← 逾越节卷总目·第二章 凡可食之时
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 20 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。
（接上面未完的一句）——而果汁并不叫面发起酵来；故拿这几样汁水和成的面，不算十足的酵。
——而果汁并不叫面发起酵来。
and fruit juice does not cause dough to be leavened.
故拿这几样汁水和成的面，不算作十足的酵。
Therefore, dough prepared with these liquids is not considered full-fledged leavened bread.
革玛拉转到密释纳所举的几件。密释纳说，分什一有疑的出产、并已分出 举祭 的头一份什一，都可以尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。革玛拉问：分什一有疑的出产当真可以尽这本分么？那本不是他该吃的——众贤禁人吃分什一有疑而未分的出产。答：他若情愿，尽可把自己一切的产业都舍了，作个穷人，穷人本可吃这一等出产；既是这样，如今这出产于他也算合宜的，纵他并没有真把产业宣作无主。故他若拿这等出产作了 无酵饼，事后而论，他已尽了这条诫命。
革玛拉转到密释纳所举的几件。
The Gemara turns to the cases of the mishna.
密释纳教过：分什一有疑的出产，并已分出 举祭 的头一份什一，都可以尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。
The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with doubtfully tithed produce and with produce of the first tithe, from which teruma has been separated.
革玛拉问：分什一有疑的出产，当真可以尽这本分么？
The Gemara asks: Can one really fulfill his obligation with doubtfully tithed produce?
那本不是他该吃的。
It is not suitable for him to eat.
众贤禁人吃那分什一有疑而未曾分过的出产。
The Sages prohibited the eating of doubtfully tithed produce that has not been tithed.
革玛拉答：他若情愿，尽可把自己一切的产业都舍了，如此便作了穷人，而穷人本是可吃这一等出产的；既是这样，如今这出产于他也算合宜的了，纵他并没有真把产业宣作无主。
The Gemara answers: Since, if one so desires he may renounce all his property, thereby becoming a poor person who is permitted to eat doubtfully tithed produce, now too it is suitable for him, even though he did not declare his property ownerless.
故他若拿这等出产作了 无酵饼，事后而论，他已算尽了这条诫命。
Consequently, if he used doubtfully tithed produce as matza, he has fulfilled the mitzva after the fact.
正如我们在一条密释纳里学过的：人可以拿分什一有疑的出产给穷人吃，也可以给住在他家里的犹太兵丁（驻兵）吃。拉夫胡纳 说所教的是：沙迈学派 说，这等出产既不可给穷人吃，也不可给兵丁吃；希列学派 说，可以给这两等人吃。这密释纳见得：分什一有疑的出产，所禁不如全未分过的那样重——有些光景里，那一层禁根本不发动。
正如我们在一条密释纳里学过的：人可以拿分什一有疑的出产给穷人吃，也可以给住在他家里的犹太兵丁（驻兵）吃。
As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, and he may also feed Jewish soldiers [akhsanya] who lodge with him doubtfully tithed produce.
拉夫胡纳 说，所教的是：沙迈学派 说，这等出产既不可给穷人吃，也不可给兵丁吃。
And Rav Huna said that it was taught that Beit Shammai say: One may neither feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, nor feed soldiers doubtfully tithed produce.
希列学派 说：这两等人都可以给他们吃。
And Beit Hillel say: One may feed these groups doubtfully tithed produce.
这一段密释纳见得：分什一有疑的出产所受的禁，不如全未分过的那样重——有些光景里，那一层禁根本不发动。
This mishna indicates that doubtfully tithed produce is not prohibited to the same extent as entirely untithed produce, as in certain situations the prohibition pertaining to doubtfully tithed produce does not take effect.
密释纳说，已把那一分 举祭（就是什一里的 举祭）分出来给了祭司的头一份什一，可以尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。革玛拉问：这岂不是明摆着的么——那一分 举祭 既已分出，所余的便是俗物了；这一句教了什么新事呢？
密释纳教过：头一份什一，已把其中那一分 举祭 分出来给了祭司的，可以尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。
The mishna taught that one can fulfill the obligation to eat matza with produce of the first tithe from which its teruma, the teruma of the tithe, was taken and given to a priest.
革玛拉问：这岂不是明摆着的么——那一分 举祭 既已分出，所余的便是俗物了。
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as, since its teruma has been taken, it is non-sacred food?
这一句究竟教了什么新事呢？
What novel element is taught by this statement?
答：不然，这一条 哈拉哈 仍有用，所说的是谷还在秆上时利未人抢在祭司之先的光景——照常例，利未人得他那头一份什一，是在祭司取了 大举祭 之后；这一件里，利未人却先取了自己的一分。他又从自己的什一里分出了什一的 举祭，好叫这什一可吃；可那 大举祭 却一点也不曾从这出产上分出来。这密释纳的新意，正合 拉比阿巴胡 所说的。
革玛拉答：不然，这一条 哈拉哈 仍有用处，所说的是谷还在秆上时利未人抢在祭司之先的光景。
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where a Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on its stalks.
照常例，利未人得他那头一份什一，是在祭司取了 大举祭 之后；这一件里，利未人却先取了自己的一分。
Ordinarily, the Levite would be given his first tithe only after the priest had taken the teruma gedola; however, in this case the Levite took his portion before the priest.
他又从自己的什一里分出了什一的 举祭，好叫这什一可吃；可那 大举祭，却一点也不曾从这出产上分出来。
And the teruma of the tithe was taken by the Levite from his tithe so that he would be permitted to eat the tithe; however, the teruma gedola was not taken from the produce at all.
这密释纳的新意，正合 拉比阿巴胡 所说的。
And the novel element of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu.
拉比阿巴胡 传 拉比西缅·本·拉基什 说：头一份什一，若是谷还在秆上时利未人抢在祭司之先取的，便免了 大举祭，纵然利未人这样一取，祭司所得的谷就少了。经上说「你晓谕利未人说：你们从以色列人中所取的十分之一，就是我给你们为业的，要再从那十分之一中取十分之一作为举祭献给耶和华」（民数记 18:26）——这一节教人：利未人当从那什一里再分出十分之一，就是什一的 举祭；并不是要他从那什一里既分 大举祭、又分什一的 举祭。
拉比阿巴胡 传 拉比西缅·本·拉基什 说：头一份什一，若是谷还在秆上时利未人抢在祭司之先取了的，便免了 大举祭，纵然利未人这样一取，祭司所得的谷就少了。
As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: First tithe in which the Levite preceded the priest while the grain was still on the stalks is exempt from teruma gedola, even though the Levite thereby reduces the amount of grain the priest receives.
经上说：「你晓谕利未人说：你们从以色列人中所取的十分之一，就是我给你们为业的，要再从那十分之一中取十分之一作为举祭献给耶和华」（民数记 18:26）。
As it is stated: “Moreover you shall speak to the Levites and say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them as your inheritance, and you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, a tithe from the tithe” (Numbers 18:26).
这一节教人：利未人当从那什一里再分出十分之一，就是什一的 举祭；并不是要他从那什一里既分 大举祭，又分什一的 举祭。
This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart a tithe from the tithe, i.e., the teruma of the tithe, and not teruma gedola and the teruma of the tithe from the tithe.
拉夫帕帕 对 阿巴耶 说：若是这样，纵谷粒已经打下、堆作一堆，利未人抢在祭司之先取了的，也不该分 大举祭 才是。阿巴耶 对他说：论你这一问，经上说「奉给你们的一切礼物，要从其中将至好的，就是分别为圣的，献给耶和华为举祭」（民数记 18:29）——这一节教人：利未人所得的礼物，也当分出一分给祭司。
拉夫帕帕 对 阿巴耶 说：若是这样，纵谷粒已经打下、堆作一堆，利未人抢在祭司之先取了的，这一件里他也不该分 大举祭 才是。
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: However, if that is so, even if the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed in a pile, the Levite should not have to separate teruma gedola in this case either.
阿巴耶 对他说：论你这一问，经上说：「奉给你们的一切礼物，要从其中将至好的，就是分别为圣的，献给耶和华为举祭」（民数记 18:29）。
Abaye said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart all of that which is the Lord’s teruma, of all the best of it, even its consecrated portion” (Numbers 18:29).
这一节教人：利未人所得的礼物，当分出一分来给祭司。
This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of the gifts they receive and give it to the priests.
革玛拉问：你凭什么定「堆作一堆之谷所取的头一份什一当分 大举祭，秆上所取的不必」呢？阿巴耶 答：这一样打过、堆起来了，事已作完，成了「五谷」；那一样还在秆上，还没成「五谷」，故利未人免分 大举祭。堆作一堆的出产，托拉称它作五谷，是要给祭司的；它一入五谷之列，祭司的分便有了着落，利未人就当从其中分出 大举祭。
革玛拉问：你凭什么定——堆作一堆之谷所取的头一份什一当分 大举祭，秆上所取的却不必呢？
The Gemara asks: And what did you see to lead you to require the separation of teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks?
阿巴耶 答：这一样打过了、堆起来了，事已作完，成了五谷；那一样还在秆上，还不曾成五谷，故利未人免分 大举祭。
Abaye answers: This produce, after being threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain; and that produce on the stalk did not yet become grain, and the Levite is therefore exempt from separating teruma gedola from it.
堆作一堆的出产，托拉称它作五谷，是要给祭司的。
Produce that has been arranged in a pile is called grain by the Torah and is given to the priest.
它一入五谷之列，祭司的分便有了着落，利未人就当从其中分出 大举祭。
Once it is classified as grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola from it.
密释纳说，第二份什一之谷与赎过的圣谷，可以尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。革玛拉问：这也是明摆着的——圣谷既赎过了，便是俗物。答：这里所说的是哪一种光景呢？是那圣物不曾赎全的光景：他付了本值、就是那什一之值，却没付赎圣物当加的五分之一。这密释纳是教我们：没加那五分之一，并不废了这一赎。那五分之一虽是当付的，不付却拦不住这谷成为俗物。
密释纳教过：第二份什一之谷，与赎过的圣谷，都可以尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。
The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe grain and with consecrated grain that was redeemed.
革玛拉问：这也是明摆着的——圣谷既已赎过，便是俗物了。
The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as consecrated grain that has been redeemed is non-sacred produce.
革玛拉答：这里所说的是哪一种光景呢？
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here?
所说的是那圣物不曾赎全的光景：他付了本值、就是那什一之值，却没有付赎圣物时当加的五分之一。
We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the additional fifth due when redeeming consecrated items.
这密释纳是教我们：没加那五分之一，并不废了这一赎。
And the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption.
那五分之一虽是当付的，可他不付，也拦不住这谷成为俗物。
Although there is an obligation to pay this additional fifth, the neglect of this duty does not prevent the grain from becoming non-sacred.
密释纳又说，祭司可拿 面团举祭 或 举祭 所作的 无酵饼 尽这本分。革玛拉又问：这也是明摆着的——祭司既可吃 面团举祭 与 举祭，自然可拿它们尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。答：这一判仍有用，免得你说我们所要的 无酵饼 须是人人都一样可吃的；若是那样，寻常以色列人不可吃的 无酵饼，于祭司也当是禁的。故这密释纳教我们：「无酵饼」「无酵饼」两处重出（申命记 16:3、16:8）是要放宽——纵是惟独某些人可吃的食物，人也可以拿它尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。
密释纳又教过：祭司可以拿 面团举祭 或 举祭 所作的 无酵饼 尽这本分。
And the mishna further taught that priests can fulfill their obligation with matza of ḥalla and with teruma.
革玛拉又问：这也是明摆着的。
The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case.
祭司既可吃 面团举祭 与 举祭，自然可以拿它们尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。
Since a priest is permitted to eat ḥalla and teruma, he can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with them.
革玛拉答：这一判仍是要紧的，免得你说：我们所要的 无酵饼 须是人人都一样可吃的——若是那样，寻常以色列人不可吃的 无酵饼，于祭司也当是禁的。
The Gemara responds: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, lest you say that we require matza that may be eaten equally by anyone, which would mean that matza that may not be eaten by regular Israelites is prohibited to priests as well.
故这密释纳教我们：「无酵饼」「无酵饼」两处重出（申命记 16:3、16:8）是要放宽——纵是惟独某些人可吃的食物，人也可以拿它尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。
The mishna therefore teaches us that the repetition of the words “matzot,” “matzot” (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) comes to amplify, i.e., one can fulfill one’s obligation to eat matza even with foods that may be eaten only by specific people.
我们在密释纳里学过：未分什一之物不能尽这本分。革玛拉问：这也是明摆着的——未分什一之物 本是一概不许吃的。革玛拉解说：不然，这条 哈拉哈 仍有用，所说的是按拉比之律算未分什一、按托拉之律却是许吃的光景。譬如人种在无孔的花盆里的谷：凡离了地长成的，算不得地里的出产，其主按托拉之律免分什一；可按拉比之律，种在无孔花盆里的谷仍算未分什一之物。
我们在密释纳里学过：未分什一之物不能尽这本分。
We learned in the mishna: However, one may not fulfill this obligation with untithed produce.
革玛拉问：这也是明摆着的——未分什一之物 本是一概不许吃的。
The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as it is always prohibited to eat tevel.
革玛拉解说：不然，这条 哈拉哈 仍有用处，所说的是按拉比之律算作未分什一、按托拉之律却是许吃的光景。
The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to teach this halakha in a case where it is considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, and by Torah law the produce is permitted.
譬如人种在无孔花盆里的谷。
For instance, this is the case with regard to grain that one sowed in an unperforated flowerpot.
凡离了地长成的，算不得地里的出产，其主按托拉之律免分什一。
Anything grown disconnected from the ground is not defined as produce of the ground, and its owner is exempt by Torah law from tithing it.
可按拉比之律，种在无孔花盆里的谷仍算作未分什一之物。
However, by rabbinic law, grain sowed in an unperforated flowerpot is considered untithed.
密释纳又说：头一份什一未分出其中那一分 举祭（什一的 举祭）的，所作的 无酵饼 不能尽这本分。革玛拉问：这也是明摆着的——那出产本不可吃。答：不然，这一句仍有用，所说的是谷粒已堆作一堆、大举祭 尚未分出之时，利未人抢在祭司之先取了的光景。
密释纳里又教过：头一份什一，未曾分出其中那一分 举祭、就是什一的 举祭 的，所作的 无酵饼 不能尽这本分。
It was also taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation with matza from produce of the first tithe, whose teruma, teruma of the tithe, was not taken.
革玛拉问：这也是明摆着的——那出产本是不可吃的。
The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as this produce may not be eaten.
革玛拉答：不然，这密释纳所以要教这一句，是就谷粒已堆作一堆、大举祭 却还没分出之时，利未人抢在祭司之先取了的光景说的。
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile but before teruma gedola was separated from the produce.
革玛拉细说：免得你像 拉夫帕帕 对 阿巴耶 所说的那样，以为那一件里利未人也当免分 大举祭，这密释纳的 坦拿 便教我们——正如 阿巴耶 答 拉夫帕帕 所说的——谷在秆上与谷堆作一堆，两者有别；故这出产未分 大举祭 以先不可吃。
革玛拉细说：免得你像 拉夫帕帕 对 阿巴耶 所说的那样，以为那一件里利未人也当免分 大举祭，这密释纳的 坦拿 便教我们——正如 阿巴耶 答 拉夫帕帕 所说的——谷还在秆上与谷已堆作一堆，两者是有别的。
The Gemara elaborates: Lest you say, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case too, the Levite should be exempt from the requirement to separate teruma gedola from this produce, the tanna of the mishna teaches us, as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between a case when the grain was on the stalks and when it was collected in a pile.
故这出产未分出 大举祭 以先，是不可吃的。
Therefore, one may not eat this produce before separating teruma gedola from it.
密释纳又说：第二份什一或未赎的圣谷，不能尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。革玛拉问：这岂不也是明摆着的——这几样本不许吃？
密释纳里又教过：第二份什一之谷，或是未赎的圣谷，不能尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。
It was further taught in the mishna: And one does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza with second-tithe produce or consecrated grain that was not redeemed.
革玛拉问：这岂不也是明摆着的么——这几样本是不许吃的。
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that, too, obvious, as it is prohibited to eat these foods?
答：其实所说的是赎过了的；那么「未赎」是什么意思呢？是说赎得不合式——譬如拿一块 无印银块 赎第二份什一之谷。因慈悲之主论赎第二份什一说：「你就可以换成银子，将银子拿在手中，往耶和华你神所要选择的地方去」（申命记 14:25）。「将银子捆起来」（וְצַרְתָּ）一语，见得所换的须是有形（צוּרָה）之物，不可是没打印的金属块。
革玛拉答：其实所说的是赎过了的；那么「未赎」这一语又是什么意思呢？
The Gemara answers: Actually, this is speaking of a case where they were redeemed, and what is the meaning of the expression: They were not redeemed?
是说赎得不合式：譬如拿一块 无印银块 去赎第二份什一之谷。
It means that they were not redeemed properly, e.g., second-tithe grain that was redeemed with an unminted coin [asimon].
因慈悲之主论赎第二份什一说：「你就可以换成银子，将银子拿在手中，往耶和华你神所要选择的地方去」（申命记 14:25）。
As the Merciful One says with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: “And you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 14:25).
「将银子捆起来」一语（וְצַרְתָּ），见得所换的须是有 צוּרָה 之物，不可是没打印的金属块。
The phrase “and bind up [ve’tzarta] the money” indicates that the produce must be exchanged for an object that has a form [tzura], not unminted metal.
至于圣物，所说的是他拿地来赎、不拿银子赎的光景，因慈悲之主说：「他要在你所估定的价值以外加上五分之一，地就定准归他」（利未记 27:19）。人若拿地赎圣物、不拿银子赎，那圣的分位并不转到地上去。
至于圣物，这里所说的是他拿地来赎、不拿银子赎的光景，因慈悲之主说：「他要在你所估定的价值以外加上五分之一，地就定准归他」（见利未记 27:19）。
And with regard to consecrated property, we are dealing with a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, as the Merciful One says: “And he will give the fifth part of the money of your valuation unto it and it shall be assured to him” (see Leviticus 27:19).
人若拿地赎圣物、不拿银子赎，那圣的分位并不转到地上去。
If one redeemed consecrated property with land rather than money, the consecrated status is not transferred to the land.
众贤教：我本可以为人拿未分什一、又不曾整治过的出产，也能尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。革玛拉先辨「未分什一、又不曾整治」这看似多余的一语：凡未分什一之物，按其名目岂不本来就是不曾整治的么？
众贤教：我本可以为，人拿那未分什一、又不曾整治过的出产，也能尽吃 无酵饼 的本分。
The Sages taught: I might have thought that a person fulfills his obligation to eat matza with untithed produce that was not amended with regard to tithes.
革玛拉先辨「未分什一、又不曾整治过」这看似多余的一语。
The Gemara analyzes the apparently redundant phrase untithed produce that was not amended.
凡未分什一之物，按它的名目，岂不本来就是不曾整治过的么？
But isn’t all untithed produce also not amended, by definition?
不如说：这条 《巴拉伊塔》 所说的，是整治得不全的未分什一之物。怎样算不全呢？譬如已分了 大举祭、却不曾分什一的 举祭；或是分了头一份什一、不曾分第二份什一；或是诸样什一都分了，只差济贫的那一份什一——济贫的什一虽不带什么圣，不过是给穷人的一笔银钱，可这一份未分以先，那谷仍算未分什一之物。这几样不可作 无酵饼，是从哪里得来的呢？
不如说：这条 《巴拉伊塔》 所说的，是整治得不全的未分什一之物。
Rather, this baraita is referring to untithed produce that was incompletely amended.
怎样算不全呢？
How so?
譬如那出产已分了 大举祭，却不曾分出什一的 举祭。
For example, produce from which teruma gedola was taken, but the teruma of the tithe was not taken from it.
或是分了头一份什一，不曾分第二份什一；或是诸样什一都分了，只差济贫的那一份什一。
Alternatively, the first tithe was separated from the produce, but not the second tithe; or, it is referring even to grain from which all the tithes were separated, apart from the poor man’s tithe.
济贫的什一虽不带什么圣，不过是给穷人的一笔银钱；可这一份未分以先，那谷仍算作未分什一之物。
Although no sanctity applies to the poor man’s tithe, which is simply a monetary gift to the poor, until this tithe has been separated the grain remains untithed.
这几等谷不可用来作 无酵饼，是从哪里得来的呢？
From where is it derived that these types of grain cannot be used for matza?
经上说：「你吃这祭牲，不可吃有酵的饼；七日之内要吃无酵饼」（申命记 16:3）。可见人可拿来尽吃 无酵饼 之本分的，须是那单单因「不可同吃有酵的饼」一条而受禁的（就是它若不曾守住无酵）；这就排开了这一等谷——它所受的禁不是「不可吃有酵的」，乃是「不可吃未分什一之物」。
经上说：「你吃这祭牲，不可吃有酵的饼；七日之内要吃无酵饼」（申命记 16:3）。
The verse states: “You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza” (Deuteronomy 16:3).
可见人可拿来尽吃 无酵饼 之本分的，须是那单单因「不可同吃有酵的饼」这一条而受禁的，就是说它若不曾守住无酵。
One fulfills his obligation to eat matza with food whose prohibition is solely due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread with it, if it was not preserved in an unleavened state.
这一句便排开了这一等谷：它所受的禁不是「不可吃有酵的」，乃是「不可吃未分什一之物」。
This command excludes this grain, which is not prohibited due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread, but rather due to the prohibition: Do not eat untithed produce.
革玛拉诧异这条 《巴拉伊塔》：那「不可吃有酵的」一禁，到哪里去了呢——难道「你不可吃有酵的饼」一句于未分什一之物就不管了么？拉夫舍舍特 说：这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是谁的意思呢？是 拉比西缅 的意思——他说：一禁不落在已有一禁之物上。物既已受禁（如未分什一之谷），别的禁便不能再加其上；故「不可吃有酵的」一禁，不落在未分什一之物上。正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教，拉比西缅 说：——本面末句未完，接叶三十六正。
革玛拉诧异这条 《巴拉伊塔》。
The Gemara expresses surprise at this baraita.
那「不可吃有酵的」一禁，到哪里去了呢？
And the prohibition of leavened bread, where did it go?
换句话说：「你不可吃有酵的饼」这一条，于未分什一之物就不管了么？
In other words, doesn’t the prohibition: “You shall not eat leavened bread” apply to untithed produce as well?
拉夫舍舍特 说：这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是照谁的意思说的呢？
Rav Sheshet said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
是照 拉比西缅 的意思——他说：一禁不落在已有一禁之物上。
It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.
物既已受了禁，譬如未分什一之谷，别的禁便不能再加在它上头。
No additional prohibitions can apply to an object that is already prohibited, e.g., untithed grain.
既是这样，「不可吃有酵的」一禁，便不落在未分什一之物上。
Consequently, the prohibition of leavened bread does not take effect on untithed produce.
正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教，拉比西缅 说：——
As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: