← 移入纹卷总目·第五章 怎样量定城界
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 15 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。
密释纳这一句是依谁的说法呢？是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法——他执定每一城各给一个 围场。
密释纳这一句是依谁的说法呢？
In accordance with whose opinion is this clause of the mishna?
是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法——他执定每一城各给一个 围场。
It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that one allocates a karpef to each city.
革玛拉 接着问：既是依 拉比梅伊尔 的说法，上半段岂不是已经学过「每一座城都给一个 围场——这是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法」么？何必再提一次 拉比梅伊尔 的说法呢？
革玛拉 接着问：既是依 拉比梅伊尔 的说法，上半段岂不是已经学过「每一座城都给一个 围场——这是 拉比梅伊尔 的说法」么？
The Gemara continues to ask: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn’t we already learn in the first clause: One allocates a karpef to each city; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir?
何必再提一次 拉比梅伊尔 的说法呢？
What need is there to mention Rabbi Meir’s opinion again?
革玛拉 答：再提一次是少不得的。我们若单从上半段学他的说法，我就要说：一座城给一个 围场，两座城也只给一个 围场。所以密释纳教我们说：两座城要给两个 围场。
革玛拉 答：再提一次是少不得的。我们若单从上半段学他的说法，我就要说：一座城给一个 围场，两座城也只给一个 围场。
The Gemara answers: It was necessary to mention his opinion again, as, if we had learned his opinion only from that first clause, I might have said that one allocates one karpef for one city and also one karpef for two cities.
所以密释纳教我们说：两座城要给两个 围场。
Therefore, the mishna teaches us that for two cities, one allocates two karpef areas.
反过来，密释纳若单在这里、就是两座城这一句上教我们，人就要说：所以各给一个 围场，单因两城之间的地若更窄，于两城共用就嫌挤。至于那里、就是一座城，城自身的地于居民并不嫌挤，人就要说：它一个 围场 也不给。所以密释纳两句都须教。
反过来，密释纳若单在这里、就是两座城这一句上教我们，人就要说：所以各给一个 围场，单因两城之间的地若更窄，于两城共用就嫌挤。
And conversely, if the mishna had taught us this law only here, with regard to two cities, one might have said that only in that case is each city granted a separate karpef, because a smaller space between the two adjacent cities would be too crowded for the use of both cities.
至于那里、就是一座城，城自身的地于居民并不嫌挤，人就要说：它一个 围场 也不给。
But there, with regard to one city, where the area of the city itself is not too crowded for the use of its residents, one might say that it is not given any karpef whatsoever.
所以密释纳两句都须教。
Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to teach both clauses.
革玛拉 再拿密释纳来举证，我们在那里学过：照样，三个村子排成一行的，外边两村之间若只隔一百四十一又三分之一肘，当中那一村就把三村并作一处。革玛拉 到这里是把密释纳当作论三村排成一直行说的。因此推说：三村所以算作一处，单因当中有一村；若没有当中那一村，就不算作一处了。这像是把 拉夫胡纳 的说法驳倒了。照 拉夫胡纳 的意思，两村各得一个 围场、合起来加倍，纵没有当中那一村也该算作一处。
革玛拉 再拿密释纳来举证，我们在那里学过：照样，三个村子排成一行的，外边两村之间若只隔一百四十一又三分之一肘，当中那一村就把三村并作一处。
The Gemara tries again to adduce proof from the mishna, in which we learned: And likewise, in the case of three villages that are aligned in a row, if there is only 141⅓ cubits separating between the two outer ones, the middle village combines the three villages into one.
革玛拉 到这里是把密释纳当作论三村排成一直行说的。
At this point the Gemara understands that the mishna here is dealing with three villages arranged in a straight line.
因此推说：三村所以算作一处，单因当中有一村；若没有当中那一村，就不算作一处了。
Therefore, it makes the following inference: The reason that the three villages are considered as one is only because there is a middle village, but were there no middle village, they would not be considered as one.
这像是把 拉夫胡纳 的说法驳倒了。
This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna.
照 拉夫胡纳 的意思，两村各得一个 围场、合起来加倍，纵没有当中那一村也该算作一处。
According to Rav Huna, the two villages should be considered as one even without the middle village, due to the double karpef.
革玛拉 驳这一说：拉夫胡纳 可以对你说：就那段密释纳，拉巴 岂不是说 拉夫伊迪 说 拉比哈尼纳 说过：那并不是说三村真排成一直行。乃是说：当中那一村纵偏在一旁、外边两村相去过了两个 围场 的长，我们也看它们的间距这样量度——凡是把当中那一村挪到两村之间、排成一行时，村与村之间只隔一百四十一又三分之一肘的，当中那一村就把三村并作一处。照这样讲，这段密释纳反倒可以撑 拉夫胡纳 的说法。
革玛拉 驳这一说：拉夫胡纳 可以对你说：就那段密释纳，拉巴 岂不是说 拉夫伊迪 说 拉比哈尼纳 说过：那并不是说三村真排成一直行。
The Gemara rejects this argument: Rav Huna could have said to you: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna that Rabba said that Rav Idi said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: It does not mean that the villages are actually aligned in a row of three villages in a straight line.
乃是说：当中那一村纵偏在一旁、外边两村相去过了两个 围场 的长，我们也看它们的间距这样量度——凡是把当中那一村挪到两村之间、排成一行时，村与村之间只隔一百四十一又三分之一肘的，当中那一村就把三村并作一处。
Rather, even if the middle village is off to one side and the outer villages are more than two karpef lengths apart, we see their spacing and make the following assessment: Any case where, if the middle village were placed between the other two so that they were three villages aligned in a row, there would be only a distance of 141⅓ cubits between one and the other, then the middle village turns the three villages into one.
照这样讲，这段密释纳反倒可以撑 拉夫胡纳 的说法。
According to this explanation, the mishna can be understood even as a support for the opinion of Rav Huna.
就这一样，拉瓦 对 阿巴耶 说：外边一村与当中那一村相去可以有多远，当中那一村仍把三村并作一处呢？阿巴耶 对他说：二千肘。
就这一样，拉瓦 对 阿巴耶 说：外边一村与当中那一村相去可以有多远，当中那一村仍把三村并作一处呢？
With regard to this case, Rava said to Abaye: How much distance can there be between an outer village and the middle one, if the latter is still to combine the three villages into one?
阿巴耶 对他说：二千肘。
Abaye said to him: Two thousand cubits.
拉瓦 回说：你自己岂不是说过：照 拉巴·巴尔·拉夫胡纳之子拉瓦 的说法在理么？他说城形如弓的，安息日之界从两端之间那想象的弦量起，纵然弦心与弓背当中相去过了二千肘也一样。那么这里三个村子纵相去过了二千肘，为什么不也算作一村呢？
拉瓦 回说：你自己岂不是说过：照 拉巴·巴尔·拉夫胡纳之子拉瓦 的说法在理么？他说城形如弓的，安息日之界从两端之间那想象的弦量起，纵然弦心与弓背当中相去过了二千肘也一样。
Rava replied: Wasn’t it you yourself who said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who said: The Shabbat limit of a bow-shaped city is measured from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the city, even if the distance between the center of the string and the center of the bow is more than two thousand cubits.
那么这里三个村子纵相去过了二千肘，为什么不也算作一村呢？
Why shouldn’t the three villages in this case be considered a single village also, even if they are separated by more than two thousand cubits?
阿巴耶 不许这样比，说：这怎么比得？那里、就是城形如弓那一样，有房屋把全城连成一片；这里外边两村之间却没有房屋相连。所以两村相去若过了二千肘、就是安息日之界的量，便算不得一处。
阿巴耶 不许这样比，说：这怎么比得？
Abaye rejected the comparison: How can you compare?
那里、就是城形如弓那一样，有房屋把全城连成一片；这里外边两村之间却没有房屋相连。
There, in the case of the bow-shaped city, there are houses that combine the city into a single unit, whereas here, there are no houses linking the outer villages.
所以两村相去若过了二千肘、就是安息日之界的量，便算不得一处。
Therefore, if two villages are separated by more than two thousand cubits, the measure of the Shabbat limit, they cannot be considered a single entity.
拉瓦 又对 阿巴耶 说：外边这一村与外边那一村相去可以有多远呢？阿巴耶 诧异这一问，说：它们相去有多远又怎样呢？这于你有什么实在的分别呢？凡是把当中那一村挪到两村之间时，村与村之间只隔一百四十一又三分之一肘的，当中那一村就把三村并作一处。所以要紧的不是外边两村相去多远，乃是当中那一村有多大。
拉瓦 又对 阿巴耶 说：外边这一村与外边那一村相去可以有多远呢？
And Rava said to Abaye: How much distance can there be between one outer village and the other outer village?
阿巴耶 诧异这一问，说：它们相去有多远又怎样呢？
Abaye expressed surprise at this question: How much distance can there be between them?
这于你有什么实在的分别呢？
What is the practical difference to you?
凡是把当中那一村挪到两村之间时，村与村之间只隔一百四十一又三分之一肘的，当中那一村就把三村并作一处。
Any case where, if the middle village were placed between them, there would be only a distance of 141⅓ cubits between one and the other, the middle village turns the three villages into one.
所以要紧的不是外边两村相去多远，乃是当中那一村有多大。
Therefore, the critical detail is not the distance between the outer villages but the size of the middle village.
拉瓦 接着追问：外边两村相去纵有四千肘，也是这样么？阿巴耶 对他说：正是。拉瓦 问：拉夫胡纳 论城形如弓的岂不是说过：两端相去若不足四千肘，就从两端之间那想象的弦量安息日之界；不然，就从那弓自身量么？这就含着说：纵有房屋一路相连把两端接起来，两端相去若过了四千肘，那距离仍太远，算不得一座城。
拉瓦 接着追问：外边两村相去纵有四千肘，也是这样么？
Rava continued his line of questioning: Is this true even if the distance between the two outer villages is four thousand cubits?
阿巴耶 对他说：正是。
Abaye said to him: Yes.
拉瓦 问：拉夫胡纳 论城形如弓的岂不是说过：两端相去若不足四千肘，就从两端之间那想象的弦量安息日之界；不然，就从那弓自身量么？
Rava asked: Didn’t Rav Huna say the following with regard to a city shaped like a bow: If the distance between its two ends is less than four thousand cubits, one measures the Shabbat limit from the imaginary bowstring stretched between the two ends of the bow; and if not, one measures the Shabbat limit from the bow itself?
这就含着说：纵有房屋一路相连把两端接起来，两端相去若过了四千肘，那距离仍太远，算不得一座城。
This indicates that even if there is an uninterrupted string of houses linking the two ends of the city, if the two ends are separated by more than four thousand cubits, the distance is too great for it to be considered a single city.
阿巴耶 对他说：那里、就是城形如弓那一样，说不得「把它填满」，因为两端之间那片空处没有什么可填。这里、就是三个村子，却说得「把它填满」，因为当中那一村可以看作挪到外边两村之间，三村就并作一村了。
阿巴耶 对他说：那里、就是城形如弓那一样，说不得「把它填满」，因为两端之间那片空处没有什么可填。
Abaye said to him: There, in the case of the bow-shaped city, there is no room to say: Fill it in, as there is nothing with which to fill in the empty space between the two ends of the city.
这里、就是三个村子，却说得「把它填满」，因为当中那一村可以看作挪到外边两村之间，三村就并作一村了。
However, here, in the case of the villages, there is room to say: Fill it in, as the middle village is seen as though it were projected between the two outer villages, and therefore all three combine into a single village.
拉夫萨夫拉 对 拉瓦 说：给 阿基斯特丰 的人量安息日之界，是从 阿尔达希尔 的那一头量起；给 阿尔达希尔 的人量，是从 阿基斯特丰 的那一头量起，如同两处是一座城一样；只是当中岂不隔着底格里斯河、相去过了一百四十一又三分之一肘么？两座城相去既过了两个 围场 的长，怎能算作一处呢？
拉夫萨夫拉 对 拉瓦 说：给 阿基斯特丰 的人量安息日之界，是从 阿尔达希尔 的那一头量起；给 阿尔达希尔 的人量，是从 阿基斯特丰 的那一头量起，如同两处是一座城一样；只是当中岂不隔着底格里斯河、相去过了一百四十一又三分之一肘么？
Rav Safra said to Rava: With regard to the people of the city of Akistefon, for whom we measure the Shabbat limit from the far end of the city of Ardeshir, and the people of Ardeshir, for whom we measure the Shabbat limit from the far end of Akistefon, as though the two settlements were a single city; isn’t there the Tigris River, which separates them by more than 141⅓ cubits?
两座城相去既过了两个 围场 的长，怎能算作一处呢？
How can two cities that are separated by more than two karpef-lengths be considered a single entity?
拉瓦 就领 拉夫萨夫拉 出去，指给他看一段城墙的根基，沉在底格里斯河里，离那一城不过七十肘有零。换句话说：那两座城其实是借着沉在河里的那一段残墙连着的。
拉瓦 就领 拉夫萨夫拉 出去，指给他看一段城墙的根基，沉在底格里斯河里，离那一城不过七十肘有零。
Rava went out and showed Rav Safra the foundations of a wall of one of the cities, which were submerged in the Tigris River at a distance of seventy cubits and a remainder from the other city.
换句话说：那两座城其实是借着沉在河里的那一段残墙连着的。
In other words, the two cities were in fact linked through the remnants of a wall submerged in the river.
量安息日之界，只可用一条五十肘长的绳，不可短也不可长——缘由 革玛拉 要讲明。并且量的时候只可齐着心口量，就是凡来量界的人都要把绳贴着自己胸前拿着。
量安息日之界，只可用一条五十肘长的绳，不可短也不可长——缘由 革玛拉 要讲明。
One may measure a Shabbat limit only with a rope fifty cubits long, no less and no more, as will be explained in the Gemara.
并且量的时候只可齐着心口量，就是凡来量界的人都要把绳贴着自己胸前拿着。
And one may measure the limit only at the level of one’s heart, i.e., whoever comes to measure the limit must hold the rope next to his chest.
人量界的时候若遇着深谷或围墙，那墙的高、那谷的深都不算在二千肘之内，乃是把它跨过去，再接着往下量。两个人把绳的两头拉直，横过那深谷或围墙，就当那一片是平地一样量过去。他若遇着山冈，也不量它的高，乃是当它不在那里、把它跨过去，再接着往下量，
人量界的时候若遇着深谷或围墙，那墙的高、那谷的深都不算在二千肘之内，乃是把它跨过去，再接着往下量。
If one was measuring the limit and he reached a canyon or a fence, the height of the fence and the depth of the canyon are not counted toward the two thousand cubits; rather, he spans it and then resumes his measurement.
两个人把绳的两头拉直，横过那深谷或围墙，就当那一片是平地一样量过去。
Two people hold the two ends of the rope straight across the canyon or the fence, and the distance is measured as though the area were completely flat.
他若遇着山冈，也不量它的高，乃是当它不在那里、把它跨过去，再接着往下量，
If one reached a hill, he does not measure its height; rather, he spans the hill as if it were not there and then resumes his measurement,