← 安息日卷总目·第十七章 凡器皿
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。
人若在天还亮、安息日以先，就把瓶口的泥封抛在粪堆上，安息日挪它是禁的，因为他这样显明他已把它搁下不用了。
——人若在天还亮、安息日以先，就把瓶口的泥封抛在粪堆上，安息日挪它是禁的，因为他这样显明他已把它搁下不用了。
If one threw the clay seal of a jug into the garbage dump while it is still day, before Shabbat, it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat because he indicated that he set it aside from use.
巴尔·哈姆杜里 奉 撒母耳 之名说：席子上脱下来的碎苇，安息日可以挪。这是什么缘故呢？拉瓦 说：巴尔·哈姆杜里 为我讲明了——那席子自身合什么用呢？合拿来盖土。这些碎苇也照样合拿来盖秽物。
巴尔·哈姆杜里 奉 撒母耳 之名说：席子上脱下来的碎苇，安息日可以挪它们。
Bar Hamduri said that Shmuel said: With regard to shreds of reeds that separated from a mat, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat.
革玛拉 问：这是什么缘故呢？
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this?
拉瓦 说：巴尔·哈姆杜里 曾为我讲明这一层——那席子自身合作什么用呢？
Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: The mat itself, for what use is it suited?
它合拿来盖土。
It is suited to cover dirt with it.
这些碎苇也照样合拿来盖秽物。
These shreds, too, are suited to cover filth with them.
拉比泽拉 奉 拉夫 之名说：旧袍所剩的碎片，安息日挪它们是禁的。阿巴耶 说：所指的是不到三指见方的小碎布——那是穷人富人都用不着的。
拉比泽拉 奉 拉夫 之名说：旧袍碎片，安息日挪它们是禁的。
Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: With regard to the remains of cloaks [perozemiyyot], it is prohibited to move them on Shabbat.
阿巴耶 说：所指的是那不到三指见方的小碎布——那是穷人用不着、富人也用不着的。
Abaye said: This is referring to small rags that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, that are neither suited for use by the poor nor by the wealthy.
众贤在《托塞夫塔》里教说：旧炉的碎片，安息日在院子里可以挪，同别样院里可挪的器皿一样；这是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法。拉比犹大 说：不可挪。拉比约西 奉 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 之名作证，说旧炉的碎片安息日可挪，它的盖子也不必有把手。
众贤在《《托塞夫塔》》里教说：旧炉的碎片，安息日在院子里可以挪，同别样安息日在院子里可挪的器皿一样；这是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法。
The Sages taught in the Tosefta: The shards of an old oven may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat like all of the vessels that may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
拉比犹大 说：那些碎片不可挪。
Rabbi Yehuda says: They may not be moved.
拉比约西 奉 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 之名作证说：旧炉的碎片安息日可以挪；它的盖子也不必有把手。
Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle.
他们所争的是什么呢？阿巴耶 说：所争的是那些合得上别样用处、却合不上与本来相类之用处的碎片。拉比犹大 是照他自己的道理，拉比梅伊尔 也是照他自己的道理——正如他们在密释纳里所争的一样。
革玛拉 问：他们所争的是什么呢？
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree?
阿巴耶 说：他们所争的，是那些合得上别样用处、却合不上与本来相类之用处的碎片。
Abaye said: It is with regard to shards when they serve some function but do not serve a function similar to their own original function that they disagree.
拉比犹大 是照他自己的道理说的，拉比梅伊尔 也是照他自己的道理说的，正如他们在密释纳里所争的一样。
And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own line of reasoning, and Rabbi Meir follows his own line of reasoning, as they differed in the mishna.
拉瓦 极力驳这话说：若是这样，他们与其争炉的碎片，何不争寻常的碎片呢？何以单争炉的呢？
拉瓦 极力驳这话说：若是这样，他们与其争炉的碎片，何不就争寻常的碎片呢？
Rava strongly objects to this: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to ordinary shards.
他们何以单争炉的碎片呢？
Why is the dispute specifically with regard to an oven?
倒不如说，拉瓦 说：他们所争的是这一样炉的碎片，正如密释纳所学：陶炉不照常法用泥砌在地上，乃是安在坑口或井口上，又拿一块石头垫在坑壁与炉之间。拉比犹大 说：从底下坑里烧火，炉顶能热的，才算十足的器皿，能受不洁；不能热到炉顶的，就是洁净的。众拉比说：既然烧得热，就能受不洁。
倒不如说，拉瓦 说：他们所争的是这一样炉的碎片，正如我们在一条密释纳里学过：陶炉不照常法用泥砌在地上，乃是有人把它安在坑口或井口上，又拿一块石头垫在坑壁与那炉中间，好把炉固定住。拉比犹大 说：人若从炉底下、就是坑里烧火，那炉顶上能热起来，它就是尽了本分，算十足的器皿，能受不洁。
Rather, Rava said: It is with regard to shards of this particular oven that they disagree, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a clay oven that is not attached to the ground with mortar in the standard manner, but rather, one placed it over the mouth of a pit or over the mouth of a cistern, and he placed a stone there between the wall of the pit and the oven to secure the oven in place, Rabbi Yehuda says: If one heats the oven from beneath the oven, inside the pit, and the oven is thereby heated at the top, the oven serves its standard function; it is a full-fledged utensil and it can become ritually impure.
它若安得不严、顶上热不起来，它就是洁净的，因为那算不得十足的器皿。
And if it is not attached so tightly that it is heated at the top, it is ritually pure, because it is not a full-fledged vessel.
众拉比说：既然总有法子烧得热，它就能受不洁，因为它尽了本分的用处。
And the Rabbis say: Since it can be heated in some manner, it can become ritually impure, because it serves its standard purpose.
他们所争的是什么呢？是利未记 11:35 那一节：拉比犹大 执「须是完好、还打得碎的炉才受不洁；那安在不能全效之处的，已算如打碎了，是洁净的」；众拉比执经上加「都必与你们不洁净」一语，是说无论怎样都不洁。
革玛拉 问：他们所争的是什么呢？
And with regard to what do they disagree?
所争的是这一节经文：「其上若落下死的，无论是炉子，是锅台，就必打碎；都不洁净，也必与你们不洁净」（利未记 11:35）。
It is with regard to this verse: “And everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether oven, or stove, it shall be broken in pieces; they are impure, and they shall be impure to you” (Leviticus 11:35).
拉比犹大 执：须是那完好、还打得碎的炉，才能受不洁。
Rabbi Yehuda holds: An oven that lacks smashing, i.e., it is whole and can be broken, can become impure.
那安在不能全尽其效之处的，虽还打得碎，却已算如打碎了，是洁净的，就是不能受不洁。
One that does not lack smashing, but it is situated in a place where it is not completely effective, is considered broken and is pure, i.e., it cannot become ritually impure.
众拉比却执：经上加「也必与你们不洁净」一语，是说无论在什么情形下都不洁。
And the Rabbis hold that the verse comes to add: “They shall be impure to you,” in any case, under any circumstances.
依众拉比，经上岂不是也写着「就必打碎」么——他们何以不像 拉比犹大 那样解呢？答曰：众拉比是从另一面讲那一节的：人心里或要说，他既把炉接在地上，它就算同地一样，凡接在地上的都不受不洁；所以经上教我们说：既然拆得下来，它仍是能受不洁的。
革玛拉 问：依众拉比的意思，经上岂不是也写着「就必打碎」么？他们何以不像 拉比犹大 那样解那一节呢？
The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, too, isn’t it written: “They shall be broken into pieces,” and why don’t they interpret the verse in the same way that Rabbi Yehuda does?
革玛拉 讲明：众拉比是从另一面讲那一节的——人心里或要说：他既把那炉接在地上，它在律上就算同地一样；凡接在地上的，都不能受不洁。
The Gemara explains: The Rabbis understand this verse from another direction, as it could have entered your mind to say: Since he attached it to the ground, its legal status is like that of the ground itself, and anything attached to the ground cannot become impure.
所以经上教我们说：既然还拆得下来，它仍是能受不洁的。
Therefore, it teaches us that since it is possible to detach it from the ground, it is indeed impure.
依另一位坦拿、就是 拉比犹大，经上岂不是也写着「也必与你们不洁净」么？答曰：他把那一句照 拉夫犹大 奉 撒母耳 之名所说的讲——他们所争单在头一次烧；头一次烧才把未干透的陶炉作成器皿。至于第二次烧，他们并不相争，纵那炉挂在骆驼颈上也是不洁的。
革玛拉 问：依另一位 坦拿、就是 拉比犹大 的意思，经上岂不是也写着「也必与你们不洁净」么？
The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “They shall be impure to you”?
革玛拉 答：他把那一句照 拉夫犹大 奉 撒母耳 之名所说的讲；因为 拉夫犹大 奉 撒母耳 之名说：拉比犹大 与众拉比所争的，单在头一次烧那一层。
The Gemara answers: He understood that verse in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis is specifically with regard to the first lighting.
头一次烧，才把那还没有干透的陶炉作成器皿。
The first lighting transforms an earthenware oven that did not yet completely dry into a vessel.
至于第二次烧，他们并不相争；纵那炉挂在骆驼的颈上，既已烧过一次，它就是不洁的。
However, with regard to the second lighting they do not disagree, even if it was hanging around a camel’s neck; since it had already been fired up once, it is impure.
乌拉 说：依众拉比，连头一次烧也是一样——那炉纵挂在骆驼颈上，既已烧过一次，就算十足的炉，是不洁的。
乌拉 说：依众拉比的意思，连头一次烧也是一样——那炉纵挂在骆驼的颈上，既已烧过一次，就算十足的炉，是不洁的。
Ulla says: And with regard to the first lighting according to the Rabbis, even if it was hanging around a camel’s neck, since it had already been fired up once it is a full-fledged oven and is impure.
拉夫阿施 极力驳这条道理说：若是这样，他们与其争炉的碎片，何不就争那炉本身呢？依 拉比犹大，那炉本身尚且算不得器皿，还用说它的碎片不算器皿么？
拉夫阿施 极力驳这条道理说：若是这样，他们与其争炉的碎片，何不就争那炉本身呢？
Rav Ashi strongly objects to this line of reasoning: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to the shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to the oven itself.
依 拉比犹大 的意思，那炉本身尚且算不得器皿；还用说它的碎片不算器皿么？
Now the oven itself, according to Rabbi Yehuda, is not considered a vessel; therefore, to say that its broken pieces are not vessels, is it necessary?
倒不如说，拉夫阿施 说：其实仍如我们起初所说，所争的是各样炉的碎片，就是人拿它作成陶板的那一样；拉比梅伊尔 是照 拉比犹大 的话说的：依我的意思，凡合得上什么用处的碎片都可挪；依你的意思，至少这一样你也当与我同认——那正是与本来相类的用处。
倒不如说，拉夫阿施 说：其实仍如我们起初所说的，所争的是各样炉的碎片，就是人拿它作成 陶板 的那一样；拉比梅伊尔 是照 拉比犹大 的话说的：依我的意思，凡合得上什么用处的碎片，都是可挪的。
Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we said initially, that it is referring to shards of any oven, and with which he crafts a ceramic board [tapka], and Rabbi Meir is speaking in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: According to my opinion, it is permitted to move even shards that serve any purpose.
只是依你的意思，至少这一样你也当与我同认：那正是与它本来相类的用处。
However, according to your opinion, agree with me at least that in a case of this sort, it is a function similar to their own original function.
因为那碎片还烙得成饼。
The shards can be used for baking.
拉比犹大 说：那不相类。那里论完好的炉，是从里头烧的；这里论碎片，是从外头烧的。那里论完好的炉，是立着烤的；这里却不是立着烤的。所以它的用处与本来的不相类。
拉比犹大 却说：那不相类。
And Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not similar.
那里论完好的炉，它是从里头烧起来的。
There, in the case of an intact oven, its firing is from within.
这里论那碎片，它是从外头烧起来的。
Here, with regard to the shard, its firing is from without.
那里论完好的炉，是立着烤的；这里却不是立着烤的。
There, in the case of an intact oven, it bakes standing; here, it does not bake standing.
所以它的用处与它本来的用处不相类。
Therefore, its function is not similar to its original function.
在同一条《托塞夫塔》里，拉比约西 奉 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 之名作证说旧炉的碎片可挪、它的盖子不必有把手；拉维纳 说：如今梅哈西亚城里那些没有把手的炉盖，我们挪它是依谁的意思呢？是依 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 的意思。
在那同一条《《托塞夫塔》》里，拉比约西 奉 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 之名作证说：旧炉的碎片安息日可以挪；它的盖子也不必有把手，仍算器皿，就那样可以挪。拉维纳 说：如今 梅哈西亚 城里那些没有把手的炉盖，我们挪它们是依谁的意思呢？
In that same Tosefta where Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle, and which is considered a vessel and may be moved as is, Ravina says: In accordance with whose opinion do we now move the oven covers in the city of Meḥasya that do not have handles?
是依谁的意思呢？
In accordance with whose opinion is it?
是依 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 的意思。
It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.
密释纳：汲水葫芦里若有一块石头，人拿它打水而那石头不掉下来的，安息日可拿它打水；石头若掉下来，就不可拿它打水。
汲水葫芦 里若有一块石头，人拿它打水而那石头不掉下来的，安息日可拿它打水；石头若掉下来，就不可拿它打水。
A stone that is in a gourd used to draw water [kiruya], if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat, and if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it.