45a.1
解答
（承上）所要除的是那被一块肉噎住、饮水以送下的人——他不必诵祝祷。
-
所要除的，是那被一块肉噎住、饮水好把它送下去的人。
who was choked by a piece of meat and drank water in order to wash it down.
-
那人不必诵祝祷。
He need not recite a blessing.
← 祝祷卷总目·第七章 三人同吃
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。
（承上）所要除的是那被一块肉噎住、饮水以送下的人——他不必诵祝祷。
所要除的，是那被一块肉噎住、饮水好把它送下去的人。
who was choked by a piece of meat and drank water in order to wash it down.
那人不必诵祝祷。
He need not recite a blessing.
密释纳载拉比塔尔丰说水当诵「创造众生及其所需者」。拉瓦·巴尔·拉夫哈难问阿巴耶（一说问拉夫约瑟）这一争当怎样断，答：你且出去看众人怎样行，就照着行。
我们在密释纳学过：拉比塔尔丰 说，论到水，人诵「创造众生与他们所需的」。
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Tarfon says: Over water one recites: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs.
拉瓦·巴尔·拉夫哈难 对 阿巴耶 说——也有说是对 拉夫约瑟 说的：这一争，哈拉哈 当怎样断呢？
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye, and some say to Rav Yosef: What is the halakha in this dispute?
他对他说：你且出去看众人是怎样行的，就照着行。
He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing and act accordingly.
章末语：「我们必再回到你这里，人当怎样诵祝祷」——第六章（Keitzad mevarekhin）到此为止。塔木德每学完一章便诵此语，既是收束，也是「还要再来」的许诺；章名取该章密释纳的开篇数词。
第七章开篇密释纳：三人同食，当行邀祷。吃了未净什一税食物、已分举祭的头层什一、已赎的第二层什一与圣物的，并吃了橄榄之量的仆役、与两人同食的古提人，都算在三人之数内。
本条密释纳定下同席之后彼此邀请诵《谢饭祷》——就是 邀祷——的诸般 哈拉哈：三个人一同吃饭，就当行 邀祷，同诵 《谢饭祷》。
This mishna sets out the essential halakhot pertaining to the invitation to recite Grace after Meals after a joint meal [zimmun]: Three people who ate as one are required to form a zimmun and recite Grace after Meals.
同席之人中，若有吃了 未净什一税食物 的，有吃了已分出 举祭 的头一层什一的，有吃了已赎、因而可吃的第二层什一与圣物的；便是那伺候席面、自己也吃了至少一个橄榄之量的仆役，并那与另两人同食的 古提人——这几等人都算在那三人之数内，使同食的人有行 邀祷 之责。
If, among the diners, one ate doubtfully tithed produce [demai], and first tithe from which its teruma was already taken, or second tithe, and consecrated food that were redeemed and therefore permitted to be eaten; and even the waiter who served the meal to the diners and who ate at least an olive-bulk from the meal, and the Samaritan [Kuti] who ate with two others at a meal; each of these people is included among the three to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.
反之：吃未分什一之物、未分举祭的头层什一、未赎的第二层什一与圣物的，未吃橄榄之量的仆役，与两个犹太人同食的外邦人，都不算在三人之数内。妇女、奴仆、未成年的也不使人有邀祷之责。多少算数？橄榄之量；拉比犹大说鸡子之量。
至于那吃了 未分什一之物 的，吃了未曾分出 举祭 的头一层什一的，吃了未赎的第二层什一与圣物的，并那没有吃着一个橄榄之量的仆役，与那和两个犹太人同食的外邦人——这几等人都不算在那三人之数内，不能使同食的人有行 邀祷 之责。
However, one who ate untithed produce [tevel], and first tithe from which its teruma was not separated, and second tithe, and consecrated food that were not redeemed, and the waiter who did not eat an olive-bulk, and the gentile who ate with two Jews, none of these people is included among the three to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.
妇女、奴仆与未成年的人，也不使同食的人有行 邀祷 之责。
Women, slaves, and minors do not obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.
人须吃多少，才使同食的人有行 邀祷 之责呢？
How much must one eat to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun?
吃一个橄榄之量就够了，足以使同食的人有行 邀祷 之责。
An olive-bulk of food suffices to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.
拉比犹大 说：至少要一个鸡子之量，才使同食的人有行 邀祷 之责。
Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom they ate in a zimmun.
邀祷的凭据何在？拉夫阿西据诗篇 34:4「你们和我同来称颂耶和华，我们要一同高举他的名」；拉比阿巴胡据申命记 32:3「我要宣告耶和华的名，你们（复数）要将大德归与我们的神」。
论到 邀祷 这条诫命的根本，革玛拉 问：三人同食之后当行 邀祷，这话是从哪里出来的呢？
With regard to the basic mitzva of zimmun, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that after a meal in which three diners participated, a zimmun must be recited?
拉夫阿西 说：因为经上说：「你们和我同来称颂耶和华，我们要一同高举他的名」（诗篇 34:4）——就是说，诵祝祷的那一位，要转向至少两个人，同来颂赞神。
Rav Asi said: As the verse states: “Praise God with me, and we will exalt His name together” (Psalms 34:4), i.e., the one reciting the blessing turns to at least two others to praise God together.
拉比阿巴胡 说：邀祷 这条诫命的出处在这一节：「我要宣扬耶和华的名，你们要将大德归与我们的神」（申命记 32:3）——「你们」原是复数。
Rabbi Abbahu said: The source of the mitzva of zimmun is derived from the verse here: “When I call the Name of the Lord, give [plural] praise to our God” (Deuteronomy 32:3).
拉夫哈难·巴尔·阿巴说：应「阿们」的不可比诵祝祷的声音更高——「我们要一同高举他的名」：是「一同」，不是应的人声音盖过诵的人。
既引了这几节，革玛拉 就把相关的事一并引来。
Having mentioned these verses, the Gemara cites related matters.
拉夫哈难·巴尔·阿巴 说：应「阿们」的人，不可比那诵祝祷的声音更高，这是从哪里出来的呢？
Rav Ḥanan bar Abba said: From where is it derived that one who answers amen should not raise his voice louder than the one reciting the blessing?
因为经上说：「我们要一同高举他的名」——是「一同」，不是叫应的人把声音盖过那诵祝祷的。
As it is stated: “Praise God with me, and we will exalt His Name together”; together and not with the respondent raising his voice louder than the one reciting the blessing.
拉比西缅·本·帕齐说：会堂里把妥拉译成亚兰话的传译者，不可高过诵读的人——据出埃及记 19:19「摩西说话，神就在雷中回答他」：那「在声音中」当解作「在摩西的声音中」。
照样，拉比西缅·本·帕齐 说：在会众面前把所读的妥拉译成亚兰话的传译者，不可比诵读的人声音更高，这是从哪里出来的呢？
Similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: From where is it derived that the translator who translated the public Torah reading into Aramaic is not permitted to raise his voice louder than the reader?
因为经上说：「摩西说话，神就在声音中回答他」（出埃及记 19:19）。
As it is stated: “Moses spoke, and God responded in a voice” (Exodus 19:19).
这一节还须细想，因为经上本不必说「在声音中」。
This verse requires further consideration, as there is no need for the verse to state: In a voice.
「在声音中」这几个字，看来并没有添出什么。
The phrase, in a voice, adds nothing.
那么经上说「在声音中」，究竟为的是什么呢？
Rather, to what purpose did the verse state: In a voice?
是说「在摩西的声音中」——就是不高过摩西的声音。
In Moses’ voice, i.e., in a voice no louder than Moses’ voice.
这一节是教导后世：诵读妥拉的与传译的，声音当彼此相当；正如摩西把神的话传给百姓时，两下的声音也是相当的。
This verse instructs subsequent generations that Torah readers and translators should keep their voices at an equal volume just as Moses transmitted God’s word to the people and their voices were equal in volume.
巴拉伊塔也这样教：传译者不可高过诵读的；反过来，传译者若提不到那样高，诵读的就当低声而读。
有一段 《巴拉伊塔》 也这样教说：传译的人不可比诵读的人声音更高。
This was also taught in a baraita: The translator is not permitted to raise his voice louder than the reader.
反过来也是一样：传译的人若不能把声音提到与诵读的相当，诵读的人就当低声而读。
The converse is also true; and if the translator cannot raise his voice to match that of the reader, the reader should lower his voice and read.
密释纳说三人同食当行邀祷。那么两人同食，愿意行邀祷，许不许呢？拉夫与拉比约哈难相争：一说愿意就可以行，一说纵愿意也不可行。
密释纳定说：三个人一同吃饭，就当彼此邀请、同诵 《谢饭祷》。
The mishna rules that three who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals.
革玛拉 就这条 哈拉哈 再论：有话说，两个人一同吃饭，虽然本无此责，若愿意彼此邀请行 邀祷，许不许呢？
The Gemara discusses this halakha further: It was stated: Two who ate as one and wish to join together in a zimmun, although they are under no obligation, are they permitted to do so?
拉夫 与 拉比约哈难 相争：一位说，他们若愿意，就可以行 邀祷。
Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed: One said: If they wanted to join together, they may form a zimmun.
一位说：他们纵然愿意，也不可行 邀祷。
The other said: Even if they wanted to join together, they may not form a zimmun.
由密释纳反推：三人才行邀祷，两人则不行——这与「两人愿意就可以」之说相违。
革玛拉 由我们的密释纳举一凭据：三个人一同吃饭，就当彼此邀请、同诵 《谢饭祷》。
The Gemara cites a proof from what we learned in our mishna: Three who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals.
由此反推：三个人才行 邀祷，两个人就不行。
By inference: Three, yes, they form a zimmun; two, no, they do not form a zimmun.
这与「两个人愿意就可以行 邀祷」那一说相违。
This contradicts the opinion that holds that two individuals who wish to form a zimmun may do so.
答：密释纳所说的是当行之邀祷，这里阿摩拉所争的是可行可不行的邀祷。
革玛拉 答：密释纳不足为凭；那里所说的是当行的 邀祷，这里两位 阿摩拉 所争的却是可行可不行的 邀祷。
The Gemara answers: There is no proof from the mishna, as there, the mishna discussed an obligatory zimmun; here, the amora’im disagree with regard to an optional zimmun.
又一凭据：三人同食当行邀祷，不可分开各诵——可见两人不行邀祷；若两人也能行，何必禁他们分开？
革玛拉 又举一凭据。
The Gemara cites an additional proof.
你来听：三个人一同吃饭，就当彼此邀请、同诵 《谢饭祷》，不可分开各自诵。
Come and hear: Three who ate as one are required to join together and recite Grace after Meals and may not disperse to recite Grace after Meals individually.
可见三个人才行 邀祷，两个人就不行。
Apparently, three, yes, they form a zimmun; two, no, they do not form a zimmun.
两个人若也能行 邀祷，那么三个人就不必禁他们分开了——因为纵有一人独自诵了，剩下的两个仍可成 邀祷。
If a zimmun was possible with two people, three people would not be forbidden to disperse, as even if one recited Grace after Meals alone, the remaining two would constitute a zimmun.
答：那里不同——他们起初既已立为三人一席、有当行之责，就不可舍当行的而就可行可不行的。
革玛拉 驳这凭据：那里的情形不同；那三个人起初既已立为一席，本有行 邀祷 之责。
The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, in the case of a group of three who dispersed, because from the outset, they established themselves as a group of three who were obligated to form a zimmun.
所以他们不可舍了当行的 邀祷，去就那可行可不行的。
Consequently, they are not permitted to forego an obligatory zimmun in favor of an optional one.
又一凭据：巴拉伊塔说，仆役伺候两个人，不待他们许可就可以同吃，为的是好凑成邀祷之数；伺候三个人，非得许可不可同吃。可见两人不行邀祷。
革玛拉 又举一凭据。
The Gemara cites an additional proof.
你来听有一段 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的：仆役伺候两个人的时候，不待他们许可就可以与他们同吃，因为这样他就可以凑上他们成 邀祷。
Come and hear, based on what was taught in a baraita: A waiter who was serving two people eats with them, although they did not give him permission to do so, because he will thereby be eligible to join them in a zimmun.
仆役若伺候三个人，非得他们许可，就不可与他们同吃。
If a waiter was serving three people, he may not eat with them unless they gave him permission to do so.
可见两个人是不行 邀祷 的。
Evidently, two may not form a zimmun.
两人若能行，那么仆役伺候两个人时，也当先得许可才是。
If that were the case, the waiter would require permission even when serving two people.
答：那里不同……（续到叶四十五背）
革玛拉 答：那里的情形不同，
The Gemara responds: It is different there,