← 安息日卷总目·第一章 安息日的出运
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 6 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。
所罗门所定的手之禁只及圣物；沙迈、希列与其门人才推及举祭。
所罗门 定手的不洁，是为禁人以手沾圣物；后来 沙迈、希列 与他们的门人才定手的不洁连沾 举祭 也禁。
Solomon and decreed impurity on hands to prohibit contact with consecrated items, and Shammai, Hillel, and their disciples came and decreed impurity on hands even to prohibit contact with teruma.
十八事究竟是争是同？答：那一日争，次日议定之后便同了。
转回来论上文顺带提起的那件事：拉夫犹大 说 撒母耳 说：那一日他们就十八件事定了防禁，而那十八件事是他们先前所争的。
As to the matter itself that was mentioned above in passing, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that.
革玛拉 问：一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：论那十八条防禁，他们的意思是一致的？
The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that they reached a consensus in their opinions with regard to the eighteen decrees?
他们答：那一日他们是争的；次日既议定了，他们的意思就一致了。
They answer: On that day they disagreed, and the following day, after the matter was decided in a vote, they reached a consensus in their opinions.
沙迈与希列三争之一：分面团举祭之数，一卡夫还是两卡夫。
转回来论上文顺带提起的那件事：拉夫胡纳 说：沙迈 与 希列 所争的有三处。
As to the matter itself that was mentioned above in passing, Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in three places.
革玛拉 举出那三争。
The Gemara cites the disputes.
一是：沙迈 说：面团有一 卡夫，就当分出 面团举祭，就是归祭司的那一份。
One, Shammai says: From a kav of dough, one is required to separate ḥalla, the portion of the dough given to a priest.
不及这个分量的便不必分，因为那不合「你们要用初熟的麦子磨面」（民数记 15:20）一节论分举祭饼所指的分量。
From any less than that measure there is no obligation to separate ḥalla, as that is not the measure alluded to in the verse: “The first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to the mitzva of separating ḥalla.
希列 说：须有两 卡夫 才当分 面团举祭。
And Hillel says: One must separate ḥalla only from two kav.
众拉比说：这条 哈拉哈 既不依这一位从严的，也不依那一位从宽的。
And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one, who is stringent, nor in accordance with the statement of that one, who is lenient.
倒是一 卡夫 半，才是当分 面团举祭 的分量。
Rather, one and a half kav is the measure from which one is obligated to separate ḥalla.
后来量器加大，众贤把一 卡夫 的容量重算得多些，便说：照新的 卡夫 算，五分之四 卡夫 的面，才是当分 面团举祭 的分量。
Once the measures increased and the Sages recalculated the volume of a kav to be greater, they said that based on the measure of the new kav, five quarters of a kav of flour is the measure from which one is obligated to separate ḥalla.
拉比约西 说：五分之四仍免；须面团有五分之四再多一点，才当分 面团举祭。
Rabbi Yosei says: Five quarters are exempt; only from dough the size of five quarters and a bit more is one obligated to separate ḥalla.
三争之二：多少汲水废洁净池——一欣、九卡夫，末从两织工所传的三罗格。
希列 与 沙迈 另一争是：希列 说：洁净池里还不满四十 塞亚 的时候，倒进满满一欣（就是十二 罗格）汲来之水，便废了那池里的水，连先前在里头的水也一并算作汲来之水。
And another dispute between Hillel and Shammai is that Hillel says: A full hin, twelve log, of drawn water poured into a ritual bath in which there was not yet a full measure of forty se’a disqualifies the water of the ritual bath and accords even the water that had been there previously the status of drawn water.
此后纵再添合用的水凑满四十 塞亚，那池仍不合浸身之用。
Even if water fit for a ritual bath is subsequently added to complete the measure of forty se’a, the ritual bath remains unfit for immersion.
希列 用「欣」这个经上的量器，是因为人引师父的话，当照师父的措辞说。
Hillel used the biblical measure, hin, because, when quoting one’s teacher, a person must speak employing the language of his teacher.
沙迈 说：九 卡夫 的水就够废那洁净池了。
Shammai says: Nine kav of water is enough to disqualify the ritual bath.
众拉比说：这条 哈拉哈 既不依这一位，也不依那一位。
And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor in accordance with the statement of that one.
众贤未曾定出废池之水的分量，直到有两个织工从耶路撒冷的 粪厂门 来，奉 示玛雅 与 阿夫塔利翁 的名作证说：三 罗格 汲来之水便废那洁净池；众拉比就凭他们的话立定，驳了 以色列 两位大贤 希列 与 沙迈 的意思。
The Sages did not determine a measure for the water disqualifying a ritual bath until two weavers came from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon that three log of drawn water disqualify the ritual bath, and the Rabbis upheld their statement against the opinions of the great Sages of Israel, Hillel and Shammai.
革玛拉 特特点出那两人的行业与住处，是要显明：他们的行业虽为人所轻、住处虽不体面，论到 妥拉 的事却是不徇情面的。
The Gemara emphasized their occupation and the place that they lived to underscore that, despite the fact that their occupation was despised and their place was contemptible, there is no preferential treatment when it comes to Torah.
三争之三：妇人见血，从何时算不洁——「其时已足」与「自察至察」。
希列 与 沙迈 又一争是：沙迈 说：凡妇人，其时已足——就是妇人见了经血而先前并不觉血下，不必虑或者血在她看见以先就已下了；从看见那一刻起算她不洁，也就够了。
And another dispute between Hillel and Shammai is that Shammai says: All women, their time is sufficient, i.e., a woman who notices that she saw blood of menstruation but did not feel the flow beforehand, need not worry that perhaps the flow of blood began before she saw it, and it is sufficient if she assumes ritual impurity status beginning at that moment.
希列 说：自察至察——妇人见了血，若不知血是几时下的，就当从她上一次自察而见自己洁净的时候起追算为不洁，纵使那一次自察在好几日以前也是如此。
Hillel says: From examination to examination, i.e., a woman who saw blood, if she does not know when the menstrual flow began, she is considered impure retroactive to the last time she examined herself and found herself to be ritually pure, and even if the examination took place several days earlier.
这中间凡她所摸的，都成了不洁。
Anything that she touched in the interim becomes ritually impure.
众拉比说：这条 哈拉哈 既不依这一位，也不依那一位；所立的通则是：整整一昼夜（二十四时）把「自察至察」那一段减短——就是说，她末一次自察若在很久以前，她只须为见血以前那二十四时之内顾虑不洁。
And the Rabbis say: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of this one nor in accordance with the statement of that one; rather, the principle is: A full day, twenty-four hours, reduces the time from examination to examination, i.e., if her final self-examination took place a long time before, she need only concern herself with ritual impurity for the twenty-four hour period prior to noticing the blood.
而「自察至察」又把那整整一昼夜减短——就是说，她若在前一日自察而未见血，那么自察以前她断是洁净的。
And from examination to examination reduces the time from a full day, i.e., if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was certainly ritually pure prior to the examination.
二人不止三争么？答：所说的是「前贤未曾同争」的那几处；按手一争前贤早有。
革玛拉 问：他们二人就再没有别的争了么？
The Gemara asks: And are there no more disputes between them?
我们所学的岂不是还有一处：希列 说节期里按手在祭牲头上是许的，人这样行并没有做犯禁的工作，也没有干犯节期；沙迈 却说不可按手？
Isn’t there what we learned that Hillel says that it is permitted to lay hands on the heads of offerings sacrificed on a Festival, and one performs no prohibited labor and does not desecrate the Festival by doing so; and Shammai says not to lay hands?
革玛拉 答：拉夫胡纳 说那话时，指的是「与他们同时的诸位大贤并没有一同争过」的那几处。
The Gemara answers: When Rav Huna said his statement, he was referring to disputes where there is no dispute between the great Sages who predated them concomitant with theirs.
至于节期按手那一争，由来已久——他们的前辈、远至「双人」时代之初的众贤，早已争过了。
The dispute with regard to laying hands on the Festival is ancient, and their predecessors, Sages dating back to the beginning of the era of the pairs, already disputed it.
又有采葡萄送榨一争；答：那一处希列末了默然，从了沙迈。
革玛拉 再问：岂不是还有一争——人采葡萄要送到榨里去踹，那渗出来的汁算不算「自愿流出」、因而使葡萄能染不洁？
The Gemara asks further: Isn’t there also the dispute with regard to one who harvests grapes in order to take them to the press and stomp them as to whether or not the liquid that seeps out of the grapes is considered as having seeped out willfully and renders the grapes susceptible to impurity?
沙迈 说：已能染不洁；希列 说：还不能染不洁。
Shammai says: It has become susceptible, and Hillel says: It has not become susceptible.
革玛拉 驳道：惟独那一处除外——那里两人虽起初相争，希列 末了默然不答，就从了 沙迈 的意思。
The Gemara rejects this: Except for that one, as there, although they originally disagreed, ultimately Hillel was silent and did not respond to Shammai and ultimately accepted his opinion.
列国之地与玻璃器之禁，岂是「双人」之初二人所定？似是圣殿末八十年的众贤。
上文说过：洗利达 的 约西·本·约以谢 与耶路撒冷的 约西·本·约哈难 定了列国之地与玻璃器的不洁。
Earlier it was mentioned that Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan of Jerusalem decreed impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels.
革玛拉 问：定这两条的当真是这两位么？他们是「双人」时代最早的一辈。
The Gemara asks: Was it these two Sages, who were among the first Sages in the era of the pairs, who issued these decrees?
定这两条的岂不是第二圣殿末了八十年间的众贤么？
Wasn’t it the Sages who lived in the final eighty years of the Second Temple period who issued these decrees?
因为 拉夫卡哈纳 说：拉比约西之子拉比以实玛利 病了的时候，众贤打发人去对他说：夫子，把你从前奉令尊的名对我们说过的两三句话再说给我们听。
As Rav Kahana said: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill, the Sages sent to him: Rabbi, tell us two or three statements that you once told us in the name of your father.
圣殿被毁前一百八十年罗马入侵、八十年定二禁、四十年公议会迁出凿石之室。
他打发人回话说：家父是这样说的——圣殿被毁前一百八十年，罗马那恶国侵入 以色列。
He sent to them: This is what my father said: One hundred and eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, the evil kingdom of Rome invaded Israel.
圣殿被毁前八十年，他们定了列国之地与玻璃器的不洁。
Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, they decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels.
圣殿被毁前四十年，公议会从 凿石之室 迁出，坐在圣殿山的铺子里。
Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stones and sat in the stores on the Temple Mount.
论到末后这一句，革玛拉 问：这话在 哈拉哈 上有什么干系呢？
With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: What are the halakhic ramifications of this statement?
拉夫以撒·巴尔·阿夫迪米 说：是说他们自此不再审罚金之案。
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: To say that they no longer judged cases of fines.
革玛拉 觉得可怪：难道当真是说他们不再审罚金之案么？
The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind that they no longer judged cases of fines?
圣殿被毁之后好几代，以色列地 还照旧审罚金之案呢。
Even several generations after the Temple was destroyed they continued to judge cases of fines in Eretz Yisrael.
倒该改说：是他们自此不再审人命之案。
Rather, emend and say: That they no longer judged capital cases.
判死刑的权柄从公议会被夺了去，他们才甘心离开凿石之室。
The authority to impose the death penalty was stripped from the Sanhedrin, and therefore they willingly left the Chamber of Hewn Stone.
公议会既不再在它所定的地方开庭，按 哈拉哈 它就不再有审人命之案的权柄了（托萨福）。
Since the Sanhedrin no longer convenes in its designated place, the halakha is that it no longer has the authority to judge capital cases (Tosafot).
那二人远在希列之前，不在那八十年内——由「四代纳西共百年」可证。
无论如何，我们所学的是：定列国之地不洁的，是圣殿被毁前末了八十年间的众贤。
In any case, we learned that the Sages of the last eighty years before the destruction are the ones who decreed impurity on the land of the nations.
你若说 约西·本·约以谢 与 约西·本·约哈难 也在那八十年之内——一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：希列、他儿子西缅、他孙子迦玛列、他曾孙西缅，在圣殿还立着的时候，先后作 纳西 共一百年；而 洗利达 的 约西·本·约以谢 与 约西·本·约哈难 远在 希列 之前？
And if you say that Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were also there during those eighty years, wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Hillel, and his son Shimon, and his grandson Gamliel, and his great-grandson Shimon filled their position of Nasi before the House, while the Temple was standing, for a hundred years, while Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥanan were much earlier than Hillel?