——深处之不洁在他身上岂不更该一概是许的么,纵另有洁净的祭司在也一样?
-
——深处之不洁在他身上岂不更该一概是许的么,纵另有洁净的祭司在也一样?
is it not right that impurity of the deep is permitted for him completely, even if there are other priests who are ritually pure?
← 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 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。
——深处之不洁在他身上岂不更该一概是许的么,纵另有洁净的祭司在也一样?
——深处之不洁在他身上岂不更该一概是许的么,纵另有洁净的祭司在也一样?
is it not right that impurity of the deep is permitted for him completely, even if there are other priests who are ritually pure?
你且这样回这一证:从西奈山传给摩西的一条 哈拉哈(譬如深处之不洁这一条)上,我们推得出轻重相推么?下面这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 岂不是教过?拉比阿奇瓦 凭轻重相推断定:拿细耳人若摸了血、或抬了血,也当剃头,正如他摸了、抬了死人的骨头当剃头一样。拉比以利以谢 对他说:阿奇瓦,一块大麦粒大的骨头能传不洁,是从西奈山传给摩西的一条 哈拉哈;你却要凭轻重相推,把四分之一 罗格 的血也断作一样——而人不可从西奈山传给摩西的 哈拉哈 上推轻重相推。
你且这样回这一证:从西奈山传给摩西的一条 哈拉哈(譬如深处之不洁这一条)上,我们推得出轻重相推么?
Say in refutation of this proof: And do we derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, such as the halakha of ritual impurity of the deep?
下面这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 岂不是教过?
Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita?
拉比阿奇瓦 凭轻重相推断定:拿细耳人若摸了血、或抬了血,也当剃头,正如他摸了、抬了死人的骨头当剃头一样。拉比以利以谢 对他说:阿奇瓦,一块大麦粒大的骨头能传不洁,是从西奈山传给摩西的一条;你却要凭轻重相推,把四分之一 罗格 的血也断作一样——而人不可从西奈山传给摩西的 哈拉哈 上推轻重相推。
Rabbi Akiva employed an a fortiori inference to derive that a nazirite must shave if he touches or carries blood, just as he must shave if he touches or carries a bone from a corpse, and Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, a bone the size of a grain of barley is able to transmit ritual impurity due to a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and you want to derive that the same is true of a quarter-log of blood on the basis of an a fortiori inference, and one may not derive an a fortiori inference from a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
不如说(拉瓦 曰):那是凭同字相较推出来的——论逾越的羊羔说了「在所定的日期」(民数记 9:13),论常献之祭也说了「在所定的日期」(民数记 28:2)。托拉既在两处都用这一语,常献之祭那一条 哈拉哈 就可以从逾越之羊羔那一条推出来:深处之不洁在逾越的羊羔上既是许的,在常献之祭上也是许的。
不如说(拉瓦 曰):那是凭同字相较推出来的——论逾越的羊羔说了「在所定的日期」(民数记 9:13),论常献之祭也说了「在所定的日期」(民数记 28:2)。
Rather, Rava said: It is derived on the basis of a verbal analogy of the expressions “its appointed time” (Numbers 9:13) stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, and “its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2) stated with regard to the daily offering.
托拉既在两处都用这一语,常献之祭那一条 哈拉哈 就可以从逾越之羊羔那一条推出来:深处之不洁在逾越的羊羔上既是许的,在常献之祭上也是许的。
Since the Torah uses this expression in both cases, the halakha with regard to the daily offering can be derived from the halakha in the case of the Paschal lamb: Just as impurity of the deep is permitted with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is permitted with regard to the daily offering.
革玛拉问:至于深处之不洁本身——那一层在拿细耳人与献逾越之羊羔的人身上是许的,因额牌为那一层不洁在神面前挽回——它写在哪里呢?拉比以利亚撒 说:经上论拿细耳人说:「若在他旁边忽然有人死了」(民数记 6:9)。「在他旁边」这一语所着重的,正是那不洁于他是分明的。(那死尸若无人知道,他就不算不洁。)
革玛拉问:至于深处之不洁本身——那一层在拿细耳人与献逾越之羊羔的人身上是许的,因额牌为那一层不洁在神面前挽回——它写在哪里呢?
The Gemara asks: And with regard to impurity of the deep itself, which is permitted in the cases of a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal lamb, due to the fact that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity, where is it written?
拉比以利亚撒 说:经上论拿细耳人说:「若在他旁边忽然有人死了」(民数记 6:9)。
Rabbi Elazar said that the verse states with regard to a nazirite: “And if any man shall die very suddenly beside him” (Numbers 6:9).
「在他旁边」这一语所着重的,正是那不洁于他是分明的。
The emphasis provided by the expression “beside him” indicates that it is clear to him that he has become impure.
那死尸若无人知道,他就不算不洁。
However, one is not impure if the presence of the corpse is unknown.
革玛拉问:论拿细耳人,深处之不洁的出处我们寻着了;可论行逾越之礼的人,我们又从哪里知道深处之不洁也是许的呢?拉比约哈难 说:经上说:「你们中间或你们后代中,若有人因死尸而不洁净,或在远方行路」(民数记 9:10)。那一个 于你们 教明:那不洁须是你们看得出、在你们眼前分明的。(凡不曾分明显出来的不洁,并不叫那要献逾越之羊羔的人成为不洁。)
革玛拉问:论拿细耳人,深处之不洁的出处我们寻着了;可论行逾越之礼的人,我们又从哪里知道深处之不洁也是许的呢?
The Gemara asks: We found a source for impurity of the deep with regard to a nazirite; from where do we derive that impurity of the deep is also permitted with regard to one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb?
拉比约哈难 说:经上说:「你们中间或你们后代中,若有人因死尸而不洁净,或在远方行路」(民数记 9:10)。
Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “Any man of you [lakhem] who shall be ritually impure due to a corpse or on a road far away” (Numbers 9:10).
那一个 于你们 教明:那不洁须是你们看得出、在你们眼前分明的。
The term lakhem is interpreted as indicating that the impurity must be clear to you [lakhem].
凡不曾分明显出来的不洁,并不叫那要献逾越之羊羔的人成为不洁。
However, any ritual impurity that is not clearly identified does not render one who wishes to sacrifice the Paschal lamb impure.
拉比西缅·本·拉基什 说:这条 哈拉哈 另有一路可推——从那一节里与「不洁净」并排说的「行路」一语。这就显明那不洁像一条路:路怎样是敞着的,那不洁也怎样是敞着的。
拉比西缅·本·拉基什 说:这条 哈拉哈 另有一路可推——从那一节里与「不洁净」并排说的「行路」一语。
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This halakha may be derived in a different way, from the word “road,” which is juxtaposed in the verse to the phrase “ritually impure.” This indicates that the impurity is like a road.
这就显明那不洁像一条路:路怎样是敞着的,那不洁也怎样是敞着的。
Just as a road is in the open, so too, the impurity is in the open.
革玛拉据下面这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 驳这几路推法:哪一样才是那在拿细耳人与献逾越之羊羔的人身上都许了的深处之不洁呢?是凡无人知道的死尸所传的不洁,纵在地极也无人知道;可纵有一个人知道,哪怕他在地极,这就不算深处之不洁了。可照 拉比以利亚撒 的意思——他说「在他旁边」是指那不洁于他须是分明的——那么直到他自己知道以先都算深处之不洁,别人知道是不算数的。
革玛拉据下面这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 驳这几路推法:哪一样才是那在拿细耳人与献逾越之羊羔的人身上都许了的深处之不洁呢?
The Gemara raises an objection to these derivations from that which was taught in the following baraita: Which is the impurity of the deep that was permitted for both a nazirite and one who sacrifices the Paschal lamb?
是凡无人知道的死尸所传的不洁,纵在地极也无人知道;可纵有一个人知道,哪怕他在地极,这就不算深处之不洁了。
It is impurity imparted by any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth; but if even one person is aware of it, even at the end of the earth, this is not impurity of the deep.
可照 拉比以利亚撒 的意思——他说「在他旁边」是指那不洁于他须是分明的——那么直到他自己知道以先都算深处之不洁,别人知道是不算数的。
However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said that the expression “beside him” indicates that the impurity must be clear to him, it would be considered impurity of the deep until he knew about it; it would not be enough for some other person to be aware of the corpse.
照 拉比约哈难 的意思——他说这条 哈拉哈 是从 于你们 一字推出来的,那一字教人「于你们须是分明的」——那么直到有两个人知道以先都算深处之不洁,因 于你们 是复数。
照 拉比约哈难 的意思——他说这条 哈拉哈 是从 于你们 一字推出来的,那一字教人「于你们须是分明的」——那么直到有两个人知道以先都算深处之不洁,因那一字是复数。
According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the halakha is derived from the term lakhem, which teaches that it must be clear to you, it is considered impurity of the deep until two people know about it, as the word lakhem is plural.
照 拉比西缅·本·拉基什 的意思——他说那不洁须像一条路——那么直到全世界都知道以先,都算深处之不洁。
照 拉比西缅·本·拉基什 的意思——他说那不洁须像一条路——那么直到全世界都知道以先,都算深处之不洁。
According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that the impurity must be like a road, it is impurity of the deep until the entire world knows about it.
不如断定:上头所引那几处出处都不够,当说众贤是把深处之不洁这一条当作从西奈山传给摩西的 哈拉哈 领受下来的;而众 阿摩拉 所引的经文,不过是为这条 哈拉哈 作一个凭借,并不是它真正的出处。
不如断定:上头所引那几处出处都不够,当说众贤是把深处之不洁这一条当作从西奈山传给摩西的 哈拉哈 领受下来的;而众 阿摩拉 所引的经文,不过是为这一条作一个凭借,并不是它真正的出处。
Rather, one must conclude that the previous sources cited are insufficient and say that they learned the principle of impurity of the deep as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and the verse that the amora’im quoted is a mere support for the halakha and not its actual source.
玛尔·巴尔·拉夫阿施 说:他们所教「额牌为拿细耳人与献逾越之羊羔者的深处之不洁挽回」,单指他在弹血以后才得知自己不洁的光景——因弹血的时候,那血弹得好好的,献祭之人的不洁本无人知道。可他若在弹血以先就已知道自己不洁,额牌便不挽回。
玛尔·巴尔·拉夫阿施 说:他们所教「额牌为拿细耳人与献逾越之羊羔者的深处之不洁挽回」,单指他在弹血以后才得知自己不洁的光景——因弹血的时候,那血弹得好好的,献祭之人的不洁本无人知道。
Mar bar Rav Ashi said: They taught that the frontplate appeases God for impurity of the deep with regard to a nazirite and one bringing the Paschal lamb only when the fact that he is impure became known to him after the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, as when the blood was sprinkled, it was sprinkled well, because the impurity of the one bringing the offering was unknown.
可他若在弹血以先就已知道自己不洁,额牌便不挽回。
However, if his impurity was known to him before the sprinkling of the blood, the frontplate does not appease God.
革玛拉据下面这条 《巴拉伊塔》 出一驳:人若撞见一具尸首横在路面上——就是它埋在那里,以致过路的断不能不摸着它、挪着它、或从它上头过去——那么论 举祭,这过路的算不洁;既是这样,他若是祭司,就不可吃那圣物。可论拿细耳人、并论行逾越之礼的人,这过路的算洁净,因这几件上额牌为深处之不洁在神面前挽回。而凡说「不洁」「洁净」的地方,所指的都是往后当怎样行。(这两个字所断的是一条可以按理照行的律,不单是事成以后、血已弹了才从宽的一句。)
革玛拉据下面这条 《巴拉伊塔》 出一驳:人若撞见一具尸首横在路面上——就是它埋在那里,以致过路的断不能不摸着它、挪着它、或从它上头过去——那么论 举祭,这过路的算不洁。
The Gemara raises an objection based on the following baraita: In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of a road, meaning that it had been buried there in such a way that it was impossible that the passerby could have avoided becoming impure by touching, moving, or passing over the corpse, then with regard to teruma, the passerby is impure.
既是这样,他若是祭司,就不可吃那圣物。
Therefore, if he is a priest, he may not eat teruma.
可论拿细耳人、并论行逾越之礼的人,这过路的算洁净,因这几件上额牌为深处之不洁在神面前挽回。
However, with regard to both a nazirite and one performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb, the passerby is pure because the frontplate appeases God for impurity of the deep in these cases.
而凡说「不洁」「洁净」的地方,所指的都是往后当怎样行。
And any time it says: Impure, and: Pure, it is for the future.
这两个字所断的是一条可以 按理 照行的律,不单是事成以后、血已弹了才从宽的一句。
These terms indicate a halakhic ruling that may be followed ab initio and not just as a leniency after the fact, if the blood of the offering was already sprinkled.
不如说:玛尔·巴尔·拉夫阿施 那一句若果然说过,所说的当是这样——你不要说「惟他在弹血以后才得知的,额牌才挽回;他在弹血以先就得知的,额牌便不挽回」。倒当说:纵他在弹血以先就得知了,额牌也挽回,因深处之不洁论逾越的羊羔、论拿细耳人,都算不得什么。
不如说:玛尔·巴尔·拉夫阿施 那一句若果然说过,所说的当是这样——你不要说「惟他在弹血以后才得知的,额牌才挽回;他在弹血以先就得知的,额牌便不挽回」。
Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Do not say that it is only when it became known to him after the sprinkling of the blood that the frontplate appeases God, but if it became known to him before the sprinkling it does not appease God.
倒当说:纵他在弹血以先就得知了,额牌也挽回,因深处之不洁论逾越的羊羔、论拿细耳人,都算不得什么。
Rather, even if it became known to him before the sprinkling, the frontplate appeases God because impurity of the deep is insignificant with regard to both the Paschal lamb and a nazirite.
革玛拉既引了那条论深处之不洁的 《巴拉伊塔》,就回过来细论它本身。人若撞见一具尸首横在路面上:论 举祭,他算不洁;论拿细耳人与行逾越之礼的人,他算洁净。
革玛拉既引了那条论深处之不洁的 《巴拉伊塔》,就回过来细论它本身。
Since the Gemara quoted a baraita with regard to impurity of the deep, it returns to discuss the matter itself.
人若撞见一具尸首横在路面上:论 举祭,他算不洁;论拿细耳人与行逾越之礼的人,他算洁净。
In the case of one who finds a corpse lying across the width of the road, with regard to teruma he is impure, and with regard to a nazirite and one who performs the ritual of the Paschal lamb he is pure.
所说「论 举祭 他算不洁」,是就哪一件说的呢?是就他在路上绕不过去、非从那尸首上头过不可的光景说的。可路上若绕得过去,那么连论 举祭 他也算洁净。(通例是这样:人或物的洁净在 公共区 里起了疑,就算洁净。这一件上所以有疑,是因那过路的未必染了不洁;既是这样,他就算洁净。)
所说「论 举祭 他算不洁」,是就哪一件说的呢?
In what case is this statement, that the person is considered impure with regard to teruma, said?
是就他在路上绕不过去、非从那尸首上头过不可的光景说的。
It is said in a case where he does not have space to pass by on the road without passing over the corpse.
可路上若绕得过去,那么连论那圣物他也算洁净。
However, if there is space to pass by, even for the purposes of teruma he is pure.
通例是这样:人或物的洁净在 公共区 里起了疑,就算洁净。
There is a principle that if a doubt arises concerning the ritual purity of a person or object in the public domain, they are considered pure.
这一件上所以有疑,是因那过路的未必染了不洁。
In this case, there is doubt because it is possible that the passerby did not become ritually impure.
既是这样,他就算洁净。
Therefore, he is considered pure.
照样,这话是就哪一件说的呢?是就他撞见那尸首还是整具的光景说的。它若已碎了、已断开,他就算洁净——人尽可以说他或者从那几段中间走过去,一段也不曾摸着、不曾跨过。然而这话单管他在敞处撞见它的光景;他若在坟里撞见它,纵它已碎了、已断开,他也算不洁,因那坟把它合成一体:人从坟的哪一处跨过去都染不洁,纵不曾跨过尸首的一段也一样。
照样,这话是就哪一件说的呢?
Similarly, in what case is this statement said?
是就他撞见那尸首还是整具的光景说的。
It is said in a case where one finds the body whole.
它若已碎了、已断开,他就算洁净。
However, if it is broken or dismembered, he is pure.
人尽可以说他或者从那几段中间走过去,一段也不曾摸着、不曾跨过。
One can say that perhaps he passed between the parts of the corpse and did not touch or pass over any of them.
然而这话单管他在敞处撞见它的光景;他若在坟里撞见它,纵它已碎了、已断开,他也算不洁,因那坟把它合成一体:人从坟的哪一处跨过去都染不洁,纵不曾跨过尸首的一段也一样。
However, this applies only when he finds the corpse out in the open; but if he finds it in a grave, even if it is broken or dismembered, he is impure, because the grave joins it into one unit and renders one impure if one passed over any part of the grave, even if he did not pass over part of the corpse.
所说「那尸首已断开的,过路的就算洁净」,是就哪一件说的呢?是就那步行过去的人说的;他若背着重担,或骑着牲口,就算不洁。其故在于:步行的人还可以不摸着它、不跨过它;可背着重担的人走不成直路,骑牲口的人也一样,断不能不摸着它、不跨过它。
所说「那尸首已断开的,过路的就算洁净」,是就哪一件说的呢?
In what case is this statement, that if the corpse was dismembered the passerby is pure, said?
是就那步行过去的人说的;他若背着重担,或骑着牲口,就算不洁。
It is said with regard to a passerby who travels by foot, but if he was loaded with a heavy burden or riding an animal, he is impure.
其故在于:步行的人还可以不摸着它、不跨过它;可背着重担的人走不成直路,骑牲口的人也一样,断不能不摸着它、不跨过它。
The reason for this is because one who travels by foot, it is possible that he will not touch the corpse and will not pass over it; but one who is loaded with a heavy burden and therefore does not walk in a straight line or someone riding an animal, it is impossible that he will not touch and will not pass over the corpse.
所说「拿细耳人与献逾越之羊羔的人算洁净」,是就哪一件说的呢?是就深处之不洁说的。可那不洁之源若有人知道、单是那染了不洁的人自己不知道,他仍旧算不洁。
所说「拿细耳人与献逾越之羊羔的人算洁净」,是就哪一件说的呢?
In what case is this statement, that a nazirite and one bringing a Paschal lamb are considered pure, said?
是就深处之不洁说的。
It is said with regard to impurity of the deep.
可那不洁之源若有人知道、单是那染了不洁的人自己不知道,他仍旧算不洁。
However, if the source of impurity was known to some but not to the individual who became impure, he is nevertheless impure.
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说:哪一具尸首才算深处之不洁呢?是凡无人知道的,纵在地极也无人知道;可纵有一个人知道,哪怕那人在地极,这就不算深处之不洁了。
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说:哪一具尸首才算深处之不洁呢?
The baraita continues: And which corpse is considered impurity of the deep?
是凡无人知道的,纵在地极也无人知道;可纵有一个人知道,哪怕那人在地极,这就不算深处之不洁了。
Any corpse of which no one is aware, even at the end of the earth; but if even one individual is aware of it, even if that individual is at the end of the earth, this is not considered impurity of the deep.
要断定有没有人知道过那尸首,就看它所在的光景。人若撞见它埋在干草里、土里、或碎石里,那人或许是被塌方压死的,那样那尸首多半从来不曾被人寻着——这便算深处之不洁。可他若撞见它在水里、在暗处、或在岩石的缝里,这就不算深处之不洁。(那几处虽是人不常去的,日子一久那尸首总要被人发觉,很可能早有人走过、看见了。)他们又说:深处之不洁这一层宽处单就尸首说的,别样不洁之源上并没有。
要断定有没有人知道过那尸首,就看它所在的光景。
In order to ascertain whether anyone ever knew about the corpse, its condition is taken into account.
人若撞见它埋在干草里、土里、或碎石里,那人或许是被塌方压死的,那样那尸首多半从来不曾被人寻着——这便算深处之不洁。
If one finds it hidden in hay or in dirt or in pebbles, and it is possible that the person died in an avalanche, in which case it is likely that the corpse had never been found, this is impurity of the deep.
可他若撞见它在水里、在暗处、或在岩石的缝里,这就不算深处之不洁。
But if he finds it in water, or in a dark place, or in the clefts of the rocks, this is not impurity of the deep.
那几处虽是人不常去的,日子一久那尸首总要被人发觉,很可能早有人走过、看见了。
Although these are places where people do not often go, with the passage of time the corpse is likely to be discovered, and it is quite possible that someone already passed by and saw it.
他们又说:深处之不洁这一层宽处单就尸首说的,别样不洁之源上并没有。
And they said the leniency of impurity of the deep only with regard to a corpse, but not with regard to other sources of ritual impurity.
逾越的羊羔若整只、或多半染了不洁,人就在 圣殿 之前把它烧了,用的是坛上柴堆里分给逾越羊羔之主人作这一用的柴。若只有少数染了不洁,照样,逾越之羊羔剩下、当烧的几分,主人就在自己的院子里、或房顶上,用自己的柴烧了。惟那吝惜柴钱的人,才拿到圣殿之前去烧,为要得那柴堆的便宜。
逾越的羊羔若整只、或多半染了不洁,人就在 圣殿 之前把它烧了,用的是坛上柴堆里分给逾越羊羔之主人作这一用的柴。
If the whole Paschal lamb or most of it became ritually impure, one burns it before the Temple [habira] with wood from the arrangement of wood on the altar that was given to the owners of the Paschal lamb for this purpose.
若只有少数染了不洁,照样,逾越之羊羔剩下、当烧的几分,主人就在自己的院子里、或房顶上,用自己的柴烧了。
If a minority of it became impure, and similarly, with regard to the parts of the Paschal lamb that are leftover, which must be burned, the owners of the Paschal lamb burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs, with their own wood.
惟那吝惜柴钱的人,才拿到圣殿之前去烧,为要得那柴堆的便宜。
Only the miserly, who want to save the expenditure of wood, burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement.
革玛拉问:逾越的羊羔何以非在圣殿之前烧不可,那愿意在别处烧的何以不许呢?拉比约西·巴尔·哈尼纳 说:为要叫他们脸上无光。(那祭多半所以染了不洁,想必是主人看顾得不够谨细;故众贤定规叫它在众人看得见的地方烧了。)
革玛拉问:逾越的羊羔何以非在圣殿之前烧不可,那愿意在别处烧的何以不许呢?
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Paschal lamb must be burned before the Temple and that those who prefer to burn it elsewhere are not permitted to do so?
拉比约西·巴尔·哈尼纳 说:为要叫他们脸上无光。
Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: In order to embarrass them.
那祭多半所以染了不洁,想必是主人看顾得不够谨细。
Presumably, the reason that most of the offering became impure is because the owners were not sufficiently careful with it.
故众贤定规叫它在众人看得见的地方烧了。
Therefore, the Sages decreed that it be burned in a public place.
密释纳里说:若只有少数染了不洁,照样,剩下的几分,主人就在自己的院子里用自己的柴烧了。革玛拉据另一条密释纳所教的提出一处相违:照样,人出了耶路撒冷,想起手里还有圣肉(那肉既出了耶路撒冷就已作废,须烧了),他若已过了 眺望山,就在他所在之处把那肉烧了,不必回去在耶路撒冷烧;他若还没过 眺望山——
密释纳里说:若只有少数染了不洁,照样,剩下的几分,主人就在自己的院子里用自己的柴烧了。
It was stated in the mishna that if a minority of it became ritually impure, and similarly, if part of it was left over, it is burned in the owners’ courtyards with their own wood.
革玛拉据另一条密释纳所教的提出一处相违:照样,人出了耶路撒冷,想起手里还有圣肉(那肉既出了耶路撒冷就已作废,须烧了),他若已过了 眺望山,就在他所在之处把那肉烧了,不必回去在耶路撒冷烧;他若还没过 眺望山——
The Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a different mishna: And similarly, with regard to one who left Jerusalem and remembers that there is consecrated meat in his hand, which is now disqualified because it has left Jerusalem and must therefore be burned, if he passed Mount Scopus, he burns the meat at the site where he is located, and he need not return to burn it in Jerusalem; and if he has not yet passed Mount Scopus,