← 安息日卷总目·第十一章 投掷者
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 12 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。
这岂不是说 拉比犹大·哈纳西 连工作之子与工作之父并行的也判有责么——搬出与搬进本是一父一子。
这岂不是说：拉比犹大·哈纳西 连人把工作之子与工作之父并行的也判为有责么？
Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems one liable for a subcategory of prohibited labor when performed with a primary category of prohibited labor?
到底搬出与搬进本是一样工作之父与它的工作之子。
After all, carrying out and carrying in constitute a primary category of prohibited labor and its subcategory.
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 说 拉比犹大·哈纳西 从出埃及记 35:1「אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים」推出三十九样：דְּבָרִים 复数得二，加冠词 הַ 得三，אֵלֶּה 的数值（א 一、ל 三十、ה 五）合三十六。他既以工作之父有定数，便只判父不判子。
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教说，拉比犹大·哈纳西 说安息日之工正在这一节里：「这些是耶和华所吩咐你们当行的事〔אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים〕」（出埃及记 35:1）？
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that Shabbat is mentioned in the verse: “These are the things [eleh hadevarim] that God has commanded to perform them” (Exodus 35:1)?
从这一节多出来的几处措辞里，推出好几层来。
Several points are derived from the superfluous emphases in this verse.
妥拉 本可以单说「这是一件事〔דָּבָר〕」。
The Torah could simply have stated: This is a thing [davar].
它既说「事」的复数〔דְּבָרִים〕，便至少教出两层来。
When it states things [devarim] in the plural, it teaches at least two points.
「事」上又加了冠词、作「这些事〔הַדְּבָרִים〕」，便至少再添第三层。
The addition of the definite article the in the term the things [hadevarim] adds at least a third point.
至于 אֵלֶּה 三个字母的数值——阿莱夫 是一、拉梅德 是三十、黑 是五——合起来是三十六。
The numerological value of letters of the word eleh, which are alef, one; lamed, thirty; and heh, five, is thirty-six.
「这些是那些事」一语，正暗指三加三十六，就是西奈山上对摩西所说的三十九样禁工。
The phrase: These are the things, alludes to three plus thirty-six derivation, i.e., the thirty-nine prohibited labors that were stated to Moses at Sinai.
拉比犹大·哈纳西 既以为工作之父有一定的数目，他断然只为工作之父判责，不为工作之子判责。
Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that there are a fixed number of primary categories of labor, he would certainly hold a person liable for the primary categories but not for the subcategories.
拉夫约瑟 对他说：夫子把 拉夫犹大 那句话归在 拉比犹大·哈纳西 名下，才有这难处；我们是把它归在 拉比犹大 名下学的，就没有难处。
拉夫约瑟 对他说：夫子把 拉夫犹大 那句话归在这一位名下讲，所以才遇着难处。
Rav Yosef said to him: The Master taught Rav Yehuda’s statement with regard to this, and consequently, he encounters a difficulty.
那便是 拉比犹大·哈纳西 的这一句与他那一句相违了。
One statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi contradicts another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
我们是把 拉夫犹大 那句话归在 拉比犹大 的意思上学的，所以于我们并没有难处。
We learn the statement of Rav Yehuda with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and therefore there is no difficulty for us.
因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：人把东西从私人区掷到公共区、那东西在公共区里飞过四肘的，拉比犹大 判有责，众拉比判无责。
因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：人把东西从私人区掷到公共区，那东西在公共区里行过四肘之远，拉比犹大 判他有责，众拉比判他无责。
As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who threw an object from the private domain to the public domain, and it traveled four cubits in the public domain, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable and the Rabbis deem him exempt.
撒母耳 说 拉比犹大 要判两个赎罪祭——一为搬出、一为在公共区行四肘；众拉比免了后一层。若说只判一个，众拉比便全然无责了，那岂说得通？答曰说得通：他若说「我只要它一出公共区就落定」。
拉夫犹大 奉 撒母耳 之名说：这样的情形，拉比犹大 要判他献两个赎罪祭——一个为从私人区搬出到公共区，一个为把那东西在公共区里带过四肘。
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda would deem him liable to bring two sin-offerings in this case, one for carrying out from the private domain into the public domain and one for carrying the object four cubits through the public domain.
众拉比免了他在公共区里行四肘那一层之责。
The Rabbis deem him exempt for carrying four cubits in the public domain.
非这样讲不可，因为你若以为 拉比犹大 只判他献一个赎罪祭，由此推之，众拉比便判他全然无责了。
And it must be interpreted that way because if it would enter your mind to say that Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to bring only one sin-offering, by inference, the Rabbis deem him completely exempt.
那怎么讲得通呢？
How is that possible?
他岂不是把东西从私人区搬到公共区去了么？
Didn’t he carry an object out from the private domain into the public domain?
这凭据被驳回了：你从哪里断出那一层呢？
This proof is rejected: And from where do you draw that conclusion?
或者我实在可以对你说：拉比犹大 只判他献一个赎罪祭，众拉比判他全然无责；那么这样的情形怎么找得着呢？
Perhaps I could actually say to you that Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to bring one sin-offering and the Rabbis deem him completely exempt, and how do you find that circumstance?
就是他说「我的意思是要它一出到公共区就立刻落定」的那一种。
In a case where he said: My intention is that as soon it, the object, goes out into the public domain it will immediately come to rest.
两下所争在此：拉比犹大 说「物在空中即算落定」，他的心意便成就了；众拉比说不算落定，心意未成，故无责。至于工作之子与工作之父并行，拉比犹大 本不判责。
他们所争的正在这一层：拉比犹大 以为我们说「物在空中便算已经落定」，所以他的心意成就了。
And they disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that we say: An object in airspace is considered at rest, and therefore his intention was fulfilled.
那东西一进到公共区的空中，便算已经落定。
As soon as the object enters the airspace of the public domain it is considered to have come to rest.
众拉比却以为我们不说「物在空中便算已经落定」，所以他的心意没有成就，他便无责。
And the Rabbis maintain that we do not say: An object in airspace is considered at rest, and therefore his intention was not fulfilled and he is exempt.
至于 拉比犹大，他本不为人把工作之子与工作之父并行而判责。
However, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold one liable for a subcategory of labor performed together with a primary category of labor.
这样讲不通，因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 说 拉比犹大 在工作之父上还添「排经」与「打纬」两样；众拉比说排经是「张经」之子、打纬是「织」之子。这岂不是说两样并行、他仍判有责么？
革玛拉 驳回这个讲法：这话你心里断说不通，因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：拉比犹大 在工作之父的名目上还添了「排经线」与「打纬线」两样。
The Gemara rejects this explanation: It could not enter your mind to say so, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda adds even lining up the threads of the warp and beating the threads of the woof to the list of primary categories of labor.
众拉比对他说：排经是归在「把经线张在机上」这一样工作之父底下的工作之子，打纬是归在「织」这一样工作之父底下的。
The Rabbis said to him: Lining up is a subcategory subsumed under the primary category of stretching the threads of the warp within the loom, and beating is subsumed under the primary category of weaving.
这岂不是指人把排经与打纬两样并行的情形么？由此岂不可断出：拉比犹大 连工作之子与工作之父并行的也判为有责么？
Is this not referring to a case where one performed both lining up and beating together, and learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable for both a subcategory and a primary category of labor when they are performed together?
你从哪里断出那一层呢？或者所指是各行一样；拉比犹大 本不为子父并行判责。两下所争在此：拉比犹大 以为那两样另是工作之父，众拉比以为它们是工作之子。
革玛拉 驳回这个凭据：你从哪里断出那一层呢？
The Gemara rejects this proof: And from where do you draw that conclusion?
或者所指的实在是他单行了这一样、又单行了那一样；而 拉比犹大 本不为人把工作之子与工作之父并行而判责。
Perhaps it is actually referring to a case where one performed this action alone and this action alone, and Rabbi Yehuda does not deem one liable for a subcategory of labor performed together with a primary category of labor.
拉比犹大 与众拉比所争的正在这一层。
And Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this.
拉比犹大 以为：排经与打纬这两样另是工作之父；众拉比却以为：这两样是工作之子。
Rabbi Yehuda maintains as follows: These actions of lining up and beating are additional primary categories of labor, and the Rabbis maintain as follows: These are subcategories.
可知果然如此，因为那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说「拉比犹大 还添」——若是工作之父，「添」字才有着落；若是工作之子，「添」字便无从讲了。又传 拉巴 与 拉夫约瑟 同说：拉比犹大 只判一个赎罪祭。
可知果然是这样，因为那条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：拉比犹大 还添。
Know that this is so, as the baraita teaches: Rabbi Yehuda adds.
革玛拉 讲明那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里这一语：你若说 拉比犹大 的意思是那两样另算工作之父，那么「他还添」是什么意思呢？
The Gemara explains this quote from the baraita: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda meant that these are primary categories of labor, what is the meaning of: He adds?
意思是他在工作之父上添了两样。
It means he adds primary categories of labor.
但你若说他的意思是那两样算工作之子，那么「他还添」又是什么意思呢？
However, if you say that he meant that these are subcategories, what is the meaning of: He adds?
所传也有这样说的：拉巴 与 拉夫约瑟 二人同说：拉比犹大 只判他献一个赎罪祭。
It was also stated that it was Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said: Rabbi Yehuda deemed him liable to bring only one sin-offering.
拉维纳 问 拉夫阿施：照起初所想他要判两祭，那怎么讲得通——他若只要东西落在此，便不要它落在彼。拉夫阿施 答：他若说「随它落在哪里都好」，便讲得通。
拉维纳 对 拉夫阿施 说：照我们起初所想的——拉比犹大 要判他献两个赎罪祭——那么他怎能既为从私人区搬出担责、又为在公共区里行四肘担责呢？
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And according to what originally entered our mind that Rabbi Yehuda deemed him liable to bring two sin-offerings, how could he be liable for both carrying out from the private domain and for carrying four cubits in the public domain?
他若单要那东西落在这里、就是公共区的起头处，他便不要它落在那里、就是公共区四肘之外。
If one only wanted the object to land here at the beginning of the public domain, he did not want it to land here, four cubits into the public domain.
反过来，他若单要那东西落在那里、就是公共区四肘之外，他便不要它落在这里、就是公共区的起头处。
Conversely, if one only wanted the object to land here, four cubits into the public domain, he did not want it to land here, at the beginning of the public domain.
拉夫阿施 对 拉维纳 说：这在他说「随它情愿落在哪里，就让它落在哪里」的情形里是讲得通的。
Rav Ashi said to Ravina: It is possible in a case where one says: Any place that it wants to come to rest, let it come to rest.
他既这样说，就表明所掷之物无论落在哪里，他的心意都算成就了。
One indicated that his intention would be fulfilled wherever the thrown object lands.
论掷物的心意：本要掷八肘而只掷了四肘的，显然有责——正如人写 שֵׁם 两个字母、虽没写全「西缅」，也算写了字。所疑的是：本要掷四肘而掷了八肘的，当怎样断？
论安息日把东西从这一区掷到那一区、并在同一区里掷，革玛拉 就掷物的心意举出几层来问。
Concerning throwing an object on Shabbat from one domain to another and within a single domain, the Gemara raises several issues with regard to intention when throwing.
人本要在公共区里把东西掷出八肘、实际只掷了四肘的，显然有责，因为那与人写下 שֵׁם 一样——那是「西缅」一名的头两个字母。
It is obvious that one who intended to throw an object eight cubits in a public domain and actually threw it only four cubits is liable because that case is similar to a case where one wrote the word shem, the first two letters of the name Shimon.
论写 שֵׁם 这一件，那人虽没有把当初所要写的名写全，却已行了写两个字母这一样禁工。
In the case of writing shem, the individual performed the prohibited labor of writing a two-letter word, even though he did not complete the word that he originally intended to write.
所要问的是这一层：人本要把东西掷出四肘、却掷了八肘的，这条 哈拉哈 当怎样断呢？
The question is as follows: What is the halakha if one intended to throw an object four cubits and threw it eight?
我们说他到底把那东西搬过去了呢，还是说那东西末了并没有落在他所要它落的地方呢？
Do we say he did indeed carry the object, or perhaps we say that ultimately the object did not land where he wanted it to land?
但这岂不正是上文 拉维纳 对 拉夫阿施 所问的那一层么？
But is that not precisely what Ravina said to Rav Ashi, as mentioned above?
拉夫阿施 岂不是答说：所指的是他说「随它情愿落在哪里，就让它落在哪里」的情形么？
And Rav Ashi said in response that it is referring to a case where one says: Any place that it wants to come to rest, let it come to rest.
那样的情形他是有责的，因为他既这样说，就表明那东西上无论成就了哪一样工，他都甘心。
In such a scenario one is liable, because he expressed the fact that he is contented with any labor that will be performed with the object.
前一件看似明白，其实也须分说：写 שֵׁם 一例，辛 与 梅姆 两个字母不写，「西缅」便写不成；掷八肘却不必先落在四肘处。故那一疑仍悬。
再者，那看似明白的头一件，其实也须讲明。
Furthermore, the first case, which seems obvious, also requires clarification.
你所说「这与人写下 שֵׁם 一样」，果真一样么？
And that which you said, that this is similar to a case where one wrote the word shem, the first two letters of the name Shimon, is it in fact similar?
那里，שֵׁם 的两个字母——辛 与 梅姆——一日不写，「西缅」一名便一日写不成。
There, as long as the letters of shem, shin and mem, are not written, the name Shimon cannot be written.
这里，人本要把东西掷出八肘、却只掷了四肘；难道那东西不先掷过四肘，就掷不出八肘么？
Here, where one intended to throw the object eight cubits and he threw it only four, is it true that as long as it was not thrown four cubits it cannot be thrown eight?
东西掷出八肘，并不须先在四肘处落一落。
An object can be thrown eight cubits without first landing after four cubits.
这一疑仍旧悬着。
The question remains unresolved.
众贤教说：人安息日把东西从这一公共区经私人区掷到那一公共区，两处公共区里合计行过四肘的，便有责。
众贤教说：人安息日把东西从这一处公共区经过私人区掷到另一处公共区，那东西在两处公共区里合计行过四肘之远的，他便有责。
The Sages taught: With regard to one who throws an object on Shabbat from the public domain to the other public domain through the private domain, he is liable if he throws an object a total of four cubits in both parts of the public domain.