← 住棚卷总目·第一章 棚
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 6 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。
（续上）苦艾叶日久气味变臭，人就离开 棚 出去了；搭一座人留不住的 棚 是不合宜的。
它们的气味日久变得难闻，人就会离开这座 棚，走出去。
their odor grows offensive over time, one abandons the sukka and exits.
搭一座人不可能留在里面的 棚，是不合宜的。
It is inappropriate to establish a sukka in which it is impossible to remain.
同样，拉夫哈难·巴尔·拉瓦 说：这些荆棘与灌木可以用来盖 棚。阿巴耶 说：荆棘可以盖，灌木不可。理由何在？灌木的叶子日久掉落，容易落进食物、搅扰棚中的人，人就离开 棚 出去了。
同样，拉夫哈难·巴尔·拉瓦 说：论这些荆棘与灌木，人可以用它们给 棚 加顶盖。
Similarly, Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: With regard to these thorns and shrubs, one may roof the sukka with them.
阿巴耶 说：用荆棘，人可以给他的 棚 加顶盖；用灌木，人不可以给他的 棚 加顶盖。
Abaye said: With thorns, one may roof his sukka; with shrubs, one may not roof his sukka.
这个分别的理由是什么？
What is the reason for this distinction?
既然它们的叶子日久会掉落，容易落进食物里、搅扰在 棚 里的人，人就会离开这座 棚，走出去。
Since their leaves fall over time and they are apt to fall into the food and disturb those in the sukka, one abandons the sukka and exits.
拉夫基德尔 传 拉夫 说：棕树干上长出的这种分枝——从中生出几条枝子——可以用来盖 棚：枝子虽天然捆在一起，天手所成的捆不算捆；况且人虽又在离树干那头、枝子分开之处把它们捆起来再盖，棚 仍合用，因为把一个已捆成一体的捆再捆，不算捆扎。
拉夫基德尔 传 拉夫 说：论从棕树干上长出、从中生出几条枝子的这种分枝，人可以用它给 棚 加顶盖。
Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to this offshoot of the trunk of the palm tree, from which several branches emerge; one may roof the sukka with it.
这些枝子虽然是天然捆在一起的，然而由天之手所成的捆，不算作捆扎。
Although the branches are naturally bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding.
况且，人虽然随后又在离树干较远的那一端，就是它们分开长成各条枝子的地方，把枝子捆在一起，再用它们加顶盖，这座 棚 仍是合用的，因为人若把一个已经捆成一体的捆再捆起来，那不算作捆扎。
Furthermore, although one then binds the branches together at the end removed from the trunk, where they grow apart into separate branches, and roofs with them, the sukka is fit, since if one binds a bundle that is already bound into one unit it is not considered a binding.
同样，拉夫希斯达 传 拉维纳·巴尔·舍伊拉 说：这些芦苇的分枝可以用来盖 棚：天然成捆不算捆；人虽又在另一头把芦苇捆起来，棚 仍合用，因为把已捆成一体的再捆，不算捆扎。
同样，拉夫希斯达 传 拉维纳·巴尔·舍伊拉 说：论这些芦苇的分枝，人可以用它们给 棚 加顶盖。
Likewise, Rav Ḥisda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With regard to these offshoots of reeds, one may roof the sukka with them.
这些枝子虽然是天然捆在一起的，然而由天之手所成的捆，不算作捆扎。
Although the branches are naturally bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding.
况且，人虽然随后又在另一端把芦苇捆在一起，这座 棚 仍是合用的，因为人若把一个已经捆成一体的捆再捆起来，那不算作捆扎。
Furthermore, although one then binds the reeds together at the other end, the sukka is fit, since if one binds a bundle that is already bound into one unit it is not considered a binding.
革玛拉评说：这意见也在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：芦苇与铲子（？）可以用来盖 棚。革玛拉问：芦苇可以盖 棚，是显然的——它们合乎合用顶盖的一切标准。不如说：这些芦苇的分枝可以用来盖 棚。
革玛拉评说：这个意见也在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：论芦苇与铲子，人可以用它们给 棚 加顶盖。
The Gemara notes that this opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to reeds and spades, one may roof a sukka with them.
「铲子」照英译 spades 直译，所指不详；此处 革玛拉 随即改读为「芦苇的分枝」，故照英译直译，存疑。
革玛拉问：人可以用芦苇给他的 棚 加顶盖，这是显然的。
The Gemara asks: The fact that one may roof his sukka with reeds is obvious.
毕竟它们合乎合用顶盖的一切标准。
After all, they meet all the criteria of fit roofing.
不如说：论这些芦苇的分枝，人可以用它们给 棚 加顶盖。
Rather, say: With regard to these offshoots of reeds, one may roof the sukka with them.
借上述 哈拉哈，革玛拉引 拉夫希斯达 传 拉维纳·巴尔·舍伊拉 的另一句话：用沼泽的这些苦菜，人可以在逾越节尽本分。
借着上面的 哈拉哈，革玛拉引 拉夫希斯达 传 拉维纳·巴尔·舍伊拉 所说的另一句话：用沼泽的这些苦菜，人在逾越节尽了他的本分。
§ Apropos the above halakha, the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Ḥisda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With these bitter herbs of a marsh, a person fulfills his obligation on Passover.
革玛拉对他的意见提出反驳：凡须用牛膝草的诫命，都取寻常的牛膝草，不取希腊牛膝草、锑牛膝草、旷野牛膝草、罗马牛膝草，或任何名字带修饰语的牛膝草。苦菜之诫也该如此：沼泽的苦菜名字带修饰语，就不是妥拉所说的苦菜。
革玛拉对他的意见提出反驳。
The Gemara raises an objection to his opinion.
凡须要用牛膝草的诫命，人都取寻常的牛膝草，而不取生在希腊的牛膝草、锑牛膝草、旷野牛膝草、罗马牛膝草，也不取任何名字带着修饰语的别种牛膝草。
With regard to every mitzva that requires use of hyssop, one takes standard hyssop and neither a hyssop that grows in Greece, nor stibium hyssop, nor desert hyssop, nor Roman hyssop, nor any other kind of hyssop whose name is accompanied by a modifier.
苦菜这条诫命也该同样如此：沼泽的苦菜，它的名字带着修饰语，就不是妥拉里所提的苦菜。
The same should hold true for the mitzva of bitter herbs; bitter herbs of the marsh, whose name is accompanied by a modifier, are not the bitter herbs mentioned in the Torah.
阿巴耶 答：两者有别。凡在颁赐妥拉之前名字已分化的物种——亚种之别早于西奈启示——妥拉来了又特别指定其中一个亚种，就可知这物种另有带修饰语、不合尽诫命的亚种；这些苦菜，在颁赐妥拉之前名字根本没有分化，各亚种都只叫苦菜；所以妥拉要苦菜时，人用苦菜的任何亚种都可以尽诫命。
阿巴耶 回答说：这两种情形之间有一个分别。
Abaye said in response: There is a distinction between the cases.
凡在颁赐妥拉以前名字就已分化的物种，就是说它不同亚种之间的区别，早于西奈的启示，而妥拉随后来了，特别讲究其中某一个亚种，就可知这物种另有带着修饰语、不合用来尽这条诫命的亚种。
Every species whose name was differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah, i.e., the distinction between its different subspecies predated the Revelation at Sinai, and the Torah then came and was particular about one specific subspecies, it is known that the species has other subspecies identified with a modifier that are unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva.
而这些苦菜，它们的名字在颁赐妥拉以前根本没有分化过；所有的亚种都只简单地叫作苦菜。
And these bitter herbs, their names were not differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah at all; all the subspecies were known simply as bitter herbs.
所以，当妥拉要求苦菜时，人可以用苦菜的所有亚种来尽这条诫命。
Therefore, when the Torah requires bitter herbs, one may fulfill the mitzva with all subspecies of bitter herbs.
拉瓦 另有一解：其实这植物的名字就只是苦菜，不带修饰语；人称它为沼泽苦菜，只因它通常生在沼泽里；所以没有理由不许用它在逾越节尽诫命。
拉瓦 说了一个不同的解释。
Rava said a different explanation.
其实，这种植物的名字只是苦菜，不带修饰语。
Actually, the name of this plant is merely bitter herbs without a modifier.
而人称它为沼泽的苦菜，是因为它通常见于沼泽之中。
And the fact that one calls them bitter herbs of the marsh is because they are typically found in the marsh.
所以，没有理由不可以用它在逾越节尽这条诫命。
Therefore, there is no reason that they may not be used to fulfill the mitzva on Passover.
拉夫希斯达 说：捆一样东西，即便打了结，也不算捆；捆三样在一起，众人都同意算捆；捆两样，是 拉比约西 与众拉比之争，如密释纳所学：凡关乎牛膝草诫命的事，须有三根带根的茎，其上三条枝，每根茎一条。拉比约西 说：牛膝草之诫根本上须三条枝；牛膝草捆若不全了，余下两条枝也合用；若所有枝都断了，只要中央主枝的残桩还在，不拘大小，也合用。
拉夫希斯达 说：人若捆一样东西，即便他是打了结捆的，也不算作捆扎。
§ Rav Ḥisda said: If one bound one item, even if he did so with a knot, it is not considered a binding.
人若把三样东西捆在一起，众人都同意那算作捆扎。
If one bound three items together, everyone agrees that it is considered a binding.
人若捆两样东西，那是 拉比约西 与众拉比所争论的题目，正如我们在一条密释纳里所学：论一切关乎牛膝草诫命的事，所须的是三根带着根的茎，其上有三条枝，每根茎上一条。
If one bound two items, it is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to all matters that involve the mitzva of hyssop, the requirement is to have three stalks with their roots, and on them three stems, one on each stalk.
拉比约西 说：牛膝草的诫命根本上须要三条枝。
Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva of hyssop fundamentally requires three stems.
牛膝草捆若变得不全了，它余下的部分有两条枝，也合用。
If the bundle of hyssop was rendered incomplete, its remnants are fit for use with two stems.
若所有的枝都断了，只要它中央那条枝的残桩还在，不拘大小，这牛膝草也合用。
If all the stems broke, the hyssop is fit for use, as long as the stumps of its central stem remain any size.
我们心里想说：拉比约西 既说牛膝草捆事后要合诫命须余下两条，看来它原先也是两根茎；密释纳教捆里有三根，那是 按理 行诫命的要求；拉比约西 既只为 按理 要求三根，可推知与他相争的众拉比以为捆里不足三根就不合尽诫命。看来众拉比与 拉比约西 所争，是两样还是三样才算捆扎。
我们心里想说：既然 拉比约西 说，牛膝草捆要在事后合用于诫命，它余下的是两条，看来它原先也是两根茎。
It enters our minds to say: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said that for the bundle of hyssop to be fit for the mitzva after the fact its remnants are two, apparently its origins were also two stalks.
而密释纳教导捆扎里包括三株，那是 按理 行这条诫命的要求。
And the fact that the mishna teaches that the binding includes three plants, that is the requirement for the mitzva to be performed ab initio.
既然 拉比约西 只为 按理 行这条诫命而要求三株，可以断定：与他相争的众拉比认为，捆里不包括三根茎，就使它不合用于这条诫命。
And from the fact that Rabbi Yosei requires three plants only for the mitzva to be performed ab initio, conclude that the Rabbis, who disagree with him, hold that failure to include three stalks in the bundle renders it unfit for the mitzva.
看来众拉比与 拉比约西 所争论的，是两样还是三样东西才算作捆扎所须的。
Apparently, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei dispute whether it is two or three items that are necessary to be considered a binding.
革玛拉质疑这样理解争论：岂不是有 《巴拉伊塔》 说：拉比约西 说：牛膝草捆原先两根、余下一根的，不合用；只有原先三根、余下两根的才合用？不如把密释纳里的两说颠倒：照 拉比约西，捆里不足三根使它不合尽诫命；照众拉比，三根是 按理 行诫命的要求。
革玛拉质疑对这争论的那种理解。
The Gemara questions that understanding of the dispute.
可是岂不是有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教导说：拉比约西 说：论牛膝草捆，它原先若是两根茎，而余下的是一根，它就不合用。
But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: With regard to the hyssop bundle, if its origins were two stalks and its remnants are one, it is unfit.
它只有在原先是三根、余下是两根时，才合用。
And it is fit only when its origins were three and its remnants are two.
不如把密释纳里的两个意见颠倒过来：照 拉比约西，捆里不包括三根茎，就使它不合用于这条诫命；照众拉比，三根是 按理 行这条诫命的要求。
Rather, reverse the opinions in the mishna: According to Rabbi Yosei, failure to include three stalks in the bundle renders it unfit for the mitzva; according to the Rabbis, three is the requirement for the mitzva to be performed ab initio.
革玛拉引一条 《巴拉伊塔》 支持这理解：牛膝草捆原先两根、余下一根的，合用；只有原先与余下都是一根时才不合用。显然这是众拉比的意见。
革玛拉引一条支持这种理解的 《巴拉伊塔》。
The Gemara cites a baraita supporting this understanding.
这也在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教过：论牛膝草捆，它原先若是两根茎，而余下的是一根，它就合用。
And this was taught in a baraita: With regard to the hyssop bundle, if its origins were two stalks and its remnants are one, it is fit.
它只有在原先与余下都是一根时，才不合用。
And it is unfit only when its origins and its remnants are one.
显然，这是众拉比的意见。
Clearly, this is the opinion of the Rabbis.
革玛拉质疑这条 《巴拉伊塔》 的末句：余下一根的就不合用？你在 《巴拉伊塔》 的前一段岂不是说余下一根的合用？
革玛拉质疑这条 《巴拉伊塔》 的末句：它余下的若是一根，就不合用吗？
The Gemara questions the end of the baraita: If its remnants are one, it is unfit?
你在这条 《巴拉伊塔》 的头一段里，岂不是说它余下的若是一根，就合用吗？
Didn’t you say in the first clause of the baraita that if its remnants are one it is fit?