← 住棚卷总目·第三章 被盗的棕枝
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 26 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）然后他回家，照安息年出产之圣，以合宜的方式、在合宜的时候吃那出产。
然后他回家，因着安息年出产的圣别，以合宜的方式、在合宜的时候吃那出产。
And then he comes home and eats the produce in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time, due to the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce.
《巴拉伊塔》 续：这话——许把买安息年出产的钱交给 地之民、只要不超过三餐之值——是在什么情形说的？专在人买的出产来自照规定在安息年宣告无主的田时——那时收集出产的 地之民 只因收割而得钱，不是因出产。然而他若买的出产来自像安息年周期其余年份那样为主人看守、未宣告无主的田，即便买了值半个 伊萨 的出产，也禁把钱交给他，因禁使用安息年被看守的果子。
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：这句话——许人把用来买安息年出产的钱转给一个 地之民，只要它不超过三餐的价值——是在什么情形里说的？
The baraita continues: In what case is this statement said that it is permitted to transfer money used to purchase Sabbatical-Year produce to an am ha’aretz as long as it does not exceed the value of three meals?
专是在人买的出产，是来自一块照安息年所规定、被宣告为无主之田的情形。
It is specifically in a case where one purchases produce that came from a field that was declared ownerless as required during the Sabbatical Year.
在那情形里，那收集这出产的 地之民，只是因收割这个举动而得报酬，而不是因这出产。
In that case, the am ha’aretz who gathered the produce is paid only for the act of harvesting and not for the produce.
然而他若买的出产，是来自一块像在安息年周期其余年份里那样为它的主人看守着、而没有被宣告为无主的田，那么即便人买了价值半个 伊萨 的出产，也禁止把这钱转给他，因为禁止使用在安息年被看守的果子。
However, if he buys produce that came from a field that was safeguarded for its owner in the manner that it is during the other years of the Sabbatical-Year cycle and was not declared ownerless, then even if one purchased produce worth half an issar, it is prohibited to transfer the money to him, as it is prohibited to utilize fruits that were safeguarded during the Sabbatical Year.
拉夫舍舍特 提出反驳：从无主之田买出产，只许买三餐之值、不可更多吗？他从一条密释纳（《第七年卷》 9:1）提出矛盾：芸香与酸模两种草，与芦笋、马齿苋、山上的芫荽、河边的水芹、园中的芝麻菜等菜蔬，在任何年份都免取什一，安息年可从任何人那里买，因它们没有一种是被看守的——这些植物不是栽培的，是野生的，所以无主。可见这些野生植物可以买任何数量，即便从 地之民 买，也没有三餐之限。
拉夫舍舍特 提出一个反驳：而人从一块无主的田买出产，只许买价值三餐、而不可更多吗？
Rav Sheshet raised an objection: And is it permitted to purchase produce from an ownerless field worth only the value of three meals and no more?
他从一条密释纳（《第七年卷》 9:1）提出一个矛盾：芸香与酸模这两种草，以及菜蔬，例如芦笋、马齿苋、生在山上的芫荽、河边的水芹与园中的芝麻菜，在任何年份都免于取什一的要求，而在安息年，人可以从任何人那里买它们，因为它们的种类中没有一株是被看守的。
He raised a contradiction from a mishna (Shevi’it 9:1): Rue and sorrel, two types of herbs, and vegetables such as asparagus, purslane, coriander that is found in the mountains, water parsley of the rivers, and garden-eruca are all exempt from the requirement of tithes in all years, and they may be purchased from any person during the Sabbatical Year because there is no plant of their species that is safeguarded.
这些植物不是栽培的，而是野生的，使它们成为无主的。
These plants are not cultivated but grow wild, rendering them ownerless.
看来，这些野生的植物可以用任何数量购买，即便是从一个 地之民 那里，也没有三餐的限制。
Apparently, these plants that grow wild may be purchased in any quantity, even from an am ha’aretz, with no three-meal limit.
革玛拉续：拉夫舍舍特 提出反驳，也自己解了：众贤教密释纳里这条 哈拉哈，是论足够他维生的食物之量——密释纳从「不可向 地之民 购买」之禁中排除的这些植物，仍受三餐之限。同样，拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 传 拉比约哈难 说：众贤教这条 哈拉哈，是论足够他维生之量。从何推知这词有「维生」之意？如经上写着：「王派定将自己所用的膳……每日赐他们一份」（但以理书 1:5）。
革玛拉接着说。
The Gemara continues.
拉夫舍舍特 提出了这个反驳，他也解开了它：众贤教密释纳里的这条 哈拉哈，是论够他维生之量的食物。
Rav Sheshet raised the objection, and he also resolved it: The Sages taught this halakha in the mishna with regard to food in the amount sufficient for his sustenance [man].
「够他维生之量」原文 一百第纳尔（מָן）；「派定」原文 vayman（וַיְמַן），同根。中文不写罗马字。
这条密释纳从不可向一个 地之民 购买之禁令中排除的这些植物，仍受三餐的限制。
These plants that the mishna excludes from the prohibition against purchase from an am ha’aretz are still subject to the three-meal limit.
同样，拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 传 拉比约哈难 说：众贤教这条 哈拉哈，是论够他维生之量。
And likewise, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Sages taught this halakha in the amount sufficient for his sustenance [man].
从哪里可以推知，那个词是表示维生的一个用语？
From where may it be inferred that man is a term meaning sustenance?
正如经上所记：「王派定每日将自己所用的膳赐他们一份」（但以理书 1:5）。
It is as it is written: “And the king appointed [vayman] for them a daily portion of the king’s food” (Daniel 1:5).
革玛拉问：若是这样——恐 地之民 误用钱而不可向他买出产——安息年也该禁给他钱、向他买 棕枝。答：密释纳论的是第六年进入第七年的 棕枝：它既在第六年生长，虽在第七年从树上取下也许可；它在岁首日与住棚节之间留在树上，不使它成为安息年出产。革玛拉诘难：若是这样，香橼 也是第六年进入第七年之物，该有同样地位。答：论 香橼，不同于 棕枝，定它的地位按它的采摘、不按它何时生长；所以那时 香橼 算安息年出产。
革玛拉问：若是这样，若人不可向一个 地之民 买出产，恐怕他会误用这钱，那么在安息年给他钱、向他买一根 棕枝，也应当是被禁止的。
§ The Gemara asks: If so, if one may not purchase produce from an am ha’aretz lest he misuse the money, it should also be prohibited to give him money and purchase a lulav from him during the Sabbatical Year.
革玛拉答：这条密释纳所论的，是一根属于第六年、而进入第七年的 棕枝 的情形。
The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing with a case where the lulav is of the sixth year that is entering the seventh year.
既然它是在第六年生长的，它就是许可的，尽管它是在第七年从树上取下来的。
As it grew during the sixth year, it is permitted, even though it was removed from the tree during the seventh year.
它在岁首日与 住棚节 之间留在树上这一事实，并不使它成为安息年的出产。
The fact that it remained on the tree between Rosh HaShana and Sukkot does not render it Sabbatical-Year produce.
革玛拉提出诘难：若是这样，那个 香橼 也是一件属于第六年、而进入第七年的物件，应当有同样的地位。
The Gemara objects: If so, the etrog, too, is an object of the sixth year that is entering the seventh year and should have the same status.
革玛拉答：论一个 香橼，与一根 棕枝 相对，在定它的地位时，我们是照它的采摘，而不是照它何时生长。
The Gemara answers: With regard to an etrog, as opposed to a lulav, in determining its status we go according to its picking and not when it grew.
所以，在那情形里，这个 香橼 被看作安息年的出产。
Therefore, in that case, the etrog is considered to be Sabbatical-Year produce.
革玛拉诘难：拉班迦玛列 与 拉比以利以谢 虽争在一年生长、次年采摘之 香橼 按什一之律属哪一年，却都同意论安息年的 哈拉哈，香橼 按它的成熟算，如我们在一条密释纳（《初熟贡卷》2:6）里所学：香橼 树的果子，法定地位有三方面如寻常果树，有一方面如菜蔬。
革玛拉提出诘难：可是 拉班迦玛列 与 拉比以利以谢，他们虽然就一个在一年生长、在下一年采摘之 香橼，为定它在什一诸条 哈拉哈 上所属之年而相争，却都同意：论安息年的诸条 哈拉哈，论一个 香橼，我们是照它的成熟来算的，正如我们在一条密释纳里所学的（《初熟贡卷》2:6）：香橼 树之果子的 哈拉哈 地位，在三方面如同一棵寻常的果树，在一方面如同一种菜蔬。
The Gemara objects: But both Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, who disagree about the status of an etrog that grew in one year and was picked in the following year in terms of determining its year for the halakhot of tithing, agree with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year that with regard to an etrog we go according to its ripening, as we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 2:6): The halakhic status of the fruit of an etrog tree is like that of a typical fruit tree in three manners and like that of a vegetable in one manner.
密释纳细说：它有三方面的法定地位如树：论 三年果禁——栽后头三年禁吃其果；论第四年的出产——树栽后第四年所生的果子，除非借赎回而失去圣别，不可在耶路撒冷以外使用；论安息年。这几条 哈拉哈 里，果子归属哪一年，按它何时成熟而定。它有一方面的法定地位如菜蔬：（下接 40a）
这条密释纳细说：它的 哈拉哈 地位在三方面如同一棵树：论 三年果禁，就是在它栽下之后的头三年，禁止吃它的果子；论第四年的出产，就是在树栽下之后第四年所生的果子，除非借着赎回而除去圣别，否则不可在耶路撒冷以外使用；以及论安息年。
The mishna elaborates: Its halakhic status is like that of a tree in three manners: With regard to orla, i.e., it is prohibited to eat of its fruit during the first three years after its planting; with regard to fourth-year produce, i.e., fruits that grow during the fourth year after the tree’s planting, which may not be used outside of Jerusalem unless they are deconsecrated by means of redemption; and with regard to the Sabbatical Year.
论所有这些 哈拉哈，这果子所归属的年份，是由它何时成熟来决定的。
With regard to all those halakhot, the year to which the fruit is ascribed is determined by when it ripens.
而它的 哈拉哈 地位在一方面如同一种菜蔬：
And its halakhic status is like that of a vegetable in one manner: