而 拉比犹大·哈纳西 一面持 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,一面也持 拉比犹大 的意思。
-
而 拉比犹大·哈纳西 一面持 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,一面也持 拉比犹大 的意思。
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
← 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 22 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。
而 拉比犹大·哈纳西 一面持 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,一面也持 拉比犹大 的意思。
而 拉比犹大·哈纳西 一面持 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,一面也持 拉比犹大 的意思。
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
革玛拉 讲明:他持 拉比梅伊尔 的意思——那一位论拱形门道说:底下那一段直墙有三掌高、整个拱有十掌高的,纵在十掌那一线上拱宽不足四掌,人也看它如同已经凿开凑足了、就是那拱在律上如同实在放宽到四掌一样。照样,我们这一件里那篮子也算在内,把那树在那一处放宽到四掌。
革玛拉 讲明:他持 拉比梅伊尔 的意思——那一位论拱形门道说:底下那一段直墙有三掌高、整个拱有十掌高的,纵在十掌那一线上拱宽不足四掌,人也看它如同已经凿开凑足了、就是那拱在律上如同实在放宽到四掌一样。
The Gemara clarifies: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said the following in the case of an arched gateway in which the lower, straight-walled section is three handbreadths high, and the entire arch is ten handbreadths high: Even if, at the height of ten handbreadths, the arch is less than four handbreadths wide, one considers it as if he carves out the space to complete it, i.e., the arch has the legal status as though it were actually enlarged to a width of four handbreadths.
照样,我们这一件里那篮子也算在内,把那树在那一处放宽到四掌。
Similarly, in our case the basket is taken into account and enlarges the tree to a width of four handbreadths.
他一面也持 拉比犹大 的意思——那一位说:我们要那 合界 搁在四掌见方的地方,而这里若不把篮子算在内,就没有四掌之宽。
他一面也持 拉比犹大 的意思——那一位说:我们要那 合界 搁在四掌见方的地方,而这里若不把篮子算在内,就没有四掌之宽。
And he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: We require that the eiruv rest on a place that is four by four handbreadths wide, and here there is not a width of four handbreadths without taking the basket into account.
革玛拉 如今问:拉比犹大 那一断本出于何处呢?因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比犹大 说:人若在公共区里把一根横梁插在地上、把自己的 合界 放在梁上,那横梁若高十掌、宽四掌、因而有私人区的分位,他的 合界 就算数;若不然,他的 合界 就不算数。
革玛拉 如今问:拉比犹大 那一断本出于何处呢?
The Gemara now asks: What is the source of the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda?
因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比犹大 说:人若在公共区里把一根横梁插在地上、把自己的 合界 放在梁上,那横梁若高十掌、宽四掌、因而有私人区的分位,他的 合界 就算数;若不然,他的 合界 就不算数。
As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one stuck a cross beam into the ground in the public domain and placed his eiruv upon it, if the cross beam is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, so that it has the status of a private domain, his eiruv is a valid eiruv; but if not, his eiruv is not a valid eiruv.
革玛拉 诧异说:倒过来才是——那横梁若不足十掌高,他的 合界 何以不算数呢?他与他的 合界 同在一处,就是同在公共区里。所以他所说的乃是这样:那横梁若高十掌,它的顶就须有四掌之宽,好使它自成一区;若不足十掌高,它的顶就不必有四掌之宽,因为那算作公共区的一部分。
革玛拉 诧异说:倒过来才是——那横梁若不足十掌高,他的 合界 何以不算数呢?
The Gemara expresses surprise: On the contrary, if the cross beam is not ten handbreadths high, why shouldn’t his eiruv be valid?
他与他的 合界 同在一处,就是同在公共区里。
He and his eiruv are in the same place, i.e., in the public domain.
所以他所说的乃是这样:那横梁若高十掌,它的顶就须有四掌之宽,好使它自成一区;若不足十掌高,它的顶就不必有四掌之宽,因为那算作公共区的一部分。
Rather, this is what he said: If the cross beam is ten handbreadths high, it is necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide, so that it can be considered its own domain; but if it is not ten handbreadths high, it is not necessary that its top be four handbreadths wide because it is considered part of the public domain.
革玛拉 提一问:拉维纳 那个讲法——以为我们说的是一个把树补足四掌的篮子,而那里仍不算私人区——是依谁的意思呢?那不是依 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 的意思,因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 说:人若在公共区里把一根苇插在地上,又把一个四掌见方的 筐 搁在苇顶上,随后从公共区抛一物出去、落在那筐上的,他就有罪,算作从公共区搬进私人区。依 拉比犹大之子拉比约西,一面四掌见方的面搁在离地十掌之高,就够算作一个私人区了。拉维纳 讲 拉比犹大·哈纳西 的意思,看来却不认这一层。
革玛拉 提一问:拉维纳 那个讲法——以为我们说的是一个把树补足四掌的篮子,而那里仍不算私人区——是依谁的意思呢?
The Gemara poses a question: In accordance with whose opinion did Ravina offer his explanation, which maintains that we are dealing with a basket that completes the dimension of the tree to four handbreadths and yet it is not treated as a private domain?
那不是依 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 的意思,因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 说:人若在公共区里把一根苇插在地上,又把一个四掌见方的 筐 搁在苇顶上,随后从公共区抛一物出去、落在那筐上的,他就有罪,算作从公共区搬进私人区。
It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If one stuck a reed into the ground in the public domain, and placed a basket [teraskal] four by four handbreadths wide on top of it, and threw an object from the public domain, and it landed upon it, he is liable for carrying from a public domain to a private domain.
依 拉比犹大之子拉比约西,一面四掌见方的面搁在离地十掌之高,就够算作一个私人区了。
According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, if a surface of four by four handbreadths rests at a height of ten handbreadths from the ground, this is sufficient for it to be considered a private domain.
拉维纳 讲 拉比犹大·哈纳西 的意思,看来却不认这一层。
Ravina’s explanation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s position, however, does not appear to accept this assumption.
革玛拉 驳这个讲法,说这一证并不铁定:你纵说 拉维纳 那个讲法是依 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 的意思,两下也可以分别——那里论搁在苇上的筐,筐的四边算作四面围着那苇的隔断,我们就可以用「视为落地」之法,把那几边看作一直落到地上。如此公共区里就成了一样私人区。这里论挂在树上的篮子,篮的边并不围着那树,所以不够成一个私人区。
革玛拉 驳这个讲法,说这一证并不铁定:你纵说 拉维纳 那个讲法是依 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 的意思,两下也可以分别——那里论搁在苇上的筐,筐的四边算作四面围着那苇的隔断,我们就可以用「视为落地」之法,把那几边看作一直落到地上。
The Gemara refutes this and claims that this proof is not conclusive: Even if you say that Ravina’s explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, a distinction can be made: There, in the case of the basket resting on a reed, the sides of the basket constitute partitions that surround the reed on all sides, and we can invoke the principle of: Lower the partition, according to which the partitions are viewed as extending down to the ground.
如此公共区里就成了一样私人区。
Consequently, a kind of private domain is created within the public domain.
这里论挂在树上的篮子,篮的边并不围着那树,所以不够成一个私人区。
Here, in the case of the basket hanging from the tree, the partitions of the basket do not surround the tree, and so they do not suffice to create a private domain.
拉比耶利米 说:《托塞夫塔》 里 拉比犹大·哈纳西 那个意思,还可以全然另讲:篮子不同,因为人可以把它一斜,就把它斜到离地十掌之内。他不必把整个篮子挪动,一斜就取得出那 合界 来吃,并没有把它从这一区搬到那一区。
拉比耶利米 说:《托塞夫塔》 里 拉比犹大·哈纳西 那个意思,还可以全然另讲:篮子不同,因为人可以把它一斜,就把它斜到离地十掌之内。
Rabbi Yirmeya said that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the Tosefta can be explained in an entirely different manner: A basket is different, since one can tilt it and in that way bring it to within ten handbreadths of the ground.
他不必把整个篮子挪动,一斜就取得出那 合界 来吃,并没有把它从这一区搬到那一区。
Without moving the entire basket, one can tilt it and thereby remove the eiruv in order to eat it, without carrying it from one domain to another.
拉夫帕帕 坐着诵这条 哈拉哈。拉夫·巴尔·沙巴 据下头这条密释纳驳 拉夫帕帕:节期逢安息日前一日,人若要立一个节期与安息日两日都算数的 合界,当怎样办呢?他在头一日、就是节期前夕,把那 合界 带到他所要立为居处的地方,同它留在那里直到天黑——那正是 合界 定那处为他居处之时——然后把它带走,免得它在安息日未到以先失落了、以致他安息日没有 合界。到第二日前夕、就是安息日前一日的下午,他再把它带回原处,同它留在那里直到天黑,如此就定了他安息日的居处;然后他若愿意,就可以把那 合界 吃了走开。
拉夫帕帕 坐着诵这条 哈拉哈。
Rav Pappa sat and recited this halakha.
拉夫·巴尔·沙巴 据下头这条密释纳驳 拉夫帕帕:节期逢安息日前一日,人若要立一个节期与安息日两日都算数的 合界,当怎样办呢?
Rav bar Shabba raised an objection to Rav Pappa from the following mishna: What does one do if a Festival occurs on Friday, and he wishes to establish an eiruv that will be valid for both the Festival and Shabbat?
他在头一日、就是节期前夕,把那 合界 带到他所要立为居处的地方,同它留在那里直到天黑——那正是 合界 定那处为他居处之时——然后把它带走,免得它在安息日未到以先失落了、以致他安息日没有 合界。
He brings the eiruv to the location that he wishes to establish as his residence on the eve of the first day, i.e., the eve of the Festival, and stays there with it until nightfall, the time when the eiruv establishes that location as his residence, and then he takes it with him and goes away, so that it does not become lost before Shabbat begins, in which case he would not have an eiruv for Shabbat.
到第二日前夕、就是安息日前一日的下午,他再把它带回原处,同它留在那里直到天黑,如此就定了他安息日的居处;然后他若愿意,就可以把那 合界 吃了走开。
On the eve of the second day, i.e., on Friday afternoon, he takes it back to the same place as the day before, and stays there with it until nightfall, thereby establishing his Shabbat residence; and then he may then eat the eiruv and go away, if he so desires.