← 安息日卷总目·第六章 妇人带什么出去
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 10 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。
无舌的铃铛仍算器皿，因为拿它敲瓦器也出得声来；既如此，铃舌拆了它仍派得上原用。
它仍算器皿，因为没有铃舌的铃铛拿来敲瓦器，也出得一样的声来。
It is considered a vessel since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware and produce a sound of similar quality to that produced by a clapper.
既然如此，纵铃舌拆去了，那铃铛还派得上它本来的用处。
If so, even when the clapper is removed, the bell may still be used for its original purpose.
拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 说因为敲瓦器出声；拉比约哈难 说因为可以拿它给小孩喂水。
有话传下来说：拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 说：它仍算器皿，因为没有铃舌的铃铛拿来敲瓦器也出得声来。
It was also stated that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: It is considered a vessel, since a bell without a clapper is suited to strike on earthenware.
拉比约哈难 说：它仍算器皿，因为可以拿它给小孩喂水喝。
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is considered a vessel, since it is suited for use to give water to a child to drink.
拉比约哈难 岂不讲究新用须与旧工同类么？举 《巴拉伊塔》：塞亚与半塞亚的量器翻过来坐上去，不算「坐卧之器」。
论到 拉比约哈难 那一句本身，革玛拉 问：器皿变了以后要仍旧沾得不洁，拉比约哈难 岂不是讲究新的用处须与本来的工用同类么？
And with regard to the essence of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan not require that the vessel’s new usage must be of the same type as the original labor in order for it to retain its ritual impurity after it has undergone change?
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：「漏症者 所躺的床都为不洁，凡他所坐的物件也都为不洁」（利未记 15:4）。
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: “Every bed on which a zav is lying is ritually impure and every vessel on which he is sitting shall be ritually impure” (Leviticus 15:4).
我本可以照这一节想：人若把一个 塞亚 的量器翻过来坐上去，或把一个 半塞亚 的量器翻过来坐上去，那量器便沾了不洁。
I might have thought, based on this verse, that if one overturned a vessel the size of a se’a and sat on it, or overturned a vessel the size of a half-se’a [tarkav] and sat on it, the vessel would become ritually impure.
所以经上说「他所坐的」——就是专派了坐的；这便把那一样撇开了：人对 漏症者 说「你起来，我们要拿这器皿作我们的活计」的那一样。
Therefore, the verse states: On which the zav is sitting, i.e., that which is designated for sitting, excluding that vessel with regard to which one says to the zav: Stand and we will perform our labor with the vessel.
那样的器皿既素常派了坐以外的用处，纵 漏症者 坐上去，它也不沾不洁。
In that case, because the vessel is primarily used for purposes other than sitting, it does not become ritually impure even when the zav sits on it.
诸阿摩拉有争：拉比以利亚撒 说「你起来」一语只用于践踏之不洁，拉比约哈难 说连尸首之不洁也用。
论这一层，诸 阿摩拉 有一争：拉比以利亚撒 说：论践踏所致的不洁（מִדְרָס，就是 漏症者 或月事之妇坐卧其上所染的那诸 哈拉哈），人可以说「你起来，我们要拿它作我们的活计」，那器皿便保得洁净。
There is a dispute between the amora’im on this matter: Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to ritual impurity imparted by treading [midras], i.e., the halakhot pertaining to a zav or to a menstruating woman who sits or lies down on an object, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel.
至于因尸首而不洁的，却不可说「你起来，我们要拿它作我们的活计」来保它洁净。
However, one does not state with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel.
就是说：器皿因触着尸首而沾了不洁，后来坏了，既还派得上别的用处，它仍算器皿，仍沾得不洁。
In other words, an object that became ritually impure through contact with a corpse and was subsequently broken, since it is possible to use it for some other purpose, it remains a vessel and susceptible to ritual impurity.
拉比约哈难 却说：连因尸首而不洁的，也可以说「你起来，我们要拿它作我们的活计」来保它洁净。
However, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even with regard to one who is ritually impure due to a corpse, one states the principle: Stand and we will perform our labor to maintain the purity of the vessel.
依他的意思，器皿既不再合乎本来的用处，纵还派得上别的用处，也算是坏了。
According to his opinion, a vessel that is no longer suited for its initial use, even though it serves another purpose, is considered broken.
既然如此，那铃铛既不再响得成，依 拉比约哈难 的意思它便是洁的——纵它还盛得住水给人喝。
Therefore, the bell, since it is no longer suited for ringing, remains ritually pure according to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, even though it remains suited for drinking water.
答：把前一争的两说对调，「喂小孩喝水」那句不是 拉比约哈难 说的。问：何不对调后一争？
革玛拉 答：把前一争的两说对调过来：说那缘故的并不是 拉比约哈难，是 拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西。
The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions in the first dispute: It was not Rabbi Yoḥanan who gave that reason; it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.
革玛拉 问：你凭什么要对调前一争呢？
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to reverse the first?
何不把后一争里 拉比约哈难 与 拉比以利亚撒 的两说对调，这样也免了 拉比约哈难 前后相违。
Reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar in the latter dispute, and avoid a contradiction in the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan in that way.
答：别处已知 拉比约哈难 讲究新用与旧工同类——铁的马蹄铁于人何用？拉夫、拉比哈尼纳、拉比约哈难 三说。
革玛拉 答：那是因为我们在别处已经学过 拉比约哈难 讲究器皿新的用处须与本来的工用同类。
The Gemara answers: That is because we learned elsewhere that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires that the vessel’s new use will be of the same type as the original labor.
他在这里的意思，与他在那里的意思正一贯。
His opinion here is consistent with his opinion there.
因为一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：牲畜的蹄铁若是金属作的，便沾得不洁。
As it was taught in a baraita: The shoe of an animal, if it is made of metal, can become ritually impure.
革玛拉 问：它于人派得上什么用处呢？
The Gemara asks: For what use by people is it suited?
专派牲畜用的器具，除非于人也有些用处，是不沾不洁的。
Vessels designated for animal use do not become ritually impure unless they have some use for people.
拉夫 说：它派得上这一样用处——打仗时若没有别的器皿，人可以拿它盛水喝。
Rav said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could drink water in war when there are no other available vessels.
拉比哈尼纳 说：它派得上这一样用处——打仗时人可以拿它盛油抹身。
And Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is suited for use as a vessel from which one could smear oil on his body during a war.
拉比约哈难 说：人从阵上逃跑的时候，把它套在脚上，好踏着荆棘蒺藜跑过去。
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When he flees from the battlefield he places it on his foot and runs over thorns and the thistles.
这样看来，牲畜的蹄铁于人惟有那一样与本来工用同类的用处，才叫它沾得不洁。
Apparently, the only use for the shoe of an animal that would render it capable of becoming ritually impure when used by a person is use of the same type as the original labor.
拉夫 与 拉比哈尼纳 之说有何分别？在蹄铁污秽可厌的时候。
革玛拉 顺带问：拉夫 所解的与 拉比哈尼纳 所解的，实行起来有什么分别呢？
The Gemara asks parenthetically: What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rav and that of Rabbi Ḥanina?
革玛拉 答：两说的分别在蹄铁污秽可厌的时候。
The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the sandal is repulsive and dirty.
依 拉夫 的意思，人既不肯拿它盛水喝，它便不沾不洁。
In Rav’s opinion, since one would not drink water from it, it cannot become ritually impure.
依 拉比哈尼纳 的意思，人还可以拿它盛油抹身，所以它沾得不洁。
According to Rabbi Ḥanina, since one could still use it to spread oil on his body, it can become ritually impure.
拉比约哈难 与 拉比哈尼纳 之说有何分别？在蹄铁沉重的时候。
拉比约哈难 所解的与 拉比哈尼纳 所解的，实行起来有什么分别呢？
What is the practical difference between the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan and that of Rabbi Ḥanina?
两说的分别在蹄铁沉重的时候。
There is a practical difference between them in a case where the shoe is heavy.
那样的蹄铁盛油抹身还使得，套在脚上却使不得。
It is suited for spreading oil; it is not suited for one to place on his foot.
所以依 拉比约哈难 的意思，它便不沾不洁。
Therefore, it cannot become ritually impure according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.
回到密释纳：「金城冠」是什么？拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 说 拉比约哈难 说：是刻着耶路撒冷城的金冠。
我们在密释纳里学过：妇人安息日也不可带着金城冠进公共区。
We learned in the mishna: And neither may a woman go out on Shabbat to the public domain with a city of gold.
革玛拉 问：所谓「金城冠」是什么呢？
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: With a city of gold?
拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 说 拉比约哈难 说：是「金的耶路撒冷」，一顶刻着耶路撒冷城形状的金冠，
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Jerusalem of Gold, a gold tiara engraved with a depiction of the city of Jerusalem,