又凡有树、他们不尝它的果子的,都是。那样的树明明是献给那拜偶像之礼的。
-
又凡有树、他们不尝它的果子的,都是。
and whose fruit they do not taste.
-
那样的树明明是献给那拜偶像之礼的。
This tree is evidently consecrated to the cult.
← 移入纹卷总目·第七章 窗
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 4 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。
又凡有树、他们不尝它的果子的,都是。那样的树明明是献给那拜偶像之礼的。
又凡有树、他们不尝它的果子的,都是。
and whose fruit they do not taste.
那样的树明明是献给那拜偶像之礼的。
This tree is evidently consecrated to the cult.
而 撒母耳 说:譬如他们说「这些枣是给 尼兹雷菲 庙里的酒用的」——那是他们在自己节日那天喝的——这样就够定那树作 亚舍拉木 了。阿梅马尔 说:论这一层,蓬贝迪塔的众长者对我说:那条 哈拉哈 是依 撒母耳 的意思。
而 撒母耳 说:譬如他们说「这些枣是给 尼兹雷菲 庙里的酒用的」——那是他们在自己节日那天喝的——这样就够定那树作 亚舍拉木 了。
And Shmuel said: For example, if they say: These dates are for the beer of the temple of Nitzrefei, which they drink on the day of their festival, then this is enough to establish the tree as an asheira.
阿梅马尔 说:论这一层,蓬贝迪塔的众长者对我说:那条 哈拉哈 是依 撒母耳 的意思。
Ameimar said: And the elders of Pumbedita said to me with regard to this issue: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
革玛拉 回到 拉夫犹大 那一断——合巷道所用的瓮须从地上举起一掌。革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一驳:巷道怎样合起来呢?人拿一瓮酒来,或油,或枣,或干无花果,或别样的出产,用来合那巷道。
革玛拉 回到 拉夫犹大 那一断——合巷道所用的瓮须从地上举起一掌。
The Gemara returns to Rav Yehuda’s ruling that the barrel used for merging the alleyway must be raised a handbreadth from the ground.
革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一驳:巷道怎样合起来呢?
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: How does one merge an alleyway?
人拿一瓮酒来,或油,或枣,或干无花果,或别样的出产,用来合那巷道。
One brings a barrel of wine, or oil, or dates, or dried figs, or any other type of produce for merging the alleyway.
他若出的是自己的一瓮,就须借另一个人替众居民领受,把那瓮转给他们。那瓮若本是他们的,他至少须告诉他们自己在合那巷道。那替众人领受的,把那瓮从地上举起一点。可见那瓮并不必举起一掌。答说:这里也是一样——那条 《巴拉伊塔》 的 坦拿 所说的「一点」是多少呢?这话正是说一掌,再少就不成。
他若出的是自己的一瓮,就须借另一个人替众居民领受,把那瓮转给他们。
If one contributed a barrel of his own, he must confer possession to all the other residents by means of another person who acquires it on their behalf.
那瓮若本是他们的,他至少须告诉他们自己在合那巷道。
And if the barrel is theirs, he must at least inform them that he is merging the alleyway.
那替众人领受的,把那瓮从地上举起一点。
And the one acquiring it on behalf of the others raises the barrel a minimal amount from the ground.
可见那瓮并不必举起一掌。
Apparently, the barrel need not be raised a handbreadth.
答说:这里也是一样——那条 《巴拉伊塔》 的 坦拿 所说的「一点」是多少呢?
The Gemara answers: Here too, what is this minimal amount of which the tanna of the baraita spoke?
这话正是说一掌,再少就不成。
This expression means a handbreadth, but no less.
有一说:众 阿摩拉 就合巷道之取得相争。拉夫 说:合巷道所用的食物,不必转给巷道全体居民;撒母耳 说:须转给他们。论界域之合,他们也争,只是两下的意思正相反。拉夫 说:那食物须转给一切愿意收在这 合界 之内的人;撒母耳 说:不必转给他们。
有一说:众 阿摩拉 就合巷道之取得相争。
It is stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the acquisition of a merging of alleyways.
拉夫 说:合巷道所用的食物,不必转给巷道全体居民;撒母耳 说:须转给他们。
Rav said: It is not necessary to confer possession of the food used in merging the alleyway to all the residents of the alleyway; and Shmuel said: It is necessary to confer possession to them.
论界域之合,他们也争,只是两下的意思正相反。
They likewise disagreed with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, but the opinions are reversed.
拉夫 说:那食物须转给一切愿意收在这 合界 之内的人;撒母耳 说:不必转给他们。
Rav said: It is necessary to confer possession of the food to all those who wish to be included in the eiruv, and Shmuel said: It is not necessary to confer possession to them.
革玛拉 提一难:依 撒母耳 的意思,他的理路固然明白——这里、论合巷道,我们在密释纳里学过他须把物转给人;那里、论界域之合,我们却没有学过这一条 哈拉哈。只是依 拉夫,他这样分别两样,是什么缘故呢?
革玛拉 提一难:依 撒母耳 的意思,他的理路固然明白——这里、论合巷道,我们在密释纳里学过他须把物转给人;那里、论界域之合,我们却没有学过这一条 哈拉哈。
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the opinion of Shmuel, his reasoning is clear, as here, with regard to a merging of the alleyways, we learned in the mishna that he must confer possession, whereas there, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, we did not learn that this is the halakha.
只是依 拉夫,他这样分别两样,是什么缘故呢?
However, according to Rav, what is the reason that he differentiates between the cases in this manner?
答说:这正是众 坦拿 所争的一层,因为 拉夫犹大 说 拉夫 说:曾有一件事出在 拉比奥沙亚 的媳妇身上——她安息日以先往澡堂去,那澡堂在安息日之界以外,她还没有得回来天就黑了,她婆婆就为她立了一份界域之合,好叫她回得家来。
答说:这正是众 坦拿 所争的一层,因为 拉夫犹大 说 拉夫 说:曾有一件事出在 拉比奥沙亚 的媳妇身上——她安息日以先往澡堂去,那澡堂在安息日之界以外,她还没有得回来天就黑了,她婆婆就为她立了一份界域之合,好叫她回得家来。
The Gemara answers: This is the subject of a dispute between the tanna’im, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Oshaya, who went before Shabbat to the bathhouse, which was located beyond the Shabbat boundary, and it grew dark before she was able to return, and her mother-in-law established a joining of Shabbat boundaries for her so that she could return home.
这一件到了 拉比希亚 面前求一断语——问那 合界 算不算数;他断说不算数,不许她回来。拉比约西之子拉比以实玛利 对他说:巴比伦人哪,你论 合界 竟这样严么?我父亲是这样说的:论 合界,凡你有从宽之力的,就当从宽。
这一件到了 拉比希亚 面前求一断语——问那 合界 算不算数;他断说不算数,不许她回来。
And the incident came before Rabbi Ḥiyya for a ruling as to whether the eiruv is valid, and he ruled that it was not valid and prohibited her return.
拉比约西之子拉比以实玛利 对他说:巴比伦人哪,你论 合界 竟这样严么?
Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: Babylonian, are you so stringent with regard to an eiruv?
我父亲是这样说的:论 合界,凡你有从宽之力的,就当从宽。
This is what my father said: Any case where you have the ability to be lenient with regard to an eiruv, be lenient.
众贤者面前有人提出一疑:那婆婆是用自己的食物为媳妇立那 合界、拉比希亚 所以不许,是因她没有把食物转给媳妇——就是说她只把那 合界 预备好了、却没有把食物转过去,这样的 合界 是不成的么?还是她用媳妇自己的食物为她立的、那 合界 所以不成,是因立的时候媳妇并不知道呢?
众贤者面前有人提出一疑:那婆婆是用自己的食物为媳妇立那 合界、拉比希亚 所以不许,是因她没有把食物转给媳妇——就是说她只把那 合界 预备好了、却没有把食物转过去,这样的 合界 是不成的么?
And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did the mother-in-law establish the eiruv for her daughter-in-law with the mother-in-law’s food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it because she did not confer possession to her, i.e., she merely prepared the eiruv but did not confer possession of the food, and an eiruv of this kind is not effective?
还是她用媳妇自己的食物为她立的、那 合界 所以不成,是因立的时候媳妇并不知道呢?
Or perhaps she established the eiruv for her with the daughter-in-law’s own food, but the eiruv was invalid because it was prepared without her knowledge?
众贤者中有一位名叫 拉比雅各 的对他们说:拉比约哈难 亲口给我讲明过——是婆婆用自己的食物为她立那 合界 的,拉比希亚 所以不许,是因她没有把那食物转给媳妇。
众贤者中有一位名叫 拉比雅各 的对他们说:拉比约哈难 亲口给我讲明过——是婆婆用自己的食物为她立那 合界 的,拉比希亚 所以不许,是因她没有把那食物转给媳妇。
One of the Sages, named Rabbi Ya’akov, said to them: It was personally explained to me by Rabbi Yoḥanan that the mother-in-law established the eiruv for her with the mother-in-law’s food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her.
拉比泽拉 对雅各之女所生的 拉比雅各 说:你往那里、就是往 以色列地 去的时候,要绕道走——不要拣那最近的路——到 推罗的阶梯 去,把这一疑陈在 拉夫雅各·巴尔·伊迪 面前。
拉比泽拉 对雅各之女所生的 拉比雅各 说:你往那里、就是往 以色列地 去的时候,要绕道走——不要拣那最近的路——到 推罗的阶梯 去,把这一疑陈在 拉夫雅各·巴尔·伊迪 面前。
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov: When you go there, to Eretz Yisrael, take a roundabout route, i.e., do not travel by the shortest path, and go to the Ladder of Tyre and raise this dilemma before Rav Ya’akov bar Idi.
拉比雅各 照样办了,在他面前提出一疑:论那一件事,是婆婆用自己的食物为媳妇立那 合界、拉比希亚 所以不许,是因她没有把食物转给媳妇么?还是她用媳妇自己的食物为她立的、那 合界 所以作废,是因立的时候媳妇并不知道呢?
拉比雅各 照样办了,在他面前提出一疑:论那一件事,是婆婆用自己的食物为媳妇立那 合界、拉比希亚 所以不许,是因她没有把食物转给媳妇么?
Rabbi Ya’akov did so and raised a dilemma before him: With regard to that incident, did the mother-in-law establish the eiruv for her daughter-in-law from the mother-in-law’s food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her?
还是她用媳妇自己的食物为她立的、那 合界 所以作废,是因立的时候媳妇并不知道呢?
Or perhaps she established the eiruv for her with the daughter-in-law’s own food, but the eiruv was invalidated because it was prepared without her knowledge?
拉夫雅各·巴尔·伊迪 对他说:是婆婆用自己的食物为她立那 合界 的,拉比希亚 所以不许,是因她没有把那食物转给媳妇。拉夫 与他的师尊、也是他的叔父 拉比希亚 一样,执定界域之合所用的食物须转给那些愿意收在其内的人。
拉夫雅各·巴尔·伊迪 对他说:是婆婆用自己的食物为她立那 合界 的,拉比希亚 所以不许,是因她没有把那食物转给媳妇。
Rav Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: The mother-in-law established the eiruv for her with the mother-in-law’s food, and Rabbi Ḥiyya prohibited it because she did not confer possession of the food to her.
拉夫 与他的师尊、也是他的叔父 拉比希亚 一样,执定界域之合所用的食物须转给那些愿意收在其内的人。
Like his master and uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rav also maintains that possession of the food must be conferred upon those who wish to be included in a joining of Shabbat boundaries.
拉夫纳赫曼 说:我们承传得来的是这样——界域之合、合院、合巷道,这几样都须把食物转给人。他断了这一句之后,又就自己还未十分明白的一层提出一疑:论 熟食之合——节期逢安息日前一日时,须先立这一合,才许在节期为安息日烹调——须不须把食物转给人呢?
拉夫纳赫曼 说:我们承传得来的是这样——界域之合、合院、合巷道,这几样都须把食物转给人。
Rav Naḥman said: We hold based on tradition that with regard to all of them, joining of Shabbat boundaries, joining of courtyards, and merging of alleyways, it is necessary to confer possession.
他断了这一句之后,又就自己还未十分明白的一层提出一疑:论 熟食之合——节期逢安息日前一日时,须先立这一合,才许在节期为安息日烹调——须不须把食物转给人呢?
After issuing this statement, Rav Naḥman raised a dilemma concerning an issue that was not sufficiently clear to him: With regard to a joining of cooked foods [eiruv tavshilin], which must be prepared in order to permit cooking for Shabbat on a Festival that occurs on a Friday, is it necessary to confer possession, or is it not necessary to confer possession?
拉夫约瑟 说:他疑的是什么呢?他没有听见 拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·拉夫阿达 说 撒母耳 说的那句么——论 熟食之合,须把食物转给人。阿巴耶 对 拉夫约瑟 说:他分明没有听见那一断;他若听见了,何必提这一疑呢?
拉夫约瑟 说:他疑的是什么呢?
Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma?
他没有听见 拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·拉夫阿达 说 撒母耳 说的那句么——论 熟食之合,须把食物转给人。
Did he not hear that which Rav Naḥman bar Rav Adda said that Shmuel said: With regard to a joining of cooked foods, it is necessary to confer possession?
阿巴耶 对 拉夫约瑟 说:他分明没有听见那一断;他若听见了,何必提这一疑呢?
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: It is obvious that he did not hear that ruling, as had he heard it, why would he have raised this dilemma?
拉夫约瑟 对他说:撒母耳 论界域之合岂不是说不必把食物转给人,拉夫纳赫曼 却仍说须转么?或者这里也是一样:拉夫纳赫曼 并不取 撒母耳 那一断。
拉夫约瑟 对他说:撒母耳 论界域之合岂不是说不必把食物转给人,拉夫纳赫曼 却仍说须转么?
Rav Yosef said to him: Didn’t Shmuel say, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, that it is not necessary to confer possession, and Rav Naḥman nonetheless said that it is necessary to confer possession?
或者这里也是一样:拉夫纳赫曼 并不取 撒母耳 那一断。
Perhaps here too Rav Naḥman did not accept Shmuel’s ruling.
阿巴耶 答说:这两样怎么比得起来呢?那里、论合巷道与界域之合,固然 拉夫 与 撒母耳 相争,拉夫纳赫曼 是要告诉我们:那条 哈拉哈 依这一位所严的、也依那一位所严的,就是两说所严处并取。至于这里、论 熟食之合,若真是这样、他实在听见了 撒母耳 那一断,那么还有谁与它相争呢?他师尊中有一位所断而无人相争的,照理便是定了的 哈拉哈。
阿巴耶 答说:这两样怎么比得起来呢?
Abaye replied: How can you compare the two cases?
那里、论合巷道与界域之合,固然 拉夫 与 撒母耳 相争,拉夫纳赫曼 是要告诉我们:那条 哈拉哈 依这一位所严的、也依那一位所严的,就是两说所严处并取。
Granted, there, with regard to a merging of alleyways and a joining of Shabbat boundaries, Rav and Shmuel disagree, and Rav Naḥman teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the stringency of this master and the stringency of that master, i.e., his ruling is based on both opinions.
至于这里、论 熟食之合,若真是这样、他实在听见了 撒母耳 那一断,那么还有谁与它相争呢?
However, here, with regard to a joining of cooked foods, if it is so, if he actually heard Shmuel’s ruling, is there anyone who disputes it?
他师尊中有一位所断而无人相争的,照理便是定了的 哈拉哈。
If one of his teachers issued an uncontested ruling, it is presumably an established halakha.
有一个外邦的 督官 住在 拉比泽拉 的近邻。邻舍对他说:把你那一区租给我们,好叫我们安息日搬得物。他却不肯租给他们。他们就到 拉比泽拉 面前问他说:我们若要向他的妻租那一区、不使她丈夫知道,那条 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
有一个外邦的 督官 住在 拉比泽拉 的近邻。
A certain gentile superintendent [turzina] lived in Rabbi Zeira’s neighborhood.
邻舍对他说:把你那一区租给我们,好叫我们安息日搬得物。
The neighbors said to him: Rent your domain to us so that we may carry on Shabbat.
他却不肯租给他们。
However, he would not rent it to them.
他们就到 拉比泽拉 面前问他说:我们若要向他的妻租那一区、不使她丈夫知道,那条 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
They came before Rabbi Zeira and asked him: What is the halakha if we seek to rent the domain from his wife without her husband’s knowledge?
拉比泽拉 对他们说:雷什·拉基什 奉一位大人物之名这样说过;这位大人物是谁呢?就是 拉比哈尼纳。他说过:人的妻可以立 合界,不必使丈夫知道。照这一条,那督官的妻实在可以出租那一区、不必使他知道。
拉比泽拉 对他们说:雷什·拉基什 奉一位大人物之名这样说过;这位大人物是谁呢?
Rabbi Zeira said to them: Reish Lakish said as follows in the name of a great man, and who is this great man?
就是 拉比哈尼纳。
It is Rabbi Ḥanina.
他说过:人的妻可以立 合界,不必使丈夫知道。
He stated: A man’s wife may establish an eiruv without his knowledge.
照这一条,那督官的妻实在可以出租那一区、不必使他知道。
According to this principle, the superintendent’s wife could indeed rent out the domain without his knowledge.
革玛拉 述说一件相类的事:有一个 督官 住在 拉夫犹大·巴尔·奥沙亚 的近邻。邻舍对他说:把你那一区租给我们,好叫我们立 合界、安息日搬得物;他却不肯租给他们。他们就到 拉夫犹大·巴尔·奥沙亚 面前对他说:我们若要向他的妻租,那条 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?他手头没有现成的答语。他们随后到 拉夫马塔纳 面前,他手头也没有答语。他们就到 拉夫犹大 面前,他对他们说 撒母耳 是这样说的:人的妻可以立 合界,不必使丈夫知道;出租他的产业也是一样。
革玛拉 述说一件相类的事:有一个 督官 住在 拉夫犹大·巴尔·奥沙亚 的近邻。
The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain superintendent lived in the neighborhood of Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya.
邻舍对他说:把你那一区租给我们,好叫我们立 合界、安息日搬得物;他却不肯租给他们。
The neighbors said to him: Rent your domain to us so that we may establish an eiruv and carry on Shabbat, but he would not rent it to them.
他们就到 拉夫犹大·巴尔·奥沙亚 面前对他说:我们若要向他的妻租,那条 哈拉哈 是怎样呢?
They came before Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya and said to him: What is the halakha if we seek to rent it from his wife?
他手头没有现成的答语。
He did not have a ready answer at hand.
他们随后到 拉夫马塔纳 面前,他手头也没有答语。
They subsequently came before Rav Mattana, and he too did not have an answer at hand.
他们就到 拉夫犹大 面前,他对他们说 撒母耳 是这样说的:人的妻可以立 合界,不必使丈夫知道;出租他的产业也是一样。
They came before Rav Yehuda, who said to them that Shmuel said as follows: A man’s wife may establish an eiruv without his knowledge, and the same applies to renting out his property.
革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一驳:众妇人合院或合巷道、不使自己丈夫知道的,她们的 合界 算不得 合界,她们所合的巷道也算不得合。撒母耳 怎能断得与一条明明的 《巴拉伊塔》 相反呢?
革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一驳:众妇人合院或合巷道、不使自己丈夫知道的,她们的 合界 算不得 合界,她们所合的巷道也算不得合。
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Women who joined the courtyards or merged the alleyways without the knowledge of their husbands, their eiruv is not a valid eiruv, and their merging of alleyways is not a valid merging.
撒母耳 怎能断得与一条明明的 《巴拉伊塔》 相反呢?
How can Shmuel rule against an explicit baraita?
答说:这不难。这一样、撒母耳 说妻可以立 合界 不必使丈夫知道的,讲的是丈夫若不入他们的 合界 就要拦住邻舍不可搬物的情形,所以那条 哈拉哈 从宽,妻替他立得成。至于那一样、那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说他的妻不可不使他知道就立 合界 的,讲的是他本不拦住邻舍搬物的情形。
答说:这不难。
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.
这一样、撒母耳 说妻可以立 合界 不必使丈夫知道的,讲的是丈夫若不入他们的 合界 就要拦住邻舍不可搬物的情形,所以那条 哈拉哈 从宽,妻替他立得成。
In this case, where Shmuel said that a wife may establish an eiruv without her husband’s knowledge, he was referring to a situation where the husband would prohibit his neighbors from carrying if he did not join their eiruv, and the halakha is therefore lenient, as a wife may establish an eiruv on his behalf.
至于那一样、那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说他的妻不可不使他知道就立 合界 的,讲的是他本不拦住邻舍搬物的情形。
However, in that case, the baraita, which states that his wife may not establish an eiruv without his knowledge, is referring to a situation where he would not prohibit his neighbors from carrying.
革玛拉 又说:照这样解也在理,因为你若不这样说,撒母耳 这一断就与 撒母耳 另一断相碍。因为 撒母耳 说过:巷道的居民中有一个素常与同巷的人合巷道的,有一个安息日却没有与他们合,同巷其余的居民可以进他家去、纵他不愿意也把他那一分取来合巷道。
革玛拉 又说:照这样解也在理,因为你若不这样说,撒母耳 这一断就与 撒母耳 另一断相碍。
The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation, as if you do not say this, there is a contradiction between this ruling of Shmuel and another ruling of Shmuel.
因为 撒母耳 说过:巷道的居民中有一个素常与同巷的人合巷道的,有一个安息日却没有与他们合,同巷其余的居民可以进他家去、纵他不愿意也把他那一分取来合巷道。
As Shmuel said: With regard to one of the residents of an alleyway who was accustomed to join in a merging of alleyways with the other residents of the alleyway, but one Shabbat he did not join in a merging of alleyways with them, the other residents of the alleyway may enter his house and take his contribution to their merging of alleyways from him even against his will.
革玛拉 推说:他若素常与他们合那巷道,是的,他们可以进他家去取他那一分;他若素常并不如此,就不然,他们不可这样办。可见并不是各样情形里都逼得人违着自己的意思合巷道。革玛拉 断说:正是,从这里可以断定就是这样。
革玛拉 推说:他若素常与他们合那巷道,是的,他们可以进他家去取他那一分;他若素常并不如此,就不然,他们不可这样办。
The Gemara infers: If he was accustomed to join in their merging of the alleyway, yes, they may enter his house to collect his contribution, but if he was not accustomed to do so, no, they may not do so.
可见并不是各样情形里都逼得人违着自己的意思合巷道。
Clearly, it is not possible in all cases to compel a person to participate in a merging of alleyways against his will.
革玛拉 断说:正是,从这里可以断定就是这样。
The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that it is so.
革玛拉 提说:我们且说下面这条 《巴拉伊塔》 撑着他。巷道的居民可以逼凡住在那巷道里的人,为那巷道立一根旁柱和一道横梁。这一条教训见得:论安息日这几样条例,人自己愿意不愿意是不算的;别人纵违着他的意思,也可以替他办。
革玛拉 提说:我们且说下面这条 《巴拉伊塔》 撑着他。
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports him.
巷道的居民可以逼凡住在那巷道里的人,为那巷道立一根旁柱和一道横梁。
The residents of an alleyway may compel anyone who lives in the alleyway to erect a side post and a cross beam for the alleyway.
这一条教训见得:论安息日这几样条例,人自己愿意不愿意是不算的;别人纵违着他的意思,也可以替他办。
This teaching indicates that with regard to these Shabbat enactments, a person’s wishes are not taken into account; rather, others may act on his behalf even against his will.