36a.1
解答
（承叶三十五背末）杂菜汤汁 是煮过各样菜蔬的水；甜菜汤汁里要掺进些油。
-
就是煮过各样菜蔬的那水。
in which all boiled vegetables were boiled.
-
甜菜汤汁 里是要掺进些油的。
A certain amount of oil is added to anigeron.
← 祝祷卷总目·第六章 如何祝祷
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 5 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。
（承叶三十五背末）杂菜汤汁 是煮过各样菜蔬的水；甜菜汤汁里要掺进些油。
就是煮过各样菜蔬的那水。
in which all boiled vegetables were boiled.
甜菜汤汁 里是要掺进些油的。
A certain amount of oil is added to anigeron.
若是这样，甜菜汤汁为主、油为从，照密释纳的通则，只须为那主的诵祝祷。
可是若这样说，此处也是 甜菜汤汁 为主、油为从；我们在一条密释纳里学过：凡以主的食物与从的食物同吃，人为那主的诵祝祷，这祝祷就免了那为从的另诵。
However, if so, here too, anigeron is primary and oil is secondary, and we learned in a mishna: This is the principle: Any food that is primary, and it is eaten with food that is secondary, one recites a blessing over the primary food, and that blessing exempts the secondary from the requirement to recite a blessing before eating it.
这样只须为 甜菜汤汁 诵祝祷就是了。
One need recite a blessing only over the anigeron.
所说的是喉咙疼的人，用油作药。巴拉伊塔说：安息日不可径行含油漱喉（那是用药之禁），却可以多掺些油在甜菜汤汁里咽下——既是这样咽油，就诵「创造树上果实者」。
革玛拉 调和说：我们这里说的是哪一种情形呢？
The Gemara reconciles: With what are we dealing here?
说的是喉咙疼的人，正拿油治他的病。
With one who has a sore throat, which he is treating with oil.
因为有一段 《巴拉伊塔》 教说：喉咙疼的人，安息日不可一起头就含油漱喉治病，因为那要犯了安息日不可用药的防禁。
As it was taught in a baraita: One who has a sore throat should not, ab initio, gargle oil on Shabbat for medicinal purposes, as doing so would violate the decree prohibiting the use of medicine on Shabbat.
然而他尽可以一起头就把许多油掺在 甜菜汤汁 里咽下去。
However, he may, even ab initio, add a large amount of oil to the anigeron and swallow it.
人为治病而咽油，或单咽、或掺着 甜菜汤汁 这样为从之物同咽，本是常事；在这情形，他就诵「创造树上果实者」。
Since it is common practice to swallow oil either alone or with a secondary ingredient like anigeron for medicinal purposes, in this case one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.
这不是显然的么？答：恐怕人说既是用药便不必诵祝祷，故教我们：他既由此得了快意，就当诵祝祷。
革玛拉 难说：他当诵祝祷，这岂不是显然的么？
The Gemara challenges: This is obvious that one must recite a blessing.
革玛拉 答：恐怕你要说——他既是为治病而用，就索性不必为它诵祝祷，因为人服药以先本不诵祝祷。
The Gemara responds: Lest you say: Since he intends to use it for medicinal purposes, let him not recite a blessing over it at all, as one does not recite a blessing before taking medicine.
所以这里教我们：他既由此得了快意，就当为它诵祝祷。
Therefore, it teaches us that, since he derived pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing over it.
人若单吃麦面，当诵什么？拉夫犹大说「创造地上果实者」，拉夫纳赫曼说「凡物皆由他言而有者」。
革玛拉 细论：人若是单吃麦面，当诵什么祝祷呢？
The Gemara clarifies: If one was eating plain wheat flour, what blessing would he recite?
拉夫犹大 说：他诵「创造地上果实者」；拉夫纳赫曼 说：他诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」。
Rav Yehuda said that one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and Rav Naḥman said that one recites: By Whose word all things came to be.
拉瓦对拉夫纳赫曼说：不要与拉夫犹大相争，因拉比约哈难与撒母耳的看法与他相合——橄榄虽变成了油，祝祷仍旧；麦子虽变成了面，祝祷也当仍旧。
拉瓦 对 拉夫纳赫曼 说：你不要与 拉夫犹大 相争，因为 拉比约哈难 与 撒母耳 的看法与他相合，虽然他们所论的是别的一件事。
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Do not disagree with Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Yoḥanan and Shmuel hold in accordance with his opinion, even though they addressed another topic.
因为 拉夫犹大 引 撒母耳 说，拉比以撒 也引 拉比约哈难 说：论到橄榄油，人诵「创造树上果实者」。
As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil.
可见橄榄虽已变成了橄榄油，所诵祝祷的话仍旧不改。
Consequently, even though the olive has changed into olive oil, the formula of the blessing remains as it was.
这里也是一样：麦子虽已变成了面，它的祝祷仍旧是「创造地上果实者」。
This too, even though the wheat has changed into flour, its blessing remains as it was: Who creates fruit of the ground.
两者岂能相比？油是橄榄的成物，再无可进；面却还能作成饼，是半成之物，只好诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」。
革玛拉 答：这两样岂能相比么？
The Gemara responds: Is it comparable?
那里，橄榄油再没有可更进一层的了；这里，面还可以更进一层，作成饼。
There, the olive oil has no potential for additional enhancement, while here, the flour has the potential for additional enhancement as bread.
油既是橄榄的成物，为它所诵的就当与为那树的果子所诵的一样。
Since oil is the olive’s finished product, one should recite the same blessing over it as over the tree itself.
麦面却是要烤成饼的，还是半成之物：为麦子所诵的不合它，为饼所诵的也不合它。
Wheat flour, on the other hand, is used to bake bread, so the flour is a raw material for which neither the blessing over wheat nor the blessing over bread is appropriate.
所以只有「凡物皆由他言而有者」这一诵合它。
Only the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be is appropriate.
凡还可更进一层的就不诵「创造地上果实者」么？拉比泽拉引拉夫马塔纳引撒母耳说：生葫芦与大麦面诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」——反推可知，麦面当诵「创造地上果实者」。
革玛拉 问：物既还可更进一层，就不诵「创造地上果实者」，只诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」么？
The Gemara asks: When it has a potential for additional enhancement, one does not recite: Who creates fruit of the ground; rather one recites: By Whose word all things came to be?
拉比泽拉 岂不是引 拉夫马塔纳 引 撒母耳 说：论到生葫芦与大麦面，人诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」？
Didn’t Rabbi Zeira say that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Over a raw gourd and over barley flour, one recites the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be.
这岂不正是说：论到麦面，人当诵「创造地上果实者」么？
What, is that not to say that over wheat flour one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground?
大麦面本非人所常吃，为它诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」是合宜的。
Over barley flour, which people do not typically eat, it is appropriate to recite: By Whose word all things came to be.
麦面则不然，为它诵「创造地上果实者」才是合宜的。
Over wheat flour, it is appropriate to recite: Who creates fruit of the ground.
驳回：麦面也一样诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」。
这推法被驳回了：不然，麦面也是诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」。
This argument is rejected: No, one also recites: By Whose word all things came to be, over wheat flour.
那么贤哲何不就麦面立这条，大麦面自然更不待言？
革玛拉 问：那么贤哲何不就麦面教我们这条 哈拉哈，大麦面岂不更不待言么？
The Gemara asks: Then let the Sages teach us that this halakha applies with regard to wheat flour, and all the more so regarding barley flour as well.
正是要教我们：连大麦面也当诵祝祷。若只就麦子立条，人或以为大麦面竟可不诵。
革玛拉 答：正要教我们，人吃大麦面以先也当诵祝祷。
The Gemara responds: It was necessary to teach us that one must recite a blessing even before eating barley flour.
贤哲若只就麦子教我们这条 哈拉哈，我就要说：这话只关乎麦面；至于大麦面，索性不必为它诵祝祷。
Had the Sages taught us this halakha with regard to wheat, I would have said: This applies only with regard to wheat flour, but over barley flour, let one not recite a blessing at all.
所以这里教我们：大麦面也当为它诵祝祷。
Therefore, it teaches us that one recites a blessing over barley flour.
这话怎么想得出来？大麦面岂比盐与盐水还不如？盐与盐水尚且诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」。答：仍须立此条——盐水人还偶尔入口，大麦面却有损、生腹中之虫，人或以为索性不诵。
革玛拉 就这话发难。
The Gemara challenges this explanation.
怎么会想到那样一层呢？
How could one have considered that possibility?
大麦面岂比盐与 盐水 还不如么？
Is it inferior to salt and salt water [zamit]?
因为我们在一条密释纳里学过：论到盐与 盐水，人诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」；大麦面岂不更当诵么？
As we learned in a mishna that over salt and salt water one recites: By Whose word all things came to be, and all the more so it should be recited over barley flour.
这一问被驳回了：纵然如此，就大麦面立这条 哈拉哈 仍是必要的；因为你心里或要说：盐与 盐水 人还偶尔放进口里，大麦面却于吃的人有损、能生腹中的虫，索性不必为它诵祝祷。
This question is rejected: Nevertheless, it was necessary to teach the halakha regarding barley flour, as it might enter your mind to say: Although one occasionally places salt or salt water into his mouth, barley flour, which is damaging to one who eats it and causes intestinal worms, let one recite no blessing over it at all.
所以这里教我们：他既由此得了快意，就当诵祝祷。
Therefore, it teaches us, since one derives pleasure from it, he must recite a blessing.
棕榈心当诵什么？拉夫犹大说「创造地上果实者」，其师撒母耳说「凡物皆由他言而有者」。
所争的又一诵，是论到 棕榈心——棕榈嫩枝外裹的一层薄膜，人常吃它。
Another dispute over the appropriate blessing is with regard to the heart of palm [kura], which is a thin membrane covering young palm branches that was often eaten.
拉夫犹大 说：当诵「创造地上果实者」。
Rav Yehuda said that one should recite: Who creates fruit of the ground.
他的夫子 撒母耳 说：当诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」。
And Shmuel, Rav Yehuda’s teacher, said that one should recite: By Whose word all things came to be.
拉夫犹大以它为果，撒母耳以它终必变硬、算作树的一分，不算果。
拉夫犹大 说「创造地上果实者」，因为它是果子。
Rav Yehuda said: Who creates fruit of the ground; it is a fruit.
撒母耳 说「凡物皆由他言而有者」，因为它到底要变硬，算作树的一分，不算果子。
And Shmuel said: By Whose word all things came to be, since it will ultimately harden and it is considered part of the tree, not a fruit.
撒母耳称他「利齿」，说你这话在理——萝卜留在地里也终必变硬，趁软吃仍诵「创造地上果实者」。然而不然：人种萝卜本为着那软的，种棕榈却不为着棕榈心。
撒母耳 对 拉夫犹大 说：利齿。
Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana.
照你的说法定这条，是在理的；因为萝卜留在地里也终必变硬，人趁它软的时候吃，仍诵「创造地上果实者」。
It is reasonable to rule in accordance with your opinion, as a radish ultimately hardens if left in the ground; nevertheless, one who eats it while it is soft recites over it: Who creates fruit of the ground.
然而虽有这一句称许，革玛拉 仍说：话不是这样；人种萝卜，本是为着那软的萝卜。
In any case, despite this praise, the Gemara states: That is not so; people plant a radish with the soft radish in mind.
人种棕榈树，却不是为着棕榈心，所以棕榈心算不得果子。
However, people do not plant palm trees with the heart of palm in mind and therefore it cannot be considered a fruit.
凡不为着那一样而种的，就不为它诵祝祷么？刺山柑人是为着果子种的，密释纳却说：叶与嫩枝诵「创造地上果实者」，浆果与花苞诵「创造树上果实者」。
就此 革玛拉 问：凡不是为着那一样而种的，人就不为它诵祝祷么？
In response to this, the Gemara asks: And whenever people do not plant with that result in mind, one does not recite a blessing over it?
那么 刺山柑 又怎么说呢——人种它本是为着它的果子，我们却在一条密释纳里学过：论到 刺山柑，叶与嫩枝诵「创造地上果实者」，浆果与花苞诵「创造树上果实者」。
What of the caper-bush that people plant with their fruit in mind, and we learned in a mishna that with regard to the parts of the caper-bush [nitzpa], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.
可见连叶子与树上别的为从之物，所诵的也是「创造地上果实者」，不是「凡物皆由他言而有者」。
This indicates that even over leaves and various other parts of the tree that are secondary to the fruit, the blessing is: Who creates fruit of the ground, and not: By Whose word all things came to be.
拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒说仍有分别：刺山柑人本也为着它的叶子而种，棕榈却不为着棕榈心。末了：虽蒙撒母耳称许，这条仍依撒母耳。
拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：其间仍有分别——刺山柑，人种它也为着它的叶子；棕榈树，人种它却不为着棕榈心。
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that there is still a difference: Caper-bushes, people plant them with their leaves in mind; palm trees, people do not plant them with the heart of palm in mind.
所以不可拿刺山柑那条 哈拉哈 来推棕榈这条。
Therefore, no proof may be brought from the halakha in the case of the caper-bush to the halakha in the case of the of the palm.
革玛拉 断说：撒母耳 虽称许了 拉夫犹大，这条 哈拉哈 却依 撒母耳。
The Gemara concludes: Although Shmuel praised Rav Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
又一条论刺山柑：拉夫说，以色列地外三年果禁的刺山柑，弃其浆果而食其花苞。难：密释纳明说浆果与花苞同诵「创造树上果实者」，可见花苞也是果。
就着这一段，革玛拉 又引论刺山柑的一条 哈拉哈。
Incidental to this discussion, the Gemara cites an additional halakha concerning the caper-bush.
拉夫犹大 引 拉夫 说：以色列地以外、还在 三年果禁 年头里的刺山柑——那里的果子只出于拉比之律，不出于妥拉之律——人当弃其浆果，却可以吃它的花苞。
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A caper-bush during the first three years of its growth [orla] outside of Eretz Yisrael, when its fruits are prohibited by rabbinic and not Torah law, one throws out the berries, the primary fruit, but eats the buds.
革玛拉 就此发问：这岂不是说，浆果才是刺山柑的果子，花苞不算果子么？
The Gemara raises the question: Is that to say that the berries are fruit of the caper, and the bud is not fruit?
却与上文所引的密释纳相违：论到 刺山柑，叶与嫩枝诵「创造地上果实者」，浆果与花苞诵「创造树上果实者」。
The Gemara raises a contradiction from what we learned in the mishna cited above: With regard to the parts of the caper-bush [nitzpa], over the leaves and young fronds, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over the berries, and buds he recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.
可见花苞显然也算作刺山柑的果子。
Obviously, the buds are also considered the fruit of the caper-bush.
拉夫是依拉比阿奇瓦而说：拉比以利以谢以嫩枝、浆果、花苞皆当分什一，拉比阿奇瓦则说唯浆果算果、唯它当分什一。
革玛拉 答：拉夫 所说的是依 拉比阿奇瓦 的看法；因为我们在一条密释纳里学过：拉比以利以谢 说，刺山柑当就它的各分——嫩枝、浆果、花苞——分什一，因为这些都算它的果子。
The Gemara responds: Rav’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: A caper-bush is tithed from its component parts, its young fronds, berries and buds, as all these are considered its fruit.
拉比阿奇瓦 却说：唯独浆果当分什一，因为唯有它算作果子。
And Rabbi Akiva says: Only the berries alone are tithed, because it alone is considered fruit.
拉夫 正是依着这一说，才只禁人在刺山柑 三年果禁 的年头里吃它的浆果。
It was in accordance with this opinion, that Rav prohibited only the eating of the berries during the caper-bush’s years of orla.
那么拉夫何不径说「这条依拉比阿奇瓦」？因为那样一说，人要以为连在以色列地也依他；他把整条说全，正为立一通则：凡在以色列地从宽的一说，地外依他，地内不依。
革玛拉 问：若是这样，拉夫 何必就 三年果禁 另立一条像是自出的断语呢？
The Gemara asks: If this is the case, why did Rav issue what seemed to be an independent ruling regarding orla?
他只消说：这条 哈拉哈 依 拉比阿奇瓦；我们由此自能推出 三年果禁 上当怎样行。
He should have simply said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, from which we could have drawn a practical halakhic conclusion regarding orla as well.
革玛拉 答：拉夫 若只说「这条 哈拉哈 依 拉比阿奇瓦」，我就要说：连在以色列地也依他。
The Gemara responds: Had Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, I would have said that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion even in Eretz Yisrael.
所以他把整条 哈拉哈 说全，为的是立一通则：凡在以色列地论 三年果禁 诸律时从宽的一说，地外便依他，地内却不依。
Therefore, he teaches us by stating the entire halakha, that there is a principle: Anyone who is lenient in a dispute with regard to the halakhot of orla in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion outside of Eretz Yisrael, but not in Eretz Yisrael.
那么何不说「地外依拉比阿奇瓦」？因为那样一说，人要以为这只关乎什一（地内亦不过拉比之律），至于三年果禁在地内出于妥拉，或当连地外也一并防禁；故须说全。
革玛拉 又问：若是这样，拉夫 何不说：在以色列地以外，这条 哈拉哈 依 拉比阿奇瓦——因为凡在以色列地论 三年果禁 诸律时从宽的一说，地外便依他？
The Gemara questions this: If so, then let Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva outside of Eretz Yisrael as anyone who is lenient in a dispute with regard to the halakhot of orla in Eretz Yisrael, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion outside of Eretz Yisrael.
革玛拉 答：他若那样说，我就要说：那只关乎树的什一——什一便是在以色列地本身，也不过是拉比之律；至于 三年果禁，在以色列地是出于妥拉之律所禁的，或当说连地外也一并立防禁才是。
The Gemara answers: Had he said that, I would have said: That only applies with regard to the tithing of trees, which even in Eretz Yisrael itself is an obligation by rabbinic law; but with regard to orla, which is prohibited in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, say that we should issue a decree prohibiting orla even outside of Eretz Yisrael.
所以他教我们：便是论 三年果禁，这条 哈拉哈 也依 拉比阿奇瓦。
Therefore, he teaches us that even with regard to orla, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
拉维纳见玛尔·巴尔·拉夫阿施弃刺山柑的浆果而食其花苞，问他：你既从拉比阿奇瓦之宽，何不索性从沙迈学派更宽的一说？沙迈学派以刺山柑为葡萄园中的杂种，希列学派不以为然；两派却同认它有三年果禁。
就着这题，革玛拉 记一事：拉维纳 遇见 玛尔·巴尔·拉夫阿施 正把 三年果禁 刺山柑的浆果丢开，吃它的花苞。
On this topic, the Gemara relates: Ravina found Mar bar Rav Ashi throwing away the berries and eating the buds of an orla caper-bush.
拉维纳 对 玛尔·巴尔·拉夫阿施 说：你是照哪一说，竟吃这花苞呢？
Ravina said to Mar bar Rav Ashi: What is your opinion, that you are eating the buds?
你若是依从宽的 拉比阿奇瓦，就该索性依 沙迈学派——他们比这还宽。
If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who is lenient, then you should act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who are even more lenient.
因为我们在一条论杂种之律的密释纳里学过：沙迈学派 说，刺山柑在葡萄园里算作杂种，因为它落在「不可把菜蔬种在葡萄园里」这一禁之内。
As we learned in a mishna with regard to the laws of forbidden mixtures of diverse kinds that Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is considered a diverse kind in the vineyard, as it is included in the prohibition against planting vegetables in a vineyard.
希列学派 说：刺山柑在葡萄园里不算杂种。
Beit Hillel say: A caper-bush is not considered a diverse kind in a vineyard.
然而这一派与那一派——沙迈学派 与 希列学派——都同认刺山柑有 三年果禁 之禁。
Nevertheless, these and those, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree that the caper-bush is obligated in the prohibition of orla.
这条密释纳自身有相违：沙迈学派既以刺山柑为菜类（故算杂种），怎么又与希列学派同认它有三年果禁（那是树才有的）？
在解 拉维纳 向 玛尔·巴尔·拉夫阿施 所设的难题以先，革玛拉 先指出这条密释纳自身的一处相违。
Before dealing with the problem posed by Ravina to Mar bar Rav Ashi, the Gemara notes an internal contradiction in this mishna.
这条密释纳自己就有难处：你说 沙迈学派 以刺山柑在葡萄园里算杂种，可见他们以它为菜类；接着又教说：沙迈学派 与 希列学派 都同认刺山柑有 三年果禁 之禁，可见它又是树类。
This mishna itself is problematic: You said that Beit Shammai say: A caper-bush is considered a diverse kind in a vineyard; apparently, they hold that it is a type of vegetable bush, and then you taught: These and those, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agree that the caper-bush is obligated in the prohibition of orla; apparently, it is a type of tree.
沙迈学派于刺山柑是菜是树本存疑，两处都从严。既是疑似三年果禁，密释纳有定：以色列地内禁，叙利亚则许；地外还许人径下园中……（续到叶三十六背）
革玛拉 答：这不难；沙迈学派 于刺山柑是菜类还是树类本存疑，论杂种时从严，论 三年果禁 时也从严。
The Gemara responds: This is not difficult; Beit Shammai are uncertain whether the caper-bush is a vegetable bush or a tree, and here, regarding diverse kinds, they act stringently and here, regarding orla, they act stringently.
无论如何，照 沙迈学派，刺山柑算是疑似 三年果禁 之物；我们在一条密释纳里学过众所同认的这条 哈拉哈：疑似 三年果禁 之物，在以色列地禁食，在 叙利亚 则许，不必顾虑它的疑。
In any case, according to Beit Shammai the caper-bush has the status of uncertain orla, and we learned the consensus halakha in a mishna: Uncertain orla in Eretz Yisrael is forbidden to eat, and in Syria it is permitted, and we are not concerned about its uncertain status.
至于以色列地以外，那园主若是外邦人，尽可下到自己园中，
Outside of Eretz Yisrael, the gentile owner of a field may go down into his field