82b.1
解答
拉夫伊迪之子拉夫约书亚 答说:拉夫阿西 说这孩童可以凭他母亲的 合界 出去,讲的是他父亲为他往北立了一份 合界、他母亲为他往南立了一份的情形——因为连六岁的孩子也宁可跟着母亲、不跟父亲。只是父母若没有各为他立一份 合界,拉夫阿西 也承认他并不算随着母亲。
-
拉夫伊迪之子拉夫约书亚 答说:拉夫阿西 说这孩童可以凭他母亲的 合界 出去,讲的是他父亲为他往北立了一份 合界、他母亲为他往南立了一份的情形——因为连六岁的孩子也宁可跟着母亲、不跟父亲。
Rav Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, said in answer: When Rav Asi said that this child may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv, he was referring to a case where his father established an eiruv on his behalf to the north, and his mother prepared an eiruv on his behalf to the south, as even a six-year-old prefers the company of his mother to that of his father.
-
只是父母若没有各为他立一份 合界,拉夫阿西 也承认他并不算随着母亲。
However, Rav Asi agrees that if they did not both establish an eiruv for him he is not subordinate to his mother.
82b.2
反驳
革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一驳:孩童须靠母亲的,可以凭他母亲为自己所立的 合界 出去。到几岁为止呢?到六岁为止都可以。这条 《巴拉伊塔》 岂不是把 拉夫伊迪之子拉夫约书亚 的意思驳倒了么——他执定六岁的孩童非母亲也为他立了一份 合界,不得凭母亲的 合界 出去?革玛拉 断说:这实在是把他驳倒了。
-
革玛拉 据一条 《巴拉伊塔》 提一驳:孩童须靠母亲的,可以凭他母亲为自己所立的 合界 出去。
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A child who needs his mother may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv that she established for herself.
-
到几岁为止呢?
Until what age may he do so?
-
到六岁为止都可以。
He can be up to the age of six.
-
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 岂不是把 拉夫伊迪之子拉夫约书亚 的意思驳倒了么——他执定六岁的孩童非母亲也为他立了一份 合界,不得凭母亲的 合界 出去?
This baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yehoshua bar Rav Idi, who maintains that a six-year-old may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv only if she established an eiruv on his behalf as well?
-
革玛拉 断说:这实在是把他驳倒了。
The Gemara concludes: This is indeed a conclusive refutation.
82b.3
反驳
革玛拉 说:我们且说这也把 拉夫阿西 的意思驳倒了——这里说「到六岁为止」,含着说到六岁却不连六岁在内;拉夫阿西 却执定连六岁的也收在这条 哈拉哈 之内。革玛拉 说:拉夫阿西 本可以对你说:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说「到六岁为止」,是连六岁也算在内的。
-
革玛拉 说:我们且说这也把 拉夫阿西 的意思驳倒了——这里说「到六岁为止」,含着说到六岁却不连六岁在内;拉夫阿西 却执定连六岁的也收在这条 哈拉哈 之内。
The Gemara comments: Let us say that this is also a refutation of the opinion of Rav Asi, as here it states: Until the age of six, which indicates that he can be up to, but not including, six years old, whereas Rav Asi maintains that even a six-year-old is included in this halakha.
-
革玛拉 说:拉夫阿西 本可以对你说:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 说「到六岁为止」,是连六岁也算在内的。
The Gemara states: Rav Asi can say to you that when the baraita states: Up to the age of six, it means up to and including six years old.
82b.4
解答
革玛拉 说:我们且说这也把 拉比雅奈 与 雷什·拉基什 的意思驳倒了——他们执定须靠母亲的孩童,是到四岁或五岁的。革玛拉 讲明:这不难。这里 拉比雅奈 与 雷什·拉基什 所讲的,是那孩子的父亲在城里的情形。他既跟得父亲出去,就不再须靠母亲,虽然还不到六岁。反过来,那里那条 《巴拉伊塔》 所讲的,是他父亲不在城里的情形。所以那孩子到六岁以前都须靠母亲。
-
革玛拉 说:我们且说这也把 拉比雅奈 与 雷什·拉基什 的意思驳倒了——他们执定须靠母亲的孩童,是到四岁或五岁的。
The Gemara comments: Let us say that this is also a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish, who maintain that a child in need of his mother is one who is up to age four or five.
-
革玛拉 讲明:这不难。
The Gemara explains: This is not difficult.
-
这里 拉比雅奈 与 雷什·拉基什 所讲的,是那孩子的父亲在城里的情形。
Here Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish are referring to a situation when the child’s father is in town.
-
他既跟得父亲出去,就不再须靠母亲,虽然还不到六岁。
As the child can go out with his father, he is no longer in need of his mother, even though he is younger than six.
-
反过来,那里那条 《巴拉伊塔》 所讲的,是他父亲不在城里的情形。
In contrast, there the baraita is referring to a case when his father is not in town.
-
所以那孩子到六岁以前都须靠母亲。
The child therefore needs his mother until he reaches the age of six.
82b.5
引证
众贤者在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说:人可以为自己未成年的儿子或女儿、并为自己的迦南奴仆或婢女立 合界,使他们知道也可以,不使他们知道也可以。只是他不可为自己的希伯来奴仆或婢女、也不可为自己成年的儿子或女儿、也不可为自己的妻立 合界,除非使他们知道。
-
众贤者在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说:人可以为自己未成年的儿子或女儿、并为自己的迦南奴仆或婢女立 合界,使他们知道也可以,不使他们知道也可以。
Our Sages taught in a baraita: A person may establish an eiruv on behalf of his minor son or daughter, and on behalf of his Canaanite servant or maidservant, either with their knowledge or without their knowledge.
-
只是他不可为自己的希伯来奴仆或婢女、也不可为自己成年的儿子或女儿、也不可为自己的妻立 合界,除非使他们知道。
However, he may not establish an eiruv, neither on behalf of his Hebrew servant or maidservant, nor on behalf of his adult son or daughter, nor on behalf of his wife, except with their knowledge.
82b.6
引证
另有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:人为自己成年的儿子或女儿、为自己的希伯来奴仆或婢女、并为自己的妻立 合界,非使他们知道不可。只是他为自己的迦南奴仆或婢女、并为自己未成年的儿子或女儿立 合界,使他们知道也可以,不使他们知道也可以,因他们的手如同他的手——就是说,他们的身分与所在的一区,都是随着他的身分与他的区定的。
-
另有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:人为自己成年的儿子或女儿、为自己的希伯来奴仆或婢女、并为自己的妻立 合界,非使他们知道不可。
It was taught in another baraita: A person may establish an eiruv on behalf of his adult son or daughter, and on behalf of his Hebrew servant or maidservant, and on behalf of his wife, only with their knowledge.
-
只是他为自己的迦南奴仆或婢女、并为自己未成年的儿子或女儿立 合界,使他们知道也可以,不使他们知道也可以,因他们的手如同他的手——就是说,他们的身分与所在的一区,都是随着他的身分与他的区定的。
However, he may establish an eiruv on behalf of his Canaanite servant or maidservant, and on behalf of his minor son or daughter, either with their knowledge or without their knowledge, as their hand is like his hand, i.e., their status and the domain in which they are located are determined by his status and domain.
82b.7
引证
这几等人若自己立了 合界,主人同时又往另一边为他们立了一份,他们仍可以凭主人的 合界 出去;惟独妻不然,因她可以驳回,说自己不要丈夫的那一份。
-
这几等人若自己立了 合界,主人同时又往另一边为他们立了一份,他们仍可以凭主人的 合界 出去;惟独妻不然,因她可以驳回,说自己不要丈夫的那一份。
And all of these who established an eiruv for themselves, and at the same time their master established an eiruv for them in a different direction, they may go out by means of their master’s eiruv, except for a wife, because she can object by saying that she does not want her husband’s eiruv.
82b.8
提问
革玛拉 起头究这几条 《巴拉伊塔》,先提一问:妻与成年的儿子或女儿有什么分别呢?他们何以驳不得呢?他们也是成了年、自主的人。拉巴 说:所指的并不单是妻;那 坦拿 说妻,是连凡与她这一层上相仿的都说在内,譬如希伯来奴仆或成年的儿子。
-
革玛拉 起头究这几条 《巴拉伊塔》,先提一问:妻与成年的儿子或女儿有什么分别呢?
The Gemara begins its analysis of the baraitot by posing a question: A wife, in what way is she different from an adult son or daughter?
-
他们何以驳不得呢?
Why can’t they object?
-
他们也是成了年、自主的人。
They are also of age and under their own authority.
-
拉巴 说:所指的并不单是妻;那 坦拿 说妻,是连凡与她这一层上相仿的都说在内,譬如希伯来奴仆或成年的儿子。
Rabba said: The reference is not only to a wife; the tanna is speaking of a wife and all who are similar to her in this regard, such as a Hebrew servant or an adult son.
82b.9
反驳
师尊在那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里说:这几等人可以凭主人的 合界 出去,惟独妻不然,因她可以驳回。革玛拉 推说:所以如此,是因她实在驳了;他若立了那 合界 而她并没有把自己的意思说明,那么她仍可以凭丈夫的 合界 出去。革玛拉 提一驳:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 头一句岂不是说「非使他们知道不可」么?这岂不是讲他问过他们要不要这一份 合界、他们说了「要」的情形么?由此推得:他的妻若什么也没有说,她就不可用那 合界。
-
师尊在那条 《巴拉伊塔》 里说:这几等人可以凭主人的 合界 出去,惟独妻不然,因她可以驳回。
The Master said in the baraita: These people may go out by means of their master’s eiruv, except for a wife, because she can object.
-
革玛拉 推说:所以如此,是因她实在驳了;他若立了那 合界 而她并没有把自己的意思说明,那么她仍可以凭丈夫的 合界 出去。
The Gemara infers: The reason is due to the fact that she objected, but if he established an eiruv and she did not specify her feelings about it one way or another, she may go out by means of her husband’s eiruv.
-
革玛拉 提一驳:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 头一句岂不是说「非使他们知道不可」么?
The Gemara raises an objection: Doesn’t the first clause of the baraita state that he may establish an eiruv only with their knowledge?
-
这岂不是讲他问过他们要不要这一份 合界、他们说了「要」的情形么?
What, is this not referring to a case where he asked them whether or not they want this eiruv, and they said yes?
-
由此推得:他的妻若什么也没有说,她就不可用那 合界。
It can be inferred from here that if his wife did not say anything, she may not use the eiruv.
82b.10
解答
革玛拉 把这一驳推开:不然,「非使他们知道不可」这一语是什么意思呢?是说他们默然不语、没有出声驳回。这话是要撇开他们说了「不要」的那一样。他们若并没有驳回,就可以凭家主的 合界 出去。
-
革玛拉 把这一驳推开:不然,「非使他们知道不可」这一语是什么意思呢?
The Gemara rejects this argument: No; what is the meaning of the phrase: Only with their knowledge?
-
是说他们默然不语、没有出声驳回。
It means that they were silent and said nothing in protest.
-
这话是要撇开他们说了「不要」的那一样。
This comes to exclude a case where they said no.
-
他们若并没有驳回,就可以凭家主的 合界 出去。
If, however, they did not object, they may go out by means of the eiruv of the head of the family.
82b.11
反驳
革玛拉 提一驳:那同一条 《巴拉伊塔》 岂不是教说——这几等人若自己立了 合界、主人又往另一边为他们立了一份,他们仍可以凭主人的 合界 出去么?那讲的正是他们并没有把自己的意思说明的情形,因它并没有说他们驳了;那条 《巴拉伊塔》 却说「惟独妻不然」,她不可凭丈夫的 合界 出去。这条 《巴拉伊塔》 分明见得:她纵没有驳回,丈夫的 合界 于妻也是不成的。
-
革玛拉 提一驳:那同一条 《巴拉伊塔》 岂不是教说——这几等人若自己立了 合界、主人又往另一边为他们立了一份,他们仍可以凭主人的 合界 出去么?
The Gemara raises an objection: Wasn’t it taught in that same baraita: And with regard to all of these who established an eiruv for themselves, and their master established an eiruv for them in a different direction, they may go out by means of their master’s eiruv.
-
那讲的正是他们并没有把自己的意思说明的情形,因它并没有说他们驳了;那条 《巴拉伊塔》 却说「惟独妻不然」,她不可凭丈夫的 合界 出去。
And that is referring to a situation when they did not specify their feelings, as it does not state that they objected, and yet the baraita states: Except for a wife, who may not go out by means of her husband’s eiruv.
-
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 分明见得:她纵没有驳回,丈夫的 合界 于妻也是不成的。
The baraita clearly indicates that even if she did not object, the husband’s eiruv is ineffective for his wife.
82b.12
解答
拉瓦 说:他们既往另一边立了 合界,再没有比这更明的驳回了。他们不必另说什么驳回的话,因他们所行的已经证出自己不愿收在主人的 合界 之内。
-
拉瓦 说:他们既往另一边立了 合界,再没有比这更明的驳回了。
Rava said: Since they established an eiruv in a different direction, you have no protest greater than this.
-
他们不必另说什么驳回的话,因他们所行的已经证出自己不愿收在主人的 合界 之内。
They need not register any other objection, as their actions prove that they do not wish to be part of their master’s eiruv.
82b.13
引密释纳
界域之合所要的分量是多少呢?是够收在这 合界 之内的每一个人吃两餐的食物。众 坦拿 就这两餐有多大相争。所指的是人在平日、不是在安息日所吃的;这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。拉比犹大 说:所指的是他在安息日、不是在平日所吃的。这一位、就是 拉比梅伊尔,与那一位、就是 拉比犹大,本都是要从宽:拉比梅伊尔 执定人在安息日吃得多些,拉比犹大 却以为人在平日吃得多些。
-
界域之合所要的分量是多少呢?
What is the measure for a joining of Shabbat boundaries?
-
是够收在这 合界 之内的每一个人吃两餐的食物。
It consists of a quantity of food sufficient for two meals for each and every one of those included in the eiruv.
-
众 坦拿 就这两餐有多大相争。
The tanna’im disagree with regard to the size of these two meals.
-
所指的是人在平日、不是在安息日所吃的;这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。
It is referring to one’s food that he eats on a weekday and not on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
-
拉比犹大 说:所指的是他在安息日、不是在平日所吃的。
Rabbi Yehuda says: It is referring to the amount he eats on Shabbat and not on a weekday.
-
这一位、就是 拉比梅伊尔,与那一位、就是 拉比犹大,本都是要从宽:拉比梅伊尔 执定人在安息日吃得多些,拉比犹大 却以为人在平日吃得多些。
And both this Sage, Rabbi Meir, and that Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, intended to be lenient, as Rabbi Meir maintains that people eat more food on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Yehuda believes that they consume more on a weekday.
82b.14
引密释纳
拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡 说:两餐之食,是拿一个 蓬迪昂——就是一 塞拉 的四十八分之一——所买那样大的一个饼,按四 塞亚 麦子卖一 塞拉 算。拉比西缅 说:两餐之食,是三分之二个饼,按一 卡夫 麦子作三个饼算。换句话说:那分量是三分之一 卡夫 大的饼的三分之二。
-
拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡 说:两餐之食,是拿一个 蓬迪昂——就是一 塞拉 的四十八分之一——所买那样大的一个饼,按四 塞亚 麦子卖一 塞拉 算。
Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Food for two meals is the size of a loaf bought with a pundeyon, which is one-forty-eighth of a sela, when four se’a of wheat are sold for a sela.
-
拉比西缅 说:两餐之食,是三分之二个饼,按一 卡夫 麦子作三个饼算。
Rabbi Shimon says: Food for two meals is two of three parts of a loaf, when three loaves are prepared from a kav of wheat.
-
换句话说:那分量是三分之一 卡夫 大的饼的三分之二。
In other words, the measure is two-thirds of a loaf the size of one-third of a kav.
82b.15
引密释纳
既论到一个饼的分量,密释纳就说:这饼的一半,正是所谓 半饼——那是论长大麻风的房屋那几条 哈拉哈 所用的量。人进了长大麻风的房屋,在里头停留够吃这些食物的工夫,所穿的衣服就成了不洁。半个半饼、就是这饼的四分之一,则是不洁之食使身子受污的分量。就是说:这样多的不洁之食,把不洁传给吃的人的身子,依拉比之律使他不得吃 举祭。
-
既论到一个饼的分量,密释纳就说:这饼的一半,正是所谓 半饼——那是论长大麻风的房屋那几条 哈拉哈 所用的量。
Having discussed measures with regard to a loaf of bread, the mishna states that half of this loaf is the amount called a half [peras], a measure relevant for the halakhot of a leprous house.
-
人进了长大麻风的房屋,在里头停留够吃这些食物的工夫,所穿的衣服就成了不洁。
If one enters a house afflicted with leprosy and remains there long enough to eat this amount of food, the clothes he is wearing become ritually impure.
-
半个半饼、就是这饼的四分之一,则是不洁之食使身子受污的分量。
And half of its half, a quarter of this loaf, is the amount of ritually impure food that disqualifies the body.
-
就是说:这样多的不洁之食,把不洁传给吃的人的身子,依拉比之律使他不得吃 举祭。
In other words, impure food of this amount imparts ritual impurity to the body of the eater, and disqualifies him by rabbinic law from eating teruma.
82b.16
提问
革玛拉 问:照 拉比犹大 与 拉比梅伊尔 所定,两餐之食是多少呢?拉夫犹大 说 拉夫 说:是两个 农夫 的饼。拉夫阿达·巴尔·阿哈瓦 说:是 帕帕河 一带素常所烤的两个饼。
-
革玛拉 问:照 拉比犹大 与 拉比梅伊尔 所定,两餐之食是多少呢?
The Gemara asks: And how much is food for two meals according to the measures of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir?
-
拉夫犹大 说 拉夫 说:是两个 农夫 的饼。
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Two farmers’ [ikaryata] loaves of bread.
-
拉夫阿达·巴尔·阿哈瓦 说:是 帕帕河 一带素常所烤的两个饼。
Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Two standard loaves of bread baked in the region of the Pappa River.
82b.17
引证
拉夫约瑟 对 拉瓦之子拉夫约瑟 说:令尊执谁的意思呢——拉比犹大 的,还是 拉比梅伊尔 的?他答说:执 拉比梅伊尔 的。拉夫约瑟 又说:我也取 拉比梅伊尔 那一断,因为 哈拉哈 若依 拉比犹大,就与俗谚相碍——那谚说:甜的总有地方装。人吃着可口之物就吃得多,这是众所公认的;安息日的饭食既多甜物,那么安息日所吃的分量就比平日多。
-
拉夫约瑟 对 拉瓦之子拉夫约瑟 说:令尊执谁的意思呢——拉比犹大 的,还是 拉比梅伊尔 的?
Rav Yosef said to Rav Yosef, son of Rava: Your father, in accordance with whose opinion does he hold, that of Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Meir?
-
他答说:执 拉比梅伊尔 的。
He replied: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
-
拉夫约瑟 又说:我也取 拉比梅伊尔 那一断,因为 哈拉哈 若依 拉比犹大,就与俗谚相碍——那谚说:甜的总有地方装。
Rav Yosef added: I too agree with the ruling of Rabbi Meir, because if the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, a difficulty would arise from the popular saying: There is always room for sweets.
-
人吃着可口之物就吃得多,这是众所公认的;安息日的饭食既多甜物,那么安息日所吃的分量就比平日多。
It is generally accepted that one dining on delicacies eats more, and therefore, the amount of food in Shabbat meals is greater than that of weekdays, as they include more sweet foods.
82b.18
反驳
我们在密释纳里学过 拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡 定了一样分量,拉比西缅 又定了另一样。有一位贤者在 《托塞夫塔》 里教说:两位所说的相去不远。革玛拉 就此诧异说:两下当真一样么?照 拉比约哈难 的意思,一 卡夫 是四餐。他执定两餐之食等于拿一个 蓬迪昂——就是一 塞拉 的四十八分之一——所买的一个饼,按四 塞亚 买一 塞拉 算。四 塞亚 既是二十四 卡夫,那么拿一个 蓬迪昂 买的饼便是半 卡夫。这就是说:每一餐是四分之一 卡夫,也就是一 卡夫 四餐。反过来,照 拉比西缅 的意思,一 卡夫 是九餐。拉比西缅 执定两餐之食是三分之一 卡夫 大的饼的三分之二。照这样算,一餐是三分之一 卡夫 大的饼的三分之一,合起来一 卡夫 便是九餐。
-
我们在密释纳里学过 拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡 定了一样分量,拉比西缅 又定了另一样。
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that one measure is the amount of food for two meals, while Rabbi Shimon established a different amount.
-
有一位贤者在 《托塞夫塔》 里教说:两位所说的相去不远。
A Sage taught in the Tosefta: And their statements are close to being identical.
-
革玛拉 就此诧异说:两下当真一样么?
The Gemara expresses surprise at this: Are they really identical?
-
照 拉比约哈难 的意思,一 卡夫 是四餐。
According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan there are four meals to a kav.
-
他执定两餐之食等于拿一个 蓬迪昂——就是一 塞拉 的四十八分之一——所买的一个饼,按四 塞亚 买一 塞拉 算。
He maintains that food for two meals is equivalent to a loaf that can be purchased with a pundeyon, which is one-forty-eighth of a sela, when four se’a are bought for a sela.
-
四 塞亚 既是二十四 卡夫,那么拿一个 蓬迪昂 买的饼便是半 卡夫。
As there are twenty-four kav in four se’a, a loaf purchased with a pundeyon is half of a kav.
-
这就是说:每一餐是四分之一 卡夫,也就是一 卡夫 四餐。
This means that each meal is a quarter of a kav, or that there are four meals in a kav.
-
反过来,照 拉比西缅 的意思,一 卡夫 是九餐。
In contrast, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, there are nine meals to a kav.
-
拉比西缅 执定两餐之食是三分之一 卡夫 大的饼的三分之二。
Rabbi Shimon maintains that food for two meals is two-thirds of a loaf equal in size to one-third of a kav.
-
照这样算,一餐是三分之一 卡夫 大的饼的三分之一,合起来一 卡夫 便是九餐。
By this calculation, one meal is one-third of a loaf that itself is one-third of a kav in size, which amounts to nine meals in a kav.
82b.19
解答
拉夫希斯达 解 拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡 的意思说:当扣去三分之一作那开铺子的赚头,因他取三分之一为利。这就把总价添上了一半。
-
拉夫希斯达 解 拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡 的意思说:当扣去三分之一作那开铺子的赚头,因他取三分之一为利。
Rav Ḥisda said in explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka’s opinion: Deduct one-third for the grocer’s markup, as he takes one-third as profit.
-
这就把总价添上了一半。
This adds one half to the total cost.
82b.20
反驳
革玛拉 问:纵这样折算,仍是这一位贤者、就是 拉比西缅 说一 卡夫 九餐,那一位贤者、就是 拉比约哈难,虽够四餐有余,也不过一 卡夫 六餐。照 拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡 所定,每一餐是四分之一 卡夫 的三分之二、就是六分之一 卡夫,两下的分量相去仍不小。
-
革玛拉 问:纵这样折算,仍是这一位贤者、就是 拉比西缅 说一 卡夫 九餐,那一位贤者、就是 拉比约哈难,虽够四餐有余,也不过一 卡夫 六餐。
The Gemara asks: Even after allowing for this adjustment, it remains the case that according to this Sage, Rabbi Shimon, there are nine meals to a kav, whereas according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, although it suffices for more than four meals, there are only six meals to a kav.
-
照 拉比约哈难·本·贝罗卡 所定,每一餐是四分之一 卡夫 的三分之二、就是六分之一 卡夫,两下的分量相去仍不小。
According to the measure of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, each meal is two-thirds of a quarter kav, i.e., one sixth of a kav, which still leaves a considerable discrepancy between their measures.
82b.21
解答
倒不如照 拉夫希斯达 另一句话解,他说过:当扣去一半作那开铺子的赚头。这一笔账若按那开铺子的取一半为利算,两样分量就实在相近了。
-
倒不如照 拉夫希斯达 另一句话解,他说过:当扣去一半作那开铺子的赚头。
Rather, we must explain in accordance with that other statement of Rav Ḥisda, as he said: Deduct one half for the grocer’s markup.
-
这一笔账若按那开铺子的取一半为利算,两样分量就实在相近了。
If the calculation is based on the assumption that the grocer takes half the sum as profit, the two measures are indeed close.
82b.22
解答
革玛拉 问:仍是这一位贤者说一 卡夫 九餐,那一位贤者不过一 卡夫 八餐——因每一餐是四分之一 卡夫 的一半、就是八分之一 卡夫。革玛拉 答说:《托塞夫塔》 里那一句「两位所说的相去不远」,正是这个意思。两样分量虽不全然一样,彼此相差却也不大。
-
革玛拉 问:仍是这一位贤者说一 卡夫 九餐,那一位贤者不过一 卡夫 八餐——因每一餐是四分之一 卡夫 的一半、就是八分之一 卡夫。
The Gemara asks: But it remains the case that according to this Sage, there are nine meals to a kav, whereas according to the other Sage, there are only eight meals to a kav, as each meal is one half of a quarter kav, or one-eighth of a kav.
-
革玛拉 答说:《托塞夫塔》 里那一句「两位所说的相去不远」,正是这个意思。
The Gemara answers: This is the meaning of that which was stated in the Tosefta: And their rulings are close to being identical.
-
两样分量虽不全然一样,彼此相差却也不大。
Although their measures are not exactly the same, there is no great difference between them.
82b.23
解答
革玛拉 说:只是论那开铺子的赚头有多少,拉夫希斯达 这一句与 拉夫希斯达 那一句相碍。革玛拉 答说:这不难——这一样里,是家主自己供烤饼的柴,所以那开铺子的只加三分之一,算是酬他的工。那一样里,家主并不供柴;那开铺子的除烤饼的工以外还当得柴价,所以加了一半。
-
革玛拉 说:只是论那开铺子的赚头有多少,拉夫希斯达 这一句与 拉夫希斯达 那一句相碍。
The Gemara comments: Nonetheless, there is a contradiction between one statement of Rav Ḥisda and the other statement of Rav Ḥisda concerning the size of the grocer’s profit.
-
革玛拉 答说:这不难——这一样里,是家主自己供烤饼的柴,所以那开铺子的只加三分之一,算是酬他的工。
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as in this case, the homeowner provides the wood for baking bread, and the grocer therefore marks up the price by one-third as compensation for his efforts.
-
那一样里,家主并不供柴;那开铺子的除烤饼的工以外还当得柴价,所以加了一半。
Whereas in that case, the homeowner does not provide the wood; the grocer is entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the wood in addition to the work of baking, and consequently he marks up the price by one half.
82b.24
引证
我们在密释纳里学过:吃半个饼的工夫,正是人进了长大麻风的房屋、所穿的衣服成为不洁的工夫;半个半饼、就是这饼的四分之一,则是不洁之食使身子受污、不得吃 举祭 的分量。
-
我们在密释纳里学过:吃半个饼的工夫,正是人进了长大麻风的房屋、所穿的衣服成为不洁的工夫;半个半饼、就是这饼的四分之一,则是不洁之食使身子受污、不得吃 举祭 的分量。
We learned in the mishna that the time it takes to eat half the loaf is the time it takes for the clothes of one who entered a leprous house to become ritually impure, and half of its half, of the loaf, is the amount of ritually impure food that disqualifies the body from eating teruma.