说的。
The Gemara answers: It was Rav who said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas in the mishna.
← 安息日卷总目·第十六章 凡圣书
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。
革玛拉 答：拉夫那句话是照密释纳里 拉比西缅·本·纳纳斯 的意思说的。
革玛拉 答：拉夫 那句话，是照密释纳里 拉比西缅·本·纳纳斯 的意思说的。
The Gemara answers: It was Rav who said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas in the mishna.
或问：拉比西缅·本·纳纳斯 说可蒙山羊皮，是因火单燎它不烧透；他何曾说间接使火熄灭也可呢？答曰：他连那一层也许了，这可从密释纳末一句看出——拉比约西 禁用盛水的新陶器，可见头一位坦拿是许的。
革玛拉 问：你说 拉比西缅·本·纳纳斯 许人把山羊皮蒙在着火之物上，是因为火单燎它、不烧透它；他何曾说间接使火熄灭也是许的呢？
The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas said it is permitted to place the goat’s hide on the burning item because it singes and does not burn; did he say it is permitted to indirectly cause the fire to extinguish?
革玛拉 答：是的，拉比西缅·本·纳纳斯 连那一层也许了；这可从密释纳末一句所教看出来——拉比约西 禁人用那盛满水的新陶器，因为它们受不住火，必要裂开把火浇灭。
The Gemara answers: Yes, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas permitted that as well, and we learn this from that which is taught in the latter clause in the mishna: Rabbi Yosei prohibits using new earthenware vessels that are full of water, because they cannot withstand the fire and will burst and extinguish the fire.
由此可以推出：那头一位 坦拿、就是 拉比西缅·本·纳纳斯，是许的。
This proves by inference that the first tanna, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, permits it.
众贤教说：灯放在板上的，可以抖那板叫灯掉下来；火若因此熄了，就熄了。拉比雅奈 门下的众贤说：所许的单指安息日起头时把灯忘在板上的情形；人若是特意放在那里的，那板就成了所禁之物的底座，不可挪动。
众贤教说：灯放在板上的，人可以抖那板叫灯掉下来；那火若熄了，就熄了。
The Sages taught: With regard to a candle that is atop a board, one shakes the board and the candle falls, and if it is extinguished, it is extinguished.
拉比雅奈 门下的众贤说：他们所教这样行是许的，单指安息日起头时人把灯忘在板上的情形。
The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: They only taught that this is permitted in a case where one forgets the candle atop the board when Shabbat began.
人若是特意把灯放在那里的，那板就成了所禁之物的底座，不可挪动。
However, in a case where one places it there, the board becomes a base for a prohibited object and may not be moved.
所教说：灯在门后的，人可照常开门关门；火若熄了，就熄了。拉夫 却咒诅这样行的人。拉维纳 问 拉瓦之子拉夫阿哈——也有人说是他问 拉夫阿施——拉夫 何以咒诅呢？若说因 拉夫 从 拉比犹大「无心而致禁工亦禁」的意思，而那坦拿是照 拉比西缅 教的，拉夫 就为此咒诅依 拉比西缅 断的人么？人所依的原是一位坦拿的意思。
所教的说：灯在门后的，人可以照常开门关门；那火若熄了，就熄了。
It was taught: With regard to a candle behind a door, one may open and shut the door in his usual manner, and if it is extinguished, it is extinguished.
拉夫 却咒诅那样行的人。
Rav would curse one who did so.
拉维纳 对 拉瓦之子拉夫阿哈 说——也有人说是 拉瓦之子拉夫阿哈 对 拉夫阿施 说：拉夫 咒诅责备那样行的人，是什么缘故呢？
Ravina said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, and some say that Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason that Rav cursed and reprimanded one who did so?
你若说：那是因为 拉夫 从 拉比犹大 的意思，执「无心而致禁工的事也是禁的」；而那位 坦拿 是照 拉比西缅 的意思教的，执「那样的事上无心而行是许的」——拉夫 既从 拉比犹大 的意思，就为此咒诅凡照 拉比西缅 的意思教这条 哈拉哈 的人么？
If you say it is because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is prohibited to perform an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor could ensue, and the tanna taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that it is permitted to perform an unintentional act in those circumstances; because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he curses anyone who teaches the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?
他们所依的原是一位 坦拿 的意思，那是站得住的。
They rely on the ruling of a tanna, whose opinion is legitimate.
他对他说：这一件连 拉比西缅 也认是禁的，因为 阿巴耶 与 拉瓦 都说过：凡归在「割了牠的头，牠岂能不死」一类必致之事上，拉比西缅 是认的。
他对他说：这一件连 拉比西缅 也认是禁的，因为 阿巴耶 与 拉瓦 两位都说过：凡归在「割了牠的头，牠岂能不死」一类的事上，拉比西缅 是认的。
He said to him: In this case, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited, as it was Abaye and Rava who both said that Rabbi Shimon concedes in a case of: Cut off its head, will it not die?
凡无心之举必致所禁之果的，连 拉比西缅 也认那行事的人有责。
In an instance where the unintentional act leads to an inevitable prohibited consequence, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that the person who performs the unintentional act is liable.
拉夫犹大 说：人安息日可对着火开门。阿巴耶 却咒诅那样行的人。这是论哪一样呢——外头若刮寻常的风，禁的一位有何理？若刮异常的风，许的一位又有何理？答曰：其实论的是寻常的风；一位夫子（阿巴耶）以为当因异常之风的缘故并禁寻常之风，一位夫子（拉夫犹大）以为不当立这禁例。
拉夫犹大 说：人安息日可以对着火开门。
Rav Yehuda said: A person opens a door opposite a fire on Shabbat.
革玛拉 记说：阿巴耶 素常咒诅那样行的人。
The Gemara relates that Abaye would curse anyone who did so.
革玛拉 要弄明白：我们所论的是哪一样情形呢？
The Gemara clarifies: With what are we dealing?
你若说这是指外头刮寻常之风的情形，那禁的一位有什么理由呢？
If you say this is referring to a case where a typical wind is blowing outside, what is the reason of the one who prohibits opening the door?
寻常的风既不扇旺那火，也不把它吹灭。
A typical wind will neither fan nor extinguish the fire.
你若说这是指外头刮异常之风的情形，那许的一位又有什么理由呢？
And if it is referring to a case where an atypical wind is blowing outside, what is the reason of the one who permits opening the door?
革玛拉 答：其实所论的是寻常之风的情形。
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to the case of a typical wind.
只是一位夫子、就是 阿巴耶，以为当因异常之风的缘故，把寻常之风的时候开门也一并禁了；另一位夫子、就是 拉夫犹大，以为不当立这禁例。
However, one Sage, Abaye, holds that we issue a decree prohibiting to open the door in the case of a typical wind due to a case of an atypical wind, and the other Sage, Rav Yehuda, holds that we do not issue that decree.
密释纳说众拉比许拿各样陶器挡火、拉比约西 禁新陶器，岂不是说众拉比许间接熄火、拉比约西 禁么？我们所听见的却相反：一条巴拉伊塔说可拿空器与那不易裂的满器挡火——就是金属器；拉比约西 说连希欣村与哈纳尼亚村的陶器也不易裂。可见 拉比约西 反比众拉比宽。你若说把密释纳里两家的意思对调，那也不成，因为 拉巴·巴尔·塔哈利法 奉 拉夫 之名说：教「禁间接熄火」的坦拿正是 拉比约西。
我们在密释纳里学过：人可拿各样陶器挡住火；拉比约西 却禁人用新的陶器。
We learned in the mishna that one may establish a barrier with all earthenware vessels, and Rabbi Yosei prohibits using new earthenware vessels.
革玛拉 问：这岂是说众拉比执「安息日间接使火熄灭是许的」，拉比约西 执「间接熄火是禁的」么？
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the Rabbis hold that indirect extinguishing is permitted on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yosei holds that indirect extinguishing is prohibited?
我们所听见他们所说的岂不正相反么——因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：人可拿空的器皿挡火，也可拿那素常不裂的满器挡火。
Didn’t we hear them state the opposite, as it was taught in a baraita: One may establish a barrier with empty vessels, and with full ones that do not typically break.
那素常不裂的满器是哪一样呢？就是金属的器皿。
And these are full vessels that do not typically break; metal vessels.
拉比约西 说：连希欣村的陶器与哈纳尼亚村的器皿也是素常不裂的。
Rabbi Yosei says: Even earthenware vessels from the village of Shiḥin and vessels from the village of Ḥananya do not typically break.
可见 拉比约西 的意思反比众拉比的意思宽。
Apparently, Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is more lenient than the opinions of the Rabbis.
你若说：把密释纳里两家的意思对调过来，把 拉比约西 的意思归给众拉比，又说 拉比约西 在那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里是照众拉比的意思说的，他自己其实相争而许用各样器皿——
And if you say: Reverse the attribution of opinions in the mishna and attribute Rabbi Yosei’s opinion to the Rabbis, and say that Rabbi Yosei is saying his statement in the baraita in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, although he himself disagrees and permits using all vessels.
然而你能把密释纳对调么？
But can you reverse the mishna?
拉巴·巴尔·塔哈利法 岂不是奉 拉夫 之名说过：教「间接使火熄灭是禁的」的是哪一位 坦拿 呢？
Didn’t Rabba bar Taḥalifa say in the name of Rav: Who is the tanna who teaches that indirect extinguishing is prohibited?
就是 拉比约西。
It is Rabbi Yosei.
倒不如说：密释纳不必对调，那条巴拉伊塔通篇都是依 拉比约西 的意思，只是文有阙略，当这样教：可拿空器与那不易裂的满器挡火；不易裂的是金属器，并希欣村与哈纳尼亚村的器皿也不易裂，因为 拉比约西 说连那两处的器皿也不易裂。
倒不如说：其实不要把密释纳里两家的意思对调；那条 《巴拉伊塔》 通篇都是依 拉比约西 的意思，只是文有阙略，当这样教：
Rather, actually, do not reverse the attribution of the opinions in the mishna, and the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it is incomplete and is teaching the following: One may establish a barrier with empty vessels and full ones that do not typically break.
人可拿空的器皿挡火，也可拿那素常不裂的满器挡火；那素常不裂的是金属的器皿，并希欣村的陶器与哈纳尼亚村的器皿也是素常不裂的，正如 拉比约西 说：连希欣村的陶器与哈纳尼亚村的器皿也是素常不裂的。
And these are vessels that do not typically break: Metal vessels; and vessels from the village of Shiḥin and vessels from the village of Ḥananya also do not typically break, as Rabbi Yosei says: Even vessels from the village of Shiḥin and vessels from the village of Ḥananya do not typically break.
断语既是 拉比约西 禁间接熄火、众拉比许，革玛拉 就举出两家各自前后相违之处：一条巴拉伊塔说人身上写着神名的，不可洗、不可抹油、不可站在污秽之处；若逢当行的浸洗，就拿苇子缠住神名再下水。拉比约西 说：他尽可照常下水浸洗，只要不擦那处把名抹去。可见论间接致禁之果，拉比约西 反比众贤宽。
断语既是 拉比约西 禁间接使火熄灭、众拉比许，
The conclusion is that Rabbi Yosei prohibits indirect extinguishing, and the Rabbis permit it.
革玛拉 就举出众拉比这一说与那一说相违之处，也举出 拉比约西 这一说与那一说相违之处。
The Gemara raises a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and a second statement of the Rabbis; and it raises a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and a second statement of Rabbi Yosei.
因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：人身上若写着神的圣名，他不可用水洗那处，恐怕把名抹去；也不可拿油抹它；也不可站在污秽之处，因为那是轻慢神的名。
As it was taught in a baraita: If one had a sacred name of God written on his skin he may neither wash it in water lest it be erased, nor may he smear it with oil, nor may he stand in a place of filth because it is disrespectful of God’s name.
他若凑巧遇着当行的浸洗，就拿一根苇子缠在神名上头，然后下水浸洗。
If an immersion of mitzva happened to present itself, he wraps a reed over God’s name and then descends and immerses.
拉比约西 说：其实他尽可照常下水浸洗，纵不是当行的浸洗也可，只要他不擦那一处、把那名抹去。
Rabbi Yosei says: Actually, he descends and immerses in his usual manner, even if it is not an immersion of mitzva, provided that he does not rub the spot and erase the name.
可见论间接致成所禁之果这一层，拉比约西 的意思反比众贤的宽。
Apparently, Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is more lenient than that of the Sages with regard to indirectly causing a prohibited outcome.
答曰：那里是另一样，因为经上说「也要拆毁他们的祭坛……将其名从那地方除灭。你们不可照他们那样待耶和华你们的神」（申命记 12:3–4）。拉比约西 从「不可这样行」推出：所禁的是亲手去行，间接致成那果却是许的。
革玛拉 答：那里是另一样，因为经上说：「也要拆毁他们的祭坛，打碎他们的柱像，用火焚烧他们的木偶，砍下他们雕刻的神像，并将其名从那地方除灭。
The Gemara answers: It is different there because the verse says: “And you shall break down their altars, and you shall smash their pillars, and their sacred trees, and burn with fire, and the graven images of their gods you shall hew down and you shall destroy their name from that place.
你们不可照他们那样待耶和华你们的神」（申命记 12:3–4）。
You shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4).
拉比约西 从「你们不可这样行」这一禁语推出：所禁的是亲手去行；间接致成那果，却是许的。
From the prohibition: “You shall not do so,” Rabbi Yosei derives that actually doing so is that which is prohibited; indirectly causing that result is permitted.
若是这样，论安息日也写着「不可作任何的工」（出埃及记 20:10），岂不也可推出「亲作才禁、间接致成是许」么？答曰：论根本，拉比约西 以为间接熄火本不在禁例；只是人为自家产业心里发急，你若许他间接熄，他就要去直接扑灭。
革玛拉 问：若是这样，这里论安息日也写着：「但第七日是向耶和华你神当守的安息日；这一日你不可作任何的工」（出埃及记 20:10）。
The Gemara asks: If so, here too, with regard to Shabbat, it is written: “And the seventh day is Shabbat for the Lord your God, you shall not perform any labor” (Exodus 20:9).
这里岂不也可推出：亲作才是禁的，间接致成所禁之事却是许的么？
And here, too, one could derive: Performance is that which is prohibited; indirectly causing a prohibited action is permitted.
革玛拉 答：论根本，拉比约西 以为间接使火熄灭本不在禁例之内；只是人为自家的产业心里发急，你若许他间接把火熄了，他就要去直接扑灭它。
The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yosei maintains there is no prohibition in indirectly causing a fire to be extinguished; however, since a person is agitated about his property, if you permit him to indirectly extinguish the fire, he will come to extinguish it directly.
若是这样，众拉比这一说与那一说就相违了：论火灾，人既为产业发急，众拉比尚且执间接熄火是许的；这里论抹去神名，更该许才是。那条巴拉伊塔里众拉比何以在这一件上从严呢？
革玛拉 问：若是这样，众拉比这一说与那一说就相违了：论火灾，人既为自家产业发急，众拉比尚且执间接使火熄灭是许的；这里论间接抹去神的名，就更该许了。
The Gemara asks: If so, there is a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis: If in the case of a fire, where a person is agitated about his property, nevertheless, the Rabbis hold that indirect extinguishing is permitted; here, in the case of erasing God’s name, all the more so it should be permitted to indirectly cause erasure of God’s name.
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里众拉比何以在这一件上断得这样严呢？
Why did the Rabbis in the baraita issue a stringent ruling in this matter?
革玛拉 驳这讲法：依众拉比，那缠在神名上的苇子究竟怎样呢——缠紧了就成隔碍，不缠紧水就进去把名抹了。诘曰：论隔碍，皮上的墨本身岂不已成隔碍么？答曰：所说的是湿墨，不成隔碍——一条巴拉伊塔说血、墨、蜜、奶在人皮上，干了成隔碍，湿的不成隔碍。虽然如此，众拉比何以定要缠苇子呢，仍是难解。
革玛拉 驳这讲法：你怎能这样讲呢？
The Gemara rejects this: And how can you understand it that way?
依众拉比的意思，那浸洗时缠住神名的苇子，究竟是怎样的呢？
What are the circumstances of this reed with which God’s name is covered while immersing according to the Rabbis?
缠得紧，它就成了隔碍；缠得不紧，水就进去把那名抹了。
If it is firmly attached, it is an interposition; if it is not firmly attached, the water enters and erases the name.
革玛拉 反问：所虑的若是隔碍，那么单凭他皮上的墨，横竖已经成了隔碍。
The Gemara questions this: If the concern is with regard to an interposition, derive that it is an interposition in any case due to the ink on his skin.
革玛拉 答：这里所说的是湿墨，湿墨是不成隔碍的，正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：血、墨、蜜与奶在人皮上，干了的成隔碍，湿的不成隔碍。
The Gemara answers: This is referring to moist ink that does not interpose, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to blood, and ink, and honey, and milk on a person’s skin, when they are dry, they interpose during immersion; when they are moist, they do not interpose.
革玛拉 接着说：纵然如此，这仍是难解的：众拉比何以定要人拿苇子缠住神的名呢？
The Gemara continues: Nevertheless, it is difficult: Why do the Rabbis require wrapping a reed around God’s name?
倒不如说，拉瓦·巴尔·拉夫谢拉 说众拉比的缘由是这样：他们以为人不可赤身站在神名之前，所以身上与那名之间总要有一层隔断。这岂是说 拉比约西 以为赤身站在名前是许的么？答曰：不然，他也不许；只是他不定要拿苇子遮盖，用手按在那名上就够了。
倒不如说，拉瓦·巴尔·拉夫谢拉 说：众拉比的缘由是这样——他们以为人不可赤身站在神的名之前，所以他赤露的身子与那名之间总要有一层隔断。
Rather, Rava bar Rav Sheila said that this is the reasoning of the Rabbis: They hold that it is prohibited for a person to stand before the name of God while naked, and therefore there must be a barrier between one’s naked body and the name.
革玛拉 问：这岂是说，可以推出 拉比约西 以为赤身站在那名之前是许的么？
The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is permitted to stand before the name while naked?
革玛拉 答：不然，他也不许人那样行；只是他不定要人拿苇子把那名遮盖起来。
The Gemara answers: No, he does not allow doing so; however, he does not require that the name be covered with a reed.
他以为人拿手按在那名上就够了。
It is sufficient for one to place his hand over the name.
若是这样，依众拉比也该说用手按着就够了。答曰：众拉比所虑的是人有时忘了把手挪开。诘曰：拉比约西 岂不也当虑这一层么？倒不如说：手边若有苇子，拉比约西 也认当拿它遮住神的名；这里所论的，是须去别处寻苇子的情形。在那样的情形上，众拉比以为——
革玛拉 问：若是这样，依众拉比也该说人拿手按在那名上就够了。
The Gemara asks: If so, according to the Rabbis it should also be sufficient for one to place his hand over it.
革玛拉 讲明：众拉比所虑的是人有时忘了，把手挪开。
The Gemara explains: The Rabbis are concerned because sometimes one will forget and remove his hand.
革玛拉 问：拉比约西 岂不也当虑人有时忘了、把手挪开这一层么？
The Gemara asks: Shouldn’t Rabbi Yosei also be concerned because sometimes one will forget and remove his hand?
倒不如说：手边若有苇子，拉比约西 也的确认当拿它遮住神的名。
Rather, if there is a reed available, Rabbi Yosei indeed concedes that one covers God’s name with it.
那么我们这里所论的是哪一样情形呢？
However, with what situation are we dealing here?
我们所论的，是人须去别处寻一根苇子的情形。
We are dealing with a case in which one would have to seek a reed.
在那样的情形上，众拉比以为——
In that case, the Rabbis hold