← 安息日卷总目·第十九章 拉比以利以谢论割礼
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。
——不合 拉比以利以谢 的意思。那些房顶与院子虽没有照律合成一区、本不许彼此搬运，众拉比却许人这样把刀带过来。
——不合 拉比以利以谢 的意思。
contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer.
那些房顶与院子虽没有照律合成一区、本不许彼此搬运，众拉比却许人这样把那刀带过来。
Even though the roofs and courtyards were not halakhically joined in a manner where it would be permitted to carry from one to the other, the Rabbis permitted carrying the scalpel in this manner.
拉夫约瑟 极力驳这话：说「不合 拉比以利以谢 的意思」么？倒相反——许这样行的正是 拉比以利以谢，他连从公共区带过来也许。你若说是「不合 拉比以利以谢 而合众拉比」——众拉比禁经公共区、单许经房顶院子——那也难：依众拉比果真许么？一条巴拉伊塔岂不是教说：割礼之刀怎样不可经公共区带来，也怎样不可经房顶、经围场、经院子带来么？
拉夫约瑟 极力驳这话说：竟说「不合 拉比以利以谢 的意思」么？
Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: Contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer?
倒相反：许这样行的正是 拉比以利以谢，因为他连从公共区带那刀过来也许。
On the contrary, it is Rabbi Eliezer who permits this, as he permits carrying the scalpel even through the public domain.
你若说所指的是「不合那连公共区也许的 拉比以利以谢 的意思，却合那禁经公共区、单许经房顶院子围场的众拉比的意思」，那也是难的。
And if you say that it means contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits carrying even in the public domain, but in accordance with the wishes of the Rabbis, who prohibited carrying via the public domain and only permitted carrying via roofs, via courtyards and enclosures, that is also difficult.
依众拉比的意思，果真是许的么？
And is it permitted according to the opinion of the Rabbis?
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教说：割礼之刀怎样不可经公共区带来，也怎样不可经房顶、经围场、经院子带来么？
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as one may not bring the circumcision knife via the public domain, so too, one may not bring it via roofs, via enclosures, or via courtyards?
倒不如说，拉夫阿施 说：所指的是「不合 拉比以利以谢 与那与他相争之人的意思，却合 拉比西缅 的意思」。因为密释纳里 拉比西缅 说：房顶、围场与院子，论那些安息日起头时就搁在其中的器皿，都算作一区；至于安息日起头时搁在屋里的器皿，就不算作一区。
倒不如说，拉夫阿施 说：所指的是「不合 拉比以利以谢 与那与他相争之人的意思，却合 拉比西缅 的意思」。
Rather, Rav Ashi said: It means contrary to the wishes of Rabbi Eliezer and his disputants, but in accordance with the wishes of Rabbi Shimon.
因为我们在一条密释纳里学过 拉比西缅 说：房顶、围场与院子，论那些安息日起头时就搁在其中的器皿，都算作一区。
As we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, enclosures, and courtyards are all considered as one domain with regard to vessels that rested inside them at the beginning of Shabbat.
所以那些搁在其中的器皿，可以从这一处搬到那一处。
Therefore, it is permitted to carry vessels that rested inside one to another.
只是论那些安息日起头时搁在屋里的器皿，它们就不算作同一区。
However, they are not considered the same domain with regard to vessels that rested inside the house at the beginning of Shabbat.
那院里的家主若没有作 合界 把院子合起来，就不可把器皿从屋里搬到院子里。
If the homeowners did not join the courtyard by means of an eiruv, it is prohibited to carry vessels from their houses to the courtyard.
一院之内各家纵已合了界，若没有作 合界，仍不可从院子搬到围场里。
Even if the houses in a courtyard were joined, it is prohibited to carry from the courtyard to an enclosure unless they were joined by means of an eiruv.
无论如何，有几样情形上，拉比西缅 是许人经房顶、院子与围场搬运的。
In any case, there are circumstances in which Rabbi Shimon allows carrying via roofs, courtyards, and enclosures.
拉比泽拉 在 拉比阿西 面前提出一疑：巷道里的住户没有合界的，依 拉比西缅，人在那巷道全段搬运当怎样断呢？是像院子一样——院里各家虽没有合界、不可从屋里搬出来，在院子全段搬运仍是许的；还是说巷道与院子不同，因为院子有四面墙，巷道只有三面？或者说院子有住户、可比作房屋，巷道却没有住户？拉比阿西 默然不答。
拉比泽拉 在 拉比阿西 面前提出一疑：巷道里的住户没有合界的，依 拉比西缅 的意思，人在那巷道全段搬运，当怎样断呢？
Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: An alleyway whose residents did not merge together, what is its legal status with regard to carrying items in all of it according to Rabbi Shimon?
拉比泽拉 讲明这一疑说：我们是不是说那巷道像院子一样——院里各家虽没有合界、不可把物件从屋里搬到院子里，人在院子全段搬运仍是许的？
Rabbi Zeira explains the dilemma: Do we say that it is like a courtyard, and just as with regard to a courtyard, even though they did not join the houses in it together and despite the fact that it is prohibited to carry out items from the houses to the courtyard, it is nonetheless permitted to carry in all of it?
既是这样，这巷道也照样：住户虽没有合界、不可把物件搬进巷道来，人在巷道全段搬运仍是许的。
Therefore, in this alleyway too, even though they did not merge together, it is permitted to carry in all of it despite the fact that it is prohibited to carry items into the alleyway.
还是说巷道在这一层上与院子不相类，因为院子有四面墙，这巷道却没有四面墙，单有三面？
Or, perhaps an alleyway is not similar in this regard to a courtyard, as a courtyard has four partitions, whereas this, the alleyway, does not have four partitions, but only three.
或者说，巷道所以在这一层上低一等，另有缘由：院子有住户，可比作房屋，所以人在其中搬运是许的；这巷道却没有住户。
Alternatively, there may be a different reason for the inferior status of an alleyway in this regard: A courtyard has residents and can therefore be considered like a house, which would allow carrying within it, whereas this alleyway does not have residents.
拉比阿西 默然，一句也没有回他，因为他答不上一个妥当的话。
Rabbi Asi was silent and did not say anything to him, as he was unable to provide a satisfactory response.
另一次 拉比泽拉 见 拉比阿西 坐着说：拉比西缅·本·拉基什 奉 拉比犹大·哈纳西 之名说：有一次人忘了，没有在安息日前一日为安息日的割礼把刀带来，就在安息日带了来；众拉比看这事为难：他们怎可撇下众拉比所禁的话，照 拉比以利以谢 的意思行呢？为难的缘由：一是 拉比以利以谢 是沙迈派的（据《耶路撒冷塔木德》），而哈拉哈素常依 希列学派；二是通例：一人与众人相争，哈拉哈依众人。
另一次，拉比泽拉 见 拉比阿西 坐着说：拉比西缅·本·拉基什 奉 拉比犹大·哈纳西 之名说：有一次人忘了，没有在安息日前一日把行割礼的刀带来、为要在安息日给孩子行割礼，就在安息日把它带了来；众拉比看这事为难：他们怎可撇下众拉比所禁的话，照 拉比以利以谢 的意思行呢？
On another occasion Rabbi Zeira found Rabbi Asi sitting and saying: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: One time they forgot and did not bring a scalpel on Shabbat eve for the purpose of circumcising a child on Shabbat, and they brought it on Shabbat, and the matter was difficult in the eyes of the Rabbis: How can they abandon the words of the Rabbis, who prohibit doing so, and act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?
他们何以看这事为难呢？
Why did they find this difficult?
一个缘由是：拉比以利以谢 是 沙迈派的、就是从 沙迈学派 之意的人（据《耶路撒冷塔木德》），而 沙迈学派 与 希列学派 相争的时候，哈拉哈 素常是依 希列学派 的。
One reason was that Rabbi Eliezer was a Shammuti, i.e., a follower of the views of Beit Shammai (Jerusalem Talmud), and the halakha is generally in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai.
再者，另有一条通例：一人与众人相争的时候，哈拉哈 依众人的意思断。
And furthermore, there is a general rule that in a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many.
这里也是一样：哈拉哈 断然当依那与 拉比以利以谢 相争的众拉比。
Here too, the halakha should certainly be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer.
拉比奥沙亚 说：我问过行割礼的拉比犹大，他告诉我说，那一件出在住户没有合界的巷道里，人把刀从巷这头带到那头去，孩子在那里。拉比泽拉 对 拉比阿西 说：夫子既这样述说而不加辩驳，可见夫子执住户没有合界的巷道全段搬运是许的。拉比阿西 说：是的。拉比泽拉 说：那日我曾以这事请问夫子，夫子却没有这样对我说；莫非夫子在温习之间又记起来了么？他说：是的。
拉比奥沙亚 说：我问过行割礼的拉比犹大，他告诉我说：那一件事出在住户没有合界的巷道里，人把那刀从巷道这一头带到那一头，孩子是在那一头的。
And Rabbi Oshaya said: I asked Rabbi Yehuda the Cutter, i.e., the circumcisor, and he told me that this incident occurred in an alleyway whose residents did not merge together, and they brought the scalpel from this end of the alleyway to that end, where the baby was.
以上是 拉比阿西 所述那一件事。
That concludes Rabbi Asi’s account of the event.
拉比泽拉 对 拉比阿西 说：夫子既这样述说、并不加一句辩驳，可见夫子必执：住户没有合界的巷道，人在它全段搬运是许的。
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Since you related that story without expressing any reservations, it appears that the Master must hold that with regard to an alleyway whose residents did not merge together, it is permitted to carry in all of it.
拉比阿西 对他说：是的，这条 哈拉哈 正是这样。
And Rabbi Asi said to him: Yes, that is the halakha.
拉比泽拉 对他说：只是那一日我曾把这一件请问夫子，夫子却没有这样对我说。
Rabbi Zeira said to him: But on a different occasion I raised a dilemma on this matter before you and you did not say so to me.
莫非夫子在温习所学之间，又把所记的想起来了么？
Perhaps in the course of your studies your knowledge was restored to you?
他对他说：是的，我在温习所学之间又想起来了，就记起这条 哈拉哈。
He said to him: Yes, in the course of my studies my knowledge was restored to me, and I remembered this halakha.
论这同一条哈拉哈，有话立作通则说：拉比泽拉 奉 拉夫 之名说：巷道若没有由那几个开向它的院子的住户合界，人在其中单可在四肘之内搬运。
论这同一条 哈拉哈，有话立作通则说：拉比泽拉 奉 拉夫 之名说：巷道若没有由那几个开向它的院子的住户合界，人在其中单可在四肘之内搬运。
With regard to the very same halakha, it was stated as a principle that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: An alleyway that was not merged by the residents of the courtyards that open into it, it is only permitted to carry in it within four cubits.
阿巴耶 说：这一句是 拉比泽拉 说的，他却没有讲明；直到 拉巴·巴尔·阿武赫 来才讲明了。因为 拉夫纳赫曼 奉 拉巴·巴尔·阿武赫、拉夫 之名说：巷道没有由那几个院子的住户合界的，那几个院子若已与各家的屋合了界——就是各院之内的家主彼此合界、院内搬运是许的——巷道里就单可在四肘之内搬运，如同区间区一样；那几个院子若没有与各家的屋合界、院内搬运是禁的，巷道全段搬运就是许的。
阿巴耶 说：这一句在律上的话是 拉比泽拉 说的，他却没有把它讲明。
Abaye said: This halakhic matter was stated by Rabbi Zeira, and he did not explain it.
那话一直不明，直到 拉巴·巴尔·阿武赫 来才讲明了。
It remained enigmatic until Rabba bar Avuh came and explained it.
因为 拉夫纳赫曼 奉 拉巴·巴尔·阿武赫 之名、拉巴·巴尔·阿武赫 奉 拉夫 之名说：巷道没有由那几个开向它的院子的住户合界的，那几个院子若已与各家的屋合了界——就是各院之内的家主彼此合界、院内搬运是许的——人在那巷道里就单可在四肘之内搬运，如同在 区间区 里一样。
As Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Rav said: With regard to an alleyway that was not merged by the residents of the courtyards that open into it, if they joined the courtyards with the houses, i.e., the homeowners within each courtyard joined together and are therefore permitted to carry within the courtyards themselves, it is only permitted to carry in it within four cubits, as in an intermediate domain [karmelit].
那几个院子若没有与各家的屋合界、院内搬运是禁的，人在那巷道全段搬运就是许的。
However, if they did not join the courtyards with the houses and it is prohibited to carry within the courtyards, it is permitted to carry in the entire alleyway.
胡兹人拉夫哈尼纳 对 拉巴 说：那几个院子与各家的屋合了界，有什么不同呢？是不是因为那几个院子既已分出来，就像房屋一样了呢？拉夫 是照他自己素常的道理说的，因为 拉夫 说过：巷道惟有立柱搭梁才能成为可搬运之处——那是闭口巷道的常例——只要那里有——
胡兹人拉夫哈尼纳 对 拉巴 说：那几个院子与各家的屋合了界，有什么不同呢？
Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to Rabba: What is different about a case where they joined the courtyards with the houses?
是不是因为那几个院子既已分出来，就像房屋一样了呢？
Is it because the courtyards were detached and became like houses?
拉夫 是照他自己素常的道理说的，因为 拉夫 说过：巷道惟有立柱搭梁才能成为许人搬运之处——那是闭口巷道所依的常例 哈拉哈——只要那里有——
And Rav follows his regular line of reasoning, for Rav said: An alleyway can only be made into a permitted area for carrying by means of a sidepole and a crossbeam, which is the standard halakha in a closed alleyway, if there are