← 节仪卷总目·第三章 圣物更严
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 16 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）……贤士把那管子当作因接触死爬物而不洁的器皿，从严对待；如此仍不要求等日落，便显出他们反对撒都该人。
……因为贤士对这管子从严，当它是因接触死爬物而不洁的。
as they treated the tube with severity as though it had been rendered impure by contact with a dead creeping animal.
所以，他们不要求等日落，就显出他们反对撒都该人。
Therefore, in not requiring the setting of the sun they made it noticeable that they were opposed to the Sadducees.
革玛拉质疑：若当作沾了爬物之物，它属第一级不洁，不能使人不洁；可 《巴拉伊塔》 说割管浸管的人自己须浸礼。那就改说当作沾了尸体之物。再问：那它就该在第三日、第七日受洒洁净水。
革玛拉提出疑难。
The Gemara raises a difficulty.
但若是这样，管子既被当作因爬物而不洁的，它就不该使人不洁，因为因爬物而不洁之物属第一级不洁，而第一级不洁不能使人不洁。
However, if that is so, that the tube is treated as if defiled by a creeping animal, it should not render a person impure, as something defiled by a creeping animal is impure to the first degree of ritual impurity, which cannot impart ritual impurity to people.
那么为何 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：割下并浸那存放红母牛灰之管的人，自己须浸礼？可见这管子是使人不洁的。
Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses the tube for the red heifer ashes requires immersion himself, which shows that the tube does defile people?
那就改说：贤士当它是因接触尸体而不洁的，因为这类物件也使人不洁。
But rather, say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse, for such objects do defile people as well.
革玛拉问：若是这样，这管子在洁净过程中也该在第三日和第七日受洒洁净水，正如一切因尸体而不洁之物。
The Gemara asks: If that is so, the tube should also require the sprinkling of the water of purification on the third and seventh days of its purification, like all things defiled by a corpse.
《巴拉伊塔》 只说割浸的人须浸礼，可见管子要浸礼，却不必第三日、第七日之洒。答：须说贤士当它是因尸体而不洁、已到第七日且已受过洒的物件——仍不洁，仍使触者不洁，却只差浸礼。
那么为何 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：割下并浸它的人须浸礼？这表明管子要浸礼，第三日与第七日的洒却不必。
Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: The one who cuts and immerses it requires immersion, which indicates that immersion for the tube, yes, this is required, but sprinkling of the third and the seventh day, no.
所以你必须说：贤士当它是因尸体而不洁、已到第七日、已受过洒的物件；此时它仍不洁，仍使摸它的人不洁，却只须浸礼，不必再洒。
Rather, you must say that they treated it as something made impure by contact with a corpse that is already in its seventh day, after its sprinklings, when it is still impure and imparts impurity to those who touch it, but requires only immersion and no further sprinkling.
革玛拉再问：有 《巴拉伊塔》 说贤士在红母牛之事上从未就不洁之律立新规；他们虽加严，却不另造别处没有的律。把未沾尸体的管子当作沾过尸体，岂不正是别处所无的新规？
革玛拉问：岂不是有 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：贤士在红母牛之事上，从未就不洁的 哈拉哈 立过任何新规？
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The Sages never made any innovations in the halakhot of impurity with regard to the red heifer procedure.
就是说，贤士虽然对红母牛之事加了严规，却从未为它另立别处所无的新 哈拉哈。
In other words, although the Sages added stringencies to the red heifer procedure, they never created new halakhot for it that do not exist elsewhere in other areas of halakha.
我们却说过，管子虽没接触尸体，仍被当作接触过尸体；这正是别处找不到的新规。
We have said that the tube is treated as if it had had contact with a corpse even though it did not; this is an innovation that is not found anywhere else.
阿巴耶 答：所谓不立新规，不指这类事，而是指贤士没有说 漏症者 坐过的铲子算作坐处之不洁。《巴拉伊塔》 解利未记论漏症人坐处的经文：倒扣的量器被坐过，或以为也算坐处之不洁……
革玛拉答：阿巴耶 说：说贤士没有立新规，指的不是这类事，而是指他们没有说：漏症者 坐过的铲子可以成为坐处之不洁。
The Gemara answers: Abaye said: When they said that the Sages did not make innovations, they were not referring to something of this nature, but meant that they did not say that a spade upon which a zav sits can become impure as a seat.
他们借此保住了不洁律的根本 哈拉哈，正如一则 《巴拉伊塔》 所教导的：经上论 漏症者 说：「那坐漏症人所坐之物的，必洗衣服，用水洗澡，并不洁净到晚上」（利未记 15:6）。
They thereby preserved the basic halakhot of impurity, as it is taught in a baraita: It states with regard to a zav: “And he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening” (Leviticus 15:6).
或以为：漏症者 若把量一 塞亚 的量器倒扣过来坐在上面，或把量一 半塞亚 的量器倒扣过来坐在上面，那量器就该成为 漏症者 坐处的不洁。
One might have thought that if a zav turned over a vessel used to measure a se’a and sat on it, or if he turned over a vessel used to measure a tarkav, i.e., a half-se’a, and sat on it, that the vessel should be rendered impure as a seat upon which a zav sat.
半塞亚 即半 塞亚 的量器；英译括注「i.e., a half-se’a」，因术语渲染已显其义，正文不再重出。
《巴拉伊塔》 结语：经文说「所坐之物」，指专供坐用的器物，不包括人坐上去会被叫「起来，好让我们干活」的器物；铲子与量器即使 漏症者 坐过，也只算接触之不洁。红母牛的器皿同理，贤士不加严。
《巴拉伊塔》 结论说：所以经上说：「那坐漏症人所坐之物的……并不洁净到晚上」（利未记 15:6）。
The baraita concludes: Therefore, the verse states: “And he who sits on any object whereon the zav sits…and be unclean until the evening” (Leviticus 15:6).
经文的措辞表明，它讲的是专供坐用的物件，也就是人通常坐在上面的，而不包括那种器物——有人坐在上面，我们会对他说：起来，好让我们干活。
The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object that is designated for sitting, i.e., upon which people generally sit, excluding such a vessel for which we would say to someone sitting on it: Stand up, so we can do our work.
「所坐之物」原文 אֲשֶׁר יֵשֵׁב עָלָיו，直译「他将要坐在其上的」，革玛拉由此读出专供坐用之物。
所以铲子和量器即使 漏症者 坐过，也不受 漏症者 坐处的不洁。
A spade and a measuring bowl, then, are not subject to the impurity of the seat of a zav, even if a zav sat on them.
它们只算较低一级的不洁，就是单单接触 漏症者 所传的不洁。
Rather, they are considered to be on the lower level of impurity transmitted through simple contact with a zav.
预备红母牛所用的器皿也适用同一条 哈拉哈：贤士没有加严，没有规定平常不供坐用的器皿算作 漏症者 的坐处。
The same halakha was applied to the vessels used in preparation of the red heifer; the Sages did not add stringency and decree that a vessel not generally used for sitting should be considered as the seat of a zav.
密释纳：器皿把其中所有食物合为一体，对圣物如此，对 举祭 则否。出处何在？拉比哈宁 引众首领献礼的经文「一个金盂……盛满了香」：盂中之物算作一体，纵不相连。
密释纳说：器皿把其中所有的食物合而为一，对圣物如此，对 举祭 则不然。
§ The mishna states: A vessel combines all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma.
革玛拉问：这些事是从哪里推出的？
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?
这条严规的出处是什么？
What is the source for this stringency?
拉比哈宁 说：经上论众首领的献礼说：「一个金盂，重十舍客勒，盛满了香」（民数记 7:14），这教导我们：经文把盂里的一切当作一体，即使其中各物并不相连。
Rabbi Ḥanin said: The verse states with regard to the sacrificial donations of the tribal princes: “One golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense” (Numbers 7:14), which teaches us that the verse treats everything inside the pan as one unit, even if the items are not attached to each other.
拉夫卡哈纳 引《证言卷》提出反驳：拉比阿奇瓦 在器皿合并之列中加上细面、香料、乳香与炭——当日浸礼、未等日落的人碰了器中之物的一部分，全部都失格。
拉夫卡哈纳 据一段密释纳提出反驳，那段密释纳教导（《证言卷》8:1）：拉比阿奇瓦 在同处一器即算合并的物品之列中，加上了细面、香料、乳香和炭，说：当日浸礼、尚未等到日落的人，若摸了装着这些东西的器皿中的一部分，器中所有的东西都失格，因为器皿把它们合而为一。
Rav Kahana raised an objection against this based on the mishna that teaches (Eduyyot 8:1): Rabbi Akiva added to the list of items that are considered combined when in the same vessel fine flour, incense, frankincense, and coals, saying that if one who immersed himself that day but has not waited until sunset touched a part of the contents of a vessel containing these substances, all of the vessel’s contents are disqualified, as the vessel combines them.
这条合并之律岂不只是贤士之规？证据在同一段密释纳前文：拉比西缅·本·贝特拉 作证，器中的洁净灰被不洁者碰了一部分，就全部不洁。灰既非食物也非祭物，经文管不到，合并只能出于贤士；紧接着才说 拉比阿奇瓦 加列，可见所加的也是贤士之规。
这条 哈拉哈——这些东西算作合并——岂不是出于贤士的规定吗？
Isn’t this halakha that these substances are considered combined by rabbinic law?
我们怎么知道是这样？
From where do we know that this is so?
从那段密释纳的前半所教导的：拉比西缅·本·贝特拉 就器皿中的洁净灰作证说：若有不洁的人或物碰了其中一部分，就使全部都不洁。
From the fact that it teaches in the first clause of that mishna: Rabbi Shimon ben Beteira testified with regard to ashes of purification in a vessel that if an impure person or object touched part of it, it renders all of it impure.
红母牛的洁净灰既不是食物，也不是祭物，所以 拉比哈宁 所引的经文管不到这灰；器皿把灰合而为一，必定不是出于妥拉的律法，而是出于贤士的规定。
The purification ashes of the red heifer are neither food nor a sacrificial item, so Rabbi Ḥanin’s verse does not apply to the ashes, and the vessel certainly does not combine the ashes together by Torah law, but by rabbinic law.
紧接着又教导：拉比阿奇瓦 加上……，这表明 拉比阿奇瓦 的 哈拉哈 正如前一条，讲的是贤士另加的一层不洁，而不是妥拉的律法。
And it is taught immediately following this: Rabbi Akiva added, which shows that Rabbi Akiva’s halakha, like the previous halakha, deals with an additional level of impurity instituted by the Sages rather than a Torah law.
雷什·拉基什 以 巴尔·卡帕拉 的名义说……（下接叶二十四正）
雷什·拉基什 以 巴尔·卡帕拉 的名义说：……
Reish Lakish said in the name of Bar Kappara: