驳前证:头一截仍可作「放回」讲,只是话没说全,当补出「留着则纵未扫未盖也可」。这一疑仍未断。
-
革玛拉 驳这一证。
The Gemara rejects this proof.
-
其实你仍可以说:密释纳头一截所学的是「放回」,只是话没有说全。
Actually, you can say that in the first clause of the mishna we learned to return and the mishna is incomplete.
-
须给这一段补一句,当这样教:灶若用麦秸或柴屑烧的,人可以把一锅煮好的食物放回去。
A clause must be added to the mishna, and it teaches the following: With regard to a stove that was lit with straw or rakings, one may return a pot of cooked food to it.
-
灶若用油渣或柴薪烧的,就不可把锅放回去,除非他趁天还明着把炭扫去、或在炭上盖了灰。
If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not return a pot to it until one sweeps the coals out while it is still day or until one covers the coals with ashes.
-
至于安息日把锅留在火上,纵那灶没有扫炭、也没有盖灰,仍可以留着。
However, to leave the pot on the flame on Shabbat, one may leave it, even though it is not swept and not covered with ashes.
-
补了这一句,底下那一争便讲得通了:那么可以留的是什么呢?
Through this addition, the continuation of the dispute can be understood as follows: And what may they leave?
-
沙迈学派 说:热水可以,煮好的食物不可以。
Beit Shammai say: Hot water but not cooked food.
-
希列学派 说:热水与煮好的食物都可以。
And Beit Hillel say: Both hot water and cooked food.
-
再者:我在这一段起头对你说的那个「放回」,并不是人人都许的。
Furthermore: And that return that I said to you at the start of the mishna is not according to everyone.
-
倒是 沙迈学派 与 希列学派 也就它有一争,因为 沙迈学派 说:可以取下来,却不可放回去。
Rather, it too is subject to a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as Beit Shammai say: One may remove but not return.
-
希列学派 说:放回去也可以。
And Beit Hillel say: One may even return.
-
这一段密释纳当怎么讲,这一疑仍没有断下来。
The dilemma with regard to the interpretation of the mishna has not been resolved.