由后款可推前款是一样之食、一样器皿——那便更难；拉夫胡纳 说所论是两半之间曾一度省悟，合 拉班迦玛列「半量无省悟可言」之说。
-
由此可推：密释纳的前一款所论的是同属一样之食、又出于同一样器皿的。
by inference, the first clause in the mishna is referring to one type of food and one dish.
-
那样一来，难处就更大了。
The problem is then more difficult.
-
人吃了同属一样之食、又出于同一样器皿的两个半橄榄，还用得着说他有责么？
In a case where one ate two halves of an olive-bulk from one type of food and in one dish, was it necessary to say that he is liable?
-
那是明摆着的。
That is obvious.
-
拉夫胡纳 说：我们这里所论的是怎样的情形呢？
Rav Huna said: With what are we dealing here?
-
所论的是他吃这两个半橄榄之间曾一度省悟过来的情形。
We are dealing with a case where he had a period of awareness between eating the two half olive-bulks.
-
他吃了头一个半橄榄之后，省悟自己吃了所禁之食。
After eating the first half of an olive-bulk, he became aware that he had eaten food that was prohibited.
-
随后他又糊涂过去，吃了第二个半橄榄。
Then he became unaware again and ate the second half of an olive-bulk.
-
论献祭，省悟本来是把省悟以前与以后两段失察隔开的界线；只是这一段密释纳合 拉班迦玛列 的意思——那一位说过：半个分量上没有省悟可言。
Although, with regard to sacrifices, awareness usually serves as a line of demarcation between unwitting transgressions performed prior to the period of awareness and unwitting transgressions performed thereafter, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel who said: There is no awareness for half a measure.
-
人既不为半个分量献祭，那么他在两个半橄榄之间省悟过来这一层便无关紧要，论当献赎罪祭，那省悟并不把两个半量隔开。
Since one is not liable to bring a sacrifice for half a measure, the fact that one became aware between consumption of the two halves of an olive-bulk is of no significance and does not demarcate between the two half-measures with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering.