← 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。
拉比约西 禁人带着木腿进公共区——他不以为那与鞋同论。
拉比约西 却禁人带着那木腿进公共区，因为他不以为那在律上与鞋同论。
And Rabbi Yosei prohibits going out into the public domain with the wooden leg, since he does not consider it to have the legal status of a shoe.
木腿上头若有盛垫子的凹处，便算木器，沾得不洁。
那木腿上头若有盛垫子的凹处（就是塞垫子进去、好衬着断腿的那一处），它便算作木器，沾得不洁。
And if the wooden leg has a receptacle for pads, a concave space at the top of the leg into which pads are placed to cushion the amputated leg, it assumes the status of a wooden vessel and can become ritually impure.
两脚都截了的人跪行所用的护膝：漏症者穿了便沾践踏之不洁；安息日可带着出去，也可穿进圣殿的院。
至于他的护膝（那是两脚都截了的人套在膝上、好用膝行走的鞋），漏症者 若穿了它们，它们便沾践踏所致的不洁。
And his supports, which are shoes that one who had both of his feet amputated places on his knees in order to walk on his knees, if a zav wears them, they are subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
漏症者 是不洁之源。
A zav is a primary source of ritual impurity.
他若摸着一件器皿，那器皿便得头一等的不洁。
If he touches a vessel it assumes first-degree ritual impurity status.
至于他所践、所坐、所卧、所倚的器皿，却自身成了不洁之源——只要那器皿本是派了这用处的。
However, vessels on which he treads, sits, lies, or leans become primary sources of ritual impurity, provided they are designated for that purpose.
这护膝正是派了践踏之用的器皿。
These supports are vessels designated for treading.
安息日人可以带着它们进公共区，因为它们在律上与鞋同论。
And one may go out with them into the public domain on Shabbat since they have the legal status of shoes.
人也可以穿着它们进圣殿的院。
And one may enter the Temple courtyard with them.
穿鞋进圣殿的院照例虽是禁的，论这一层，护膝却不算作鞋。
Although, generally, wearing shoes in the Temple courtyard is prohibited, in this regard, the supports do not have the legal status of shoes.
全然不能行走、坐在缚身之椅上用手撑行的人：他的椅与护手沾践踏之不洁，安息日不可带着出去，也不可进圣殿的院。
至于那全然不能行走、坐在缚在身上的椅子里、两手套着撑具、用手推着自己走的人：他的椅子与撑具沾践踏所致的不洁。
However, if one who is crippled to the extent that he cannot walk at all sits on a chair that is attached to him, places supports on his hands, and propels himself along with his hands, his chair and supports are subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
安息日人不可带着它们出去，也不可带着它们进圣殿的院。
And one may not go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter the Temple courtyard with them.
洛克塔明是洁的（不算器皿，故不沾不洁），安息日也不可带着它们出去。
洛克塔明（底下革玛拉要讲明）是洁的——就是说它们不算器皿，所以不沾不洁；安息日人也不可带着它们出去。
Loketamin, which will be explained in the Gemara, are ritually pure in the sense that they cannot become ritually impure because they are not vessels, and one may not go out with them on Shabbat.
拉瓦 问 拉夫纳赫曼：我们这段密释纳的两说究竟哪一位许、哪一位禁？答：我不知道。这条哈拉哈呢？答：我不知道。
拉瓦 对 拉夫纳赫曼 说：我们这一段密释纳所争的，当日是怎么学的呢？
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: How did we learn the dispute in our mishna?
是 拉比梅伊尔 断说截腿的人可以带着木腿木脚出去，拉比约西 禁他这样行么？
Does Rabbi Meir rule that the amputee may go out with a wooden leg and foot and Rabbi Yosei prohibits him from doing so?
还是 拉比梅伊尔 禁他这样行，从宽的倒是 拉比约西 呢？
Or is it Rabbi Meir who prohibited him from doing so, and Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is the lenient one?
拉夫纳赫曼 对他说：我不知道。
Rav Naḥman said to him: I don’t know.
拉瓦 又问：这一层的 哈拉哈 该怎么定呢？
And Rava asked: What is the halakha in this matter?
拉夫纳赫曼 对他说：我不知道。
Rav Naḥman said to him: I don’t know.
撒母耳 与 拉夫胡纳 都说当读作「截腿的人不可出去」；拉夫约瑟 说我们也照这样学。
有话传下来说：撒母耳 说密释纳的正读是「截腿的人不可出去」，拉比约西 却许他这样行。
It was stated: Shmuel said that the correct reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not go out, and Rabbi Yosei permits him to do so.
照样，拉夫胡纳 也说密释纳的正读是「截腿的人不可」。
And, likewise, Rav Huna said that the correct reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not.
拉夫约瑟 说：撒母耳 既说正读是「截腿的人不可」，拉夫胡纳 也说「截腿的人不可」，我们也就照这样学：截腿的人不可。
Rav Yosef said: Since Shmuel said that the correct reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not, and Rav Huna said: An amputee may not, we will also learn the mishna: An amputee may not.
拉瓦·巴尔·希拉 力驳：拉夫曾以手势示意对调两说；拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 给出口诀「萨麦克 萨麦克」。
拉瓦·巴尔·希拉 极力驳这一说：他们岂不曾听见么——拉夫哈难·巴尔·拉瓦 在拉夫学舍的一间 小屋 里，当着拉夫把密释纳教给 希亚·巴尔·拉夫，说：截腿的人安息日不可带着自己的木腿出去，这是 拉比梅伊尔 的意思。
Rava bar Shira strongly objects to this: And did they not hear that Rav Ḥanan bar Rava taught the mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav in a small room [kituna] in the school of Rav: An amputee may not go out on Shabbat with his wooden leg; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
拉比约西 却许人带着它出去。
And Rabbi Yosei permits going out with it.
拉夫便向他做手势，示意把两说对调过来——是 拉比梅伊尔 许人出去，拉比约西 禁。
And Rav signaled him with a hand gesture to reverse the opinions, Rabbi Meir permits going out and Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so.
拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：要记住哪一位 坦拿 许、哪一位 坦拿 禁，口诀是「萨麦克 萨麦克」。
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And the mnemonic to remember which tanna permits and which tanna prohibits is samekh samekh.
「约西」这名字里有一个 萨麦克，希伯来文「禁」（אוֹסֵר）这个字里也有一个 萨麦克。
The letter samekh appears both in the name Yosei and in the Hebrew word for prohibits [oser].
יוֹסֵי 与 אוֹסֵר 两个字里都有 ס 这个字母，所以取「萨麦克 萨麦克」作口诀。中文的「约西」与「禁」之间毫无牵连，这一层字母上的钩连译不出来。
这样一记，人便知道禁的那一位是 拉比约西。
In that way, one remembers that Rabbi Yosei is the one who prohibits it.
连 撒母耳 也把自己的读法收回了：密释纳论脱鞋礼说「木鞋所行的脱鞋礼有效」。
革玛拉 指出：连 撒母耳（就是那说正读作「截腿的人不可」、而 拉比约西 许的一位）也把自己的话收回了。
The Gemara comments: And even Shmuel, who said that the correct reading of the mishna is: An amputee may not, and Rabbi Yosei permits it, reversed his opinion.
因为我们在一段密释纳里学过：脱鞋礼 之礼（那是叫没有儿女的寡妇免于与夫兄弟成亲的礼）行的时候，寡妇要把夫兄弟脚上的鞋脱下来。
As we learned in a mishna: The ḥalitza ceremony, which frees a childless widow from the obligation to enter into levirate marriage with her brother-in-law, involves the widow removing her brother-in-law’s sandal from his foot.
她若脱的是别人的鞋，或是一只木鞋，或是本该穿左脚、却穿在他右脚上的鞋，那 脱鞋礼 仍算有效。
If she removed a sandal that is not his, or a wooden sandal, or the sandal of the left foot that was on his right foot, the ḥalitza is valid.
我们问过：以木鞋为鞋的是哪一位坦拿？撒母耳 说是 拉比梅伊尔——那正是拉夫的读法。
我们曾问过：论这一件事，以木鞋为鞋的是哪一位 坦拿 呢？
And we said: Who is the tanna who holds that a wooden sandal is considered a shoe for this purpose?
撒母耳 说：是 拉比梅伊尔，因为我们在一段密释纳里学过：截腿的人可以带着自己的木腿出去，这是 拉比梅伊尔 的意思；拉比约西 却禁。
Shmuel said: It is Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna: An amputee may go out with his wooden leg, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yosei prohibits doing so.
可见 撒母耳 末了到底依了拉夫的读法。
Ultimately, Shmuel accepted Rav’s reading of the mishna.
拉夫胡纳 也收回了：一段 《巴拉伊塔》 论泥水匠的鞋套——拉比阿奇瓦 说它沾践踏之不洁、可行脱鞋礼、安息日可带着出去，众拉比不从他。
拉夫胡纳 也把自己的话收回了，因为一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：论泥水匠的鞋套——作石灰活的人把草或苇编的鞋套在皮鞋外头，免得皮鞋被石灰坏了。
And Rav Huna also reversed his opinion, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a plasterers’ sandal worn by those who work with lime and would cover their leather shoes with a shoe woven from straw or reeds so that the leather shoes would not get ruined by the lime.
那泥水匠若是 漏症者、套着鞋走路，那鞋套便沾践踏所致的不洁，因为那样的鞋在律上算作鞋。
If the plasterer is a zav and walks with his shoes covered, the shoe covering is subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading, as the legal status of that sandal is that of a shoe.
妇人可以拿它行 脱鞋礼，安息日人也可以带着它出去——这是 拉比阿奇瓦 的意思。
A woman may perform ḥalitza with it, and one may go out with it on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
众拉比却不从他。
And the Rabbis did not agree with him.
另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 却说他们从他；拉夫胡纳 解：说「从他」的是 拉比梅伊尔，说「不从他」的是 拉比约西。
革玛拉 问：一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教过他们从他么？
The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that they agreed with him?
拉夫胡纳 为解这前后相违说：所谓「他们从他」，指的是哪一位贤者呢？
Rav Huna said in resolution of this apparent contradiction: Who is the Sage whose opinion is referred to in the phrase: They agreed with him?
是 拉比梅伊尔。
It is Rabbi Meir.
所谓「他们不从他」，又指的是哪一位贤者呢？
And who is the Sage whose opinion is referred to in the phrase: They did not agree with him?
是 拉比约西。
It is Rabbi Yosei.
可见连 拉夫胡纳 也依了拉夫的读法——拉比约西 是禁人带着木腿出去的。
Even Rav Huna accepted Rav’s reading of the mishna that Rabbi Yosei prohibits going out with a wooden leg.
拉夫约瑟 另解「不从 拉比阿奇瓦」的是 拉比约哈难·本·努里——他以草编之器为洁。
拉夫约瑟 说：所谓「他们不从 拉比阿奇瓦」，指的是哪一位贤者呢？
Rav Yosef said: Who is the Sage whose opinion is referred to in the phrase: They did not agree with Rabbi Akiva?
是 拉比约哈难·本·努里。
It is Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.
因为我们在一段密释纳里学过：草编的容器与苇作的管子，拉比阿奇瓦 判它们沾得不洁，拉比约哈难·本·努里 却判它们是洁的——就是说，那不算器皿，所以沾不得不洁。
As we learned in a mishna: A receptacle made of straw and a tube made of reeds, Rabbi Akiva deems these vessels capable of becoming ritually impure, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri deems them pure, i.e., incapable of becoming ritually impure because they are not vessels.
依 拉比约哈难·本·努里 的意思，草作的物件不算合用的器皿。
According to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, straw objects are not considered vessels fit for use.
「泥水匠的鞋套沾践踏之不洁」——那鞋本不是走路穿的，怎么会？拉夫阿哈·巴尔·拉夫乌拉 说：匠人有时就穿着它走回家。
一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过，夫子说：泥水匠的鞋套沾践踏所致的不洁。
It was taught in a baraita that the Master said: A plasterers’ sandal is subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
革玛拉 问：这怎么会呢？
The Gemara asks: How could that be?
那样的鞋本不是为走路作的。
These sandals are not made for walking.
拉夫阿哈·巴尔·拉夫乌拉 说：那也是走路穿的——匠人有时就穿着它一路走回家。
Rav Aḥa bar Rav Ulla said: They are used for walking, as, at times, the plasterer walks in them until he reaches his house.
木腿有盛垫之凹处便沾不洁：阿巴耶 说单沾尸首所染的，不沾践踏所致的；拉瓦 说连践踏所致的也沾。
我们在密释纳里学过：那木腿上头若有盛垫子的凹处，它便沾得不洁。
We learned in the mishna: And if the wooden leg has a receptacle for pads, it is capable of becoming ritually impure.
阿巴耶 说：它所沾的是触着尸首之不洁而来的不洁，不沾践踏所致的不洁。
Abaye said: It is subject to ritual impurity due to contact with ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, and it is not subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
漏症者 若用那木腿，它不过得头一等的不洁罢了，因为他不能把全身的重量都压在它上头。
If a zav uses a wooden leg it merely assumes first-degree ritual impurity status, since he cannot lean all his weight on it.
拉瓦 说：那假脚连践踏所致的不洁也沾。
Rava said: The artificial foot is even subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
拉瓦 举小孩学步车为据；阿巴耶 说两下不比——那里全身压上去，这里不是。
拉瓦 说：我这条 哈拉哈 是从哪里推出来的呢？
Rava said: From where do I derive to say this halakha?
因为我们在一段密释纳里学过：小孩子学走路所用的推车（托萨福）沾践踏所致的不洁，因为那本是给他倚靠的。
As we learned in a mishna: The wagon of a small child utilized to teach him to walk (Tosafot) is subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading, since its purpose is to lean on it.
阿巴耶 却说：这两件事不能相比。
And Abaye said: The two cases are not comparable.
那里论推车，他是把全身的重量都压在它上头；这里论木腿，他并不把全身的重量都压上去。
There, in the case of the wagon, he leans all his weight on it; here, in the case of the wooden leg, he does not lean all his weight on it.
阿巴耶 举老人的拄杖为据：一段 《巴拉伊塔》 说杖是洁的、什么不洁都不沾。
阿巴耶 说：我这条 哈拉哈 是从哪里推出来的呢？
Abaye said: From where do I derive to say this halakha?
因为一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：老人素常用的拄杖是洁的——就是说，无论哪一样不洁它都不沾。
As it was taught in a baraita: A walking stick, typically used by the elderly, is pure, i.e., incapable of becoming ritually impure from any form of ritual impurity.
这样看来，人不把全身重量压上去的东西，是不沾践踏所致之不洁的。
Apparently, an object upon which one does not lean all his weight is not subject to ritual impurity imparted by treading.
拉瓦 怎样答这一据？他说两下有分：老人的拄杖那里……
拉瓦 又怎样答这一据呢？
And how does Rava respond to this proof?
他说两件事本有分别：那里论老人所用的拄杖，
He says that there is a distinction between the cases: There, in the case of a walking stick used by the elderly,