31b.1
引证
也可以把 未净什一税食物 给驻扎的兵丁吃。
-
也可以把 未净什一税食物 给驻扎的兵丁吃。
and one may also feed soldiers demai.
← 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 13 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。
也可以把 未净什一税食物 给驻扎的兵丁吃。
也可以把 未净什一税食物 给驻扎的兵丁吃。
and one may also feed soldiers demai.
拉夫胡纳 说：有话教说，沙迈学派 说：不可把 未净什一税食物 给穷乏的人吃。希列学派 说：可以把 未净什一税食物 给穷乏的人吃。所断的 哈拉哈 依 希列学派 的意思。
拉夫胡纳 说：有话教说，沙迈学派 说：不可把 未净什一税食物 给穷乏的人吃。
Rav Huna said: It was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished demai.
希列学派 说：可以把 未净什一税食物 给穷乏的人吃。
And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished demai.
所断的 哈拉哈 依 希列学派 的意思。
The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
我们在密释纳里学过：人可以用已分出 举祭 的头一层什一立 合界。革玛拉 诧异说：举祭 既已分出，那就没有难处，这是明摆着的。何必说它可以用来立 合界 呢？革玛拉 答：这条 哈拉哈 所以要立，单指那利未人趁禾还在秆上就抢在祭司以先取了什一的那一样——就是打场以先、祭司取 举祭 以先，利未人先取了他的什一；后来虽从那什一里分出了什一的 举祭，却没有分出 大举祭。因为 举祭 素常是先分的，所以利未人所取那头一层什一里，本有一分该当作 举祭 分出去。
我们在密释纳里学过：人可以用已分出 举祭 的头一层什一立 合界。
We learned in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv with first tithe whose teruma has been taken.
革玛拉 诧异说：举祭 既已分出，那就没有难处，这是明摆着的。
The Gemara expresses surprise: It is obvious that if the teruma was already taken there is no problem.
何必说它可以用来立 合界 呢？
Why is it necessary to state it may be used for an eiruv?
革玛拉 答：这条 哈拉哈 所以要立，单指那利未人趁禾还在秆上就抢在祭司以先取了什一的那一样——就是打场以先、祭司取 举祭 以先，利未人先取了他的什一；后来虽从那什一里分出了什一的 举祭，却没有分出 大举祭。
The Gemara answers: It is only necessary to teach this halakha in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, i.e., the Levite took his tithe before the grain was threshed and before the priest took the teruma; and the teruma of the tithes was taken from it but teruma gedola was not taken from it.
因为 举祭 素常是先分的，所以利未人所取那头一层什一里，本有一分该当作 举祭 分出去。
Therefore, since the teruma is generally separated first, a portion of the first tithe that the Levite took should have been separated as teruma.
这话正合 拉比阿巴胡 奉 雷什·拉基什 之名所说的：头一层什一，利未人趁禾还在秆上就抢在祭司以先取了的，免出 大举祭，因为经上说：「你们要从其中取出献给耶和华的举祭，就是这十分之一中的十分之一」（民数记 18:26）——由此可推：我对你利未人所说当分的，是那什一中的十分之一、就是什一的 举祭。我并没有对你说要分 大举祭 与什一的 举祭 两样。
这话正合 拉比阿巴胡 奉 雷什·拉基什 之名所说的：头一层什一，利未人趁禾还在秆上就抢在祭司以先取了的，免出 大举祭，因为经上说：「你们要从其中取出献给耶和华的举祭，就是这十分之一中的十分之一」（民数记 18:26）——由此可推：我对你利未人所说当分的，是那什一中的十分之一、就是什一的 举祭。
And this is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Reish Lakish said: First tithe, in a case where the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks, is exempt from teruma gedola, as it is stated: “And you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe” (Numbers 18:26), from which the following inference is made: A tenth part of the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, I told you, the Levite, to separate.
我并没有对你说要分 大举祭 与什一的 举祭 两样。
And I did not tell you to separate teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe.
就这一件，拉夫帕帕 对 阿巴耶 说：若是这样，那么禾粒已从秆上打下来、堆成了堆，利未人才抢在祭司以先取了什一的，也仍该免出 大举祭 才是。阿巴耶 对他说：论你所说的，经上说：「凡赐给你们的，你们要从其中取出献给耶和华的举祭」（民数记 18:29）。「凡」这一个包括之词含着说：禾既已堆成了堆而利未人抢在祭司以先取了什一，那头一层什一里仍须分出 大举祭。
就这一件，拉夫帕帕 对 阿巴耶 说：若是这样，那么禾粒已从秆上打下来、堆成了堆，利未人才抢在祭司以先取了什一的，也仍该免出 大举祭 才是。
With regard to this matter, Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should still not have to separate teruma gedola.
阿巴耶 对他说：论你所说的，经上说：「凡赐给你们的，你们要从其中取出献给耶和华的举祭」（民数记 18:29）。
Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord’s teruma” (Numbers 18:29).
「凡」这一个包括之词含着说：禾既已堆成了堆而利未人抢在祭司以先取了什一，那头一层什一里仍须分出 大举祭。
The inclusive phrase “from all” indicates that teruma gedola must be separated even from the first tithe in the case where the Levite precedes the priest after the grain has been collected in a pile.
拉夫帕帕 问：你凭什么把一句经文讲作「禾在秆上时所分的头一层什一免出 大举祭」，又把另一句讲作「禾已堆成堆时利未人所取的什一仍须分出 大举祭」呢？阿巴耶 答：这一样出产既已打过、堆起，就是全然办妥、成了粮；那一样还在秆上的，还没有成粮。经上的措辞含着说：当分 举祭 之责单系于粮，而出产没有打过就还算不得粮。
拉夫帕帕 问：你凭什么把一句经文讲作「禾在秆上时所分的头一层什一免出 大举祭」，又把另一句讲作「禾已堆成堆时利未人所取的什一仍须分出 大举祭」呢？
Rav Pappa asks: And what did you see that led you to expound one verse as exempting the Levite from separating teruma gedola from first tithe that has been separated while the grain was on the stalks, and to expound another verse as requiring teruma gedola to be separated when the Levite took his first tithe after the grain was collected in a pile?
阿巴耶 答：这一样出产既已打过、堆起，就是全然办妥、成了粮；那一样还在秆上的，还没有成粮。
Abaye answers: This produce, which has been threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that produce, which remained on the stalks, did not yet become grain.
经上的措辞含着说：当分 举祭 之责单系于粮，而出产没有打过就还算不得粮。
The wording of the biblical verses indicates that the requirement to separate teruma applies only to grain, whereas the produce is not considered grain until it has been threshed.
密释纳又说：人可以用已赎的第二层什一与圣物立 合界。革玛拉 问：那几样可以用来立 合界，这是明摆着的。革玛拉 答：这一断所以要立，单指人赎第二层什一或圣物时付了本价、却没有加付那五分之一的那一样——赎的时候本该加付五分之一。密释纳教我们说：没有加付五分之一，并不使那一赎失效。本价既已付了，纵五分之一还欠着，那物也算赎了，可以作寻常之用。
密释纳又说：人可以用已赎的第二层什一与圣物立 合界。
The mishna also stated that one may establish an eiruv with the second tithe and consecrated food that have been redeemed.
革玛拉 问：那几样可以用来立 合界，这是明摆着的。
The Gemara asks: It is obvious that these foods may be used to establish an eiruv.
革玛拉 答：这一断所以要立，单指人赎第二层什一或圣物时付了本价、却没有加付那五分之一的那一样——赎的时候本该加付五分之一。
The Gemara answers: This ruling was only needed for a case where one redeemed the second tithe or consecrated food and paid the principle but did not pay the additional fifth of their value, which must be paid when they are redeemed.
密释纳教我们说：没有加付五分之一，并不使那一赎失效。
And the mishna teaches us that the failure to pay the additional fifth does not invalidate the redemption.
本价既已付了，纵五分之一还欠着，那物也算赎了，可以作寻常之用。
Once the principle is paid, even if payment of the additional fifth is still outstanding, the article is regarded as redeemed and may be used for mundane purposes.
密释纳又说：人不可用 未分什一之物、就是还没有分出祭司当得之物与各样什一的出产立 合界。革玛拉 问：这也是明摆着的，因为 未分什一之物 是不可吃、也不可从它得益的。革玛拉 答：这一断所以要立，单指那按拉比所定才算 未分什一之物 的一样。哪些算在这一类里呢？譬如人在没有底孔的器皿里下种，所结的出产依 妥拉 之律免分 举祭 与各样什一，因为依 妥拉 之律，那样器皿里长出来的算不得从地里长出的。
密释纳又说：人不可用 未分什一之物、就是还没有分出祭司当得之物与各样什一的出产立 合界。
The mishna further states: But one may not establish an eiruv with tevel, produce from which the priestly dues and other tithes have not been separated.
革玛拉 问：这也是明摆着的，因为 未分什一之物 是不可吃、也不可从它得益的。
The Gemara asks: This too is obvious, as it is prohibited to eat or derive any benefit from tevel.
革玛拉 答：这一断所以要立，单指那按拉比所定才算 未分什一之物 的一样。
The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed with regard to tevel that is considered tevel by rabbinic decree.
哪些算在这一类里呢？
What is included in this category?
譬如人在没有底孔的器皿里下种，所结的出产依 妥拉 之律免分 举祭 与各样什一，因为依 妥拉 之律，那样器皿里长出来的算不得从地里长出的。
For example, if one planted seeds in an imperforated container, one is exempt by Torah law from separating teruma and tithes from the resulting produce because Torah law does not consider produce grown in such a container to have grown from the ground.
密释纳说：人不可用还没有分出 举祭 的头一层什一立 合界。革玛拉 问：这是明摆着的，因为那样的出产就是 未分什一之物。革玛拉 答：这一断所以要立，单指那利未人抢在祭司以先、从禾堆里取了头一层什一，后来只分出了什一的 举祭、没有分出 大举祭 的那一样——那出产仍是 未分什一之物。
密释纳说：人不可用还没有分出 举祭 的头一层什一立 合界。
The mishna stated that one may not establish an eiruv with first tithe whose teruma has not been taken.
革玛拉 问：这是明摆着的，因为那样的出产就是 未分什一之物。
The Gemara asks: It is obvious, as such produce is tevel.
革玛拉 答：这一断所以要立，单指那利未人抢在祭司以先、从禾堆里取了头一层什一，后来只分出了什一的 举祭、没有分出 大举祭 的那一样——那出产仍是 未分什一之物。
The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed for a case where the Levite preceded the priest and took first tithe from the pile, and only teruma of the tithe was taken from it, but teruma gedola was not taken from it, and the produce is therefore still tevel.
免得你说那一样的 哈拉哈 照 拉夫帕帕 对 阿巴耶 所说的、利未人免出 大举祭，因而那食物可以用来立 合界，所以密释纳照 阿巴耶 所答的教我们说：利未人若在禾已堆成堆之后才取，就须分出 大举祭。他没有分出以先，那出产不可吃。
免得你说那一样的 哈拉哈 照 拉夫帕帕 对 阿巴耶 所说的、利未人免出 大举祭，因而那食物可以用来立 合界，所以密释纳照 阿巴耶 所答的教我们说：利未人若在禾已堆成堆之后才取，就须分出 大举祭。
Lest you say the halakha in that case is as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, and the Levite is exempt from separating teruma gedola, and therefore the food may be used for an eiruv, the mishna teaches us as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa: If the Levite takes grain after it had been gathered in a pile, he must separate teruma gedola.
他没有分出以先，那出产不可吃。
Until he does so the produce may not be eaten.
我们在密释纳里又学过：人不可用还没有赎的第二层什一与圣物立 合界。革玛拉 问：那几样不可用，这是明摆着的。
我们在密释纳里又学过：人不可用还没有赎的第二层什一与圣物立 合界。
We also learned in the mishna that one may not establish an eiruv with the second tithe or consecrated food that have not been redeemed.
革玛拉 问：那几样不可用，这是明摆着的。
The Gemara asks: It is obvious that these items may not be used.
革玛拉 答：这一断所以要立，单指他赎了、却赎得不合式的那一样——如用 无印银块、就是没有印的银块去赎第二层什一。论赎第二层什一，妥拉 说：「要把银子捆起来（וְצַרְתָּ），拿在手里」（申命记 14:25）。这一句讲说作：第二层什一只可用有形（צוּרָה）刻在上头的银子去赎；没有印的银块，就赎第二层什一而论算不得银子。
革玛拉 答：这一断所以要立，单指他赎了、却赎得不合式的那一样——如用 无印银块、就是没有印的银块去赎第二层什一。
The Gemara answers: This ruling is only needed for a case where he redeemed them, but did not redeem them properly, e.g., in the case of second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon].
论赎第二层什一，妥拉 说：「要把银子捆起来（וְצַרְתָּ），拿在手里」（申命记 14:25）。
And the Torah says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: And bind up [vetzarta] the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25).
这一句讲说作：第二层什一只可用有形（צוּרָה）刻在上头的银子去赎；没有印的银块，就赎第二层什一而论算不得银子。
This is expounded to mean that the second tithe may only be redeemed with money that has a form [tzura] engraved upon it; however, unminted coins are not considered money for the purpose of redeeming the second tithe.
论圣物，所指的是人不用银子、乃用田地去换赎的那一样，因为 妥拉 说：「他要付上银子，那物就归他了。」经上既说付银子，就可推知：圣物不可拿价值相当的田地交给圣殿的库房去赎。
论圣物，所指的是人不用银子、乃用田地去换赎的那一样，因为 妥拉 说：「他要付上银子，那物就归他了。」经上既说付银子，就可推知：圣物不可拿价值相当的田地交给圣殿的库房去赎。
With regard to consecrated property, the reference is to a case where one redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Torah states: “He will give the money and it shall become his.” Since the verse speaks of giving money, it may be inferred that consecrated property cannot be redeemed by giving the Temple treasury land of equivalent value.
人若托聋哑人、痴愚人或幼童把自己的 合界 送去——那三样人在律上都算不能自主的——或托一个不认 合界 这条理的人送去，那 合界 就不算数。只是他若吩咐另一个人在某处从那送的人手里接过来、放在那一处，那 合界 就算数。立 合界 所要紧的，是须由一个能自主的人把它放在该放之处；至于它怎样到那里去，倒不相干。
人若托聋哑人、痴愚人或幼童把自己的 合界 送去——那三样人在律上都算不能自主的——或托一个不认 合界 这条理的人送去，那 合界 就不算数。
If one sends his eiruv in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are regarded as legally incompetent, or in the hands of one who does not accept the principle of eiruv, it is not a valid eiruv.
只是他若吩咐另一个人在某处从那送的人手里接过来、放在那一处，那 合界 就算数。
But if one told another person to receive it from him at a specific location and set it down in that spot, it is a valid eiruv.
立 合界 所要紧的，是须由一个能自主的人把它放在该放之处；至于它怎样到那里去，倒不相干。
The critical point in the establishment of an eiruv is that it must be deposited in the proper location by a competent person; but it is immaterial how the eiruv arrives there.
革玛拉 问：幼童就不合放 合界 么？拉夫胡纳 岂不是说过：幼童可以向院中住户收那作 合界 的食物、替他们立 合界，按理也许么？革玛拉 答：这并不为难，因为这里密释纳断幼童所放的 合界 不算数，说的是界域之合。那几条律较严，须人另立一处居处，而幼童立不得。那里 拉夫胡纳 说幼童可以收那作 合界 的食物，说的是院界之合。那一样较宽，连幼童也立得，因为所要的不过是把本已有的几处区域连起来罢了。
革玛拉 问：幼童就不合放 合界 么？
The Gemara asks: Is a minor not fit to set down an eiruv?
拉夫胡纳 岂不是说过：幼童可以向院中住户收那作 合界 的食物、替他们立 合界，按理也许么？
Didn’t Rav Huna say: A minor may collect the food for an eiruv from the residents of a courtyard and establish an eiruv on their behalf even ab initio?
革玛拉 答：这并不为难，因为这里密释纳断幼童所放的 合界 不算数，说的是界域之合。
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as here, where the mishna invalidates an eiruv placed by a minor, it is referring to an eiruv of Shabbat borders.
那几条律较严，须人另立一处居处，而幼童立不得。
These laws are relatively stringent, as they require that one establish a new place of residence, which a minor cannot do.
那里 拉夫胡纳 说幼童可以收那作 合界 的食物，说的是院界之合。
There, where Rav Huna said that a minor may collect the food for an eiruv, he was referring to an eiruv of courtyards.
那一样较宽，连幼童也立得，因为所要的不过是把本已有的几处区域连起来罢了。
This type of eiruv is more lenient and may be established even by a minor, as all that is necessary is to join together domains that already exist.
我们在密释纳里学过：或托一个不认 合界 这条理的人送去。革玛拉 问：那是谁呢？拉夫希斯达 说：是 古提人——他不受众贤者论 合界 所立的诸律。
我们在密释纳里学过：或托一个不认 合界 这条理的人送去。
We learned in the mishna: Or if one sends his eiruv in the hands of one who does not accept the principle of eiruv.
革玛拉 问：那是谁呢？
The Gemara asks: Who is this?
拉夫希斯达 说：是 古提人——他不受众贤者论 合界 所立的诸律。
Rav Ḥisda said: A Samaritan [Kuti], who does not accept the laws of the Sages with regard to eiruv.
密释纳又说：他若吩咐另一个人从那送的人手里接过来，那 合界 就算数。革玛拉 难这话说：只怕那幼童或别的不能自主的人不把 合界 送到那一个人那里。革玛拉 回说：这可以照 拉夫希斯达 论另一句所说的来答——那是指他站着看住他的那一样。这里也照样：密释纳说的是那托人送 合界 的自己站着远远看住，直到那 合界 到了所指定接的人手里。
密释纳又说：他若吩咐另一个人从那送的人手里接过来，那 合界 就算数。
The mishna also states: And if he told another person to receive the eiruv from him, it is a valid eiruv.
革玛拉 难这话说：只怕那幼童或别的不能自主的人不把 合界 送到那一个人那里。
The Gemara challenges this statement: Let us be concerned that perhaps the minor or other incompetent person will not bring the eiruv to the other person.
革玛拉 回说：这可以照 拉夫希斯达 论另一句所说的来答——那是指他站着看住他的那一样。
The Gemara responds: This may be answered as Rav Ḥisda said with regard to a different statement, that it was referring to a case where he stands and watches him.
这里也照样：密释纳说的是那托人送 合界 的自己站着远远看住，直到那 合界 到了所指定接的人手里。
Here, too, the mishna is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and watches him from afar until the eiruv reaches the person designated to receive it.
革玛拉 问：话虽如此，只怕那一个人不从聋哑人、痴愚人或幼童手里接过 合界、放在所指定之处。远远地看，本看不清那里究竟怎样。他所见的，不过是那送的人到了地头罢了。革玛拉 这样答这一问：拉夫耶希埃勒 论别处曾说，在律上人当推定受托的人必办成所受之托。这里也照样：那受托去接 合界 的人，在律上当推定他必办成所受之托。
革玛拉 问：话虽如此，只怕那一个人不从聋哑人、痴愚人或幼童手里接过 合界、放在所指定之处。
The Gemara asks: But nonetheless, let us be concerned that perhaps the other person will not take the eiruv from the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor and deposit it in the designated place.
远远地看，本看不清那里究竟怎样。
From a distance, one cannot see exactly what is happening.
他所见的，不过是那送的人到了地头罢了。
He only saw that the messenger arrived at his destination.
革玛拉 这样答这一问：拉夫耶希埃勒 论别处曾说，在律上人当推定受托的人必办成所受之托。
The Gemara answers this question as follows: Rav Yeḥiel said in a different context that there is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency.
这里也照样：那受托去接 合界 的人，在律上当推定他必办成所受之托。
Here, too, there is a legal presumption that the agent appointed to accept the eiruv fulfills his agency.
革玛拉 问：拉夫希斯达 与 拉夫耶希埃勒 这两条本是就哪一件说的呢？革玛拉 答：是就下头这一件说的，因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：人若把 合界 交给一只驯象、它把 合界 送到他所要放的地方；或交给一只猴子、它送到该放之处——那 合界 都不算数。只是他若吩咐另一个人从那牲畜那里接过来，那 合界 就算数。革玛拉 问：只怕那牲畜不把 合界 送到所指定接的人那里？拉夫希斯达 说：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说的是那托送 合界 的自己站着远远看住，直到它到了所指定接的人那里。革玛拉 再问：只怕那受托接 合界 的人不从象或猴那里接过来？拉夫耶希埃勒 说：在律上当推定受托的人必办成所受之托。
革玛拉 问：拉夫希斯达 与 拉夫耶希埃勒 这两条本是就哪一件说的呢？
The Gemara asks: Where were these principles of Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yeḥiel stated?
革玛拉 答：是就下头这一件说的，因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：人若把 合界 交给一只驯象、它把 合界 送到他所要放的地方；或交给一只猴子、它送到该放之处——那 合界 都不算数。
The Gemara answers: They were stated with regard to the following, as it was taught in a baraita: If one gave the eiruv to a trained elephant, and it brought it to the place where he wanted the eiruv deposited, or if he gave it to a monkey, and it brought it to the proper location, it is not a valid eiruv.
只是他若吩咐另一个人从那牲畜那里接过来，那 合界 就算数。
But if he told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid eiruv.
革玛拉 问：只怕那牲畜不把 合界 送到所指定接的人那里？
The Gemara asks: But perhaps the animal will not bring the eiruv to the person appointed to receive it?
拉夫希斯达 说：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说的是那托送 合界 的自己站着远远看住，直到它到了所指定接的人那里。
Rav Ḥisda said: The baraita is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and watches it from afar until it reaches the person designated to receive the eiruv.
革玛拉 再问：只怕那受托接 合界 的人不从象或猴那里接过来？
The Gemara asks further: But perhaps the person appointed to receive the eiruv will not accept it from the elephant or monkey.
拉夫耶希埃勒 说：在律上当推定受托的人必办成所受之托。
Rav Yeḥiel said: There is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency.
拉夫纳赫曼 说：论 妥拉 所定之律，我们不靠「受托的人必办成所受之托」这一推定，人须亲眼见那受托的人办成所受之托才可。
拉夫纳赫曼 说：论 妥拉 所定之律，我们不靠「受托的人必办成所受之托」这一推定，人须亲眼见那受托的人办成所受之托才可。
Rav Naḥman said: With regard to Torah laws, we do not rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency; rather, one must actually see the agent performing his mission.