末句既判有责,可见本段密释纳从 拉比犹大;然则前句为危病之人灭灯,该说「许」而非「免责」。
-
密释纳末一句既教安息日灭灯的人有责,便可由此推知这一段密释纳是 拉比犹大 的意思——他主张人在安息日行了那所禁的工,纵是 非为其功之工,仍须献赎罪祭。
From the fact that it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna that one who extinguishes a flame on Shabbat is liable, conclude from it that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one who performs a prohibited labor on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering even if it is a labor that is not necessary for its own sake [melakha she’eina tzerikha legufa].
-
密释纳里那人灭火焰,并不是为得着灭它所成的果。
In the mishna, one does not extinguish the flame to achieve the product produced by extinguishing it.
-
他灭它,为的是不叫那光亮着。
He does so to prevent the light from shining.
-
若是这样,前一句所论的又是哪一样呢?
If so, with what is the first clause of the mishna dealing?
-
那若是为危病之人而灭的情形,「免责」二字便不确切。
If it is referring to one who extinguished the flame due to a critically ill person, the term exempt is imprecise.
-
该说「许」才是——性命有危的时候,按理连行那所禁的工也是许的。
It should have said permitted, as it is permitted even ab initio to perform a prohibited labor on Shabbat in a case of danger.
-
那若是为不危之病人说的,灭灯的人何以免责呢?
And if it is speaking about a non-critically ill person, why is one who extinguished the flame exempt?
-
该说他须献赎罪祭才是。
It should have said that one is liable to bring a sin-offering.