52b.1
引证
……都是洁的。
-
都是洁的。
are ritually pure.
← 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 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。
……都是洁的。
都是洁的。
are ritually pure.
拉比以撒·纳帕哈 说：密释纳所论的是本为人饰、后改作牲畜之饰的——原有的不洁并不因此消去。
拉比以撒·纳帕哈 说：我们这一段密释纳所论的，是那本为人的妆饰、后来改作牲畜妆饰的几样。
Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: Our mishna is referring to ornaments that were transformed from their original designation for a person’s adornment to an ornament designated for an animal’s adornment.
它们本是人的，后来他把它们安上去、好在牲畜身上系一条带子。
They had once belonged to a person who later affixed them in order to attach a strap to an animal.
它们既安在牲畜身上，原有的不洁并不因此消去。
Their original ritual impurity does not cease when they are attached to the animal.
拉夫约瑟 另说：牲畜的环所以能沾不洁，是因为人拿它牵牲畜——如赶牛的铁棒，人拿它制伏牲畜，故算人所用之器。
拉夫约瑟 说：牲畜的环所以能沾不洁，是因为人拿它牵自己的牲畜。
And Rav Yosef said: Animals’ rings can become ritually impure since a person pulls his animal with them.
既然如此，它们便算作人所用的器具。
Consequently, they are considered utensils used by people.
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：赶牲畜用的铁棒能沾不洁么？
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The metal animal prod becomes ritually impure?
它虽是牲畜的器具，何以仍能沾不洁呢？
What is the reason that it becomes ritually impure even though it is an animal’s utensil?
因为人拿它制伏自己的牲畜，它便算作人所用的器具；所以能沾不洁。
Since a person subjugates his animal with it, it is regarded as a utensil for use by a person; therefore, it can become ritually impure.
这里论那几条链子也是一样：人既拿它们牵自己的牲畜，它们便算作人所用的器具。
Here too, with regard to chains, since a person pulls his animal with them, they are regarded as utensils for use by a person.
密释纳说链子沾了不洁可以就地浸洗；然那几个环彼此紧挨，岂不成了拦阻、叫浸洗不算数么？
我们这一段密释纳里又学过：那几条链子若沾了不洁，人可以就在牲畜身上把它们浸洗，不必先取下来。
And we learned in our mishna: If the animals’ chains became ritually impure, one may immerse them while they are in their place on the animal, and they need not first be removed.
革玛拉 就此发问：这岂不成了一层拦阻、叫那浸洗不算数么？
The Gemara raises a question: Isn’t this an obstruction that renders the immersion invalid?
那链子的几个环彼此扣得紧，洁池的水便没有余地把整条链子四围围住。
The rings of the chain are firmly attached to the chain, and there is no room for the water of the ritual bath to completely surround the chain.
拉比阿米 说：所指是他先用锤把那几个环敲开、撑出空隙，好叫水四围围得住。
拉比阿米 说：密释纳所论的，是他先拿锤把那链子的几个环敲了一敲、把它们撑宽、留出空隙来，好叫水四围围得住那链子的情形。
Rabbi Ami said: The mishna is referring to a case where he struck the rings of the chain with a hammer, widening them and thereby creating sufficient space to allow the water to surround the chain on all sides.
似当说 拉比阿米 从 拉夫约瑟；若从 拉比以撒·纳帕哈 便难——一敲便是改形之举，不浸也该洁了。
革玛拉 说：我们且说 拉比阿米 是从 拉夫约瑟 的意思的。
The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rabbi Ami holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef.
因为他若从 拉比以撒·纳帕哈 的意思——那一位说我们这一段密释纳所论的是本为人饰、后改作牲畜之饰的几样，所以它们仍带着作人饰时所沾的不洁——那就难了。
As, if he held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who said that our mishna is referring to ornaments that were transformed from their original designation for a person’s adornment to an ornament designated for an animal’s adornment, and therefore they can be ritually impure with impurity contracted while it was still a person’s ornament, it is difficult.
他既敲过那链子，就是行了一件改其形的举动，那不洁纵不浸洗也当消去了。
Since he struck the chain, he performed an action which altered its identity, and the impurity would have ceased even without immersion.
因密释纳说：诸器凭念头而入不洁，惟凭改形之举而出不洁——敲那几个环正是改形之举。
正如我们在一段密释纳里所学的：一切器皿凭人心里的念头而入于不洁。
As we learned in a mishna: All vessels descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought.
器皿未作成本不能沾不洁；但匠人若定意不再作完它，它立时便有了成器的身分，就能沾不洁了。
Even though an unfinished vessel cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided not to complete it, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure.
但它们出于不洁，惟凭一件改其形的举动。
However, they only ascend from their state of ritual impurity by means of a change resulting from an action.
已沾不洁的器皿，一经形质改变，就不再是不洁的了。
A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure.
敲那几个环正是一件改其形的举动。
Hammering the rings is an action that effects physical change.
既然如此，那链子不浸洗也当是洁的了。
Therefore, the chain should be ritually pure without immersion.
驳曰：拉比阿米 仍可照 拉比以撒·纳帕哈 解——他从 拉比犹大：改形而使器更好的，不算能除不洁之举。
革玛拉 驳这一说：其实 拉比阿米 仍可照 拉比以撒·纳帕哈 那样解这一段密释纳，因为他是从 拉比犹大 的意思的——那一位说：把器皿改得更好的举动，算不得能除去它不洁的举动。正如一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里所教的：拉比犹大 说：那说「改形之举能洁净器皿、除去它的不洁」的，并不是就把器皿改得更好的举动说的；他那一句是就把器皿弄坏的举动说的。
The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, Rabbi Ami could interpret the mishna just as Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa did, as he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that an action performed to enhance a utensil is not an action capable of ridding that utensil of its ritual impurity, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: He did not say that an action that effects a physical change purifies a utensil of its ritual impurity with regard to an action performed to enhance a utensil; rather, he made his statement with regard to an action performed to ruin the utensil.
另有一段 《巴拉伊塔》 说：密释纳所论是那几个环彼此宽松、水得以四围无阻地围住的情形。
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：密释纳所论的，是那链子上几个环彼此宽松、水得以四围无阻地围住那几个环的情形。
It was taught in a baraita: The mishna is referring to a case where the rings attached to the chain are well spaced so that the water completely surrounds the rings of the chain with no obstruction.
《托塞夫塔》：上加利利有一门生问 拉比以利以谢「环与环有别」是就哪一条说的；他答：或是就安息日说的，论不洁则一样。
《托塞夫塔》 里教过：上加利利有一个门生问 拉比以利以谢：我听说环与环之间是有分别的。
It was taught in the Tosefta: A certain disciple from the Upper Galilee asked Rabbi Eliezer: I heard that one distinguishes between one type of ring and another type of ring.
只是我不知道那分别是就哪一条 哈拉哈 说的。
However, I do not know with regard to what halakha this distinction is made.
拉比以利以谢 对他说：你所听见的那一层分别，或者单是就安息日说的——作妆饰的环安息日可挪，别样的环不可挪。
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you only heard that distinction with regard to the matter of Shabbat; a ring for adornment may be moved on Shabbat and other rings may not.
因为论不洁之事，这一样环与那一样环并无二致，其间没有分别。
As, with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, this ring and that ring are one and the same, and there is no distinction between them.
然密释纳明说人所戴的环不洁、牲畜与器具的环是洁的。答：他所说的是人所戴的诸环之间并无分别。
革玛拉 举一驳：论不洁之事，这一样与那一样当真并无二致么？
The Gemara raises an objection: And with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one and the same?
我们在一段密释纳里岂不是学过：人所戴的环是不洁的；至于牲畜的环、器具上的环，并一切不是人所戴的环，都是洁的么？
Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A ring worn by a person is ritually impure; however, the ring of an animal, and that of utensils, and all other rings not worn by people are ritually pure?
这样看来，论不洁诸条 哈拉哈，各样环之间也是有分别的。
Apparently, a distinction is made between different types of rings with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity as well.
革玛拉 答：拉比以利以谢 对那门生说那一句时，所说的是：论不洁，人所戴的各样环之间并无分别。
The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that with regard to ritual impurity there is no distinction between different types of rings worn by a person.
然人所戴的环也有别：作带扣、作衣钩的是洁的，惟指上所戴的才不洁。答：他所说的是指上诸环之间无别。
革玛拉 再举一驳：论人所戴的环，这一样与那一样当真并无二致么？
The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to rings worn by a person, are this and that one and the same?
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：人把一个环作成带头的扣、束在腰上，或作成衣钩、系在两肩之间，那是洁的么？
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: A ring that one fashioned into a buckle at the end of a belt to wear it around his waist, or into a clasp to tie garments between his shoulders, is ritually pure?
众贤说环能沾不洁，单是就人指上所戴的环说的。
The Sages only said that a ring is ritually impure with regard to a ring worn on a person’s finger.
这样看来，人所戴的各样环之间实在是有分别的。
Apparently, there is in fact a distinction between different rings worn by a person.
革玛拉 答：拉比以利以谢 对那门生说那一句时，所说的是：人指上所戴的各样环之间并无分别。
The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of rings worn on a person’s finger.
然指环也有别：金属而印是珊瑚的不洁，珊瑚而印是金属的是洁的。答：他所说的是纯金属诸环之间无别。
革玛拉 又举一驳：论人指上所戴的环，这一样与那一样当真并无二致么？
The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to rings worn on a person’s finger, are this and that one and the same?
我们在一段密释纳里岂不是学过：环身是金属的、印是珊瑚的，那是不洁的么？
Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A ring made of metal and its seal is made of coral, is ritually impure?
那环的主体既是金属，便以金属为断；而金属的器皿是能沾不洁的。
The primary component of the ring, metal, is the determining factor, and a metal utensil can become ritually impure.
至于环身是珊瑚的、印是金属的，那是洁的。
However, a ring that is made of coral and its seal is made of metal is ritually pure.
这样看来，论不洁，各样指环之间是有分别的。
Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of finger rings with regard to ritual impurity.
革玛拉 答：拉比以利以谢 对那门生说那一句时，所说的是：纯金属所作的各样环之间并无分别。
The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he too was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of rings that are made entirely of metal.
那门生又问针与针之别；拉比以利以谢 答：或是就安息日说的——有孔的搬了须献赎罪祭，无孔的不须。
那同一个门生又问：我听说针与针之间是有分别的。
And furthermore, that same disciple asked: I heard that one distinguishes between one type of needle and another type of needle.
只是我仍不知道那分别是就哪一条 哈拉哈 说的。
Still, I do not know with regard to what halakha this distinction is made.
拉比以利以谢 对他说：你所听见的那一层分别，或者单是就安息日说的。
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Perhaps you only heard that distinction with regard to Shabbat.
论从私人区搬到公共区、或反过来搬那一禁，有孔的针与无孔的针是有分别的：搬有孔的须献赎罪祭，搬无孔的便不须。
With regard to the prohibition of carrying from a private to a public domain, or vice versa, there is a distinction between a needle with an eye, for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one without an eye, for which one is not.
因为你若说那分别是就不洁说的，那么这一样（有孔的针）与那一样（无孔的针）并无二致，其间没有分别。
As, if you were to suggest that the distinction is with regard to ritual impurity, this, a needle with an eye, and that, a needle without an eye, are one and the same, and there is no distinction between them.
然密释纳说针的孔或尖折了便是洁的。答：他所说的是完好的针之间并无分别。
革玛拉 举一驳：论不洁之事，这一样与那一样当真并无二致么？
The Gemara raises an objection: And with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one and the same?
各样针都一样么？
Are all needles alike?
我们在一段密释纳里岂不是学过：针的孔折了、或尖折了的，是洁的，因为它已不合用了么？
Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A needle whose eye or whose point was removed is ritually pure, as it is no longer fit for use?
这样看来，论不洁诸条 哈拉哈，完好的针与折了的针是有分别的。
Apparently, there is a distinction between an intact needle and a broken one with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.
革玛拉 答：拉比以利以谢 对那门生说那一句时，所指的是完好的针。
The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he was referring to a whole needle.
论不洁诸律，各样完好的针之间确是没有分别的。
Indeed, there is no distinction between different types of whole needles with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.
然完好的针也有别：锈得碍缝的是洁的，不碍缝的是不洁的。答：他所说的是磨光锉过的针之间无别。
革玛拉 再举一驳：论完好的针，这一样与那一样当真并无二致么？
The Gemara raises another objection: And with regard to whole needles, are this and that one and the same?
它们之间就没有分别么？
Is there no distinction between them?
我们在一段密释纳里岂不是学过这一条 哈拉哈：针生了锈的，那锈若碍着缝，便是洁的；若不碍着缝，便是不洁的。
Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to a needle that became rusty; if the rust inhibits the sewing, the needle is ritually pure; and if it does not inhibit the sewing, it is ritually impure.
而 拉比雅奈 门下的众贤说：所谓不能沾不洁，不单指那针推不进布里去的时候；连缝出来的针脚上看得出锈迹的，也算在内。
And the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: And that is the halakha that the needle cannot become ritually impure not only when it is impossible to push the needle through the fabric, but even when the mark of rusty needle is conspicuous in the stitching.
这样看来，各样完好的针之间是有分别的。
Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of whole needles.
革玛拉 答：拉比以利以谢 对那门生说那一句时，所说的是：磨光锉过的各样针之间并无分别。
The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Eliezer was saying that statement to the disciple, he was saying to him that there is no distinction between different types of needles that were smoothed and filed.
他并不是就生锈的针说的。
He was not referring to rusty needles.
然一段 《巴拉伊塔》 说：针无论有孔无孔安息日都可挪，惟论不洁有孔的才有别。
革玛拉 又举一驳：论磨光的针，这一样与那一样当真并无二致么？
The Gemara raises yet another objection: And with regard to smoothed needles, are this and that one and the same?
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：针无论有孔没有孔，安息日都可以挪么？
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: A needle, whether it has an eye and whether it does not have an eye, may be moved on Shabbat?
而我们说过：惟论不洁诸条 哈拉哈，有孔的针才另是一样。
And we only said that a needle with an eye is different with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.
这样看来，论不洁诸律，各样磨光的针之间是有分别的。
Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of smoothed needles with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity.
答：阿巴耶 早已照 拉瓦 的意思把那一段讲作「未作成的针」——未穿孔便还不成器，故不能沾不洁。
革玛拉 答：阿巴耶 岂不是早已照 拉瓦 的意思，把那一段 《巴拉伊塔》 讲作论未作成的针么？
The Gemara answers: Didn’t Abaye already interpret that baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava as referring to unfinished needles?
针若还没有作成、也还没有穿孔，它便不能沾不洁，因为它还不成其为器皿。
If a needle is unfinished, and it has not been perforated to create an eye, it cannot become ritually impure because it is not yet a utensil.
但那针若已作成，无论有孔（作缝衣之用）还是无孔（作别针之用），都算作器皿，所以能沾不洁。
However, if the needle is finished, whether it has an eye and is used for sewing, or it does not have an eye and is used as a pin, it is regarded as a utensil and therefore can become ritually impure.
驴可带鞍布出去；公绵羊带 莱武宾，母绵羊带 舍胡佐特、凯武洛特、凯武诺特；母山羊可缚乳房。拉比约西 惟许 凯武诺特。
驴安息日可以带着鞍布出去——那是拴在牲畜身上、护它免寒的，不必虑它掉下来。
A donkey may go out on Shabbat with a saddlecloth that protects it from the cold when it is tied to the animal, and there is no room for concern lest it fall.
公绵羊可以带着 莱武宾 出去。
Rams may go out levuvin.
母绵羊可以带着 舍胡佐特、凯武洛特、凯武诺特 出去。
Ewes may go out sheḥuzot, kevulot, and kevunot.
这几个名目 革玛拉 在下文一一论说讲明。
All of these terms are discussed and explained in the Gemara.
母山羊可以缚着乳房出去。
She-goats may go out with their udders bound.
拉比约西 禁牲畜带这几样出去，以为那都是重担，惟有母绵羊带着 凯武诺特 的一样例外。
Rabbi Yosei prohibits the animals from going out with all of these items, as he considers them burdens, except for the ewes that are kevunot.
拉比犹大 说：为回乳而缚的可以出去（那结系得紧），为存奶而缚的不可（那结系得松）。
拉比犹大 说：母山羊安息日可以缚着乳房出去，那是为把奶回了、叫它止乳，好叫它容易受孕。
Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats may go out on Shabbat with their udders bound to dry their milk supply and discontinue their lactation, in order to facilitate conception.
那样的情形下，那结是系得紧、系得牢的，不必虑它在公共区里掉下来。
In that case, they are tied with a tight, permanent knot, and there is no concern lest it fall in the public domain.
但它们不可为存奶而缚着乳房出去，因为那样的结是系得松的。
However, they may not go out with their udders bound to conserve their milk, as in that case they are bound loosely.