又只有一个口——四围或有墙、或有房屋围着——就可以为全城立 合界。
-
又只有一个口——四围或有墙、或有房屋围着——就可以为全城立 合界。
and it has only one entrance, as it is surrounded by a wall or enclosed by houses on all sides, one may establish an eiruv for all of it.
← 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 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。
又只有一个口——四围或有墙、或有房屋围着——就可以为全城立 合界。
又只有一个口——四围或有墙、或有房屋围着——就可以为全城立 合界。
and it has only one entrance, as it is surrounded by a wall or enclosed by houses on all sides, one may establish an eiruv for all of it.
革玛拉 就这条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一问:以为公共区可以这样立 合界 的,是哪一位 坦拿 呢?拉夫胡纳·巴尔·拉夫约书亚 说:是 拉比犹大,因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比犹大 又说:人若有两所房子隔着公共区相对而立,他愿意的话,可以在公共区里为自己作成一个私人区。他在这一头立一根十掌宽高的柱,在那一头再立一根。这就作成象征的墙,使那公共区在律上得着私人区的分位。或者他从房子这一头架一条梁,从房子那一头也架一条,就横着街作成象征的隔断。这样,他就可以在那几样象征的隔断之间搬东西、放东西,如同在私人区里一样。众拉比却对他说:公共区不可这样立 合界。
革玛拉 就这条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一问:以为公共区可以这样立 合界 的,是哪一位 坦拿 呢?
The Gemara raises a question concerning this baraita: Who is the tanna who holds that an eiruv may be established for a public domain in this manner?
拉夫胡纳·巴尔·拉夫约书亚 说:是 拉比犹大,因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比犹大 又说:人若有两所房子隔着公共区相对而立,他愿意的话,可以在公共区里为自己作成一个私人区。
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the public domain.
他在这一头立一根十掌宽高的柱,在那一头再立一根。
He may place a ten-handbreadth high post from here, on one side, and an additional post from there, the other side.
这就作成象征的墙,使那公共区在律上得着私人区的分位。
This creates symbolic walls that provide the public domain with the legal status of a private domain.
或者他从房子这一头架一条梁,从房子那一头也架一条,就横着街作成象征的隔断。
Or, one may place a beam extending from here, one end of the house, and a beam from there, the other end of the house, thereby creating symbolic partitions across the width of the street.
这样,他就可以在那几样象征的隔断之间搬东西、放东西,如同在私人区里一样。
In that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain.
众拉比却对他说:公共区不可这样立 合界。
The Rabbis said to him: One may not establish an eiruv in the public domain in that way.
师尊在上面所引那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里说:不可为半座城立 合界。拉夫帕帕 说:这话单是就人要顺着城的长把城分作两半说的。城里的公共区多是一条直路,从城这一头的口通到城那一头的口。那条 《巴拉伊塔》 断说:公共区两边的居民各立各的 合界 是不许的。他若要顺着城的宽把城分作两半,倒可以为半座城立 合界。所以这样分别,是因为头一样里那条横在两半之间的公共区是两半的人都用的,因而把两半连成一处;后一样里各半的人只用自己这一边的那一段公共区,不用那一边的。
师尊在上面所引那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里说:不可为半座城立 合界。
The Master said in the baraita quoted above: And one may not establish an eiruv for half the city.
拉夫帕帕 说:这话单是就人要顺着城的长把城分作两半说的。
Rav Pappa said: They said this only in a case where one wishes to divide the city according to its length.
城里的公共区多是一条直路,从城这一头的口通到城那一头的口。
Generally, a city had a public domain that ran straight across it, from the entrance on one side of the city to the entrance on its other side.
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 断说:公共区两边的居民各立各的 合界 是不许的。
The baraita rules that it is prohibited to establish an eiruv separately for the residents of each side of the public domain.
他若要顺着城的宽把城分作两半,倒可以为半座城立 合界。
But if one wants to divide the city according to its width, he may establish an eiruv for half the city.
所以这样分别,是因为头一样里那条横在两半之间的公共区是两半的人都用的,因而把两半连成一处;后一样里各半的人只用自己这一边的那一段公共区,不用那一边的。
This distinction is made because in the first case the public domain that runs between the two halves is used by the residents of both halves, and therefore it joins the two into a single unit; in the second case, the residents of each half use only the half of the public domain located on their side and not the half of the public domain located on the other side.
革玛拉 问:这条 哈拉哈 是依谁的说法呢?不是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法。因为若是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的,他岂不是说过:在自己那一处许了的脚,连不属自己的那一处也拦住么?拉比阿奇瓦 论里外两院、各立各的 合界 时执定:里院的人在自己院里虽许搬,在外院却不许搬,虽然他们有过路之权;因此连外院的人在那里也不许搬。照同一道理,城的两半既彼此不许在对面那一半的公共区里搬——虽然他们过得去——那么众人在那里就都不该许搬,那 合界 也就不成了。
革玛拉 问:这条 哈拉哈 是依谁的说法呢?
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha?
不是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法。
It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
因为若是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的,他岂不是说过:在自己那一处许了的脚,连不属自己的那一处也拦住么?
As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t he say that a foot that is permitted in its own place prohibits carrying even in a place that is not its own?
拉比阿奇瓦 论里外两院、各立各的 合界 时执定:里院的人在自己院里虽许搬,在外院却不许搬,虽然他们有过路之权;因此连外院的人在那里也不许搬。
Rabbi Akiva holds the following in the case of outer and inner courtyards, in which the residents of each courtyard established their own, independent eiruv: Since the residents of the inner courtyard, who are permitted to carry in their own courtyard, may not carry in the outer courtyard despite the fact that they have rights of passage there, it is prohibited even for the residents of the outer courtyard to carry there.
照同一道理,城的两半既彼此不许在对面那一半的公共区里搬——虽然他们过得去——那么众人在那里就都不该许搬,那 合界 也就不成了。
By the same logic, since the residents of each half of the city are prohibited to carry in the public domain of the city’s other half, despite the fact that they may travel there, it should be prohibited for everyone to carry there, and the eiruv should not be functional.
革玛拉 驳这一说:你纵说是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法也讲得通;拉比阿奇瓦 那话单是就一里一外两个院子说的,因为里院别无出口。里院的人既非从外院过不可,外院的人就使里院的人不能独用自己的院子,因此拦得住他们。这里、就是城的两半,这一半的人从自己这一边的公共区出去、通到城的这一个口,那一半的人从那一边的公共区出去、通到城的那一个口。各半的人既不必用对面那一半的公共区,纵然实在也走,仍拦不住对面那一半的人。
革玛拉 驳这一说:你纵说是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法也讲得通;拉比阿奇瓦 那话单是就一里一外两个院子说的,因为里院别无出口。
The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion there only in a case of two courtyards, one farther inside than the other, as the inner courtyard has no other entrance.
里院的人既非从外院过不可,外院的人就使里院的人不能独用自己的院子,因此拦得住他们。
Since the residents of the inner courtyard have no choice but to pass through the outer courtyard, the residents of the outer courtyard deny the residents of the inner courtyard exclusive use of their own courtyard; therefore, they can impose restrictions upon them.
这里、就是城的两半,这一半的人从自己这一边的公共区出去、通到城的这一个口,那一半的人从那一边的公共区出去、通到城的那一个口。
But here, in the case of two halves of the city, these may go out through this part of the public domain on their side of the city, leading to one entrance to the city, and these may go out through this other part of the public domain, leading to the other entrance to the city.
各半的人既不必用对面那一半的公共区,纵然实在也走,仍拦不住对面那一半的人。
Since the residents of each half do not have to use the portion of the public domain located in the other half, they do not impose any restrictions on the residents of the other half, even if they do in fact use it.
上面这一议另有一样传法。拉夫帕帕 说:不要说单是顺着城的长分开时不可为半座城立 合界,顺着城的宽分开时就可以各半各立。倒不如说:纵是顺着城的宽分开,也不可为半座城立 合界。
上面这一议另有一样传法。
Some say a different version of the previous discussion.
拉夫帕帕 说:不要说单是顺着城的长分开时不可为半座城立 合界,顺着城的宽分开时就可以各半各立。
Rav Pappa said: Do not say that it is only if the city is divided according to its length that one may not establish an eiruv for half the city, but if the city is divided according to its width, one may establish a separate eiruv for each half.
倒不如说:纵是顺着城的宽分开,也不可为半座城立 合界。
Rather, even if the city is divided according to its width, one may not establish an eiruv for half the city.
革玛拉 问:这条 哈拉哈 是依谁的说法呢?是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法。革玛拉 驳这一说:你纵说是依众拉比的说法也讲得通;众拉比那话或者单是就一里一外两个院子说的,因为里院的人可以把通外院的门关上,只用自己的院子。他们这样办,就不拦外院的人了。这里、就是把城分开这一件,他们能把公共区从这里挪开么?各半的人既拦不住对面那一半的人用自己这边的公共区,那么连众拉比也要承认这 合界 是不成的。
革玛拉 问:这条 哈拉哈 是依谁的说法呢?
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha?
是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法。
It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
革玛拉 驳这一说:你纵说是依众拉比的说法也讲得通;众拉比那话或者单是就一里一外两个院子说的,因为里院的人可以把通外院的门关上,只用自己的院子。
The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is possible that the Rabbis stated their opinion there only in the case of two courtyards, one inside the other, as the residents of the inner courtyard can close the door to the outer courtyard and use only their own courtyard.
他们这样办,就不拦外院的人了。
In doing so, they impose no restrictions on the residents of the outer courtyard.
这里、就是把城分开这一件,他们能把公共区从这里挪开么?
But here, with regard to the division of a city, are they able to move the public domain from here?
各半的人既拦不住对面那一半的人用自己这边的公共区,那么连众拉比也要承认这 合界 是不成的。
Since the residents of each half cannot be prevented from using the public domain located in the other half, even the Rabbis would agree that the eiruv is ineffective.
师尊在上面所引那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里说:或为全城立一个 合界,或各巷道各立各的。革玛拉 问:为半座城立 合界 有什么两样,以致不许呢?是因为两半的人彼此相拦,缘故是众人两半都用得着。照样,他们纵各巷道各立各的 合界,也仍该彼此相拦才是,因为这一条巷道的人素来也进别的巷道去。
师尊在上面所引那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里说:或为全城立一个 合界,或各巷道各立各的。
The Master said in the previously cited baraita that an eiruv must either be established for all of it or for each alleyway separately.
革玛拉 问:为半座城立 合界 有什么两样,以致不许呢?
The Gemara asks: What is different about an eiruv for half the city, which is not permissible?
是因为两半的人彼此相拦,缘故是众人两半都用得着。
The residents of each half prohibit residents of the other from carrying, due to the fact that all the residents may use both halves.
照样,他们纵各巷道各立各的 合界,也仍该彼此相拦才是,因为这一条巷道的人素来也进别的巷道去。
Similarly, even if they establish a separate eiruv for each alleyway, the residents should still prohibit residents of the other from carrying, as residents of one alleyway commonly enter other alleyways as well.
革玛拉 答:这里所议的是什么呢?所议的是各巷道的居民在自己巷口立了隔断,表明不愿与别的巷道相连的情形。这正如 拉夫伊迪·巴尔·阿维恩 说 拉夫希斯达 说的:巷道里有一家在自己通巷道的门口立了隔断,表明无意从自己家往巷道里搬东西,他纵不入伙他们的 合界,也不拦巷道里别的居民在那里搬。缘故是这一家已经显明自己情愿舍了在那巷道里的分。
革玛拉 答:这里所议的是什么呢?
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here?
所议的是各巷道的居民在自己巷口立了隔断,表明不愿与别的巷道相连的情形。
We are dealing with a case where the residents erected a partition at the entrance to the alleyway as an indication that they do not want to be connected to the other alleyways.
这正如 拉夫伊迪·巴尔·阿维恩 说 拉夫希斯达 说的:巷道里有一家在自己通巷道的门口立了隔断,表明无意从自己家往巷道里搬东西,他纵不入伙他们的 合界,也不拦巷道里别的居民在那里搬。
And it is like that which Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Ḥisda said: One of the residents of an alleyway, who made a partition for his entrance to the alleyway as a sign that he does not intend to carry from his house to the alleyway, does not prohibit the other residents of the alleyway from carrying there if he does not join in their eiruv.
缘故是这一家已经显明自己情愿舍了在那巷道里的分。
The reason for this is that this resident has demonstrated his desire to renounce his share of the alleyway.
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:城若本是众人的城、如今仍是众人的城,又只有一个口通公共区,就可以为全城立 合界。革玛拉 记着:拉比泽拉 为 拉比希亚 那座城立 合界,并没有把城里哪一块划出在外。阿巴耶 对他说:师尊这样办是什么缘故呢?众人的城本该划出一块在外,你为什么不划呢?
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:城若本是众人的城、如今仍是众人的城,又只有一个口通公共区,就可以为全城立 合界。
It was taught in the baraita: If it was originally a public city and it is still a public city, and it has only one entrance to the public domain, one may establish an eiruv for the entire city.
革玛拉 记着:拉比泽拉 为 拉比希亚 那座城立 合界,并没有把城里哪一块划出在外。
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira established an eiruv for Rabbi Ḥiyya’s city and did not leave any section of the city out of the eiruv.
阿巴耶 对他说:师尊这样办是什么缘故呢?
Abaye said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in this manner?
众人的城本该划出一块在外,你为什么不划呢?
Why didn’t you exclude a section of the city from the eiruv, as required in a public city?
拉比泽拉 对 阿巴耶 说:城中的长老告诉我,说 拉夫希亚·巴尔·阿西 从前为全城立 合界、并不划出一块在外;我就心里想:他既为全城立 合界,我可以从这里断定这城本是私人的城、后来才成了众人的城。既是这样,为全城立 合界 就是许的。
拉比泽拉 对 阿巴耶 说:城中的长老告诉我,说 拉夫希亚·巴尔·阿西 从前为全城立 合界、并不划出一块在外;我就心里想:他既为全城立 合界,我可以从这里断定这城本是私人的城、后来才成了众人的城。
Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: The city Elders told me that Rav Ḥiyya bar Asi used to establish an eiruv for the entire city without excluding any section of it, and I said to myself: If he would establish an eiruv for the whole city, I can learn from this that it was originally a private city and later becomes a public one.
既是这样,为全城立 合界 就是许的。
Therefore, it is permitted to establish an eiruv for the entire city.
阿巴耶 对他说:那几位长老告诉我的却是别的缘故——公共区那一头本有一处粪堆,把一个口堵住了,所以通公共区的只剩一个口。如今那粪堆既已清去,就有两个口了;所以为全城立 合界 而不划出一块在外,是不许的。拉比泽拉 对他说:这一层我先前没有想到——就是我不晓得原是这样的情形。
阿巴耶 对他说:那几位长老告诉我的却是别的缘故——公共区那一头本有一处粪堆,把一个口堵住了,所以通公共区的只剩一个口。
Abaye said to him: Those same Elders told me that the reason was different: There was a particular garbage dump on one side of the public domain, which blocked one of the entrances, leaving only one entrance to the public domain.
如今那粪堆既已清去,就有两个口了;所以为全城立 合界 而不划出一块在外,是不许的。
However, now that the garbage dump has been cleared away, it has two entrances, and it is therefore prohibited to establish an eiruv for the whole city without excluding a section from the eiruv.
拉比泽拉 对他说:这一层我先前没有想到——就是我不晓得原是这样的情形。
Rabbi Zeira said to him: It was not on my mind, i.e., I was unaware that this was the situation.
哈尔帕尼亚的拉夫阿米·巴尔·阿达 在 拉巴 面前提出一疑:公共区若一头有梯——好叫人攀过挡住它的墙——一头有口,那 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?这算作两头都通的公共区么?拉巴 对他说,拉夫 是这样说的:梯算作口,所以那公共区算作两头都通。
哈尔帕尼亚的拉夫阿米·巴尔·阿达 在 拉巴 面前提出一疑:公共区若一头有梯——好叫人攀过挡住它的墙——一头有口,那 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
Rav Ami bar Adda from Harpanya raised a dilemma before Rabba: If a public domain has a ladder on one side, to allow people to scale the wall that blocks it, and an entrance on the other side, what is the halakha?
这算作两头都通的公共区么?
Is it considered a public domain that is open on both sides?
拉巴 对他说,拉夫 是这样说的:梯算作口,所以那公共区算作两头都通。
Rabba said to him that Rav said as follows: A ladder has the status of an entrance, and therefore the public domain is considered open on both sides.
拉夫纳赫曼 对他们说:不要听他的。拉夫阿达 说 拉夫 是这样说的:梯有时算作口,有时算作隔断。我们所说的这一样——公共区尽头有梯的——算作隔断。那样情形,梯算不得口,所以那公共区在那一头算作是堵住的。至于两院之间的梯,就算作口。两院的居民若愿意,可以借那梯把两院合起来立一个 合界;若愿意,两院也可以各立各的。
拉夫纳赫曼 对他们说:不要听他的。
Rav Naḥman said to them: Do not listen to him.
拉夫阿达 说 拉夫 是这样说的:梯有时算作口,有时算作隔断。
Rav Adda said that Rav said as follows: A ladder has the status of an entrance in certain cases, and it has the status of a partition in other cases.
我们所说的这一样——公共区尽头有梯的——算作隔断。
It has the status of a partition in the case that we mentioned, where there is a ladder at the end of a public domain.
那样情形,梯算不得口,所以那公共区在那一头算作是堵住的。
In this case, the ladder is not considered an entrance and therefore the public domain is considered closed at that end.
至于两院之间的梯,就算作口。
It has the status of an entrance in the case of a ladder between two courtyards.
两院的居民若愿意,可以借那梯把两院合起来立一个 合界;若愿意,两院也可以各立各的。
If the residents of the courtyards wish, they may join the two courtyards by means of the ladder and establish one eiruv; if they wish, the two courtyards may each establish a separate eiruv.
革玛拉 问:拉夫纳赫曼 当真说过这话么?拉夫纳赫曼 岂不是说 撒母耳 说过:一院之内住底层的人与住楼台的人——就是底层以上那一层——若忘了
革玛拉 问:拉夫纳赫曼 当真说过这话么?
The Gemara asks: Did Rav Naḥman actually say this?
拉夫纳赫曼 岂不是说 撒母耳 说过:一院之内住底层的人与住楼台的人——就是底层以上那一层——若忘了
Didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Shmuel said: With regard to residents of the ground floor of a courtyard and residents of a balcony, i.e., the floor above the ground floor, who forgot