这是教人:人家中的酒若如水流,就有祝福;不然,就没有祝福。
-
这是教人:人家中的酒若如水流,就有祝福;不然,就没有祝福。
This teaches that if wine flows in a person’s house like water, there is a blessing, but if not, there is no blessing.
← 移入纹卷总目·第六章 同院而居的
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 11 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。
这是教人:人家中的酒若如水流,就有祝福;不然,就没有祝福。
这是教人:人家中的酒若如水流,就有祝福;不然,就没有祝福。
This teaches that if wine flows in a person’s house like water, there is a blessing, but if not, there is no blessing.
拉比埃莱 说:人的真品性可从三样上看出来——从他的杯上,就是他饮酒时的举动;从他的钱囊上,就是他与人财物往来时的行事;并从他的怒气上。也有人说:人的真性情从他的笑上也显出来。
拉比埃莱 说:人的真品性可从三样上看出来——从他的杯上,就是他饮酒时的举动;从他的钱囊上,就是他与人财物往来时的行事;并从他的怒气上。
Rabbi Elai said: In three matters a person’s true character is ascertained; in his cup, i.e., his behavior when he drinks; in his pocket, i.e., his conduct in his financial dealings with other people; and in his anger.
也有人说:人的真性情从他的笑上也显出来。
And some say: A person also reveals his real nature in his laughter.
革玛拉 回到 合界 这一题:拉夫犹大 说 拉夫 说:曾有一件事,有两个院子一里一外,里院住着一个犹太人与一个外邦人,外院单住着一个犹太人。这一件到了 拉比犹大·哈纳西 面前,问外院不向那外邦人租可否许搬,他判为禁。这一件又到了 拉比希亚 面前,他也判为禁。
革玛拉 回到 合界 这一题:拉夫犹大 说 拉夫 说:曾有一件事,有两个院子一里一外,里院住着一个犹太人与一个外邦人,外院单住着一个犹太人。
The Gemara returns to the topic of eiruvin: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It once happened that there were two courtyards, one within the other, with a Jew and a gentile living in the inner courtyard, while a single Jew lived in the outer one.
这一件到了 拉比犹大·哈纳西 面前,问外院不向那外邦人租可否许搬,他判为禁。
The case came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi for a decision as to whether carrying in the outer courtyard could be permitted without renting from the gentile, and he prohibited it.
这一件又到了 拉比希亚 面前,他也判为禁。
The case then came before Rabbi Ḥiyya, and he too prohibited it.
拉巴 与 拉夫约瑟 坐在 拉夫舍舍特 散讲之处的末座,拉夫舍舍特 坐着说:拉夫 论两院居民这一断,是依谁的说法呢?是依 拉比梅伊尔 的说法——他执定外邦人连与他同住的一个犹太人也拦住、叫他不可在院里搬,所以那犹太人非向他租不可。拉巴 点头,以这样讲为是。
拉巴 与 拉夫约瑟 坐在 拉夫舍舍特 散讲之处的末座,拉夫舍舍特 坐着说:拉夫 论两院居民这一断,是依谁的说法呢?
Rabba and Rav Yosef were sitting at the end of Rav Sheshet’s lecture, and Rav Sheshet sat and said: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav say this ruling of his, with regard to the residents of two courtyards?
是依 拉比梅伊尔 的说法——他执定外邦人连与他同住的一个犹太人也拦住、叫他不可在院里搬,所以那犹太人非向他租不可。
It was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a gentile renders it prohibited for even a single Jew who resides with him to carry in the courtyard, and therefore it is necessary for the Jew to rent from him.
拉巴 点头,以这样讲为是。
Rabba nodded his head in agreement with this explanation.
拉夫约瑟 说:像 拉巴 与 拉夫舍舍特 这样两位大人物,会在这样的事上错么?这一断若是依 拉比梅伊尔 的说法,那何必说外院还有一个犹太人呢?照 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,与外邦人同住的一个犹太人本就不可在自己院里搬,不拘另有没有犹太人在。
拉夫约瑟 说:像 拉巴 与 拉夫舍舍特 这样两位大人物,会在这样的事上错么?
Rav Yosef said: Would two great men like these Sages, Rabba and Rav Sheshet, err in such a matter?
这一断若是依 拉比梅伊尔 的说法,那何必说外院还有一个犹太人呢?
If this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, why do I need to state that there is a Jew in the outer courtyard?
照 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,与外邦人同住的一个犹太人本就不可在自己院里搬,不拘另有没有犹太人在。
According to Rabbi Meir, even a single Jew who resides with a gentile may not carry in his courtyard, whether or not another Jew is present.
你纵说这条 哈拉哈 果然如此——外院那个犹太人无关紧要,提他只因那一件事本是这样发生的,来问的人不知哪一节相干,就把细情都说了——这仍是难的。就这同一层,人岂不是曾在 拉夫 面前提出一疑:里院那个犹太人在他自己那一处,哈拉哈 是怎样呢?他可以在里院搬东西么?他对他们说:他在那里搬是许的。这样,照 拉夫 的意思,外邦人并不拦住一个犹太人搬——那正与 拉比梅伊尔 的说法相反。
你纵说这条 哈拉哈 果然如此——外院那个犹太人无关紧要,提他只因那一件事本是这样发生的,来问的人不知哪一节相干,就把细情都说了——这仍是难的。
And even if you say that indeed this is the halakha, that the Jew in the outer courtyard is of no consequence, and that he is only mentioned because the incident that took place, took place in this way, and those who came to ask the question provided all the details without knowing whether they were relevant, this is still difficult.
就这同一层,人岂不是曾在 拉夫 面前提出一疑:里院那个犹太人在他自己那一处,哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
Wasn’t a dilemma raised before Rav himself with regard to this very issue: What is the halakha governing a Jew living in the inner courtyard with regard to his own place?
他可以在里院搬东西么?
Can he carry in the inner courtyard?
他对他们说:他在那里搬是许的。
And he said to them: It is permitted for him to carry there.
这样,照 拉夫 的意思,外邦人并不拦住一个犹太人搬——那正与 拉比梅伊尔 的说法相反。
Therefore, according to Rav, a gentile does not render it prohibited for a single Jew to carry, which is actually contrary to Rabbi Meir’s opinion.
革玛拉 提一难:那么你还能说什么呢?你能说他是依 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 的说法断的么?拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 岂不是说过:那外邦人并不拦住人搬,除非同院里住着两个犹太人、他们没有 合界 时本是彼此相拦的么?这一样里两人并不彼此相拦,因为他们本不同住一院。
革玛拉 提一难:那么你还能说什么呢?
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Rather, what else can you say?
你能说他是依 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 的说法断的么?
Can you say that he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov?
拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 岂不是说过:那外邦人并不拦住人搬,除非同院里住着两个犹太人、他们没有 合界 时本是彼此相拦的么?
Didn’t Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov say: The gentile does not render it prohibited to carry unless there are two Jews living in the same courtyard who themselves render it prohibited for one another to carry without an eiruv?
这一样里两人并不彼此相拦,因为他们本不同住一院。
In this case they do not render it prohibited for each other to carry without an eiruv, as they do not live in the same courtyard.
倒不如说,你要说他是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法断的——他说过:在自己那一处许了的脚,在不属自己的那一处仍拦住人。里院那个犹太人在自己院里搬是许的。只是他要出自己的院子,须从外院过,而他在外院搬是不许的。所以他也拦住外院那一家。
倒不如说,你要说他是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法断的——他说过:在自己那一处许了的脚,在不属自己的那一处仍拦住人。
Rather, you might say that he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: The foot of one who is permitted in his own place nonetheless renders it prohibited not in its own place.
里院那个犹太人在自己院里搬是许的。
The Jew in the inner courtyard is permitted to carry in his own courtyard.
只是他要出自己的院子,须从外院过,而他在外院搬是不许的。
However, in order to leave his courtyard, he passes through the outer one, in which it is prohibited for him to carry.
所以他也拦住外院那一家。
Therefore, he renders it prohibited for the resident of the outer courtyard as well.
只是若果如此,就生出这一难:照这一说,何必要里院有个外邦人呢?里院单住着那一个犹太人,也就够拦住外院那一家、叫他不可在自己院里搬了,纵一个外邦人也没有也是一样。
只是若果如此,就生出这一难:照这一说,何必要里院有个外邦人呢?
But if that is the case, the following difficulty arises: According to this opinion, why do I need a gentile in the inner courtyard?
里院单住着那一个犹太人,也就够拦住外院那一家、叫他不可在自己院里搬了,纵一个外邦人也没有也是一样。
The single Jew living in the inner courtyard would also suffice to render it prohibited for the resident of the outer courtyard to carry in his own courtyard, even if no gentiles were present at all.
拉夫胡纳·巴尔·拉夫约书亚 说:拉夫 那一断当这样讲——他论外邦人是依 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 的说法,论「脚拦住人」是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法。这里所议的是什么呢?是那两个犹太人彼此立了 合界 的情形。拉夫 所以判外院为禁,是因有那外邦人拦住;若没有外邦人,就不禁了,因为那两个犹太人彼此立了 合界,所以许他们搬。
拉夫胡纳·巴尔·拉夫约书亚 说:拉夫 那一断当这样讲——他论外邦人是依 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 的说法,论「脚拦住人」是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的说法。
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rav’s ruling should be understood as follows: Actually, Rav ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov with regard to a gentile, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to a foot that renders it prohibited to carry.
这里所议的是什么呢?
And with what we are dealing here?
是那两个犹太人彼此立了 合界 的情形。
This is a case where the two Jews established an eiruv with one another.
拉夫 所以判外院为禁,是因有那外邦人拦住;若没有外邦人,就不禁了,因为那两个犹太人彼此立了 合界,所以许他们搬。
And the reason that Rav prohibited carrying in the outer courtyard is that there is a gentile who renders it prohibited to carry, but if there is no gentile, it is not prohibited, as the Jews established an eiruv with one another, and therefore they are permitted to carry.
革玛拉 记着:拉比以利以谢 曾在 拉夫 面前提出一疑:外院住着一个犹太人与一个外邦人,里院单住着一个犹太人,哈拉哈 是怎样呢?他们不向那外邦人租,可以在外院搬东西么?这可以这样论:那里、就是犹太人与外邦人同住里院那一样,众贤者所以判为禁,是因犹太人与外邦人这样同住本是常有的。素常一个犹太人不肯与外邦人同住一院,恐怕那外邦人杀他。只是那一样里,住里院的犹太人以为那外邦人不敢杀他,因为那外邦人心里想:我如今若杀了邻舍,住外院的那个犹太人或要来问我:素来住在你旁边的那个犹太人,如今在哪里呢?那外邦人不能推说那犹太人已经走了,因为外院那一位晓得他有没有从自己院里过去。所以那样的住法既是常有的,那条禁例就用得上,那外邦人住在院里就拦住人不可在那里搬。
革玛拉 记着:拉比以利以谢 曾在 拉夫 面前提出一疑:外院住着一个犹太人与一个外邦人,里院单住着一个犹太人,哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Eliezer raised a dilemma before Rav as follows: If a Jew and a gentile live together in the outer courtyard, and a Jew lives alone in the inner one, what is the halakha?
他们不向那外邦人租,可以在外院搬东西么?
May they carry in the outer courtyard without renting from the gentile?
这可以这样论:那里、就是犹太人与外邦人同住里院那一样,众贤者所以判为禁,是因犹太人与外邦人这样同住本是常有的。
One could argue as follows: There, in the case where the Jew and the gentile share the inner courtyard, the reason the Sages prohibited carrying is because it is common for a Jew and a gentile to live together in such a fashion.
素常一个犹太人不肯与外邦人同住一院,恐怕那外邦人杀他。
Ordinarily a single Jew would not live together in the same courtyard as a gentile, for fear that the gentile might kill him.
只是那一样里,住里院的犹太人以为那外邦人不敢杀他,因为那外邦人心里想:我如今若杀了邻舍,住外院的那个犹太人或要来问我:素来住在你旁边的那个犹太人,如今在哪里呢?
However, here, the Jew living in the inner courtyard believes that the gentile would be afraid to kill him, as the gentile thinks to himself: Now, were I to kill my neighbor, the Jew living in the outer courtyard might come and say to me: The Jew who used to live by you, where is he?
那外邦人不能推说那犹太人已经走了,因为外院那一位晓得他有没有从自己院里过去。
The gentile would not be able to offer as an excuse that the Jew left, for the other Jew from the outer courtyard would know whether or not he passed through his courtyard.
所以那样的住法既是常有的,那条禁例就用得上,那外邦人住在院里就拦住人不可在那里搬。
Therefore, since that living arrangement is common, the decree applies, and the gentile’s residence in the courtyard renders it prohibited to carry there.
只是这里、外邦人住在外院的时候,他杀犹太邻舍就不害怕了,因为他心里说:那另一个犹太人若来问我,我就对他说:他出去、走他的路了,我不知他往哪里去。这一样里,那外邦人不必虑里院那个犹太人来驳他的话。犹太人与外邦人这样同住既不常有,众贤者就没有立那外邦人住在院里便拦住人不可搬的禁例。
只是这里、外邦人住在外院的时候,他杀犹太邻舍就不害怕了,因为他心里说:那另一个犹太人若来问我,我就对他说:他出去、走他的路了,我不知他往哪里去。
However, here, where the gentile lives in the outer courtyard, he is not afraid of killing his Jewish neighbor, as he says to himself: If the other Jew comes to question me, I will say to him: He went out and went on his way; I do not know where he went.
这一样里,那外邦人不必虑里院那个犹太人来驳他的话。
In this case, the gentile would not be concerned that the Jew from the inner courtyard might question his story.
犹太人与外邦人这样同住既不常有,众贤者就没有立那外邦人住在院里便拦住人不可搬的禁例。
Since it is uncommon for a Jew and a gentile to live together in such a fashion, the Sages did not issue a decree that the gentile’s residence renders the courtyard prohibited for carrying.
或者也可以说:这里那外邦人也怕杀他的犹太邻舍,因为他心里想:我如今若杀了邻舍,住里院的那个犹太人随时都可能过来,正见我杀他的同伴。那外邦人既不知里院那一位几时从外院过,他行凶就有被人看见的可能。那样,犹太人与外邦人这样同住也不算不常有,众贤者「外邦人住在院里便拦住人不可搬」那条禁例就用得上了。
或者也可以说:这里那外邦人也怕杀他的犹太邻舍,因为他心里想:我如今若杀了邻舍,住里院的那个犹太人随时都可能过来,正见我杀他的同伴。
Or perhaps one would say that here, too, the gentile would be afraid to kill his Jewish neighbor, as he thinks to himself: Now, were I to kill my neighbor, the Jew living in the inner courtyard might come at any moment and see me in the act of killing his friend.
那外邦人既不知里院那一位几时从外院过,他行凶就有被人看见的可能。
Since the gentile does not know when the resident of the inner courtyard will pass through the outer courtyard, there is a chance his crime might be witnessed.
那样,犹太人与外邦人这样同住也不算不常有,众贤者「外邦人住在院里便拦住人不可搬」那条禁例就用得上了。
In that case, it would not be uncommon for a Jew and a gentile to live together in such a fashion, and the Sages’ decree that the gentile’s residence renders carrying prohibited would apply.
拉夫 对 拉比以利以谢 引了这一节:「教导智慧人,他就越发有智慧」(箴言九章九节)——就是说像这样的情形也当从严。所以外院不向那外邦人租,是不可搬的。
拉夫 对 拉比以利以谢 引了这一节:「教导智慧人,他就越发有智慧」(箴言九章九节)——就是说像这样的情形也当从严。
Rav said to Rabbi Eliezer the following verse: “Give to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser” (Proverbs 9:9), i.e., it is proper to be stringent even in such a case.
所以外院不向那外邦人租,是不可搬的。
Consequently, carrying is prohibited in the outer courtyard unless the Jews rent from the gentile.
革玛拉 记着:雷什·拉基什 与 拉比哈尼纳 的门生们安息日到了一家客店,那店里长住的至少有三家——两个犹太人与一个外邦人,房子都是向那外邦店主租的。那外邦租客那一个安息日虽不在,那外邦店主却在。他们虑那外邦租客安息日当中回来、拦住他们不可搬,拉比哈尼纳 的门生们就想:那外邦店主可否把那租客的屋子再租一次、为立 合界 之用呢?
革玛拉 记着:雷什·拉基什 与 拉比哈尼纳 的门生们安息日到了一家客店,那店里长住的至少有三家——两个犹太人与一个外邦人,房子都是向那外邦店主租的。
The Gemara relates that Reish Lakish and the students of Rabbi Ḥanina happened to come on Shabbat to a certain inn that had at least three permanent residents, two Jews and a gentile who rented their quarters from the gentile innkeeper.
那外邦租客那一个安息日虽不在,那外邦店主却在。
Although the gentile tenant was not present on that Shabbat, the gentile landlord was present.
他们虑那外邦租客安息日当中回来、拦住他们不可搬,拉比哈尼纳 的门生们就想:那外邦店主可否把那租客的屋子再租一次、为立 合界 之用呢?
Concerned that the gentile tenant might return during Shabbat and render it prohibited for them to carry, Rabbi Ḥanina’s students wondered whether the gentile landlord can rent out the gentile’s room again for the purpose of an eiruv.
他们说:向他租,哈拉哈 是怎样呢?革玛拉 讲明:凡店主不能把租客撵出去的,你不必提这一疑,因为他们分明不能向他租。店主既撵不动那租客,那住处一时就全属租客,单他一人租得。须提这一疑的,是店主撵得动他的情形。
他们说:向他租,哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
They said: What is the halakha with regard to renting from him?
革玛拉 讲明:凡店主不能把租客撵出去的,你不必提这一疑,因为他们分明不能向他租。
The Gemara clarifies: Anywhere that the landlord cannot remove the tenant, you need not raise the dilemma, for they clearly cannot rent it from him.
店主既撵不动那租客,那住处一时就全属租客,单他一人租得。
If the landlord is unable to expel the tenant, the residence temporarily belongs completely to the tenant, and only he can rent it out.
须提这一疑的,是店主撵得动他的情形。
Where you need to raise the dilemma is with regard to a situation where he can remove him.
那 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?是说店主既撵得动那租客,他们就向他租得,因为店主于那屋子仍存几分主权,所以他可以为立 合界 再租一次呢?还是说如今他毕竟没有把人撵出去,那屋子仍全在租客的辖下呢?
那 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
What is the halakha?
是说店主既撵得动那租客,他们就向他租得,因为店主于那屋子仍存几分主权,所以他可以为立 合界 再租一次呢?
Does one say that since the landlord can remove the tenant, they can rent the residence from him, as the landlord retains a measure of control over it, and therefore he can rent it out again for the purpose of an eiruv?
还是说如今他毕竟没有把人撵出去,那屋子仍全在租客的辖下呢?
Or perhaps now, in any case he has not actually removed him, which means the residence is still entirely under the tenant’s jurisdiction?
雷什·拉基什 对他们说:我们且租了罢,因为通例是所疑的若属拉比之禁,可以从宽;等我们到了南方众贤者那里,再问他们我们办得对不对。后来他们去问 拉比阿费斯,他对他们说:你们向店主租了,办得好。
雷什·拉基什 对他们说:我们且租了罢,因为通例是所疑的若属拉比之禁,可以从宽;等我们到了南方众贤者那里,再问他们我们办得对不对。
Reish Lakish said to them: Let us rent it now, as the principle is that one may act leniently in a case of doubt involving a rabbinic prohibition, and when we arrive at our Sages in the South we shall ask them whether we acted properly.
后来他们去问 拉比阿费斯,他对他们说:你们向店主租了,办得好。
Later they came and asked Rabbi Afes, who said to them: You acted well when you rented it from the landlord.
革玛拉 记一件相类的事:拉比哈尼纳·巴尔·约瑟、拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 与 拉比阿西 到了一家客店,那外邦店主安息日起首时不在,安息日当中才回来。他们说:如今向他租,哈拉哈 是怎样呢?革玛拉 讲明这一问的两面:向外邦人租,是与立 合界 一样么?若是一样,那么正如立 合界 只可在天还亮着的时候立,向外邦人租其产业也须在天还亮着的时候办。
革玛拉 记一件相类的事:拉比哈尼纳·巴尔·约瑟、拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 与 拉比阿西 到了一家客店,那外邦店主安息日起首时不在,安息日当中才回来。
The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rabbi Ḥanina bar Yosef and Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi happened to come to a certain inn, and the gentile innkeeper, who was absent when Shabbat began, came on Shabbat.
他们说:如今向他租,哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
They said: What is the halakha with regard to renting from him now?
革玛拉 讲明这一问的两面:向外邦人租,是与立 合界 一样么?
The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Is renting from a gentile like making an eiruv?
若是一样,那么正如立 合界 只可在天还亮着的时候立,向外邦人租其产业也须在天还亮着的时候办。
If so, just as one who establishes an eiruv may do so only while it is still day, so too, one who rents a gentile’s property must do so while it is still day.
还是说向外邦人租,与人舍自己那一区的权一样呢?正如舍权连安息日当日也办得,那么向外邦人租其产业,连安息日当日也办得。那样,他们纵在安息日当日,也可以拿一件有价之物向那外邦人租。
还是说向外邦人租,与人舍自己那一区的权一样呢?正如舍权连安息日当日也办得,那么向外邦人租其产业,连安息日当日也办得。
Or perhaps one who rents from a gentile is like one who renounces rights to his domain; just as one who renounces rights to his domain may do so even on Shabbat itself, so too, one who rents a gentile’s property may do so even on Shabbat.
那样,他们纵在安息日当日,也可以拿一件有价之物向那外邦人租。
In that case, they would be able to rent from the gentile in exchange for something of value, even on Shabbat itself.
拉比哈尼纳·巴尔·约瑟 说:我们且租;拉比阿西 却说:我们不可租。拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 对他们说:我们如今且从这位长者 拉比哈尼纳·巴尔·约瑟 的话,租了罢。后来他们去问 拉比约哈难 这件事,他对他们说:
拉比哈尼纳·巴尔·约瑟 说:我们且租;拉比阿西 却说:我们不可租。
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Yosef said: Let us rent, while Rabbi Asi said: Let us not rent.
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 对他们说:我们如今且从这位长者 拉比哈尼纳·巴尔·约瑟 的话,租了罢。
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to them: Let us rely now on the words of the Elder, Rabbi Ḥanina bar Yosef, and rent.
后来他们去问 拉比约哈难 这件事,他对他们说:
Later they came and asked Rabbi Yoḥanan about the matter, and he said to them: