拿什么刮呢?拉比阿巴胡 说:用刀背刮,那是与平常刮的样子有别。
-
拿什么刮呢?
With what does one scrape it off?
-
拉比阿巴胡 说:用刀背刮,那是与平常刮的样子有别。
Rabbi Abahu said: With the back of a knife, which is a departure from the typical manner of doing so.
← 安息日卷总目·第二十一章 人可抱起自己的儿子
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 19 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。
拿什么刮呢?拉比阿巴胡 说:用刀背刮,那是与平常刮的样子有别。
拿什么刮呢?
With what does one scrape it off?
拉比阿巴胡 说:用刀背刮,那是与平常刮的样子有别。
Rabbi Abahu said: With the back of a knife, which is a departure from the typical manner of doing so.
有一位长者对 拉比阿巴胡 说:你把这一条从所传的里头删了罢,因为 拉比希亚 教说:全然不可刮,新鞋旧鞋都不可;也不可把油抹在脚上、再把脚穿进鞋里或凉鞋里,因为那油要被皮子吸去、使皮子结实,就成了鞣皮那一样禁工。只是可照平常的样子把油抹在脚上,然后再穿进鞋里或凉鞋里,不必怕那油会使鞋皮更好。照样,人可把油抹遍全身,在皮毯上打滚,也不必挂虑。
有一位长者对 拉比阿巴胡 说:你把这一条从所传的里头删了罢,因为 拉比希亚 教说:全然不可刮,新鞋旧鞋都不可;也不可把油抹在脚上、再把脚穿进鞋里或凉鞋里,因为那油要被鞋皮吸去、使皮子结实,就成了鞣皮那一样禁工。
A certain Elder said to Rabbi Abbahu: Delete your teaching before this statement taught by Rabbi Ḥiyya: One may not scrape at all; neither a new shoe nor an old shoe, and one may not smear oil on one’s foot while it is inside the shoe or inside the sandal, as the oil is absorbed by the leather of the shoe and strengthens it, which constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of tanning.
只是可照平常的样子把油抹在脚上,然后再穿进鞋里或凉鞋里,不必怕那油会使鞋皮更好。
However, one may smear oil on his foot in the typical manner and place it afterward in a shoe or in a sandal, and he need not be concerned that this oil will enhance the shoe leather.
照样,人可把油抹遍全身,在皮毯上打滚,也不必挂虑。
And he may likewise smear oil on his entire body with oil and roll on a leather carpet, and he need not be concerned.
拉夫希斯达 说:所教的这一条,单是就他为擦亮那皮毯说的;他若是为鞣那皮毯,就是禁的。
拉夫希斯达 说:所教的这一条,单是就他为擦亮那皮毯说的。
Rav Ḥisda said: They only taught this in a case where he does so in order to polish the carpet.
他若是为鞣那皮毯,就是禁的。
But if he does so to tan the carpet, it is prohibited.
革玛拉 举出难处:他若是为鞣那皮子,那自不必说是禁的,因为鞣皮是托拉所禁的一样工。再者:他若是为擦亮它,难道有谁许人安息日按理径直作这一件么?
革玛拉 举出难处:他若是为鞣那皮子,那自不必说是禁的,因为鞣皮是托拉所禁的一样工。
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If he does so to tan the leather, it is obvious that it is prohibited, as tanning is a labor prohibited by Torah law.
再者:他若是为擦亮它,难道有谁许人安息日 按理、就是按理径直作这一件么?
And furthermore: If he does so in order to polish it, is there an opinion that permits one to perform this act intentionally on Shabbat ab initio?
所以那话若真传下来,必是这样传的:拉夫希斯达 说,所教「安息日可这样行」的,单指他所抹的分量只够擦亮那皮子;分量若够鞣它,纵他无意鞣那皮子,也是禁的。
所以那话若真传下来,必是这样传的:拉夫希斯达 说,所教「安息日可这样行」的,单指他所抹的分量只够擦亮那皮子;分量若够鞣它,纵他无意鞣那皮子,也是禁的。
Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Ḥisda said: They only taught that it is permitted to do so on Shabbat in a case where one smears a measure sufficient only to polish it; however, if one smears a measure sufficient to tan it, it is prohibited, even if he did not intend to tan the leather.
众贤在一条巴拉伊塔里教说:身量小的人不可穿太大的鞋出去,怕的是鞋掉下来,他就在公共区里搬它;披太大的外袍出去却可以——那袍纵不合身,也断不至掉下来。
众贤在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说:身量小的人不可穿太大的鞋出去,怕的是鞋掉下来,他就在公共区里搬它;披太大的外袍出去却是可以的。
The Sages taught in a baraita: A small person may not go out in a too large shoe, due to concern lest the shoe fall off and he will come to carry it in the public domain; but he may go out in a too large cloak.
那袍纵不合身,也断不至掉下来。
Even if it does not fit him properly, it will certainly not fall off.
妇人安息日不可穿上头破了的鞋出去,怕的是她被人取笑,就把鞋脱下来、在安息日搬它。这样的鞋也不可用来行 脱鞋礼,因为它算不得合用的鞋;脱鞋礼 是与丈夫的弟兄有叔嫂之约的寡妇所行的。只是她若真用它行了 脱鞋礼,那 脱鞋礼 仍算有效,因为它究竟是一只鞋。
妇人安息日不可穿上头破了的鞋出去,怕的是她被人取笑,就把鞋脱下来、在安息日搬它。
And a woman may not go out on Shabbat in a shoe that is torn on top, lest she be mocked, remove it, and carry it on Shabbat.
这样的鞋也不可用来行 脱鞋礼,因为它算不得合用的鞋;脱鞋礼 是与丈夫的弟兄有叔嫂之约的寡妇所行的。
And a shoe of that kind may not be used to perform ḥalitza, as it is not a suitable shoe. Ḥalitza is performed by a widow bound in a levirate bond with her brother-in-law.
只是她若真用它行了 脱鞋礼,那 脱鞋礼 仍算有效,因为它究竟是一只鞋。
However, if she performed ḥalitza with it, her ḥalitza is valid, since ultimately it is a shoe.
安息日也不可穿新鞋出去,怕的是鞋不合脚,他就把它脱下来搬着走。革玛拉 说明:所说「不可穿新鞋」的,是就哪一样说的呢?说的是妇人的鞋,因为妇人于鞋合不合脚是极计较的。
安息日也不可穿新鞋出去,怕的是鞋不合脚,他就把它脱下来搬着走。
And one may not go out on Shabbat wearing a new shoe, due to the concern that it will not fit properly, and then one will remove it and carry it.
革玛拉 说明:他们说「不可穿新鞋」,是就哪一样说的呢?
The Gemara comments: In what case did they say that one may not wear a new shoe?
说的是妇人的鞋,因为妇人于鞋合不合脚是极计较的。
They said this with regard to a woman’s shoe, as women are very particular about having their shoes fit properly.
巴尔·卡帕拉 教说:所教「安息日不可穿新鞋出去」的,单指她天光时还没有穿着走过一程;她若在安息日前一日穿着出去过、那时已试出合不合脚,安息日就可穿着出去。
巴尔·卡帕拉 教说:所教「安息日不可穿新鞋出去」的,单指她天光时还没有穿着走过一程。
Bar Kappara taught: They only taught that she may not go out wearing a new shoe on Shabbat if she did not yet go out wearing it for any length of time while it was still day.
她若在安息日前一日穿着出去过、那时已试出合不合脚,安息日就可穿着出去。
However, if she went out wearing it on Shabbat eve, at which point she would have ascertained if it fits her, she is permitted to go out wearing it on Shabbat.
一条巴拉伊塔教说:安息日可把鞋从鞋楦上取下来——鞋楦就是作鞋时用来定形的架子。另一条巴拉伊塔却教说相反的:不可取下来。革玛拉 说这不难:那禁的一条是依 拉比以利以谢 的意思,那许的一条是依众拉比的意思。拉比以利以谢 与众拉比在一件相类的事上争洁与不洁的诸条哈拉哈。
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:安息日可把鞋从鞋楦上取下来——鞋楦就是作鞋时用来定形的架子。
One baraita taught: One may remove a shoe from the shoemaker’s last, the frame on which a shoe is shaped, on Shabbat.
另一条 《巴拉伊塔》 却教说相反的:不可取下来。
And another baraita taught the opposite: One may not remove it.
革玛拉 说这不难:那禁的一条是依 拉比以利以谢 的意思,那许的一条是依众拉比的意思。
The Gemara explains that this is not difficult: This baraita, which prohibits doing so, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that baraita, which permits doing so, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
拉比以利以谢 与众拉比在一件相类的事上,争的是洁与不洁那几条 哈拉哈。
Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis dispute the applicability of the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity in a similar case.
我们在一条密释纳里学过:鞋还在楦上的,拉比以利以谢 判它为洁,就是沾不上不洁——依他的意思,那鞋还没有作成,还算不得器皿,所以沾不上不洁。众拉比却判它沾得上不洁——依他们的意思,那鞋已经作成;凡作成了的器皿都能沾上不洁。照这样,众拉比既以楦上的鞋为作成了的器皿,就认安息日可以挪它;拉比以利以谢 既以它为未成的器皿,就认不可挪它。
我们在一条密释纳里学过:鞋还在楦上的,拉比以利以谢 判它为洁,就是沾不上不洁——依他的意思,那鞋还没有作成,还算不得器皿,所以沾不上不洁。
As we learned in a mishna: A shoe that remains on a last, Rabbi Eliezer deems it pure, i.e., unable to become impure, as in his opinion the shoe is not yet complete, and therefore it is not yet a vessel and cannot become impure.
众拉比却判它沾得上不洁——依他们的意思,那鞋已经作成;凡作成了的器皿都能沾上不洁。
And the Rabbis deem it capable of becoming impure, as in their opinion, the shoe is completed, and any vessel whose work is complete can become ritually impure.
照这样,众拉比既以楦上的鞋为作成了的器皿,就认安息日可以挪它。
Correspondingly, the Rabbis, who hold that a shoe on a last is a completed vessel, hold that it may be moved on Shabbat.
拉比以利以谢 既以它为未成的器皿,就认不可挪它。
Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that it is an incomplete vessel, holds that it may not be moved.
革玛拉 提一问:依 拉瓦 的意思讲得通——他说,凡以所禁之工为正用的器物,不拘是为借它作许作之事,还是为用它所占的地方,挪它都是许的。这样,人取鞋时略动一动那楦子,自然讲得通,因为取下鞋来算是用那楦子所占的地方。
革玛拉 提一问:依 拉瓦 的意思讲得通——他说,凡以所禁之工为正用的器物,不拘是为借它作许作之事,还是为用它所占的地方,挪它都是许的。
The Gemara poses a question: It works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who said: Moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, whether for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action or for the purpose of utilizing its place, is permitted.
这样,人取鞋时略动一动那楦子,自然讲得通,因为取下鞋来算是用那楦子所占的地方。
It is well understood that one may move the last slightly while removing the shoe, since removing the shoe is considered utilizing the last’s place.
只是依 阿巴耶 的意思——他说,为借它作许作之事是许的,为用它所占的地方却是禁的——那可怎样讲呢?那楦子明是以所禁之工为正用的器物,挪它是禁的。人不动那楦子,怎能把鞋取下来呢?
只是依 阿巴耶 的意思——他说,为借它作许作之事是许的,为用它所占的地方却是禁的——那可怎样讲呢?
However, according to Abaye, who said that for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action, it is permitted; however, for the purpose of utilizing its place, it is prohibited, what can be said?
那楦子明是以所禁之工为正用的器物,挪它是禁的。
It is prohibited to move the last, which is clearly a utensil whose primary function is for a prohibited use.
人不动那楦子,怎能把鞋取下来呢?
How is it possible to remove the shoe without moving the last?
革玛拉 答:这里所论的是哪一样情形呢?说的是鞋松松地套在楦上,不动那楦子也取得下来。正如一条巴拉伊塔所教的:拉比犹大 说,鞋若是松的,就是许的。
革玛拉 答:这里所论的是哪一样情形呢?
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here?
说的是鞋松松地套在楦上,不动那楦子也取得下来。
It is with a shoe placed loosely on the last, so the shoe can be removed without moving the last.
正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的:拉比犹大 说,鞋若是松的,就是许的。
As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was loose, it is permitted.
革玛拉 由此推说:所以许,单是因为它松;若不松,就不许了。这依 阿巴耶 的意思讲得通——他说,凡以所禁之工为正用的器物,为借它作许作之事挪它是许的,为用它所占的地方挪它却是禁的。这样,鞋若紧套在楦上,挪那楦子是禁的,自然讲得通。
革玛拉 由此推说:所以许,单是因为它松;若不松,就不许了。
The Gemara infers: The reason it is permitted is only because it is loose; however, if it is not loose, no, it is prohibited.
这依 阿巴耶 的意思讲得通——他说,凡以所禁之工为正用的器物,为借它作许作之事挪它是许的,为用它所占的地方挪它却是禁的。
It works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who said that moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action it is permitted; however, for the purpose of utilizing its place, it is prohibited to move it.
这样,鞋若紧套在楦上,挪那楦子是禁的,自然讲得通。
It is well understood that it is prohibited to move the last if the shoe is tightly attached to it.
只是依 拉瓦 的意思——他说,凡以所禁之工为正用的器物,不拘是为借它作许作之事,还是为用它所占的地方,挪它都是许的——那何必单说鞋松的那一样呢?纵不松,也当是许的。
只是依 拉瓦 的意思——他说,凡以所禁之工为正用的器物,不拘是为借它作许作之事,还是为用它所占的地方,挪它都是许的——那何必单说鞋松的那一样呢?
However, according to Rava, who said that moving an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, whether for the purpose of utilizing the object itself to perform a permitted action or for the purpose of utilizing its place, is permitted, why discuss specifically a case where it is loose?
纵不松,也当是许的。
Even if it were not loose, it should also be permitted to move it.
革玛拉 答:那条巴拉伊塔是 拉比犹大 奉 拉比以利以谢 之名说的,并不是讲明众拉比的意思。拉比以利以谢 虽以那鞋为还没有作成,拉比犹大 却奉他的名说,搬它是许的。正如一条巴拉伊塔所教的:拉比犹大 奉 拉比以利以谢 之名说:鞋若已经松了、不再要那楦子,挪它就是许的,因为它已是作成的器皿,不再靠那楦子定形了。
革玛拉 答:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 是 拉比犹大 奉 拉比以利以谢 之名说的,并不是讲明众拉比的意思。
The Gemara answers: That baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, and it is not a clarification of the opinion of the Rabbis.
拉比以利以谢 虽以那鞋为还没有作成,拉比犹大 却奉他的名说,搬它是许的。
Although Rabbi Eliezer holds that the shoe is not yet completed, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that it is permitted to carry it.
正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的:拉比犹大 奉 拉比以利以谢 之名说:鞋若已经松了、不再要那楦子,挪它就是许的,因为它已是作成的器皿,不再靠那楦子定形了。
As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: If it was already loose and no longer requires a last, it is permitted to move it, since it is a completed vessel and no longer needs the last to shape it.
章末语:「我们必再回到你这里,悬挂」——第二十章(Tolin)到此为止。本章自 137之间.11 起,先立密释纳论安息日与节期可否悬滤器:安息日不可悬,节期可悬;节期也可把酒倒进已悬的滤器里。随后一大段论节期办葬事——巴什卡尔的人于托拉不熟,拉夫梅纳西亚 禁他们节期办葬;节期头一日当叫外邦人办,第二日犹太人可办,连岁首第二日也这样断,独论所生的蛋两日算作一整日。次论用巧法绕开众拉比的禁例:节期为悬石榴而悬滤器、有陈酒仍说要喝新的而酿酒、取蒜塞瓮口说是要存放、躺在渡船里说是要睡觉;拉夫阿施 断说,通托拉的学者断不至撇下巧法径直去行。次立密释纳论滤酒之器:水浇渣上、布与埃及棕叶所编的筐、滤芥末器里的鸡蛋、并 调酒饮 的调法与量。随后逐条讲明:清酒可滤浑酒不可、布不可压出容处、埃及筐不可提起一掌高、有孔的盖只可盖半个瓮口、瓮嘴不可系秸,并 拉夫帕帕 家倒酒留末滴一则。次论芥末与水芹:安息日前一日和好的芥末次日怎样化,拉夫 与 撒母耳、拉比以利亚撒 与 拉比约哈难 两番相反,末了依 玛尔祖特拉 所举的一条。再论阿魏——泡热水冷水之辨、治心口沉重之方、连一 卡夫 两 卡夫 也可喝,因为健壮的人也喝。末了两大段:搓麻布衫与头巾是使它软和还是使它发白、悬衫子的苇子与织匠器具可否挪动;并 拉夫希斯达 向贫寒门生所嘱的一长串家常话(买长菜长苇、无饼不吃菜、不切薄片、不为客擘饼、沟水代油、买颈上的肉、向阿巴河边买麻布衫、不坐新席、不托主人洗衣),与他嘱女儿们的几句(在丈夫面前要端庄、夜里不吃菜枣不喝麦酒、叩门当用阴性问「谁呀」),末了以珍珠与土块一则收束:藏起来的比摆出来的更叫人动心。本卷二十四章,这是第二十处。
密释纳:人安息日可把儿子抱在手里,纵那孩子手中拿着一块石头、那石头是搁置之物,抱他也不算禁的。安息日也可拿起里头有石头的筐子。又可把不洁的举祭与洁的举祭一同挪动,或与寻常的出产一同挪动——不洁的举祭是不可吃的,本算搁置之物。
人安息日可把儿子抱在手里;那孩子手中纵拿着一块石头、那石头是搁置之物,抱他也不算禁的。
A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat, and even though there is a stone, which is a set-aside item, in the child’s hand, it is not prohibited to pick up the child.
安息日也可拿起里头有石头的筐子。
And it is permissible to take a basket with a stone inside it on Shabbat.
又可把不洁的 举祭 与洁的 举祭 一同挪动,或与寻常的出产一同挪动——不洁的 举祭 是不可吃的,本算搁置之物。
And one may move ritually impure teruma, which may not be eaten and is set-aside, with ritually pure teruma, as well as with non-sacred produce.
密释纳续:拉比犹大 说,连那从一百分寻常出产、一分举祭的混杂里所当提出的一分举祭,也可拿起来。举祭若与寻常出产相混,寻常出产有举祭的一百倍,那举祭就化了;只是众贤定规,人当把与那一分举祭相等的分量取出来给祭司,余下的才算寻常出产。拉比犹大 许人在安息日把那一分取出来,好叫这一堆可以吃。
拉比犹大 说:连那从一百分寻常出产、一分 举祭 的混杂里所当提出的一分 举祭,也可以拿起来。
Rabbi Yehuda says: One may even lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma.
举祭 若与寻常出产相混,寻常出产有那 举祭 的一百倍,那 举祭 就化了。
When a measure of teruma is mixed with non-sacred produce, if the non-sacred produce is one hundred times the measure of teruma, the teruma is nullified.
只是众贤定规,人当把与那一分 举祭 相等的分量取出来,给祭司。
However, the Sages instituted that one must remove an amount equivalent to that measure of teruma and give it to a priest.
余下的才算寻常的出产。
The remainder is considered non-sacred produce.
拉比犹大 许人在安息日把那一分取出来,好叫这一堆可以吃。
Rabbi Yehuda permits removing that measure on Shabbat to render the mixture permitted to eat.
拉瓦 说:人安息日把活着的婴孩带到公共区去,那孩子颈上挂着钱袋的,他为带出那钱袋有责;若带出的是死了的婴孩、颈上挂着钱袋,他就无责。
拉瓦 说:人安息日把活着的婴孩带到公共区去,那孩子颈上挂着钱袋的,他为带出那钱袋有责。
Rava said: If one carried out a living baby to the public domain on Shabbat, and the baby had a purse that was hanging around his neck, he is liable for carrying out the purse.
若带出的是死了的婴孩、颈上挂着钱袋,他就无责。
However, one who carried out a dead baby, with a purse hanging around his neck, is exempt.
拉瓦 说:人安息日把活着的婴孩带到公共区去,那孩子颈上挂着钱袋的,他为带出那钱袋有责。革玛拉 问:他为带出那孩子,岂不也当有责么?
拉瓦 说:人安息日把活着的婴孩带到公共区去,那孩子颈上挂着钱袋的,他为带出那钱袋有责。
Rava said: If one carried out a living baby to the public domain on Shabbat, and a purse was hanging around the baby’s neck, he is liable for carrying out the purse.
革玛拉 问:他为带出那孩子,岂不也当有责么?
The Gemara asks: And let him be liable for carrying out the baby as well.
革玛拉 答:拉瓦 是依 拉比拿单 的意思,他说活物是自己担着自己的。所以人把活物从这一区带到那一区,是不担责的。
革玛拉 答:拉瓦 是依 拉比拿单 的意思,他说活物是自己担着自己的。
The Gemara responds: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said: A living being carries itself.
所以人把活物从这一区带到那一区,是不担责的。
Therefore, one who carries a living being from one domain to another is not liable.
革玛拉 问:那钱袋岂不当算作附于孩子、可以不计么?他为带出那钱袋也当无责才是。我们在一条密释纳里岂不是学过:人把活人连床抬出去的,连那床也不担责,因为床是附于人的?论钱袋之于孩子,也当这样说才是。
革玛拉 问:那钱袋岂不当算作附于孩子、可以不计么?他为带出那钱袋也当无责才是。
The Gemara asks: And let the purse be negated relative to the baby; and he should be exempt for carrying out the purse as well.
我们在一条密释纳里岂不是学过:人把活人连床抬出去的,连那床也不担责,因为床是附于人的?
Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed, because the bed is secondary to the person?
论钱袋之于孩子,也当这样说才是。
The same should be said with regard to the purse, relative to the baby.
革玛拉 答:床之于活人,那活人把它掩过去了,因为抬人正要用床,床是附于他的;钱袋之于婴孩,那婴孩却掩不过它,因为钱袋自有它的分量。
革玛拉 答:床之于活人,那活人把它掩过去了,因为抬人正要用床,床是附于他的。
The Gemara answers: In a case where a bed is relative to a living being, the living being negates it, as the bed is needed to carry the person and is secondary to him.
钱袋之于婴孩,那婴孩却掩不过它,因为钱袋自有它的分量。
However, in a case where a purse is relative to a baby, the baby does not negate it, since it is independently significant.
拉瓦 又说:人把死了的婴孩带出去、颈上挂着钱袋的,无责。革玛拉 问:他为带出那孩子,岂不当有责么?答曰:拉瓦 是依 拉比西缅 的意思,他说凡不为其功而作的工,安息日作了是无责的。人抬尸首出去,并不是因为自己要用它,乃是为着那尸首——或去埋它,或把它从不体面的地方挪开。所以他并没有作出托拉所禁的工来。照样,他为那钱袋也无责,因为他在忧苦哀恸之中把那钱袋撇下不顾,比着那孩子,钱袋算不得什么。
拉瓦 又说:人把死了的婴孩带出去、颈上挂着钱袋的,无责。
And Rava said: One who carried out a dead baby with a purse hanging around the baby’s neck is exempt.
革玛拉 问:他为带出那孩子,岂不当有责么?
The Gemara asks: And let him be liable for carrying out the baby.
革玛拉 答:拉瓦 是依 拉比西缅 的意思,他说凡不为其功而作的工,安息日作了是无责的。
The Gemara answers: Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: With regard to any labor that is not needed for its own sake, one is exempt for performing it on Shabbat.
人抬尸首出去,并不是因为自己要用它,乃是为着那尸首——或去埋它,或把它从不体面的地方挪开。
One who carries out a corpse does not do so because he needs it; rather, he does so for the sake of the corpse, i.e., to bury it or to move it from a degrading place.
所以他并没有作出托拉所禁的工来。
Therefore, he has not performed a labor prohibited by Torah law.
照样,他为那钱袋也无责,因为他在忧苦哀恸之中把那钱袋撇下不顾;比着那孩子,钱袋算不得什么。
Similarly, he is also exempt for carrying out the purse because due to his distress and mourning he negates the purse, as it is insignificant relative to the baby.
我们在密释纳里学过:人安息日可把儿子抱在手里;孩子手中纵有石头,也是许的。既从这条密释纳可推出那石头算作附于孩子、可以不计,那么活婴孩颈上挂着钱袋的,何以就有责呢?那钱袋也当算作附于孩子才是。拉比雅奈 门下的众贤说:你不可从这条密释纳推出那石头可以不计、所以挪它是许的。这条密释纳所说的,乃是一个恋着父亲的孩子——父亲若不抱他,他或要病了,所以父亲挪那石头是许的。
我们在密释纳里学过:人安息日可把儿子抱在手里;孩子手中纵有石头,也是许的。
We learned in the mishna: A person may take his son in his hands on Shabbat; and this is permitted even though there is a stone in the child’s hand.
既从这条密释纳可推出那石头算作附于孩子、可以不计,那么活婴孩颈上挂着钱袋的,何以就有责呢?
As it can be inferred from this mishna that the stone is negated relative to the child, why, then, is he liable in the case of a purse hanging around a live baby’s neck?
那钱袋也当算作附于孩子才是。
Let the purse be negated relative to the baby.
拉比雅奈 门下的众贤说:你不可从这条密释纳推出那石头可以不计、所以挪它是许的。
The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai say: You cannot infer from this mishna that the stone is negated and therefore it is permitted to move it.
这条密释纳所说的,乃是一个恋着父亲的孩子。
Rather, the mishna is referring to a baby who has longings for his father.
父亲若不抱他,他或要病了,所以父亲挪那石头是许的。
It is permitted for the father to move the stone because if the father does not lift him, the baby might take ill.
革玛拉 问:若是这样——
革玛拉 问:若是这样——
The Gemara asks: If so,