← 经卷总目·第四章 城中的居民
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 4 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）……卖了包巾，可买先知书和圣录的经卷；卖了这些经卷，可买妥拉经卷。
……可以买先知书和圣录的经卷。
they may purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings.
若卖了先知书和圣录的经卷，可以买妥拉经卷。
If they sold scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, they may purchase a Torah scroll.
出卖圣物的价银不可用来买神圣程度较低的东西：卖了妥拉经卷不可买先知书和圣录，依次类推，直到卖了会堂不可买广场。
但出卖圣物所得的价银，不可用来买神圣程度较低的东西。
However, the proceeds of a sale of a sacred item may not be used to purchase an item of a lesser degree of sanctity.
所以，若卖了妥拉经卷，不可用那价银买先知书和圣录的经卷。
Therefore, if they sold a Torah scroll, they may not use the proceeds to purchase scrolls of the Prophets and the Writings.
若卖了先知书和圣录的经卷，不可买包巾。
If they sold scrolls of the Prophets and Writings, they may not purchase wrapping cloths.
若卖了包巾，不可买经柜。
If they sold wrapping cloths, they may not purchase an ark.
若卖了经柜，不可买会堂。
If they sold an ark, they may not purchase a synagogue.
若卖了会堂，不可买广场。
If they sold a synagogue, they may not purchase a town square.
买了更神圣的东西以后余下的钱，也受同样的限制。
同样，出卖圣物所余的钱也受同样的限制；就是说，卖了一件东西、买了神圣程度更高的东西以后，若还剩下没用完的钱，这余款也适用同一原则，只可用来买神圣程度高于原物的东西。
And similarly, the same limitation applies to any surplus funds from the sale of sacred items, i.e., if after selling an item and purchasing something of a greater degree of sanctity there remain additional, unused funds, the leftover funds are subject to the same principle and may be used to purchase only something of a degree of sanctity greater than that of the original item.
拉比约哈难 说：这条密释纳没有具名，其实是 拉比约西之子拉夫梅纳赫姆 的意见；众贤认为广场毫无神圣，卖得的钱可以随意使用。
密释纳说：城中的居民若卖了城中的广场，可以用价银买会堂。
The mishna states: Residents of a town who sold the town square may purchase a synagogue with the proceeds.
论到这条密释纳，拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 说，拉比约哈难 说：这是 拉比约西之子拉夫梅纳赫姆 的话，只是没有具名。
Concerning this mishna, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei, cited unattributed.
众贤却说：城中的广场没有任何神圣。
However, the Rabbis say: The town square does not have any sanctity.
所以广场若卖了，居民可以把卖得的钱用在任何用途上。
Therefore, if it is sold, the residents may use the money from the sale for any purpose.
前一说认为公众禁食日和非祭司之班聚会时在广场祷告，所以广场是祷告之地；众贤认为那只是偶然的使用，广场不算祷告之地。
拉比约西之子拉夫梅纳赫姆 认为城中的广场有神圣，他的理由是什么？
And Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei, what is his reason for claiming that the town square has sanctity?
因为在公众禁食日，以及在非祭司之班聚会的日子，人们在城中的广场上祷告，所以它被界定为祷告的地方，因而有神圣。
Since the people pray in the town square on communal fast days and on non-priestly watches, it is defined as a place of prayer and as such has sanctity.
众贤为什么不同意呢？
And the Rabbis, why do they disagree?
他们认为，使用城中的广场不过是偶然的事。
They maintain that use of the town square is merely an irregular occurrence.
因此，城中的广场不被界定为祷告的地方，所以没有神圣。
Consequently, the town square is not to be defined as a place of prayer, and so it has no sanctity.
拉比约拿单 说：只有乡村的会堂属于村民，可以出卖；城市的会堂有外地人来，属于大众，城中居民不能出卖。
密释纳说：若卖了会堂，可以买经柜。
§ The mishna states: If they sold a synagogue, they may purchase an ark.
革玛拉引了对这条 哈拉哈 的一个限定：拉比撒母耳·巴尔·纳赫马尼 说，拉比约拿单 说：这话只是就乡村的会堂说的，因为那会堂被视为该村居民的财产。
The Gemara cites a qualification to this halakha: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: They taught this only with regard to a synagogue of a village, which is considered the property of the residents of that village.
但城市的会堂，既然有外地的人来，城中居民就不能出卖它，因为它被视为大众的财产，并不专属于城中的居民。
However, with regard to a synagogue of a city, since people come to it from the outside world, the residents of the city are not able to sell it, because it is considered to be the property of the public at large and does not belong exclusively to the residents of the city.
拉夫阿施 说：玛他·梅哈西亚 的会堂虽有外地人来，但那会堂是他建立的，一切照他的指示办理，他若愿意，可以出卖。
拉夫阿施 说：玛他·梅哈西亚 的这座会堂，虽然有外地的人来，但他们是凭我的意思来的，因为是我建立的，那里的一切都照我的指示办理，所以我若愿意，可以把它卖掉。
Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Meḥasya, although people from the outside world come to it, since they come at my discretion, as I established it, and everything is done there in accordance with my directives, if I wish, I can sell it.
质疑：耶路撒冷的铜匠把会堂卖给 拉比以利以谢，耶路撒冷岂不是城市？答：那是铜匠自己建的小会堂，专属于他们。
革玛拉从一段 《巴拉伊塔》 对 拉比撒母耳·巴尔·纳赫马尼 的话提出质疑：拉比犹大 说：有一次，耶路撒冷有一座铜匠的会堂，铜匠把它卖给了 拉比以利以谢，他就用它来办自己的一切事务。
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani’s statement, from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving a synagogue of bronze workers [tursiyyim] that was in Jerusalem, which they sold to Rabbi Eliezer, and he used it for all his own needs.
革玛拉问：那里的会堂岂不是城市的会堂吗？耶路撒冷当然算是城市；他们怎么能出卖它呢？
The Gemara asks: But wasn’t the synagogue there one of cities, as Jerusalem is certainly classified as a city; why were they permitted to sell it?
革玛拉解释：那是一座小会堂，是铜匠自己建造的。
The Gemara explains: That one was a small synagogue, and it was the bronze workers themselves who built it.
所以它被视为专属于他们，他们可以出卖。
Therefore, it was considered exclusively theirs, and they were permitted to sell it.
又一段 《巴拉伊塔》：经文说「你们所得为业」，可见私有的房屋才会染大麻风而不洁，耶路撒冷的房屋属于全民，不会。拉比犹大 说这只限于圣殿所在之地。
革玛拉从另一段 《巴拉伊塔》 提出质疑：论房屋的大麻风，经上说：「我使你们所得为业之地的房子发现大麻疯的灾病」（利未记 14:34），由此可以推论：「你们所得为业的」，就是私有的房屋，才会因大麻风而成为不洁；耶路撒冷的房屋却不会因大麻风而成为不洁，因为那里的产业属于犹太百姓全体，不是私有的。
The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: “And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: “Your possession,” i.e., a privately owned house, can become ritually impure with leprosy, but a house in Jerusalem cannot become ritually impure with leprosy, as property there belongs collectively to the Jewish people and is not privately owned.
注：和合本作「你们到了我所赐你为业的迦南地，我使那地的房子发现大麻疯的灾病」；这里照革玛拉所引的字眼译。
拉比犹大 说：我只听说这个区分是单就圣殿所在之地说的，不是就整座耶路撒冷城说的。
Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard this distinction stated only with regard to the site of the Temple alone, but not with regard to the entire city of Jerusalem.
照此，耶路撒冷的会堂和学堂会因大麻风而不洁，这与城属于全民不合。答：改正 《巴拉伊塔》，作「只限于神圣之地」，包括圣殿、会堂和学堂。
革玛拉解释：照 拉比犹大 的话看来，只有圣殿所在之地不会成为不洁，耶路撒冷的会堂和学堂却会成为不洁。
The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, it is apparent that only the site of the Temple cannot become ritually impure, but synagogues and study halls in Jerusalem can become ritually impure.
既然它们属于整座城，为什么会这样呢？
Why should this be true given that they are owned by the city?
革玛拉回答：把这段 《巴拉伊塔》 改正，这样说：拉比犹大 说：我只听说这个区分是就神圣之地说的，包括圣殿、会堂和学堂。
The Gemara answers: Emend the baraita and say as follows: Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard this distinction stated only with regard to a sacred site, which includes the Temple, synagogues, and study halls.
两说的分歧在于：首位 坦拿 认为耶路撒冷没有分给各支派，属于全民；拉比犹大 认为已分给各支派，只有圣殿所在之地属于全民。
首位 坦拿 和 拉比犹大 在什么原则上意见不同？
With regard to what principle do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree?
首位 坦拿 认为耶路撒冷没有分给各支派，就是说，它从未分配给任何一个支派，而是属于全民族共有。
The first tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, i.e., it was never assigned to any particular tribe, but rather it belongs collectively to the entire nation.
拉比犹大 却认为：耶路撒冷是分给了各支派的，只有圣殿所在之地本身属于全民族共有。
And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, and it is only the site of the Temple itself that belongs collectively to the entire nation.
两人各自依循另两位 坦拿 之争中的一说。
革玛拉指出：他们各自依循下面这两位 坦拿 争论中的一种意见：
The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion in the dispute between these tanna’im:
一位 坦拿 认为耶路撒冷分给了各支派：圣殿山、厢房和院子在犹大的地业里，前廊、圣所和至圣所在便雅悯的地业里。
一位 坦拿 认为耶路撒冷分给了各支派，正如一段 《巴拉伊塔》 所教导的：圣殿有哪一部分在犹大支派的地业里？
One tanna holds that Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught in a baraita: What part of the Temple was in the tribal portion of Judah?
圣殿山、圣殿的厢房和圣殿的院子。
The Temple mount, the Temple chambers, and the Temple courtyards.
又有哪一部分在便雅悯支派的地业里？
And what was in the tribal portion of Benjamin?
前廊、圣所和至圣所。
The Entrance Hall, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies.
一条狭长的地从犹大的地业伸进便雅悯的地业，坛筑在上面；便雅悯每日为此难过，渴望把它并入，因此蒙福，作了神的临在的款客东家，至圣所建在他的地业里。
又有一条狭长的地从犹大的地业伸出来，进入便雅悯的地业，坛就筑在那条地上；义人便雅悯支派每日为此心中难过，渴望把它并入自己的地业，因为那里有特别的神圣，正如摩西给便雅悯的祝福里说：「终日遮蔽他，也住在他两肩之中」（申命记 33:12）。
And a strip of land issued forth from the portion of Judah and entered into the portion of Benjamin, and upon that strip the altar was built, and the tribe of Benjamin, the righteous, would agonize over it every day desiring to absorb it into its portion, due to its unique sanctity, as it is stated in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “He covers it throughout the day, and he dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12).
注：和合本作「耶和华终日遮蔽他，也住在他两肩之中」，以耶和华为主语；这里照革玛拉的读法，以便雅悯为「遮蔽」的主语。「遮蔽」原文 חֹפֵף。
「遮蔽」一语被理解为便雅悯始终专注于那块地方。
The phrase “covers it” is understood to mean that Benjamin is continually focused upon that site.
所以便雅悯得了福分，作了神的临在的 款客的东家，因为至圣所建在他的地业里。
Therefore, Benjamin was privileged by becoming the host [ushpizekhan] of the Divine Presence, as the Holy of Holies was built in his portion.
另一位 坦拿 认为耶路撒冷没有分给各支派：那里的房屋不可出租，拉比以利亚撒·巴尔·撒督 说连床铺也不可；客店主人收下祭牲的皮充作租金，算是强取。
另一位 坦拿 认为耶路撒冷没有分给各支派，正如一段 《巴拉伊塔》 所教导的：耶路撒冷的房屋不可出租，因为房屋不属于住在里面的人。
And this other tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught in a baraita: One may not rent out houses in Jerusalem, due to the fact that the houses do not belong to those occupying them.
而是像整座城一样，属于全民族共有。
Rather, as is true for the entire city, they are owned collectively by the nation.
拉比以利亚撒·巴尔·撒督 说：连床铺也不可出租。
Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Even beds may not be hired out.
因此，客店主人收下租客所献祭牲的皮来代替租金，就被视为强取，因为他们本没有权利索取报酬。
Therefore, in the case of the hides of the renter’s offerings that the innkeepers take in lieu of payment, the innkeepers are considered to be taking them by force, as they did not have a right to demand payment.
阿巴耶 由此推出：客人离开时把酒囊和所宰牲畜的皮留给客店作为酬谢，是合宜的礼数。
论到客店，革玛拉记述：阿巴耶 说：从这段 《巴拉伊塔》 可以得知，人把酒囊和所宰牲畜的皮留在客店，就是他住过的那家客店，作为对所受款待的酬谢，是合宜的礼数。
Apropos the topic of inns, the Gemara reports: Abaye said: Learn from this baraita that it is proper etiquette for a person to leave his wine flask and the hide of the animal that he slaughtered at his inn, i.e., the inn where he stayed, as a gift for the service he received.
拉瓦 说：价银用途受限，只限于城中七位代表没有在居民集会上出卖会堂的情形；若是在集会上出卖的，那么即使……（下接 26之间）
革玛拉回到密释纳的讨论：拉瓦 说：他们教导出卖会堂所得的价银可买之物有限制，只限于受委派管理城中事务的城中七位代表没有在城中居民的集会上出卖会堂的情形。
§ The Gemara returns its discussion of the mishna: Rava said: They taught that there is a limitation on what may be purchased with the proceeds of the sale of a synagogue only when the seven representatives of the town who were appointed to administer the town’s affairs had not sold the synagogue in an assembly of the residents of the town.
但城中七位代表若是在城中居民的集会上出卖的，那么即使……
However, if the seven representatives of the town had sold it in an assembly of the residents of the town, then even