← 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 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。
接上：只是不可把护身符系在镯子或戒指上带出去——那看去像是单为妆饰而戴，是禁的。
系在镯子或戒指上、带着它进公共区。
to a bracelet or a ring and go out with it into the public domain.
所以禁，是为着看去像是干犯——那样一来，他看去像是单为妆饰而戴那护身符，那是禁的。
The reason for the prohibition is due to the appearance of transgression, as, in that case, it appears that he is wearing the amulet strictly for ornamental purposes, which is prohibited.
验效之符既定作「医好一人三次」，何以另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 说「一并医好三个人」？
论到验效之符定作「医好一人三次」的，革玛拉 举一难。
With regard to the definition of an effective amulet as one which healed one person three times, the Gemara raises an objection.
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：哪一样算验过有效的护身符呢？凡一并医好三个人的便是。
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Which is an effective amulet; any amulet that healed three people as one?
答：那一段说的是验写符之人的手艺，这一段说的是验那符本身的效验。
革玛拉 答：这不难。
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.
这一处（《巴拉伊塔》 教那符须医好三个不同的人的）说的是验写符那人的手艺。
This, where it was taught in the baraita that the amulet must have healed three different people, is referring to proving the expertise of the man who wrote it.
他所写的符既医好了三个害不同病的人，写符的人自是行家了。
Once his amulets have proven themselves by healing three different people stricken with different illnesses, clearly the one who wrote them is an expert.
那一处（《托塞夫塔》 教纵医好一人三次也算的）说的是验那符本身合不合它所派的用处。
That, where it was taught in the Tosefta that even if the amulet healed one person three times, is referring to proving that the amulet is effective in fulfilling its designated purpose.
拉夫帕帕 分三样：三符三人各三次，人与符都验；三符三人各一次，验人不验符；一符医三人，验符不验人。
拉夫帕帕 说：有几样我是明白的——写三道符给三个人、每人各医好三次的，那么写符的人验作行家，那符也验作有效。
Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me in a case where three amulets were written for three people and effectively healed each three times that both the man who wrote them is proven an expert and the amulet is proven effective.
照样，我也明白：人写三道符给三个人、每人各医好一次的，那人验作行家，那符却没有验作有效。
Likewise, it is obvious to me that in the case of one who writes three amulets for three people and healed each one time, the man is proven to be an expert; however, the amulet is not proven effective.
照样，人写一道符医好了三个人的，那符验作有效，写符的人却不因此验作行家。
Similarly, if one wrote one amulet for three people and it healed them, the amulet is proven effective, while the man who wrote it is not thereby proven an expert.
拉夫帕帕 又问：三符与一人，写的人算不算行家？是他手艺灵，还是那病人的福分？此难存疑。
拉夫帕帕 提出一难：写三道符给一个人，那符与写符的人又当怎么论呢？
Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: Three amulets for one person, what is the status of the amulet and the one who wrote it in that case?
那符断然没有验作有效；只是写符的那人，算不算验作行家呢？
The amulet is certainly not proven effective; however, with regard to the man who wrote it, is he proven an expert or is he not proven an expert?
所难的是这一层：我们说那人是行家，因为他所写的符把病人医好了么？
This is the dilemma: Do we say that the person is an expert since the amulet that he wrote healed the person who was ill?
还是说，那是那一个病人的福分，他受了写符的功效，换一个人却医不好呢？
Or, perhaps we say that it was the fortune of that sick man who received the influence of the writing of the amulet, but a different person would not be healed?
革玛拉 断道：这一难且存着不解。
The Gemara concludes: Let this dilemma stand unresolved.
众贤面前又有一难：护身符有没有圣物的分？这一难在哪一条哈拉哈上要紧？若说火里抢救，那已有明文。
众贤面前有一难：护身符算不算有几分圣，还是全然没有圣可言呢？
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do amulets have an element of sanctity, or perhaps they have no element of sanctity?
革玛拉 问：这一难在哪一条 哈拉哈 上要紧呢？
The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this dilemma relevant?
你若说在安息日从火里抢救它们这一层上，那已有明文可解。
If you say it is relevant with regard to rescuing them from fire on Shabbat, there is a clear resolution to the dilemma.
你来听所教的：祝祷文与护身符，纵上头写着圣名的字母、写着托拉里许多话，也不可从火里抢救出来，任它们就地烧了。
Come and hear what was taught: The blessings and the amulets, even though there are letters of holy names and many matters that are in the Torah written in them, one may not rescue them from the fire, and they burn in their place.
那么是在「当不当埋」这一层上？答：这也有明文——器柄床脚上写了神的名，也须割下来埋掉。
倒不如说：这一难要紧在圣物当埋这一层上。
Rather, the dilemma is relevant with regard to the matter of interment of sacred documents.
护身符不用了，当埋掉呢，还是丢了也可以呢？
Must an amulet no longer in use be buried, or may it be discarded?
只是论到当埋这一层，也有明文可解——你来听所教的：神的名若写在器皿的柄上、甚至写在床脚上，人也须把那名割下来埋掉，因为无论神的名写在哪里，人都当十分郑重。
However, with regard to the matter of interment as well, come and hear a resolution from what was taught: If one of the names of God was written even on the handles of the vessels and even on legs of the bed, he must cut off the name and bury it, as one must be exacting with regard to the name of God, wherever it is written.
那么所难的是：可不可以佩着它进厕所？由密释纳「不是出于行家的」一句可推。
倒不如说：所难的是可不可以佩着它进厕所。
Rather, the dilemma was raised with regard to whether or not it is permitted to enter the bathroom with them.
这条 哈拉哈 该怎么定呢？
What is the halakha?
它们是有圣可言、因而禁么？
Do they have sanctity, and it is therefore prohibited?
还是全然没有圣可言、因而许呢？
Or, perhaps they have no sanctity, and it is permitted?
你来听我们这一段密释纳里所学的，可解这一难：也不可带着不是出于行家的护身符出去。
Come and hear a resolution from that which we learned in our mishna: Nor with an amulet, when it is not from an expert.
由此可推：若是出于行家的，他便可以带着它出去。
By inference: If it is from an expert, he may go out with it.
护身符若有圣，他有时要进厕所、须解下、又忘了，就在公共区里搬了四肘——密释纳既没有提这一层，可见无圣。
你若说护身符有几分圣，那么他有时要上厕所，须把符解下来，解了又忘了，就在公共区里把它搬了四肘。
And, if you say that amulets have an element of sanctity, at times he will need to go to the bathroom, will be required to remove the amulets, forget that he removed them, and come to carry them four cubits in the public domain.
密释纳既没有提这几层难处，这样看来，论这一件事护身符是没有圣可言的，人尽可佩着它进厕所。
Since the mishna did not address these complications, apparently amulets do not have an element of sanctity in that regard and one may enter the bathroom with them.
革玛拉 驳这一说：我们这里所论的是怎样的情形呢？
The Gemara rejects this: With what we are dealing here?
是草根作的护身符——那样的断然没有圣可言。
With an amulet made of herbal roots that certainly has no sanctity.
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 说写的符与草根的符一例；改说是病危之人，可是那段又说病危不病危一例。
革玛拉 问：一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：无论是写的符还是草根作的符，都是如此么？可见两样的 哈拉哈 是一样的。
The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: This is the case with regard to both a written amulet and an amulet of herbal roots, indicating that their halakhot are equal?
倒不如说：我们这里所论的是怎样的情形呢？
Rather, with what we are dealing here?
是性命垂危的病人。
With a person who is dangerously ill.
因为性命攸关，纵有轻慢圣名之嫌，也许他佩着符进厕所。
Because of the life-threatening situation, he is permitted to enter the bathroom with his amulet, despite the resulting degradation of the Holy Name.
只是同一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：这条 哈拉哈 无论病危的人还是不病危的人都一样么？可见这一层上两样身分相同。
Wasn’t it taught in the same baraita that the halakha applies to both a sick person who is dangerously ill and a sick person who is not dangerously ill, indicating that they share the same status in this regard?
答：那符既能医治，纵拿在手里也可以带着出去——挂颈上与拿手里，于医治并无分别。
倒不如说：那符既能医治，纵他拿在手里，也尽可以带着它出去。
Rather, since the amulet heals, even though he holds it in his hand, he may well go out with it too.
论医治，那符挂在颈上还是拿在手里，本没有分别；众贤既许他安息日挂在颈上，也就照样许他拿在手里。
In terms of healing, there is no difference whether the amulet is hanging around his neck or whether it is in his hand; just as they permitted him to wear it around his neck on Shabbat, so too they permitted him to carry it in his hand.