← 小节期卷总目·第一章 浇灌水田
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 14 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）……因为新泉容易坍塌；若是泉壁已稳的旧泉，或许连靠雨水就够的田也可以浇。
……因为这种泉容易坍塌。
as it is likely to collapse.
但若是不是新涌的泉，泉壁已经稳固，不会坍塌，那么即使是平常靠雨水就够的田也可以浇灌。
But in the case of a spring that did not just emerge, which is not likely to collapse because its walls have already stabilized, even a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater may be irrigated.
革玛拉答：照这种解释，密释纳就不合任何坦拿了。所以照 拉比犹大，新泉旧泉无别，只分水田与靠雨水的田；《巴拉伊塔》 举新涌的泉，是要显出 拉比梅伊尔 的意见宽到什么地步。
革玛拉问：若是这样，你要把这条密释纳归给谁，就是归给哪一位 坦拿 呢？
The Gemara asks: If that were so, then to whom, i.e., to which tanna, would you attribute the mishna?
照这种解释，密释纳不合任何人的意见；照先前的解释，它却合 拉比犹大 的意见。
According to this interpretation, the mishna does not correspond to any opinion, while according to the previous interpretation, it corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
所以必定是：照 拉比犹大 的意见，新涌的泉与不是新涌的泉并无分别。
Rather, it must be that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, a newly emerged spring is no different from a spring that did not just emerge.
需要灌溉的水田，是的，可以浇；靠雨水就够的田，就不可浇。
A field that requires irrigation, yes, it may be irrigated, while a field that suffices with rainwater, no, it may not be irrigated.
而 《巴拉伊塔》 选在新涌泉水的情形上教导这场争论，是要显出 拉比梅伊尔 的意见走得多远：他说即使用新涌的泉水，即使是靠雨水就够的田，也可以浇灌。
And the baraita opted to teach this dispute in the case of a newly emerged spring in order to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir, which states that one may irrigate even from a newly emerged spring, and even a field that suffices with rainwater.
阿摩拉们争论：安息日除草或给幼苗浇水，要以哪一项被禁之工警告他？拉巴 说是耕地，拉夫约瑟 说是播种。
有记载说 阿摩拉 对下面这个问题有分歧：人在安息日除草，或给幼苗浇水，我们以哪一项被禁之工来警告他？
§ It was stated that the amora’im disputed the following question: With regard to one who weeds or one who waters seedlings on Shabbat, for what prohibited labor do we forewarn him?
罪人唯有在犯罪之前已由两位证人警告过，才可受法庭的刑罚。
Judicial punishment may be administered to a sinner only if he has been forewarned by two witnesses prior to the commission of his offense.
这警告须说明所违犯的具体过犯；在安息日，还须说明这行为所涉的是哪一类被禁之工。
This forewarning must include the specific transgression being violated, and on Shabbat it must include the specific category of prohibited labor that the action involves.
拉巴 说：是因为耕地的禁令。
Rabba said: It is due to the prohibition against plowing.
拉夫约瑟 说：是因为播种的禁令。
Rav Yosef said: It is due to the prohibition against sowing.
两人各陈理由：拉巴 说耕地是为松土，除草浇水也松土；拉夫约瑟 说播种是为使果实生长，除草浇水也使果实生长。
拉巴 说：照我的意见，这是合理的。
Rabba said: According to my opinion it is reasonable.
耕地的通常目的是松土，同样，这件事——除草或浇水——也使土变松。
Just as the usual objective of plowing is to loosen the earth, so too, this, weeding or watering, loosens the earth.
拉夫约瑟 说：照我的意见，这是合理的。
Rav Yosef said: According to my opinion, it is reasonable.
播种的通常目的是使果实生长，这里也是，除草或浇水使果实生长。
Just as the usual objective of sowing is to cause the fruit to grow, here too, weeding or watering causes the fruit to grow.
阿巴耶 对 拉巴 说：两说都有难处——难道只为一项警告，另一项却不警告？除草浇水理当既属耕地，也属播种。
阿巴耶 对 拉巴 说：照你的意见有难处，照 拉夫约瑟 的意见也有难处。
Abaye said to Rabba: According to your opinion, it is difficult, and according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, it is difficult.
阿巴耶 解释：照你的意见有难处：难道为耕地的禁令，是的，要警告他，为播种的禁令，就不警告他吗？
Abaye explains: According to your opinion, it is difficult: Is it true that for the prohibition against plowing, yes, he is forewarned, but for the prohibition against sowing, no, he is not forewarned?
同样，照 拉夫约瑟 的意见有难处：难道为播种的禁令，是的，要警告他，为耕地的禁令，就不警告他吗？
Similarly, according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, it is difficult: Can it be that for the prohibition against sowing, yes, he is forewarned, but for the prohibition against plowing, no, he is not forewarned?
大家都该同意，除草和浇水既属耕地一类，也属播种一类。
Everyone should agree that weeding and watering fall under the categories of both plowing and sowing.
若说一个行为可归两类时只按一类论罪，拉夫卡哈纳 却说：安息日修剪葡萄枝而又需用那木头的，要献两只赎罪祭——一为播种，一为收割。可见一个行为含两项工，两项都担罪责。
你若说：凡一个行为可能归入两类被禁之工的，人只因其中一类受罚，拉夫卡哈纳 岂不是说过：人在安息日修剪葡萄树枝，而又需要那木头作柴火或别的用途，就要献两只赎罪祭吗？
And if you say that anywhere that there are two possible categories of prohibited labor into which a particular action might fall, one is liable to be punished for only one of them, didn’t Rav Kahana say: If one prunes the branches of a vine on Shabbat and he needs the wood for firewood or any other purpose, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings?
他因违犯播种这一工作之父，要献一只赎罪祭，因为修剪葡萄树促进它生长，所以是播种之下的工作之子。
He is liable to bring one sin-offering for violating the primary category of sowing, as pruning vines facilitates their growth, and so it is a sub-category of sowing.
他又因违犯收割这一工作之父，要献一只赎罪祭，因为收割的本质就是把所需之物从地上割离。
And he is liable to bring one sin-offering for violating the primary category of reaping, as the essence of reaping is detaching that which one needs from the ground.
既然他需要从葡萄树上割下的木头，他的行为就算是收割。
Since he needs the wood that he is detaching from the vine, his action is considered reaping.
由此可见，一个行为包含两项被禁之工的，两项都要担罪责。
Consequently, one action that incorporates two prohibited labors causes liability for both.
革玛拉结论：两说确实都有难处。
革玛拉结论：确实，两种意见都有难处。
The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult according to both opinions.
拉夫约瑟 引一条 《巴拉伊塔》 驳 拉巴：在杂种旁除草或给杂种培土的人，因杂种的禁令受鞭刑；拉比阿奇瓦 说，连在田里保留杂种的人也受鞭刑。
拉夫约瑟 从下面这条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教导的，对 拉巴 的意见提出驳难：人在杂种旁除草，或用土覆盖杂种外露的根，就因违犯杂种的禁令受鞭刑——就是在同一块田的一处照料不同种类的作物——因为经上说：「不可用两样搀杂的种子播种你的地」（利未记 19:19）。
Rav Yosef raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from what is taught in the following baraita: One who weeds in proximity to diverse kinds of seeds, or covers with earth the exposed roots of diverse kinds, is flogged for transgressing the prohibition against diverse kinds, i.e., tending different species of crops in one area of the same field, as it is stated: “You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” (Leviticus 19:19).
和合本作「不可用两样搀杂的种种你的地」，为避「种种」相连改写。
拉比阿奇瓦 说：连在自己田里保留本可拔除之杂种的人，也因违犯杂种的禁令受鞭刑。
Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species that he could have uprooted is flogged for violating the prohibition against diverse kinds of seeds.
拉夫约瑟 申论：照我，除草属播种，播种杂种被禁，所以受鞭刑；照你，除草属耕地，可是杂种哪里有禁止耕地的？
拉夫约瑟 解释：照我的意见，我说安息日除草的人是以播种之工受警告，那就明白他为何因在杂种旁除草而受鞭刑：播种杂种是被禁止的。
Rav Yosef explains: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that one who weeds on Shabbat is forewarned for the prohibited labor of sowing, this is the reason he is liable to be punished with flogging for weeding diverse seeds: Sowing diverse kinds is prohibited.
可是照你的说法，安息日除草的人是以耕地受警告，那么人为何因在杂种旁除草而受鞭刑呢？
But according to you, who said that one who weeds on Shabbat is forewarned for plowing, why is one liable to be flogged for weeding in proximity to diverse kinds?
难道关于杂种有禁止耕地的吗？
Is plowing prohibited in connection with diverse kinds?
耕地的时候并没有各类作物的混杂，所以这里的耕地不能被禁止。
At the time of plowing, there is no mixture of different species of crops, so plowing cannot be prohibited in this case.
拉巴 答：在杂种田里除草受鞭刑，不是因为耕地，而是因为在田里保留杂种。
拉巴 对他说：照我的意见，在杂种田里除草的人受鞭刑，不是因为犯了耕地，而是因为违犯了在自己田里保留杂种的禁令。
Rabba said to him: According to my opinion, one who weeds a field of diverse kinds is flogged not because he is guilty of plowing, but for violating the prohibition against maintaining a mixture of species in his field.
革玛拉驳：《巴拉伊塔》 后半才引 拉比阿奇瓦 说保留杂种也受鞭刑，可见前一位坦拿认为除草的罪责另有所在，不在保留杂种。
革玛拉驳：可是从 《巴拉伊塔》 后半教导说「拉比阿奇瓦 说：连在自己田里保留杂种的人也受鞭刑」，就可推知照不具名的前一位 坦拿，除草的罪责不在于保留杂种，而在于做了别的被禁之工。
The Gemara objects: However, from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species is liable to be flogged, it may be inferred that according to the anonymous first tanna, the liability for weeding is not for maintaining diverse kinds, but for performing some other prohibited labor.
革玛拉答：整条 《巴拉伊塔》 都是 拉比阿奇瓦 的意见，用的是「理由何在」的体例：除草培土所以受鞭刑，是因为保留了杂种。
革玛拉驳回这个说法：其实整条 《巴拉伊塔》 都反映 拉比阿奇瓦 的意见，而它是用「理由何在」的体例说的。
The Gemara rejects this opinion: In fact, the entire baraita reflects the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and it is stated in the style of what is the reason.
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 应当这样理解：除草的人和用土覆盖杂种外露之根的人，为什么受鞭刑？
The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the reason that one who weeds and one who covers the exposed roots of diverse kinds with earth is flogged?
他是因为在自己田里保留杂种而受鞭刑，正如 拉比阿奇瓦 说：连在自己田里保留杂种的人也受鞭刑。
He is flogged for maintaining diverse kinds in his field, as Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species is flogged.
拉比阿奇瓦 的经文根据：一条 《巴拉伊塔》 说，「不可用两样搀杂的种子播种你的地」只禁播种杂种；保留杂种不涉主动行为，又从何推知被禁？
关于 拉比阿奇瓦 的意见，革玛拉问：拉比阿奇瓦 的理由是什么？
With regard to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, the Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s opinion?
他是怎样从经文推出这条禁令的？
How did he derive this prohibition from the verses?
革玛拉回答：因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：「不可用两样搀杂的种子播种你的地」（利未记 19:19）。
The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: “You shall not sow your field with mingled seed” (Leviticus 19:19).
和合本作「不可用两样搀杂的种种你的地」，为避「种种」相连改写。
我从这节经只推出播种杂种是被禁止的。
I have derived from this verse that only sowing diverse kinds is prohibited.
又从哪里推知保留杂种——那并不涉及任何主动行为——也被禁止呢？
From where is it derived that maintaining diverse kinds, which does not involve any positive action, is also prohibited?
经文把「杂种」一词与「你的地」连读，稍移句读就成了「杂种在你的地里，不可」，表明单是在田里保留杂种也被禁止。
经上说：「两样搀杂的——你的地——不可播种」（利未记 19:19）。
The verse states: “Diverse kinds, you shall not sow your field with mingled seed” (Leviticus 19:19).
原文 בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם；和合本作「不可叫你的牲畜与异类配合；不可用两样搀杂的种种你的地」。革玛拉把 כִּלְאַיִם 与下文 שָׂדְךָ 连读，故照其读法译。
禁止在同一块田的一处种植不同种类作物的这道禁令，在经文里紧接在禁止牲畜杂配的禁令之后：「不可叫你的牲畜与异类配合」。把句读略微一移，就成了「杂种在你的地里，不可」，表明单是在自己田里保留杂种，也是被禁止的。
The prohibition against planting different species of a crop in one area of the same field is preceded in the verse by the prohibition against crossbreeding livestock: “You shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind.” A slight change in punctuation yields the phrase: Diverse kinds in your field, you shall not, indicating that merely preserving diverse kinds in one’s field is prohibited.
革玛拉回到密释纳：节中日与安息年都可以浇灌水田。
革玛拉回到原来的论题：我们在密释纳里学过：节中日与安息年都可以浇灌需要灌溉的水田。
§ The Gemara returns to the original topic of discussion: We learned in the mishna: One may irrigate a field that requires irrigation on the intermediate days of a Festival as well as during the Sabbatical Year.
节中日浇灌之禁只因不可过劳，遇重大损失众贤可以许可；可是安息年浇灌，无论算播种还是耕地，妥拉都明文禁止，怎能许可？
革玛拉问：节中日固然好说：那里禁止浇灌，是因为节日不可过分劳累的规定，而在有重大损失的情形，众贤就许人劳累。
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the intermediate days of a Festival, where the prohibition against irrigation is due to the mandate to avoid excessive exertion on the Festival, in a case of considerable loss, the Sages permitted one to exert himself.
可是在安息年，无论照那说浇水的人因播种之禁担罪责的，还是照那说他因耕地之禁担罪责的，难道安息年许可播种和耕地吗？
However, during the Sabbatical Year, both according to the one who said that one who waters is liable due to the prohibition against sowing, and according to the one who said that one is liable due to the prohibition against plowing, are sowing and plowing permitted during the Sabbatical Year?
妥拉明文禁止安息年耕作土地，这些行为怎能被许可呢？
How can these actions be permitted when the Torah explicitly renders prohibited working the land during the Sabbatical Year?
阿巴耶 答：密释纳说的是如今的安息年，其禁令只是拉比之令，合 拉比犹大·哈纳西 的意见。后者从申命记「豁免的定例」读出两样豁免：土地的豁免与钱财的豁免。
阿巴耶 说：密释纳说的是如今这时代的安息年，这时它的禁令只出于拉比之令，而密释纳是照 拉比犹大·哈纳西 的意见。
Abaye said: The mishna is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present time, when its prohibitions are only by rabbinic decree, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
因为一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：拉比犹大·哈纳西 说：经上说：「豁免的定例乃是这样：凡债主要把所借给邻舍的豁免了」（申命记 15:2），这节经说到两样豁免：一是土地的豁免，就是人须停止耕作土地；一是钱财的豁免，就是人须停止索讨债务。
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When the verse states: “And this is the manner of the release, every creditor will release that which he has lent to his neighbor” (Deuteronomy 15:2), the verse speaks of two releases: One is the release of land, that one must refrain from working the land, and the other is the release of money, that one must refrain from collecting debts.
「两样豁免」由原文 הַשְּׁמִטָּה 与 שָׁמוֹט 两次提到豁免推出。
经文把两样豁免并提：妥拉要求土地豁免时才要求钱财豁免。照 拉比犹大·哈纳西，如今土地的豁免不是妥拉律法，安息年只是拉比律法，所以遇重大损失可以从宽。
这节经把两样豁免相提并论，表明：你在妥拉律法下须让土地豁免的时候，就须让钱财豁免；你不须让土地豁免的时候，也就不须让钱财豁免。
This verse equates these two releases, indicating that when you are mandated by Torah law to release land, you must release money, and when you are not mandated to release land, you need not release money.
这表明照 拉比犹大·哈纳西 的意见，如今这时代，土地的豁免不是妥拉律法所规定的。
This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, at the present time, the release of land is not mandated by Torah law.
所以守安息年只是拉比律法的规定，而在有重大损失的情形，众贤就从宽。
Therefore, observance of the Sabbatical Year is mandated only by rabbinic law, and the Sages were lenient in a case of significant loss.
（下接 3a）拉瓦 说：即使照众贤，如今的安息年仍是妥拉律法，密释纳的从宽也说得通：慈悲者只禁止了工作之父……
拉瓦 说：即使你说这条密释纳是照众贤的意见教导的——他们与 拉比犹大·哈纳西 不同，认为即使在如今这时代，守安息年也是妥拉律法所规定的——密释纳的从宽仍可理解。
Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and maintain that the observance of the Sabbatical Year, even at the present time, is mandated by Torah law, one can understand the leniency in the mishna.
浇灌所以从宽，是因为慈悲者，就是妥拉的律法，只禁止了工作之父……
The reason for the leniency with regard to irrigation is because only primary categories of labor were prohibited by the Merciful One, i.e., by Torah law,