那口纵是通到一个围场,也算作他的正门,不算通巷道的那一个。
-
那口纵是通到一个围场,也算作他的正门,不算通巷道的那一个。
Even if it opens into an enclosure, this is considered its main entrance, rather than the one that opens into the alleyway.
← 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 12 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。
那口纵是通到一个围场,也算作他的正门,不算通巷道的那一个。
那口纵是通到一个围场,也算作他的正门,不算通巷道的那一个。
Even if it opens into an enclosure, this is considered its main entrance, rather than the one that opens into the alleyway.
这是 拉巴 与 拉夫约瑟 两位所说的:这样的情形,那 哈拉哈 要看那院子归谁所有。院子若属外邦人,他院后那围场若不过两 塞亚之地,他就拦住巷道的犹太居民不可搬。这样大的围场不够那外邦人各样使用,所以他的正门仍是通巷道的那一个。那围场若过了两 塞亚之地,他就不拦住巷道的居民,因为那样的围场够他各样使用了。
这是 拉巴 与 拉夫约瑟 两位所说的:这样的情形,那 哈拉哈 要看那院子归谁所有。
It is Rabba and Rav Yosef who both say: The halakha in such a case depends on the identity of the owner of the courtyard.
院子若属外邦人,他院后那围场若不过两 塞亚之地,他就拦住巷道的犹太居民不可搬。
With regard to a courtyard owned by a gentile, if the enclosure behind his courtyard is the size of two beit se’a or less, he renders it prohibited for the Jewish residents of the alleyway to carry.
这样大的围场不够那外邦人各样使用,所以他的正门仍是通巷道的那一个。
An enclosure of this size is not large enough for all the gentile’s needs, and therefore his main entrance is the one that opens into the alleyway.
那围场若过了两 塞亚之地,他就不拦住巷道的居民,因为那样的围场够他各样使用了。
However, if the enclosure is greater than the size of two beit se’a, he does not render it prohibited for the residents of the alleyway to carry, as such an enclosure is sufficient for all his needs.
反过来,院子若属犹太人,那围场若不过两 塞亚之地,他纵没有与同巷的人立 合界,也不拦住他们不可搬。因为他安息日在那样的围场里搬既是许的,就不至于往巷道里搬——在独属自己的地方搬,于他更便当。
反过来,院子若属犹太人,那围场若不过两 塞亚之地,他纵没有与同巷的人立 合界,也不拦住他们不可搬。
On the other hand, with regard to a courtyard owned by a Jew, if the enclosure is the size of two beit se’a or less, he does not render it prohibited for the other residents of the alleyway to carry, even if he did not join in an eiruv with them.
因为他安息日在那样的围场里搬既是许的,就不至于往巷道里搬——在独属自己的地方搬,于他更便当。
Because he has the option of carrying in such an enclosure on Shabbat, he would not carry in the alleyway, as it is more convenient for him to carry in a place that belongs exclusively to him.
那围场若过了两 塞亚之地——那样在里头搬是禁的——那犹太人就只从巷道里搬了。所以他拦住同巷的居民不可搬,除非他与他们立成 合界。
那围场若过了两 塞亚之地——那样在里头搬是禁的——那犹太人就只从巷道里搬了。
However, if the enclosure is greater than the size of two beit se’a, in which case it is prohibited to carry there, the Jew would carry only by way of the alleyway.
所以他拦住同巷的居民不可搬,除非他与他们立成 合界。
Therefore, he renders it prohibited for his fellow residents of the alleyway to carry unless he establishes an eiruv with them.
就这一层,拉瓦·巴尔·哈克莱 在 拉夫胡纳 面前提出一疑:外邦人的院子一口通巷道、一口通围场,那 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?他对他说:他们早已说过:那围场若不过两 塞亚之地,那外邦人就拦住巷道的犹太居民不可搬;过了两 塞亚之地,就不拦他们。
就这一层,拉瓦·巴尔·哈克莱 在 拉夫胡纳 面前提出一疑:外邦人的院子一口通巷道、一口通围场,那 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
With regard to this issue, Rava bar Ḥaklai raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If the gentile’s courtyard opens into an alleyway, and it also has an entrance that opens into an enclosure, what is the halakha?
他对他说:他们早已说过:那围场若不过两 塞亚之地,那外邦人就拦住巷道的犹太居民不可搬;过了两 塞亚之地,就不拦他们。
He said to him: They have already said that if the enclosure is the size of two beit se’a or less, the gentile renders it prohibited for the Jewish residents of the alleyway to carry; however, if it is more than two beit se’a, he does not render it prohibited for them to carry.
乌拉 说 拉比约哈难 说:围场过了两 塞亚之地、当初围篱又不是为住人围的,那地纵大到出一 歌珥 的收成、连出两 歌珥 也一样,人若误从公共区把东西掷进去,就要献赎罪祭,如同掷进私人区一样。这是什么缘故呢?因为围场的隔断是合式的隔断。这样,那围场按妥拉之律算作私人区,只是缺了住人这一层,所以众贤者不许人在里头如在正经私人区那样搬。
乌拉 说 拉比约哈难 说:围场过了两 塞亚之地、当初围篱又不是为住人围的,那地纵大到出一 歌珥 的收成、连出两 歌珥 也一样,人若误从公共区把东西掷进去,就要献赎罪祭,如同掷进私人区一样。
Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to an enclosure greater than the size of two beit se’a that was not originally surrounded by a fence for the purpose of residence, even if it is as large as a field that produces a crop of one kor, and even two kor, one who inadvertently throws an object into it from the public domain is liable to bring a sin-offering, like one who throws into a private domain.
这是什么缘故呢?
What is the reason for this?
因为围场的隔断是合式的隔断。
It is because the partition of an enclosure is a valid partition.
这样,那围场按妥拉之律算作私人区,只是缺了住人这一层,所以众贤者不许人在里头如在正经私人区那样搬。
Consequently, the enclosure is considered a private domain by Torah law, except that it is lacking residents, and therefore the Sages did not permit one to carry inside it as in a proper private domain.
拉夫胡纳·巴尔·希纳纳 拿下面这条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一难:海里凸出一块石头,高十掌宽、宽四掌宽,安息日不可从它往海里搬,也不可从海里往它搬。那石头有私人区的分位,海却是 区间区;安息日从私人区往 区间区 搬、或反过来搬,都是禁的。那石头若比这小——或高不足、或宽不足,以致算不得私人区——就可以往它搬、从它搬。那石头可以有多大呢?至多两 塞亚之地。
拉夫胡纳·巴尔·希纳纳 拿下面这条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一难:海里凸出一块石头,高十掌宽、宽四掌宽,安息日不可从它往海里搬,也不可从海里往它搬。
Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised an objection from the following baraita: With regard to a rock protruding from the sea that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may not carry from it to the sea or from the sea to it on Shabbat.
那石头有私人区的分位,海却是 区间区;安息日从私人区往 区间区 搬、或反过来搬,都是禁的。
The rock has the status of a private domain, while the sea is a karmelit, and it is prohibited to carry from a private domain into a karmelit or vice versa on Shabbat.
那石头若比这小——或高不足、或宽不足,以致算不得私人区——就可以往它搬、从它搬。
If the rock is smaller than this, either in height or width, so that it is no longer considered a private domain, one may carry to or from it.
那石头可以有多大呢?
How large may the rock be?
至多两 塞亚之地。
It may be up to the size of two beit se’a.
革玛拉 要辨明这条 《巴拉伊塔》 的意思:「至多两 塞亚之地」这一句,是承着 《巴拉伊塔》 哪一段说的呢?你若说是承着后一段,那么石头高不足十掌宽的,那 哈拉哈 岂是「石头至多两 塞亚之地 才许搬、过了就不许」么?那岂不成了从一个 区间区 往另一个 区间区 搬——那本是断然许的么?
革玛拉 要辨明这条 《巴拉伊塔》 的意思:「至多两 塞亚之地」这一句,是承着 《巴拉伊塔》 哪一段说的呢?
The Gemara attempts to clarify the meaning of this baraita: To which part of the baraita is the clause: Up to the size of two beit se’a, referring?
你若说是承着后一段,那么石头高不足十掌宽的,那 哈拉哈 岂是「石头至多两 塞亚之地 才许搬、过了就不许」么?
If you say it is referring to the latter clause, can it be that with regard to a rock that is less than ten handbreadths high, the halakha is that carrying is permitted if the rock is up to the size of two beit se’a, but no more than that?
那岂不成了从一个 区间区 往另一个 区间区 搬——那本是断然许的么?
Wouldn’t he be carrying from one karmelit to another, which is certainly permitted?
倒不如说它是承着 《巴拉伊塔》 头一段说的,那话的意思是:海里凸出一块石头,高十掌宽、宽四掌宽,不可从它往海里搬、也不可从海里往它搬,因为它有私人区的分位。那么它多大才用得上这一禁呢?至多两 塞亚之地。那石头若过了两 塞亚之地,就可以搬。这样看来,它是十足的 区间区,不单是从严而已。这像是把 拉比约哈难 的说法驳倒了。
倒不如说它是承着 《巴拉伊塔》 头一段说的,那话的意思是:海里凸出一块石头,高十掌宽、宽四掌宽,不可从它往海里搬、也不可从海里往它搬,因为它有私人区的分位。
Rather, is it not referring to the first clause of the baraita, and this is what it is saying: With regard to a rock protruding from the sea that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may not carry from it to the sea or from the sea to it, as it has the status of a private domain.
那么它多大才用得上这一禁呢?
And how large may it be for this prohibition to apply?
至多两 塞亚之地。
Up to the size of two beit se’a.
那石头若过了两 塞亚之地,就可以搬。
But if the rock is greater than the size of two beit se’a, one may carry.
这样看来,它是十足的 区间区,不单是从严而已。
Apparently, it is a karmelit in all respects, and not just as a stringency.
这像是把 拉比约哈难 的说法驳倒了。
This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
拉瓦 说:单是不会讲 《密释纳》 各段的人,才拿这样的话去驳 拉比约哈难——他是那一代最大的贤者之一。倒当这样讲那条 《巴拉伊塔》:那末几句实在是承着头一段说的,那话的意思是:海里凸出一块石头,高十掌宽、宽四掌宽,不可从它往海里搬、也不可从海里往它搬;至于在它上头、就是那石头自身之上,却可以搬,因为它算作私人区。那么那石头多大才仍许在其上搬呢?至多两 塞亚之地。
拉瓦 说:单是不会讲 《密释纳》 各段的人,才拿这样的话去驳 拉比约哈难——他是那一代最大的贤者之一。
Rava said: Only one who does not know how to explain mishnayot raises such refutations against Rabbi Yoḥanan, one of the greatest Sages of his generation.
倒当这样讲那条 《巴拉伊塔》:那末几句实在是承着头一段说的,那话的意思是:海里凸出一块石头,高十掌宽、宽四掌宽,不可从它往海里搬、也不可从海里往它搬;至于在它上头、就是那石头自身之上,却可以搬,因为它算作私人区。
Rather, the baraita is to be understood as follows: Actually, the final words of the baraita refer to the first clause, and this is what it is saying: With regard to a rock protruding from the sea that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may not carry from it to the sea or from the sea to it, but within it, on the rock itself, one may carry, as it is considered a private domain.
那么那石头多大才仍许在其上搬呢?
And how large may the rock be and remain permitted?
至多两 塞亚之地。
Up to two beit se’a.
拉夫阿施 说,这条 《巴拉伊塔》 另有一样讲法,仍不至于驳倒 拉比约哈难 的话:那末几句实在是承着头一段说的,正如 拉夫胡纳·巴尔·哈尼纳 所说。只是不可从那几句推出一条通例来管围场,因为他们在这一样上说 哈拉哈 当从严,在另一样上又说 哈拉哈 当从宽——就是同那几位贤者,在这一样上从严,在那一样上却从宽。
拉夫阿施 说,这条 《巴拉伊塔》 另有一样讲法,仍不至于驳倒 拉比约哈难 的话:那末几句实在是承着头一段说的,正如 拉夫胡纳·巴尔·哈尼纳 所说。
Rav Ashi said that the baraita may be explained differently, yet still in a manner that does not refute the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Actually, the final words of the baraita refer to the first clause, as stated by Rav Huna bar Ḥanina.
只是不可从那几句推出一条通例来管围场,因为他们在这一样上说 哈拉哈 当从严,在另一样上又说 哈拉哈 当从宽——就是同那几位贤者,在这一样上从严,在那一样上却从宽。
However, one may not infer from them a principle with regard to enclosures, as they said that the halakha is stringent in one case, and they said that the halakha should be lenient in a different case, i.e., the same Sages who were stringent in one case were lenient in another.
怎么说呢?他们说:围场过了两 塞亚之地、当初围篱又不是为住人围的,人在里头只可搬四肘,因为它在这一层上有 区间区 的分位。他们又说:不可从私人区往 区间区 搬。这两条 哈拉哈 都是众贤者所立的禁例。
怎么说呢?
How so?
他们说:围场过了两 塞亚之地、当初围篱又不是为住人围的,人在里头只可搬四肘,因为它在这一层上有 区间区 的分位。
They said that in the case of an enclosure greater than the size of two beit se’a that was not originally enclosed with a fence for the purpose of residence, one may carry only a distance of four cubits, as it has the status of a karmelit in this regard.
他们又说:不可从私人区往 区间区 搬。
And they also said that one may not carry from a private domain to a karmelit.
这两条 哈拉哈 都是众贤者所立的禁例。
Both of these halakhot are decrees of the Sages.
所以众贤者立下这样的通则:石头不过两 塞亚之地、以致全石之上都许搬的,众贤者就禁人从海往它搬、从它往海搬。这是什么缘故呢?因为那石头是十足的私人区,而他们不许人从私人区往 区间区 搬、或反过来搬。
所以众贤者立下这样的通则:石头不过两 塞亚之地、以致全石之上都许搬的,众贤者就禁人从海往它搬、从它往海搬。
Therefore, the Sages developed the following principles: With regard to a rock that is no larger than two beit se’a, so that it is permitted to carry on all of it, the Sages prohibited carrying from the sea to it and from it to the sea.
这是什么缘故呢?
What is the reason for this?
因为那石头是十足的私人区,而他们不许人从私人区往 区间区 搬、或反过来搬。
It is that the rock is a full-fledged private domain, and they did not permit one to carry from a private domain to a karmelit or vice versa.
至于石头过了两 塞亚之地、以致按拉比之禁全石之上都不许搬的,众贤者反许人从海往它搬、从它往海搬。这是什么缘故呢?因为众贤者虑到人或要说那是正经的私人区,就来在全石之上搬。众贤者若禁人从那石头往海里搬,人就要以为它是十足的私人区,便在其上搬起来了。这几条禁例既都是拉比所立的,众贤者在这一样上就许人从私人区往 区间区 搬,为的是免得人犯了另一条拉比之禁——那一条禁人在过了两 塞亚之地 的围场里搬。只是不可从这里推出一条通例,说过了两 塞亚之地 的围场按妥拉之律不算私人区。
至于石头过了两 塞亚之地、以致按拉比之禁全石之上都不许搬的,众贤者反许人从海往它搬、从它往海搬。
However, if it is larger than the size of two beit se’a, so that it is prohibited to carry on all of it by rabbinic decree, the Sages permitted carrying from the sea to it and from it to the sea.
这是什么缘故呢?
What is the reason for this?
因为众贤者虑到人或要说那是正经的私人区,就来在全石之上搬。
It is because the Sages were concerned that perhaps people would say that it is a proper private domain, and they would come to carry on all of it.
众贤者若禁人从那石头往海里搬,人就要以为它是十足的私人区,便在其上搬起来了。
Were the Sages to prohibit carrying from the rock to the sea, people would think that it is a full-fledged private domain, and they would carry on it.
这几条禁例既都是拉比所立的,众贤者在这一样上就许人从私人区往 区间区 搬,为的是免得人犯了另一条拉比之禁——那一条禁人在过了两 塞亚之地 的围场里搬。
Since all these decrees are rabbinic in nature, the Sages permitted carrying from a private domain to a karmelit in this case in order to prevent people from violating a different rabbinic decree, which prohibits carrying in an enclosure that is greater than the size of two beit se’a.
只是不可从这里推出一条通例,说过了两 塞亚之地 的围场按妥拉之律不算私人区。
However, no general conclusion may be inferred from this that an enclosure larger than two beit se’a is not a private domain by Torah law.
革玛拉 问:那几条禁例有什么分别,以致众贤者拣定守这一条、不守那一条呢?革玛拉 答:分别在于在那石头上搬是常有的,从它往海、从海往它搬却不常有。众贤者在那不常有的一样上从宽,为的是把禁人在石上搬那一条——就是常有的那一样——守得更牢。
革玛拉 问:那几条禁例有什么分别,以致众贤者拣定守这一条、不守那一条呢?
The Gemara asks: And what is the difference between the decrees that caused the Sages to choose to uphold the one decree and not the other?
革玛拉 答:分别在于在那石头上搬是常有的,从它往海、从海往它搬却不常有。
The Gemara answers: The difference is that carrying within the rock is common, whereas carrying from it to the sea and from the sea to it is not common.
众贤者在那不常有的一样上从宽,为的是把禁人在石上搬那一条——就是常有的那一样——守得更牢。
The Sages permitted carrying in the less likely scenario in order to reinforce the decree against carrying within the rock, the more common situation.
革玛拉 记着:有一次一个婴孩安息日行割礼所预备的热水泼了。拉巴 对他们说:叫人从我家给他拿热水来。阿巴耶 对他说:只是我们并没有在院里立 合界,那水是不可搬的。
革玛拉 记着:有一次一个婴孩安息日行割礼所预备的热水泼了。
The Gemara now relates that there was once a certain baby whose warm water, which had been prepared for his Shabbat circumcision, spilled.
拉巴 对他们说:叫人从我家给他拿热水来。
Rabba said to them: Let them bring warm water for him from my house.
阿巴耶 对他说:只是我们并没有在院里立 合界,那水是不可搬的。
Abaye said to him: But we did not establish an eiruv in the courtyard, so it is prohibited to carry the water.
拉巴 对他说:我们且倚着合巷道那一路——像这样窘迫的时候,它可以顶合院界之用。阿巴耶 对他说:只是我们也没有立成合巷道。拉巴 回说:既是这样,就吩咐一个外邦人给他拿热水来——虽然吩咐外邦人替犹太人作干犯安息日的工,素来是不许的。
拉巴 对他说:我们且倚着合巷道那一路——像这样窘迫的时候,它可以顶合院界之用。
Rabba said to him: Let us rely on the merging of alleyways, which may serve in place of a joining of courtyards in pressing circumstances such as these.
阿巴耶 对他说:只是我们也没有立成合巷道。
Abaye said to him: But we did not establish a merging of alleyways either.
拉巴 回说:既是这样,就吩咐一个外邦人给他拿热水来——虽然吩咐外邦人替犹太人作干犯安息日的工,素来是不许的。
Rabba replied: If so, let them instruct a gentile to bring the warm water for him, even though it is generally prohibited to instruct a gentile to perform labor for a Jew that involves a desecration of Shabbat.
阿巴耶 说:我本要驳师尊 拉巴,拉夫约瑟 却不容我驳;因为 拉夫约瑟 说 拉夫卡哈纳 说:我们在 拉夫犹大 家的时候,遇着律上的难处,他常对我们说:论妥拉之律,先驳后行——就是人若对所要行的有难处,须先辨明了才可行。至于拉比之律,却是先行后驳。
阿巴耶 说:我本要驳师尊 拉巴,拉夫约瑟 却不容我驳;因为 拉夫约瑟 说 拉夫卡哈纳 说:我们在 拉夫犹大 家的时候,遇着律上的难处,他常对我们说:论妥拉之律,先驳后行——就是人若对所要行的有难处,须先辨明了才可行。
Abaye said: I wanted to raise an objection against the Master, Rabba, but Rav Yosef would not let me do so, as Rav Yosef said that Rav Kahana said: When we were in Rav Yehuda’s house, he would say to us when we were presented with a halakhic difficulty: With regard to a Torah law, we first raise objections and then we perform an act, i.e., if someone has an objection to a proposed action, we must first clarify the matter and only then may we proceed.
至于拉比之律,却是先行后驳。
However, with regard to rabbinic laws, we first perform an act and then we raise objections.
事后水已拿来了,拉夫约瑟 对 阿巴耶 说:你本要拿什么驳师尊 拉巴 呢?他对他说:因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:安息日把除污之水洒在不洁的人身上,按妥拉之律本不算禁;那单是一条拉比禁例,为使安息日更显安息之意。而吩咐外邦人替犹太人作安息日的工,照样也只是一条拉比禁例。
事后水已拿来了,拉夫约瑟 对 阿巴耶 说:你本要拿什么驳师尊 拉巴 呢?
Afterward, when they had brought the water, Rav Yosef said to Abaye: What objection did you wish to raise against the Master, Rabba?
他对他说:因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:安息日把除污之水洒在不洁的人身上,按妥拉之律本不算禁;那单是一条拉比禁例,为使安息日更显安息之意。
He said to him: As it was taught in a baraita: Sprinkling the water of purification on an impure person on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law; rather, it is only a rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest.
而吩咐外邦人替犹太人作安息日的工,照样也只是一条拉比禁例。
And telling a gentile to perform a Shabbat labor on behalf of a Jew is likewise only a rabbinic decree.