← 安息日卷总目·第七章 一条大通则
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。
接上：为所犯的每一样工作之父各献一次；同一父下作了许多工的，只献一次。
为他所作的每一样工作之父各献一次。
and every primary category of labor that he performed.
人在同一样工作之父底下作了许多所禁的工，单献一次赎罪祭就是了。
One who performs numerous prohibited labors subsumed under a single category of labor is liable to bring only one sin-offering.
密释纳何以说「大通则」？若说因下文另有「通则」相对，那么什一那里也有「另一通则」，却不说「大通则」。
革玛拉 要把密释纳的措辞讲清，便问：密释纳何以教作「大通则」呢？
The Gemara attempts to clarify the language of the mishna and asks: Why did the mishna teach the phrase: A significant principle?
你若说是为着底下这一层缘故，那就难了。
If you say it is because of the following reason, it is problematic.
这里因为那位 坦拿 要在本章后头一段密释纳里、就一件涉两条 哈拉哈 的事教作「他们又立了一条通则」，所以在这一段（所涉的 哈拉哈 更多）便教作「大通则」。
Here, because the tanna wants to teach in a mishna later in the chapter with regard to a matter that includes two halakhot employing the term: Furthermore, they stated another principle; therefore, in this mishna, which relates to a greater number of halakhot, he taught employing the term: A significant principle.
论安息年也是一样：因为那位 坦拿 要在后头一段密释纳（《第七年卷》 7:2）里教作「又立了一条通则」，所以在那一章的开头便教作「大通则」。
And with regard to the Sabbatical Year as well, because in a later mishna (Shevi’it 7:2) the tanna wants to teach: Furthermore, another principle, at the beginning of the chapter he taught employing the phrase: A significant principle.
那里措辞的取舍，也讲得通。
There too, the choice of language is understood.
只是论什一诸 哈拉哈，那一段密释纳（《什一税卷》 1:1）一连立了两条通则，那位 坦拿 在同一段后头也教作「他们又立了一条通则」；纵然如此，那一段开头他并没有教作「大通则」，倒单说「他们立了一条通则」。
However, with regard to the halakhot of tithes, where the mishna (Ma’asrot 1:1) states two principles one after the other, the tanna taught later in the same mishna: And furthermore, they stated another principle, and even so, at the beginning of the mishna the tanna did not teach: A significant principle, opting instead to say simply: They stated a principle.
拉比约西·巴尔·阿维恩：「大」不在有没有别的通则，在那通则本身之大——有父有子的才称大。那么巴尔·卡帕拉说什一也「大」，什一哪有父子？
拉比约西·巴尔·阿维恩 说：「大通则」这个说法，并不系于另有一条通则与它相对，乃系于那通则本身之大。
Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said that the term: A significant principle, is not dependent on the existence of another principle; rather, it is dependent on the significance of the principle.
既然如此，论安息日与安息年诸 哈拉哈（那两处都有工作之父与工作之子），那位 坦拿 在密释纳里便教作「大通则」。
Therefore, with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat and the Sabbatical Year, which include primary categories and subcategories, the tanna taught in the mishna: A significant principle.
论什一诸 哈拉哈（那里并没有父与子，诸条彼此平列），他便不教作「大通则」。
With regard to the halakhot of tithes, which do not include primary categories and subcategories and all its halakhot are on equal footing, he did not teach employing the term: A significant principle.
革玛拉 问：依 巴尔·卡帕拉 所传的另一读法——他论什一也教作「大通则」——那么什一里又有什么父与子呢？
The Gemara asks: And according to the variant reading of the mishna taught by bar Kappara, who taught the phrase: A significant principle, with regard to tithes, what primary categories and subcategories are there with regard to tithes?
改说：「大」是相较而言——安息日所罚之物多过安息年，安息年多过什一。
倒不如说：密释纳所以用「大通则」，正因它比别的通则大，岂不是么？
Rather, isn’t this the reason the Mishna employs the term: A significant principle; because it is significant relative to other principles?
干犯安息日而受罚的物类，比干犯安息年而受罚的物类为多。
The scope of the materials whose use warrants punishment for desecrating Shabbat is greater than the scope of the materials whose use warrants punishment for desecrating the Sabbatical Year.
因为安息日诸 哈拉哈 无论所种是离了地的还是连着地的都管得着；安息年诸 哈拉哈 论离了地的便管不着，论连着地的才管得着。
As the halakhot of Shabbat are in effect both with regard to plants that are detached from the ground and with regard to those that are attached, while the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year with regard to detached plants, they are not in effect, but with regard to attached plants they are in effect.
干犯安息年而受罚的物类，又比干犯什一诸 哈拉哈 而受罚的物类为多。
And the scope of the materials whose use warrants punishment for desecration of the Sabbatical Year are greater than the scope of the materials whose use warrants punishment for violating the halakhot of tithes.
因为按 妥拉 之律，安息年诸 哈拉哈 无论人食兽食都管得着；什一诸 哈拉哈 论人食管得着，论兽食便管不着。
As, by Torah law, the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year are in effect both with regard to human food and with regard to animal food, while the halakhot of tithes are in effect with regard to human food, but with regard to animal food they are not in effect.
依巴尔·卡帕拉：什一所罚之物又多过田角之留——无花果与菜蔬有什一之责而无留田角之责；引《田角之留卷》五条准则。
依 巴尔·卡帕拉 的意思（他论什一也教作「大通则」）：干犯什一诸 哈拉哈 而受罚的物类，又比干犯 田角之留 诸 哈拉哈 而受罚的物类为多。
And according to the opinion of bar Kappara, who taught the phrase: A significant principle, with regard to tithes as well: The scope of the materials for which one warrants punishment for violating the halakhot of tithes is greater than the scope of the materials for which one warrants punishment for violating the halakhot of pe’a.
因为按拉比所立的，无花果与菜蔬都有什一之责；田角之留 之责论无花果与菜蔬却管不着。
As, by rabbinic law, the obligation of tithes is in effect with regard to both figs and vegetables, while the obligation of pe’a is not in effect with regard to figs and vegetables.
正如我们在 田角之留 卷的一段密释纳里学过的：论 田角之留 立了一条通则——凡是食物、有人看守、从地里长出来、一次收齐、又收进仓里存放的，就有留 田角之留 之责。
As we learned in a mishna in tractate Pe’a: They stated a principle with regard to pe’a: Anything that is food, and is protected, and grows from the ground, and is gathered as one, and one brings it in to storage to preserve is obligated in pe’a.
五条各撇开一样：食物撇开染草，看守撇开无主之物，从地里长撇开菌菇，一次收齐撇开无花果，收仓存放撇开菜蔬。
革玛拉 讲明密释纳这几条准则各撇开哪一样。
The Gemara explains that which is excluded by each criterion in the mishna.
说「食物」，是要撇开 菘蓝 与茜草的续生之苗。
Food, to exclude the aftergrowths of woad [satis] and madder.
那两样是作染料用的，不是食物，所以没有留 田角之留 之责。
As these plants are used for dyeing and not for food, the obligation of pe’a does not apply to them.
说「有人看守」，是要撇开无主之物——那样的东西照定义本没有人看守。
And protected, to exclude ownerless crops, which by definition are not protected.
说「从地里长出来」，是要撇开松露与蕈子——那两样与别的植物不同，并不从地里吸取养分。
And grows from the ground, to exclude truffles and mushrooms, which, unlike other plants, do not draw sustenance from the ground.
说「一次收齐」，是要撇开无花果树——它的果子是长长一段日子里陆续摘的，因为那些果子不同时熟。
And is gathered as one, to exclude the fig tree whose fruit is gathered throughout an extended period, as the figs do not all ripen together.
说「收进仓里存放」，是要撇开菜蔬——那是存不久的。
And one brings it in to storage to preserve; to exclude vegetables, which cannot be stored for lengthy periods.
论什一那一段却只立三条，不说「一次收齐」与「收仓存放」——可见无花果与菜蔬有什一之责，故什一所管多过田角之留。
至于什一，我们在一段密释纳里学过：论什一立了一条通则——凡是食物、有人看守、从地里长出来的，就有什一之责；论什一并没有学到「一次收齐」与「收进仓里存放」这两条。
While, with regard to tithes, we learned in a mishna: They stated a principle with regard to tithes: Anything that is food, and is protected, and grows from the ground is obligated in tithes; we did not learn with regard to tithes, the following criteria: Gathered as one, and which one brings in to storage to preserve.
这样看来，无花果与菜蔬都有什一之责，所以有什一之责的物类，比有 田角之留 之责的为多。
Apparently, figs and vegetables are obligated in tithes, making the scope of the materials obligated in tithes greater than the scope of those obligated in pe’a.
「忘了安息日之本」怎么会有？拉夫 与 撒母耳 说指自幼被掳在外邦、与在外邦入教的人；那么「忘了」二字岂不含先知后忘之意？答：是从来不曾知道过。
密释纳论那忘了安息日之本的人。
The mishna discusses an individual who forgets the very essence of Shabbat.
革玛拉 要弄明白：犹太人怎么会连安息日有这一回事都忘了呢？
The Gemara seeks to understand how a Jew could forget the very existence of Shabbat.
拉夫 与 撒母耳 二人同说：我们这一段密释纳所指的，是自幼被掳在外邦人中间、不曾受过教的孩子，与在外邦人中间入教、不曾学过安息日诸 哈拉哈 的皈依者。
It was Rav and Shmuel who both said: Our mishna is referring to both a child who was taken captive among the gentiles and never educated and a convert who converted among the gentiles and never learned the halakhot of Shabbat.
至于从前知道安息日之本、后来忘了的，就要为每一个安息日各献一次，正如我们在密释纳里学过那知道安息日之本的一样。
However, one who once knew of the essence of Shabbat and ultimately forgot is liable for each and every Shabbat, as we learned in the mishna with regard to one who knows the essence of Shabbat.
革玛拉 要把这一路讲清。
The Gemara seeks to clarify this approach.
我们在这一段密释纳里学过：忘了安息日之本的人。
We learned in our mishna: One who forgets the essence of Shabbat.
「忘了」二字岂不是可推出他起先原是知道的么？
Doesn’t this phrase indicate by inference that he was aware of Shabbat originally?
人要忘，必先知道过。
In order to forget one must have previously been aware.
这一层于 拉夫 与 撒母耳 的意思有难处。
This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel.
革玛拉 驳这一说：不是。「忘了安息日之本」是什么意思呢？
The Gemara refutes this: No, what is the meaning of: One who forgets the essence of Shabbat?
是说安息日之本在他身上一向就是忘着的——就是他从来不曾知道。
That the essence of Shabbat was always forgotten from him, i.e., he never knew it.
那么先知后忘的又当怎么定？若也是每安息日各献一次，密释纳何不径说「先知后忘」、连「知道」的更不必说？答：所谓「知道」正指先知而今忘。
革玛拉 再问：只是照这样讲，那从前知道安息日之本、后来忘了的，这条 哈拉哈 又当怎么定呢？
The Gemara further asks: However, based on that understanding, in the case of one who knew the essence of Shabbat and ultimately forgot, what is the halakha?
他要为每一个安息日各献一次么？
Is he liable for each and every Shabbat?
若是这样，密释纳与其接着教那一条（知道 安息日 之本、在几个安息日里作了许多工的，要为每一个安息日各献一次赎罪祭），何不径教作：从前知道安息日之本、后来忘了的——那么那知道安息日之本的，更不必说也要为每一个安息日各献一次了。
If so, instead of the mishna teaching the next halakha: One who knows the essence of Shabbat and performs many labors on multiple Shabbatot is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every Shabbat, let it teach: One who knew the essence of Shabbat and ultimately forgot and, all the more so, one who knows the essence of Shabbat would be liable for each Shabbat.
革玛拉 答：依 拉夫 与 撒母耳 的意思，「知道安息日之本」这一句是什么意思呢？
The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, what is the meaning of the phrase: One who knows the essence of Shabbat?
正是指那从前知道安息日之本、如今忘了的人。
One who once knew the essence of Shabbat and has now forgotten it.