就是他吃饼的地方。而 撒母耳 说:是他睡卧的地方。
-
就是他吃饼的地方。而 撒母耳 说:是他睡卧的地方。
The place where he eats his bread, and Shmuel said: His place of sleep.
← 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 7 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。
就是他吃饼的地方。而 撒母耳 说:是他睡卧的地方。
就是他吃饼的地方。而 撒母耳 说:是他睡卧的地方。
The place where he eats his bread, and Shmuel said: His place of sleep.
革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 驳 拉夫 的说法,那条说:论牧人、看无花果的(就是看守摊在田间的无花果的人)、坐在小哨屋里的守卫、并看出产的人——他们既素常在城里吃、又在城里睡,论安息日之界就与城里的居民一样,纵安息日进来的时候他们正在田间也是如此。只是他们若素常在田间睡,纵在城里吃,也只从睡卧之处向四方各得二千肘。这似乎与 拉夫 相碍:拉夫 执定人的居处是按他吃的地方定,不按他睡的地方定。
革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 驳 拉夫 的说法,那条说:论牧人、看无花果的(就是看守摊在田间的无花果的人)、坐在小哨屋里的守卫、并看出产的人——他们既素常在城里吃、又在城里睡,论安息日之界就与城里的居民一样,纵安息日进来的时候他们正在田间也是如此。
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a baraita: With regard to shepherds; fig watchmen, who guard figs spread out in the field; guardsmen who sit in small guardhouses; and produce watchmen; when they customarily sleep in the city in addition to eating there, they are like the residents of the city with regard to their Shabbat limit, even though they were in the field when Shabbat began.
只是他们若素常在田间睡,纵在城里吃,也只从睡卧之处向四方各得二千肘。
However, when they customarily sleep in the field, even though they eat in the town, they have only two thousand cubits in each direction from the places where they sleep.
这似乎与 拉夫 相碍:拉夫 执定人的居处是按他吃的地方定,不按他睡的地方定。
This seems to contradict the opinion of Rav, who maintains that a person’s place of dwelling is determined by where he eats, not by where he sleeps.
那里、就是田间那些人的事上,我们都是见证,一望而知:若有人把饼送到他们那里、送到他们睡卧之处,于他们更便当。至于根本上,人的居处仍是按他吃的地方定,不按他睡的地方定。
那里、就是田间那些人的事上,我们都是见证,一望而知:若有人把饼送到他们那里、送到他们睡卧之处,于他们更便当。
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the people in the field, we are witnesses, i.e., it is clearly evident, that if people would bring them bread there, to the place where they sleep, it would be more convenient for them.
至于根本上,人的居处仍是按他吃的地方定,不按他睡的地方定。
Fundamentally, however, a person’s dwelling place is determined by where he eats, rather than where he sleeps.
拉夫约瑟 说:这条 哈拉哈 我未曾听 拉夫 说过。原是一场病使 拉夫约瑟 忘了所学的。他的门生 阿巴耶 对他说:这话是你自己对我们说的,且是就着下面这一条说的——几个弟兄在父亲席上吃、却各睡在同一院内自己的房子里,他们每一个都须各出一份 合界。我们那时问你:从这里可以断定人立安息日居处之所是按他睡卧的地方么?你那时就着这事对我们说:拉夫犹大 说 拉夫 说:这条密释纳所讲的,是几个弟兄从父亲那里领一分、因此算作在他席上吃的,其实他们是各在自己家里吃饭。
拉夫约瑟 说:这条 哈拉哈 我未曾听 拉夫 说过。
Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this halakha stated by Rav.
原是一场病使 拉夫约瑟 忘了所学的。
An illness had caused Rav Yosef to forget his studies.
他的门生 阿巴耶 对他说:这话是你自己对我们说的,且是就着下面这一条说的——几个弟兄在父亲席上吃、却各睡在同一院内自己的房子里,他们每一个都须各出一份 合界。
His student, Abaye, said to him: You yourself said it to us, and it was with regard to this that you said it to us: With regard to brothers who were eating at their father’s table and sleeping in their own houses in the same courtyard, a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every one of them.
我们那时问你:从这里可以断定人立安息日居处之所是按他睡卧的地方么?
And we said to you: Can one learn from here that a person’s place of sleep determines the location of his Shabbat residence?
你那时就着这事对我们说:拉夫犹大 说 拉夫 说:这条密释纳所讲的,是几个弟兄从父亲那里领一分、因此算作在他席上吃的,其实他们是各在自己家里吃饭。
And you said to us in this regard that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They taught this mishna with regard to brothers who receive a portion from their father and are therefore considered as though they eat at his table, whereas in actual fact they eat their meals in their own homes.
众贤者在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说:人有五个妻,各领丈夫的一分、又各住院中自己的一间;又有五个奴仆,各领主人的一分、又各住院中自己的住处——论那几个妻,拉比犹大·本·贝特拉 许,就是说她们不必各出一份 合界,因都算与丈夫同住;论那几个奴仆,他却不许,意思是他执定:他们既各住一房,就各算自成一户。
众贤者在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说:人有五个妻,各领丈夫的一分、又各住院中自己的一间;又有五个奴仆,各领主人的一分、又各住院中自己的住处——论那几个妻,拉比犹大·本·贝特拉 许,就是说她们不必各出一份 合界,因都算与丈夫同住;
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who has five wives who receive a portion from their husband while each living in her own quarters in the courtyard, and five slaves who receive a portion from their master while living in their own lodgings in the courtyard, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira permits in the case of the wives, i.e., they do not each have to contribute separately to the eiruv, as they are all considered to be residing with their husband.
论那几个奴仆,他却不许,意思是他执定:他们既各住一房,就各算自成一户。
And he prohibits in the case of the slaves, meaning that he holds that as they live in separate houses, each is considered as residing on his own.
论那几个奴仆,拉比犹大·本·巴巴 许,因奴仆必随主人;论那几个妻,他却不许,因妇人各有自己的分量,并不全倚着丈夫。
论那几个奴仆,拉比犹大·本·巴巴 许,因奴仆必随主人;论那几个妻,他却不许,因妇人各有自己的分量,并不全倚着丈夫。
Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava permits in the case of the slaves, as a slave necessarily follows his master, and he prohibits in the case of the wives, as each woman is significant in her own right, and is not totally dependent on her husband.
拉夫 说:拉比犹大·本·巴巴 的意思是从哪里来的呢?因为经上写着说:「只是但以理常在朝中侍立」(《但以理书》二章 49 节)——「在朝中」原文作「在王门」。这一句所指的是 但以理 的职分,不是他实在所站的地方,就是说:但以理 无论往哪里去,都如同在王门那里。奴仆对主人也是这样。
拉夫 说:拉比犹大·本·巴巴 的意思是从哪里来的呢?
Rav said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava?
因为经上写着说:「只是但以理常在朝中侍立」(《但以理书》二章 49 节)——「在朝中」原文作「在王门」。
As it is written: “But Daniel was in the gate of the king” (Daniel 2:49).
这一句所指的是 但以理 的职分,不是他实在所站的地方,就是说:但以理 无论往哪里去,都如同在王门那里。
The verse refers to Daniel’s function rather than to an actual location, indicating that wherever Daniel went, it was as though he was in the king’s gate.
奴仆对主人也是这样。
The same applies to any slave vis-à-vis his master.
革玛拉 就这一层逐样分说,先把已说过的归总一遍。儿子随父亲,这条 哈拉哈 是明的,上头讲那密释纳的时候我们已经说过了。妻随丈夫、奴仆随主人,则是 拉比犹大·本·贝特拉 与 拉比犹大·本·巴巴 所争的。至于门生与先生同住一院、又从先生那里得口粮的,论 合界 他算在哪一等呢?
革玛拉 就这一层逐样分说,先把已说过的归总一遍。
The Gemara proceeds to clarify various aspects of this issue, starting with a summary of what has already been stated.
儿子随父亲,这条 哈拉哈 是明的,上头讲那密释纳的时候我们已经说过了。
The halakha is obvious in the case of a son with his father, as we stated it above the mishna.
妻随丈夫、奴仆随主人,则是 拉比犹大·本·贝特拉 与 拉比犹大·本·巴巴 所争的。
A wife with her husband and a slave with his master are subject to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava.
至于门生与先生同住一院、又从先生那里得口粮的,论 合界 他算在哪一等呢?
With regard to a student who lives with his master in the same courtyard and receives his sustenance from him, what is his status with regard to eiruv?
来听这一问的断法:拉夫 在 拉比希亚 门下的时候说:我们不必立 合界,因我们是倚着 拉比希亚 的席的。照样,拉比希亚 自己在 拉比犹大·哈纳西 门下的时候也说:我们不必立 合界,因我们是倚着 拉比犹大·哈纳西 的席的。
来听这一问的断法:拉夫 在 拉比希亚 门下的时候说:我们不必立 合界,因我们是倚着 拉比希亚 的席的。
Come and hear a resolution to this question: As Rav, when he was in the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv, as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi Ḥiyya.
照样,拉比希亚 自己在 拉比犹大·哈纳西 门下的时候也说:我们不必立 合界,因我们是倚着 拉比犹大·哈纳西 的席的。
And similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya himself, when he was in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv, as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
阿巴耶 在 拉巴 面前提出一难:五个人同住一院、已经把 合界 收在一处;他们若要把这 合界 挪到别处去、使自己的院与另一院相合,是一份 合界 于他们众人就够了呢,还是每一个都须各出一份 合界?拉巴 对他说:一份 合界 于他们众人就够了。
阿巴耶 在 拉巴 面前提出一难:五个人同住一院、已经把 合界 收在一处;他们若要把这 合界 挪到别处去、使自己的院与另一院相合,是一份 合界 于他们众人就够了呢,还是每一个都须各出一份 合界?
Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: With regard to five people who live in the same courtyard and collected their eiruv, when they take their eiruv elsewhere in order to merge their courtyard with a different one, is one contribution to the eiruv sufficient for all of them, or do they need a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every one of them?
拉巴 对他说:一份 合界 于他们众人就够了。
Rabba said to him: One contribution to the eiruv suffices for all of them.
阿巴耶 问说:只是那几个弟兄的事上——他们正与把 合界 收在一处的人相仿——密释纳却仍教说:他们每一个都须各出一份 合界。拉巴 答说:我们这里所讲的是什么情形呢?我们所讲的,是除父亲和众子以外、另有别的住户与他们同住的情形。那样情形里,那几家别的住户既使同一院内非立 合界 不许搬物,那几个弟兄彼此之间也就使那另一院里非各出一份 合界 不许搬物。
阿巴耶 问说:只是那几个弟兄的事上——他们正与把 合界 收在一处的人相仿——密释纳却仍教说:他们每一个都须各出一份 合界。
Abaye asked: But in the case of brothers, who are comparable to people who collected their eiruv, the mishna nonetheless teaches: They require a separate eiruv for each and every one of them.
拉巴 答说:我们这里所讲的是什么情形呢?
Rabba responded: With what are we dealing here?
我们所讲的,是除父亲和众子以外、另有别的住户与他们同住的情形。
We are dealing with a case where there are other residents, in addition to the father and his sons, living with them.
那样情形里,那几家别的住户既使同一院内非立 合界 不许搬物,那几个弟兄彼此之间也就使那另一院里非各出一份 合界 不许搬物。
In that case, since these additional residents render carrying in the same courtyard prohibited unless they join in an eiruv, those brothers also render it prohibited for one another to carry in the other courtyard unless each of them contributes to the eiruv.
革玛拉 说:照密释纳所教的看,这样解也在理——密释纳教说:这条 哈拉哈 是几时说的呢?是他们把 合界 挪到院中别处去的时候说的。若是他们的 合界 送到他们这里来,或是院里并无别的住户与他们同住,他们就不必立 合界,因算作一人独住一院。从这里可以断定:上头那一条所讲的,正是他们与别的住户同住一院的情形。
革玛拉 说:照密释纳所教的看,这样解也在理——密释纳教说:这条 哈拉哈 是几时说的呢?
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to understand, as the mishna teaches: When do they state this halakha?
是他们把 合界 挪到院中别处去的时候说的。
When they bring their eiruv elsewhere in the courtyard.
若是他们的 合界 送到他们这里来,或是院里并无别的住户与他们同住,他们就不必立 合界,因算作一人独住一院。
But if their eiruv was coming to them, or if there are no other residents with them in the courtyard, they do not need to establish an eiruv, as they are considered like a single individual living in a courtyard.
从这里可以断定:上头那一条所讲的,正是他们与别的住户同住一院的情形。
Learn from this that the preceding ruling refers to a situation where they shared the courtyard with other residents.
革玛拉 就安息日之界相合的事上提一同类的问:拉夫希亚·巴尔·阿维恩 在 拉夫舍舍特 面前提出一难:门生们住在先生家里,饼却是在田间自己的房子里吃的,吃完再来先生家里睡;我们为他们量安息日之界的时候,是从他们睡卧的先生家里量呢,还是从他们吃饭的田间量呢?他对他说:我们从先生家里量。
革玛拉 就安息日之界相合的事上提一同类的问:拉夫希亚·巴尔·阿维恩 在 拉夫舍舍特 面前提出一难:门生们住在先生家里,饼却是在田间自己的房子里吃的,吃完再来先生家里睡;我们为他们量安息日之界的时候,是从他们睡卧的先生家里量呢,还是从他们吃饭的田间量呢?
The Gemara addresses a similar issue with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries: Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to students in their master’s house who eat their bread in their houses in the field [baga] and then come and sleep in their master’s house, when we measure their Shabbat limit for them, do we measure it for them from their master’s house, where they sleep, or do we measure it for them from the field, where they eat?
他对他说:我们从先生家里量。
He said to him: We measure it from their master’s house.
拉夫希亚·巴尔·阿维恩 问说:只是人把自己的 合界 放在二千肘之内——那 合界 所定的正是他吃饭之处——放完却回自己家里睡,我们仍是从他的 合界 量他安息日之界的。这就含着说:所凭的是他吃的地方,不是他睡的地方。
拉夫希亚·巴尔·阿维恩 问说:只是人把自己的 合界 放在二千肘之内——那 合界 所定的正是他吃饭之处——放完却回自己家里睡,我们仍是从他的 合界 量他安息日之界的。
Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin asked: But in the case of one who deposits his eiruv, which establishes the location of his meal, within two thousand cubits, and then goes back and sleeps in his house, we measure his Shabbat limit from his eiruv.
这就含着说:所凭的是他吃的地方,不是他睡的地方。
This implies that the determining factor is where he eats, rather than where he sleeps.
那一样情形里我们都是见证,这一样情形里我们也都是见证——就是说:两样情形里,那人心里所定的居处都是一望而知的。那一样情形里,人既放下 合界,我们就是见证:他若能住在那里、住在放 合界 的地方,于他更好;就是说他若能在那里过夜,他必在那里过夜,因他愿次日从那地方往前走。这一样情形里、就是门生在先生家里的事上,我们也是见证:若有人把饼送到先生家里、使他们得在那里吃,于他们更好。所以那里就算作他们的居处。
那一样情形里我们都是见证,这一样情形里我们也都是见证——就是说:两样情形里,那人心里所定的居处都是一望而知的。
The Gemara answers: In that case we are witnesses, and in this case we are witnesses, i.e., in both cases the person’s intentions regarding his place of residence are clearly evident.
那一样情形里,人既放下 合界,我们就是见证:他若能住在那里、住在放 合界 的地方,于他更好;就是说他若能在那里过夜,他必在那里过夜,因他愿次日从那地方往前走。
In that case, where the person deposits his eiruv, we are witnesses that if he could reside there, at the site of his eiruv, it would be better for him, i.e., if he could spend the night there he would do so, since he wishes to continue from that place onward on the following day.
这一样情形里、就是门生在先生家里的事上,我们也是见证:若有人把饼送到先生家里、使他们得在那里吃,于他们更好。
And in this case of the students in their master’s house, we are witnesses that if people would bring them bread in their master’s house, enabling them to eat there, it would be better for them.
所以那里就算作他们的居处。
Consequently, it is considered their place of residence.
拉米·巴尔·哈马 在 拉夫希斯达 面前提出一难:父亲与他的儿子、或先生与他的门生,算作多人呢,还是算作单人?这一问用在实事上是这样:他们若同住一院、那院又在另一院之内,他们算作多人、非立 合界 不许在外院搬物呢,还是不必立 合界、因算作一人独住、并不使外院里搬物成为不许?他们的巷道可以像有多个住户的巷道那样、凭一根旁柱和一道横梁就许搬物呢,还是凭旁柱和横梁也许不成呢?
拉米·巴尔·哈马 在 拉夫希斯达 面前提出一难:父亲与他的儿子、或先生与他的门生,算作多人呢,还是算作单人?
Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: With regard to a father and his son, or a master and his student, are they considered as many people or as individuals?
这一问用在实事上是这样:他们若同住一院、那院又在另一院之内,他们算作多人、非立 合界 不许在外院搬物呢,还是不必立 合界、因算作一人独住、并不使外院里搬物成为不许?
The practical import of the question is as follows: If they lived together in a courtyard that was within another courtyard, are they considered as many people, who require an eiruv in order to render it permitted to carry in the outer courtyard, or do they not require an eiruv, as they are treated as an individual, who does not render carrying in the outer courtyard prohibited?
他们的巷道可以像有多个住户的巷道那样、凭一根旁柱和一道横梁就许搬物呢,还是凭旁柱和横梁也许不成呢?
Is their alleyway rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam, like one that has multiple residents, or is it not rendered permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam?
拉夫希斯达 对他说:这个你已经学过了,就在下面这条 《巴拉伊塔》 里:父亲与他的儿子、或先生与他的门生,若并无别的住户与他们同住,就算作单人,不必立 合界;他们的巷道也不必合巷道,只凭一根旁柱和一道横梁就许搬物。
拉夫希斯达 对他说:这个你已经学过了,就在下面这条 《巴拉伊塔》 里:父亲与他的儿子、或先生与他的门生,若并无别的住户与他们同住,就算作单人,不必立 合界;他们的巷道也不必合巷道,只凭一根旁柱和一道横梁就许搬物。
Rav Ḥisda said to him: You have already learned this in the following baraita: With regard to a father and his son or a master and his student, when there are no other residents with them, they are considered like individuals, and they do not need to establish an eiruv, and their alleyway becomes permitted for carrying through a side post and a cross beam without a merging of alleyways.
五个院彼此相通、又都通到一条巷道,就有以下的分别:那几院的住户若在各院里立了 合界、却没有把通到巷道的各院合起来,他们在各院里许搬物,在巷道里不许搬物。他们所立的这 合界,不能兼作通到巷道的各院之合。
五个院彼此相通、又都通到一条巷道,就有以下的分别:那几院的住户若在各院里立了 合界、却没有把通到巷道的各院合起来,他们在各院里许搬物,在巷道里不许搬物。
If five courtyards open into one another and also open into an alleyway, the following distinctions apply: If the residents of the courtyard established an eiruv in the courtyards and did not merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway, they are permitted to carry in the courtyards and they are prohibited to carry in the alleyway.
他们所立的这 合界,不能兼作通到巷道的各院之合。
The eiruv they established cannot also serve as a merging of the courtyards that open into the alleyway.