以「为免污墙而搁盆」比漏症者的兜袋,不相类:那水他全不要,这袋他却用得着。
-
——是为免墙被冲坏而搁的,那就不落在「若有水浇在……」那一节之内:那水的身分算不得为此而浇的水。
that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: “If water be placed.” The water does not have the legal status of water poured for that purpose.
-
这位 坦拿 不把「护墙免污」算作一样有分量的用处。
This tanna does not consider protecting the wall from dirt as a significant usage.
-
照样,「护 漏症者 免被所漏之物污了」也算不得有分量的用处,那为此而用的兜袋也就算不得有分量的器皿。
Similarly, protecting the zav from being soiled by the emission would not be considered a significant usage and the pouch used for that purpose would not be considered a significant vessel.
-
革玛拉 驳这一比:这两件像么?
The Gemara rejects this: Are these cases comparable?
-
那里,他根本不要那些水,所以那盆算不得为承水而搁的。
There, he does not need those liquids at all, and therefore the vessel is not considered to have been placed to receive them.
-
这里,他却用得着这兜袋来承所漏之物,好察验自己是否又见了一次。
However, here he needs this pouch to absorb the emission, to ascertain whether or not he experienced an emission.
-
他虽在那一日用不着那袋,漏症者 平日总是用得着他的兜袋,好察验是否又见了一次。
Although on that particular day he does not require the pouch, the zav typically requires his pouch for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is another emission.