24b.1
推论
（续上）这隔断是由人所立的，所以合用。
-
这道隔断是由人所立的，所以它是合用的。
this partition was established by a person and is therefore fit.
← 住棚卷总目·第二章 睡者
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 10 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）这隔断是由人所立的，所以合用。
这道隔断是由人所立的，所以它是合用的。
this partition was established by a person and is therefore fit.
夫子在 《巴拉伊塔》 里说：众贤以 加利利人拉比约西 之名说：也不可在它上面写休书。革玛拉问：加利利人拉比约西 之意的理由何在？如 《巴拉伊塔》 就这节经所教：「人若娶妻以后，见她有什么不合理的事，不喜悦她，就可以写休书（书卷）交在她手中，打发她离开夫家」（申命记 24:1）——从 书卷 一词，我只推出书卷合用；从何推出包括一切物件都合用来写休书？经上说「写……给她」，无论如何——凡能写下文句的面都可以。
夫子在 《巴拉伊塔》 里说：众贤以 加利利人拉比约西 之名说：人也不可在它上面写休书。
§ The Master said in the baraita that in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they said: Nor may one write bills of divorce on it.
革玛拉问：加利利人拉比约西 之意见的理由是什么？
The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?
正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 就这节经所教：「人若娶妻以后，见她有什么不合理的事，不喜悦她，就可以写休书［书卷］交在她手中，打发她离开夫家」（申命记 24:1）；从 书卷 这个词，我只推出一卷书卷是合用的。
It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When a man takes a wife, and marries her, and it comes to pass if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her; that he write her a scroll [sefer] of severance and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:1); from the word scroll, I have derived only that a scroll is fit.
我从哪里推出要把一切物件都包括在内，作为可以在其上书写休书的合用材料？
From where do I derive to include all objects as fit materials upon which a bill of divorce may be written?
经上说：「写……给她」，无论如何，就是凡可以在其上写下那文句的任何面。
The verse states: “That he write her,” in any case, i.e., any surface upon which the formula can be written.
若是这样，经上说 书卷 是什么意思？是告诉你：休书须写在如书卷那样的面上——正如书卷既不是活物也不是食物，休书也可写在任何既非活物、也非食物之物上。所以 加利利人拉比约西 判写在活物上的休书无效。
若是这样，经上所说的 书卷 是什么意思？
If so, what is the meaning of that which the verse states: Scroll?
是要告诉你：一张休书必须写在一个像书卷的面上；正如一卷书卷既不是活的、也不是食物，同样，一张休书可以写在任何既不是活的、也不是食物的物件上。
It is to tell you that a bill of divorce must be written on a surface like a scroll: Just as a scroll is neither alive nor is it food, so too, a bill of divorce may be written on any object that is neither alive nor food.
这就是 加利利人拉比约西 判写在一个活物上的休书无效的理由。
That is why Rabbi Yosei HaGelili invalidates a bill of divorce written on a living being.
革玛拉问：与他相争、说休书连活物或食物上也可写的众拉比，怎样解这节经？他们主张：经上若写「写在书卷上给她」（在书卷上），就如你所说，休书只能写在书卷上；如今只写「写一个 书卷 给她」，是教导只须把事情叙述下来——对书写这叙述的面并无限制。
革玛拉问：而众拉比与他相争，说一张休书即便写在一个活物或食物上也可以，他们又怎样解释这节经？
The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who disagree and say that a bill of divorce may be written even on a living creature or on food, interpret the verse?
他们主张：经上若写的是：「在书卷上［在书卷上］写给她」，那就会如你所说的，休书只可以写在一卷书卷上。
They contend: If the verse had written: That he write for her in the scroll [basefer], it would be as you said, that the bill of divorce may be written only on a scroll.
如今它只简单地写着：「写一个 书卷 给她」，这是来教导：所须的只是事情的一番叙述。
Now that it is written simply: That he write her a sefer, it comes to teach that a mere account of the matters [sefirat devarim] is required.
「一番叙述」原文作 sefirat devarim（סְפִירַת דְּבָרִים）：众拉比把 书卷（סֵפֶר）读作与「叙述、计数」（ספר）同根，故不限于书卷。中文不写罗马字。
对那叙述可写于其上的面，并没有任何限制。
There are no restrictions with regard to the surface on which that account may be written.
革玛拉接着问：众拉比从「写……给她」推出什么？答：这一语须用来教：妇人只借书写，即休书，才被休，不借钱。你或许会以为：经上把离婚与结婚（订婚）并列，结婚既可借钱成就，离婚也可借钱成就；所以妥拉教我们「写……给她」，表明离婚只能借写成的休书成就。
革玛拉接着问：而众拉比从「写……给她」这一语推出什么？
The Gemara continues: And what do the Rabbis derive from the phrase: “That he write her”?
革玛拉答：那一语须用来教这条原则：一个妇人只借着书写，就是一张休书，才被休；她不借着钱被休。
The Gemara answers: That phrase is required to teach the principle that a woman is divorced only by means of writing, i.e., a bill of divorce, and she is not divorced by means of money.
你心里或许会以为：既然在这节经里，离开婚姻，就是离婚，与进入婚姻，就是订婚，是并列的，那么正如进入婚姻是借着钱成就的，同样，离开婚姻也可以借着钱成就。
It might have entered your mind to say: Since in the verse, leaving marriage, i.e., divorce, is juxtaposed to becoming married, i.e., betrothal, then just as becoming married is effected with money, so too, leaving marriage may be effected with money.
所以，妥拉教我们：「写……给她」，表明离婚只能借着一张写成的休书成就。
Therefore, the Torah teaches us: “That he write her,” indicating that divorce can be effected only with a written bill of divorce.
革玛拉问：加利利人拉比约西 从何推出妇人不能借钱被休的道理？答：从「休书」（断绝之书）一语推出——是一卷书、即一份写成的文件，使她与丈夫断绝，别无他物使她断绝。
革玛拉问：而 加利利人拉比约西，他从哪里推出一个妇人不能借着钱被休的这个道理？
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, from where does he derive this reasoning that a woman cannot be divorced with money?
革玛拉答：他是从「断绝之书」这一语推出的，这教导：一卷书，就是一份写成的文件，使她与她的丈夫断绝，而别无他物使她与他断绝。
The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: “A scroll of severance,” which teaches that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband, and nothing else severs her from him.
革玛拉接着说：另一位 坦拿，即众拉比，须用那节经来教：休书须是切断他与她之间一切联系的东西，如 《巴拉伊塔》 所教：人对妻子说：这是你的休书，条件是你永不喝酒，或条件是你永不回你父亲家——那不是断绝，休书无效；休书若给妇人加一个永远把她系于丈夫的条件，她与丈夫的关系就没有完全断绝，而那是离婚的前提。然而他若加一个三十日或其他有限期间的条件，那就是断绝，休书有效，因为到三十日末了关系就完全终结。
革玛拉接着说：而另一位 坦拿，就是众拉比，须要那节经来教导：一张休书必须是一件切断他与她之间一切联系的事。
The Gemara continues: And the other tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, requires that verse to teach that a bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her.
正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教：若一个人对他的妻子说：这是你的休书，条件是你永远不喝酒，或条件是你永远不回你父亲的家，那就不是断绝；这离婚是无效的。
As it is taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will never drink wine, or on the condition that you will never go to your father’s house, that is not severance; the divorce is not valid.
若一张休书给这妇人加上一个永久把她系于她丈夫的条件，她与她丈夫的关系就没有完全断绝，而那是离婚的前提。
If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce.
然而他若加上一个为期三十日、或任何其他有限期间的条件，那就是断绝，这离婚是有效的，因为到三十日期满时，这关系就会完全终结。
If, however, he imposes a condition for the duration of thirty days, or any other limited period of time, that is severance, and the divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.
革玛拉接着说：另一位 坦拿，加利利人拉比约西，从经上不用 剪除 而用较长的 断绝 一词，推出没有终止之期的条件使离婚无效——两个词都指断绝，用较长的一词就教两件事：离婚只能借书写而不能借钱成就，离婚须完全断绝。另一位 坦拿 即众拉比，不从 剪除 扩为 断绝 推出什么，因他们不以为这是对经文寻常措辞的重大偏离。
革玛拉接着说：而另一位 坦拿，加利利人拉比约西，推出一个没有终止之期的条件会使离婚无效，是从这一事实：这节经不用 剪除 一词，而用较为扩展的 断绝 一词。
The Gemara continues: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, derives that a condition without a termination point invalidates the divorce from the fact that instead of using the term karet, the verse uses the more expanded term keritut.
既然两个词都表示断绝，用较长的那一词就教导两件事：离婚只能借着书写、而不能借着钱成就；离婚又须要完全的断绝。
Inasmuch as both terms denote severance, using the longer term teaches two things: Divorce can be effected only by means of writing and not through money, and divorce requires total severance.
而另一位 坦拿，就是众拉比，并不从 剪除 扩为 断绝 推出什么，因为众拉比不把这看作对这节经寻常措辞的一个重大偏离。
And the other tanna, the Rabbis, does not derive anything from the expansion of karet to keritut, because the Rabbis do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.
密释纳：把 棚 搭在树与树之间、以树为墙的，合用。
论把他的 棚 搭在树与树之间、而树作为它之墙的人，这座 棚 是合用的。
In the case of one who establishes his sukka between the trees, and the trees serve as walls for it, the sukka is fit.
拉夫阿哈·巴尔·雅各 说：凡在寻常之风里立不住、被吹得来回摆动的隔断，都不是隔断。
拉夫阿哈·巴尔·雅各 说：凡在一阵寻常之风里立不住、而是被吹得来回摆动的隔断，都不是一道隔断。
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Any partition that is not able to stand in a typical wind, but rather is blown to and fro, is not a partition.
革玛拉据密释纳所学问：把 棚 搭在树与树之间、以树为墙的，合用——树岂不在风中来回摇摆？答：这里论的是什么？密释纳指的是粗硬、不在风中摇摆的老树。
革玛拉根据我们在密释纳里所学的，提出下面这个问题：论把他的 棚 搭在树与树之间、而树作为它之墙的人，这座 棚 是合用的。
The Gemara asks the following question based on that which we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who establishes his sukka between the trees, and the trees serve as walls for it, the sukka is fit.
革玛拉问：可是树岂不是在风中来回摇摆吗？
The Gemara asks: But don’t the trees sway back and forth in the wind?
革玛拉答：我们在这里所论的是什么？
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here?
这条密释纳所指的，是粗而硬、不在风中摇摆的老树。
The mishna is referring to older trees that are thick and hard and do not sway in the wind.
革玛拉问：它的枝叶岂不必在风中摇摆？若它成 棚 墙的一部分，棚 就该不合用。答：是论合用之墙的情形——他用硬棕叶与月桂叶把墙扎紧、使它不在风中摇摆。又说：树既扎住、摇不了，说这条 哈拉哈 有何用？它是合用的墙，显而易见。答：免得你说：立禁令禁用它，恐人来在安息日使用树木；所以密释纳教我们这不成顾虑。
革玛拉问：可是岂不是有它枝叶的问题吗？那必定会在风中摇摆。
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the issue of its foliage, which certainly sways in the wind?
它若构成 棚 之墙的一部分，这座 棚 就该不合用。
If it constitutes part of the wall of the sukka, the sukka should be unfit.
革玛拉答：它所指的，是它因为下面这一事实而是一面合用之墙的情形：他借着用硬棕叶与月桂叶把墙扎住，使它绷紧，防止它在风中摇摆。
The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where it is a fit wall due to the fact that he established the wall by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves to tighten it to prevent it from swaying in the wind.
革玛拉说：若是这树被扎住、不能摇摆，说这条 哈拉哈 有什么用意？
And the Gemara says: If it is so that the tree is tied and cannot sway, what purpose is there to state this halakha?
它是一面合用的墙，这是显然的。
It is obvious that it is a fit wall.
革玛拉答：那是免得你说：让我们立一道禁令，禁止使用它，免得人会来在安息日使用这树。
The Gemara answers: It is lest you say: Let us issue a decree prohibiting its use lest one come to use the tree on Shabbat.
所以，这条密释纳教我们：这不是一个顾虑。
Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not a concern.
请来听另一证，证在风中来回吹动的隔断是合用的隔断：哈拉哈 是井周四角立的双板使那片地成为 私人区，许安息日从井中打水；那里若有一棵树，在一角的每边各厚一肘，或一道一肘见方的方石篱，或一道芦苇隔断，它的法定地位就按井周角上所立的双板来衡量，为两面作隔断。可见在风中摇动的隔断——如芦苇隔断——算完整的隔断。革玛拉驳此证：那里也只因他用硬棕叶与月桂叶把隔断扎住，才算完整的隔断。
请来听另一个证据：一道在风中被吹得来回摆动的隔断，是一道合用的隔断。
Come and hear a different proof that a partition that is blown to and fro in the wind is a fit partition.
这条 哈拉哈 是：放在一口井周围之地四角上的双板，使那地方成为一个 私人区，人在其中可以在安息日从井里打水。
The halakha is that double boards positioned in the four corners of an area surrounding a well render the area a private domain in which it is permitted to draw water from the well on Shabbat.
若那里有一棵树，在其中一个角的每一边各厚一肘，或有一道量一肘见方的方石篱，或有一道芦苇的隔断，它的法定地位就照一副放在井周之地角上的双板来衡量，为两面作隔断。
If there was a tree there, one cubit thick on each side of one of the corners, or a square stone fence that measures one square cubit, or a partition of reeds, its legal status is assessed like that of a double board positioned at the corners of the area surrounding a well, and serve as a partition for two of the sides.
看来，一道在风中摇动的隔断，像芦苇的隔断，被看作一道完整的隔断。
Apparently, a partition that moves in the wind, like the partition of reeds, is considered a full-fledged partition.
革玛拉驳斥这个证据：在那里也一样，它只是因为他借着用硬棕叶与月桂叶把这道隔断扎住，才被看作一道完整的隔断。
The Gemara refutes this proof: There, too, it is only considered a full-fledged partition due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.
革玛拉再引一证：请来听 《巴拉伊塔》 所教：一棵枝叶宽大、枝条垂下盖到地面的树，枝叶离地若不足三掌，就成一个如圆室的空间，可以在它底下搬运，因它是完整的 私人区。树的枝叶何以是合用的隔断？它岂不在风中来回摇摆？答：那里也是因他用硬棕叶与月桂叶把隔断扎住。
革玛拉引一个额外的证据。
The Gemara cites an additional proof.
请来听一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里所教的：论一棵枝叶宽大、而它的枝条垂下来盖到地面的树，它的枝叶若离地不足三掌高，它就形成一个像圆形房间的空间；所以人可以在它底下搬运，因为它是一个完整的 私人区。
Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a tree whose foliage is broad and its branches reach down and cover the ground, if its foliage is not three handbreadths high off the ground it creates a space similar to a round room; therefore, one may carry beneath it, as it is a full-fledged private domain.
这树的枝叶为什么是一道合用的隔断？
Why is the foliage of the tree a fit partition?
它岂不是在风中来回摇摆吗？
Doesn’t it sway back and forth in the wind?
革玛拉答：在那里也一样，那是因为他借着用硬棕叶与月桂叶把这道隔断扎住。
The Gemara answers: There, too, it is due to the fact that he established the partition by tying it with hard palm leaves and laurel leaves.
革玛拉问：既是人把枝叶立成完整隔断的情形，就该许他在树下整片地方挪动东西，因它是 私人区。那 拉夫胡纳·巴尔·拉夫约书亚 为何说：在这树底下可以搬运（下接 25a）
革玛拉问：若是这样，它是人把枝叶立成一道完整隔断的情形，就让他在这树底下的整片地方挪动东西吧，因为它是一个 私人区。
The Gemara asks: If so that it is a case where one established the foliage as a complete partition, let him move objects in the entire area beneath the tree, since it is a private domain.
那么，拉夫胡纳·巴尔·拉夫约书亚 为什么说：人在这棵树底下可以搬运
Why, then, did Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, say: One may carry beneath this tree