← 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 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。
答：幔子被虫蛀破了，人便把那口子撕长些，好缝得看不出来。
因为幔子若被虫蛀出一个口子，人便把那幔子再撕开些、把口子撕长，好缝得叫人看不出那破处来。
As, when a curtain had a worm which made a tear in it, they would tear the curtain further to lengthen the tear, and that enabled them to then sew it in a manner that obscured the tear.
拉夫祖特拉·巴尔·托维亚 传 拉夫 三句：抽紧针脚者当献赎罪祭；从祆祭司学一样事者当死；会推算节气星辰而不推算者不可与言。
拉夫祖特拉·巴尔·托维亚 说 拉夫 说：安息日把针脚的线抽紧的，当献赎罪祭。
Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who tightens the thread of a stitch on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.
衣裳上缝合的两片若开了缝，人把线一抽、又叫它合上，那就等于缝过了。
If two parts of a garment that were sewn together begin to separate, and one pulls the thread to reattach them, it is tantamount to having sewn them.
革玛拉 又引 拉夫祖特拉 奉 拉夫 之名所传的几条 哈拉哈。
The Gemara cites additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra in the name of Rav.
人从 祆祭司（就是波斯的祭司）学一样事的，便当受死。
And one who learns even one matter from a magosh, a Persian priest, is liable to receive the death penalty.
人会推算节气与星辰的运行而不去推算的，不可与他说话，因为他所行的不合式。
And one who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, and does not do so, one may not speak with him because his actions are improper.
论祆祭司：拉夫 与 撒母耳 一说是术士、一说是异端；由申命记 18:9–10「不可学着行」可推 拉夫 说的是异端。
革玛拉 接着论 拉夫祖特拉·巴尔·托维亚 所传那几条 哈拉哈。
The Gemara proceeds to discuss the additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra bar Toviya.
论 祆祭司，拉夫 与 撒母耳 有一争。
With regard to the magosh, Rav and Shmuel disagreed.
一位说他们是术士，一位说他们是异端。
One said that they are sorcerers, while the other said they are heretics.
革玛拉 附一语：由此可断，说他们是异端的正是 拉夫，因为 拉夫祖特拉·巴尔·托维亚 说 拉夫 说：人从 祆祭司 学一样事的便当受死。
The Gemara adds: Conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics, as Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who learns one matter from the magosh is liable to receive the death penalty.
因为你心里若以为他们是术士，经上岂不是写着：「你到了耶和华你神所赐之地，那些国民所行可憎恶的事，你不可学着行。」
As, if it should enter your mind that they are sorcerers, wasn’t it written: “When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
「你们中间不可有人使儿女经火，也不可有占卜的、观兆的、用法术的、行邪术的」（申命记 18:9–10）么？
There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that uses divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10)?
众贤由此推出：不可学着「行」，至于学着明白、学着教导邪术之事，却是可以的。
And the Sages inferred: You shall not learn to do, but you may learn to understand and to teach the topic of sorcery.
这样看来，单单学邪术之事本不算干犯。
Apparently, merely learning about sorcery does not violate a prohibition.
惟有照所学的去行才是禁的。
Only acting upon that learning is prohibited.
拉夫 既连从 祆祭司 学一样事也禁，可见他所持的是他们乃异端，不单是术士。
Rav, who prohibited learning even a single matter from a magosh, must hold that they are heretics, not merely sorcerers.
革玛拉 断道：诚然，由此可断，说他们是异端的正是 拉夫。
The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics.
巴尔·卡帕拉：会推算而不推算的，正应以赛亚书 5:12；拉比约哈难 由申命记 4:6「你们的智慧聪明」推出推算是一样诫命。
拉比西缅·本·帕齐 说 拉比约书亚·本·利未 奉 巴尔·卡帕拉 的名说：凡会推算节气与星辰运行而不去推算的，经上正是指着他说：「他们却不顾念耶和华的作为，也不留心他手所作的」（以赛亚书 5:12）。
Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Anyone who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations and does not do so, the verse says about him: “They do not take notice of the work of God, and they do not see His handiwork” (Isaiah 5:12).
拉比撒母耳·巴尔·纳赫马尼 说 拉比约哈难 说：人有推算节气与星辰运行这一样诫命，是从哪里推出来的呢？
And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that there is a mitzva incumbent upon a person to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations?
因为经上说：「所以你们要谨守遵行，这就是你们在万民眼前的智慧聪明」（申命记 4:6）。
As it was stated: “And you shall guard and perform, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations” (Deuteronomy 4:6).
托拉里有什么智慧聪明，是「在万民眼前」（就是人人都看得出、都佩服）的呢？
What wisdom and understanding is there in the Torah that is in the eyes of the nations, i.e., appreciated and recognized by all?
你只能说：正是推算节气与星辰的运行——因为行家所推的，人人都亲眼见得着。
You must say: This is the calculation of astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, as the calculation of experts is witnessed by all.
论捕捉：捕紫螺又敲开壳取血的，众贤说只献一祭，拉比犹大 说两祭（捕与打场）；拉瓦 说众贤所持是打场单管地里长的。
我们在密释纳所列的工作之父里学过：捕一只鹿（或别样活物）的。
We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who traps a deer or any other living creature.
众贤在 《托塞夫塔》 里教过：人捕了一只 紫螺、又把它的壳敲开取血作染料的，单献一次赎罪祭就是了。
The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who traps a ḥilazon and breaks its shell to remove its blood for the dye is liable to bring only one sin-offering.
他为敲那壳并不另担一分责。
He is not liable for breaking the shell.
拉比犹大 说：他当献两次——一次为「捕捉」，一次为「打场」；因为 拉比犹大 素常说：敲开 紫螺 的壳归在「打场」这一样工作之父底下，因为所要成的正是把所要的从所不要的壳里取出来。
Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to bring two, for performing the prohibited labors of trapping and for threshing, as Rabbi Yehuda would say: The breaking of a ḥilazon is included in the primary category of threshing, as its objective is to extract the matter that he desires from the shell that he does not.
众拉比对他说：敲那壳并不归在「打场」这一样工作之父底下。
The Rabbis said to him: Breaking the shell is not included in the primary category of threshing.
拉瓦 说：众拉比所据的是什么道理呢？
Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis?
他们所持的是：打场单管从地里长出来的出产。
They hold: Threshing applies only to produce that grows from the ground.
人把别样东西从裹着它的壳里取出来，是免责的。
One who extracts other materials from their covering is exempt.
革玛拉 问：纵取血不算打场，他把那活物弄死这一层岂不也当有责么？
The Gemara asks: Even if extracting blood is not considered threshing, let him be liable for taking a life as well.
拉比约哈难 说：所论的是他在那螺死了以后才敲开它的壳。
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is referring to a case where he broke its shell after it was dead.
拉瓦 说纵活着敲开也免责；举「断其首岂有不死」相难，答：那螺活得越久染料越清，故非他所愿之果。
拉瓦 说：纵你说他是趁那螺活着敲开的，他也免责。
Rava said: Even if you say that he broke it when it was alive, he is exempt.
他既无意弄死那 紫螺，便算作论「取命」这一层心不在此的人。
Since he had no intention of killing the ḥilazon, he is considered as one who is acting unawares with regard to taking a life.
革玛拉 举一难：阿巴耶 与 拉瓦 二人岂不是同说过——拉比西缅（那一位断说无意所致之果是许的）也认「把它的头砍下来，岂有不死的」那一样情形是有责的么？
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon, who rules that an unintentional act is permitted, agrees that in a case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, one is liable?
人所作的一举若必然要成那所禁之工，他便不能推说自己无意叫它成那样。
One who performs an action that will inevitably result in a prohibited labor cannot claim that he did not intend for his action to lead to that result.
惟有那结果不过是或有，不是必然的时候，「无意」才算得一条理由。
Lack of intention is only a valid claim when the result is merely possible, not inevitable.
人从 紫螺 里取血既必然取了它的命，拉瓦 怎能说他那一举是无意的呢？
Since one who extracts blood from a ḥilazon inevitably takes its life, how can Rava claim that his action is unintentional?
革玛拉 答：这里另是一样——那 紫螺 活得越久，于捕它的人越好，因为那样它的染料才清。
The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as the longer the ḥilazon lives, the better it is for the trapper, so that its dye will become clear.
从活的 紫螺 取的染料，比从死的取的要好。
Dye extracted from a live ḥilazon is a higher quality than that which is extracted from a dead one.
拉比西缅 所认「必然之果仍有责」的，单指那结果并不违他心愿的情形。
Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who performs an action with inevitable consequences is liable only in a case where the consequences are not contrary to his interests.
他既巴不得那 紫螺 活得越久越好，就不为那必然之果担责。
Since he prefers that the ḥilazon remain alive as long as possible, he is not liable for the inevitable consequences.
论宰杀：圣幕里本不用宰牲，宰的人归在哪一样工上有责？拉夫 说归在染色上（血把皮染了）。
我们在密释纳所列的工作之父里学过：安息日宰牲的。
We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat.
革玛拉 问：造圣幕本用不着宰牲，那么宰牲的人是归在哪一样所禁之工上有责呢？
The Gemara asks: As there was no slaughter necessary for construction of the Tabernacle, one who slaughters an animal, due to what prohibited labor is he liable?
拉夫 说：他归在「染色」这一样上有责，因为宰的时候血把皮染了。
Rav said: He is liable due to dyeing, as in the course of the slaughter the hide is dyed with blood.
撒母耳 说：他归在「取命」这一样上有责。
And Shmuel said: He is liable due to taking a life.