← 逾越节卷总目·第七章 怎样烤
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。
——血就从那里流出去。可寻常所塞的馅四面都封着，血便没有路可流出去。
——血就从那里流出去。
the blood flows out.
可寻常所塞的馅四面都封着，血便没有路可流出去。
However, in the case of regular stuffing, which is closed on all sides, there is no way for the blood to drain.
革玛拉再提议：我们且说下面这条密释纳助他——论牲畜的心，人在烤它或煮它以先当把它剖开、把血除去。他若不曾先剖开，煮熟（就是烤熟）以后剖开，也是许的。那心里想必还留着血，何以许吃呢？岂不是因我们说「它怎样吸进去，就怎样发出来」么——那心一烤，血便吸进肉里，又发出来，肉里就不留血了；心那空处里所剩的，剖开的时候也就除净了。（这正助 拉巴 的意思。）
革玛拉再提议：我们且说下面这条密释纳助他——论牲畜的心，人在烤它或煮它以先当把它剖开、把血除去。
The Gemara suggests further: Let us say that the following mishna supports him: With regard to the heart of an animal, one must tear it and remove its blood before one roasts or cooks it.
他若不曾先剖开，煮熟（就是烤熟）以后剖开，也是许的。
And if he did not tear it beforehand, he tears it after it is cooked, i.e., roasted, and it is permitted.
那心里想必还留着血，何以许吃呢？
What is the reason the heart is permitted although there is presumably still blood inside?
岂不是因我们说「它怎样吸进去，就怎样发出来」么——那心一烤，血便吸进肉里，又发出来，肉里就不留血了；心那空处里所剩的，剖开的时候也就除净了。
Is it not because we say that as it absorbs it, so it emits it, and therefore as the heart is roasted the blood is absorbed in the meat and then discharged, so that no blood is left in the meat, and whatever is still inside the hollow part of the heart can be removed when it is torn open?
这正助 拉巴 的意思。
This would support the opinion of Rabba.
革玛拉驳去这一证：心是另一样，因它滑，吸不进多少血。（至于寻常的光景，人未必都靠得住「它怎样吸进去就怎样发出来」这一句。）
革玛拉驳去这一证：心是另一样，因它滑，吸不进多少血。
The Gemara refutes the proof: A heart is different because it is smooth and does not absorb much blood.
至于寻常的光景，人未必都靠得住「它怎样吸进去就怎样发出来」这一句。
However, generally one does not necessarily rely on the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it.
革玛拉问：当真如此么？老拉文 岂不是为 拉夫 把一只雏鸽裹上面团烤了，拉夫 对他说「那面团若有好味，给我一点我就吃」么？这样看来，照 拉夫，那面壳虽把血吸了进去，烤的时候断然也发出来了。革玛拉驳去这一层：那一件所用的是 细面，那一样松散，血从中间流得过去。
革玛拉问：当真如此么？
The Gemara asks: Is that so?
老拉文 岂不是为 拉夫 把一只雏鸽裹上面团烤了，拉夫 对他说「那面团若有好味，给我一点我就吃」么？
Didn’t Ravin the Elder wrap a particular young dove in dough for Rav and roast it, and Rav said to him: If its dough tastes good, give me some and I will eat?
这样看来，照 拉夫，那面壳虽把血吸了进去，烤的时候断然也发出来了。
Apparently, according to Rav, although the breading absorbed blood, it also certainly discharged it during the roasting.
革玛拉驳去这一层：那一件所用的是 细面，那一样松散，血从中间流得过去。
The Gemara refutes this point: That incident involved fine flour [semida], which is crumbly and allows the blood to flow through it.
革玛拉问：拉瓦 岂不是有一次到流亡领袖府上，他们给他把一只小鹅裹上面壳烤了，他说「我若不曾看见那面壳白净得像一枚新钱，就不吃它——恐它把血吸了些进去」么？你心里若领受「它怎样吸进去就怎样发出来」那一句，何必特特说他是因那面壳白净才吃的呢？纵不白净，也当是许的。革玛拉答：那里所说的是白面——那一样紧实，血透不过去；拉瓦 所以吃它，单因它的颜色显出面壳里并没有留下血。
革玛拉问：拉瓦 岂不是有一次到流亡领袖府上，他们给他把一只小鹅裹上面壳烤了，他说「我若不曾看见那面壳白净得像一枚新钱，就不吃它——恐它把血吸了些进去」么？
The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rava happen to come to the house of the Exilarch, and they breaded a young goose for him, and he said: If I had not seen that the breading is as clear as a white, i.e., new, coin, I would not eat from it out of concern that it absorbed some of the blood?
你心里若领受「它怎样吸进去就怎样发出来」那一句，何必特特说他是因那面壳白净才吃的呢？
And if it should enter your mind to accept the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it, why note that he ate it particularly because it was clear?
纵不白净，也当是许的。
Even if it was not clear, it should also be permitted.
革玛拉答：那里所说的是白面——那一样紧实，血透不过去；拉瓦 所以吃它，单因它的颜色显出面壳里并没有留下血。
The Gemara responds: There, it was talking about white flour, which is firm and does not allow the blood to pass through; Rava ate it only because its color indicated that no blood remained in the breading.
革玛拉断曰：这条 哈拉哈 是这样——人若拿细面作那面壳，无论它有没有被血染红，都是许的。用白面作的面壳，则是这样：白净得像一枚新钱的，许；不然，就禁。至于别样面所作的面壳——那几样不算特别紧实、也不算特别松散——面壳染红了就禁，没染红就许。
革玛拉断曰：这条 哈拉哈 是这样——人若拿细面作那面壳，无论它有没有被血染红，都是许的。
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that if one makes the breading of fine flour, whether it turned red from blood or did not turn red, it is permitted.
用白面作的面壳，则是这样：白净得像一枚新钱的，许；不然，就禁。
The following rule applies to breading of white flour: If it is clear like a white coin, it is permitted; if not, it is prohibited.
至于别样面所作的面壳——那几样不算特别紧实、也不算特别松散——面壳染红了就禁，没染红就许。
With regard to breading of other types of flour, which are not especially firm or crumbly, if the breading turned red, it is prohibited; if it did not turn red, it is permitted.
论到把肉塞在牲畜里这一件：那禁人吃它的、就是 阿巴耶，连口子朝下、血更易流出来的光景也禁。那许人吃它的、就是 拉巴，连口子朝上的光景也许。革玛拉断曰：这条 哈拉哈 是——纵口子朝上，塞馅也是许的，就是从那从宽的一说。
论到把肉塞在牲畜里这一件：那禁人吃它的、就是 阿巴耶，连口子朝下、血更易流出来的光景也禁。
With regard to this meat stuffing in an animal: The one who prohibits one to eat it, Abaye, does so even if the opening is facing downward, allowing the blood to escape more easily.
那许人吃它的、就是 拉巴，连口子朝上的光景也许。
And the one who permits one to eat it, Rabba, does so even if the opening is facing upward.
革玛拉断曰：这条 哈拉哈 是——纵口子朝上，塞馅也是许的，就是从那从宽的一说。
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that stuffing is permitted even if the opening is facing upward, in accordance with the lenient opinion.
革玛拉再引一段议论，仍是论肉里所吸的血与所许吃之肉的预备。革玛拉举三样：不腌就吃的 生肉、牲畜的睾丸、颈上的大血管。拉夫阿哈 与 拉维纳 在这三样上不同。革玛拉指出：他们论托拉的一切议论里，凡两下相争而没有说明谁执哪一说的，都是 拉夫阿哈 从严、拉维纳 从宽，而这条 哈拉哈 依 拉维纳 从宽。惟这三样是例外——这里是 拉夫阿哈 从宽、拉维纳 从严，而这条 哈拉哈 依 拉夫阿哈 从宽。
革玛拉再引一段议论，仍是论肉里所吸的血与所许吃之肉的预备。
The Gemara quotes a further discussion concerning the topic of blood absorbed in meat and the preparation of meat permitted for eating.
革玛拉举三样：不腌就吃的 生肉、牲畜的睾丸、颈上的大血管。
The Gemara addresses three cases: Raw meat [umtza] that is eaten without being salted, testicles of an animal, and the large veins of the neck.
拉夫阿哈 与 拉维纳 在这三样上不同。
Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this.
革玛拉指出：他们论托拉的一切议论里，凡两下相争而没有说明谁执哪一说的，都是 拉夫阿哈 从严、拉维纳 从宽，而这条 哈拉哈 依 拉维纳 从宽。
The Gemara points out: In all their discussions about the Torah, whenever there is a dispute between them and there is no explanation as to which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of Rav Aḥa is stringent and the opinion of Ravina is lenient, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina to be lenient.
惟这三样是例外——这里是 拉夫阿哈 从宽、拉维纳 从严，而这一条依 拉夫阿哈 从宽。
This applies to all their disputes except for these three, in which Rav Aḥa is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa to be lenient.
革玛拉说明：论那一块生肉被里头的血染红了的——他若把它切开、腌了，连在锅里煮也是许的，因盐分明把血从肉里逼出来。他若把它搭在扦子上要烤，也是许的，因血流得出去。至于他把它放在炭上那一件，拉夫阿哈 与 拉维纳 在这条 哈拉哈 上不同：一位禁，一位许。禁的那一位所据的是炭叫那肉缩紧变硬，把血封在里头；许的那一位所据的是炭的热把血逼出来，只留下肉。而这一条是：炭的热把血逼出来。
革玛拉说明：论那一块生肉被里头的血染红了的——他若把它切开、腌了，连在锅里煮也是许的，因盐分明把血从肉里逼出来。
The Gemara explains: With regard to this piece of raw meat that became red from the blood inside it, if one cut it and salted it, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot because it is clear that salt removes blood from meat.
他若把它搭在扦子上要烤，也是许的，因血流得出去。
If one put it on a spit in order to roast it, it is permitted because the blood flows out.
至于他把它放在炭上那一件，拉夫阿哈 与 拉维纳 在这条 哈拉哈 上不同：一位禁，一位许。
With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about the halakha in this case; one prohibited it and one permitted it.
禁的那一位所据的是炭叫那肉缩紧变硬，把血封在里头。
The one who prohibited it reasoned that the coals cause the meat to shrivel and harden, trapping the blood inside.
许的那一位所据的是炭的热把血逼出来，只留下肉。
And the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, leaving only the meat.
而这一条是：炭的热把血逼出来。
And the halakha is that the heat of the coals draws out the blood.
论睾丸也是照样：人若把它们切开、腌了，连在锅里煮也是许的。他若把它们挂在扦子上要烤，也是许的，因血流得出去。至于他把它们放在炭上那一件，拉夫阿哈 与 拉维纳 在这一层上不同：一位禁，一位许。禁的那一位所据的是它要缩紧；许的那一位所据的是那热把血逼出来。
论睾丸也是照样：人若把它们切开、腌了，连在锅里煮也是许的。
And, so too, with regard to testicles: If one cut them and salted them, they are permitted even to be cooked in a pot.
他若把它们挂在扦子上要烤，也是许的，因血流得出去。
If one hung them on a spit in order to roast them, they are permitted because the blood flows out.
至于他把它们放在炭上那一件，拉夫阿哈 与 拉维纳 在这一层上不同：一位禁，一位许。
With regard to a case where one placed them on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this; one prohibited it and one permitted it.
禁的那一位所据的是它要缩紧；许的那一位所据的是那热把血逼出来。
The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood.
论大血管也是照样：人若把它们切开、腌了，连在锅里煮也是许的。他若把它挂在扦子上、宰的那一处口子朝下，也是许的，因血流得出去。至于他把它放在炭上那一件，拉夫阿哈 与 拉维纳 在这一层上不同：一位禁，一位许。禁的那一位所据的是它要缩紧；许的那一位所据的是那热把血逼出来。而这条 哈拉哈 是：炭的热把血逼出来，故是许的。
论大血管也是照样：人若把它们切开、腌了，连在锅里煮也是许的。
And, so too, with regard to large veins: If one cut them and salted them, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot.
他若把它挂在扦子上、宰的那一处口子朝下，也是许的，因血流得出去。
If one hung them on a spit and the place of the incision of the slaughter is facing downward, it is permitted because the blood flows out.
至于他把它放在炭上那一件，拉夫阿哈 与 拉维纳 在这一层上不同：一位禁，一位许。
With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this matter; one prohibited it and one permitted it.
禁的那一位所据的是它要缩紧；许的那一位所据的是那热把血逼出来。
The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood.
而这条 哈拉哈 是：炭的热把血逼出来，故是许的。
And the halakha is that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, and it is permitted.
革玛拉再议一层，仍是论肉里所吸的血。人素常把生肉（托萨福）泡在醋里，为要叫血一点也不离开它本处——因血不离本处的，吃了是许的。这一块生肉，它的醋若因所吸的血而变红，便禁；它的醋若不曾变红，便许。拉维纳 说：纵它的醋不曾变红，也禁；那肉断不能没有几道血丝。玛尔·巴尔·阿梅马尔 对 拉夫阿施 说：我父亲、就是 阿梅马尔，是把那醋吞下去的，并不虑里头或者有血。也有人说 拉夫阿施 自己就把它吞下去。
革玛拉再议一层，仍是论肉里所吸的血。
The Gemara raises another discussion with regard to blood absorbed in meat.
人素常把生肉（托萨福）泡在醋里，为要叫血一点也不离开它本处——因血不离本处的，吃了是许的。
People would soak raw meat (Tosafot) in vinegar in order to ensure that none of the blood would separate from its original place and prohibit the meat from being eaten, as it is permitted to eat blood that has not separated from its original place.
这一块生肉，它的醋若因所吸的血而变红，便禁。
This piece of raw meat, whose vinegar became red due to the blood absorbed in it, is forbidden.
它的醋若不曾变红，便许。
If its vinegar did not become red, it is permitted.
拉维纳 说：纵它的醋不曾变红，也禁；那肉断不能没有几道血丝。
Ravina said: Even if its vinegar did not become red, it is forbidden; it is impossible that it does not have streaks of blood.
玛尔·巴尔·阿梅马尔 对 拉夫阿施 说：我父亲、就是 阿梅马尔，是把那醋吞下去的，并不虑里头或者有血。
Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: Father, i.e., Ameimar, would swallow the vinegar and was unconcerned that there may be blood in it.
也有人说 拉夫阿施 自己就把它吞下去。
Some say Rav Ashi himself would swallow it.
玛尔·巴尔·阿梅马尔 对 拉夫阿施 说：我父亲 阿梅马尔 素常的作法是——凡拿来泡过一次肉、为要把血留在肉里的醋，他就不再拿它泡肉了。（那一样再也留不住血了。）革玛拉问：泡过一次的醋，与那淡醋（我们拿它泡肉，并不虑它留不住肉里的血）差在哪里呢？革玛拉说明：那里，那——
玛尔·巴尔·阿梅马尔 对 拉夫阿施 说：我父亲 阿梅马尔 素常的作法是——凡拿来泡过一次肉、为要把血留在肉里的醋，他就不再拿它泡肉了。
Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The practice of my father, Ameimar, was that with regard to vinegar in which he had soaked meat one time to keep in its blood, he would not soak meat in it again.
那一样再也留不住血了。
It could no longer keep the blood in the meat.
革玛拉问：泡过一次的醋，与那淡醋（我们拿它泡肉，并不虑它留不住肉里的血）差在哪里呢？
The Gemara asks: In what way is vinegar that has been used once different from weak vinegar, in which we soak meat without concern that it will be unable to keep the blood in the meat?
革玛拉说明：那里，那——
The Gemara explains: There, the