← 祝祷卷总目·第八章 这些事
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）它的里面、口沿、耳形的把与直把仍是洁的；里面若染了不洁，就全然不洁了。
它的里面、它的口沿——就是器皿外突的那一圈——并那耳形的把与直把，都仍是洁的。
while its inner side, and its rim, the edge of the vessel that protrudes outwards, and its ear-shaped handle, and its straight handles are pure.
然而器皿的里面若染了不洁，那就全然不洁了。
However, if the inside of the vessel became ritually impure, it is all ritually impure.
两学派所立的防禁虽异，所虑的却都不是虚设。所争的究竟在哪一层？
希列学派 与 沙迈学派 所立的防禁虽然不同，所据的却都是实有的情形、两下同有的顾虑。
Although the decrees of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai are different, they are based on realistic contingencies and on concerns shared by both parties.
革玛拉 要辨明：他们所争的究竟是什么呢？
The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree?
这一争的根子在哪里？
What is the crux of their dispute?
答：沙迈学派以为，外面被水染了不洁的器皿不可用（贤哲所立的防禁，虑杯里的水滴到外面而染不洁）；既不可用，就不必再照希列学派所虑的、防那水因杯污手。
革玛拉 解说：沙迈学派 以为：外面被水染了不洁的器皿，是不可用的。
The Gemara explains: Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquids.
这一禁出于贤哲所立的防禁：虑到杯里的水滴到外面去，那几滴水一沾着杯的外面，就染了不洁。
This prohibition stems from a decree of the Sages, due to concern for drips of liquid that would fall from inside the vessel to its outer side, as those drips themselves would be rendered ritually impure by virtue of their contact with the outer side of the vessel.
沙迈学派 既以那样的器皿为不可用，就不必再照 希列学派 所虑的、另立一条防禁，防那手上的水因杯而染不洁。
And Beit Shammai hold that there is no reason to issue a decree due to the concern of Beit Hillel lest the liquid on one’s hands will be rendered ritually impure by the cup, as Beit Shammai hold that the use of a vessel of that kind is prohibited.
希列学派以为，外面被水染了不洁的器皿仍可用——他们说：水滴到外面本不常有，不常有的事不立防禁。既许用，就有「手上的水因杯而不洁」之虑。
希列学派 却以为：外面被水染了不洁的器皿仍是可用的；因为他们说：水滴到外面本不常有，而不常有的事，人不为它立防禁。
And Beit Hillel hold: One is permitted to use a vessel the outer side of which has been rendered ritually impure by liquid, as they say: Drips are uncommon, and decrees are not issued on the basis of an uncommon case.
希列学派 既许人用那样的器皿，就有一层可虑的：手上的水要因那杯而染不洁。
Because Beit Hillel permit the use of a vessel of that kind, there is concern lest the liquid on one’s hands will be rendered ritually impure due to the cup.
或者这样讲：希列学派主先掺水后洗手，是照「洗手之后即当进食」这一条；故先掺水，随即洗手，随即入席。
或者这样讲：希列学派 主张先在杯里掺水、然后洗手，是照「洗手之后即当进食」这一条而来的。
Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that one mixes the water with the wine in the cup and then washes his hands due to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal.
所以他先把水掺进酒里，然后洗手，随即入席进食。
Therefore, he mixes the water and wine in the cup, then he washes his hands, and then he immediately proceeds to the meal.
希列学派何必再添「或者这样讲」？答：他们是对沙迈学派说：纵照你们所说、那样的器皿不可用，我们这一说仍胜过你们，因为合了「洗手之后即当进食」这一条。
革玛拉 问：希列学派 何必再添「或者这样讲」呢？
The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding: Alternatively?
革玛拉 答：希列学派 是这样对 沙迈学派 说的：纵照你们所说——外面染了不洁的器皿不可用，因为我们为水滴之虑立了防禁——纵然如此，我们这一说仍胜过你们的，因为我们所守的是「洗手之后即当进食」这一条。
The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: Even according to you, who said that it is prohibited to use a vessel the outer side of which is ritually impure as we issued a decree due to concern for drips, even so, our opinion is preferable to yours, as our opinion adheres to the principle: Immediately after the washing of the hands comes the meal.
密释纳载两学派争擦手之巾放在哪里：沙迈学派说放在桌上，希列学派说放在所坐的垫子上。
我们在密释纳学过：希列学派 与 沙迈学派 争那擦手的巾当放在哪里。
We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over where the cloth that one used to dry his hands should be placed.
沙迈学派 说：人洗了手，用巾把手擦干，就把那巾放在桌上。
Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table.
希列学派 说：放在他所坐的垫子上。
And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting.
《托塞夫塔》详说：沙迈学派说放在桌上，因为若放在垫子上，恐怕巾上的水因垫而染不洁，那水又要使摸巾之人的手不洁。
贤哲们在一段 《托塞夫塔》 里把这件事详说了：沙迈学派 说：人洗了手，用巾把手擦干，就把那巾放在桌上；因为你若说他当把巾放在垫子上，就有一层可立防禁的顾虑——那巾既擦过手、还是湿的，巾上的水要因沾着垫子而染不洁，那水又要使凡摸这巾的人的手染不洁。
In a Tosefta, the Sages taught in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: After washing, one dries his hands with a cloth and places it on the table, as if you say that he should place the cloth on the cushion, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the cloth, which is wet because he used it to dry his hands, become ritually impure due to their contact with the cushion, and the liquids would in turn render the hands of anyone who touches the towel ritually impure.
何不径说垫子使那巾不洁，不必藉着水？答：有一通则——器皿不使器皿染不洁。
革玛拉 问：不藉着水，何不径说那垫子使巾染了不洁呢？
The Gemara asks: Even without the liquid, let the cushion render the towel ritually impure directly?
革玛拉 答：有一条通则——器皿不使器皿染不洁。
The Gemara answers: There is a principle: A vessel does not render another vessel ritually impure.
那么让垫子使坐在上头的人不洁罢。答：那里也有一通则——器皿不使人染不洁。
革玛拉 问：那么让那垫子使坐在它上头的人染不洁罢。
The Gemara asks: Let the cushion render the man sitting upon it ritually impure.
革玛拉 答：那里也有一条通则——器皿不使人染不洁。
The Gemara answers: There, too, there is a general principle: A vessel does not render a person ritually impure.
希列学派说放在垫子上，因为若放在桌上，恐怕巾上的水因桌而染不洁，那水又要使桌上的食物不洁。
希列学派 说：人当把那巾放在他所坐的垫子上；因为你若说他当把它放在桌上，就有一层可立防禁的顾虑——巾上的水要因沾着桌子而染不洁，那水又要转而使摆在桌上的食物染不洁。
And Beit Hillel say: One places it on the cushion upon which he is sitting, as if you say that he should place it on the table, there is room to issue a decree lest the liquids on the towel might be rendered ritually impure by their contact with the table, and those liquids in turn will render the food placed on the table ritually impure.
何不径说桌子使桌上的食物不洁？答：我们所论的是第二等不洁的桌子；第二等不洁之物惟藉着水才能使常物成第三等——水一沾第二等便成第一等。
革玛拉 问：何不径说那桌子使摆在它上头的食物染了不洁呢？
The Gemara asks: Let the table render the food upon it ritually impure directly.
革玛拉 解说：我们这里所论的是第二等不洁的桌子；而第二等不洁之物，惟藉着水才能使常物成第三等不洁。
The Gemara explains: Here we are dealing with a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and an object of second degree ritual impurity status can only confer third degree ritual impurity status upon non-sacred items by means of liquids.
照拉比之律，水一沾着第二等不洁，就成了第一等不洁，于是能使常物染不洁。
By rabbinic decree, liquids that come into contact with second degree ritual impurity assume first degree ritual impurity status and, consequently, can render non-sacred items impure.
所争在哪里？沙迈学派以为第二等不洁的桌子不可用来进食——那是为吃举祭的人所立的防禁（那样的桌子一触就使举祭不洁），恐怕祭司不察而用它。
革玛拉 要辨明：他们所争的究竟是什么呢？
The Gemara seeks to clarify: With regard to what do they disagree?
革玛拉 答：这一争的根子是——沙迈学派 以为：第二等不洁的桌子，不可用来进食；那是为吃 举祭 的人所立的防禁。
The Gemara answers: The basis of their dispute is that Beit Shammai hold: It is prohibited to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status for purposes of eating because of a decree due to those who eat teruma.
那样的桌子一触着 举祭，就使它染不洁。
A table with that status renders teruma ritually impure through contact.
为免吃 举祭 的祭司不察而在那样的桌上进食，贤哲就立了防禁：纵是常物，也不可摆在那样的桌上。
To prevent priests who partake of teruma from unwittingly eating off a table of that sort, a decree was issued prohibiting its use even with non-sacred foods.
希列学派以为第二等不洁的桌子可用，不必为祭司挂虑——吃举祭的人本是谨慎的，进食以先必先察明那桌子的身分。
希列学派 却以为：第二等不洁的桌子是可用的，我们不必为祭司挂虑。
And Beit Hillel hold: It is permitted to use a table that has second degree ritual impurity status, and we are not concerned about the priests.
因为吃 举祭 的人本是谨慎的，进食以先必先察明那桌子的身分。
As those who eat teruma are vigilant and would ascertain the status of a table before eating.
或者这样讲：希列学派以为常物本无照妥拉之律洗手之责。
或者这样讲：希列学派 以为，人吃常物，本没有照妥拉之律洗手之责。
Alternatively, Beit Hillel hold that there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law.
希列学派何必再添「或者这样讲」？答：他们是说，纵你问「何以为食物挂虑、不为手挂虑」，我们仍可答：常物本无妥拉之律的洗手之责；宁可手（其不洁本无妥拉根据）染第二等不洁，也不叫食物（其不洁有妥拉根据）染不洁。
革玛拉 问：希列学派 何必再添那「或者这样讲」的一因呢？
The Gemara asks: What is the point of Beit Hillel adding the additional reason introduced with: Alternatively?
革玛拉 答：希列学派 是这样对 沙迈学派 说的：你若问，何以为食物挂虑、恐怕它因桌上的巾染不洁，却不为手挂虑、不恐怕它因垫上的巾染不洁呢？
The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: And if you say, what is the difference with regard to food that we are concerned that it might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth on the table; and what is the difference with regard to hands that we are not concerned that they might be rendered ritually impure by the cloth placed on the cushion?
希列学派 接着说：我们尽可以答：纵然如此，这样仍是好些；因为人吃常物，本没有照妥拉之律洗手之责。
Beit Hillel continue: We can respond that even so, this is preferable, as there is no requirement of washing of the hands for non-sacred items by Torah law.
宁可手染第二等不洁——手的不洁本无妥拉之律的根据；不可叫食物染不洁——食物的不洁却是有妥拉之律的根据的。
It is preferable that hands, whose impurity has no basis in Torah law, will become ritually impure with second degree ritual impurity status, and food, whose impurity has a basis in Torah law, will not become ritually impure.
密释纳载两学派争饭后扫地与洗手孰先：沙迈学派说先扫地后洗末一道水，希列学派说先洗手后扫地。
我们在密释纳学过：希列学派 与 沙迈学派 争饭后当先扫席地，还是先洗手。
We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagree over whether cleaning the place where one ate or washing one’s hands should be performed first after the meal.
沙迈学派 说：人先把屋里摆席之处扫了，然后才洗那末一道水。
Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and he washes his hands with the final waters thereafter.
希列学派 说：先洗手，然后才扫屋子。
And Beit Hillel say: One washes his hands and sweeps the house thereafter.
《托塞夫塔》详说：沙迈学派说先扫地，因为若先洗手，水要溅在剩下的饼屑上，就糟蹋了食物。沙迈学派所以不主先洗手，缘故正在恐怕饼屑被弄得叫人厌恶。
贤哲们在一段 《托塞夫塔》 里把这件事详说了：沙迈学派 说：人先把屋里摆席之处扫了，然后才洗手；因为你若说他先洗手，那水就要溅在剩下的饼屑上，你就把食物糟蹋了。
The Sages taught in a Tosefta where this issue is discussed in greater detail: Beit Shammai say: One sweeps the area of the house where the meal took place and washes his hands thereafter, as if you say that one washes his hands first, the water is liable to splash on the remaining crumbs and you will have ruined the food.
沙迈学派 所以不以为当先洗手。
But Beit Shammai do not hold that the washing of the hands is first.
这是什么缘故呢？
What is the reason?
是恐怕那些饼屑被弄得叫人厌恶。
Due to concern, lest the crumbs will be made disgusting.
希列学派说：伺候的若是妥拉学者，席终他就把橄榄之量大小的饼屑收去，只留不足橄榄之量的——不足此量的不算食物，糟蹋它也不在禁内。
希列学派 说：伺候席面的若是妥拉的学者，他到席终就把桌上有橄榄之量大小的饼屑收去，只留下不足橄榄之量的；因为不足橄榄之量的算不得食物，糟蹋它也不在禁内。
And Beit Hillel say: If the attendant is a Torah scholar, he removes the crumbs that are an olive-bulk from the table at the end of the meal and leaves only crumbs that are not an olive-bulk, as food that is less than an olive-bulk is not considered food and there is no prohibition to ruin it.
这正合拉比约哈难之说：他说不足橄榄之量的饼屑，人可以用手毁去，不算犯了不可糟蹋食物之禁。
这正合 拉比约哈难 的看法；因为 拉比约哈难 说：不足橄榄之量的饼屑，人可以用手把它毁去，不算犯了不可糟蹋食物之禁。
This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Crumbs that are less than an olive-bulk in size, one may destroy them with his hand without violating the prohibition against ruining food.
所争在哪里？希列学派以为不可用地之民作仆役（既如此，桌上只剩饼屑，无糟蹋食物之虑）；沙迈学派以为可用地之民作仆役（那样桌上必有存食，故有此虑，须先扫后洗）。
这里 革玛拉 也发一问：他们所争的究竟是什么呢？
Here too the Gemara poses the question: With regard to what do they disagree?
革玛拉 答：这一争的根子是——希列学派 以为：人不可用 地之民 作伺候席面的仆役。
The Gemara answers: The basis of their argument is that Beit Hillel hold: One is forbidden to use the services of a waiter who is an am ha’aretz.
既然如此，桌上只剩饼屑，就没有糟蹋食物之虑了。
Therefore, there is no room for concern that food will be ruined as only crumbs remain on the table.
沙迈学派 却以为：人可以用 地之民 作伺候席面的仆役。
And Beit Shammai hold: One is permitted to use the services of an attendant who is an am ha’aretz.
那样桌上必仍有存食，就有糟蹋食物之虑。
Food will remain on the table and, therefore, there is room for concern that food will be ruined.
解法便是：先把桌上的食物收拾干净，然后才洗手。
The solution is to clean the food off the table and only then wash one’s hands.
拉比约西·巴尔·哈尼纳引拉夫胡纳说：本章之内诸条都依希列学派，惟这一条依沙迈学派。拉夫俄沙亚则把密释纳里两学派的名字互易而教；照他，这一条也依希列学派。
拉比约西·巴尔·哈尼纳 引 拉夫胡纳 说：我们这一整章之内，诸条 哈拉哈 都依 希列学派 之说，惟有这一条依 沙迈学派。
Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said that Rav Huna said: In our entire chapter, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, except for this case, where the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.
而 拉比奥沙亚 教这一条时，把我们密释纳里 希列学派 与 沙迈学派 的名字互易过来；照他所教，这一条也是依 希列学派 的。
And Rabbi Oshaya would teach the opposite and reverse the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai as they appear in our mishna, and in this case as well, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
密释纳载：沙迈学派说灯、《谢饭祷》、香、《分别祷》；希列学派说灯、香、《谢饭祷》、《分别祷》。
我们在密释纳学过：沙迈学派 说：先诵灯的一诵，再诵 《谢饭祷》，再诵香的一诵，末了诵 《分祷》 的一诵。
We learned in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala.
希列学派 说：次序是灯、香、《谢饭祷》、《分祷》。
And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala.
拉夫胡纳·巴尔·犹大到拉瓦家，见他先诵香。他说：两学派于灯之诵本不相争，密释纳两说都把灯摆在头一位；夫子何以先诵香呢？
革玛拉 记着：拉夫胡纳·巴尔·犹大 有一次到 拉瓦 家去。
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Yehuda happened to come to Rava’s house.
他看见 拉瓦 先为香诵了祝祷。
He saw that Rava recited a blessing over the spices first.
拉夫胡纳·巴尔·犹大 对他说：两学派于灯的一诵本不相争，正如我们在密释纳里学过的——沙迈学派 说：先诵灯的一诵，再诵 《谢饭祷》，再诵香的一诵，末了诵 《分祷》 的一诵。
Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to him: Now since Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai do not disagree with regard to the blessing over light, as we learned in our mishna that Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the candle, then the Grace after Meals blessing, then the blessing over the spices, and finally the blessing of havdala.
希列学派 说：次序是灯、香、《谢饭祷》、《分祷》。那么夫子何以先为香诵祝祷呢？
And Beit Hillel say: The order is candle, and spices, Grace after Meals, and havdala, why did you recite the blessing over the spices first?
拉瓦答：那是拉比梅伊尔所讲的。拉比犹大在巴拉伊塔里却说：两学派不争《谢饭祷》在先、《分别祷》在末，所争的是灯与香：沙迈学派说先灯后香，希列学派说先香后灯。
拉瓦 在他后头答说：那诚然是 拉比梅伊尔 所讲的。
Rava answered after him: Indeed, that is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
然而 拉比犹大 在一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里说：希列学派 与 沙迈学派 既不争 《谢饭祷》 当在先，也不争 《分祷》 当在末。
However, Rabbi Yehuda says in a baraita that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai neither disagree with regard to Grace after Meals that it is recited first, nor with regard to havdala, which is recited last.
他们所争的是什么呢？
With regard to what do they disagree?
他们所争的是灯与香。
They disagree with regard to the light and the spices.
沙迈学派 说：先为灯诵，后为香诵；希列学派 说：先为香诵，后为灯诵。
Beit Shammai say: One recites a blessing over light and over spices thereafter, and Beit Hillel say: One recites a blessing over spices and over light thereafter.
拉比约哈难说：众人素来是照拉比犹大所讲的希列学派而行的——先诵香。
而 拉比约哈难 说：众人素来是照 拉比犹大 所讲的 希列学派 之说而行的。
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The people were accustomed to conduct themselves in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda.
就是先为香诵祝祷。
The blessing over the spices is recited first.
密释纳载两学派争《分别祷》里火之诵的措辞：沙迈学派说「那造了（בָּרָא）火之光的」，希列学派说「那正造（בּוֹרֵא）火之诸光的」。
密释纳载 希列学派 与 沙迈学派 争 《分祷》 里火之诵的措辞。
The mishna cited a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to the formula of the blessing over fire in havdala.
沙迈学派 说：当作「那造了（בָּרָא）火之光的」。
Beit Shammai say: Who created [bara] the light of fire.
希列学派 说：当作「那正造（בּוֹרֵא）火之诸光的」。
And Beit Hillel say: Who creates [boreh] the lights of fire.
拉瓦说：בָּרָא 一字人人都认是「已造」，所争的是 בּוֹרֵא——沙迈学派以为它是说「将要造」，希列学派以为它也含「已造」之意。
论到这一层，拉瓦 说：בָּרָא 一字是说已经造了，这是人人所同认的。
Regarding this, Rava says: With regard to the word bara, everyone agrees that it means created in the past.
他们所争的是 בּוֹרֵא 一字。
Where they disagree is with regard to the word boreh.
沙迈学派 以为：בּוֹרֵא 是说神将要造；希列学派 以为：בּוֹרֵא 也含着「他已经造了」的意思。
Beit Shammai hold: Boreh means that God will create in the future, and Beit Hillel hold: Boreh also means that He has created in the past.
拉夫约瑟发难：בּוֹרֵא 之义岂能有争？「造光又造（בּוֹרֵא）暗」（以赛亚书 45:7）、「造山又造（בּוֹרֵא）风」（阿摩司书 4:13）、「创造（בּוֹרֵא）诸天，铺张穹苍」（以赛亚书 42:5）都明明指已过之事。只可说：两字人人都认是「造了」，所争的是「火之光」还是「火之诸光」——沙迈学派以火中只一光，希列学派以火中多光（焰有赤、青、白）。巴拉伊塔也这样教。
拉夫约瑟 发难：בּוֹרֵא 一字的意思，岂能有争呢？
Rav Yosef raised an objection: How can there be a dispute over the meaning of the word boreh?
看下面这几节，那字分明指已过的创造之工：「造光的，又造（בּוֹרֵא）暗」（以赛亚书 45:7）；「那创山、又造（בּוֹרֵא）风的」（阿摩司书 4:13）；「创造（בּוֹרֵא）诸天、铺张穹苍的」（以赛亚书 42:5）。
In the following verses it is clear that it refers to acts of creation in the past: “Who forms light and creates [boreh] darkness” (Isaiah 45:7), “Who forms mountains and creates [boreh] wind” (Amos 4:13), or “Who creates [boreh] the heavens and stretches them out” (Isaiah 42:5).
只可说，拉夫约瑟 说：בָּרָא 与 בּוֹרֵא 两字都是说「造了」，这是人人所同认的。
Rather, said Rav Yosef: With regard to both bara and boreh, everyone agrees that they mean created.
他们所争的，是「火之光」还是「火之诸光」。
Where they disagree is with regard to the light of the fire or the lights of the fire.
因为 沙迈学派 以为火中只有一光，希列学派 以为火中有多光——那火焰里有赤、有青、有白。
As Beit Shammai hold that there is one light in a fire, and Beit Hillel hold that there are many lights in a fire, as a flame consists of red, green, and white light.
有一段 《巴拉伊塔》 也这样教说：希列学派 对 沙迈学派 说：火里有多光。
That was also taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: There are many lights in the fire.
密释纳说不可为外邦人的灯与香诵。灯不可诵，还讲得通——那灯没有安息（安息日一直烧着）；香何以不可诵呢？
我们在密释纳学过：人不可为外邦人的灯诵祝祷，也不可为他们的香诵。
We learned in the mishna that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles.
革玛拉 问：不可在 《分祷》 里为外邦人的灯诵祝祷，这固然讲得通，因为那灯的火没有安息过。
The Gemara asks: Granted, the prohibition against the recitation of a blessing over a candle of gentiles in havdala, as the flame of the candle did not rest.
那火既在安息日里一直烧着，安息日尽了就不当为它诵祝祷。
Because it was burning during Shabbat, one should not recite a blessing over it at the conclusion of Shabbat.
然而不可为外邦人的香诵祝祷，又是什么缘故呢？
However, what is the reason that one may not recite a blessing over spices of gentiles?
拉夫犹大引拉夫说：我们这里所论的是外邦人所设的筵席，那里所用的香是禁的，因为外邦人的筵席多归于拜偶像。
拉夫犹大 引 拉夫 说：我们这里所论的是外邦人所设的筵席；那里所用的香是禁的，因为外邦人的筵席多是归于拜偶像的。
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Here we are dealing with a party arranged by gentiles and the spices used at that party were prohibited because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry.
难：密释纳后半既另说「不可为拜偶像的灯与香诵」，可见前半所论的不是拜偶像——外邦人的香被禁，必另有缘故。
革玛拉 难说：密释纳后半既教说「人不可为拜偶像的灯诵，也不可为它的香诵」，由此反推，可见我们密释纳前半所论的并不是拜偶像。
The Gemara asks: But from that which was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: One may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry, infer by implication that in the first clause of our mishna we are not dealing with idolatry?
那么外邦人的香被禁，必另有缘故。
There must be a different reason why the spices of gentiles are prohibited.
苏拉的拉比哈尼纳说：这两句本是相承的，密释纳是用「何以如此」的句法说的——何以不可为外邦人的灯与香诵？因为外邦人的筵席多归于拜偶像，而人不可为拜偶像的灯与香诵。
苏拉的拉比哈尼纳 说：这两条 哈拉哈 本是相承的；密释纳是用「何以如此」的句法说的。
Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura said: These two halakhot are complementary, and the mishna states the halakha employing the style of: What is the reason.
那两句当这样读：何以不可为外邦人的灯诵祝祷，也不可为他们的香诵呢？
The mishna should be understood as follows: What is the reason that one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of gentiles?
因为外邦人的筵席多是归于拜偶像的，而人不可为拜偶像的灯诵祝祷，也不可为它的香诵。
Because the parties of gentiles are generally devoted to idolatry and one may neither recite a blessing over the candle nor over the spices of idolatry.
贤哲在巴拉伊塔里教说：安息过的火，可以在《分别祷》里为它诵祝祷；没有安息的火，就不可诵。何谓安息，何谓没有安息？（续到叶五十三正面）
贤哲们在一段 《巴拉伊塔》 里教说：火若安息过，人可以在 《分祷》 里为它诵祝祷；火若没有安息过，就不可为它诵祝祷。
The Sages taught in a baraita: Over fire that rested, one may recite a blessing in havdala, and over fire that did not rest, one may not recite a blessing.
革玛拉 问：所谓安息，是什么意思？所谓没有安息，又是什么意思呢？
The Gemara asks: What is meant by rested, and what is meant by did not rest?ב