至于当中那一片废墟,两下都不许用。
-
至于当中那一片废墟,两下都不许用。
and the middle ruin is prohibited to both of them.
← 移入纹卷总目·第八章 怎样合界域
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 8 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。
至于当中那一片废墟,两下都不许用。
至于当中那一片废墟,两下都不许用。
and the middle ruin is prohibited to both of them.
拉夫贝鲁纳 坐着奉 拉夫 之名讲这条 哈拉哈。学舍里的门生 拉比以利亚撒 对他说:拉夫 真说过这话么?拉夫贝鲁纳 对他说:是,他说过。他对他说:指给我看他住在哪里,我自己去问他。他就指给他看 拉夫 住在何处。拉比以利亚撒 到 拉夫 面前,对他说:先生实在说过这话么?他对他说:是,我说过。
拉夫贝鲁纳 坐着奉 拉夫 之名讲这条 哈拉哈。
Rav Beruna sat and stated this halakha in the name of Rav.
学舍里的门生 拉比以利亚撒 对他说:拉夫 真说过这话么?
Rabbi Elazar, a student of the Torah academy, said to him: Did Rav actually say this?
拉夫贝鲁纳 对他说:是,他说过。
Rav Beruna said to him: Yes, he did.
他对他说:指给我看他住在哪里,我自己去问他。
He said to him: Show me his place of lodging, and I will go and ask him myself.
他就指给他看 拉夫 住在何处。
He showed him where Rav lived.
拉比以利亚撒 到 拉夫 面前,对他说:先生实在说过这话么?
Rabbi Elazar came before Rav and said to him: Did the Master actually say this?
他对他说:是,我说过。
He said to him: Yes, I did.
拉比以利亚撒 就对 拉夫 说:先生既不许人用当中那一片废墟,可见先生执定这一人隔着空处拦得住那一人。既是这样,先生所以许两所房子的住户各用挨着自己的那一片,必是因他用起来虽不便当,到底比那一位便当些。只是先生自己岂不是说过:一处地方这一院的住户非放下去用不成、那一院的住户又非掷上去用不成,两下谁也不便当到得着,那么两边的住户就都不许用它——虽然放下去到底比掷上去便当?
拉比以利亚撒 就对 拉夫 说:先生既不许人用当中那一片废墟,可见先生执定这一人隔着空处拦得住那一人。
Rabbi Elazar then said to Rav: Since you prohibit using the middle ruin, you evidently maintain that one person renders it prohibited for another by way of the air.
既是这样,先生所以许两所房子的住户各用挨着自己的那一片,必是因他用起来虽不便当,到底比那一位便当些。
That being the case, it must be that you permit the resident of each house to use the adjacent ruin because one’s use of the ruin, while not convenient for him, is more convenient than the other person’s usage.
只是先生自己岂不是说过:一处地方这一院的住户非放下去用不成、那一院的住户又非掷上去用不成,两下谁也不便当到得着,那么两边的住户就都不许用它——虽然放下去到底比掷上去便当?
But wasn’t it the Master himself who said: With regard to a place that can be used by the residents of the one courtyard only by lowering an object down to it and by the residents of another courtyard only by throwing an object on top of it, so that neither courtyard has convenient access to it, both sets of residents are prohibited from using it, although lowering an object is more convenient than throwing it?
拉夫 对他说:你以为我们所讲的是三片废墟排成一直行的情形么?并不是。那三片是排成鼎足之形、就是三角之形的。换句话说:其中两片各挨着一所房子、又彼此相邻;第三片摆在那两片的一侧,与两所房子都近。当中那一片两所房子的住户都不许用,因两所房子到得着它都是一样直、又一样不便当。至于另外两片,各归挨着它的那一所房子的住户用,因他到得着它是直的;那一所房子的住户却非隔着挨自己那一片的空处不能到,而 拉夫 执定这一人并不隔着空处拦住那一人不可用。
拉夫 对他说:你以为我们所讲的是三片废墟排成一直行的情形么?
Rav said to him: Do you think that we are dealing with a case of three ruins positioned alongside each other in a straight line?
并不是。
No.
那三片是排成鼎足之形、就是三角之形的。
They are arranged in the form of a tripod, i.e. in a triangular form.
换句话说:其中两片各挨着一所房子、又彼此相邻;第三片摆在那两片的一侧,与两所房子都近。
In other words, two of the ruins, each adjacent to one of the houses, are located next to each other; the third is positioned adjacent to one side of the other two, near both houses.
当中那一片两所房子的住户都不许用,因两所房子到得着它都是一样直、又一样不便当。
The middle ruin is prohibited to the residents of both houses because both houses have equally inconvenient but direct access to it.
至于另外两片,各归挨着它的那一所房子的住户用,因他到得着它是直的;那一所房子的住户却非隔着挨自己那一片的空处不能到,而 拉夫 执定这一人并不隔着空处拦住那一人不可用。
However, each of the other ruins is permitted to the resident of the adjacent house, as he has direct access to it, while the resident of the other house can reach it only through the air of the ruin nearest to him, and Rav maintains that one person does not render it prohibited for use by another by way of the air.
拉夫帕帕 对 拉瓦 说:我们且说 撒母耳——他执定这一人隔着空处拦得住那一人——是不取 拉夫迪米 那一说的。因为 拉夫迪米 从 以色列地 来到巴比伦的时候说 拉比约哈难 说:一处地方面不足四掌见方的,论安息日的搬运算作一处免责区。所以这一处若夹在公共区与私人区之间,公共区的人与私人区的人都许在上头整肩上的担子,只要不隔着这免责区把东西彼此互递。照 撒母耳 的意思,这本该是禁的,因那是别一区的空处。
拉夫帕帕 对 拉瓦 说:我们且说 撒母耳——他执定这一人隔着空处拦得住那一人——是不取 拉夫迪米 那一说的。
Rav Pappa said to Rava: Let us say that Shmuel, who maintains that one renders it prohibited for another by way of the air, does not agree with the opinion of Rav Dimi.
因为 拉夫迪米 从 以色列地 来到巴比伦的时候说 拉比约哈难 说:一处地方面不足四掌见方的,论安息日的搬运算作一处免责区。
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A place less than four by four handbreadths in size is an exempt domain with respect to carrying on Shabbat.
所以这一处若夹在公共区与私人区之间,公共区的人与私人区的人都许在上头整肩上的担子,只要不隔着这免责区把东西彼此互递。
Consequently, if this place is located between a public domain and a private domain, it is permitted for both the people in the public domain and the people in the private domain to adjust the burden on their shoulders in it, as long as they do not exchange objects with each other by way of the exempt domain.
照 撒母耳 的意思,这本该是禁的,因那是别一区的空处。
According to Shmuel’s opinion this should be prohibited due to the air of a different domain.
拉瓦 答说:那里,拉比约哈难 所讲的是一处免责区夹在公共区与私人区之间——那两样是依 妥拉 之律本有的区。那样情形里,众贤者并不因空处的缘故禁人用它。反过来,这里论几个私人区之间的空处,我们所讲的是彼此之间依拉比之律禁人搬运的诸区;众贤者把自己所定的看得比 妥拉 所定的还要紧,为守自己的禁令,还加上防患的一层。所以照 撒母耳,众贤者实在立了这一道禁令:这一人隔着空处拦得住那一人。
拉瓦 答说:那里,拉比约哈难 所讲的是一处免责区夹在公共区与私人区之间——那两样是依 妥拉 之律本有的区。
Rava replied: There, Rabbi Yoḥanan is dealing with an exempt domain situated between a public domain and a private domain, the two existing domains by Torah law.
那样情形里,众贤者并不因空处的缘故禁人用它。
In that case, the Sages did not prohibit the use of the place due to the air.
反过来,这里论几个私人区之间的空处,我们所讲的是彼此之间依拉比之律禁人搬运的诸区;众贤者把自己所定的看得比 妥拉 所定的还要紧,为守自己的禁令,还加上防患的一层。
By contrast, here, with regard to the air between private domains, we are dealing with domains between which carrying is prohibited by rabbinic law, and the Sages reinforced their statements even more than those of the Torah; they added preventive measures in order to safeguard their decrees.
所以照 撒母耳,众贤者实在立了这一道禁令:这一人隔着空处拦得住那一人。
Consequently, according to Shmuel, the Sages indeed decreed that one renders it prohibited for another by way of the air.
拉维纳 对 拉瓦 说:拉夫 当真说过这话么——说这一人并不隔着空处拦住那一人不可用?岂不是有一说:众 阿摩拉 就一个人的两所房子隔着公共区相对而立那一样相争。拉巴·巴尔·拉夫胡纳 说 拉夫 说:从这一所把东西掷到那一所是不许的;撒母耳 却说:从这一所掷到那一所是许的。可见 拉夫 所以不许人掷,正是因那两所房子当中隔着公共区那一段禁的空处。
拉维纳 对 拉瓦 说:拉夫 当真说过这话么——说这一人并不隔着空处拦住那一人不可用?
Ravina said to Rava: But did Rav actually say this, that one person does not render it prohibited for use by another by way of the air?
岂不是有一说:众 阿摩拉 就一个人的两所房子隔着公共区相对而立那一样相争。
But wasn’t it stated that amora’im disagreed with regard to two houses belonging to one person that stood on two opposite sides of a public domain.
拉巴·巴尔·拉夫胡纳 说 拉夫 说:从这一所把东西掷到那一所是不许的;撒母耳 却说:从这一所掷到那一所是许的。
Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: It is prohibited to throw an object from one house to the other; and Shmuel said that it is permitted to throw from one to the other.
可见 拉夫 所以不许人掷,正是因那两所房子当中隔着公共区那一段禁的空处。
Rav apparently forbade the act of throwing due to the prohibited air of the public domain that lies between the two houses.
拉瓦 对他说:那一样岂不是讲明过:一所房子略高,另一所比它低么?拉夫 不许人从这一区掷到那一区,并不是为公共区的空处,乃是为从低处往高处掷不容易——所掷之物有时要滚落回公共区里去,人就要去拾它、从公共区搬进私人区。拉夫 不许人把东西从这一所房子掷到那一所,正是为这个缘故。
拉瓦 对他说:那一样岂不是讲明过:一所房子略高,另一所比它低么?
Rava said to him: Wasn’t it established that one house was relatively higher and the other one was lower than the first?
拉夫 不许人从这一区掷到那一区,并不是为公共区的空处,乃是为从低处往高处掷不容易——所掷之物有时要滚落回公共区里去,人就要去拾它、从公共区搬进私人区。
Rav prohibited throwing from one domain to the other, not due to the air of the public domain, but rather due to the difficulty of throwing from a low place to a higher one, as the thrown object might sometimes roll and fall back into the public domain and people might come to pick it up and carry it from the public domain to the private domain.
拉夫 不许人把东西从这一所房子掷到那一所,正是为这个缘故。
It was for this reason that Rav prohibited throwing an object from one house to another.
人若把合院的 合界 放在一间门屋里、或放在一处门廊里——那是有顶而无墙、或墙不齐全的屋宇——或是放在一处阳台上,这都算不得合式的 合界。住在那里、就是住在这几样屋宇中任何一样里的人,纵没有出那一份 合界,也不拦住那家主与同院其余的住户搬物。
人若把合院的 合界 放在一间门屋里、或放在一处门廊里——那是有顶而无墙、或墙不齐全的屋宇——或是放在一处阳台上,这都算不得合式的 合界。
With regard to one who placed his eiruv of courtyards in a gatehouse or in a portico, a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, or one who deposited it in a balcony, this is not a valid eiruv.
住在那里、就是住在这几样屋宇中任何一样里的人,纵没有出那一份 合界,也不拦住那家主与同院其余的住户搬物。
And one who resides there, in any of these structures, does not render it prohibited for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry, even if he did not contribute to the eiruv.
只是他若把 合界 放在禾秸库、牛棚、柴房或仓房里,那就算得合式的 合界,因那是看守得住的地方。住在那里而是得了准许的人,他若疏忽没有出那一份 合界,就拦住那家主与同院其余的住户不可搬物。拉比犹大 说:那家主若在那里、就是在那禾秸库或上头所列别的地方,有存放之权——就是他有权把那一处或其中一部分留作自己的用处——那么住在那里的人就不拦住那家主,因那一处算作家主的居处,住在那里的人算作他家中的人。
只是他若把 合界 放在禾秸库、牛棚、柴房或仓房里,那就算得合式的 合界,因那是看守得住的地方。
If, however, one deposited his eiruv in a hay shed or in a cowshed or in a woodshed or in a storehouse, this is a valid eiruv, as it is located in a properly guarded place.
住在那里而是得了准许的人,他若疏忽没有出那一份 合界,就拦住那家主与同院其余的住户不可搬物。
And one who resides there with permission, if he neglected to contribute to the eiruv, he renders it prohibited for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry.
拉比犹大 说:那家主若在那里、就是在那禾秸库或上头所列别的地方,有存放之权——就是他有权把那一处或其中一部分留作自己的用处——那么住在那里的人就不拦住那家主,因那一处算作家主的居处,住在那里的人算作他家中的人。
Rabbi Yehuda says: If the homeowner has there, in the hay shed or the other places listed above, a right of usage, i.e., if he is entitled to use all or part of the area for his own purposes, then the one who lives there does not render it prohibited for the homeowner, as the area is considered the homeowner’s quarters, and the person living there is classified as a member of his household.
拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·舍拉之子拉夫犹大 说:凡众贤者所说「住在那里的人不拦住同院其余住户搬物」的地方,人把自己的 合界 放在那里,就算不得合式的 合界——惟独一人所用的门屋是例外。一处屋宇若只一个人拿它作通路,他就不拦住同院其余的住户;放在那里的 合界 也算得合式的 合界。又凡众贤者所说「合院的 合界 不可放在那里」的地方,合巷道的却放得——惟独巷道的空处是例外,因它并不在哪一个院子里头。
拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·舍拉之子拉夫犹大 说:凡众贤者所说「住在那里的人不拦住同院其余住户搬物」的地方,人把自己的 合界 放在那里,就算不得合式的 合界——惟独一人所用的门屋是例外。
Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said: Any place with regard to which the Sages said that one who resides there does not render it prohibited for the other residents of the courtyard to carry, one who places his eiruv there, his is not a valid eiruv, except for a gatehouse that belongs to an individual.
一处屋宇若只一个人拿它作通路,他就不拦住同院其余的住户;放在那里的 合界 也算得合式的 合界。
If a structure is used as a passageway by only one person, he does not render it prohibited for the other residents of the courtyard, and an eiruv placed there is a valid eiruv.
又凡众贤者所说「合院的 合界 不可放在那里」的地方,合巷道的却放得——惟独巷道的空处是例外,因它并不在哪一个院子里头。
And any place with regard to which the Sages said that a joining of courtyards may not be placed there, a merging of alleyways may be placed there, except for the airspace of an alleyway, which is not inside one of the courtyards.
革玛拉 问:他这话教了我们什么呢?这一层我们在密释纳里已经学过了:人把自己的 合界 放在门屋、门廊或阳台上的,算不得合式的 合界。从密释纳可以推知:作 合界 不成,作合巷道倒成。那么他这话的新意在哪里呢?
革玛拉 问:他这话教了我们什么呢?
The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us by this?
这一层我们在密释纳里已经学过了:人把自己的 合界 放在门屋、门廊或阳台上的,算不得合式的 合界。
We have already learned this in the mishna: With regard to one who placed his eiruv in a gatehouse or in a portico or in a balcony, it is not a valid eiruv.
从密释纳可以推知:作 合界 不成,作合巷道倒成。
It can be inferred from the mishna that an eiruv, it is not, a merging of the alleyway, it is.
那么他这话的新意在哪里呢?
What, then, is novel in this statement?
答说:他所以要教「一人所用的门屋」与「巷道的空处」这两条 哈拉哈,是因我们在密释纳里并没有学过。有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 也这样教说:人把自己的 合界 放在门屋、或门廊、或阳台、或院子、或巷道里的,都算得合式的 合界。只是我们在密释纳里岂不是学过这算不得 合界 么?倒要说:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 当读作「这算得合式的合巷道」。
答说:他所以要教「一人所用的门屋」与「巷道的空处」这两条 哈拉哈,是因我们在密释纳里并没有学过。
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to teach the halakha of a gatehouse that belongs to an individual and the halakha of the airspace of an alleyway, which we did not learn in the mishna.
有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 也这样教说:人把自己的 合界 放在门屋、或门廊、或阳台、或院子、或巷道里的,都算得合式的 合界。
This was also taught in a baraita: One who placed his eiruv in a gatehouse, or in a portico, or in a balcony, or in a courtyard, or in an alleyway, this is a valid eiruv.
只是我们在密释纳里岂不是学过这算不得 合界 么?
But didn’t we learn in the mishna that this is not an eiruv?
倒要说:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 当读作「这算得合式的合巷道」。
Rather, you must say that the baraita should read: This is a valid merging of the alleyway.
革玛拉 提一难:只是人若把合巷道的食物放在巷道本身里,那是看守不住的,等于他并没有把那合巷道放在那里。倒要说:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 当读作「他若把自己合巷道的食物放在那巷道里的一个院子里,就算得合式」。
革玛拉 提一难:只是人若把合巷道的食物放在巷道本身里,那是看守不住的,等于他并没有把那合巷道放在那里。
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if one places the food of the merging of the alleyway in the alleyway itself, it is not properly guarded, which means that it is as though he has not placed the merging of the alleyway there at all.
倒要说:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 当读作「他若把自己合巷道的食物放在那巷道里的一个院子里,就算得合式」。
Rather, you must say that the baraita should read: If he placed his merging of the alleyway in a courtyard in the alleyway, it is valid.
拉夫犹大 说 撒母耳 说:一班人在安息日前夕同席吃饭,那日子在他们身上成了圣、就是安息日在他们正吃的时候进来了,他们可以倚着席上的饼当作院的 合界,这样众人在院里就都许搬物。也有人说:他们可以倚着那饼作巷道之合。
拉夫犹大 说 撒母耳 说:一班人在安息日前夕同席吃饭,那日子在他们身上成了圣、就是安息日在他们正吃的时候进来了,他们可以倚着席上的饼当作院的 合界,这样众人在院里就都许搬物。
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If there were a group of people who were dining together on Shabbat eve, and the day became sanctified for them, i.e., Shabbat began while they were eating, they may rely upon the bread on the table for an eiruv of courtyards, so that they are all permitted to carry in the courtyard.
也有人说:他们可以倚着那饼作巷道之合。
And some say they may rely on the bread for a merging of the alleyway.
拉巴 说:那两样传法在「这饼算作 合界 还是算作巷道之合」上并不相争。倒是这里说可以用作 合界 的,讲的是他们在屋里吃饭的情形,因存在屋内的食物当得院的 合界。反过来,那里讲的是他们在院里吃饭的情形,所以他们只可以倚着那饼作巷道之合,作不得 合界。
拉巴 说:那两样传法在「这饼算作 合界 还是算作巷道之合」上并不相争。
Rabba said: The two versions do not disagree with regard to whether the bread counts as an eiruv or a merging of the alleyway.
倒是这里说可以用作 合界 的,讲的是他们在屋里吃饭的情形,因存在屋内的食物当得院的 合界。
Rather, here, the teaching that states it can be used as an eiruv, is referring to a case where they are dining in the house, as food deposited in a house can be used as an eiruv for the courtyard.
反过来,那里讲的是他们在院里吃饭的情形,所以他们只可以倚着那饼作巷道之合,作不得 合界。
By contrast, there it is referring to a situation where they are dining in the courtyard, and they may therefore rely on the bread only as a merging of the alleyway but not as an eiruv.
阿巴耶 对 拉巴 说:有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教出来是撑先生的。合院的 合界 放在院子里,合巷道的放在巷道里。我们议过这条 《巴拉伊塔》,提出一难:合院的诸 合界 怎能放在院子里呢?我们在密释纳里岂不是学过:人把自己的 合界 放在门屋、或门廊、或阳台上的,算不得合式的 合界?这条密释纳分明见得:那 合界 不可放在院子的空处。倒要说:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 当这样读——合院的诸 合界 放在那院子里的一所房子里,合巷道的则放在通到那巷道的一个院子里。
阿巴耶 对 拉巴 说:有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教出来是撑先生的。
Abaye said to Rabba: A baraita was taught that supports you.
合院的 合界 放在院子里,合巷道的放在巷道里。
Joinings of courtyards are deposited in a courtyard, and mergings of alleyways are placed in an alleyway.
我们议过这条 《巴拉伊塔》,提出一难:合院的诸 合界 怎能放在院子里呢?
And we discussed this baraita and raised a difficulty: How can it be that eiruvin of courtyards are deposited in a courtyard?
我们在密释纳里岂不是学过:人把自己的 合界 放在门屋、或门廊、或阳台上的,算不得合式的 合界?
But didn’t we learn in the mishna: If one deposited his eiruv in a gatehouse, or in a portico, or in a balcony it is not a valid eiruv?
这条密释纳分明见得:那 合界 不可放在院子的空处。
The mishna clearly indicates that the eiruv may not be deposited in the airspace of a courtyard.
倒要说:那条 《巴拉伊塔》 当这样读——合院的诸 合界 放在那院子里的一所房子里,合巷道的则放在通到那巷道的一个院子里。
Rather, you must say that the baraita should read as follows: Eiruvin of a courtyard are placed in a house in that courtyard; whereas mergings of alleyways are placed in a courtyard that opens into that alleyway.
我们在密释纳里学过 拉比犹大 说:那家主若在那里、就是在那禾秸库或上头所列别的地方有存放之权,住在那里的人就不使那院子成为不许。革玛拉 问:怎样才算有存放之权呢?答说:譬如一个名叫 波尼奥斯 的人的院子——那是个极富的人,他许人在自己的产业上住下,又把自己许多物件中的几样存在拨给那些人住的地方。他既留着随时从他们住处取回自己物件的权,那几处就仍算作属 波尼奥斯 的居处,住在那里的人也就算作他家中的人。
我们在密释纳里学过 拉比犹大 说:那家主若在那里、就是在那禾秸库或上头所列别的地方有存放之权,住在那里的人就不使那院子成为不许。
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the homeowner has there, in the hay shed or one of the other places listed, a right of usage, the person living there does not render the courtyard prohibited.
革玛拉 问:怎样才算有存放之权呢?
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a right of usage?
答说:譬如一个名叫 波尼奥斯 的人的院子——那是个极富的人,他许人在自己的产业上住下,又把自己许多物件中的几样存在拨给那些人住的地方。
The Gemara answers: For example, the courtyard of a man named Bonyas, an extremely wealthy individual who allowed various people to take up residence on his property, and he kept some of his many possessions in the living quarters assigned to those people.
他既留着随时从他们住处取回自己物件的权,那几处就仍算作属 波尼奥斯 的居处,住在那里的人也就算作他家中的人。
As he retained the right to remove his articles from their apartments, those areas continued to be regarded as quarters belonging to Bonyas and the people living there were deemed members of his household.
革玛拉 又述一件与 波尼奥斯 的家资相干的事:波尼奥斯 的儿子到 拉比犹大·哈纳西 面前来。拉比犹大·哈纳西 从来客的衣服上看出自己所对的是个富人,就对左右的人说:给这有一百弥那、就是一万 祖兹 的人让路——这样身分的人,本当按他的家资得人尊敬。后来又有一个人到他面前来,拉比犹大·哈纳西 又转向左右的人,对他们说:
革玛拉 又述一件与 波尼奥斯 的家资相干的事:波尼奥斯 的儿子到 拉比犹大·哈纳西 面前来。
The Gemara relates another incident involving Bonyas and his wealth: The son of Bonyas came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
拉比犹大·哈纳西 从来客的衣服上看出自己所对的是个富人,就对左右的人说:给这有一百弥那、就是一万 祖兹 的人让路——这样身分的人,本当按他的家资得人尊敬。
Realizing from his visitor’s clothing that he was dealing with a wealthy individual, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his attendants: Make way for one who possesses one hundred maneh, i.e., one hundred times one hundred zuz, as one of this status deserves to be honored in accordance with his riches.
后来又有一个人到他面前来,拉比犹大·哈纳西 又转向左右的人,对他们说:
Later, another person came before him, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once again turned to his attendants and said to them: