← 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 6 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。
拉比奥沙亚 论护身符说「只要他不拿在手里在公共区搬四肘」——可见佩着与拿着仍有分别。
只是一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过，拉比奥沙亚 论护身符说：只要他不拿在手里、在公共区里搬了四肘么？
But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Oshaya says with regard to an amulet: As long as he does not hold it in his hand and carry it four cubits in the public domain?
这样看来，连护身符也是佩着与拿着有分别的。
Apparently, even with regard to an amulet, there is a distinction between wearing it and carrying it.
答：所论的是包了皮子的护身符——字既遮住了，带进厕所也不算轻慢神的名。
倒不如说：我们这里所论的是怎样的情形呢？
Rather, with what are we dealing here?
是包了皮子的护身符。
With an amulet that is covered in leather.
所写的字既遮住了，他带着它进厕所，也不算轻慢神的名。
Since the writing itself is covered, the name of God is not degraded when the amulet is brought into the bathroom with him.
经匣里的经卷也是皮子包着的，一段 《巴拉伊塔》 却说进厕所须在四肘之外先解下来。
革玛拉 驳道。
The Gemara objects.
经匣 里的经卷上也有字，那字正是匣子的皮子包着的；纵然如此，一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里仍教过：人系着 经匣 要进厕所，须在四肘之外把 经匣 解下来，然后才进去。
There is writing on the scrolls of phylacteries, which is covered in the leather of boxes housing the scrolls, and nevertheless it was taught in a baraita: One who enters a bathroom while wearing phylacteries must remove the phylacteries at a distance of four cubits and only then enter.
可见字遮住不遮住，在律上并没有分别。
There is no halakhic difference whether or not the writing is covered.
答：经匣所以不可带进厕所，不因里头的字，是因革带上凸出的 שׁ、带结的 ד 字形、并 י——三样都是西奈传下的律。
革玛拉 驳这一说：那里论 经匣，不许带进厕所并不是为着匣里经卷上所写的圣字。
The Gemara rejects this: There, with regard to phylacteries, the prohibition to enter the bathroom is not due to the sacred writing on the scrolls inside the phylacteries.
倒是为着头上那副 经匣 匣子皮面上凸出来的那个字母 שׁ；因为 阿巴耶 说：经匣 上这个 שׁ 的出处，是西奈传给摩西的一条 哈拉哈。
Rather, it is due to the letter shin that protrudes from the leather of the boxes housing the scroll in the phylacteries of the head, as Abaye said: The source of the requirement of the shin of the phylacteries is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
本段三处所说的都是字母的形状——革带上凸出的 שׁ、带结所作的 ד 字形、并 י——所以照本项目解字的成例直书希伯来字母，不写罗马转写。
那是 妥拉 之律所定的。
It is required by Torah law.
阿巴耶 又说：头上那副 经匣 的革带上作 ד 字形的那个结，也是西奈传给摩西的一条 哈拉哈。
And, Abaye said: The knot in the shape of the letter dalet in the straps of the phylacteries of the head is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
阿巴耶 又说：经匣 上那个字母 י，也是西奈传给摩西的一条 哈拉哈。
And, Abaye said: The letter yod of the phylacteries is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
正为这几个字母的缘故，人须守住 经匣 的圣，不可带它进厕所。
It is due to those letters that one must safeguard the sanctity of the phylacteries and refrain from taking them into the bathroom.
回到密释纳：他不可带战甲、盔、胫甲出去——这几个名目当日不明，故革玛拉讲明。
我们在密释纳里学过：他也不可带着 战甲 出去，不可带着 盔 出去，也不可带着 胫甲 出去。
We learned in the mishna: And he may neither go out with shiryon, nor with a kasda, nor with maggafayim.
这几个名目当日人不明白，所以 革玛拉 一一讲明：
These terms were not understood, and therefore the Gemara explains them:
战甲 就是鳞甲；盔，拉夫 说是金属盔底下戴的皮帽；胫甲，拉夫 说是护膝以下的腿甲。
战甲 就是 鳞甲，鳞片缀成的甲。
Shiryon is a coat of mail [zerada], armor made of scales.
论 盔：拉夫 说那是戴在金属盔底下的 皮帽。
Kasda: Rav said that it is a leather hat [sanvarta] worn under a metal helmet.
论 胫甲：拉夫 说那是护膝以下的腿甲。
Maggafayim: Rav said they are leg armor worn beneath the knee.
新一段密释纳：妇人不可带有孔的针、有印的戒指、衣扣、香囊、并一瓶凤仙油出去。
妇人不可带着有孔的针（就是寻常带针眼的针）进公共区，不可带着有印的戒指出去，不可带着 衣扣 出去，不可带着 香囊 出去（这两样是什么，底下革玛拉要论），也不可带着一瓶凤仙油出去。
A woman may neither go out to the public domain with a perforated needle, i.e., a standard needle with an eye, nor with a ring that has a seal on it, nor with a kulyar, nor with a kovelet, the identity of which will be discussed in the Gemara, nor with a flask of balsam oil.
她若出去了，拉比梅伊尔 说要献赎罪祭；众拉比却免了带 香囊 与凤仙油的。
她若带着这几样进了公共区，就要献赎罪祭——这是 拉比梅伊尔 的意思；他所持的是：这样行便干犯了 妥拉 所禁「安息日在公共区里担重担」这一条。
And if she did go out into the public domain, she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that in doing so she violated the Torah prohibition of carrying a burden in the public domain on Shabbat.
众拉比却免了安息日带着 香囊 与一瓶凤仙油出去的人。
And the Rabbis exempt one who goes out on Shabbat with a kovelet and with a flask of balsam oil.
依他们的意思，这两样算作妆饰，所以根本没有干犯 妥拉 所禁安息日在公共区搬运这一条。
In their opinion, these are ornaments, and therefore they do not fundamentally violate the Torah prohibition of carrying in the public domain on Shabbat.
乌拉 说男人反是：有印的戒指免责，没印的反要献祭——可见宜于男的便不宜于女的。
论我们在密释纳里所学的——妇人安息日不可带着有印的戒指出去，由此可推没有印的她便可以带着出去——乌拉 说：论到男人，这几条 哈拉哈 正相反。
With regard to that which we learned in the mishna that a woman may not go out on Shabbat with a ring that has a seal, and by inference that she may go out with a ring without a seal, Ulla said: And the reverse of these halakhot is true with regard to a man.
男人戴着有印的戒指进公共区，是免责的。
A man who wears a ring with a seal in the public domain is exempt.
他若戴着没有印的戒指，倒要献赎罪祭，因为那在男人身上不算妆饰。
However, if he wears a ring without a seal, he is liable to bring a sin-offering as it is not considered an ornament for a man.
革玛拉 由这一句断道：这样看来，乌拉 所持的是——凡宜于男人的便不宜于妇人，凡宜于妇人的便不宜于男人。
Based on that statement, the Gemara concludes: Apparently, Ulla holds that every object that is suitable for a man is not suitable for a woman, and an object that is suitable for a woman is not suitable for a man.
拉夫约瑟 举《托塞夫塔》相难：牧人可穿口袋出去，别人也一样——可见非其常服者亦许。
拉夫约瑟 举 《托塞夫塔》 相难：牧人安息日可以穿着口袋作的衣裳出去。
Rav Yosef raised an objection from the Tosefta: Shepherds may go out on Shabbat in garments made of sacks.
众贤说安息日可以穿口袋出去，并不单指牧人；无论谁都可以。
And not with regard to the shepherds alone did the Sages say that they are permitted to go out in sacks on Shabbat; rather, any person may do so.
众贤所以就牧人教这条 哈拉哈，是因为牧人素常穿着口袋出去。
However, the Sages taught the halakha with regard to shepherds because it is the standard practice of shepherds to go out in sacks.
这样看来，口袋虽不是众人常穿的衣裳，连不是牧人、素常不穿它的人，也照样是许的。
Apparently, although a sack is not a typical garment for most people, it is permitted even for one who is not a shepherd and would not generally wear it.
照同一条道理：男人虽不素常戴妇人的首饰，妇人也不素常戴男人的首饰，究竟偶尔男人也戴一戴妇人的、妇人也戴一戴男人的；那么各人带着对方的首饰进公共区，就都该许才是。
Based on the same principle, although men do not generally wear women’s ornaments and women do not generally wear men’s ornaments, since occasionally a man might wear an ornament belonging to a woman or vice versa, each should be permitted to go out into the public domain with the ornament of the other.
拉夫约瑟 改说：乌拉 所持的是「妇人自成一族」。
倒是 拉夫约瑟 说：乌拉 所持的是——妇人自成一族。
Rather, Rav Yosef said: Ulla holds that women are a people unto themselves.
男人与妇人素常之别，比各行各业的人彼此之别还要大。
The difference between the standard practice of men and women is greater than the difference between the standard practice of practitioners of different professions.
阿巴耶 举《托塞夫塔》相难：拾得经匣的人当逐副系着带回城，男女都一样；妇人岂不免于按时之诫么？
阿巴耶 举 《托塞夫塔》 来驳 拉夫约瑟 所说的：安息日在城外拾得 经匣 的，当把它们系上、逐副带进城里。
Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef’s statement from the Tosefta: One who finds phylacteries outside of the city on Shabbat should don them and bring them into the city one pair at a time.
这话男人妇人都一样。
This applies to both a man and a woman.
你若说妇人自成一族，那么系 经匣 岂不是按时而行的正诫么——因为有些时候本不该系 经匣。
And if you say that women are a people unto themselves, isn’t the mitzva to don phylacteries a time-bound, positive mitzva, as there are times when the mitzva to don phylacteries is not in effect?
律上有一条：凡按时而行的正诫，妇人都是免的。
And the following is a halakhic principle: Women are exempt from every time-bound, positive mitzva.
男人的衣饰若果然在任何情形下都不宜于妇人，那么安息日何以许妇人把 经匣 系上带进城里呢？
If, in fact, the clothing and ornaments of a man are not suitable for a woman under any circumstances, why is a woman permitted to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city on Shabbat?
那岂不该算作所禁的搬运么？
Shouldn’t that be considered a prohibited act of carrying?
答：论经匣，拉比梅伊尔 所持的是夜间与安息日节期都是系经匣之时——那便不是按时之诫，妇人也有分。
革玛拉 答：那里论 经匣，拉比梅伊尔 所持的是：夜间正是系 经匣 之时，安息日与节期照样也是系 经匣 之时。
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to phylacteries, Rabbi Meir holds that night is an appropriate time to don phylacteries, and Shabbat and Festivals are similarly an appropriate time to don phylacteries.
既然如此，系 经匣 便是不按时而行的正诫；凡不按时而行的正诫，妇人都是有分的。
Consequently, the mitzva of phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound; and in every positive mitzva that is not time bound, women are obligated.
所以许妇人把 经匣 系上带进城里。
Therefore, women are permitted to don the phylacteries and bring them into the city.
拉比梅伊尔 说妇人戴有印的戒指出去要献祭——那岂不是「反手而搬」么？
论 拉比梅伊尔 在密释纳里所断的——妇人戴着有印的戒指进公共区，按 妥拉 之律有责——革玛拉 问：那岂不算作反手而搬么？
With regard to Rabbi Meir’s ruling in the mishna that a woman is liable by Torah law if she goes out into the public domain wearing a ring with a seal, the Gemara asks: Isn’t it considered carrying out in a backhanded manner?
有印的戒指于妇人不算妆饰，与别的物件一样。
A ring with a seal is not an ornament for a woman; it is an object like any other.
人搬物件素常是拿在手里的。
One typically carries objects holding them in his hand.
套在指头上本不是常法。
Wearing an object around one’s finger is atypical.
凡不照常法作的工，妥拉 之律并不算干犯。
There is no Torah prohibition violated when a labor is performed in an atypical manner.
拉比耶利米 说所论的是掌赈济库的妇人；拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 说：妇人这一面讲通了，男人那一面怎么讲？
拉比耶利米 说：密释纳所论的是掌赈济库的妇人。
Rabbi Yirmeya said that we are dealing in the mishna with a woman who is a treasurer for charity.
作这一样差事的妇人，素常把有印的戒指套在指头上，好办她的事。
A woman with that occupation typically wears a ring with a seal on her finger in order to perform her job.
她戴它并不是作妆饰。
She does not, though, wear it as an ornament.
拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 说 拉比约哈难 说：论妇人，你算是答上、讲明她何以要献赎罪祭了。
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You answered and explained why, in the case of a woman, she would be liable to bring a sin-offering.
只是论男人戴着没有印的戒指，又有什么可说的呢？
However, in the case of a man who wore a ring without a seal, what is there to say?
他何以该有责呢？
Why should he be liable?
拉瓦 另解：丈夫托妻子把有印的戒指收进匣里，她便套在指上；妻子托丈夫送没印的戒指去修，他也套在指上——那正是常法。
倒是 拉瓦 说另有一层缘故：人有时把一枚有印的戒指交给妻子，叫她带回家收进匣里；妇人怕失落，便把它套在手上（就是指头上），直到走到匣子那里。
Rather, Rava said that there is a different reason: Sometimes a person gives his wife a ring that has a seal on it to take it to his house and place it in a box for safekeeping, and, in order to ensure that she does not lose the ring, the woman places it in on her hand, i.e., on her finger, until she reaches the box.
照样，妇人有时也把一枚没有印的戒指交给丈夫，叫他送到匠人那里去修；丈夫也把它套在手上（就是指头上），直到走到匠人那里。
And, likewise, sometimes a woman gives her husband a ring that does not have a seal on it to take it to a craftsman to repair it, and the husband places it on his hand, i.e., on his finger, until he reaches the craftsman.
戴这两样戒指本不是为着妆饰。
The purpose of wearing these rings is not for ornamentation.
纵然如此，那也算作搬它们的常法。
Nevertheless, it is considered a typical manner of carrying them.
衣扣 与 香囊 是什么？拉夫 说 衣扣 是扣衣领的搭扣，香囊 是一束香草；拉夫阿西 亦然。
我们在密释纳里学过：也不可带着 衣扣 出去，不可带着 香囊 出去。
We learned in the mishna: Nor with a kulyar, nor with a kovelet.
革玛拉 问：衣扣 是什么呢？
The Gemara asks: What is a kulyar?
拉夫 说：是妇人扣住衣领的一件搭扣。
Rav said: A brooch with which a woman fastens the collar of her garment.
论 香囊：拉夫 说那就是 香草束。
Kovelet: Rav said that it is a bundle of fragrant herbs [pilon].
拉夫阿西 也照样说：是一束香草。
And, similarly, Rav Asi said: A bundle of fragrant herbs.
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 三说：拉比梅伊尔 说带香草束出去要献祭；众拉比说按理不可、出去了免责；拉比以利以谢 说按理便可。
众贤在一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：妇人安息日不可带着一束香草出去；她若带着出去了，就要献赎罪祭，因为她干犯了 妥拉 之禁——这是 拉比梅伊尔 的意思。
The Sages taught in a baraita: A woman may not go out on Shabbat with a bundle of fragrant herbs, and if she did go out she is liable to bring a sin-offering, as she violated a Torah prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
众拉比却说：按理她不可带着出去；出去了却免责。
And the Rabbis say: She may not go out ab initio; however, if she went out, she is exempt.
拉比以利以谢 说：妇人按理便可以带着一束香草出去。
Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out with a bundle of fragrant herbs even ab initio.
三说所争何在？照明 以为是重担；众拉比以为是妆饰而虑她取下给人闻；以利以谢 说带香草的本是身有异味的妇人，断不肯取下来。
革玛拉 问：他们所争的是哪一条道理呢？
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree?
拉比梅伊尔 所持的是：那算重担。
Rabbi Meir holds that it is a burden.
既然如此，安息日把它带进公共区的就要献赎罪祭。
Therefore, one who takes it out into the public domain on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.
众拉比所持的是：那是妆饰。
And the Rabbis hold that it is an ornament.
纵然如此，他们仍按理禁人带着它出去，是可虑她把那束香草从原处取下来给人看，就在公共区里带着走了。
Nevertheless, they prohibited going out with it ab initio due to concern lest she remove the bundle of herbs from its place, and show it to others, and come to carry it in the public domain.
拉比以利以谢 所持的是：把香草带在身上的是哪一等人呢？
And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whose practice is it to place fragrant herbs on herself?
是身上有异味的妇人。
A woman whose odor is foul.
身上有异味的妇人却不肯取下来给人看，因为一取下来，她的气味就叫人闻见了，那是她极不愿意的。
But a woman whose odor is foul does not remove and show the bundle to others because, by doing so, her odor will be detected, a situation that she would prefer to avoid.
既然如此，她就不至在公共区里把它搬了四肘。
And, therefore she will not come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.
这一段说 拉比以利以谢 按理便许，另一段却说他「免责」——免责是说拉比之律仍按理禁。
这一段 《巴拉伊塔》 引 拉比以利以谢 的意思，说他连按理也许人带着一束香草进公共区。
This baraita cites the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits, even ab initio, going out into the public domain with a bundle of herbs.
革玛拉 问：另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过：拉比以利以谢 免了安息日带着一束香草与一瓶凤仙油出去的妇人么？
The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in another baraita: Rabbi Eliezer exempts a woman who goes out on Shabbat with a bundle of herbs and with a flask of balsam oil?
论安息日诸 哈拉哈，所谓「免责」，是说 妥拉 之律虽不禁，拉比所立的却仍按理禁着。
With regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, exempt means that although it is not prohibited by Torah law, it is prohibited ab initio by rabbinic law.
答：这不难——对 拉比梅伊尔 说话时说「免责」，对众拉比说话时说「按理便许」。
革玛拉 答：这不难。
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.
拉比以利以谢 说这一句的时候，是在答 拉比梅伊尔 所说的。
When Rabbi Eliezer made this statement, it was when he was addressing the statement of Rabbi Meir.
他说那一句的时候，是在答众拉比所说的。
When Rabbi Eliezer made that statement, it was when he was addressing the statement of the Rabbis.
讲明了说：他答 拉比梅伊尔（那一位说她要献赎罪祭）的时候，对他说她免献那祭。
To clarify: When he was addressing the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said that she is liable to bring a sin-offering, he said to him that she is exempt from bringing the sacrifice.
他答众拉比（那几位说她免责、按理却仍禁）的时候，说按理便是许的。
When he was addressing the statement of the Rabbis, who said that she is exempt but it is prohibited ab initio, he said that it is permitted even ab initio.