42a.1
解答
「够淬硬那器皿的分量」也是许的，因为他本无意行那禁工。
-
也是许的，因为他本无意行那一件禁工。
is permitted, since one did not intend to perform that prohibited labor.
← 安息日卷总目·第三章 炉灶
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 5 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。
「够淬硬那器皿的分量」也是许的，因为他本无意行那禁工。
也是许的，因为他本无意行那一件禁工。
is permitted, since one did not intend to perform that prohibited labor.
撒母耳 岂是从 拉比西缅 的？他明说白热的金块可灭而红炭不可——若从 拉比西缅，木炭也该许。
革玛拉 问：这样说来，撒母耳 连「够淬硬那器皿的分量」也许，岂不是从 拉比西缅 的意思么——那一位说：所行本是许的、由此无心带出一件禁工，仍是许的。
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Shmuel, who permits adding water even in an amount sufficient to harden a vessel, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one may perform an action that inadvertently results in a prohibited labor?
撒母耳 岂不是说过：安息日可以在公共区把一块白热的金属灭了，免得众人受伤么？
Didn’t Shmuel say: One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public area on Shabbat so that the masses will not be injured?
那是因为白热的金块并不是真火，灭它是拉比之禁，不是托拉之禁。
That is because the piece of white-hot metal is not actual fire and extinguishing it is prohibited by rabbinic decree, not Torah law.
凡关乎众人安危的，众贤是不立禁令的。
The Sages did not issue decrees in situations where there is concern for public safety.
但烧红的木炭却不可灭，因为灭它是托拉所禁的。
However, one may not extinguish a red-hot wood coal because extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law.
你若以为 撒母耳 是从 拉比西缅 的，那么连木炭也该许人灭才是。
And if it would enter your mind that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it should even be permitted to extinguish wood as well.
人灭那炭的时候，既无意行一件禁工，也无意由此得什么好处。
When one extinguishes the coal, he intends neither to perform a prohibited labor nor to derive any benefit.
他不过是要拦住那炭伤人。
He merely intends to prevent the coal from causing injury.
灭那炭正是「非为其功之工」。
Extinguishing the coal is a labor not necessary for its own sake.
拉比西缅 说：人行了「非为其功之工」是免责的。
Rabbi Shimon says that one who performs a labor not necessary for its own sake is exempt.
答：论「非出本意」他从 拉比西缅，论「非为其功之工」他从 拉比犹大。拉维纳 由此推：公共区的刺可分段挪走。
革玛拉 答：论「非出本意之事」，撒母耳 是从 拉比西缅 的意思。
The Gemara responds: In the case of an unintentional act, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
论「非为其功之工」，他却以为有责，是从 拉比犹大 的意思。
In the case of labor not necessary for its own sake, he holds that he is liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
拉维纳 说：既然如此，公共区里有一根刺、能伤人的，安息日可以分几次把它挪走，每一次不到四肘。
Ravina said: Therefore, a thorn in the public domain that is liable to cause injury, one may move it from there in increments, each less than four cubits, on Shabbat.
托拉虽禁人安息日在公共区里把东西搬过四肘，搬不到四肘却单是拉比之禁。
Although the Torah prohibits carrying an object four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat, carrying less than four cubits is prohibited only by rabbinic law.
由 撒母耳 那一句可知：凡关乎众人安危的，众贤是不立禁令的。
From Shmuel’s statement, it is clear that the Sages did not issue a decree in any case where there is a threat to the masses.
既然如此，那刺若在 区间区 里——那里搬运本只是拉比之禁——就连搬过四肘也是许的。
And, therefore, if the thorn was in a karmelit, where the prohibition to carry is by rabbinic law, one is permitted to carry it even more than four cubits.
《巴拉伊塔》：沙迈学派 说热可注入冷、冷不可注入热；希列学派 两样都许，惟浴池不然。拉夫纳赫曼 断从 拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚。
我们在密释纳里学过：但为要把水弄温，可以把水注进瓮里。
We learned in the mishna: However, one may place water into an urn in order to warm it.
众拉比在一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：人可以把热水注进冷水里，却不可把冷水注进热水里；这是 沙迈学派 的话。
The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may place hot water into cold water, but not cold into hot; this is the statement of Beit Shammai.
依他们的意思，冷水在底下的热水上头就被烘热了。
In their opinion the cold water becomes heated by the hot water beneath it.
希列学派 说：热注进冷、冷注进热，两样都是许的。
And Beit Hillel say: Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted.
只是 希列学派 并非一概都许。
However, Beit Hillel did not permit this in all cases.
这话是就哪一样说的呢？
In what case is this said?
是就一杯水说的。
It is in the case of a cup.
至于水多的浴池，热注进冷是许的，冷注进热却不许。
However, in a bath with a lot of water, it is permitted to pour hot into cold but not cold into hot.
拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚 连热注进冷也禁。
And Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits even putting hot into cold.
拉夫纳赫曼 说：这一件的 哈拉哈 从 拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚。
Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter.
拉夫约瑟 以 洗盆 如浴池；阿巴耶 引 拉比希亚 之 《巴拉伊塔》 驳之。若如其初意，安息日岂不成了一概不能用热水洗？
拉夫约瑟 本想说：洗盆——那是洗濯用的器皿——它的身分如同浴池，不可往里头注水。
Rav Yosef thought to say that the legal status of a basin [sefel], which is a vessel used for washing, is like that of a bath, and it is prohibited to pour water into it.
阿巴耶 对他说：拉比希亚 教过一段 《巴拉伊塔》：论注水这一层，洗盆 不同于浴池。
Abaye said to him that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita: A basin is not like a bath in terms of pouring water into it.
革玛拉 问：照 拉夫约瑟 起初所想的、以 洗盆 于这条 哈拉哈 上如同浴池，而 拉夫纳赫曼 又说这一件的 哈拉哈 从 拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚——那么安息日岂不成了一概不能用热水洗么？
The Gemara asks: And according to what entered Rav Yosef’s mind initially, that a basin is like a bath with regard to this halakha, and Rav Naḥman said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter, does that mean that on Shabbat there is no possibility of washing with hot water?
「安息日一概不可用热水洗」这样的通禁，不曾有人教过。
No all-encompassing prohibition of washing with hot water on Shabbat was ever taught.
答：拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚 所指是前一句——他所传的 沙迈学派 与 希列学派 本无此争。
革玛拉 答：你以为 拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚 说的是密释纳后一句么？
The Gemara replies: Do you think that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya is referring to the latter clause of the mishna?
不是，他说的是前一句——我们在那里学过 希列学派 许人热注进冷、也许冷注进热，而 拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚 禁人把冷水注进热水里。
No, he is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where we learned that Beit Hillel permit both hot water into cold and cold water into hot, and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits placing cold water into hot.
革玛拉 问：若是这样，那就等于说 拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚 所说的合 沙迈学派 的意思了。
The Gemara asks: If so, say that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.
哈拉哈 岂不是通例都从 希列学派 么？
Isn’t the halakha generally established according to Beit Hillel?
革玛拉 解说：他的意思是这样——沙迈学派 与 希列学派 就这一件本没有相争。
The Gemara explains: He said the following: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter.
拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚 所领受的、关乎 沙迈学派 与 希列学派 的传说，与别人所传的不同。
Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya had a different tradition with regard to the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.
拉瓦 论器皿不分冷热；所据是 拉比希亚 一段 《巴拉伊塔》。拉夫胡纳 疑器壁作隔，答曰那一段说的是「倒」。
拉夫胡纳·巴尔·拉夫约书亚 说：我见 拉瓦 论器皿一事并不从严，冷热不分。
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw that Rava was not strict in the case of a vessel and made no distinction between cold and hot.
他这一层从宽是从哪里来的呢？
From where did he derive this leniency?
是从 拉比希亚 所教的一段 《巴拉伊塔》 来的：人可以把一壶水放进一盆水里，热放进冷、冷放进热，都可以。
From a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A person may place a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold and cold into hot.
拉夫胡纳 对 拉夫阿施 说：这一证有弱处——或者那里另是一样，因为那壶的器壁在冷水与热水之间作了隔。
Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: There is a weakness in this proof, as perhaps there it is different because the vessel forms a partition between the hot and cold water.
他并不是把冷水注进盆里，乃是把一只壶放进盆里，那壶的壁便是隔。
He is not pouring cold water into the basin itself but is placing a jug whose sides form a partition into the basin.
他对他说：那一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里用的是「倒」字。
He said to him: The term pour was stated in that baraita.
正传当是这样：人可以把一壶水倒进一盆水里，热倒进冷、冷倒进热，都可以。
This is the correct version: A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold or cold into hot.
既然如此，这两样就没有可分之处了。
Therefore, there is no room to distinguish between the two cases.
新一段密释纳：炖锅与锅从火上端下时还沸着的，纵是安息日以先端下的，安息日也不可往里头下料——那是第一重器。
接着论那几样虽不在火上、却仍适用「煮」这一禁的器皿，密释纳定说：炖锅 与锅从火上端下来时若还沸着，纵是安息日以先端下的，安息日当天也不可往里头下料。
In continuation of the discussion of vessels where the prohibition of cooking applies even though the vessels are not actually on the fire itself, the mishna establishes: A stew pot [ilpas] and a pot that were removed from the fire while they were still boiling, even if they were removed before Shabbat, one may not place spices into them on Shabbat itself.
那锅虽不真在火上，所下的料仍要在其中被煮熟，因为它是第一重器——就是在火上煮过其中之物的器皿。
Even though the pot is not actually standing on the fire, the spices are still cooked in it because the pot is a primary vessel, i.e., a vessel whose contents were cooked on the fire.