危难之时、就是在城外耽搁有险的时候,他把那经匣遮盖起来,仍旧上路。
-
危难之时、就是在城外耽搁有险的时候,他把那经匣遮盖起来,仍旧上路。
And in a time of danger, when it is dangerous to tarry outside town, he covers the phylacteries and proceeds on his way.
← 移入纹卷总目·第十章 拾得经匣的
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。
危难之时、就是在城外耽搁有险的时候,他把那经匣遮盖起来,仍旧上路。
危难之时、就是在城外耽搁有险的时候,他把那经匣遮盖起来,仍旧上路。
And in a time of danger, when it is dangerous to tarry outside town, he covers the phylacteries and proceeds on his way.
拉比西缅 说另有一样递送经匣的办法:这一个把它交给离自己不到四肘的那一个,那一个再递给下一个,直递到城里最外头的院子。因在公共区里搬不到四肘本不是 妥拉 之律所禁的,所以这一样情形里,众贤者为经匣之圣,许人这样递送。
拉比西缅 说另有一样递送经匣的办法:这一个把它交给离自己不到四肘的那一个,那一个再递给下一个,直递到城里最外头的院子。
Rabbi Shimon says that there is an alternative method of transferring the phylacteries: One gives them to another who is less than four cubits from him, and the other passes them to another, until the phylacteries reach the outermost courtyard of the city.
因在公共区里搬不到四肘本不是 妥拉 之律所禁的,所以这一样情形里,众贤者为经匣之圣,许人这样递送。
Since carrying less than four cubits in a public domain is not prohibited by Torah law, in this case, the Sages permitted carrying in that manner due to the sanctity of the phylacteries.
照样,人的儿子若生在田野、安息日抱他不得——因那如同在公共区里担负重物——就把他交给那一个,那一个再递给下一个,纵要用一百个人也可以。拉比犹大 说:人连一个瓮也可以这样交给那一个、那一个再递给下一个,就这样连安息日之界以外也带得出去,只要没有一个人搬过四肘。他们对他说:这瓮不可走得比它主人的脚更远——就是不可搬到它主人所能走到之外。
照样,人的儿子若生在田野、安息日抱他不得——因那如同在公共区里担负重物——就把他交给那一个,那一个再递给下一个,纵要用一百个人也可以。
And similarly, with regard to one’s son who was born in a field and may not be carried on Shabbat, since that is akin to carrying a burden in the public domain: One gives him to another, and the other passes him to another, even if it requires a hundred people.
拉比犹大 说:人连一个瓮也可以这样交给那一个、那一个再递给下一个,就这样连安息日之界以外也带得出去,只要没有一个人搬过四肘。
Rabbi Yehuda says: A person may even give a barrel to another, and the other may pass it to another, and in that way even take it beyond the Shabbat limit, provided that no one person carries it more than four cubits.
他们对他说:这瓮不可走得比它主人的脚更远——就是不可搬到它主人所能走到之外。
They said to him: This barrel may not go a greater distance than the feet of its owner, i.e., it may not be carried any farther than its owner may walk.
我们在密释纳里学过:人在田里拾得经匣的,可以逐副戴着带回去;这就含着说:一副,是的,带得;一副以上,就不然,带不得。革玛拉 问:我们且说这条无名的密释纳不是依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思教的么——虽然通例是无名的密释纳多半合 拉比梅伊尔 的意思。
我们在密释纳里学过:人在田里拾得经匣的,可以逐副戴着带回去;这就含着说:一副,是的,带得;一副以上,就不然,带不得。
We learned in the mishna that a person who finds phylacteries in a field may carry them by pairs, indicating that one pair, yes, it may be carried; however, more than one pair, no, they may not be carried.
革玛拉 问:我们且说这条无名的密释纳不是依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思教的么——虽然通例是无名的密释纳多半合 拉比梅伊尔 的意思。
The Gemara asks: Let us say that we learned the unattributed mishna not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, despite the principle that an unattributed mishna usually reflects Rabbi Meir’s opinion.
因为你若说这条密释纳是依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,那么 拉比梅伊尔 岂不是说过:人为从火里抢救物件,可以把东西穿在身上带出屋去——他能穿多少衣服就穿多少,能裹多少物件就裹多少?因为我们在一条密释纳里学过:人把一切器皿搬到挨着火的那一院去,又把所能穿的衣服都穿上,把所能裹的物件都裹在身上,好抢救自己的家产。
因为你若说这条密释纳是依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,那么 拉比梅伊尔 岂不是说过:人为从火里抢救物件,可以把东西穿在身上带出屋去——他能穿多少衣服就穿多少,能裹多少物件就裹多少?
As, if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn’t Rabbi Meir say: In order to rescue items from a fire, one is permitted to remove items from his house by wearing them, and he dons all the clothes that he can wear, and wraps himself in all items in which he can wrap himself.
因为我们在一条密释纳里学过:人把一切器皿搬到挨着火的那一院去,又把所能穿的衣服都穿上,把所能裹的物件都裹在身上,好抢救自己的家产。
As we learned in a mishna: And one removes all the utensils to the courtyard adjacent to the fire, and dons all the garments that he can wear, and wraps himself in all the items in which he can wrap himself in order to rescue his property.
革玛拉 问:我们从哪里知道论安息日这条无名的密释纳正合 拉比梅伊尔 的意思呢?因为就那条密释纳教说:那里若有许多衣服,他就穿上几件、带到稳妥之处、在那里脱下来,再回到火那里、另穿几件、带出去脱下。他这样办,纵办一整日也可以;这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。可见照 拉比梅伊尔,人一次穿许多衣服是可以的。
革玛拉 问:我们从哪里知道论安息日这条无名的密释纳正合 拉比梅伊尔 的意思呢?
The Gemara asks: And from where do we know that this unattributed mishna with regard to Shabbat is a reflection of the opinion of Rabbi Meir?
因为就那条密释纳教说:那里若有许多衣服,他就穿上几件、带到稳妥之处、在那里脱下来,再回到火那里、另穿几件、带出去脱下。
As it teaches with regard to that mishna: If there are many garments there, one dons garments, and takes them out to a safe place, and removes them there, and returns to the fire, and dons other garments, and takes them out and removes them.
他这样办,纵办一整日也可以;这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。
And he may do so even all day long; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
可见照 拉比梅伊尔,人一次穿许多衣服是可以的。
Apparently, according to Rabbi Meir, one may don many garments at once.
拉瓦 答这一问说:你纵说这条密释纳是依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,两样之间也是有分别的。那里,他若照素常穿戴的样式穿上那几件衣服,众贤者就把安息日穿衣的身分定得与平日穿衣一样,许他这样穿着把衣服带出屋去。这里也是一样:他若照素常戴经匣的样式戴上,众贤者就把安息日戴经匣的身分定得与平日戴经匣一样。
拉瓦 答这一问说:你纵说这条密释纳是依 拉比梅伊尔 的意思,两样之间也是有分别的。
In answer to the question, Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, there is a distinction between the cases.
那里,他若照素常穿戴的样式穿上那几件衣服,众贤者就把安息日穿衣的身分定得与平日穿衣一样,许他这样穿着把衣服带出屋去。
There, if he dons the clothes in the manner that he typically wears them, the Sages rendered the legal status of wearing garments on Shabbat like the status of wearing garments during the week and permitted him to remove clothes from his house by wearing them in that manner.
这里也是一样:他若照素常戴经匣的样式戴上,众贤者就把安息日戴经匣的身分定得与平日戴经匣一样。
And here, too, if he dons phylacteries in the manner that he typically dons them, the Sages rendered the legal status of donning phylacteries on Shabbat like the status of donning phylacteries during the week.
所以那里,平日他愿意穿多少衣服就穿多少,那么论从火里抢救,众贤者也照样许他愿穿多少就穿多少。只是这里、论经匣,连平日也是戴一副,是的,戴得;戴一副以上,就不然,戴不得。所以论抢救,众贤者也说:戴一副,是的,戴得;戴一副以上,就不然,戴不得。
所以那里,平日他愿意穿多少衣服就穿多少,那么论从火里抢救,众贤者也照样许他愿穿多少就穿多少。
Consequently, there, where during the week he may wear as many clothes as he wishes, with regard to rescue from a fire the Sages likewise permitted him to wear as many clothes as he wishes.
只是这里、论经匣,连平日也是戴一副,是的,戴得;戴一副以上,就不然,戴不得。
However, here, in the case of phylacteries, even during the week, donning one pair, yes, one may do so, but donning more than one pair, no, he may not do so.
所以论抢救,众贤者也说:戴一副,是的,戴得;戴一副以上,就不然,戴不得。
Therefore, with regard to rescue as well, the Sages said: Donning one pair, yes, one may do so; however, donning more than one pair, no, he may not.
我们在密释纳里学过 拉班迦玛列 说:他可以每次带两副进去。革玛拉 问:他所执的是哪一样呢?这条 哈拉哈 的理路何在呢?他若执定安息日是当戴经匣的日子、人安息日许戴甚而当戴经匣,那么所断的就该是:戴一副,是的,许;再多,就不许。因人头上只安得下一副经匣,所以戴过一副是不许的。
我们在密释纳里学过 拉班迦玛列 说:他可以每次带两副进去。
We learned in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: He brings the phylacteries in two pairs by two pairs.
革玛拉 问:他所执的是哪一样呢?
The Gemara asks: What does he hold?
这条 哈拉哈 的理路何在呢?
What is the rationale for this halakha?
他若执定安息日是当戴经匣的日子、人安息日许戴甚而当戴经匣,那么所断的就该是:戴一副,是的,许;再多,就不许。
If he holds that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, and one is permitted or even obligated to don phylacteries on Shabbat, then the ruling should be: Donning one pair, yes, this is permitted; donning more, no, it is prohibited.
因人头上只安得下一副经匣,所以戴过一副是不许的。
It should be prohibited to wear more than one pair as there is room to don only one set of phylacteries on one’s head.
他若执定安息日不是当戴经匣的日子、众贤者所以许他戴,单是因抢救须照素常穿戴的样式办,那么他连两副以上也当许戴才是。他当许戴所能戴的一切副数,不单是两副。
他若执定安息日不是当戴经匣的日子、众贤者所以许他戴,单是因抢救须照素常穿戴的样式办,那么他连两副以上也当许戴才是。
And if he holds that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries, and it was only due to the fact that rescue was permitted only in the manner that one typically wears clothing that the Sages permitted him to don phylacteries, he should likewise be permitted to don even more than two pairs.
他当许戴所能戴的一切副数,不单是两副。
He should be permitted to don as many pairs of phylacteries as possible, not only two.
答说:其实他执定安息日不是当戴经匣的日子;众贤者为抢救之故许人戴经匣,单是许他照素常穿戴的样式戴、就是戴在经匣当戴之处。他不可戴在身上别处,因那样他就算作担负、不算穿戴了。
答说:其实他执定安息日不是当戴经匣的日子;众贤者为抢救之故许人戴经匣,单是许他照素常穿戴的样式戴、就是戴在经匣当戴之处。
The Gemara answers: Actually, he holds that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries, and when the Sages permitted one to don phylacteries for the purpose of rescue, it was only by donning them in the manner that one typically wears clothing, i.e., in the appropriate place for phylacteries.
他不可戴在身上别处,因那样他就算作担负、不算穿戴了。
He may not don them anywhere else on his body, as in that case he is considered to be carrying, not wearing them.
革玛拉 提一难:若是这样,那么一副,是的,当许;再多,就不当许,因第二副断然戴得不在本处。拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 说:人头上安得下两个经匣。他可以把两个经匣安在头上,两个都照本样戴着。
革玛拉 提一难:若是这样,那么一副,是的,当许;再多,就不当许,因第二副断然戴得不在本处。
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, then one pair, yes, it should be permitted, but more, no, it should not be permitted, as the second pair is necessarily positioned out of place.
拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 说:人头上安得下两个经匣。
Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: There is room on one’s head to place two phylacteries.
他可以把两个经匣安在头上,两个都照本样戴着。
One can place two phylacteries on his head and don them both in the proper manner.
革玛拉 问:论戴两个头上的经匣,因头上有地方,固然讲得通;只是论臂上的经匣,又怎么说呢?人怎能同时把两个经匣戴在臂上呢?
革玛拉 问:论戴两个头上的经匣,因头上有地方,固然讲得通;只是论臂上的经匣,又怎么说呢?
The Gemara asks: It works out well with regard to donning two phylacteries of the head, as there is room; however, with regard to the phylacteries of the arm, what is there to say?
人怎能同时把两个经匣戴在臂上呢?
How can one wear two phylacteries on his arm simultaneously?
答说:人纵把两个经匣戴在臂上,也仍算作照素常的样式戴,正合 拉夫胡纳 的意思。因为 拉夫胡纳 说:人有时从田里回来、头上顶着自己的一捆东西,为免压坏那经匣,就把它从头上取下、系在臂上。这就见得臂上还有安得下别的经匣的地方。
答说:人纵把两个经匣戴在臂上,也仍算作照素常的样式戴,正合 拉夫胡纳 的意思。
The Gemara answers that even when one dons two phylacteries on his arm, he is regarded as donning them in the typical manner, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna.
因为 拉夫胡纳 说:人有时从田里回来、头上顶着自己的一捆东西,为免压坏那经匣,就把它从头上取下、系在臂上。
As Rav Huna said: Sometimes a person comes from the field with his bundle on his head, and in order not to crush the phylacteries, he removes them from his head and binds them on his arm.
这就见得臂上还有安得下别的经匣的地方。
This indicates that there is room for additional phylacteries on his arm.
革玛拉 把这一说推开:你且说 拉夫胡纳 所说的是——人可以把经匣从头上取下、系在臂上,免得他把一捆东西压在上头、待它不敬。他何尝说过臂上那一处安得下两个经匣呢?从这里岂取得出「人 按理 可以在臂上多戴经匣」的凭据么?
革玛拉 把这一说推开:你且说 拉夫胡纳 所说的是——人可以把经匣从头上取下、系在臂上,免得他把一捆东西压在上头、待它不敬。
The Gemara rejects this: Say that Rav Huna said that one may remove the phylacteries from his head and tie them on his arm so that he will not come to treat them in a degrading manner by placing a bundle on top of them.
他何尝说过臂上那一处安得下两个经匣呢?
However, did he say that the spot on his arm is fit for two phylacteries?
从这里岂取得出「人 按理 可以在臂上多戴经匣」的凭据么?
Can proof be cited from here that one may don additional phylacteries on his arm ab initio?
倒不如照 拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 所说的:人头上安得下两个经匣。这里也是一样:臂上安得下两个经匣。
倒不如照 拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 所说的:人头上安得下两个经匣。
Rather, it is in accordance with that which Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: There is room on one’s head to place two phylacteries.
这里也是一样:臂上安得下两个经匣。
Here, too, there is room on the arm to place two phylacteries.
革玛拉 说:玛拿西 门下这样教过。经上说:「也要系在手上为记号,戴在额上为经文」(《申命记》六章八节)——「额上」原文作「在你两眼之间」。「系在手上」,指的是臂上的膀肉;「在你两眼之间」,指的是头顶。革玛拉 问:头顶上究竟是哪一处呢?拉比雅奈 门下说:经匣安在婴孩初生时头上柔软的那一处。
革玛拉 说:玛拿西 门下这样教过。
The Gemara comments: The school of Menashe taught the following.
经上说:「也要系在手上为记号,戴在额上为经文」(《申命记》六章八节)——「额上」原文作「在你两眼之间」。
The verse states: “And you shall bind them for a sign on your arm, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8).
「系在手上」,指的是臂上的膀肉;「在你两眼之间」,指的是头顶。
“On your arm,” this is the biceps muscle of the arm; “between your eyes,” this is the crown of the head.
革玛拉 问:头顶上究竟是哪一处呢?
The Gemara asks: Where exactly on the crown of the head?
拉比雅奈 门下说:经匣安在婴孩初生时头上柔软的那一处。
The school of Rabbi Yannai say: Phylacteries are placed on the spot where a baby’s head is soft after birth.
革玛拉 提说:我们且说密释纳里众 坦拿 所争的正是 拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 那一条——头一位 坦拿 不取 拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒「人头上安得下两个经匣」那一说,拉班迦玛列 却取它,所以许人一次带两副经匣进去。
革玛拉 提说:我们且说密释纳里众 坦拿 所争的正是 拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 那一条——头一位 坦拿 不取 拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒「人头上安得下两个经匣」那一说,拉班迦玛列 却取它,所以许人一次带两副经匣进去。
The Gemara asks: Let us say that the tanna’im of the mishna disagree about the principle of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, such that the first tanna is not of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak that there is room on one’s head for two phylacteries, while Rabban Gamliel is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, and therefore one is permitted to bring in two pairs of phylacteries at a time.
革玛拉 把这一说推开:不然,众人都取 拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 的意思;他们这里所争的,乃是安息日是不是当戴经匣的日子。头一位 坦拿 执定安息日是当戴经匣的日子。人虽可以戴一副经匣,却不可另戴一副、在那条诫命上有所增添。他若这样办,就等于担负着不许担的重物。
革玛拉 把这一说推开:不然,众人都取 拉夫撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 的意思;他们这里所争的,乃是安息日是不是当戴经匣的日子。
The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone is of the opinion of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not Shabbat is a time for phylacteries.
头一位 坦拿 执定安息日是当戴经匣的日子。
The first tanna holds that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries.
人虽可以戴一副经匣,却不可另戴一副、在那条诫命上有所增添。
Although one may don one pair of phylacteries, he may not add to the mitzva by donning an extra pair.
他若这样办,就等于担负着不许担的重物。
If he does so, it is tantamount to carrying a prohibited burden.
拉班迦玛列 却执定安息日不是当戴经匣的日子。所以人可以戴过一副,因那一日本全不宜戴经匣。他戴第二副的时候,并不是在那条诫命上有所增添。论抢救那经匣,它律法上的身分如同他许戴的一样饰物,只要所戴不过两副。
拉班迦玛列 却执定安息日不是当戴经匣的日子。
And Rabban Gamliel holds that Shabbat is not a time for phylacteries.
所以人可以戴过一副,因那一日本全不宜戴经匣。
Consequently, one may don more than one pair, as the day itself is not at all suitable for donning phylacteries.
他戴第二副的时候,并不是在那条诫命上有所增添。
When he dons the second pair, he is not adding to the mitzva.
论抢救那经匣,它律法上的身分如同他许戴的一样饰物,只要所戴不过两副。
With regard to rescuing them, the phylacteries have the legal status of an ornament that he is permitted to don, provided that he dons no more than two pairs.
你若愿意,也可以把这一争这样领会。众人都同意安息日是当戴经匣的日子;他们这里所争的,乃是行诸诫命须不须存着心意。头一位 坦拿 执定:行一条诫命须存着心意。所以人若戴经匣而无成全那诫命之意,那就算不得行了诫命,他不过是担负着重物罢了。只是他若存着成全那诫命之意,就不可戴过一副。他若戴过一副,便犯了「不可在诸诫命上有所增添」这一条。
你若愿意,也可以把这一争这样领会。
And if you wish, say instead that the dispute should be understood as follows.
众人都同意安息日是当戴经匣的日子;他们这里所争的,乃是行诸诫命须不须存着心意。
Everyone agrees that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not fulfillment of mitzvot requires intent.
头一位 坦拿 执定:行一条诫命须存着心意。
The first tanna holds: To fulfill a mitzva one needs intent.
所以人若戴经匣而无成全那诫命之意,那就算不得行了诫命,他不过是担负着重物罢了。
Therefore, if one dons phylacteries without intent to fulfill the mitzva, no mitzva is performed, and he is merely carrying a burden.
只是他若存着成全那诫命之意,就不可戴过一副。
However, if he has intent to fulfill the mitzva, he may don no more than one pair.
他若戴过一副,便犯了「不可在诸诫命上有所增添」这一条。
If he does so, he violates the prohibition against adding to mitzvot.
拉班迦玛列 却执定:行一条诫命并不须存着心意。所以人若戴两副经匣,他凭其中一副尽了本分,凭另一副却不算犯了「不可在诸诫命上有所增添」这一条。他若要算犯了,就得另存着凭那一副成全第二条诫命之意才行。
拉班迦玛列 却执定:行一条诫命并不须存着心意。
And Rabban Gamliel holds: In order to fulfill a mitzva, one does not need intent.
所以人若戴两副经匣,他凭其中一副尽了本分,凭另一副却不算犯了「不可在诸诫命上有所增添」这一条。
Therefore, if one dons two pairs of phylacteries he fulfills his obligation with one of them, but does not violate the prohibition against adding to mitzvot with the other.
他若要算犯了,就得另存着凭那一副成全第二条诫命之意才行。
In order to do so, he would require specific intent to fulfill a second mitzva with the additional pair.