19b.1
引证
——如此六只牛合起来的宽约有十肘：这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。拉比犹大 照他自己的意思、就是可空出两套各四只牛那么宽，说：合起来约有十三肘，或约有十四肘。
-
——如此六只牛合起来的宽约有十肘：这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。
so that the total width of six oxen is approximately ten cubits; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
-
拉比犹大 照他自己的意思、就是可空出两套各四只牛那么宽，说：合起来约有十三肘，或约有十四肘。
Rabbi Yehuda said the following, in accordance with his own opinion that the gap may be the size of two teams of four oxen each: The total width is approximately thirteen cubits or approximately fourteen cubits.
19b.2
提问
革玛拉 问：这条 《巴拉伊塔》 里那位 坦拿 说 拉比梅伊尔 的话，何以说「约有十肘」呢？那岂不正是十肘么？革玛拉 答：他既要在末后一句、就是 拉比犹大 的话里教说「约有十三」，头一句也就照样说「约有十」。
-
革玛拉 问：这条 《巴拉伊塔》 里那位 坦拿 说 拉比梅伊尔 的话，何以说「约有十肘」呢？
The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita say: Approximately ten cubits in Rabbi Meir’s statement?
-
那岂不正是十肘么？
Isn’t it exactly ten cubits?
-
革玛拉 答：他既要在末后一句、就是 拉比犹大 的话里教说「约有十三」，头一句也就照样说「约有十」。
The Gemara answers: Since he wanted to teach: Approximately thirteen, in the last clause, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, he therefore also taught: Approximately ten, in the first clause.
19b.3
提问
革玛拉 问：可他怎能说「约有十三」呢——实在还多些。革玛拉 答：他既要教说「约有十四」，也就照样教说「约有十三」。革玛拉 顺这一路再问：可那也不是约有十四，倒是少些。拉夫帕帕 说：是十三肘零三分之一肘，够不着十四肘。
-
革玛拉 问：可他怎能说「约有十三」呢——实在还多些。
The Gemara asks: But how could he say: Approximately thirteen, when it is more?
-
革玛拉 答：他既要教说「约有十四」，也就照样教说「约有十三」。
The Gemara answers: Since he wanted to teach: Approximately fourteen, he therefore also teaches: Approximately thirteen.
-
革玛拉 顺这一路再问：可那也不是约有十四，倒是少些。
The Gemara continues this line of questioning: But they are not approximately fourteen, but rather are less.
-
拉夫帕帕 说：是十三肘零三分之一肘，够不着十四肘。
Rav Pappa said: It is a third of a cubit more than thirteen cubits, and it does not reach fourteen cubits.
19b.4
引证
拉夫帕帕 说：论旱井自身宽八肘的，众人都说——拉比犹大 与 拉比梅伊尔 都说——不必在双板之间另立竖板。那样情形，所围之地的宽是井的宽连牛所需之地、就是两边各二肘，合共十二肘。每副双板的宽既是一肘，双板之间所空的就是十肘；这么宽的空隙，连依 拉比梅伊尔 也是许的。
-
拉夫帕帕 说：论旱井自身宽八肘的，众人都说——拉比犹大 与 拉比梅伊尔 都说——不必在双板之间另立竖板。
Rav Pappa said: With regard to a water cistern whose own width is eight cubits, everyone agrees, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, that there is no need to position upright boards between the double posts.
-
那样情形，所围之地的宽是井的宽连牛所需之地、就是两边各二肘，合共十二肘。
In such a case, the width of the enclosed area, which is the width of the cistern together with the space required for the cows, i.e., two cubits on each side, is twelve cubits.
-
每副双板的宽既是一肘，双板之间所空的就是十肘；这么宽的空隙，连依 拉比梅伊尔 也是许的。
Since the width of each double post is one cubit, the gap between the double posts is ten cubits, and a gap of this size is permitted even according to Rabbi Meir.
19b.5
引证
论旱井宽十二肘的，众人都说须另立竖板。那样情形，纵两边各只加二肘给牛，所围之地也有十六肘，双板之间所空的就是十四肘——那么宽的，连依 拉比犹大 也须堵上。
-
论旱井宽十二肘的，众人都说须另立竖板。
With regard to a cistern whose width is twelve cubits, everyone agrees that there is a need for upright posts.
-
那样情形，纵两边各只加二肘给牛，所围之地也有十六肘，双板之间所空的就是十四肘——那么宽的，连依 拉比犹大 也须堵上。
In this case, even if only two cubits are added on each side for the cows, the enclosed area will be sixteen cubits, and the gap between the double posts will be fourteen cubits, which must be closed off even according to Rabbi Yehuda.
19b.6
引证
他们所争的，是旱井宽在八肘与十二肘之间的那一样。依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思，须另加竖板；依 拉比犹大 的意思，不必另加竖板。
-
他们所争的，是旱井宽在八肘与十二肘之间的那一样。
Where they disagree is in the case of a cistern whose width is between eight and twelve cubits.
-
依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思，须另加竖板；依 拉比犹大 的意思，不必另加竖板。
According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, one must add upright posts, whereas according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one need not add upright posts.
19b.7
提问
革玛拉 问：拉夫帕帕 这话教我们什么呢？我们在那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里已经学过：依 拉比梅伊尔，所空的不可过十肘；依 拉比犹大，可到十三肘零三分之一肘。
-
革玛拉 问：拉夫帕帕 这话教我们什么呢？
The Gemara asks: And what is Rav Pappa teaching us?
-
我们在那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里已经学过：依 拉比梅伊尔，所空的不可过十肘；依 拉比犹大，可到十三肘零三分之一肘。
We already learned in the baraita that according to Rabbi Meir the gap may not be more than ten cubits, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda it may be up to thirteen and a third cubits.
19b.8
解答
革玛拉 答：果然，于我们这里并没有教出新意；只是 拉夫帕帕 不曾听过这条 《巴拉伊塔》，他自己推出来的，正与那条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的相合。
-
革玛拉 答：果然，于我们这里并没有教出新意；只是 拉夫帕帕 不曾听过这条 《巴拉伊塔》，他自己推出来的，正与那条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的相合。
The Gemara answers: Indeed, for us nothing new is being taught here; however, Rav Pappa did not hear this baraita, and he taught us on his own as was taught in the baraita.
19b.9
提问
「加宽、多添、在土丘上、一排、一个院子、干了的」——这是记诵之词，含着 阿巴耶 在 拉巴 面前所提那一串疑问里的几个字眼。阿巴耶 在 拉巴 面前提出一疑：双板之间所空的过了十肘，人把双板加宽——就是把角板的每一臂各加宽一片竖板的量、就是各加一肘——使所空的不再过十肘，那么依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思，这条律当怎样断呢？我们是说这样就够了、不必再在两副双板之间立竖板呢，还是说那空隙里仍须立竖板呢？
-
「加宽、多添、在土丘上、一排、一个院子、干了的」——这是记诵之词，含着 阿巴耶 在 拉巴 面前所提那一串疑问里的几个字眼。
Extended, more, in a mound, a barrier of, a courtyard, that dried up; this is a mnemonic containing key words in a series of issues raised by Abaye before Rabba.
-
阿巴耶 在 拉巴 面前提出一疑：双板之间所空的过了十肘，人把双板加宽——就是把角板的每一臂各加宽一片竖板的量、就是各加一肘——使所空的不再过十肘，那么依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思，这条律当怎样断呢？
Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: If the gaps between the double posts were more than ten cubits, and one extended the double posts, that is, he widened each arm of the corner pieces, adding the measure of an upright board, i.e., another cubit, on each side, so that the gaps were no longer more than ten cubits, what is the law according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir?
-
我们是说这样就够了、不必再在两副双板之间立竖板呢，还是说那空隙里仍须立竖板呢？
Do we say that this suffices and it is no longer necessary to arrange upright boards between the two double posts, or must upright boards be positioned in the gaps?
19b.10
解答
拉巴 对他说：我们在密释纳里已经学过：只须他多添那几片板。这岂不是说他把双板加宽、使它们宽起来么？阿巴耶 驳说：不是，那或许是说他多作几片竖板、使它们多起来。
-
拉巴 对他说：我们在密释纳里已经学过：只须他多添那几片板。
Rabba said to him: We already learned it in the mishna: Provided that he increases the boards.
-
这岂不是说他把双板加宽、使它们宽起来么？
Does this not mean that he extends the double posts, increasing them in width?
-
阿巴耶 驳说：不是，那或许是说他多作几片竖板、使它们多起来。
Abaye refutes this: No, perhaps it means that he makes more upright boards, increasing them in number.
19b.11
反驳
拉巴 对他说：若是这样，「只须他多添那几片板」这样措辞就不精确了——那话含着说人把板自身加多；本该说「只须他多添竖板的数目」。阿巴耶 回说：这一处不必较真。你就教作：只须他多添竖板的数目。
-
拉巴 对他说：若是这样，「只须他多添那几片板」这样措辞就不精确了——那话含着说人把板自身加多；本该说「只须他多添竖板的数目」。
Rabba said to him: If so, this wording: Provided that he increases the boards, is imprecise, for it implies that one increases the boards themselves, and instead it should have stated: Provided that he increases the number of upright boards.
-
阿巴耶 回说：这一处不必较真。
Abaye answered: There is no need to be particular about this.
-
你就教作：只须他多添竖板的数目。
Teach: Provided that he increases the number of upright boards.
19b.12
引证
革玛拉 又引上头那一番议论的另一传法：有人说 拉巴 对 阿巴耶 是这样说的：我们已经学过：只须他多添那几片板。这岂不是说他多作几片竖板、使它们多起来么？阿巴耶 驳说：不是，那或许是说他把双板加宽、使它们宽起来。
-
革玛拉 又引上头那一番议论的另一传法：有人说 拉巴 对 阿巴耶 是这样说的：我们已经学过：只须他多添那几片板。
The Gemara cites an alternative version of the previous discussion: There are some who say that Rabba said to Abaye as follows: We already learned it: Provided that he increases the boards.
-
这岂不是说他多作几片竖板、使它们多起来么？
Does this not mean that he makes more upright boards, increasing them in number?
-
阿巴耶 驳说：不是，那或许是说他把双板加宽、使它们宽起来。
Abaye refutes this: No, perhaps it means that he extends the double posts, increasing them in width.
19b.13
推论
革玛拉 说：照理也当这样讲，因为密释纳教的是「只须他多添那几片竖板」，那话含着说他把板自身加宽——正合第二样传法。革玛拉 断说：正当从这里学得，这样讲才是对的。
-
革玛拉 说：照理也当这样讲，因为密释纳教的是「只须他多添那几片竖板」，那话含着说他把板自身加宽——正合第二样传法。
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say this, from the fact that the mishna teaches: Provided that he increases the upright boards, which implies that he extends the width of the boards themselves, in accordance with the second version.
-
革玛拉 断说：正当从这里学得，这样讲才是对的。
The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct understanding.
19b.14
提问
阿巴耶 又在 拉巴 面前提一疑：所空的过了十三肘零三分之一肘，依 拉比犹大 的意思，这条律当怎样断呢？他是拿竖板来立在双板之间呢，还是把双板加宽、使它们宽起来呢？
-
阿巴耶 又在 拉巴 面前提一疑：所空的过了十三肘零三分之一肘，依 拉比犹大 的意思，这条律当怎样断呢？
Abaye raised another dilemma before Rabba: If the gaps are more than thirteen and a third cubits, what is the law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?
-
他是拿竖板来立在双板之间呢，还是把双板加宽、使它们宽起来呢？
Does he bring upright boards and position them between the double posts, or does he extend the double posts, increasing them in width?
19b.15
引证
拉巴 对他说：相类的一件我们已经学过，因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：双板可以离井多近呢？近到只留一只母牛的头与大半身子那么长也可。离井又可以多远呢？他若愿意，所围之地纵放宽到一 歌珥 之地、甚至二 歌珥 之地也可，只须他把竖板的数目添够，使所空的不过所许之限。
-
拉巴 对他说：相类的一件我们已经学过，因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：双板可以离井多近呢？
Rabba said to him: We already learned the law in a similar case, for it was taught in a baraita: How close may the double posts be to the well?
-
近到只留一只母牛的头与大半身子那么长也可。
They can be as close as the length of the head and most of the body of a cow.
-
离井又可以多远呢？
And how far may they be from the well?
-
他若愿意，所围之地纵放宽到一 歌珥 之地、甚至二 歌珥 之地也可，只须他把竖板的数目添够，使所空的不过所许之限。
If one wishes, the enclosed area may be expanded even to the area of a kor and even to two kor, provided that one increases the number of upright boards adequately to keep the gaps under the allowable limit.
19b.16
引证
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：拉比犹大 说：放宽到二 塞亚之地 之地为止，这样围是许的；再放宽过二 塞亚之地 就不许了。众拉比对 拉比犹大 说：论牲栏、牛棚、后院与院子，纵有五 歌珥之地、甚至十 歌珥之地 也许人使用，这一层你岂不承认么？
-
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：拉比犹大 说：放宽到二 塞亚之地 之地为止，这样围是许的；再放宽过二 塞亚之地 就不许了。
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: Up to an area of two beit se’a, it is permitted to enclose the area in this manner; but expanding the enclosed area so it is more than an area of two beit se’a is prohibited.
-
众拉比对 拉比犹大 说：论牲栏、牛棚、后院与院子，纵有五 歌珥之地、甚至十 歌珥之地 也许人使用，这一层你岂不承认么？
The other Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you not agree with regard to a pen, and stable, and a backyard, and a courtyard that even an area of five beit kor and even of ten beit kor is permitted for use?
19b.17
引证
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：拉比犹大 对他们说：两样大有分别——那一样、就是院子四围的墙，是合式的隔断；这一样却只是几片竖板。
-
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：拉比犹大 对他们说：两样大有分别——那一样、就是院子四围的墙，是合式的隔断；这一样却只是几片竖板。
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda said to them: There is a significant difference between these cases, for this one, i.e., the wall surrounding the courtyard and the like, is a proper partition, whereas these are merely upright boards.
19b.18
反驳
革玛拉 就 拉巴 那话问说：若果真是把双板加宽、就是在井四围用越加越宽的双板作成一道合式的隔断，那便与院子的隔断一样了；那么他、就是 拉比犹大，本该说：这一样是隔断，那一样也是隔断。
-
革玛拉 就 拉巴 那话问说：若果真是把双板加宽、就是在井四围用越加越宽的双板作成一道合式的隔断，那便与院子的隔断一样了；那么他、就是 拉比犹大，本该说：这一样是隔断，那一样也是隔断。
The Gemara asks with regard to Rabba’s statement: And if it is so that one extend the double posts, this means that he makes a proper partition of increasingly wider double posts in the area surrounding the well, this is equivalent to the partitions of a courtyard, he, Rabbi Yehuda, should have said: This is a partition and that is a partition.
19b.19
解答
革玛拉 答：从这里引不出证据，因为 拉比犹大 的意思是这样：那一样、就是院子的墙，是按隔断之律办的，所以它上头所破的不可过十肘。这一样、就是井四围的，是按竖板之律办的，它们所空的可到十三肘零三分之一肘。所以照这样围起来的，只能有二 塞亚之地 之地。故此从这条 《巴拉伊塔》 引不出证据来解 阿巴耶 那一疑。
-
革玛拉 答：从这里引不出证据，因为 拉比犹大 的意思是这样：那一样、就是院子的墙，是按隔断之律办的，所以它上头所破的不可过十肘。
The Gemara answers: No proof can be brought from here, for Rabbi Yehuda is saying as follows: This one, the walls of a courtyard, are governed by the laws of a partition, and therefore its breaches must not be more than ten cubits.
-
这一样、就是井四围的，是按竖板之律办的，它们所空的可到十三肘零三分之一肘。
Whereas these, which surround the well, are governed by the laws of upright boards, and their breaches may be up to thirteen and a third cubits.
-
所以照这样围起来的，只能有二 塞亚之地 之地。
Consequently, only an area of two beit se’a can be enclosed in this manner.
-
故此从这条 《巴拉伊塔》 引不出证据来解 阿巴耶 那一疑。
Therefore, no proof can be brought from this baraita to Abaye’s dilemma.
19b.20
提问
阿巴耶 又在 拉巴 面前提一疑：一座土丘在四肘之内升到十掌高的，可以作双板用么，还是作不得双板？
-
阿巴耶 又在 拉巴 面前提一疑：一座土丘在四肘之内升到十掌高的，可以作双板用么，还是作不得双板？
Abaye raised another dilemma before Rabba: Can a mound that rises to a height of ten handbreadths within an area of four cubits serve as a double post or can it not serve as a double post?
19b.21
解答
拉巴 对他说：这一件我们在下头这条 《巴拉伊塔》 里已经学过：拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：那里若有一块四方的石头，我们就把那石头看作已经改过的：凡可以这样分开、使这一面留一肘、那一面成直角也留一肘的，就可以作双板用；不然，就作不得双板。
-
拉巴 对他说：这一件我们在下头这条 《巴拉伊塔》 里已经学过：拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：那里若有一块四方的石头，我们就把那石头看作已经改过的：凡可以这样分开、使这一面留一肘、那一面成直角也留一肘的，就可以作双板用；不然，就作不得双板。
Rabba said to him: We already learned this in the following baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If a square stone was present, we see the stone as if it were altered: Wherever it can be divided in such a way that there would remain a cubit here in one direction and a cubit there at a right angle to it, it can serve as a double post; but if not, it cannot serve as a double post.
19b.22
引证
拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡之子拉比以实玛利 说：那里若有一块圆石头，我们就把那石头看作已经改过的：凡可以凿成四方、再这样分开、使这一面留一肘、那一面成直角也留一肘的，就可以作双板用；不然，就作不得双板。无论怎样，从这两句话学得：凡合了所要的大小与样式的，都可以作双板用。
-
拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡之子拉比以实玛利 说：那里若有一块圆石头，我们就把那石头看作已经改过的：凡可以凿成四方、再这样分开、使这一面留一肘、那一面成直角也留一肘的，就可以作双板用；不然，就作不得双板。
Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: If a round stone was present, we see the stone as if it were altered: Wherever it could be chiseled down into a square, and then divided in such a way that there would remain a cubit here in one direction and a cubit there at a right angle to it, it can serve as a double post; but if not, it cannot serve as a double post.
-
无论怎样，从这两句话学得：凡合了所要的大小与样式的，都可以作双板用。
In any case, it is learned from these two statements that anything can serve as a double post if it is of the requisite size and shape.
19b.23
解答
就这条 《巴拉伊塔》 本身，革玛拉 问：这两位 坦拿 所争的是什么呢？革玛拉 讲明：一位、就是 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒，以为我们说「看作」一次。却不说「看作」两次。就是说：那石头虽可看作已经分开的，却不可又看作已经凿成四方的。另一位、就是 拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡之子拉比以实玛利，以为我们连「看作」两次也说。土丘既与圆石头相类，所以它可以作双板用。
-
就这条 《巴拉伊塔》 本身，革玛拉 问：这两位 坦拿 所争的是什么呢？
With regard to the baraita itself, the Gemara asks: With regard to what do these two tanna’im disagree?
-
革玛拉 讲明：一位、就是 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒，以为我们说「看作」一次。
The Gemara explains that one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that we say: We see, once.
-
却不说「看作」两次。
However, we do not say: We see, twice.
-
就是说：那石头虽可看作已经分开的，却不可又看作已经凿成四方的。
That is to say, while the stone can be considered as if it were divided, it cannot also be considered as though it were chiseled down into a square.
-
另一位、就是 拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡之子拉比以实玛利，以为我们连「看作」两次也说。
And the other Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, holds that we even say: We see, twice.
-
土丘既与圆石头相类，所以它可以作双板用。
Since a mound is similar to a round stone, it can therefore serve as a double post.
19b.24
提问
阿巴耶 又在 拉巴 面前提一疑：一排作成双板样式的芦苇，苇与苇之间相隔不足三掌、依 视为相连 之法算作相连的，可以作双板用么，还是不可？
-
阿巴耶 又在 拉巴 面前提一疑：一排作成双板样式的芦苇，苇与苇之间相隔不足三掌、依 视为相连 之法算作相连的，可以作双板用么，还是不可？
Abaye raised another dilemma before Rabba: With regard to a barrier of reeds in the shape of a double post, where each reed is less than three handbreadths apart from the next, so that they are considered connected by the principle of lavud, can it serve as a double post or not?
19b.25
解答
拉巴 对他说：这条律我们在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里已经学过，那条说：那里若有一棵树、或一道篱、或一排芦苇，就可以作双板用。这岂不是指苇与苇之间相隔不足三掌的那一排芦苇么？
-
拉巴 对他说：这条律我们在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里已经学过，那条说：那里若有一棵树、或一道篱、或一排芦苇，就可以作双板用。
Rabba said to him: We already learned this law in a baraita that states: If a tree, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds was present, it serves as a double post.
-
这岂不是指苇与苇之间相隔不足三掌的那一排芦苇么？
Does this not refer to a barrier of reeds where each reed is less than three handbreadths from the next?
19b.26
反驳
革玛拉 驳这一说：不是，那或许是指丛生密挤、成了柱子样的一片芦苇。革玛拉 提一难：若是这样，那就与一棵树一样了，那位 坦拿 不会把同一样情形教两遍。
-
革玛拉 驳这一说：不是，那或许是指丛生密挤、成了柱子样的一片芦苇。
The Gemara refutes this: No, it may perhaps refer to a thicket of reeds planted close together, forming a kind of post.
-
革玛拉 提一难：若是这样，那就与一棵树一样了，那位 坦拿 不会把同一样情形教两遍。
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, it is equivalent to a tree, and the tanna would not repeat the same case twice.
19b.27
反驳
革玛拉 驳这个讲法：那么怎么说呢？你要说这条 《巴拉伊塔》 指的是苇与苇之间相隔不足三掌的那一排芦苇么？若是这样，那就是一道篱了。所以你必得说：这条 《巴拉伊塔》 教的是两样篱；那么这里你也可以说：它教的是两样树——故此从这条 《巴拉伊塔》 引不出证据来。
-
革玛拉 驳这个讲法：那么怎么说呢？
The Gemara rejects this argument: What, then?
-
你要说这条 《巴拉伊塔》 指的是苇与苇之间相隔不足三掌的那一排芦苇么？
Would you say that the baraita is referring to a barrier of reeds where each reed is less than three handbreadths apart?
-
若是这样，那就是一道篱了。
If so, it is a fence.
-
所以你必得说：这条 《巴拉伊塔》 教的是两样篱；那么这里你也可以说：它教的是两样树——故此从这条 《巴拉伊塔》 引不出证据来。
Rather, what must you say is that the baraita teaches two types of fence; here too, then, you can say that it teaches two types of tree, and therefore no proof can be brought from this baraita.
19b.28
引证
革玛拉 又引上头那一番议论的另一传法：有人说那一问是这样提的，阿巴耶 在 拉巴 面前所提的疑，是丛生密挤的一片芦苇可否作双板用。拉巴 对他说：这条律我们在下头这条 《巴拉伊塔》 里已经学过：那里若有一棵树、或一道篱、或一排芦苇，就可以作双板用。这岂不是指丛生密挤的一片芦苇么？
-
革玛拉 又引上头那一番议论的另一传法：有人说那一问是这样提的，阿巴耶 在 拉巴 面前所提的疑，是丛生密挤的一片芦苇可否作双板用。
The Gemara cites an alternative version of the previous discussion: There are some who say that the question was posed differently, and the dilemma Abaye raised before Rabba was about whether or not a dense thicket of reeds can serve as a double post.
-
拉巴 对他说：这条律我们在下头这条 《巴拉伊塔》 里已经学过：那里若有一棵树、或一道篱、或一排芦苇，就可以作双板用。
Rabba said to him: We already learned this law in the following baraita: If a tree, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds was present, it can serve as a double post.
-
这岂不是指丛生密挤的一片芦苇么？
Does this not refer to a thicket of reeds?
19b.29
反驳
革玛拉 驳这一说：不是，那或许是指苇与苇之间相隔不足三掌的那一排芦苇。革玛拉 提一难：若是这样，那正是一道篱。
-
革玛拉 驳这一说：不是，那或许是指苇与苇之间相隔不足三掌的那一排芦苇。
The Gemara refutes this: No, it may perhaps refer to a barrier of reeds where each reed is less than three handbreadths apart from the next.
-
革玛拉 提一难：若是这样，那正是一道篱。
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, it is exactly a fence.
19b.30
反驳
革玛拉 驳这个讲法：那么怎么说呢？你要说这条 《巴拉伊塔》 指的是丛生密挤的一片芦苇么？若是这样，那就是一棵树了。所以你必得说——
-
革玛拉 驳这个讲法：那么怎么说呢？
The Gemara rejects this argument: What, then?
-
你要说这条 《巴拉伊塔》 指的是丛生密挤的一片芦苇么？
Would you say that the baraita refers to a thicket of reeds?
-
若是这样，那就是一棵树了。
If so, this is a tree.
-
所以你必得说——
Rather, what must you say is