← 移入纹卷总目·第二章 井边立板
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 7 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。
——说这条 《巴拉伊塔》 教的是两样树；那么这里你也可以说：它教的是两样篱——故此从这条 《巴拉伊塔》 引不出证据来。
——说这条 《巴拉伊塔》 教的是两样树；那么这里你也可以说：它教的是两样篱——故此从这条 《巴拉伊塔》 引不出证据来。
that the baraita teaches two types of tree; here too, then, you can say that it teaches two types of fence, and therefore no proof can be brought from this baraita.
阿巴耶 又问 拉巴：一个院子，它敞着的那一头插在井四围的竖板之间——从院内往板间搬运、从板间往院内搬运，这条律当怎样断呢？拉巴 对他说：是许的。
阿巴耶 又问 拉巴：一个院子，它敞着的那一头插在井四围的竖板之间——从院内往板间搬运、从板间往院内搬运，这条律当怎样断呢？
And Abaye further inquired of Rabba: With regard to a courtyard, the open end of which interposed between the boards surrounding a well, what is the law with regard to carrying from inside the courtyard to the area between the upright boards, and from the area between the boards into the courtyard?
拉巴 对他说：是许的。
Rabba said to him: It is permitted.
阿巴耶 又问他：若是两个相邻的院子插在井四围的竖板之间，这条律又当怎样断呢？从院内往板间搬运、从板间往院内搬运，许不许呢？拉巴 回他说：不许。
阿巴耶 又问他：若是两个相邻的院子插在井四围的竖板之间，这条律又当怎样断呢？
Abaye then asked him: And if two adjacent courtyards interposed between the boards surrounding a well, what is the law?
从院内往板间搬运、从板间往院内搬运，许不许呢？
Is it permitted to carry from inside them to the area between the boards, and vice versa?
拉巴 回他说：不许。
Rabba said to him in response: It is prohibited.
拉夫胡纳 说：论两个院子那一样，纵两院的住户一同立了 合界，也不许搬运。这是因为立了一条禁令，免得人说 合界 于井四围板间之地也管用。拉瓦 却不以为然，说：他们既一同立了 合界，两院与板间之地彼此搬运就是许的；立了 合界，两个院子就看作一个了。
拉夫胡纳 说：论两个院子那一样，纵两院的住户一同立了 合界，也不许搬运。
Rav Huna said: In the case of two courtyards, it is prohibited to carry, even if the residents of the two courtyards made an eiruv together.
这是因为立了一条禁令，免得人说 合界 于井四围板间之地也管用。
This is because of a decree lest they come to say that an eiruv is effective for the area between the upright boards.
拉瓦 却不以为然，说：他们既一同立了 合界，两院与板间之地彼此搬运就是许的；立了 合界，两个院子就看作一个了。
Rava, however, disagreed and said: If they made an eiruv together, it is permitted to carry between the courtyards and the area between the boards, and vice versa; with the preparation of the eiruv, the two courtyards are regarded as one.
阿巴耶 对 拉瓦 说：有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的正助你的意思，因为那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说：一个院子，它有一头插在井四围的竖板之间的，从院内往板间搬运、从板间往院内搬运都许；若是两个相邻的院子，就不许。这话是就哪一样情形说的呢？是就两院的住户没有一同立 合界 说的；他们若一同立了 合界，两院与板间之地彼此搬运就是许的。
阿巴耶 对 拉瓦 说：有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的正助你的意思，因为那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说：一个院子，它有一头插在井四围的竖板之间的，从院内往板间搬运、从板间往院内搬运都许；若是两个相邻的院子，就不许。
Abaye said to Rava: What was taught in a baraita supports your opinion, for the baraita states: In the case of a courtyard, one end of which interposes between the upright boards surrounding a well, it is permitted to carry from inside the courtyard to the area between the upright boards, and from the area between the upright boards into the courtyard, but if there were two adjacent courtyards, this is prohibited.
这话是就哪一样情形说的呢？
With regard to which case was this statement made?
是就两院的住户没有一同立 合界 说的；他们若一同立了 合界，两院与板间之地彼此搬运就是许的。
The statement applies where the residents of the two courtyards did not make an eiruv together; but if they made an eiruv together, it is permitted to carry between the courtyards and the area between the boards, and vice versa.
革玛拉 问：我们要说这就把 拉夫胡纳 的意思驳倒了么——那条 《巴拉伊塔》 明明与他的意思相反？革玛拉 驳这个讲法：拉夫胡纳 可以对你说：那里那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说的是两个院子后来因隔开它们的墙破了口而连成一处的那一样——那是众人都看得出只有一个院子，所以不必顾虑人会说 合界 于板间之地也管用。
革玛拉 问：我们要说这就把 拉夫胡纳 的意思驳倒了么——那条 《巴拉伊塔》 明明与他的意思相反？
The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is a refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, for the baraita explicitly contradicts his opinion?
革玛拉 驳这个讲法：拉夫胡纳 可以对你说：那里那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说的是两个院子后来因隔开它们的墙破了口而连成一处的那一样——那是众人都看得出只有一个院子，所以不必顾虑人会说 合界 于板间之地也管用。
The Gemara rejects this argument: Rav Huna could have said to you: There, the baraita is dealing with a case where the two courtyards later became joined by means of the wall that separated them being breached, and it is clear to all that it is a single courtyard, so that there is no concern that people will say that an eiruv is effective for the area between the boards.
阿巴耶 又问 拉巴 一件：旱井里的水安息日干了，这条律当怎样断呢？板间之地还许搬运么？拉巴 对他说：那几片板算作合式的隔断，单是为着水的缘故；这里既没有水了，也就没有合式的隔断了。
阿巴耶 又问 拉巴 一件：旱井里的水安息日干了，这条律当怎样断呢？
Abaye asked Rabba yet another question: If the water in the cistern dried up on Shabbat, what is the law?
板间之地还许搬运么？
Is it still permitted to carry between the boards?
拉巴 对他说：那几片板算作合式的隔断，单是为着水的缘故；这里既没有水了，也就没有合式的隔断了。
Rabba said to him: The boards are considered a valid partition only on account of the water; since there is no longer any water here, there is also no longer a valid partition here.
拉文 提出一疑：井里的水安息日干了，随后当日下了雨、别的水补了它的地方，这条律当怎样断呢？原先所许的又复了么？阿巴耶 对他说：水安息日干了那一样，不必成你的疑，因为我早已把这一疑提在我的先生 拉巴 面前，他给我断定了：所围之内不许搬运。
拉文 提出一疑：井里的水安息日干了，随后当日下了雨、别的水补了它的地方，这条律当怎样断呢？
Ravin raised a dilemma: If the water in the well dried up on Shabbat, and then on the same Shabbat it rained and other water came in its place, what is the law?
原先所许的又复了么？
Is the original allowance to carry restored?
阿巴耶 对他说：水安息日干了那一样，不必成你的疑，因为我早已把这一疑提在我的先生 拉巴 面前，他给我断定了：所围之内不许搬运。
Abaye said to him: The case where the water dried up on Shabbat should not be a dilemma for you, for I already raised this dilemma before my Master, Rabba, and he resolved for me that it is prohibited to carry in the enclosed area.
别的水安息日补上那一样，也不必成你的疑，因为那是安息日立起来的隔断；有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 早已教说：凡安息日立起来的隔断，不拘是无意立的、是故意立的、是遇着不得已的事立的、还是自愿立的，都称为合式的隔断。那隔断虽是照禁的样式立起来的、犯了与建造相关的禁令，却不因此失其功用。
别的水安息日补上那一样，也不必成你的疑，因为那是安息日立起来的隔断；有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 早已教说：凡安息日立起来的隔断，不拘是无意立的、是故意立的、是遇着不得已的事立的、还是自愿立的，都称为合式的隔断。
The case where other water came on Shabbat should also not be a dilemma for you, for this is a case of a partition erected on Shabbat, and it was already taught in a baraita: Any partition erected on Shabbat, whether it was erected unwittingly, or whether intentionally, whether by unavoidable accident, or whether willingly, it is called a valid partition.
那隔断虽是照禁的样式立起来的、犯了与建造相关的禁令，却不因此失其功用。
The fact that it was erected in a prohibited manner, in violation of prohibitions related to building, does not negate its effectiveness.
拉文 提一难：论这条 哈拉哈，岂不是有 拉夫纳赫曼 的话说：他们说那样的隔断称为隔断，单是从严说的——依 妥拉 之律，人不可把物件从那样围起来的地方抛到公共区，也不可从公共区抛进去；至于把它当作十足的私人区在其中搬运，众贤者并不许？
拉文 提一难：论这条 哈拉哈，岂不是有 拉夫纳赫曼 的话说：他们说那样的隔断称为隔断，单是从严说的——依 妥拉 之律，人不可把物件从那样围起来的地方抛到公共区，也不可从公共区抛进去；至于把它当作十足的私人区在其中搬运，众贤者并不许？
Ravin raised a difficulty: Was it not stated with regard to this halakha that Rav Naḥman said: They only taught that such a partition is called a partition as a stringency; it is prohibited by Torah law to throw objects from an area enclosed by such a partition into the public domain and vice versa, but to carry in it as a full-fledged private domain is not permitted by the Sages?
革玛拉 驳这一难：拉夫纳赫曼 那话单指故意立起隔断的那一样。那隔断既是安息日故意立起来的，众贤者就加一层罚：所围之内不许搬运。至于无意立起来的、或自己成了的隔断，并没有加这样的罚，其中的搬运是许的。
革玛拉 驳这一难：拉夫纳赫曼 那话单指故意立起隔断的那一样。
The Gemara refutes this objection: Rav Naḥman’s statement applies only in a case where the partition was erected intentionally.
那隔断既是安息日故意立起来的，众贤者就加一层罚：所围之内不许搬运。
Since the partition was erected intentionally on Shabbat, the Sages imposed a penalty that it is prohibited to carry within the enclosed area.
至于无意立起来的、或自己成了的隔断，并没有加这样的罚，其中的搬运是许的。
However, in the case of a partition that was erected unwittingly or that arose by itself, no such penalty was imposed, and it is permitted to carry there.
拉比以利亚撒 说：人从公共区把物件抛进井四围的竖板之间的，有罪。革玛拉 问：这是明摆着的——那里若不是合式的隔断，怎能许他从井里打水呢？这就见得那是十足的私人区。
拉比以利亚撒 说：人从公共区把物件抛进井四围的竖板之间的，有罪。
Rabbi Elazar said: One who throws an object from the public domain into the area between the upright boards surrounding a well is liable.
革玛拉 问：这是明摆着的——那里若不是合式的隔断，怎能许他从井里打水呢？
The Gemara asks: This is obvious, for were it not a valid partition, how could he be permitted to draw water from the well?
这就见得那是十足的私人区。
This shows that it is a full-fledged private domain.
革玛拉 答：拉比以利亚撒 这一断所以要立，单为教人：人若在公共区里、在本没有井的地方立起像井四围竖板那样的围，又从公共区把物件抛进去，他也有罪。
革玛拉 答：拉比以利亚撒 这一断所以要立，单为教人：人若在公共区里、在本没有井的地方立起像井四围竖板那样的围，又从公共区把物件抛进去，他也有罪。
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar’s ruling is only necessary to teach that in the case where one arrange an enclosure similar to the upright boards surrounding a well in the public domain, in a place where there was no well, and threw an object into it from the public domain, he is liable.
革玛拉 提一难：这岂不也是明摆着的么？因为那若不算作隔断，论旱井那一样怎能许他搬运呢？革玛拉 讲明：这一断所以要立，单为教你：那样的隔断虽拦不住人、许多人从中经过，就安息日之律而论仍算作隔断。
革玛拉 提一难：这岂不也是明摆着的么？
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Isn’t this obvious as well?
因为那若不算作隔断，论旱井那一样怎能许他搬运呢？
As, were it not regarded as a partition in general, how could he be permitted to carry in the case of a cistern?
革玛拉 讲明：这一断所以要立，单为教你：那样的隔断虽拦不住人、许多人从中经过，就安息日之律而论仍算作隔断。
The Gemara explains: It is only necessary to teach you that even though such a partition does not bar entry and many people pass through it, it is nonetheless considered a partition in regard to Shabbat.
革玛拉 问：他这话教我们什么呢——「许多人经过并不来抵消隔断的功用」这一层么？可 拉比以利亚撒 早已说过这个意思了。
革玛拉 问：他这话教我们什么呢——「许多人经过并不来抵消隔断的功用」这一层么？
The Gemara asks: And what is he teaching us by this statement, that the passage of many people does not come and negate the effectiveness of a partition?
可 拉比以利亚撒 早已说过这个意思了。
But Rabbi Elazar stated this idea once before.
因为我们在一条密释纳里学过：拉比犹大 论井四围的竖板这样说：公共区的路若从那几口井与那几片板中间穿过、挡着它们，他就当把那路挪到旁边去；不然，那隔断就不合式。众拉比却说：他不必把公共区的路挪开——纵有许多人从那里经过，那隔断仍是合式的。就这条密释纳，拉比约哈难 与 拉比以利亚撒 都说：众拉比在这里把隔断的力量告诉了你。可见 拉比以利亚撒 早已表明过：隔断的效用不因许多人从中经过而废。
因为我们在一条密释纳里学过：拉比犹大 论井四围的竖板这样说：公共区的路若从那几口井与那几片板中间穿过、挡着它们，他就当把那路挪到旁边去；不然，那隔断就不合式。
As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says the following with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well: If the path of the public domain passes through the area of the wells and the posts and obstructs them, he must divert it to the sides, or else the partition is invalid.
众拉比却说：他不必把公共区的路挪开——纵有许多人从那里经过，那隔断仍是合式的。
And the Rabbis say: He need not divert the path of the public domain, for even if many people pass through there, the partition is valid.
就这条密释纳，拉比约哈难 与 拉比以利亚撒 都说：众拉比在这里把隔断的力量告诉了你。
With regard to this mishna, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both said: Here, the Rabbis informed you of the strength of partitions.
可见 拉比以利亚撒 早已表明过：隔断的效用不因许多人从中经过而废。
Therefore, we see that Rabbi Elazar already expressed his opinion that the validity of a partition is not canceled by the passage of many people through it.
革玛拉 答：这话若单从那一处推，我就要说 拉比以利亚撒 的意思是：众拉比在这里把隔断的力量告诉了你，他自己却不与他们同意。所以他如今这一断教我们说：他的意思乃是——他们在这里把这条律告诉了你，而他与他们同意。
革玛拉 答：这话若单从那一处推，我就要说 拉比以利亚撒 的意思是：众拉比在这里把隔断的力量告诉了你，他自己却不与他们同意。
The Gemara answers: If it was derived from there alone, I would have said that what Rabbi Elazar meant is that here the Rabbis informed you of the strength of partitions, but he, Rabbi Elazar, does not agree with them.
所以他如今这一断教我们说：他的意思乃是——他们在这里把这条律告诉了你，而他与他们同意。
He therefore teaches us in his present ruling that what he meant is that here they informed you of this law and he agrees with them.
革玛拉 问：若是这样，拉比以利亚撒 只说「人把物件抛进竖板所围之地的有罪」这一断就够了，何须再说那一句「众拉比在这里把隔断的力量告诉了你」呢？革玛拉 答：拉比以利亚撒 实在并没有说两句话，乃是一句从另一句推出来的。他只明说了其中一句，那一句是他的门生奉他之名、从他所说的推出来传下的。
革玛拉 问：若是这样，拉比以利亚撒 只说「人把物件抛进竖板所围之地的有罪」这一断就够了，何须再说那一句「众拉比在这里把隔断的力量告诉了你」呢？
The Gemara asks: If so, let Rabbi Elazar say this ruling that one who throws an object into the area enclosed by upright boards is liable, and he would not have need to make his other comment that here the Rabbis informed you of the strength of partitions.
革玛拉 答：拉比以利亚撒 实在并没有说两句话，乃是一句从另一句推出来的。
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar did not in fact make two statements, but rather one was stated by inference from the other.
他只明说了其中一句，那一句是他的门生奉他之名、从他所说的推出来传下的。
He only made one of these statements explicitly; the other was reported by his students in his name based on an inference from what he had said.
我们在密释纳里学过：板可以往井跟前挪近，只须所围之地大得容一只母牛站着饮水，头与大半身子在所围之内。照样，我们在那边一条密释纳里学过：人不可站在公共区而在私人区里喝，也不可站在私人区而在公共区里喝，除非他把头与大半身子伸进他所喝的那一处。
我们在密释纳里学过：板可以往井跟前挪近，只须所围之地大得容一只母牛站着饮水，头与大半身子在所围之内。
We learned in the mishna: It is permitted to bring the upright boards closer to the well, provided that the enclosed area is large enough for a cow to stand in and drink, with its head and most of its body inside the partitioned space.
照样，我们在那边一条密释纳里学过：人不可站在公共区而在私人区里喝，也不可站在私人区而在公共区里喝，除非他把头与大半身子伸进他所喝的那一处。
Similarly, we learned there in a mishna: A person may not stand in a public domain and drink in the private domain, and likewise he may not stand in the private domain and drink in a public domain, unless he brings his head and most of his body into the place where he is drinking.