← 安息日卷总目·第二十四章 天黑在路上的人
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 11 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。
拉夫泽维德 却把这一条这样传：拉米·巴尔·哈马 说：人安息日赶自己负重的牲口，若是不知不觉作的，不必献赎罪祭；若是明知故犯，当被石头打死。
拉夫泽维德 却把这一条这样传。
Rav Zevid taught this as follows.
拉米·巴尔·哈马 说：人安息日赶自己负重的牲口，若是不知不觉作的，不必献赎罪祭；若是明知故犯，当被石头打死。
Rami bar Ḥama said: With regard to one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat, if he does so unwittingly, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he does so intentionally, he is liable to be executed by stoning.
拉瓦 据一条巴拉伊塔所教的举出相驳之处：干犯安息日的人，若所作的是那不知不觉作了当献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯就当被石头打死。革玛拉 讲明：由此可推，那不知不觉作了不必献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯也不当被石头打死。这与 拉米·巴尔·哈马 所说的相违。
拉瓦 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的举出相驳之处：干犯安息日的人，若所作的是那不知不觉作了当献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯就当被石头打死。
Rava raised an objection based on that which was taught in a baraita: One who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, then for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning.
革玛拉 讲明：由此可推，那不知不觉作了不必献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯也不当被石头打死。
The Gemara explains: By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning.
这与 拉米·巴尔·哈马 所说的相违。
This contradicts Rami bar Ḥama’s statement.
革玛拉 答：那条巴拉伊塔里可曾教说「由此可推，那不知不觉作了不必献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯也不当被石头打死」么？那条巴拉伊塔还有别样讲法，它所说的乃是：凡不知不觉作了当献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯总当被石头打死；只是另有一样，是不知不觉作了不必献赎罪祭、明知故犯却仍当被石头打死的。那一样是什么呢？就是赶负重的牲口。
革玛拉 答：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里可曾教说「由此可推，那不知不觉作了不必献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯也不当被石头打死」么？
The Gemara answers: Was it taught in the baraita: By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning?
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 还有别样讲法，它所说的乃是：凡不知不觉作了当献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯总当被石头打死。
The baraita can be understood differently, and this is what it is saying: With regard to a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is always liable to be executed by stoning.
只是另有一样，是不知不觉作了不必献赎罪祭、明知故犯却仍当被石头打死的。
However, there is also a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, and nevertheless, for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning.
那一样是什么呢？
And what is that case?
就是赶负重的牲口。
It is the case of driving a laden animal.
拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结的弟兄拉瓦 论安息日赶负重牲口这条哈拉哈另有一说；也有人说他是 拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结 的父亲、这条哈拉哈是他说的。革玛拉 顺便说：照后一样传法、就是说这位 拉瓦 是 拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结 的父亲，那么 拉夫 从前须先查验 拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结 的身分、才立他作巴比伦的 官长，这一件就讲不通了。那一件见得 拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结 的父亲不是犹太人，立他以先须凭他母亲是犹太人来查验他的身分。他的父亲若是一位名叫 拉瓦 的贤者，何必凭他母亲的家系去查验呢？革玛拉 答：或许有两个人都叫 马里·巴尔·拉结：一个是归化之人所生、母亲是犹太人的；一个是名叫 拉瓦 的贤者所生的。
拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结的弟兄拉瓦 论安息日赶负重牲口这条 哈拉哈 另有一说；也有人说他是 拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结 的父亲、这条 哈拉哈 是他说的。
Rava, the brother of Rav Mari bar Raḥel, cites a different opinion with regard to the halakha of driving a laden animal on Shabbat, and some say that he was the father of Rav Mari bar Raḥel and stated this halakha.
革玛拉 顺便说：照后一样传法、就是说这位 拉瓦 是 拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结 的父亲，那么 拉夫 从前须先查验 拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结 的身分、才立他作巴比伦的 官长，这一件就讲不通了。
As an aside, the Gemara comments: According to the latter version above, that Rava was the father of Rav Mari bar Raḥel, the fact that Rav needed to validate the status of Rav Mari bar Raḥel and only then appoint him as an official [pursei] of Babylonia is difficult.
那一件见得 拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结 的父亲不是犹太人，立他以先须凭他母亲是犹太人来查验他的身分。
This incident teaches that Rav Mari bar Raḥel’s father was not Jewish, and before he could be appointed his status required validation through the fact that his mother was Jewish.
拉夫马里·巴尔·拉结 的父亲若是一位名叫 拉瓦 的贤者，何必凭他母亲的家系去查验呢？
If Rav Mari bar Raḥel’s father was a sage named Rava, why was it necessary to validate his status by means of his mother’s lineage?
革玛拉 答：或许有两个人都叫 马里·巴尔·拉结。
The Gemara answers: Perhaps there were two people named Mari bar Raḥel.
一个是归化之人所生、母亲是犹太人的；一个是名叫 拉瓦 的贤者所生的。
One was the son of a convert and a Jewish mother, and the other was the son of a Sage named Rava.
无论怎样，那位贤者奉 拉比约哈难 之名教这条哈拉哈，判赶负重牲口的人无责，因为 拉比约哈难 说：人安息日赶负重的牲口，是不受任何刑罚的。
无论怎样，那位贤者奉 拉比约哈难 之名教这条 哈拉哈，判赶负重牲口的人无责，因为 拉比约哈难 说：人安息日赶负重的牲口，是不受任何刑罚的。
In any event, that Sage taught his halakha in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan to exempt one who drives a laden animal, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who drives a laden animal on Shabbat is exempt from any punishment.
革玛拉 讲明：他不知不觉赶那牲口的，不必献赎罪祭，因为托拉里一切禁令都与拜偶像相比而论，从那相比推得：人单为自己所作的举动担责。他明知故犯赶那牲口的，也不当被石头打死，因为我们在密释纳里学过：干犯安息日的人，若所作的是那不知不觉作了当献赎罪祭、明知故犯当被石头打死的一样。由此可推：那不知不觉作了不必献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯也不当被石头打死。
革玛拉 讲明：他不知不觉赶那牲口的，不必献赎罪祭，因为托拉里一切禁令都与拜偶像相比而论，从那相比推得：人单为自己所作的举动担责。
The Gemara explains: For driving the animal unwittingly, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering because all of the prohibitions in the Torah were juxtaposed to the prohibition of idolatry, from which the principle is derived that one is liable only for actions that he himself performed.
他明知故犯赶那牲口的，也不当被石头打死，因为我们在密释纳里学过：干犯安息日的人，若所作的是那不知不觉作了当献赎罪祭、明知故犯当被石头打死的一样。
And for driving the animal intentionally, he is also not liable to be executed by stoning, as we learned in the mishna: One who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning.
由此可推：那不知不觉作了不必献赎罪祭的一样，明知故犯也不当被石头打死。
By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning.
照样，他连因干犯托拉当受鞭责的禁令而挨鞭子也不至于。托拉虽明明警戒人安息日不可作工，那一禁却本不是当受鞭责的寻常禁令，乃是当受公堂死刑的警戒；凡作公堂死刑之警戒而立的禁令，那死刑若因什么缘故没有施行，人也不因干犯它而受鞭责。
照样，他连因干犯托拉当受鞭责的禁令而挨鞭子也不至于。
And similarly, he is not even liable to be flogged for violating a Torah prohibition for which the punishment is lashes.
托拉虽明明警戒人安息日不可作工，那一禁却本不是当受鞭责的寻常禁令，乃是当受公堂死刑的警戒；凡作公堂死刑之警戒而立的禁令，那死刑若因什么缘故没有施行，人也不因干犯它而受鞭责。
Even though the Torah explicitly warns against performing labor on Shabbat, it is a prohibition that was fundamentally given, not as a standard prohibition punishable by lashes, but rather as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, and for any prohibition that was given as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, if the death penalty is not imposed for any reason, one is not flogged for its violation.