← 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 3 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。
（承上）去了核，就不足那分量了——算作「吃」的最小之量是橄榄之量，去核的橄榄不及此数。
岂不是不足那分量么？
it lacks the requisite measure?
算作「吃」的最小之量是橄榄之量，而去了核的橄榄比这还小。
The smallest quantity of food that is considered eating is the size of an olive-bulk, and an olive with its pit removed is smaller than that.
答：食后诵祝祷所需的量，岂是大橄榄？所需的是中等橄榄之量；端给拉比约哈难的本是个大橄榄，去了核仍够那量。
他对他说：你以为食后诵祝祷所需的量，是以大橄榄为准么？
He said to him: Do you hold that we require a large olive as the measure of food necessary in order to recite a blessing after eating?
所需的是中等橄榄之量；端到 拉比约哈难 面前的那一个本是大橄榄，正合此数。
We require a medium-sized olive and that olive was that size, as the olive that they brought before Rabbi Yoḥanan was a large olive.
所以核虽去了，那分量仍旧够。
Even though they removed its pit, the requisite measure remained.
密释纳为证：律法诸量所说的橄榄，不小不大，乃是中等的，名叫聚油橄榄。拉比阿巴胡说那一种本名阿夫鲁提，一说萨姆鲁西；所以叫聚油橄榄，因为油积在它里头。
革玛拉 举一凭据，证律法上的橄榄之量并非以大橄榄为准；因为我们在一条密释纳里学过：贤哲们论诸量时所说的橄榄，不是小的，也不是大的，乃是中等的，那一种名叫 聚油橄榄。
The Gemara cites a proof that the halakhic measure of an olive is not based on a large olive as we learned in a mishna: The olive of which the Sages spoke with regard to the halakhic measures is neither small nor large, but medium, and that olive is called aguri.
而 拉比阿巴胡 说：那一类橄榄本名不叫 聚油橄榄，乃叫 阿夫鲁提；也有说它名叫 萨姆鲁西 的。
And Rabbi Abbahu said: The name of that genus of olives is not aguri, but its name is avruti, and some say that its name is samrusi.
那么何以又称它作 聚油橄榄 呢？
And why, then, is it called aguri?
因为它的油都积（אָגוּר）在它里头。
Because its oil is accumulated [agur] inside it.
此处是解名：聚油橄榄 与「积聚」的 אָגוּר 同根，故取名。中文定作「聚油橄榄」，正为存这层字义；「积」字下的罗马字即原词。
掌故：两个门生坐在巴尔·卡帕拉面前，人端上煮甘蓝、煮大马士革李与雏鸡。他准一人诵祝祷，那人抢先为雏鸡诵，同伴讥他贪嘴。巴尔·卡帕拉两个都恼：不恼诵的，恼讥的——你同伴像未曾尝过肉味，你笑他作什么？又说：我不恼讥的，恼那诵的——「此处若无智慧，难道无长者么？」
论到煮过的菜蔬当诵什么祝祷，革玛拉 说：我们且说这一争与 坦拿 之间的一争相当罢；因为 革玛拉 记着：有两个门生坐在 巴尔·卡帕拉 面前，人把煮甘蓝、煮大马士革李与雏鸡摆在他面前。
With regard to the appropriate blessing over boiled vegetables: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as the Gemara relates: Two students were sitting before bar Kappara when cooked cabbage, cooked Damascene plums and pullets were set before him.
巴尔·卡帕拉 准其中一个门生诵祝祷。
Bar Kappara gave one of the students permission to recite a blessing.
那门生抢先为雏鸡诵了祝祷；他的同伴就讥笑他贪嘴，把当后诵的先诵了。
He hurried and recited a blessing over the pullets and his counterpart ridiculed him for gluttonously reciting the blessing that should have been recited later, first.
巴尔·卡帕拉 两个都恼了，说：我不是恼那诵祝祷的，是恼那讥笑他的。
Bar Kappara became angry with both of them, he said: I am not angry with the one who recited the blessing, but at the one who ridiculed him.
你的同伴既像未曾尝过肉味的人、故此偏爱那雏鸡，急着要吃，你笑他作什么呢？
If your counterpart is like one who never tasted the flavor of meat and was therefore partial to the pullet, and hurriedly ate it, why did you ridicule him?
巴尔·卡帕拉 又对第二个门生说：我不是恼那讥笑他的，我所恼的正是那诵祝祷的。
Bar Kappara continued and said to the second student: I am not upset at the one who ridiculed him, rather it is with the one who recited the blessing that I am angry.
他说：此处若没有智慧，难道连长者也没有么？
And he said: If there is no wisdom here, is there no elder here?
你既拿不准哪一诵当先，何不问我呢——我岂不是长者么？
If you are uncertain which blessing to recite first, couldn’t you have asked me, as I am an elder?
所教的是：那一年之内，两个都没有活过去。
革玛拉 末了说，所教的是：那一年之内，他们两个都没有活过去。
The Gemara concludes that it was taught: And both of them did not live out his year.
因 巴尔·卡帕拉 恼他们，他们就受了罚，一年之内都死了。
Due to bar Kappara’s anger they were punished, and both died within the year.
由此推本题：二人所争岂不正在此——诵的那位以为煮菜与雏鸡同诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」，故所爱的当先；讥的那位以为煮菜诵「创造地上果实者」、雏鸡诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」，故那诵得较专的当先。
革玛拉 要由这一段掌故推到本题上来：怎么讲呢？
The Gemara attempts to infer from this story to the topic at hand: What?
他们所争的，岂不正是这一层么？
Is it not that they disagreed with regard to the following?
那先为雏鸡诵祝祷的以为：煮过的菜蔬与雏鸡同诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」；既然如此，人所偏爱的就当在先，先诵先吃。
The one who recited the blessing over the pullet first held that the blessing to be recited over both boiled vegetables and pullet is: By whose word all things came to be, and, therefore, that which he prefers takes precedence and is eaten first.
那讥笑他的以为：煮过的菜蔬当诵「创造地上果实者」，雏鸡才诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」；既然如此，果实当在先，因为它的祝祷说得更专，也就更重。
The one who ridiculed him held that over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and over pullet one recites: By whose word all things came to be, and, therefore, the fruit takes precedence, as its blessing is more specific and therefore more significant.
驳回：人人都认煮菜与雏鸡同诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」；他们所争的是——诵的那位以为所爱的当先，讥的那位以为甘蓝当先，因为甘蓝养人。
革玛拉 驳这一解说：不然；人人都认煮过的菜蔬与雏鸡同诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」，他们在这里所争的是别的一层：那诵祝祷的贤哲以为，人所偏爱的食物当在先，先为它诵祝祷；那讥笑他的贤哲则以为，甘蓝当在先，因为甘蓝养人。
The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that over boiled vegetables and pullet one recites: By whose word all things came to be, and here they argue over this: This Sage, who recited the blessing, held that the food which is preferred takes precedence and one recites a blessing over it first, and the Sage who ridiculed him held: Cabbage takes precedence, as it nourishes.
拉比泽拉述两处学堂之说：拉夫胡纳说，蔓菁头切成大片的诵「创造地上果实者」（未大变其形），切碎的诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」；拉夫犹大则说两样都诵「创造地上果实者」——切得细，为的是使它味甘。
拉比泽拉 说：我们在 拉夫胡纳 的学堂里的时候，他对我们说：这些蔓菁头，人若切成大片，就为它诵「创造地上果实者」，因为这样并没有大改它的样子。
Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Huna he said to us: These turnip heads, if one cut them into large slices, he recites over them: Who creates fruit of the ground, because in doing so he has not significantly changed them.
他若切成碎块，就为它诵「凡物皆由他言而有者」。
If he cut them into small pieces, he recites over them: By whose word all things came to be.
及至我们到了 拉夫犹大 的学堂，他对我们说：这一样、那一样——切成大片的与切成碎块的——都诵「创造地上果实者」；他所以切得那样细，为的是使它的味甘美。
And when we came to the study hall of Rav Yehuda he said to us: Over both these, large slices, and those, small pieces, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and the fact that he cut them extensively was in order to sweeten its flavor.
拉夫阿施述拉夫卡哈纳之说：甜菜羹（不多加面）诵「创造地上果实者」，蔓菁羹（多加面）诵「创造各样养人之物者」；后又改口：两样都诵「创造地上果实者」——加面不过为使那羹粘结。
照样，拉夫阿施 说：我们在 拉夫卡哈纳 的学堂里的时候，他对我们说：甜菜作的羹——人作它时向来不多加面——当诵「创造地上果实者」。
On a similar note, Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he said to us: Over a cooked dish of beets to which they, typically, do not add a significant amount of flour, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground.
蔓菁作的羹——人作它时向来多加些面——当诵「创造各样养人之物者」。
Over a cooked dish of turnips to which they, typically, add a more significant amount of flour, one recites: Who creates the various types of nourishment.
后来 拉夫卡哈纳 改了先前的话，说：这一样、那一样——甜菜的与蔓菁的——都当诵「创造地上果实者」；他们向蔓菁里多撒面，不过是要叫那羹里的各样粘结在一处。
And Rav Kahana reconsidered his previous statement and said: Over both these, beets, and those, turnips, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, and the fact that they threw extra flour in with the turnips, they did so merely so the components of the cooked dish would stick together.
那一味里为主的仍是蔓菁，不是面。
The primary ingredient in the dish remains the turnips, not the flour.
顺带一句：拉夫希斯达说甜菜羹益心、明目，更益肠胃。阿巴耶说：这单指那一味正在灶上滚沸的时候。
就着这蔓菁羹，拉夫希斯达 又添一句说：甜菜作的羹于心有益，于眼有益，于肠胃更是有益。
Tangential to this mention of a turnip dish, Rav Ḥisda added, and said: A cooked dish of beets is beneficial for the heart, good for the eyes and all the more so, for the intestines.
阿巴耶 说：这话单指那一味在灶上 咕嘟咕嘟 咕嘟作响、正滚着的时候。
Abaye said: That is specifically when the dish sits on the stove and makes a tukh tukh sound, i.e., it boils.
拉夫帕帕说：煮甜菜的水与甜菜同论，煮蔓菁的水与蔓菁同论，凡煮菜的水都与所煮的菜同论。所疑的是煮莳萝的水：莳萝是为提味放的，还是为吸去汤里的浊气放的？
拉夫帕帕 说：这几样我心里是明白的——煮甜菜的水与甜菜同论，煮蔓菁的水与蔓菁同论，凡煮菜的水都与所煮的菜同论。
Rav Pappa said: It is clear to me that beet water, water in which beets were boiled, has the same status as beets, and turnip water has the same status turnips, and the water in which all boiled vegetables were boiled has the same status as all boiled vegetables.
然而 拉夫帕帕 存一疑：煮莳萝的水又当怎样呢？
However, Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the status of water in which dill was boiled?
人用莳萝，是为着提味呢，还是为着吸去汤里剩下的浊气呢？
Do they use dill to sweeten the taste, or do they use it to remove residual filth?
莳萝若是为提味放进去的，煮它的水就当与煮别样菜的水同论。
If the dill was added to flavor the food then the water in which it was boiled should be treated like water in which any other vegetable was boiled.
若不过是为吸去汤里的余滓，那就本无提味的意思，人也不必为它诵祝祷。
However, if the dill was added merely to absorb the residue of the soup, then there was never any intention to flavor the dish and one should not recite a blessing over it.
《茎柄卷》密释纳可解此疑：莳萝既已在锅里出了味，就不再有用，不再受举祭之律，也不再算食物、不能染食物的不洁。可见人用它正是为提味。
你来听一条可解这疑的：我们在 《茎秆卷》 卷的一条密释纳里学过：莳萝既已在锅里出了它的味，就不再有什么用处，不再受 举祭 诸 哈拉哈 的管辖；它既不再算作食物，也就不能再染上食物的不洁。
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna in the tractate Okatzin: Dill, once it has already given its flavor in the pot, no longer has any value and is no longer subject to the halakhot of teruma and since it is no longer considered food, it can no longer become impure with the ritual impurity of food.
由此可知：人用莳萝正是为着提味。
Learn from this that they used dill to sweeten the taste.
革玛拉 断说：正当由此知道。
The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this.
拉夫希亚·巴尔·阿希说：泡在钵里的干饼，纵然面前另有整饼，也诵「从地里生出粮食者」，因为它处处算饼。这与拉比希亚之说相争——他说祝祷当在掰饼起头时诵完。
拉夫希亚·巴尔·阿希 说：泡在钵里的干饼，人当为它诵「从地里生出粮食者」，纵然他面前另有一个整饼；因为它处处都算作饼。
Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Over dry bread that was placed in a bowl to soak, one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth, even if there is another loaf of bread before him, as it is considered bread in every respect.
这条 哈拉哈 与 拉比希亚 之说相争；因为 拉比希亚 说：那祝祷当在掰开饼的起头时诵完。
This halakha disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The blessing must conclude with the beginning of the breaking of the loaf of bread.
而那干饼早已切下、离了整饼。
The dried bread had already been sliced and separated from the loaf.
拉瓦力驳：干饼何以独不诵「从地里生出粮食者」，只因诵完时落在一片饼上？人为整饼诵祝祷时，诵完了也照样落在一片上，因为掰饼本在诵祝祷以先。
拉瓦 力驳这一层说：干饼有什么不同，竟不为它诵「从地里生出粮食者」，单因为祝祷诵完的时候，落在一片饼上么？
Rava strongly objects to this assumption: What is different about dried bread, that one does not recite: Who brings forth bread from the earth, over it, because when the blessing concludes, it concludes on a slice?
人为一个整饼诵祝祷的时候，诵完了也照样落在一片上，因为人本是先把饼掰开，然后诵祝祷的。
In a case where he recites a blessing on a loaf of bread as well, when he completes the blessing, he completes it on a slice, as one cuts the bread before the blessing.