← 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 16 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。
——赎罪日也可以为成人立 合界，虽然他那日不可吃？那必是因为吃于孩童是许的。
——赎罪日也可以为成人立 合界，虽然他那日不可吃？
that one may establish an eiruv for an adult even on Yom Kippur, despite the fact that he may not eat on Yom Kippur?
那必是因为吃于孩童是许的。
It must be because eating is permitted to a minor.
沙迈学派 对他们说：诚然——是这样的。希列学派 对他们说：赎罪日既可以为成人立 合界，那么用酒为拿细耳人立 合界、用 举祭 为以色列人立 合界，也当照样可以。
沙迈学派 对他们说：诚然——是这样的。
Beit Shammai said to them: Indeed [aval], it is so.
希列学派 对他们说：赎罪日既可以为成人立 合界，那么用酒为拿细耳人立 合界、用 举祭 为以色列人立 合界，也当照样可以。
Beit Hillel said to them: Just as one may establish an eiruv for an adult on Yom Kippur, so too, one may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with teruma.
沙迈学派 怎样分别这几样呢？革玛拉 讲明：那里论赎罪日，至少在赎罪日前一日天还亮着的时候，那一餐于那人是可吃的。这里论拿细耳人的酒与以色列人的 举祭，安息日前一日天还亮着的时候，那一餐于他们本就不可吃。
沙迈学派 怎样分别这几样呢？
And how do Beit Shammai explain the difference between these cases?
革玛拉 讲明：那里论赎罪日，至少在赎罪日前一日天还亮着的时候，那一餐于那人是可吃的。
The Gemara explains: There, with regard to Yom Kippur, there is at least a meal that was fit to be eaten by that person while it was still day, on the eve of Yom Kippur.
这里论拿细耳人的酒与以色列人的 举祭，安息日前一日天还亮着的时候，那一餐于他们本就不可吃。
Here, in the cases of wine for a nazirite and teruma for an Israelite, there is no meal that was fit to be eaten by them while it was still day, on Friday.
革玛拉 问：上头那一整条 《巴拉伊塔》 是依谁的意思说的呢？它不是依 哈纳尼亚 的意思教的，因为另有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 哈纳尼亚 说：沙迈学派 的整个意思、就是他们所本的根基，是根本不承认单把食物放在一处就算立成 界域之合。他们倒以为：人安息日所居之处不改，除非他实在把居处挪过去——如把自己的床与器皿搬到那里去。
革玛拉 问：上头那一整条 《巴拉伊塔》 是依谁的意思说的呢？
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was that entire baraita stated?
它不是依 哈纳尼亚 的意思教的，因为另有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 哈纳尼亚 说：沙迈学派 的整个意思、就是他们所本的根基，是根本不承认单把食物放在一处就算立成 界域之合。
It was not taught in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, as it was taught in another baraita that Ḥananya says: The whole view of Beit Shammai, i.e., their fundamental position, was that they did not concede to the very possibility of joining Shabbat borders [eiruv teḥumin] by simply placing food in a particular location.
他们倒以为：人安息日所居之处不改，除非他实在把居处挪过去——如把自己的床与器皿搬到那里去。
Rather, they hold that one’s Shabbat residence remains the same until he literally moves his residence, such as if he carries out his bed and his utensils to there, to a new location.
革玛拉 问：下头这条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的一断，是依谁的意思呢：人若穿着黑衣立了 合界，安息日进入之时仍穿着那身衣裳，他就不可穿白衣出去。他若穿着白衣立了 合界，就不可穿黑衣出去。这条 哈拉哈 是依谁的意思呢？拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：是 哈纳尼亚 的意思，而那是依 沙迈学派 的意思说的。
革玛拉 问：下头这条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的一断，是依谁的意思呢：人若穿着黑衣立了 合界，安息日进入之时仍穿着那身衣裳，他就不可穿白衣出去。
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita: If one established an eiruv in black clothing, and Shabbat commenced while he was still dressed those clothes, he may not go out in white clothing.
他若穿着白衣立了 合界，就不可穿黑衣出去。
If one established the eiruv while dressed in white, he may not go out in black.
这条 哈拉哈 是依谁的意思呢？
According to whose opinion is this halakha?
拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：是 哈纳尼亚 的意思，而那是依 沙迈学派 的意思说的。
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is the opinion of Ḥananya, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.
革玛拉 问：依 哈纳尼亚 的意思，是穿黑衣不可出去、穿白衣倒可以出去么？哈纳尼亚 岂不是说过，依 沙迈学派，人非把自己的床与器皿搬到他所要立为居处的地方，那 合界 就全然不管用么？革玛拉 答：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 的措辞当改一改，它所说的乃是这样：人若穿着白衣立了 合界，后来他要用黑衣而身边没有，那么他连穿白衣也不可出去。这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是依谁的意思教的呢？拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：是 哈纳尼亚 的意思，而那是依 沙迈学派 的意思说的。
革玛拉 问：依 哈纳尼亚 的意思，是穿黑衣不可出去、穿白衣倒可以出去么？
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ḥananya, is it with black clothing that he may not go out, but in white clothing he may go out?
哈纳尼亚 岂不是说过，依 沙迈学派，人非把自己的床与器皿搬到他所要立为居处的地方，那 合界 就全然不管用么？
Didn’t Ḥananya say that according to Beit Shammai an eiruv is not effective at all until one carries out his bed and his utensils to the place he wishes to establish as his residence?
革玛拉 答：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 的措辞当改一改，它所说的乃是这样：人若穿着白衣立了 合界，后来他要用黑衣而身边没有，那么他连穿白衣也不可出去。
The Gemara answers: The wording of the baraita must be emended and this is what it said: If one established an eiruv while dressed in white clothing, and he needed black clothing but did not have it with him, he may not go out even in white clothing.
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是依谁的意思教的呢？
In accordance with whose opinion was this baraita taught?
拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：是 哈纳尼亚 的意思，而那是依 沙迈学派 的意思说的。
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is the opinion of Ḥananya, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.
我们在密释纳里学过：苏马霍斯 不以为然，说：为以色列人立 合界 不可用 举祭，只可用未分别为圣的寻常食物。革玛拉 指出：至于密释纳所断「可以用酒为拿细耳人立 合界」那一层，苏马霍斯 看来并不相争。这一分别是什么缘故呢？革玛拉 讲明：拿细耳人可以求一位贤者解他的愿、免了他拿细耳的分位，那时他自己就可以喝那酒了。
我们在密释纳里学过：苏马霍斯 不以为然，说：为以色列人立 合界 不可用 举祭，只可用未分别为圣的寻常食物。
We learned in the mishna: Summakhos disagrees and says: One may not establish an eiruv for an Israelite with teruma, but only with regular, non-sacred food items.
革玛拉 指出：至于密释纳所断「可以用酒为拿细耳人立 合界」那一层，苏马霍斯 看来并不相争。
The Gemara notes: But with regard to the mishna’s ruling that an eiruv may be established for a nazirite with wine, Summakhos does not appear to disagree.
这一分别是什么缘故呢？
What is the reason for the distinction?
革玛拉 讲明：拿细耳人可以求一位贤者解他的愿、免了他拿细耳的分位，那时他自己就可以喝那酒了。
The Gemara explains: A nazirite can ask a Sage to annul his vow and release him from his nazirite status, and then he himself will be able to drink the wine.
革玛拉 问：若是这样，论 举祭 也可以求一位贤者解它的分位啊。举祭 是分取的人开口宣告而成圣的，那一宣告与别样成圣之言、许愿之言一样，贤者解得。革玛拉 答：那样办也无益。人若求贤者解他那使出产成为 举祭 的宣告，那出产就回到 未分什一之物 的分位、就是还没有分出当分之物与什一的出产，他仍旧不可吃。
革玛拉 问：若是这样，论 举祭 也可以求一位贤者解它的分位啊。
The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of teruma as well, one can ask a Sage to annul its status.
举祭 是分取的人开口宣告而成圣的，那一宣告与别样成圣之言、许愿之言一样，贤者解得。
Teruma is consecrated through a verbal declaration by the one separating it, and that declaration, like other consecrations and vows, can be nullified by a Sage.
革玛拉 答：那样办也无益。
The Gemara answers: Such a course of action would not help.
人若求贤者解他那使出产成为 举祭 的宣告，那出产就回到 未分什一之物 的分位、就是还没有分出当分之物与什一的出产，他仍旧不可吃。
If one asks a Sage to annul his declaration that turned the produce into teruma, the produce will return to its status as tevel, produce from which the requisite dues and tithes were not separated, and he will still be prohibited to consume it.
革玛拉 问：让他从别处的出产为这一份分取 举祭，如此这一份就可以吃了。革玛拉 答：谨守之人 一类的人——就是结伙谨守诫命的——不至于从不在那出产近处的出产为它分取 举祭，因为按理那是禁的。
革玛拉 问：让他从别处的出产为这一份分取 举祭，如此这一份就可以吃了。
The Gemara asks: Let him separate teruma for that produce from produce located somewhere else and thus permit it to be eaten.
革玛拉 答：谨守之人 一类的人——就是结伙谨守诫命的——不至于从不在那出产近处的出产为它分取 举祭，因为按理那是禁的。
The Gemara answers: Ḥaverim, members of a group dedicated to the precise observance of mitzvot, are not suspected of separating teruma from produce that is not situated near the produce it comes to exempt, as this is prohibited ab initio.
革玛拉 问：让他就从那作 合界 的出产里分取 举祭，如此其余的就可以吃了。革玛拉 答：我们说的是那样一件——分出 举祭 之后，所余的就不够立 合界 之量了，就是不够两餐的食物。
革玛拉 问：让他就从那作 合界 的出产里分取 举祭，如此其余的就可以吃了。
The Gemara asks: Let him separate teruma from the produce used for the eiruv itself and consequently permit the rest of the produce to be eaten.
革玛拉 答：我们说的是那样一件——分出 举祭 之后，所余的就不够立 合界 之量了，就是不够两餐的食物。
The Gemara answers: We are dealing with a case where, after removing teruma, it would not contain the amount required for an eiruv, i.e., one would be left with less than the quantity of food sufficient for two meals.
革玛拉 问：何必说那条密释纳指的是这样一件极特别的情形呢？所以我们当把上头所说的都撤回，这样说：苏马霍斯 是与众拉比同意的——他们说：凡因拉比所立之禁而在安息日为禁的、就是 安息之禁，众贤者所立的禁连暮昏之际也管。那一段时候虽是白日夜间难分的，众贤者所立的安息日之禁在那时也与安息日本身一样管着。既然安息日不可分取 举祭，暮昏之际也就不可。所以在暮昏之际、就是那 合界 生效之时，断不能使它于以色列人成为可吃的。
革玛拉 问：何必说那条密释纳指的是这样一件极特别的情形呢？
The Gemara asks: What makes it necessary to say that the mishna is referring to this very unique case?
所以我们当把上头所说的都撤回，这样说：苏马霍斯 是与众拉比同意的——他们说：凡因拉比所立之禁而在安息日为禁的、就是 安息之禁，众贤者所立的禁连暮昏之际也管。
Rather, we must retract all that was stated above and say as follows: Summakhos agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat due to a rabbinic decree [shevut], the Sages issued the decree to apply even during twilight.
那一段时候虽是白日夜间难分的，众贤者所立的安息日之禁在那时也与安息日本身一样管着。
Even though this period is of questionable status with regard to whether it is day or night, the Shabbat restrictions instituted by the Sages apply then as they do on Shabbat itself.
既然安息日不可分取 举祭，暮昏之际也就不可。
Consequently, since it is prohibited to separate teruma on Shabbat, it is prohibited during the twilight period as well.
所以在暮昏之际、就是那 合界 生效之时，断不能使它于以色列人成为可吃的。
Therefore, during twilight, when the eiruv would go into effect, it is impossible to cause it to become permitted to an Israelite.
革玛拉 如今问：我们在下头这条密释纳里所学的一断，是依谁的意思呢：有几条 哈拉哈，他们说其中的量都是按各人自己算的——如祭司从素祭里所掬的一把面、大祭司赎罪日所献的两把香、赎罪日喝一口满颊的水、并立 合界 所须两餐的食物之量。这几样量都是按所关涉的那一个人定的。这条 哈拉哈 是依谁的意思呢？拉比泽拉 说：是依 苏马霍斯 的意思——他说我们要的是于那一个人合用的分量，不照一个通用的量。
革玛拉 如今问：我们在下头这条密释纳里所学的一断，是依谁的意思呢：有几条 哈拉哈，他们说其中的量都是按各人自己算的——如祭司从素祭里所掬的一把面、大祭司赎罪日所献的两把香、赎罪日喝一口满颊的水、并立 合界 所须两餐的食物之量。
The Gemara now asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the ruling that we learned in the following mishna: There are halakhot with regard to which they stated that measures are all in accordance with the particular person involved, e.g., the handful of flour that a priest scoops out from a meal-offering, and the handfuls of incense the High Priest would offer on Yom Kippur, and one who drinks a cheekful on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the measure of two meals’ worth of nourishment for an eiruv.
这几样量都是按所关涉的那一个人定的。
All these measures are determined by the particular individual involved.
这条 哈拉哈 是依谁的意思呢？
In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha?
拉比泽拉 说：是依 苏马霍斯 的意思——他说我们要的是于那一个人合用的分量，不照一个通用的量。
Rabbi Zeira said: It is in accordance with the opinion of Summakhos, who said: We require that which is fit for him, the particular individual, and we do not follow a standard measure.
革玛拉 提说：我们要说上头那条密释纳与 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 的意思相争么？因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：为病人或老人立 合界，用够他两餐的食物就行；他若因病因老吃得比常人少，少些的食物也就够了。至于贪食的人，我们并不要够他饱的分量，乃按常人一餐之量算。
革玛拉 提说：我们要说上头那条密释纳与 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 的意思相争么？
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the aforementioned mishna disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.
因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：为病人或老人立 合界，用够他两餐的食物就行；他若因病因老吃得比常人少，少些的食物也就够了。
As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may establish an eiruv for an ill or elderly person with an amount of food that is enough for him for two meals; and if he eats less than the average amount due to his sickness or age, a smaller amount of food is sufficient.
至于贪食的人，我们并不要够他饱的分量，乃按常人一餐之量算。
But for a glutton we do not require food in an amount that would satisfy him; we measure on the basis of an average meal for the typical person.
革玛拉 答：密释纳说两餐食物之量按所关涉的那一个人定，当讲作单指病人与老人。至于贪食的人，我们不按他的分量定，别有一个缘故——他一个人的意思被众人的意思压过。所以并没有理由对他从严、按他自己所需定量。
革玛拉 答：密释纳说两餐食物之量按所关涉的那一个人定，当讲作单指病人与老人。
The Gemara answers: When the mishna says that the measure of food for two meals is determined by the particular person involved, interpret that as referring to an ill or elderly person.
至于贪食的人，我们不按他的分量定，别有一个缘故——他一个人的意思被众人的意思压过。
But with regard to a glutton, we do not determine the measure of food by his standard for a different reason, namely because his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people.
所以并没有理由对他从严、按他自己所需定量。
Therefore, there is no reason to be stringent with him and determine the measure according to his particular needs.
我们在密释纳里学过：人可以在 疑骨之田、就是那坟或尸首所在难定之地，为祭司立 合界。革玛拉 讲明这一断所本的，正如 拉夫犹大 说 撒母耳 说：到不得已的时候，人在 疑骨之田 里每迈一步以先可以先吹一吹土，如此土下若有骨头，他就把它吹露出来、绕开它，这样便可以走过那一片地。照样，拉比犹大·巴尔·阿米 奉 拉夫犹大 之名说：疑骨之田 若被人踏出一条路来，就算洁的，因为我们当它其中再没有大麦粒那么大的骨头了。这两句都见得 疑骨之田 的不洁是众贤者所立的一层严条。所以那里既有法子避开不洁，连祭司也可以把自己的 合界 放在 疑骨之田 里。
我们在密释纳里学过：人可以在 疑骨之田、就是那坟或尸首所在难定之地，为祭司立 合界。
We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv for a priest in a beit haperas, an area in which there is doubt concerning the location of a grave or a corpse.
革玛拉 讲明这一断所本的，正如 拉夫犹大 说 撒母耳 说：到不得已的时候，人在 疑骨之田 里每迈一步以先可以先吹一吹土，如此土下若有骨头，他就把它吹露出来、绕开它，这样便可以走过那一片地。
The Gemara explains that the reason for this is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In a time of need a person may blow on the dust in a beit haperas before taking each step, so that if there is a bone beneath the dust he will expose it and avoid it, and he may thus walk across the area.
照样，拉比犹大·巴尔·阿米 奉 拉夫犹大 之名说：疑骨之田 若被人踏出一条路来，就算洁的，因为我们当它其中再没有大麦粒那么大的骨头了。
Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Rav Yehuda: A beit haperas that has been trodden underfoot, creating a path, is pure, as we assume that it no longer contains any bones as large as a kernel of barley.
这两句都见得 疑骨之田 的不洁是众贤者所立的一层严条。
Both of these statements indicate that the ritual impurity of a beit haperas is a stringency decreed by the Sages.
所以那里既有法子避开不洁，连祭司也可以把自己的 合界 放在 疑骨之田 里。
Therefore, since there is a way to avoid becoming ritually impure there, even a priest may place his eiruv in a beit haperas.
我们在密释纳里学过 拉比犹大 说：连在坟地里也可以为祭司立 合界——那一处依 妥拉 之律祭司本不可进。有话教说：所以许，是因那祭司可以设个间隔，坐在车里、箱里或柜里从坟与坟之间过去。那几样器具因体大而染不上不洁，凡在其中的也就仍旧是洁的。由此可见他持这个意思：动着的帐幕也称为帐幕，所以那车、那箱、那柜也算作帐幕。它们把在其中所载的人遮住，使他不受坟地所传的不洁。
我们在密释纳里学过 拉比犹大 说：连在坟地里也可以为祭司立 合界——那一处依 妥拉 之律祭司本不可进。
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: An eiruv may be established for a priest even in a cemetery, an area which the priest may not enter by Torah law.
有话教说：所以许，是因那祭司可以设个间隔，坐在车里、箱里或柜里从坟与坟之间过去。
It was taught: This is permitted because the priest can interpose and walk between the graves inside a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard.
那几样器具因体大而染不上不洁，凡在其中的也就仍旧是洁的。
These containers do not contract impurity because of their large size, and anything found inside of them remains pure.
由此可见他持这个意思：动着的帐幕也称为帐幕，所以那车、那箱、那柜也算作帐幕。
From here we see that he holds the following: A moving tent is called a tent, and therefore the carriage, box, or cupboard are also considered tents.
它们把在其中所载的人遮住，使他不受坟地所传的不洁。
They shield a person carried in them from the impurity imparted by the graves in a cemetery.
革玛拉 指出这一件正是下头两位 坦拿 所争的，因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：人进外邦之地、就是以色列地以外的地方，不是步行进去，乃是坐在车里、箱里或柜里进去的，拉比犹大·哈纳西 断他为不洁。拉比犹大之子拉比约西 断他为洁。
革玛拉 指出这一件正是下头两位 坦拿 所争的，因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：人进外邦之地、就是以色列地以外的地方，不是步行进去，乃是坐在车里、箱里或柜里进去的，拉比犹大·哈纳西 断他为不洁。
The Gemara notes that this matter is the subject of a dispute between the following tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations, i.e., any territory outside Eretz Yisrael, not on foot, but in a carriage, a crate, or a cupboard, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi renders him ritually impure.
拉比犹大之子拉比约西 断他为洁。
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, renders him pure.
革玛拉 讲明：两位所争的是什么呢？一位、就是 拉比犹大·哈纳西，以为动着的帐幕算不得帐幕。那条通例是：惟有定住不动的才遮得住不洁；人若在一件挪得动的器具里头，那器具自己染上不洁，他也就随它成为不洁。另一位、就是 拉比犹大之子拉比约西，以为动着的帐幕也称为帐幕，能遮住其中的人、使他不染不洁。
革玛拉 讲明：两位所争的是什么呢？
The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree?
一位、就是 拉比犹大·哈纳西，以为动着的帐幕算不得帐幕。
One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that a moving tent is not called a tent.
那条通例是：惟有定住不动的才遮得住不洁；人若在一件挪得动的器具里头，那器具自己染上不洁，他也就随它成为不洁。
The principle is that only something fixed can shield against ritual impurity, but if one is situated inside a portable vessel, the vessel contracts impurity and he becomes impure along with it.
另一位、就是 拉比犹大之子拉比约西，以为动着的帐幕也称为帐幕，能遮住其中的人、使他不染不洁。
And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that a moving tent is called a tent, and it shields the person inside from contracting ritual impurity.
至于另有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的：拉比犹大 说——
至于另有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的：拉比犹大 说——
And with regard to that which was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: