← 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 17 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。
拉比雅奈 用诗篇「那按正路而行的」称许那个学生，因他审度自己的行为，知道何时不宜质难老师。
拉比雅奈 就用这节经说他：「那按正路而行的，我必使他得着我的救恩」（诗篇 50:23），因为他审度了自己的行为，断定什么时候向老师质难是不得当的。
Rabbi Yannai read this verse about him: “And to him who orders his way, I will show the salvation of God” (Psalms 50:23), for he considered his conduct and determined when it was inappropriate to challenge his master.
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 论标记坟墓：只借接触、不借帐棚传染不洁的东西（一橄榄之量的尸体、一大麦粒之量的骨头等）不标记；脊骨、头颅、骨架的大部分或骨头数目的大半则要标记。
关于标记坟墓的 哈拉哈，众贤在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教导：法庭不为一橄榄之量的尸体标记其所在，也不为一大麦粒之量的骨头标记，也不为任何只借身体接触传染不洁、却不借帐棚传染不洁的东西标记——所谓借帐棚，就是使被它遮蔽的、遮蔽它的、或与它同在一个遮盖之下的人或物沾染不洁。
§ With regard to the halakhot of marking graves, the Sages taught the following baraita: The courts do not mark the area of an olive-bulk of a corpse; nor of a bone that is the size of a barleygrain-bulk; nor of any item that imparts impurity only through physical contact but does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent to an individual or object that it overshadows, or that is overshadowed by it, or that is found together with it under the same structure.
但他们要为尸体的脊骨、头颅，或构成骨架大部分的骨头、或占全身骨头数目大半的骨头标记其所在。
But they do mark the area of the spine of a corpse, the skull, or the bones that comprise the majority of the skeletal structure or the majority of the number of bones in the body.
《巴拉伊塔》 续说：确定的不洁之处不标记，可疑的才标记，即悬垂的枝条、突出的石块与疑骨之田；标记不立在不洁之处正上方，免得洁净的食物受损，也不立得太远，免得以色列地受损。
再者，他们不为确定的不洁之处标记，就是众人都知道是不洁的地方；但要为可疑的不洁之处标记。
And furthermore, they do not mark the area of certain ritual impurity, i.e., a place that is known to all as ritually impure, but they do mark a place of uncertain ritual impurity.
这些就是可疑的不洁之处：悬垂的枝条、突出的石块，以及 疑骨之田。
And these are the places of uncertain ritual impurity: Overhanging boughs, protrusions, and a beit haperas.
他们也不把标记直接立在不洁之处的上方，免得使洁净的食物受损，因为带着这种食物的人可能不经意走到不洁之处，到那时才看见标记，食物已经沾染不洁了。
And they do not erect the marker directly over the site of the ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of ritually pure food items, as one who is carrying such food might inadvertently walk up to the site of ritual impurity and only then notice the marker, after the food has already contracted impurity.
同样，他们也不把标记立得离实际的不洁之处太远，免得使以色列地受损，就是免得扩大人们不敢进入的地区。
Similarly, they do not distance the marker from the actual site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., so as not to increase the area into which individuals refrain from entering.
革玛拉问：《帐棚卷》的密释纳明列一橄榄之量的尸体借帐棚传染不洁，《巴拉伊塔》 怎么说它不借帐棚传染、不必标记？
革玛拉开始分析这条 《巴拉伊塔》，问道：一橄榄之量的尸体真的不借帐棚传染不洁吗？
The Gemara begins to analyze this baraita by asking: Is it really so that an olive-bulk of a corpse does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent?
我们岂不是在一条密释纳（《帐棚卷》 2:1）里学过：下列之物借帐棚传染不洁，而在所列诸物中就有一橄榄之量的尸体？
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Oholot 2:1): These are the items that impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, and among other items this list includes an olive-bulk of a corpse?
拉夫帕帕 答：这里讲的是恰好一橄榄之量的肉，日后腐烂必不足量；宁可眼下因未标记而偶有举祭、圣物被焚，也不要标记之后人们永远因它焚烧。
拉夫帕帕 说：这里我们讨论的情形，是那块肉恰好是一橄榄之量，它腐烂下去，终究会缩到不足一橄榄之量。
Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with a case where the piece of flesh is exactly an olive-bulk, which, as it decays, will ultimately diminish in size to less than an olive-bulk.
所以，宁可让 举祭 与圣物暂时因它而被焚烧——就是有人因这处没有标记而不经意碰上这不洁，因而必须焚烧沾染了不洁的 举祭 或圣物——也不要让它们此后永远因它而被焚烧。
Accordingly, it is preferable that teruma and consecrated items be burned because of it for the time being, in a case where one inadvertently encounters this impurity because it was not marked and consequently one must burn any teruma or consecrated items that became ritually impure, and not be burned because of it forever afterward.
过了一些时候，那块肉就不足一橄榄之量了；可是这地方若已标记，人们仍会因它而焚烧 举祭 或圣物，因为见了标记，他们会以为不洁已借帐棚传染了。
After some time the piece of flesh will be less than an olive-bulk, yet if the area is marked, people will continue to burn teruma or consecrated items because of it, as, due to the marking, they will assume that ritual impurity was imparted by means of a tent.
革玛拉接着解释 《巴拉伊塔》 所列的可疑不洁之处：悬垂的枝条、突出的石块、疑骨之田。
革玛拉继续解释这条 《巴拉伊塔》：这些就是可疑的不洁之处：悬垂的枝条、突出的石块，以及 疑骨之田。
The Gemara continues to explicate the baraita: And these are the places of uncertain ritual impurity: Overhanging boughs, and protrusions, and a beit haperas.
悬垂的枝条：墓地旁的树垂枝于地上，枝下或有尸体；若有，枝条就成了帐棚，使从下经过的人不洁。
革玛拉解释：悬垂的枝条，指的是一棵树在墓地旁边垂在地面之上，它的某根枝子底下可能有一具尸体。
The Gemara explains: Overhanging boughs is referring to a tree that hangs over the ground next to a cemetery, and under one of its branches there might be a corpse.
若那里有尸体，悬在它上方的枝子就构成帐棚，因而使从底下经过的任何人沾染不洁。
If there is a corpse there, the branch overhanging it creates a tent and therefore imparts ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath it.
突出的石块：墙上突出、不与墙面齐平的石头，底下或有尸体；若有，石头也成了帐棚。
突出的石块，指的是从墙上突出、与墙面不齐平的石头，它们底下可能有一具尸体。
Protrusions is referring to protruding stones that jut out from a wall and are not flush with it, under which there might be a corpse.
同样，若这些石头突出在一具尸体上方，它们就构成帐棚，使从底下经过的任何人沾染不洁。
Once again, if the stones protrude over a corpse, they create a tent and impart ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath.
疑骨之田的定义见《帐棚卷》：犁过一块有坟墓的田，恐骨头散布全田，这田就成了疑骨之田，范围是一道犁沟之长，即一百肘。
疑骨之田 的定义，正如我们在别处一条密释纳（《帐棚卷》 17:1）里学过的：人若犁一块有坟墓的田，因而令人担心骨头可能已散布全田，他就使这块田成了 疑骨之田。
The definition of a beit haperas is as we learned elsewhere in a mishna (Oholot 17:1): One who plows a field containing a grave, thereby raising concern that bones may have become strewn throughout the field, renders the field a beit haperas.
他使这块田的多大范围成为 疑骨之田 呢？
And how much of the field does he render a beit haperas?
一道犁沟的全长，就是一百肘。
The full length of a furrow, which is a hundred cubits.
革玛拉问：疑骨之田真的借帐棚传染不洁吗？拉夫犹大 传 撒母耳 的话：人可以边吹开土中小骨边走过疑骨之田而保持洁净——可见那里不担心借帐棚沾染不洁。
革玛拉问：疑骨之田 真的借帐棚传染不洁吗？
The Gemara asks: Does a beit haperas really impart ritual impurity by means of a tent?
拉夫犹大 岂不是说，撒母耳 说：人若带着洁净之物，或想保持洁净以便吃圣物，却必须穿过一块 疑骨之田，他可以每走一步之前先向 疑骨之田 的土吹气，吹开可能散布在田里的小骨头，然后走过去，这样就仍保持洁净。
But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: If a person is carrying ritually pure items or wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, yet he must cross a beit haperas, he may blow upon the earth in the beit haperas before each step to clear away any small bones that may have become strewn across the field and proceed to walk across the area, thereby remaining ritually pure.
这表明在 疑骨之田 里不必担心借帐棚沾染不洁；否则，这样穿过就该是禁止的，因为在吹气的过程中，他可能已因俯身在骨头上方，或经过埋在地面之下的骨头，而沾染了不洁。
This indicates that there is no concern about contracting ritual impurity by means of a tent in a beit haperas; otherwise, it would be prohibited to cross in this way, as it is possible that in the course of blowing one may already have contracted ritual impurity by leaning over the bones or by passing over bones that are buried beneath the surface.
拉夫犹大·巴尔·阿米 又托乌拉之名说：被踩踏过的疑骨之田是洁净的。两处都表明疑骨之田不借帐棚传染不洁，与那条密释纳相抵触。
同样，拉夫犹大·巴尔·阿米 托 乌拉 之名说：一块被踩踏过的 疑骨之田，就是一块常有人行走的 疑骨之田，是洁净的，因为过路的人必定已用脚把骨头都踢开了。
Similarly, Rav Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: A beit haperas that was trampled, i.e., a well-trodden beit haperas, is ritually pure, as passersby have certainly cleared away any bones with their feet.
疑骨之田 若借帐棚传染不洁，就该担心骨头可能已被踩进地里埋住了。
If a beit haperas were to impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, there should be a concern that the bones may have been trampled upon and buried in the ground.
这两个出处都证明 疑骨之田 不借帐棚传染不洁，这就与那条密释纳相抵触。
Both these sources prove that a beit haperas does not impart impurity by means of tent, posing a contradiction to the mishna.
拉夫帕帕 区分两种疑骨之田：确知有坟墓而失其所在的田，借帐棚传染不洁，须标记；坟墓被犁过、不知有无散骨的田，不借帐棚传染，不必标记。
拉夫帕帕 说：这并不难，因为不同种类的 疑骨之田 可以区分：这里，《巴拉伊塔》 说 疑骨之田 因借帐棚传染不洁而必须标记，指的是一块失落了坟墓的田，就是确知田里有一座坟墓、却已记不起它确切位置的田。
Rav Pappa said: It is not difficult, as a distinction can be made between different types of beit haperas: Here, where the baraita states that a beit haperas must be marked because it imparts tent impurity, it is referring to a field in which a grave was lost, i.e., a field that was known with certainty to contain a grave, though its precise location can no longer be recalled.
那里，裁定 疑骨之田 不借帐棚传染不洁的，是一块坟墓被犁过的田，田里是否散有骨头，全然不能确定。
There, where it ruled that a beit haperas does not convey tent impurity, it is a case of a field where a grave was plowed and it is not at all clear whether there are bones strewn across the field.
在那种情形下，不洁不借帐棚传染，所以不必标记。
In that case ritual impurity is not imparted by means of a tent, and so it need not be marked.
坟墓被犁过的田也称疑骨之田：《帐棚卷》列三种疑骨之田，吃举祭与圣物的人不可行走其中——失落坟墓的田、坟墓被犁过的田、哭者之田。
革玛拉问：可是坟墓被犁过的田，也称为 疑骨之田，以致必须担心它的不洁吗？
The Gemara asks: But is a field where a grave was plowed called a beit haperas, such that one must be concerned about its ritual impurity?
革玛拉回答：是的，我们在一条密释纳（《帐棚卷》 18:2–4）里也是这样学的：有三种 疑骨之田，吃 举祭 与圣物的人禁止从中行走：一块失落了坟墓、已不知其确切位置的田；一块坟墓被犁过、骨头可能已散布的田；以及一块哭者之田。
The Gemara answers: Yes, and so we learned in a mishna (Oholot 18:2–4): There are three types of beit haperas through which those who eat teruma and consecrated items are prohibited to walk: A field in which a grave was lost and its precise location is no longer known, a field in which a grave was plowed and bones may have been scattered about, and a weepers’ field.
哭者之田：送殡的人在那里与死者告别，把尸体交给下葬的人。此说出自拉夫约书亚·巴尔·阿巴，托乌拉之名。
革玛拉问：什么叫哭者之田？
The Gemara asks: What is meant by a weepers’ field?
拉夫约书亚·巴尔·阿巴 托 乌拉 之名说：就是送殡的人在那里与死者告别的田，他们在那里把尸体交给真正下葬的人。
Rav Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Ulla: A field where those escorting the deceased would take leave of the deceased, handing the corpse over to those who would perform the actual interment.
阿维米 说：哭者之田所以要顾虑不洁，是因为运尸途中可能有肢体掉落、失主放弃寻回；许多尸体经过，田里多处都可能有不洁。
必须担心哭者之田有不洁，理由是什么？
And what is the reason that one must be concerned about ritual impurity in a weepers’ field?
阿维米 说：是因为失主可能已放弃寻回骨头的指望，众贤才把它列入。
Avimi said: It is due to the possible despair by the owners of recovering bones that the Sages touched upon it.
人们担心，从远处运送死者时，可能有一块松脱的肢体从尸体上掉进田里，运送死者的人没有看见，就把它遗落在那里了。
There is a concern that in transporting the deceased from far away, a loose limb may have fallen from the corpse into the field, and unseen by those transporting the deceased, it was abandoned there.
既然日久以来有许多尸体经过这块哭者之田，就推定田里许多地方都可能有不洁。
Since over time many corpses passed through this weepers’ field, it is assumed that ritual impurity might be found in many places throughout the field.
革玛拉问：坟墓被犁过的田不必标记吗？一条 《巴拉伊塔》 说：遇见一块已标记、却不知何故的田，有树便知是坟墓被犁过（这种田可种树），无树便知是坟墓失落了（这种田禁种树）。
革玛拉问：坟墓被犁过的田难道不需要标记吗？
The Gemara asks: And does a field in which a grave was plowed not require marking?
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教导说：人若碰到一块因不洁而被标记的田，却已不知那不洁是什么性质，若田里有树，就可知是有坟墓在田里被犁过，因为在这样的田里是可以种树的。
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one encountered a field that was marked due to ritual impurity, and it is no longer known what the nature of the ritual impurity was, if there are trees in the field, it is known that a grave was plowed in it, as it is permitted for one to plant trees in such a field.
若田里没有树，就可知是有坟墓在田里失落了，因为在这样的田里是禁止种树的。
If there are no trees in the field, it is known that a grave was lost in it, as it is prohibited for one to plant trees in such a field.
一块田若适宜种树却一棵也没有，显然是因为有坟墓在田里失落了。
If a field is suitable for planting trees and yet there are none, clearly it is because a grave was lost in it.
拉比犹大 说：须有长老或学者作证，才凭这些标记断定。无论如何，这条 《巴拉伊塔》 表明坟墓被犁过的田也要标记。
拉比犹大 说：除非有一位长老或一位学者能就此事作证，否则我们不凭这些标记断定，因为不是人人都精通此事，或许这块田根本没有被犁过。
Rabbi Yehuda says: We do not rely on these signs unless there is an Elder or a rabbinic scholar who can testify about the subject, as not all are experts in this matter, and perhaps the field was not plowed at all.
无论如何，这条 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：坟墓被犁过的田也要标记。
In any case, this baraita teaches that a field in which a grave was plowed is also marked.
拉夫帕帕 答：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 讲的是确实失落坟墓、当即标记的田；有树，是后来有人忘了而去犁种；无树，则是从未被犁过。
革玛拉回答：拉夫帕帕 说：那条关于已标记之田的 《巴拉伊塔》 所教导的，是一块确实失落了坟墓、当即就被标记的田。
The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa said: When that baraita concerning a marked field is taught, it is taught with regard to a field where a grave was certainly lost and they immediately marked it.
然而，若田里有树，就可知后来有坟墓在田里被犁过，就是人忘了田里曾失落过一座坟墓，于是不当地把田犁了、整治来种植。
However, if there are trees in the field, it is known that a grave was later plowed in it, i.e., it was forgotten that a grave had been lost in the field and so it was inappropriately plowed and prepared for planting.
但若田里没有树，我们就知道是有坟墓在田里失落了，后来也没有被犁过。
But if there are no trees in the field, we know that a grave was lost in it and it was not later plowed.
革玛拉问：或许树在田内、坟墓在田外，坟墓所在从未被犁过，怎能凭树断定坟墓被犁过？
革玛拉对这一裁定提出疑问：可是我们该顾虑，或许那些树在田的里面，而坟墓在田的外面，坟墓的实际所在从未被犁过，只是失落了而已？
The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: But let us be concerned that perhaps the trees were located inside the field and the grave was located outside of it, and the actual site of the grave was never plowed but simply lost?
那么，怎能凭有树来表明坟墓曾在田里被犁过呢？
How then can one rely on the presence of trees to indicate that the grave had been plowed in the field?
答案照 乌拉 别处的话：树沿田界而立、外邻公共通道，人不会把尸体埋在通道上，坟墓必在树间，因而被犁过。
革玛拉回答：这正如 乌拉 在别处所说的。
The Gemara answers: It is as Ulla said elsewhere.
这是指那些树沿着田界、靠着 公共区 而立的情形，因为坟墓必定不在树外的 公共区 里，人不会把尸体埋在公共的通道上。
This is a case where the trees are standing along the field’s boundaries, next to a public domain, as the grave is certainly not outside the trees in the public domain, since people do not bury a corpse in the public thoroughfare.
所以坟墓必定在树与树之间，因而被犁过了。
Rather, the grave must be between the trees, and was therefore plowed.
这里也是一样，这是指那些树沿着田界而立的情形。
Here too, then, this is a case where the trees are standing along the borders.