51b.1
引证
锅若一点也不露在外头，就不可取出来再放回原处。
-
他就不可把锅取出来、再放回原处。
he may not remove the pot and then return it to its place.
← 安息日卷总目·第五章 牲畜带什么出去
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 4 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。
锅若一点也不露在外头，就不可取出来再放回原处。
他就不可把锅取出来、再放回原处。
he may not remove the pot and then return it to its place.
拉比犹大 说细麻的碎屑如同粪，故连安息日前夕也不可用它焐食。
拉比犹大 说：细麻的碎屑如同粪。
Rabbi Yehuda says: The chaff of fine flax is like manure.
既然如此，纵在安息日前夕，也不可用它焐食。
Therefore, one may not insulate food in it even on Shabbat eve.
铜瓮可摞铜瓮、瓦锅可摞瓦锅，瓦铜相摞则不可；锅口可用面团封住——皆为保温，不为加热。
可以把一只铜瓮摞在另一只铜瓮上，也可以把一只瓦锅摞在另一只瓦锅上，因为底下那一件不会把上头那一件烘热。
One may place a copper urn upon a copper urn, and one may place an earthenware pot upon an earthenware pot because the lower utensil will not heat the upper one.
但不可把瓦锅摞在铜瓮上，也不可把铜瓮摞在瓦锅上，因为那样就有可虑：上头那一件要被底下的烘热了。
However, one may not place an earthenware pot upon a copper urn, or a copper urn upon an earthenware pot, as in that case there is concern that the upper utensil will be heated by the lower one.
又可以拿面团把锅口封住。
And one may seal the mouth of a pot with dough.
以上这几样，都不可为把水弄热而行，惟可为保住它的热、免得它凉了。
All of the above may not be undertaken in order to heat the water, but only so that its heat will be maintained and it will not cool down.
热的既不可焐以保温，冷的也不可焐以保凉；拉比犹大·哈纳西却许人在安息日焐冷物。
热的东西既不可焐起来保温，冷的东西也照样不可焐起来保凉。
And just as one may not insulate hot food to keep it warm, so too, one may not insulate cold food to keep it cold.
拉比犹大·哈纳西 却许人在安息日焐冷物。
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted insulating cold food on Shabbat.
安息日不可捣碎雪与雹取水喝——那是造出新物；却可以把它们放进杯盘里，任它自己化开。
安息日既不可把雪捣碎，也不可把雹捣碎，好叫它化成水、可以喝。
And one may neither crush snow nor hail on Shabbat so that its water will flow and he will be able to drink it.
那样行是在安息日造出一样新东西来（由冰成水），是禁的。
That act involves creation of a new entity, water from ice, on Shabbat, which is prohibited.
但他可以把那雪、那雹放进杯里或盘里，任它自己化开，不必挂虑。
However, he may place the snow or the hail into a cup or a dish and allow it to melt on its own, and he need not be concerned.
章末语：「我们必再回到你这里，用什么焐食」——第四章（Bameh tomnin）到此为止。本章自 47之间.8 起，论安息日前夕焐锅可用与不可用的几样东西、器皿的备用之分、禁动之物的派定与预备、洗面所用的诸物。本卷二十四章，这是第四处。
第五章开篇：牲畜带什么出去可以、带什么不可以——骆驼带 嚼环，白母驼 带 铁鼻环，利比亚驴 带 铁笼头，马带项链。
因有「当叫牲畜在安息日歇息」这条诫命，人的牲畜安息日不可负着重担出到公共区去。
Due to the mitzva to rest one’s animals on Shabbat, one’s animal may not go out into the public domain bearing a burden.
但那为护住牲畜、或拦它跑掉而设的东西，不算作重担；所以牲畜带着那样的东西，是可以出到公共区去的。
However, an object designated to protect the animal or to prevent it from fleeing is not considered a burden; therefore, an animal bearing objects that serve that purpose may go out into the public domain.
密释纳问：安息日牲畜带什么出到公共区去可以，带什么不可以呢？
The mishna asks: With what may an animal go out into the public domain on Shabbat and with what may it not go out?
骆驼安息日可以带着 嚼环 出去，白母驼 可以带着 铁鼻环 出去，利比亚驴 可以带着 铁笼头 出去。
A camel may go out on Shabbat with an afsar, and a naka may go out with a ḥatam, and a luvdekim may go out with a perumbiya.
这几个名目 革玛拉 在下文一一讲说。
All these terms will be defined in the Gemara.
马可以带着颈上的链子出去。
And a horse may go out with a chain around its neck.
凡素来出到公共区时颈上带链的牲畜，安息日都可以带着链子出去，也可以牵着那链子走。
大凡素来出到公共区时颈上带着链子的牲畜，安息日都可以带着链子出去，人也可以牵着那链子走它。
And, in general, all animals that typically have a chain around their necks when they go out to the public domain may go out with a chain on Shabbat and may be pulled by the chain.
那几条链子若沾了不洁，可以就在牲畜身上洒除污之水、浸洗，不必先取下来。
那几条链子若沾了不洁，人可以就在牲畜身上向它们洒除污之水、把它们浸洗，不必先取下来。
If these chains contracted ritual impurity, one may sprinkle waters of purification on them and immerse them in their place on the animal, and they need not first be removed.
几个名目 革玛拉 逐一讲说：白母驼 是白母驼、铁鼻环 是铁鼻环；利比亚驴 是利比亚驴、铁笼头 是铁笼头。
密释纳里有几个名目众贤不甚明白，革玛拉 就问：所谓「白母驼 带着 铁鼻环」是什么意思呢？
Several terms in the mishna were not clear to the Sages, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of naka with a ḥatam?
拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 说：那是一头白色的母骆驼（依 高昂众 之解），带着一个铁的鼻环。
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: A white female camel (ge’onim) with an iron nose ring.
所谓「利比亚驴 带着 铁笼头」又是什么意思呢？
And what is the meaning of luvdekim with a perumbiya?
拉夫胡纳 说：那是一头利比亚的驴，带着一副铁的笼头。
Rav Huna said: A Libyan donkey with an iron halter.
既说到利比亚驴，述利未寄钱去买，那里的人把钱捆回、另送大麦——驴走得快慢全看所吃的大麦。
既说到利比亚的驴，革玛拉 便述说：利未 有一回寄钱到 贝·霍宰 去，要给自己买一头利比亚的驴——那一样素以上好著称。
Having mentioned a Libyan donkey, the Gemara relates that Levi once sent money to Bei Ḥozai to procure for himself a Libyan donkey, which is reputed to be of superior quality.
他们把他的钱捆起来退了回来，另送他大麦，意思是说：驴走得快慢，全看它所吃的大麦。
They bound his money, returned it, and sent him barley, to say that the strides of a donkey depend on the barley that it eats.
人若把驴喂得好些，它跑起来就与利比亚的驴一样了。
If one provides his donkey with better feed, its performance will be as good as that of a Libyan donkey.
撒母耳 说门人把密释纳的几样对调了，在拉比犹大·哈纳西面前问：这一样牲畜带那一样的可不可以？
拉夫犹大 说 撒母耳 说：门人把密释纳里的几样对调了，在 拉比犹大·哈纳西 面前问：这一样牲畜带着那一样牲畜所许的东西出到公共区去，这条 哈拉哈 该怎么定呢？
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The students switched the details in the mishna before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and asked: What is the halakha with regard to this animal going out into the public domain with that which is permitted for that animal?
譬如说：白母驼可否带着 嚼环 出去？骆驼可否带着铁鼻环出去呢？
For example, may a white female camel go out with a bit or a camel with an iron nose ring?
白母驼带 嚼环 不必疑（拴不住便是重担）；所当疑的是骆驼带铁鼻环——拴得过严算不算重担？
革玛拉 解说：白母驼带着 嚼环 出去，本不必成为你的疑问；那一样既拴它不住，便算作重担，牲畜不可带着它出去。
The Gemara explains: The case of a white female camel going out with a bit should not be a dilemma for you; since it is not sufficiently secured by a bit, it is regarded as a burden with which the animal may not go out.
当成为你疑问的，是骆驼带着铁鼻环出到公共区去那一样。
The case where there should be a dilemma for you is that of a camel going out to the public domain with a nose ring.
那条 哈拉哈 该怎么定呢？
What is the halakha in that case?
革玛拉 说明这一疑：是当说——单一个 嚼环 已足以拴住骆驼，那么铁鼻环便算作重担呢？
The Gemara explains the dilemma: Is the halakha that since a bit alone suffices to secure a camel, an iron nose ring is considered a burden?
还是当说：论那拴得过严的东西，我们并不称它作重担呢？
Or, is the halakha perhaps that with regard to a device that provides excessive security we do not say that it is a burden?
拉比约西 说马、骡、骆驼、驴四样可带 嚼环 出去——似断骆驼不可带鼻环。驳曰：所要除的是白母驼带 嚼环。
拉比约西之子拉比以实玛利 在 拉比犹大·哈纳西 面前说：家父 拉比约西 是这样说的——有四样牲畜可以带着 嚼环 出去：马、骡、骆驼、驴。
Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that so said father, Rabbi Yosei: Four animals may go out with a bit: The horse, and the mule, and the camel, and the donkey.
这一列所要除去的是什么呢？
What does this list come to exclude?
岂不是要除去骆驼带着鼻环出去那一样么？
Is it not coming to exclude a camel going out with a nose ring?
这样看来，那一疑便解了。
Apparently, the dilemma is resolved.
骆驼惟可带着 嚼环 出去。
The camel may go out only with a bit.
革玛拉 驳这一证：不是，那一列所要除去的，是白母驼带着 嚼环 出去那一样。
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the list comes to exclude a white female camel going out with a bit.
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 说利比亚驴与骆驼可带 嚼环；又一段：野兽不可带项圈，哈纳尼亚 说带项圈并一切拴得住的都可以。
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：利比亚的驴与骆驼可以带着 嚼环 出去。
It was taught in a baraita: A Libyan donkey and a camel may go out with a bit.
革玛拉 指出：「牲畜带着拴得过严的东西出到公共区去可不可以」这一问，正与众 坦拿 的一争相当，因为一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：野兽不可带着项圈出去。哈纳尼亚 说：它可以带着项圈、并一切拴得住它的东西出去。
The Gemara notes that the question whether or not an animal may go out into the public domain with excessive security is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: A non-domesticated animal may not go out with a collar. Ḥananya says: It may go out with a collar and with anything that secures it.
所论是哪一样野兽？大的项圈拴不住，小的项圈本足够——那么头一位坦拿何以禁？
革玛拉 要辨明这一件：我们这里所论的是哪一样呢？
The Gemara clarifies the case: With what are we dealing here?
你若说所论的是大野兽，项圈拴得住它么？
If you say that we are dealing with a large non-domesticated animal, does a collar suffice for it?
那既拴它不住，便算作重担，安息日它带着那一样出去是禁的。
Since it does not sufficiently secure the animal, it is considered a burden, and it is prohibited for the animal to go out with it on Shabbat.
倒该说所论的是小野兽。
Rather, it must be dealing with a small non-domesticated animal.
那样，项圈岂不足以拴住它么？
In that case, doesn’t a collar suffice for it?
那么那位无名的头一位 坦拿 何以主张它不可带着项圈出去呢？
Why then does the anonymous first tanna hold that the animal may not go out with it?
两下之别在猫：头一位坦拿以为一条小绳已足、项圈便算重担；哈纳尼亚 以为拴得过严不算重担。撒母耳 断从 哈纳尼亚。
倒不是他们两说在实事上的分别正在猫这一样么？
Rather, is it not that the practical difference between their opinions is with regard to a cat?
那一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里无名的头一位 坦拿 主张：一条小绳既已足以拴住猫，那项圈便算作重担，猫不可带着它出到公共区去。
The anonymous first tanna of the baraita holds that since a small rope suffices for the cat, a collar is considered a burden with which the cat may not go out into the public domain.
哈纳尼亚 却主张：论那拴得过严的东西，我们不称它作重担。
And Ḥananya holds that with regard to a device that provides excessive security, we do not say that it is a burden.
众 坦拿 所争的，正是「拴得过严的东西算不算重担」这一层。
The tanna’im disagree whether or not a device that provides excessive security is considered a burden.
革玛拉 断道：拉夫胡纳·巴尔·希亚 说 撒母耳 说：哈拉哈 从 哈纳尼亚。
The Gemara concludes: Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya.
拴得过严的东西不算作重担。
A device that provides excessive security is not considered a burden.
利未与 拉巴·巴尔·拉夫胡纳 同行，利未的驴自己走到前头去；那一位心里不平，利未便想说一句话解开（句在叶末未完）。
革玛拉 述说：拉夫胡纳·巴尔·希亚 的儿子 利未 与 拉巴·巴尔·拉夫胡纳 有一回同走一条路。
The Gemara relates that Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, and Rabba bar Rav Huna were once going together on a road.
利未 的驴自己走到 拉巴·巴尔·拉夫胡纳 的驴前头去了。
Levi’s donkey on its own initiative went ahead of the donkey of Rabba bar Rav Huna.
拉巴·巴尔·拉夫胡纳 心里不平，因为他在托拉上是大的；他以为 利未 抢在前头，是自居为大。
Rabba bar Rav Huna was offended because he was the greater Torah scholar, and he thought that Levi went first to assert that he considered himself the greater scholar.
利未 心里说：我且对他说一句话，好叫
Levi said to himself: I will say something to him, so that