← 安息日卷总目·第四章 用什么焐食
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 9 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。
他说：我父亲是硝皮匠，有一安息日说「把皮拿来，我们坐在上头」——可见匠人的皮也可挪。
我父亲是硝皮的匠人；有一个安息日，他说：把几张皮拿来，我们坐在上头（依 拉比奴·哈纳内尔 之解）。
My father was a tanner, and one Shabbat he said: Bring me hides and we will sit on them (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).
就是说：连匠人的皮，安息日也是可挪的。
In other words, even the hides of a craftsman may be moved on Shabbat.
引 《巴拉伊塔》 相驳：家主的木板可挪，匠人的不可。答：木板另是一样，人在意不叫它损坏；皮坐着不损。
革玛拉 引一段 《巴拉伊塔》 来驳：家主的木板，安息日可以挪；匠人的木板，却不可挪。
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to wooden boards belonging to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat; however, those belonging to a craftsman, one may not move them.
但他若存意要在上头摆饼待客，那么这一样、那一样都可以挪。
And if, however, he thought to place bread upon them for guests, both these, the boards of the homeowner, and those, the boards of the craftsman, may be moved.
这样看来，匠人未成器的材料，安息日是不可挪的。
Apparently, the raw materials of a craftsman may not be moved on Shabbat.
革玛拉 答：木板另是一样，人在意不叫它损坏。
The Gemara answers: Wooden boards are different in that one is particular about them that they not be damaged.
皮却不然，人坐在上头并不损坏它。
Hides, on the other hand, are not damaged when one sits on them.
又引一段：皮无论硝过没硝过都可挪，惟论不洁才有分别。答：那一段单指家主的皮。
革玛拉 再举一证。
The Gemara cites another proof.
你来听另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的：论兽皮，无论硝过还是没有硝过，安息日都可以挪。
Come and hear that which was taught in a different baraita: With regard to hides, whether they are tanned or whether they are not tanned, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat.
众贤说硝过的皮另有一样身分、与没有硝过的不同，那单是就不洁之事说的。
The Sages said that tanned hides have a unique legal status, distinct from the status of hides that have not been tanned only with regard to ritual impurity.
惟有硝过的皮才能沾不洁。
Only tanned hides become ritually impure.
这岂不是说：无论家主的皮、还是匠人的皮，两样安息日都可挪么？
What, is it not saying that there is no difference whether they are hides belonging to a homeowner and there is no difference whether they are hides belonging to a craftsman; in both cases they may be moved on Shabbat?
革玛拉 驳这一难：不是，那一段单是就家主的皮说的。
The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the baraita is referring exclusively to hides belonging to a homeowner.
然则匠人的皮不可挪么？那一段何不就安息日之律分说？答：全段本论家主的皮，那样分说话就长了。
革玛拉 问：那么匠人的皮，这条 哈拉哈 又当怎么定呢？
The Gemara asks: But with regard to hides belonging to a craftsman, what is the halakha?
当真安息日不可挪么？
Is it true that they may not be moved on Shabbat?
若是这样，那一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里所教的「众贤说硝过的皮与没有硝过的另有分别，那单是就不洁之事说的」——那位 坦拿 何不就安息日诸律本身分说、说这话是就哪一样说的呢？
If so, that which was taught in the baraita: The Sages said that the legal status of tanned hides is distinct from the status of hides that have not been tanned only with regard to ritual impurity; let the tanna of the baraita distinguish and teach within the halakhot of Shabbat itself, and say: In what case is this statement, that there is no distinction between whether or not the hides were tanned, said?
那是单就家主的皮说的。
It was stated specifically with regard to hides belonging to a homeowner.
至于匠人的皮，硝过了便不可挪。
However, with regard to hides belonging to a craftsman, no, if they were tanned they may not be moved.
革玛拉 答：那一整段本是就家主的皮说的；要那样把匠人的皮分说出来，话就比分说不洁那一层长得多了。
The Gemara answers: Since the entire baraita is speaking with regard to hides of a homeowner, it would have been forced to elaborate at greater length to introduce the distinction with regard to the hides of a craftsman than it did to introduce the distinction with regard to ritual impurity.
这一层正与坦拿之争相当：一说家主的可挪、匠人的不可；拉比约西 说两样都可挪。
革玛拉 指出：这一件与众 坦拿 的一争正相当，正如一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里所教的：家主的皮，安息日可以挪；匠人的皮，不可挪。
The Gemara notes that this issue is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to hides belonging to a homeowner, one may move them on Shabbat, and those of a craftsman, one may not move them.
拉比约西 说：这一样、那一样，都可以挪。
Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to both these, the hides of a homeowner, and those, the hides of a craftsman, one may move them.
那几位又同坐而问：密释纳所说「工作之父四十减一」，这数目是照着什么定的？
革玛拉 述说：坐着论那几张皮的同是这几位贤者，他们又坐着提出一疑：我们在密释纳里所学的「托拉所禁的工作之父有四十减一样」，这数目是应着什么呢？
The Gemara relates that those same Sages who sat and discussed the issue of hides, sat again and they raised a dilemma: That which we learned in the mishna: The primary categories of labor, which are prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat, are forty-less-one; to what does this number correspond?
就是说：这数目的出处在哪里呢？
That is to say, what is the source of this number?
拉比哈尼纳·巴尔·哈马 说应着帐幕所行的工；另一位传 拉比西缅 之说：应着托拉里「工」字出现的次数。
拉比哈尼纳·巴尔·哈马 对他们说：那是应着帐幕里所行的诸工。
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama said to them: They correspond to the labors in the Tabernacle.
凡在帐幕里行过的工，都算作安息日的工作之父。
All types of labor that were performed in the Tabernacle are enumerated as primary categories of labor with respect to Shabbat.
至于别样的工，纵是要紧的，既不曾在帐幕里行过，便不列在工作之父之内。
However, other labors, even if they are significant, are not enumerated among the primary categories of labor since they were not performed in the Tabernacle.
拉比以利亚撒之子拉比约拿单 对他们说：拉比约西·本·拉科尼亚之子拉比西缅 是这样说的：那是应着托拉里「工」「他的工」「某某之工」这几个说法出现的次数，共四十减一次。
Rabbi Yonatan, son of Rabbi Elazar, said to them that so said Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei ben Lakonya: They correspond to the instances of the words labor, his labor, and the labor of, that appear in the Torah a total of forty-less-one times.
拉夫约瑟 疑：创世记 39:11 论约瑟的「他的工」算不算在内？阿巴耶 说取一卷托拉数一数便知。
拉夫约瑟 提出一疑：论约瑟那一处也写着「他的工」——「有一天，约瑟进屋里去办事，家中人没有一个在那屋里」（创世记 39:11）。
Rav Yosef raised a dilemma: The term his labor is written with regard to Joseph: “And it came to pass about this time, that he came into the house to do his labor; and there was none of the men of the house there within” (Genesis 39:11).
那一次算在这三十九次之内么？
Is it included in the count of the thirty-nine instances or not?
阿巴耶 对他说：我们且取一卷托拉来，把「工」字出现的次数数一数，看去了那一次还够不够三十九次。
Abaye said to him: And let us bring a Torah scroll and count the instances of the word labor and thereby determine whether or not there are thirty-nine instances without that one.
拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 论一件相类的疑事，岂不是说过 拉比约哈难 说：他们不曾离开那里，直到取来一卷托拉数过为止么？
Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in a case of similar uncertainty: They did not move from there until they brought a Torah scroll and counted them?
拉夫约瑟 说单靠数不能定：出埃及记 36:7 那一处「工」义亦未明；若那算数，则约瑟一处当作隐语解。
拉夫约瑟 对 阿巴耶 说：单靠数一数，我断不下来，因为另有一处「工」字，它的意思我也不明白。
Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I cannot reach a conclusion relying solely on a count because there is another instance of the term labor, whose meaning is not clear to me.
我所以疑，是因为论帐幕写着：「因为他们所有的材料够作一切当作的物，而且有余」（出埃及记 36:7）。
The reason I am uncertain is because it is written with regard to the Tabernacle: “For the labor they had was sufficient for all the work to do it, and too much” (Exodus 36:7).
这一处的「工」算不算在三十九次之内，就是说它指不指真作工，都成了问题。
The question arises whether or not this mention of labor is included in the count of thirty-nine instances, i.e., whether or not it refers to actual labor.
那一处若算，那么论约瑟那一节，就当照那说「『办他的事』是隐语」的一路来讲。
And if it does, that verse with regard to Joseph should be understood in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the expression, to do his labor, is a euphemism.
意思是他进去，是为着自己的私欲、要与波提乏的妻子行淫。
It means that it was to attend to his needs and engage in relations with Potiphar’s wife that he entered.
或者约瑟那一处算在内、指真作工，而出埃及记那一处说的是备料已足。这一疑悬着未决。
或者说：论约瑟那一节「他进屋里去办他的事」是算在内的，所指的是真作工。
Or, perhaps, the verse relating to Joseph: “He came into the house to do his labor,” is included in the count, and it refers to actual labor.
至于「他们所有的材料够用」那一节，意思是这样：他们把预备的工作完了，就是把材料都运齐了，并不是说他们在作那工本身。
And this verse: “The labor they had was sufficient,” is saying the following: That they completed the preparatory labor, i.e., they brought all the materials, not that they engaged in the actual labor.
这一疑就悬着未决罢。
Let the uncertainty stand unresolved.
有一段 《巴拉伊塔》 合「应着帐幕之工」那一说：帐幕里为染料而种，你就不可种；他们收割，你就不可收割。
论到这一件的本身，有一段 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的正合那说「安息日三十九工应着帐幕里所行之工」的意思。
With regard to the matter itself, it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that the thirty-nine labors of Shabbat correspond to the labors performed in the Tabernacle.
因为一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：惟有那在帐幕里有相当之工的，人行了才担责。
As it was taught in a baraita: One is only liable for performing a labor to which there was a corresponding labor in the Tabernacle.
他们为帐幕种过、要得染料，所以安息日你不可种。
They sowed in order to grow dyes for the Tabernacle, and therefore you may not sow on Shabbat.
他们收割过，所以安息日你不可收割。
They reaped, and therefore you may not reap on Shabbat.
他们从旷野（公共区）把木板抬上车（私人区），故不可从公共区搬入私人区；反之亦然；又车与车相递。
他们把木板从旷野的地上（那是公共区）抬起来，放进车里（那是私人区），所以安息日你不可把东西从公共区搬进私人区。
They lifted the boards from the ground in the wilderness, which is a public domain, and placed them into the wagon, which is a private domain, and therefore you shall not carry objects in from the public domain to the private domain on Shabbat.
他们把木板从车上放到地上，所以安息日你不可把东西从私人区搬出到公共区。
They lowered the boards from the wagon to the ground, and therefore you shall not carry objects out from the private domain to the public domain on Shabbat.
他们又把木板与别的东西取出来、从这一辆车递到那一辆车（就是从这一处私人区到那一处私人区），所以安息日你不可把东西从这一处私人区搬到那一处私人区。
They took boards and other objects out and passed them from wagon to wagon, i.e., from one private domain to another private domain, and therefore you shall not take objects out from one private domain to another private domain on Shabbat.
从私人区搬到私人区算什么禁工？答：所指是经公共区而过——两车之间正是公共区。
革玛拉 诧异那一段 《巴拉伊塔》 末一句：人把东西从这一处私人区搬到那一处私人区，他这样究竟行了哪一件禁工呢？
The Gemara expresses astonishment with regard to the last clause of the baraita: One who takes an object out from one private domain to another private domain, what prohibited labor is he thereby performing?
革玛拉 答：阿巴耶 与 拉瓦 都说（另有人说是 拉夫阿达·巴尔·阿哈瓦 说的）：所指的是从这一处私人区经公共区搬到那一处私人区——旷野里两辆车之间的地方正是公共区。
The Gemara answers: It was Abaye and Rava who both said, and some say that it was Rav Adda bar Ahava who said: This is referring to taking an object out from one private domain to another private domain via the public domain, as the space between the two wagons in the wilderness was a public domain.
拉瓦 说：「羊毛不可挪」单指没有拿它焐过食的；焐过了，便可以挪。
我们在密释纳里学过：可以用羊毛焐食，那毛却不可挪。
We learned in the mishna: One may insulate food in wool fleece, and he may not move it.
拉瓦 说：「安息日羊毛不可挪」这条 哈拉哈，单指他没有拿它焐过食的情形。
Rava said: This halakha that fleece may not be moved on Shabbat applies only to a case where one did not insulate food in it.
惟有那样，它才是禁动之物。
Only in that case is it set-aside.
他若拿它焐过煮好的食物，就可以挪它。
However, if one insulated cooked food in it, he may move it.
他既拿那毛焐了食物，就显出安息日要用它的意思了。
By insulating food in the fleece, he indicated that he intends to use it on Shabbat.
有一位那日头一天到学舍的贤者引密释纳相驳（句在叶末未完）。
有一位贤者，那一日是他到那学舍的头一天，引我们这一段密释纳来驳 拉瓦：可以用羊毛焐食，那毛却不可挪。
A certain Sage for whom it was his first day in that study hall raised an objection to Rava from our mishna: One may insulate food in wool fleece, and one may not move it.
那么他若用羊毛焐了食物、如今要取那锅，该怎么行呢？
How, then, does he act if he insulated food in wool fleece and now wishes to remove the pot?