← 逾越节卷总目·第三章 这些犯禁之物
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 24 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）——因拿细耳人与赎罪祭那两处，是「两节同为一事而来」，就是同教一条通则；而两节同教一条的，那一条不可再据以类推。
——因拿细耳人的几条 哈拉哈 与赎罪祭的几条，是「两节同为一事而来」，就是同教一条通则；而两节同教一条的，那一条便不可再据以类推。
due to the fact that the halakhot of a nazirite and those of a sin-offering are two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same principle, and two verses that teach the same principle do not teach that principle by analogy.
革玛拉细说：拿细耳人一件里「许物与禁物合算」的出处，就是上头所说的。至于赎罪祭，那出处在哪里呢？在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里，解「凡挨了赎罪祭肉的，都要成为圣」（利未记 6:20）一节：我本可以为，俗肉挨着赎罪祭的哪一处都成了禁的，纵不曾吸着那祭的味也一样；故经上说「挨了它的肉，都要成为圣」，教人：除非那祭的味吸进了这肉里，它并不成圣。
革玛拉细说：拿细耳人这一件里「许物与禁物合算」的出处，就是我们上头所说的。
The Gemara elaborates: The derivation that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance in the case of a nazirite is that which we stated above.
至于赎罪祭，「许物与禁物合算」的出处又在哪里呢？
With regard to a sin-offering, what is the derivation that permitted material combines with prohibited material?
在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里，解这一节经文：「凡挨了赎罪祭肉的，都要成为圣」（利未记 6:20）。
As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Anything that touches in its flesh shall become consecrated” (Leviticus 6:20).
我本可以为：俗肉挨着赎罪祭的哪一处都成了禁的，纵不曾吸着那祭的味也一样。
I might have thought that non-sacred meat that touched any part of a sin-offering is rendered prohibited even if it did not absorb the taste of the sin-offering it touched.
故经上说「挨了它的肉，都要成为圣」，教人：除非那赎罪祭的味吸进了这肉里，它并不成圣。
Therefore, the verse states: In its flesh shall become consecrated, to teach that this meat is not consecrated until the taste of the sin-offering is absorbed within its flesh.
那 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：「都要成为圣」是说它的分位如同赎罪祭本身——那祭若废了，这肉也废；那祭若合式，挨了它的肉便当照赎罪祭那更严的规矩吃，何时吃、何处吃都照它。可见「许物与禁物合算」这条通则于赎罪祭一件也管用。既是这样，这条通则便不可推及全托拉，因一条 哈拉哈 说在两处的，便不再推到别处去。
那 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：「都要成为圣」是说它的分位如同那赎罪祭本身——那赎罪祭若废了，这肉也一同废了。
The baraita continues: Shall become consecrated means that its legal status becomes like that of the sin-offering itself; that is, if the sin-offering is disqualified, this meat will also be disqualified.
那赎罪祭若是合式的，挨了它的肉便当照赎罪祭那更严的规矩吃，何时可吃、何处可吃，都照它的规矩。
And if the sin-offering is valid, the meat that touched it may be eaten in accordance with the more stringent standards of a sin-offering as far as when and where it may be eaten.
可见「许物与禁物合算」这条通则，于赎罪祭这一件也是管用的。
The principle that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance applies in the case of a sin-offering as well.
既是这样，这条通则便不可推及全托拉，因一条 哈拉哈 既说在两处，便不再推到别处去。
Therefore, the principle cannot be extended to the entire Torah, as a halakha stated in two cases is not applied elsewhere.
革玛拉问：照众拉比说，拿细耳人与赎罪祭两件岂不也当算作「两节同为一事而来」，故「其味之分位如同其物」这一条也不可推及全托拉么？
革玛拉问：照众拉比说，拿细耳人与赎罪祭这两件岂不也当算作「两节同为一事而来」，如此则「其味之分位如同其物」这一条，也不可推及全托拉么？
The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis as well, let the cases of a nazirite and a sin-offering be considered two verses that come as one and they do not teach the principle that the legal status of taste is like that of the substance with regard to the entire Torah.
革玛拉答：众拉比说，这两处各有各的用处，彼此推不出来；故它们不算「两节同为一事而来」，从这两条 哈拉哈 便推得出一条通则。
革玛拉答：众拉比说，这两处各有各的用处，彼此是推不出来的。
The Gemara answers that the Rabbis say: Both of these cases are necessary as they could not have been derived from each other.
既是这样，它们便不算「两节同为一事而来」，从这两条 哈拉哈 便推得出一条通则。
Therefore, they are not two verses that come as one and it is possible to derive a principle from these two halakhot.
革玛拉问：拉比阿奇瓦 不从这两节推通则，他必这样诘：各有什么用处呢？慈悲之主若单写在赎罪祭上，拿细耳人一件固然推不出来，因俗物的 哈拉哈 推不得于圣物；可他何不单写在拿细耳人上，赎罪祭一件便从拿细耳人推得出来——正如全托拉诸禁都是从拿细耳人推来的。这条通则既在两处都说了而其一本不必说，那便是「两节同为一事而来」，从它们推不出通则。
革玛拉问：拉比阿奇瓦 不从这两节推通则，他必这样诘：各有什么用处呢？
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Akiva, who does not derive a general principle from these verses, would respond by asking: In what way are they necessary?
慈悲之主若单写在赎罪祭上，拿细耳人这一件固然推不出来，因俗物的几条 哈拉哈 推不得于圣物。
Granted, if the Merciful One had written this principle only with regard to a sin-offering, one would not derive the halakha of a nazirite from it, as we do not derive halakhot of non-sacred objects from those of consecrated objects.
圣物上另有几样严处与拘限，是俗物所没有的。
Certain stringencies and strictures apply only to consecrated property.
可他何不单写在拿细耳人上呢？赎罪祭这一件便可从拿细耳人推得出来，正如全托拉诸禁都是从拿细耳人一件推来的。
However, let the Merciful One write this principle with regard to a nazirite, and you could bring the case of the sin-offering and derive it from the case of a nazirite, just as the application of this principle to all prohibitions in the Torah is derived from the halakha of a nazirite.
这条通则既在两处都说了、而其一本不必说，那便是「两节同为一事而来」，从它们是推不出通则来的。
Since this principle is stated in both cases unnecessarily, these are two verses that come as one, and one cannot derive a principle from them.
革玛拉问：众拉比既不把「其味之分位如同其物」限在这两件上，他们必对你说：这两处各有用处。赎罪祭那一处是要推出「许物与禁物合算」，因俗物的 哈拉哈 推不得于圣物；拿细耳人那里的「泡」字，是要教「其味之分位如同其物」。两样既各有用处，便不算「两节同为一事而来」，从它们便推得出通则；从这里你就推得托拉全部的 哈拉哈。
革玛拉问：众拉比既不把「其味之分位如同其物」这一条限在这两件上，他们必对你说：这两处各有各的用处。
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, as they maintain that the principle that the legal status of the taste of a prohibited substance is like that of the substance itself is not limited to these two cases, they would say to you that both sources are necessary.
赎罪祭那一处是要推出「许物与禁物合算」，因俗物的几条 哈拉哈 推不得于圣物。
The case of the sin-offering is necessary to derive the principle that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance, as one cannot derive the halakhot of non-sacred food from consecrated property.
至于拿细耳人几条律里的那个「泡」字，是要教「其味之分位如同其物」。
And the term soaked, which appears in the context of the halakhot of a nazirite, teaches the principle that the legal status of taste is like that of the substance.
两样既各有用处，便不算「两节同为一事而来」，从它们便推得出一条通则。
Since both examples are necessary, they are not considered two verses that come as one, and it is therefore possible to derive a principle from them.
从这里，你就推得托拉全部的 哈拉哈。
And consequently from here you derive the halakha with regard to all of the Torah in its entirety.
革玛拉问：拉比阿奇瓦 又怎样答这一说呢？答：拉比阿奇瓦 必说，这两处所教的同是「许物与禁物合算」，故果然是「两节同为一事而来」，同教一层；而通例是：凡两节同为一事而来的，都不立通则。
革玛拉问：拉比阿奇瓦 又怎样答这一说呢？
The Gemara asks: And how could Rabbi Akiva respond to this claim?
革玛拉答：拉比阿奇瓦 必说，这两处所教的同是「许物与禁物合算」，故它们果然是「两节同为一事而来」，同教一层。
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva would say that both cases teach the principle that a permitted substance joins together with a prohibited substance, and they are indeed two verses that come as one, to teach about the same issue.
而通例是：凡两节同为一事而来的，都不立通则。
And the rule is that any two verses that come as one do not teach overarching principles.
拉夫阿施 对 拉夫卡哈纳 说：可一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教过：「凡葡萄树上结的，自核至皮所作的物，都不可吃」（民数记 6:4）一节，是教人拿细耳人所禁的这几样彼此合算；他若各样只吃一点点，合起来够了那受罚的分量，便当受罚。这就生出一问：照 拉比阿奇瓦——他以为禁物与许物尚且合算——还用得着教「禁物与禁物合算」么？看来照他的意思，这一层是不必推的。
拉夫阿施 对 拉夫卡哈纳 说：可一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教过：「凡葡萄树上结的，自核至皮所作的物，都不可吃」（民数记 6:4）这一节，是就拿细耳人所禁的几样教人它们彼此合算。
Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: The verse: “He shall eat nothing that is made of the grapevine, from the grape skins to the grape seed” (Numbers 6:4), taught with regard to prohibitions of a nazirite that these substances join together.
他若各样只吃一点点，合起来够了那定罪的分量，便当受罚。
If the nazirite ate only a small amount of each substance that when joined together constitute the measure that determines liability, he is liable.
这就生出一问：照 拉比阿奇瓦——他以为禁物与许物尚且合算——还用得着教「这一样禁物与那一样禁物合算」么？
Now the following question arises: According to Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that prohibited and permitted substances join together, is it necessary to teach that one prohibited substance joins together with another prohibited substance?
看来照 拉比阿奇瓦 的意思，这一层是不必推的。
Apparently, according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, this derivation is unnecessary.
拉夫卡哈纳 对他说：这一层仍须推，因两件并不一样——禁物与许物，惟有一同吃下去才合算；禁物与禁物，纵先后分着吃，也一样合算。换句话说：拿细耳人先吃了半橄榄大的葡萄皮，随后又吃了半橄榄大的葡萄核，照 拉比阿奇瓦 他仍当受罚。
拉夫卡哈纳 对他说：这一层仍是要推的，因这两件并不一样——禁物与许物，惟有一同吃下去才合算；禁物与禁物，纵先后分着吃，也一样合算。
Rav Kahana said to him that this derivation is necessary because the two cases are not identical: Whereas prohibited and permitted substances combine only when they are eaten simultaneously, prohibited and other prohibited substances join together even when eaten one after the other.
换句话说：拿细耳人先吃了半橄榄大的葡萄皮，随后又吃了半橄榄大的葡萄核，照 拉比阿奇瓦，他仍当受罚。
In other words, if a nazirite eats half an olive-bulk of grape skins and then eats half an olive-bulk of grape seeds, he is liable according to Rabbi Akiva.
新一段密释纳：和面盆的裂缝里嵌着面团的，若一处有一橄榄大，便当把它除去；若不够这分量，那面便因微不足道而化去。
和面盆的裂缝里嵌着面团的：若一处有一橄榄大，便当把它除去。
With regard to dough that is in the cracks of a kneading bowl, if there is an olive-bulk of dough in one place, one is obligated to remove it.
那面若不够这分量，便因它微不足道而化去。
And if the dough does not add up to this amount, it is nullified due to its insignificance.
照样，论浸盆除不洁的几条 哈拉哈：他若在意那嵌在缝里的面、打算把它取出来使用，那面便算作一样外来之物，隔在盆与浸池的水之间，废了这一浸，那盆仍是不洁的。他若愿那面留在原处，它的分位便如同和面盆本身，不算隔物。
照样，论浸这盆以除不洁的几条 哈拉哈：他若在意那嵌在缝里的面、打算把它取出来使用，那面便算作一样外来之物，隔在和面盆与浸池的水之间，废了这一浸，叫那盆仍是不洁的。
And similarly, with regard to the halakhot of immersion to purify the bowl from ritual impurity, if one is particular about the dough that is stuck in the cracks and he plans to remove it and use it, it is a foreign substance that interposes between the kneading bowl and the water of the ritual bath, and invalidates the immersion of the bowl, leaving it ritually impure.
他若愿那面留在原处，它的分位便如同和面盆本身，不算作隔物。
And if he wants the dough to remain in place, its status is like that of the kneading bowl itself and is not an interposition.
拉夫犹大 传 撒母耳 说：所教「合起来有一橄榄大便当除去」，单指那几块面不在补盆之处说的；它们若正在补着那盆、又要留在那里补它，他便不必除去，在心里把它作废便可。
拉夫犹大 传 撒母耳 说：所教「合起来有一橄榄大的酵便当除去」，单指那几块面不在补盆之处说的。
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught that one is obligated to remove a combined olive-bulk of leaven only in a case where the pieces of dough are not in a position where they serve to reinforce the kneading bowl.
它们若正在补着那盆、又要留在那里补它，他便不必除去，只在心里把它作废便可。
However, in a case where they serve to reinforce the bowl and they will remain there for this purpose, he is not obligated to remove them; he may simply render them null and void.
革玛拉断道：由此可推，不足一橄榄大的，纵不在补盆之处，他也不必除去。
革玛拉断道：由此可推——不足一橄榄大的，纵不在补盆之处，他也不必除去。
The Gemara concludes: This proves by inference that with regard to less than an olive-bulk, even in a place where it does not serve to reinforce the bowl, one is not obligated to remove it.
也有人把 拉夫犹大 这一句系在密释纳的末段上——「那面若不够这分量，便因微不足道而化去」。拉夫犹大 传 撒母耳 说：所教「一处不足一橄榄大的也当除去」，单指它在补盆之处说的；它若不在补盆之处，他便当除去。由此可推：一处若有一橄榄大，纵在补盆之处，他也当除去。
也有人把 拉夫犹大 这一句系在密释纳的末段上——「那面若不够这分量，便因它微不足道而化去」。
Some teach the statement of Rav Yehuda with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: And if the dough is not an olive-bulk, it is nullified due to its insignificance.
拉夫犹大 传 撒母耳 说：所教「一处不足一橄榄大的面也当除去」，单指它在补盆之处说的；它若不在补盆之处，他便当除去。
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught that one is obligated to remove less than an olive-bulk of dough in one place only in a place where it serves to reinforce the bowl; however, in a place where it does not serve to reinforce the bowl, one is obligated to remove it.
由此可推：一处若有一橄榄大，纵它在补盆之处，他也当除去。
This proves by inference that if there is an olive-bulk of dough in one place, even in a place where it serves to reinforce the bowl, one is obligated to remove it.
革玛拉说：有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 合 拉夫犹大 那一句的前一传，也有一条合后一传。合前一传的那一条教：和面盆缝里的面，在补盆之处的，不算隔物、不废那一浸，逾越节里存着也不犯禁；不在补盆之处的，便算隔物，存着也犯了逾越节不可存酵的禁。这话是就哪一种说的呢？是就有一橄榄大的说的；若不足一橄榄大，纵不在补盆之处，也不算隔物，存着也不犯禁。
革玛拉说：有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 合 拉夫犹大 那一句的前一传，另有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 合它的后一传。
The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the first version of Rav Yehuda’s statement, and it was taught in a different baraita in accordance with the latter version of his statement.
革玛拉细说：合前一传的那一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教——和面盆裂缝里的面，若在补着那盆之处，便不算隔物、不废那为除不洁所行的一浸，逾越节里存着也不犯那条禁。
The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the first version of Rav Yehuda’s statement: With regard to dough that is in the cracks of a kneading bowl in a place where it is serves to reinforce the bowl, it does not interpose and invalidate the immersion for ritual impurity, and one does not violate the prohibition against having leaven in his possession during Passover.
它若不在补盆之处，便算作隔物；逾越节里存着，也犯了不可存酵的禁。
And in a case where it does not serve to reinforce the bowl, it interposes, and one violates the prohibition against having leaven in his possession on Passover.
这话是就哪一种光景说的呢？
In what case is this statement said?
是就有一橄榄大的面说的；至于不足一橄榄大的，纵不在补盆之处，也不算隔物，存着也不犯什么禁。
It is in the case of an olive-bulk of dough; however, in a case where there is less than olive-bulk, even in a case where it does not serve to reinforce the bowl, it does not interpose and one does not violate a prohibition by having it in his possession.
合后一传的那一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教：和面盆裂缝里的面，在补盆之处的——本面末句未完，接叶四十五背。
另有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 合 拉夫犹大 那一句的后一传，它教说：和面盆裂缝里的面，若在补着那盆之处——
And it was taught in a different baraita in accordance with the latter version of Rav Yehuda’s statement: With regard to dough that is in the cracks of a kneading bowl, in a place where it serves to reinforce the bowl,