← 移入纹卷总目·第四章 被人带出界的
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 10 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。
须立一道铁隔断，把它分作两处，好叫两边的人都可以从那里打水。拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 每听这条教训就发笑，以为它是多余的。
须立一道铁隔断，把它分作两处，好叫两边的人都可以从那里打水。
an iron partition to divide it into two separate areas, so that the residents of both places may draw water from it.
拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 每听这条教训就发笑，以为它是多余的。
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, would laugh at this teaching, as he deemed it unnecessary.
革玛拉 问：拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 为什么发笑呢？你若说是因为 拉比希亚 把这条 《巴拉伊塔》 教得严了、依了 拉比约哈难·本·努里「无主之物也定居处」的说法，而 拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 执的是宽的一面、依众拉比说那些物件不定居处——这就难了。难道单因自己执的宽，就笑那教得严的人么？
革玛拉 问：拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 为什么发笑呢？
The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, laugh?
你若说是因为 拉比希亚 把这条 《巴拉伊塔》 教得严了、依了 拉比约哈难·本·努里「无主之物也定居处」的说法，而 拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 执的是宽的一面、依众拉比说那些物件不定居处——这就难了。
If you say that it is because Rabbi Ḥiyya taught the baraita stringently, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, saying that ownerless objects acquire a place of residence, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina holds leniently, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and says that those objects do not acquire residence, this is difficult.
难道单因自己执的宽，就笑那教得严的人么？
Just because he holds leniently, does he laugh at one who teaches stringently?
倒不如说他发笑另有缘故，因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：流动的江河、涌流的泉源，都如同众人的脚一样，因为那水并不在哪一处定居处。所以从江河泉源打水的人，走得到哪里就可以把水搬到哪里，纵然那水先前是在他的安息日之界以外。照 拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 的意思，沟里的水也该照这条 哈拉哈 办。
倒不如说他发笑另有缘故，因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：流动的江河、涌流的泉源，都如同众人的脚一样，因为那水并不在哪一处定居处。
Rather, he must have laughed for a different reason, as it was taught in a baraita: Flowing rivers and streaming springs are like the feet of all people, as the water did not acquire residence in any particular spot.
所以从江河泉源打水的人，走得到哪里就可以把水搬到哪里，纵然那水先前是在他的安息日之界以外。
Consequently, one who draws water from rivers and springs may carry it wherever he is permitted to walk, even if it had previously been located outside his Shabbat limit.
照 拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 的意思，沟里的水也该照这条 哈拉哈 办。
According to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, the same halakha should apply to the water in the ditch.
革玛拉 驳这一说：江河泉源那一断举不出凭据来，因为这里所议的或者是一道积着死水的沟，那水专属那一处的居民。
革玛拉 驳这一说：江河泉源那一断举不出凭据来，因为这里所议的或者是一道积着死水的沟，那水专属那一处的居民。
The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be brought from this ruling concerning rivers and springs, as perhaps we are dealing here with a ditch of still, collected water that belongs exclusively to the residents of that particular place.
倒不如说，拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 发笑另有缘故：因为 拉比希亚 在他那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说，那道沟须立一道铁隔断把它分作两段。拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 就争说：苇子作的隔断有什么两样，以致我们要说它在这一件上不管用呢？想必是因为水会渗进去、从这一界流到那一界。只是这就难了：便是铁作的隔断，水也照样渗进去、从这一界流到那一界，因为它总不能密不透水。既是这样，铁能办到而苇子办不到的，是什么呢？
倒不如说，拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 发笑另有缘故：因为 拉比希亚 在他那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说，那道沟须立一道铁隔断把它分作两段。
Rather, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, must have laughed for a different reason, because Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in his baraita that the ditch requires an iron partition to divide it into two separate sections.
拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 就争说：苇子作的隔断有什么两样，以致我们要说它在这一件上不管用呢？
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, argued: Why is a partition of reeds different, that we should say it is not effective in that case?
想必是因为水会渗进去、从这一界流到那一界。
Apparently, it is because water enters it and passes from one limit to the other.
只是这就难了：便是铁作的隔断，水也照样渗进去、从这一界流到那一界，因为它总不能密不透水。
But this is difficult, as even in the case of a partition of iron, water enters it and passes from one limit to another, as it cannot be hermetically sealed.
既是这样，铁能办到而苇子办不到的，是什么呢？
If so, what does the iron accomplish that the reeds do not accomplish?
革玛拉 提一难：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 或者是这样说的：横在两个安息日之界当中那道盛水的沟，须立一道铁隔断把它分作两段。只是这事无法可施，因为那样的隔断总不能密不透水，所以那水是不可用的。
革玛拉 提一难：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 或者是这样说的：横在两个安息日之界当中那道盛水的沟，须立一道铁隔断把它分作两段。
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Perhaps the baraita is saying as follows: A water-filled ditch that lies between two Shabbat limits requires an iron partition to divide it into two separate sections.
只是这事无法可施，因为那样的隔断总不能密不透水，所以那水是不可用的。
But there is no remedy, because it is impossible to hermetically seal a partition of that kind, and therefore its water may not be used.
倒不如说，拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 笑 拉比希亚 这条教训另有缘故：因为众贤者论到水本是从宽的。众拉比说过：论到水，极简的隔断就够用了。既是这样，就不该要铁隔断。
倒不如说，拉比哈尼纳之子拉比约西 笑 拉比希亚 这条教训另有缘故：因为众贤者论到水本是从宽的。
Rather, you must say that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, laughed at Rabbi Ḥiyya’s teaching for a different reason, because the Sages were lenient with regard to water.
众拉比说过：论到水，极简的隔断就够用了。
The Rabbis said that a minimal partition suffices in the case of water.
既是这样，就不该要铁隔断。
Consequently, there should be no need for an iron partition.
这与 拉比塔夫拉 那一件相仿，因为 拉比塔夫拉 请问 拉夫 说：悬着的隔断、就是悬在半空够不着地的隔断，能许人在废墟里搬东西么？我们是不是说：那些悬在空中的残墙算作垂到地上、把那块地围拢了，因此算作私人区呢？
这与 拉比塔夫拉 那一件相仿，因为 拉比塔夫拉 请问 拉夫 说：悬着的隔断、就是悬在半空够不着地的隔断，能许人在废墟里搬东西么？
This is similar to the case involving Rabbi Tavla, as Rabbi Tavla asked of Rav: Does a suspended partition, i.e., a partition that is suspended and does not reach the ground, permit carrying in a ruin?
我们是不是说：那些悬在空中的残墙算作垂到地上、把那块地围拢了，因此算作私人区呢？
Do we say that the remnants of the walls that are suspended in the air are considered as though they descend to the ground and close off the area, so that it is regarded as a private domain?
拉夫 对他说：这样悬着的隔断单在水上才许人搬，因为众贤者论到水是从宽的。众贤者论到水既在悬着的隔断上从宽，这里也该从宽、不该要铁隔断；极简的隔断就该够用了，纵是苇子作的也可以。
拉夫 对他说：这样悬着的隔断单在水上才许人搬，因为众贤者论到水是从宽的。
Rav said to him: A suspended partition of this kind permits carrying only in the case of water, as the Sages were lenient with regard to water.
众贤者论到水既在悬着的隔断上从宽，这里也该从宽、不该要铁隔断；极简的隔断就该够用了，纵是苇子作的也可以。
Just as the Sages were lenient about water with respect to a suspended partition, so too they should be lenient here and not require an iron partition; rather, a minimal partition should suffice, even one made of reeds.
密释纳教说：众拉比说，人在安息日起首时睡着、无意在所在之处定居处的，只得四肘；拉比犹大 却说他愿往哪一方，就可以往那一方走四肘。革玛拉 问：所争的是什么呢？拉比犹大 的说法与头一位 坦拿、就是众拉比的，岂不是一样么？
密释纳教说：众拉比说，人在安息日起首时睡着、无意在所在之处定居处的，只得四肘；拉比犹大 却说他愿往哪一方，就可以往那一方走四肘。
The mishna taught: And the Rabbis say that if a person is sleeping at the onset of Shabbat and has no intention of acquiring residence in his location, he has only four cubits, whereas Rabbi Yehuda says he can walk four cubits in any direction he chooses.
革玛拉 问：所争的是什么呢？
The Gemara asks: What is the dispute?
拉比犹大 的说法与头一位 坦拿、就是众拉比的，岂不是一样么？
The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is the same as that of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis.
拉瓦 说：两说是有实在分别的，因为众拉比许他在八肘见方的一块地上搬动。拉比犹大 以为他只得四肘、往自己所择的那一方；照众拉比说，他各方各得四肘，合起来就是八肘见方的一块地。一条 《巴拉伊塔》 也明明这样教：他得八肘见方——这是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法，也就是密释纳里众拉比的说法。
拉瓦 说：两说是有实在分别的，因为众拉比许他在八肘见方的一块地上搬动。
Rava said: There is a practical difference between them, as the Rabbis permit him to carry in an area of eight by eight cubits.
拉比犹大 以为他只得四肘、往自己所择的那一方；照众拉比说，他各方各得四肘，合起来就是八肘见方的一块地。
Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he has only four cubits, in the direction of his choosing, whereas according to the Rabbis he has four cubits in every direction, which totals an area of eight by eight cubits.
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 也明明这样教：他得八肘见方——这是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法，也就是密释纳里众拉比的说法。
That was also taught explicitly in a baraita: He has eight by eight cubits; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, which is the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna.
拉瓦 又说：拉比梅伊尔 与 拉比犹大 这一争单是就走路说的；至于搬东西，众人都同意搬四肘是许的，过了四肘就不许。
拉瓦 又说：拉比梅伊尔 与 拉比犹大 这一争单是就走路说的；至于搬东西，众人都同意搬四肘是许的，过了四肘就不许。
And Rava further stated: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda relates only to walking, but as for carrying objects, all agree that to carry them four cubits is indeed permitted; but to carry them more than that is not.
革玛拉 究问这条律的根：人安息日无论何时都可以走的这四肘，妥拉里写在哪里呢？
革玛拉 究问这条律的根：人安息日无论何时都可以走的这四肘，妥拉里写在哪里呢？
The Gemara inquires about the basis of this law: These four cubits within which a person is always permitted to walk on Shabbat, where are they written in the Torah?
革玛拉 答：因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：经上「第七天各人要住在自己的地方，不许什么人出去」（出埃及记十六章二十九节）这话，是说人须把自己的行动限在与他自身相等的一块地上。那么他自身所占的一块有多大呢？人的身量常是三肘，再加一肘好容他伸开手脚——这是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法。拉比犹大 说：人的身量是三肘，再加一肘好容他从脚下拿起东西放到头下，就是给他转身的余地。
革玛拉 答：因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：经上「第七天各人要住在自己的地方，不许什么人出去」（出埃及记十六章二十九节）这话，是说人须把自己的行动限在与他自身相等的一块地上。
The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: The verse “Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day” (Exodus 16:29), means one must restrict his movement to an area equal to his place.
那么他自身所占的一块有多大呢？
And how much is the area of his place?
人的身量常是三肘，再加一肘好容他伸开手脚——这是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法。
A person’s body typically measures three cubits, and an additional cubit is needed in order to allow him to spread out his hands and feet, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
拉比犹大 说：人的身量是三肘，再加一肘好容他从脚下拿起东西放到头下，就是给他转身的余地。
Rabbi Yehuda says: A person’s body measures three cubits, and an additional cubit is needed in order to allow him to pick up an object from under his feet and place it under his head, meaning, to give him room to maneuver.
革玛拉 问：两说有什么实在的分别呢？革玛拉 答：分别在于 拉比犹大 给他的正是四肘、不多一分；拉比梅伊尔 却以为不这样拘他，倒给他宽松的肘，就是够他伸开手脚的地方，比四肘略多一点。
革玛拉 问：两说有什么实在的分别呢？
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them?
革玛拉 答：分别在于 拉比犹大 给他的正是四肘、不多一分；拉比梅伊尔 却以为不这样拘他，倒给他宽松的肘，就是够他伸开手脚的地方，比四肘略多一点。
The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in that Rabbi Yehuda provides him with exactly four cubits but no more; whereas Rabbi Meir maintains that we do not restrict him in this manner, but rather he is provided with expansive cubits, i.e., enough room to spread out his hands and feet, which measures slightly more than four cubits.
拉夫梅沙尔希亚 对他儿子说：你到 拉夫帕帕 面前的时候，这样请问他：这里所说的四肘——原文「肘」一字本也指人的前臂——是按各人自己的前臂、就是从肘尖到食指尖那一段量给他呢，还是按圣物所用的那一肘、就是人人一律的六个中掌宽量给他呢？
拉夫梅沙尔希亚 对他儿子说：你到 拉夫帕帕 面前的时候，这样请问他：这里所说的四肘——原文「肘」一字本也指人的前臂——是按各人自己的前臂、就是从肘尖到食指尖那一段量给他呢，还是按圣物所用的那一肘、就是人人一律的六个中掌宽量给他呢？
Rav Mesharshiya said to his son: When you come before Rav Pappa, inquire of him as follows: The four cubits [ammot] mentioned here, do we grant them to each person measured according to his own forearm [amma], i.e., the distance from his elbow to the tip of his index finger, or do we grant them measured according to the cubit [amma] used for consecrated property, i.e., a standard cubit of six medium handbreadths for everyone?
他若对你说，我们是按圣物所用的那一肘量四肘给他，那么巴珊王噩怎么办呢？他的身量比这大得多。他若对你说，我们是按各人自己的前臂量四肘给他，你就对他说：这条 哈拉哈 为什么不与那些按当事人自身尺寸定量的事一同教呢？就是那段密释纳所教的：「以下这几样，所定的量都是按当事人自身的尺寸。」这话是说那几样的量不是定死的，乃是随人而变。这四肘若是按各人自己的前臂量的，这条律本该列在那段密释纳里才是。
他若对你说，我们是按圣物所用的那一肘量四肘给他，那么巴珊王噩怎么办呢？他的身量比这大得多。
If he said to you that we provide him four cubits measured according to the standard cubit used for consecrated property, what will be with regard to Og, king of the Bashan, who is much larger than this?
他若对你说，我们是按各人自己的前臂量四肘给他，你就对他说：这条 哈拉哈 为什么不与那些按当事人自身尺寸定量的事一同教呢？就是那段密释纳所教的：「以下这几样，所定的量都是按当事人自身的尺寸。」
And if he said to you that we provide him four cubits measured according to his own forearm, say to him: Why was this halakha not taught together with the other matters whose measures are determined by the specific measure of the person involved, in the mishna that teaches: These are matters with regard to which they stated measures all in accordance with the specific measure of the person involved.
这话是说那几样的量不是定死的，乃是随人而变。
This means that the measures are not fixed, but rather change in accordance with the person in question.
这四肘若是按各人自己的前臂量的，这条律本该列在那段密释纳里才是。
If the four cubits are measured according to each person’s forearm, this law should have been included in the mishna.
拉夫梅沙尔希亚 的儿子到了 拉夫帕帕 面前，拉夫帕帕 对他说：我们若这样一一细究，就什么也学不成了，光答这些问题就够忙的。
拉夫梅沙尔希亚 的儿子到了 拉夫帕帕 面前，拉夫帕帕 对他说：我们若这样一一细究，就什么也学不成了，光答这些问题就够忙的。
When Rav Mesharshiya’s son came before Rav Pappa, the latter said to him: Were we to be so precise, we would not be able to learn anything at all, as we would be too busy answering such questions.
实在说，我们是按各人自己的前臂量四肘给他。至于你为难的那一层——这条律为什么不教在「以下这几样，所定的量都是按当事人自身的尺寸」那段密释纳里呢？这是因为这条律并不是一概断得死的。它有时须斟酌，因为或有人四肢比身子小。论到这样的人，我们就不按他自己前臂的尺寸量那四肘，倒按圣物所用的标准肘量。
实在说，我们是按各人自己的前臂量四肘给他。
In fact, we grant him four cubits measured according to his own forearm.
至于你为难的那一层——这条律为什么不教在「以下这几样，所定的量都是按当事人自身的尺寸」那段密释纳里呢？
And as for that which was difficult for you, why was this law not taught in the mishna that teaches: These are matters with regard to which they stated measures all in accordance with the specific measure of the person involved?
这是因为这条律并不是一概断得死的。
It is because this law is not absolutely clear-cut.
它有时须斟酌，因为或有人四肢比身子小。
It occasionally must be adjusted, since there may be a person whose limbs are small in relation to his body.
论到这样的人，我们就不按他自己前臂的尺寸量那四肘，倒按圣物所用的标准肘量。
With regard to such a person, we do not measure four cubits according to the size of his own forearm, but rather by the standard cubits used for consecrated property.
密释纳教说：两个人所站之处若叫这一人的四肘有一段叠在那一人的四肘之内，他们各人可以把食物拿到当中共有的那一段里一同吃用。拉比西缅 把这一件比作三个彼此相通的院子，外边两个都与当中那个立了 合界。革玛拉 问：拉比西缅 何必打这个比方、说「这可比作什么呢」，把我们这一件牵到另一件上去呢？
密释纳教说：两个人所站之处若叫这一人的四肘有一段叠在那一人的四肘之内，他们各人可以把食物拿到当中共有的那一段里一同吃用。
The mishna taught: If there were two people positioned in a way that part of the four cubits of the one were subsumed within the four cubits of the other, they each may bring food and eat together in the shared area in the middle.
拉比西缅 把这一件比作三个彼此相通的院子，外边两个都与当中那个立了 合界。
Rabbi Shimon likened this case to that of three courtyards that open one into another, where the two outer courtyards established an eiruv with the middle one.
革玛拉 问：拉比西缅 何必打这个比方、说「这可比作什么呢」，把我们这一件牵到另一件上去呢？
The Gemara asks: Why does Rabbi Shimon need to offer an analogy and say: To what may this be likened, and thus connect our case to a different issue?
革玛拉 讲明：拉比西缅 对众拉比说的是这个意思：这到底可比作什么呢？可比作三个彼此相通、又都通到公共区的院子。那里有什么两样，以致你们与我相争、说各院之间彼此不可相搬；这里又有什么两样，以致你们不与我相争呢？
革玛拉 讲明：拉比西缅 对众拉比说的是这个意思：这到底可比作什么呢？
The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: After all, to what is this similar?
可比作三个彼此相通、又都通到公共区的院子。
To three courtyards that open into one another, and that also open into a public domain.
那里有什么两样，以致你们与我相争、说各院之间彼此不可相搬；这里又有什么两样，以致你们不与我相争呢？
What is different there that you disagree with me and say that it is prohibited to carry from any one courtyard to any other, and what is different here that you do not disagree with me?
众拉比是怎样答的呢？那里各院的居民多，其中或有人到不该搬的地方去搬东西；这里的人却不多，三个人彼此提醒、免得干犯安息日，是办得到的。
众拉比是怎样答的呢？
And how do the Rabbis reply?
那里各院的居民多，其中或有人到不该搬的地方去搬东西；这里的人却不多，三个人彼此提醒、免得干犯安息日，是办得到的。
There the residents of the courtyards are numerous, and some might come to carry objects in a place where it is prohibited to do so; whereas here the residents are not numerous, and a mere three people can warn each other against Shabbat desecration.
密释纳教说：外边两个院子的人若与当中那个立了 合界，就可以从当中往两边搬，也可以从两边往当中搬。外边那两个院子之间却不可相搬，因为它们并没有一同立 合界。革玛拉 问：为什么不可呢？外边两院的人既都与当中那院立了 合界，他们就如同一伙，因此彼此之间也该都是许的才是。
密释纳教说：外边两个院子的人若与当中那个立了 合界，就可以从当中往两边搬，也可以从两边往当中搬。
The mishna taught: If the residents of the two outer courtyards established an eiruv with the middle one, it is permitted to carry from the middle one to the two outer ones, and it is permitted to carry from the two outer ones to the middle one.
外边那两个院子之间却不可相搬，因为它们并没有一同立 合界。
And it is prohibited to carry from one of the two outer courtyards to the other, as they did not establish a joint eiruv.
革玛拉 问：为什么不可呢？
The Gemara asks: Why is it prohibited?
外边两院的人既都与当中那院立了 合界，他们就如同一伙，因此彼此之间也该都是许的才是。
Since the residents of the outer courtyards established an eiruv with the middle one, they are as one, and consequently, they should all be permitted with one another.
拉夫犹大 说：密释纳所指的，不是外边两院把 合界 放在当中那院的情形；乃是当中那院的人把自己头一份 合界 放在这边院里、第二份 合界 放在那边院里，以致外边两院的 合界 都不在当中那院。
拉夫犹大 说：密释纳所指的，不是外边两院把 合界 放在当中那院的情形；乃是当中那院的人把自己头一份 合界 放在这边院里、第二份 合界 放在那边院里，以致外边两院的 合界 都不在当中那院。
Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is referring to a case where the two outer courtyards did not place their eiruv in the middle courtyard; rather, to a case where the residents of the middle courtyard placed its first eiruv in this courtyard and its second eiruv in that courtyard, so that the eiruv of each of the other courtyards is not in the middle courtyard.
拉夫舍舍特 说：你纵说外边两院的人各把自己的 合界 放在当中那院，它们仍不算作一个院子，因为这里所议的是他们把各自的 合界 放在
拉夫舍舍特 说：你纵说外边两院的人各把自己的 合界 放在当中那院，它们仍不算作一个院子，因为这里所议的是他们把各自的 合界 放在
And Rav Sheshet said: Even if you say that the residents of each of the outer courtyards placed their eiruv in the middle courtyard, they are still not considered a single courtyard, as we are dealing with a case where they placed each eiruv