29a.1
解答
革玛拉 答：那说的是只煮了一半的甜菜，那才是险的。
-
革玛拉 答：那说的是只煮了一半的甜菜，那才是险的。
The Gemara answers: That is referring to a beet that was only partially cooked, which is dangerous.
← 移入纹卷总目·第三章 以何物合界
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。
革玛拉 答：那说的是只煮了一半的甜菜，那才是险的。
革玛拉 答：那说的是只煮了一半的甜菜，那才是险的。
The Gemara answers: That is referring to a beet that was only partially cooked, which is dangerous.
有人把 拉夫哈姆努纳 那话传作另一样：人不可用生甜菜立 合界，因为 拉夫希斯达 说：生甜菜能把壮健的人吃死。革玛拉 问：我们岂不见人吃它而不死么？革玛拉 答：那说的是只煮了一半的甜菜，那才是险的。
有人把 拉夫哈姆努纳 那话传作另一样：人不可用生甜菜立 合界，因为 拉夫希斯达 说：生甜菜能把壮健的人吃死。
There are some who say that Rav Hamnuna said: One may not establish an eiruv with raw beets, as Rav Ḥisda said: Raw beet kills a healthy person.
革玛拉 问：我们岂不见人吃它而不死么？
The Gemara asks: Don’t we see people eating it and they do not die?
革玛拉 答：那说的是只煮了一半的甜菜，那才是险的。
The Gemara answers: There, it is referring to a beet that was only partially cooked, which is dangerous.
拉夫希斯达 说：甜菜作的羹于心有益，于眼有益，于肠胃更是有益。阿巴耶 说：这话单指那一味炖在灶上 咕嘟咕嘟 咕嘟作响的时候——就是炖得透了、滚出声来。
拉夫希斯达 说：甜菜作的羹于心有益，于眼有益，于肠胃更是有益。
Rav Ḥisda said: A cooked dish of beets is beneficial for the heart, good for the eyes, and all the more so beneficial for the intestines.
阿巴耶 说：这话单指那一味炖在灶上 咕嘟咕嘟 咕嘟作响的时候——就是炖得透了、滚出声来。
Abaye said: That is specifically when the dish sits on the stove and makes a tukh tukh sound, i.e., it is cooked thoroughly enough to produce a boiling sound.
拉瓦 有一次心里格外畅快，就说：看哪，我如同那心思敏捷的 本·阿扎伊，他素常在 提比里亚 的市上讲说。我也预备好答人所问的一切。有一位贤者对 拉瓦 说：立 合界 须用几个苹果呢？拉瓦 对他说：人用苹果立 合界 么？
拉瓦 有一次心里格外畅快，就说：看哪，我如同那心思敏捷的 本·阿扎伊，他素常在 提比里亚 的市上讲说。
Rava once said when he was in an especially good mood: Behold, I am like the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound in the markets of Tiberias.
我也预备好答人所问的一切。
I, too, am ready to answer any question posed to me.
有一位贤者对 拉瓦 说：立 合界 须用几个苹果呢？
One of the Sages said to Rava: How many apples are needed to establish an eiruv?
拉瓦 对他说：人用苹果立 合界 么？
Rava said to him: Does one establish an eiruv with apples?
那位贤者回说：难道用苹果立 合界 是不许的么？我们在一条密释纳里岂不是学过：凡食物都可以相并——并起来算，可使吃了不洁之食半个半块饼的祭司身子不合用；也可凑足立 合界 所须两餐之量；也可凑足一个鸡蛋之量、使那食物能染上食物的不洁？苹果既是一样食物，就当列在可用来立 合界 的物里。
那位贤者回说：难道用苹果立 合界 是不许的么？
The other Sage responded: And is it not permissible to establish an eiruv with them?
我们在一条密释纳里岂不是学过：凡食物都可以相并——并起来算，可使吃了不洁之食半个半块饼的祭司身子不合用；也可凑足立 合界 所须两餐之量；也可凑足一个鸡蛋之量、使那食物能染上食物的不洁？
Didn’t we learn in a mishna: All foods combine to disqualify the body of a priest who eats half of a half-loaf of ritually impure food, and to complete the measure of food required for two meals for the purpose of an eiruv, and to complete the measure of an egg-bulk required for a food to be able to contract the ritual impurity of foods?
苹果既是一样食物，就当列在可用来立 合界 的物里。
An apple is a kind of food, so it should be included in the items that may be used to establish an eiruv.
革玛拉 问：那一驳是怎样驳的呢？你若说是凭「凡食物」那一句、而苹果是可吃的，那样一句泛言怎能拿来相驳呢？拉比约哈难 岂不是早已说过：凡用「凡」字所立的通则不可据以推断，纵在它说了「惟……不然」的地方也是如此，因为没有一条通则能把各样情形都收尽？
革玛拉 问：那一驳是怎样驳的呢？
The Gemara asks: And what is the refutation?
你若说是凭「凡食物」那一句、而苹果是可吃的，那样一句泛言怎能拿来相驳呢？
If you say it is because it was taught using the term all foods, and these apples are fit for eating, how can an objection be raised from such a general term?
拉比约哈难 岂不是早已说过：凡用「凡」字所立的通则不可据以推断，纵在它说了「惟……不然」的地方也是如此，因为没有一条通则能把各样情形都收尽？
Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan already say: One may not learn from general statements using the word all, even in a place where it says except, since no rule exhausts all cases?
所以那一驳乃是凭这一句：凡食物都可以相并，凑足立 合界 所须两餐之量，也凑足一个鸡蛋之量、使那食物能染上食物的不洁；而苹果也是染得上食物之不洁的。如此就明明可证：那条密释纳所说的连苹果也在内。
所以那一驳乃是凭这一句：凡食物都可以相并，凑足立 合界 所须两餐之量，也凑足一个鸡蛋之量、使那食物能染上食物的不洁；而苹果也是染得上食物之不洁的。
Rather, it is because it taught: And all foods combine to complete the measure of food required for two meals for the purpose of an eiruv, and to complete the measure of an egg-bulk to contract the ritual impurity of foods; and these apples are also susceptible to the ritual impurity of foods.
如此就明明可证：那条密释纳所说的连苹果也在内。
Therefore, there is clear proof that the mishna is referring to apples as well.
既已断定苹果可以用来立 合界，革玛拉 就回到上头那一问：立 合界 须用几个苹果呢？拉夫纳赫曼 说：立 合界 所用苹果最少的量是一 卡夫。
既已断定苹果可以用来立 合界，革玛拉 就回到上头那一问：立 合界 须用几个苹果呢？
Having established that an eiruv may be established with apples, the Gemara returns to the question raised above: How many apples are needed to establish an eiruv?
拉夫纳赫曼 说：立 合界 所用苹果最少的量是一 卡夫。
Rav Naḥman said: The minimum measure of apples that must be used for an eiruv is a kav.
革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一驳：拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：分给穷人的什一，每一个穷人至少当得香料一 乌克拉、就是八分之一 罗格，或菜蔬一利特拉，或核桃十个，或桃五个，或石榴两个，或香橼一个——这几样才算够分的分量。古尔萨克·巴尔·达雷 奉 拉夫梅纳西亚·巴尔·舍古夫莱 之名、那位又奉 拉夫 之名说：论 合界，这条 哈拉哈 也照此办。于此可问：苹果也该像桃一样，因为两样大小相近，那么立 合界 用五个苹果就该够了。
革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一驳：拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：分给穷人的什一，每一个穷人至少当得香料一 乌克拉、就是八分之一 罗格，或菜蔬一利特拉，或核桃十个，或桃五个，或石榴两个，或香橼一个——这几样才算够分的分量。
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: When distributing poor man’s tithe, one must give each individual poor person at least an ukla, an eighth of a log, of spices, a liter of vegetables, ten nuts, five peaches, two pomegranates, or one citron, as these are worthy amounts for distribution.
古尔萨克·巴尔·达雷 奉 拉夫梅纳西亚·巴尔·舍古夫莱 之名、那位又奉 拉夫 之名说：论 合界，这条 哈拉哈 也照此办。
And Gursak bar Darei said in the name of Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei, who said in the name of Rav: And similarly, this is the halakha with regard to an eiruv.
于此可问：苹果也该像桃一样，因为两样大小相近，那么立 合界 用五个苹果就该够了。
Now, it can be asked: These apples should also be like peaches, as they are similar in size, and it should be enough to use five apples for an eiruv.
革玛拉 答：两样有分别——桃是贵重的，所以五个就算够分量；苹果不贵重，所以须用一 卡夫 那样大的量。
革玛拉 答：两样有分别——桃是贵重的，所以五个就算够分量；苹果不贵重，所以须用一 卡夫 那样大的量。
The Gemara answers that there is a distinction between them: These peaches are important, and therefore five of them are a significant amount, but these apples are not important, and therefore one must use the larger measure of a kav.
拉夫约瑟 说：愿他的主、就是神，赦免 拉夫梅纳西亚·巴尔·舍古夫莱，因为他自己错了，又叫别人错。我在他面前奉 拉夫 之名说过一断，那是就一条密释纳说的，他却把它系在那条 《巴拉伊塔》 上，以致生了这个错。因为我们在一条密释纳里学过：在打粮场上分给领穷人什一的，麦不可少于半 卡夫，大麦不可少于一 卡夫。拉比梅伊尔 说：大麦至少当给他半 卡夫。照样，粗麦不可少于一 卡夫 半，干无花果不可少于一 卡夫，压成饼的无花果不可少于一 一百第纳尔。拉比阿奇瓦 说：不是一 一百第纳尔，是半 一百第纳尔。酒至少当给他半 罗格。拉比阿奇瓦 说：那一半，就是四分之一 罗格。油照样至少四分之一 罗格。拉比阿奇瓦 说：那一半，就是八分之一 罗格。至于别样果子，阿巴·扫罗 说：当给他够卖、卖得的钱够买两餐食物的分量。就这条密释纳，拉夫 说：论 合界，这条 哈拉哈 也照此办。
拉夫约瑟 说：愿他的主、就是神，赦免 拉夫梅纳西亚·巴尔·舍古夫莱，因为他自己错了，又叫别人错。
Rav Yosef said: May his Master, God, forgive Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei, for he erred and caused others to err.
我在他面前奉 拉夫 之名说过一断，那是就一条密释纳说的，他却把它系在那条 《巴拉伊塔》 上，以致生了这个错。
I stated before him a ruling in the name of Rav concerning a mishna, and he stated it concerning the baraita, which led to the error.
因为我们在一条密释纳里学过：在打粮场上分给领穷人什一的，麦不可少于半 卡夫，大麦不可少于一 卡夫。
As we learned in a mishna: One may not give a pauper receiving poor man’s tithe at the threshing floor less than half a kav of wheat or less than a kav of barley.
拉比梅伊尔 说：大麦至少当给他半 卡夫。
Rabbi Meir says: He must be given at least half a kav of barley.
照样，粗麦不可少于一 卡夫 半，干无花果不可少于一 卡夫，压成饼的无花果不可少于一 一百第纳尔。
Similarly, he must be given no less than a kav and a half of spelt, a kav of dried figs, or a maneh of pressed figs.
拉比阿奇瓦 说：不是一 一百第纳尔，是半 一百第纳尔。
Rabbi Akiva says: Not a maneh, but half a maneh.
酒至少当给他半 罗格。
He must be given at least half a log of wine.
拉比阿奇瓦 说：那一半，就是四分之一 罗格。
Rabbi Akiva says: Half that amount, a quarter log.
油照样至少四分之一 罗格。
And similarly, he must be given a quarter log of oil.
拉比阿奇瓦 说：那一半，就是八分之一 罗格。
Rabbi Akiva says: Half that amount, an eighth of a log.
至于别样果子，阿巴·扫罗 说：当给他够卖、卖得的钱够买两餐食物的分量。
And with regard to all other fruit, Abba Shaul said: He must be given enough to sell them and buy food that suffices for two meals with the proceeds of their sale.
就这条密释纳，拉夫 说：论 合界，这条 哈拉哈 也照此办。
And with regard to this mishna, Rav said: And similarly, this is the halakha with regard to an eiruv.
革玛拉 就 拉夫约瑟 这一句重话提一问：这一处比那一处强在哪里呢？那条密释纳与那条 《巴拉伊塔》 所说的看着是一样的，拉夫 那一断何以系在这一条上比系在那一条上更合宜呢？你若说是因那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里连香料也教了、而香料自己不合吃、单作别样食物的调味，所以 拉夫 说「论 合界 这条 哈拉哈 也照此办」时不可能是就那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说的——可这条密释纳里岂不是也教了麦与大麦，那两样也不是当下就可吃的，须再加工才成。
革玛拉 就 拉夫约瑟 这一句重话提一问：这一处比那一处强在哪里呢？
The Gemara poses a question with regard to Rav Yosef’s harsh reaction to Rav Menashya bar Sheguvlei’s statement: What is the strength of this over that?
那条密释纳与那条 《巴拉伊塔》 所说的看着是一样的，拉夫 那一断何以系在这一条上比系在那一条上更合宜呢？
The mishna and baraita seem to share the same content, so why should Rav’s ruling be more applicable to one than the other?
你若说是因那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里连香料也教了、而香料自己不合吃、单作别样食物的调味，所以 拉夫 说「论 合界 这条 哈拉哈 也照此办」时不可能是就那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说的——可这条密释纳里岂不是也教了麦与大麦，那两样也不是当下就可吃的，须再加工才成。
If you say it is because the halakha with regard to spices was also taught in this baraita, and spices are not fit for eating on their own but only when added as a flavoring to other foods, and therefore Rav could not have been referring to the baraita when he said that the same law applies to an eiruv; wasn’t the halakha with regard to wheat and barley taught here in the mishna, and they too are not immediately fit for eating until they are processed further.
所以那缘故乃是：密释纳里教说酒至少当给他半 罗格。而 拉夫 说：人可以用两个四分之一 罗格 的酒立 合界——那正是半 罗格。我们既要那么多酒，就当从这里学得：拉夫 说「论 合界，这条 哈拉哈 也照此办」，是就这条密释纳与其中所定的几样量说的。革玛拉 断说：正当从这里断定，拉夫 那话本是这个意思。
所以那缘故乃是：密释纳里教说酒至少当给他半 罗格。
Rather, it is because it was taught in the mishna that one must give half a log of wine.
而 拉夫 说：人可以用两个四分之一 罗格 的酒立 合界——那正是半 罗格。
And Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with two-quarters of a log of wine, which is equal to half a log.
我们既要那么多酒，就当从这里学得：拉夫 说「论 合界，这条 哈拉哈 也照此办」，是就这条密释纳与其中所定的几样量说的。
Since we require so much wine, learn from here that when Rav said: And similarly, this is the halakha with regard to an eiruv, he said it about this mishna and the measures mentioned therein.
革玛拉 断说：正当从这里断定，拉夫 那话本是这个意思。
The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that this is the proper understanding of Rav’s statement.
革玛拉 再细看上头所引那条密释纳。先生说：凡食物都可以相并，凑足立 合界 所须两餐之量。拉夫约瑟 想说：非有这一样食物凑成一整餐、那一样食物凑成一整餐，不可立 合界——意思是每一餐只可用一样食物。拉巴 对他说：纵每一样只凑得半餐、三分之一餐、四分之一餐，只要合起来够两餐之量，也可以立 合界。
革玛拉 再细看上头所引那条密释纳。
The Gemara further examines the mishna cited earlier.
先生说：凡食物都可以相并，凑足立 合界 所须两餐之量。
The Master said: And all foods combine to complete the measure of food required for two meals for the purpose of an eiruv.
拉夫约瑟 想说：非有这一样食物凑成一整餐、那一样食物凑成一整餐，不可立 合界——意思是每一餐只可用一样食物。
Rav Yosef thought to say that an eiruv may not be established unless there is a complete meal of this kind of food and a complete meal of that kind of food, meaning that an eiruv may only be established if each meal consists of a single type of food.
拉巴 对他说：纵每一样只凑得半餐、三分之一餐、四分之一餐，只要合起来够两餐之量，也可以立 合界。
Rabba said to him: An eiruv may be established with the amount of food required for two meals even if each type of food made up only half, a third, or a quarter of a meal.
革玛拉 如今来查上头议论中所引 拉夫 那话本身。拉夫 说：人可以用两个四分之一 罗格 的酒立 合界。于此可提一问：果真要用那么多么？岂不是有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：立 合界 所须的酒，够就着饼吃、就是够把饼蘸软了吃就行？又：立 合界 所须的醋，够蘸食物就行；橄榄与葱所须的，够就着饼吃就行。这几样的量都是按两餐算的。这条 《巴拉伊塔》 分明见得：立 合界 所用的酒远比两个四分之一 罗格 少得多。
革玛拉 如今来查上头议论中所引 拉夫 那话本身。
The Gemara now examines Rav’s statement itself, which was cited in the course of the previous discussion.
拉夫 说：人可以用两个四分之一 罗格 的酒立 合界。
Rav said: One may establish an eiruv with two-quarters of a log of wine.
于此可提一问：果真要用那么多么？
The following question may be raised: Do we really need so much?
岂不是有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：立 合界 所须的酒，够就着饼吃、就是够把饼蘸软了吃就行？
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The minimal amount of wine required for an eiruv is enough to eat bread with it, i.e., enough to soak the bread in to enable one to eat it?
又：立 合界 所须的醋，够蘸食物就行；橄榄与葱所须的，够就着饼吃就行。
Additionally, the minimal amount of vinegar that may be used to establish an eiruv is enough to dip the food in it, and the minimal amount of olives and onions is enough to eat them together with the bread.
这几样的量都是按两餐算的。
All of these quantities are calculated on the basis of two meals.
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 分明见得：立 合界 所用的酒远比两个四分之一 罗格 少得多。
This baraita clearly indicates that an eiruv may be established with much less than two-quarters of a log of wine.
革玛拉 答：那里那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说的是煮过的酒——那一样极浓，所以少许就够。
革玛拉 答：那里那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说的是煮过的酒——那一样极浓，所以少许就够。
The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is referring to cooked wine, which is very strong, and therefore even a small amount suffices.
先生在那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里说：立 合界 所须的醋，够蘸食物就行。拉夫基德尔 说 拉夫 说：够蘸两餐全是菜蔬的食物。有人说 拉夫基德尔 说 拉夫 说：够蘸寻常两餐里所吃的菜蔬——那比两餐全是菜蔬所用的少些。
先生在那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里说：立 合界 所须的醋，够蘸食物就行。
The Master said in the baraita that the minimal amount of vinegar that may be used for an eiruv is enough to dip food in it.
拉夫基德尔 说 拉夫 说：够蘸两餐全是菜蔬的食物。
Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Enough to dip in it the food of two meals consisting of vegetables.
有人说 拉夫基德尔 说 拉夫 说：够蘸寻常两餐里所吃的菜蔬——那比两餐全是菜蔬所用的少些。
Some say that Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Enough to dip in it the vegetables that are eaten in two ordinary meals, which is less than the amount consumed in two meals consisting entirely of vegetables.
先生又说：立 合界 所须橄榄与葱的最少之量，是够就着两餐的食物吃。革玛拉 问：人可以用葱立 合界 么？岂不是有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：拉比梅伊尔 有一次在 阿尔迪斯卡 城过安息日，有一个人来到他面前，对他说：拉比，我用葱立了 界域之合，好走到 提维恩 城去。阿尔迪斯卡 正在那人所立的 合界 与他所要去的 提维恩 之间，而 提维恩 在他从本城量起的安息日之限以外。拉比梅伊尔 就叫他留在自己的四肘之内。他禁他出那四肘，因为他以为用葱立的 合界 算不得 合界，如此那人就是没有 界域之合 而出了安息日之限。
先生又说：立 合界 所须橄榄与葱的最少之量，是够就着两餐的食物吃。
The Master also said that the minimum measure of olives and onions that may be used for an eiruv is enough to eat them with the food of two meals.
革玛拉 问：人可以用葱立 合界 么？
The Gemara asks: May one establish an eiruv with onions?
岂不是有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：拉比梅伊尔 有一次在 阿尔迪斯卡 城过安息日，有一个人来到他面前，对他说：拉比，我用葱立了 界域之合，好走到 提维恩 城去。
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir once spent Shabbat in the town of Ardiska, and a certain person came before him and said to him: Rabbi, I made an eiruv of Shabbat borders [eiruv teḥumin] with onions, so that I might walk to the town of Tiv’in.
阿尔迪斯卡 正在那人所立的 合界 与他所要去的 提维恩 之间，而 提维恩 在他从本城量起的安息日之限以外。
Ardiska was located between the man’s eiruv and his destination of Tiv’in, which was beyond his Shabbat limit as measured from his hometown.
拉比梅伊尔 就叫他留在自己的四肘之内。
And Rabbi Meir made him remain within his four cubits.
他禁他出那四肘，因为他以为用葱立的 合界 算不得 合界，如此那人就是没有 界域之合 而出了安息日之限。
He forbade him to leave his four cubits, as he held that an eiruv made with onions is not an eiruv, and therefore the person had left his Shabbat limit without an eiruv teḥumin.
革玛拉 答：这并不为难。那一断说葱不可用来立 合界 的，说的是葱叶——那是有损的；这一断说葱可以用来立 合界 的，说的是葱头——那是可吃的。正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的：人若吃了葱，次日清早就死了，我们不必问他因什么死——他的死断然是那葱害的。撒母耳 说：他们说这话，单指葱叶；至于葱头，我们看不出有什么妨碍。就连葱叶，我们说这话也单指——
革玛拉 答：这并不为难。
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.
那一断说葱不可用来立 合界 的，说的是葱叶——那是有损的；这一断说葱可以用来立 合界 的，说的是葱头——那是可吃的。
This ruling, which states that onions may not be used for an eiruv, is referring to onion leaves, which are harmful; whereas that ruling, which states that onions may be used for an eiruv, is referring to onion bulbs, which are edible.
正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的：人若吃了葱，次日清早就死了，我们不必问他因什么死——他的死断然是那葱害的。
As it was taught in a baraita: If one ate an onion and died early the next morning, we need not ask from what he died, as his death was certainly caused by the onion.
撒母耳 说：他们说这话，单指葱叶；至于葱头，我们看不出有什么妨碍。
And Shmuel said: They only taught this with regard to the leaves; but with regard to onion bulbs, we have no problem with it.
就连葱叶，我们说这话也单指——
And even with regard to the leaves, we only stated this concern