← 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 5 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：由尸首之不洁那一处的「器皿」与别样不洁那一处的「器皿」相钩而得。
——由那里论尸首所染之不洁诸 哈拉哈 所写的「器皿」，与论别样不洁诸 哈拉哈 所写的「器皿」相钩而得。
from the word vessel written there, with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and the word vessel written with regard to the halakhot of other impurities.
「口袋添在衣服一类」——难道衣服不是织物么？当作「山羊毛的口袋纵未织也沾不洁」；穷人拿三根羊毛编了挂在女儿颈上作妆饰。
那一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：口袋也添在「衣服」一类里；它也因是织物而沾得不洁。
It was taught in the baraita that a sack is added to the category of “garment”; it too is ritually impure due to woven fabric.
革玛拉 问：难道衣服不是织物么？
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that a garment is not a woven fabric?
倒不如把那一句改正过来，作这样说：山羊毛作的口袋也添在衣服一类里；它纵不是织成的，仍旧沾得不洁。
Rather, the statement should be emended and say as follows: A sack made from goat hair is added to the category of garment; even though it is not woven it can nevertheless become ritually impure.
革玛拉 问：山羊毛未织成的衣物，派得上什么用处呢？
The Gemara asks: For what is a garment made of unwoven goat hair suitable?
拉比约哈难 说：因为穷人有时把三根山羊毛编在一处，挂在女儿颈上作妆饰。
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since a poor person occasionally braids three goat hairs and hangs it on his daughter’s neck as an ornament.
另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 细解那一节：由「或是口袋」推出缰绳与马肚带也在内；由「口袋」二字限住——须是纺过织过的。
众贤在另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里，把那一节按律细解了一番。
The Sages taught a detailed halakhic exposition of that verse in a different baraita.
经上既提「口袋」，我单推出整个口袋沾得不洁。
From the fact that the verse mentioned sack, I have only derived that a whole sack can become ritually impure.
至于把 缰绳 与马肚底下束着的带子也算在沾得不洁的物件里，是从哪里推出来的呢？
From where is it derived to include even reins [kilkeli] and a saddle band fastened under the horse’s belly in the category of those objects that can become ritually impure?
经上说「或是口袋」——那个「或」字教我们：与口袋相类的物件也在内。
The verse states: “Or sack”; “or” teaches that the verse is referring to items similar to a sack as well.
我本可以照这样想：连绳子与量绳也当算在内。
I might have thought, on that basis, that I should include even the ropes and measuring cords.
所以经上说「口袋」：口袋既是纺过又织过的，凡纺过织过的才沾得不洁。
The verse states: “Sack,” just as a sack is spun and woven, so too, everything that is spun and woven can become ritually impure.
绳子与量绳既不是纺成的线作的，更断然不是织的。
Ropes and measuring cords are not made from spun threads, and they are certainly not woven.
论尸首之不洁，民数记 31:20「凡山羊毛所作的」一语把缰绳与肚带也包在内。
那一段 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：如今论尸首所染之不洁诸 哈拉哈，经上说：「凡衣服、皮子作的、山羊毛织的、木头作的，你们都要洁净」（民数记 31:20）。
The baraita continues: Now, it says with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by a corpse: “And every garment and all that is made of skins and all work of goats’ hair and all things made of wood you shall purify” (Numbers 31:20).
这一节正是要把缰绳与马肚底下的带子也包在「凡山羊毛所作的」这一类里。
This verse comes to include reins and the band under the horse’s belly within the category of: All work of goats’ hair.
那两样也是沾得不洁的。
They too can become ritually impure.
我本可以想连绳子细索也在内；照理却当反过来推：爬物之不洁既单及纺织之物，尸首之不洁也当如此。
我本可以想：连绳子与细索也当算在这一类里。
I might have thought that I would include even the ropes and thin cords in this category.
革玛拉 先按理推一番。
The Gemara begins with a logical analysis.
照理倒当反过来推，说绳子是不沾不洁的。
And it may be inferred logically to the contrary, that a rope cannot become impure.
经上既判触着爬物的东西为不洁，又判触着尸首的东西为不洁。
The verse deemed impure an object that came in contact with a creeping animal, and it deemed impure an object that came in contact with a corpse.
触着爬物而判为不洁的，既单及纺过织过的物件（如上文所说），那么触着尸首而判为不洁的，也当单及纺过织过的物件。
Just as when it rendered an object impure from contact with a creeping animal it only rendered impure objects spun and woven, as stated above; so too, when it rendered impure an object from contact with a corpse, it only rendered impure objects spun and woven.
可是两下未必相比：爬物之不洁轻，尸首之不洁重，安可由轻推重？所以经上重出「衣服、皮子」以立同语相钩。
这里有可分之处：两下果真相比么？
There is room to distinguish: Are these indeed comparable?
托拉论触着爬物的不洁（那是较轻的一样）既从宽、说绳子不因那一样不洁而沾污，难道我们连尸首所染的不洁（那是较重的一样）也从宽么？
If the Torah was lenient with regard to the ritual impurity of an object that came in contact with a creeping animal, which is a less severe form of impurity, saying that ropes do not become impure from contact with that form of ritual impurity, will we be lenient with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, which is more severe?
或者正因尸首之不洁较重，连不曾织过纺过的物件（譬如绳子）触着它也沾得不洁。
Perhaps, since impurity imparted by a corpse is more severe, even objects not woven and spun, e.g., ropes, become ritually impure from contact with it.
所以经上说「衣服、皮子」，又说「衣服、皮子」，为的是立一个同语相钩。
Therefore, the verse states garment and leather, garment and leather to establish a verbal analogy.
「衣服、皮子」一语，论爬物见于利未记 11:32，论尸首亦有；故尸首之不洁也单及纺织之物。
「衣服、皮子」一语，论爬物所染的不洁是这样说的：「其中已死的，若掉在什么东西上，那东西就不洁净，无论是木器、衣服、皮子、口袋，不拘是作什么工用的器皿，须要放在水中，必不洁净到晚上，到晚上才洁净了」（利未记 11:32）。
The term garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal: “And whatever any of them falls upon when they are dead will be impure whether it be any vessel of wood, or a garment, or leather, or sack, whatever vessel it be with which any work is done it must be put into water and it will be impure until evening, then it will be clean” (Leviticus 11:32).
论尸首所染的不洁，也说「衣服、皮子」。
And garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.
论爬物所说的「衣服、皮子」既单及纺过织过的物件，那么论尸首所说的「衣服、皮子」也单及纺过织过的物件。
Just as garment and leather stated with regard to a creeping animal only rendered impure objects that are spun and woven, so too, garment and leather stated with regard to a corpse only rendered impure objects that are spun and woven.
反过来也可推：论尸首的「衣服、皮子」既及凡山羊毛所作的，论爬物的也当及凡山羊毛所作的。
凭这同一个同语相钩，人也可以说：论尸首所说的「衣服、皮子」既及凡山羊毛所作的物件，那么论爬物所说的「衣服、皮子」也当及凡山羊毛所作的物件。
Utilizing the same verbal analogy, one could say: And just as garment and leather stated with regard to a corpse rendered impure any object that is the work of goats’ hair, so too, garment and leather stated with regard to a creeping animal rendered impure any object that is the work of goats’ hair.
由这同语相钩单推出山羊所出的；马尾牛尾所出的从哪里推出？由「或是口袋」推出。
由这同语相钩，我单推出山羊所出的物件沾得不洁；至于把马尾或牛尾所出的物件也算在内，是从哪里推出来的呢？
I have only derived from this verbal analogy that an object that comes from goats can become ritually impure; from where do I derive to include an item that comes from a horse’s tail or from a cow’s tail?
经上说「或是口袋」——凡与口袋相类的（就是这几样别的物件）也在内。
The verse states: Or a sack, and anything like a sack, i.e., these other items as well.
缰绳与肚带岂不是已由这一节推出来了么？怎能又从同一节推出马尾牛尾？
革玛拉 问：缰绳与马肚带的不洁，你岂不是已经从这一节推出来了么？
The Gemara asks: Didn’t you already derive ritual impurity with regard to reins and a saddle band from this verse?
马尾牛尾所出之物的不洁，怎能又从同一节推出来呢？
How can ritual impurity for items that come from a horse’s tail and a cow’s tail be derived from the same verse?
答：那是未立同语相钩以前的话；既立了相钩，这一节便成了闲文，另有所推。
革玛拉 答：那是未立那同语相钩以前的话；既立了同语相钩，这一节便成了闲文。
The Gemara answers: That applies only before the verbal analogy was cited; now that the verbal analogy was cited, the verse is rendered extraneous.
凡归在「凡山羊毛所作的」这一类里的物件沾得不洁，已由那同语相钩推出来了。
The fact that any item that falls in the category of: “And all work of goats’ hair,” can become ritually impure is derived from the verbal analogy.
缰绳与马肚带正在「山羊毛所作的」这一类里。
Reins and a saddle bands are included in the category of work of goats’ hair.
既然如此，就不必再由那一句推出它们了。
Therefore, they need not be derived from that phrase.
所以那一句既成闲文，便可以另推出一条 哈拉哈 来：马尾牛尾所出的物件也沾得不洁。
Consequently, a different halakha can be derived from that extraneous phrase: Objects that come from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail can become ritually impure.
马尾所出之物沾不洁，我单就爬物推出来了；论尸首又从哪里推出？
那一段 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：马尾所出的物件沾得不洁，我单就爬物推了出来；至于论尸首，是从哪里推出来的呢？
The baraita continues: And I have derived that an object made from a horse’s tail can become impure only with regard to a creeping animal; however, with regard to a corpse, from where is this derived?
先按理推：托拉既判触尸的口袋与触爬物的口袋都不洁，则马尾牛尾之物两处当同论。
革玛拉 先按理推一番。
The Gemara begins with a logical analysis.
照理本可以推出是这样。
And it may be inferred logically that this is so.
托拉既判触着尸首的口袋为不洁，又判触着爬物的口袋为不洁。
The Torah rendered impure a sack that came into contact with a corpse and rendered impure a sack that came into contact with a creeping animal.
托拉论触着爬物之物判为不洁的时候，既把马尾牛尾所出的物件与山羊毛所作的一样看待（就是一样沾得不洁），那么托拉论触着尸首之物判为不洁的时候，也当把马尾牛尾所出的与山羊毛所作的一样看待。
Just as when the Torah rendered items that came into contact with a creeping animal impure it made the legal status of that which comes from a horse’s tail and a cow’s tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats’ hair, i.e., that it contracts ritual impurity, so too when the Torah rendered impure items that came into contact with a corpse, it made the legal status of that which comes from a horse’s tail and a cow’s tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats’ hair.
驳道：不洁到晚的一类本宽，添几样容易；不洁七日的一类本窄，安可照添？
革玛拉 驳这一说：两下果真相比么？
The Gemara rejects this: Are these indeed comparable?
经上既在「不洁到晚上」那一类里添了几样物件（譬如爬物所染的不洁，那一类本宽），难道我们连「不洁七日」那一类（那单是尸首所染的、本来窄）也照样添么？
If the verse added additional objects to the category of ritual impurity that lasts until nightfall, e.g., the impurity imparted by a creeping animal, which is extensive, will we add additional objects to the category of ritual impurity that lasts for seven days, which is limited to the case of impurity from a corpse?
马尾牛尾所作之物既添在本来就宽的「不洁到晚上」一类里，未必就该添在「不洁七日」那一类里。
The fact that items made of a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail are added to the already broad category of ritual impurity that lasts until nightfall is not necessarily an indication that they are to be added to the category of ritual impurity that lasts seven days.
所以经上重出「衣服、皮子」以立同语相钩：论爬物既把马尾牛尾与山羊毛同看，论尸首也当同看。
所以经上说「衣服、皮子」，又说「衣服、皮子」，为的是立一个同语相钩。
The verse states: Garment and leather, garment and leather to establish a verbal analogy.
「衣服、皮子」一语论爬物所染的不洁说过，论尸首所染的不洁也说过。
Garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal, and garment and leather is stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse.
论爬物诸 哈拉哈 所说的「衣服、皮子」，托拉既把马尾牛尾所作之物与山羊毛所作的一样看待，那么论尸首诸 哈拉哈 所说的「衣服、皮子」，托拉也把马尾牛尾所作之物与山羊毛所作的一样看待。
Just as with regard to the garment and leather stated in the halakhot of a creeping animal the Torah rendered the legal status of an item made from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats’ hair, so too, with regard to the garment and leather stated in the halakhot of a corpse, the Torah rendered the legal status of an item made from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail equal to the legal status of that which is made from goats’ hair.
这同语相钩须是「闲文」才驳不倒；不然可以驳说：爬物之不洁重，一粒扁豆大就染人，尸首却须一橄榄大。
革玛拉 指出：「衣服、皮子」这两处措辞须是闲文才行。
The Gemara notes: And it must be that the words garment and leather are free.
就是说：那两处的字面在本处必是多余的。
Those terms must be superfluous in their context.
托拉写下那几个字，正是特特为立这同语相钩。
The Torah included those terms for the express purpose of establishing the verbal analogy.
凡凭本处多余的字面所立的同语相钩，是按理驳不倒的。
A verbal analogy that is based on otherwise extraneous terms cannot be logically refuted.
因为这几个字若不是闲文，这同语相钩便驳得倒：爬物特别在哪里呢？
Because if these terms are not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted: What is unique to a creeping animal?
它所染的不洁重在这一层——单触着一粒扁豆大的爬物，物件就沾了不洁。
Its ritual impurity is stringent in that it renders objects ritually impure even by means of contact with a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal.
尸首却不然，那是较轻的：须触着一橄榄大的尸肉，物件才沾不洁。
That is not the case with regard to a corpse, which is less severe in that it renders objects ritually impure only by means of contact with an olive-bulk of a corpse.
那几个字若不是闲文，这同语相钩便驳得倒了。
Unless the terms are free, the analogy can be refuted.
论爬物的那两个字诚然是闲文：爬物与遗精相连，遗精那里已写「凡衣服、凡皮子」，故这里的字面多余。
诚然（לָאֵי），它们是闲文。
Indeed [la’ei], they are free.
革玛拉 证明「衣服、皮子」两处措辞在本处是多余的。
The Gemara proves that the terms garment and leather are extraneous in their context.
如今看：爬物所染的不洁与遗精所染的不洁本是相连而写的，正如经上写着：「凡摸了因死尸不洁净的，或是遗精的人」（利未记 22:4），紧接着的一节又说：「或是摸什么使他不洁净的爬物，或是摸那使他不洁净的人（不拘那人有什么不洁净）」（利未记 22:5）。
Now, since ritual impurity from contact with a creeping animal is juxtaposed to ritual impurity from contact with semen, as it is written: “And whoever touches anything that is impure by the dead or a man from whom semen is emitted” (Leviticus 22:4), and juxtaposed to that is the verse: “Or whoever touches any creeping animal which makes him impure, or a person who may make him impure with any impurity that he has” (Leviticus 22:5).
论遗精所染之不洁诸 哈拉哈，经上又写着：「凡沾染精的衣服或是皮子，都要用水洗，必不洁净到晚上」（利未记 15:17）。
And it is written in the halakhot of the ritual impurity of semen: “And every garment and every hide on which the semen is must be washed with water and will be impure until evening” (Leviticus 15:17).
两处经文既紧挨着，这一处的诸 哈拉哈 便可以从那一处推出来。
Since the verses appear next to each other, the halakhot of each can be derived from the other.
既然如此，托拉论爬物所写的「衣服、皮子」几个字，我还要它作什么呢？
Consequently, the words garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with regard to a creeping animal, why do I need them?
那一条律本可以由遗精之不洁诸 哈拉哈 推出来。
The relevant halakha could be derived from the halakhot of seminal impurity.
由此可推：那两个字是为着立作闲文才提的。
Learn from it that garment and leather were mentioned to render them free.
只是这样一来，那同语相钩单在一头是闲文；依「单头闲文可推而不可驳」的一说尚可，依另一说怎么办？
革玛拉 指出：只是这样一来，那同语相钩单在一头是闲文。
The Gemara comments: And still, it is free only from one side of the verbal analogy.
论爬物所染之不洁而说的「衣服、皮子」，在本处诚然多余、那条 哈拉哈 本可以另路推出；论尸首所染之不洁而说的那几个字，在本处却不是多余的。
Although the terms garment and leather stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal are extraneous in their context, and the relevant halakha could have been derived in another manner, those terms stated with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse are not extraneous in their context.
这个同语相钩单在一头是闲文。
This verbal analogy is only free from one side.
依那说「单在一头是闲文的同语相钩，可以由它推，却按理驳不倒」的一位，这样讲是通的。
It works out well according to the opinion of the one who said, with regard to a verbal analogy that is free from only one side, one can derive from it and cannot refute it logically.
只是依那说「这样的同语相钩既可以由它推、也按理驳得倒」的一位，又当怎么说呢？
However, according to the opinion of the one who said that one can derive from a verbal analogy of this kind and one can refute it logically, what can be said?
答：论尸首的那两个字也是闲文——尸首与遗精相连，遗精那里已写「凡衣服、凡皮子」。
革玛拉 答：论尸首所染之不洁而说的「衣服、皮子」，也是闲文。
The Gemara answers: Garment and leather stated with regard to impurity imparted by a corpse are also free.
如今看：尸首与遗精本是相连而写的，正如经上写着：「凡摸了因死尸不洁净的，或是遗精的人」（利未记 22:4）；论遗精又说：「凡沾染精的衣服或是皮子」（利未记 15:17）。那么托拉论尸首所染之不洁所写的「衣服、皮子」几个字，我还要它作什么呢？
Now, since a corpse is juxtaposed with semen, as it is written: “And whoever touches anything that is impure by the dead or a man whose semen is emitted from him” (Leviticus 22:4); and it is stated with regard to semen: “And every garment and every hide” (Leviticus 15:17); the terms garment and leather, which the Torah wrote with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, why do I need them?
由此可推：那两个字是为着立作闲文才提的。
Learn from it that they are mentioned in order to render them free.
那几个字在本处是多余的，写下来正是为着与爬物诸 哈拉哈 立那同语相钩。
These terms are extraneous in their context, and were written for the purpose of the verbal analogy with the halakhot of creeping animals.
解民数记 31:50 所列金器：拉比以利亚撒 说 阿吉勒 是照乳房作的模，库马兹 是照子宫作的模。
革玛拉 接着解上文所说米甸之战那几节：「我们将各人所得的金器，就是脚链子、镯子、打印的戒指、阿吉勒、库马兹，都送来为耶和华的供物，好在耶和华面前为我们的性命赎罪」（民数记 31:50）。
The Gemara interprets verses written with regard to the Midianite war discussed above: “And we have brought an offering before the Lord what every man has gotten of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, agil, and kumaz, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord” (Numbers 31:50).
拉比以利亚撒 说：阿吉勒 是照妇人乳房作的模，戴在乳上作妆饰。
Rabbi Elazar said: Agil is a mold in the shape of a woman’s breasts worn over them as an ornament.
库马兹 是照子宫作的模。
Kumaz is a mold in the shape of the womb.
拉夫约瑟 说亚兰文所以译作 מָחוֹךְ（引人放荡之物）；拉巴 说经文自身便有此意——库马兹 是「这里是淫邪之处」的缩略。
拉夫约瑟 说：若是这样，怪不得我们把 库马兹 译成亚兰文作 מָחוֹךְ，意思是引人放荡之物。
Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate kumaz into Aramaic as maḥokh, meaning an item that leads to foolishness.
拉巴 对他说：这个意思经文自身就有——库马兹 是「כָּאן מְקוֹם זִמָּה（这里是淫邪之处）」的缩略。
Rabba said to him: This meaning is learned from the verse itself; kumaz is an acronym for: Here [kan] is the place of [mekom] lewdness [zimma].
כּוּמָז 三个字母各取一词的头一字：כָּאן（这里）、מְקוֹם（之处）、זִמָּה（淫邪）。中文的「库马兹」与「这里是淫邪之处」之间毫无牵连，这一层缩略译不出来。
摩西向军长发怒（民数记 31:14）：疑他们又如在什亭犯罪；他们说一个也不缺，只是未脱意念之罪，遂献供物。
那一章底下写着：「摩西向打仗回来的军长，就是千夫长、百夫长发怒」（民数记 31:14）。拉夫纳赫曼 说 拉巴·巴尔·阿武赫 说：摩西对以色列说：你们莫不是又回到从前的罪上去了么？——就是从前在什亭与摩押、米甸女子所犯的那一样。
Later in that chapter, it is written: “And Moses was angry with the officers of the host, the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, who came from the battle” (Numbers 31:14); Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Moses said to Israel: Perhaps you have returned to your original sinful behavior, when you sinned with the daughters of Moab and Midian at Shittim?
他们对他说：「我们中间一个也没有少」（民数记 31:49），我们所行的仍旧完全如初。
They said to him: “Not one man of us is missing” (Numbers 31:49), we remain as wholesome in deed as we were.
他对他们说：若是这样，你们何须赎罪呢？
He said to them: If so, why do you need atonement?
众首领献这几样金器，正是为自己的性命赎罪。
The princes brought these ornaments to atone for their souls.
他们对他说：我们虽脱了实在干犯的把柄，却没有脱那意念上干犯的把柄。
They said to him: If we have emerged from the grasps of actual transgression, we have not emerged from the grasps of thoughts of transgression.
他们随即定意：「我们将供物送来，献在耶和华面前。」
Immediately, they decided: “And we have brought an offering before the Lord.”
拉比以实玛利 门下教说：那一代的以色列人何须赎罪？
拉比以实玛利 门下的一位贤者教说：那一代的以色列人是为什么缘故须要赎罪呢？
The Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what reason did Israel in that generation require atonement?
因为
Because