← 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 7 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）告诫地之民祭司：不要碰陈设饼的桌子。桌子若被碰而不洁，就得撤去浸礼，陈设饼须常在桌上的诫命便会一时中断。
「……不要碰陈设饼的桌子。」
that you not touch the table of the shewbread.
你们若碰它使它不洁，就得把它撤去施行浸礼，这会使陈设饼的诫命一时中断，因为陈设饼必须时常摆在桌上。
If you defile it by touching it, it would need to be removed for immersion, and this would lead to the temporary suspension of the mitzva of the shewbread, which had to be on the table at all times.
密释纳续说：圣殿里的器皿都有第二、第三套替换的。节后一切器皿都要浸礼，只有金坛与铜坛除外——拉比以利以谢 说因为它们如同地面，众贤士说因为它们是包覆的。
密释纳接着说：圣殿里的一切器皿都有第二套、第三套替换的器皿，头一套若不洁了，就可以拿第二套来代替。
The mishna continues: All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third substitute vessels, so that if the first ones became impure they could bring the second ones in their place.
圣殿里的一切器皿节后都须施行浸礼，只有金坛与铜坛除外，因为它们被看作如同地面，所以与土地本身一样，不受不洁。
All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion after the Festival, apart from the golden altar and the bronze altar, because they are considered like the ground and therefore, like land itself, not susceptible to impurity.
这是 拉比以利以谢 的说法。
This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.
众贤士说：这是因为它们是包覆的。
And the Rabbis say: It is because they are coated.
《巴拉伊塔》 说要告诫地之民祭司：小心别碰桌子或灯台。密释纳为何不提灯台？答：经上论桌子说陈设饼要「常」在我面前，论灯台却没写「常」字，所以灯台可以撤去浸礼。
有一位 坦拿 在一则 《巴拉伊塔》 里教导，他们会对 地之民 祭司说：要小心，免得你们碰了桌子（理由如上所解），或碰了灯台（理由如革玛拉下面所解）。
A tanna taught in a baraita that they would say to the am ha’aretz priests: Be careful lest you touch the table, as explained above, or the candelabrum, as the Gemara will explain.
革玛拉问：至于我们密释纳的 坦拿，他为什么没教导也告诫他们不要碰灯台？
The Gemara asks: And regarding the tanna of our mishna, what is the reason he did not teach that they were instructed not to touch the candelabrum as well?
革玛拉答：论到桌子，经上写着：「在我面前，常摆陈设饼」（出埃及记 25:30），表明摆陈设饼的桌子必须时常在它的位置上；论到灯台，却没写「常」字，所以可以把它撤去施行浸礼。
The Gemara answers: With regard to the table it is written: “Shewbread before Me always” (Exodus 25:30), indicating that the table holding the shewbread must always be in its place, whereas with regard to the candelabrum it is not written “always,” and therefore it can be removed for immersing.
《巴拉伊塔》 的坦拿为何把灯台也算进去？因经上说灯台要与桌子相对，等于也写了「常」字。密释纳的坦拿则答：那节经文只是定下灯台的位置，并非说它要时常与桌子相对。
革玛拉问：至于另一位 坦拿，即 《巴拉伊塔》 的那位，他为什么把灯台也算进去？
The Gemara asks: And regarding the other tanna, in the baraita, why does he include the candelabrum?
革玛拉答：因为经上写着：「把桌子安在幔子外……把灯台……与桌子相对」（出埃及记 26:35），表明灯台必须时常摆在桌子对面；这就如同论到灯台也写了「常」字一样。
The Gemara answers: Since it is written: “And you shall set the table without the veil and the candelabrum opposite the table” (Exodus 26:35), indicating that the candelabrum must always be placed opposite the table; it is as though it is written “always” with regard to the candelabrum as well.
另一位 坦拿，即密释纳那位不反对撤去灯台施行浸礼的，会答道：那节经文只是为灯台定下位置，描述它当摆在哪里，并不是说它必须始终与桌子相对。
And the other tanna, in the mishna, who does not object to removing the candelabrum for immersion, would reply: That verse comes only to establish a place for the candelabrum, to describe where it must be positioned, but it does not mean to say that it must be opposite the table at all times.
革玛拉问：何必防地之民碰桌子？桌子是放在固定处的木器，本不受不洁。经上把木器与口袋并列，木器须像口袋一样满空都被搬动，才受不洁。
革玛拉就「须使 地之民 远离桌子」这一要求提出问题：不妨推断，即认定根本不必提防人碰桌子，因为它不能受不洁。
The Gemara poses a question concerning the requirement to keep amei ha’aretz away from the table: And let us derive it, i.e., let it be established, that it is not necessary to take care against contact with the table, as it is incapable of contracting ritual impurity.
这是因为它是一件设定放在固定处的木器，而 哈拉哈 是：凡设定放在固定处的大木器，都不能变为不洁。
This is because it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place, and the halakha is that any large, wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place cannot become impure.
这条 哈拉哈 的理由是什么？
What is the reason for this halakha?
因为经文讲论不洁时把木器与口袋并列（利未记 11:32），我们就要求木器与口袋相似，才能受不洁，即：口袋满的时候和空的时候都被搬动，同样，凡满的时候和空的时候都被搬动的木器，就能受不洁；像桌子这种设定放在固定处的器皿则不然。
Since wooden vessels and sacks are juxtaposed in the verse describing their impurity (Leviticus 11:32), we require a wooden vessel to be similar to a sack in order to be capable of contracting impurity, in the following manner: Just as a sack is carried when it is both full and empty, so too any wooden vessel that is carried full and empty can contract impurity, as opposed to vessels, such as the table, that are designated to rest in a fixed place.
所以桌子本该根本不受不洁。
The table should therefore not be susceptible to impurity at all.
革玛拉答：照 雷什·拉基什 的话，桌子其实满空都被搬动。他讲「洁净的桌子」一语：既说「洁净」，可见它能变为不洁，所以妥拉告诫摆十二个饼时要确保它洁净。
革玛拉答：照 雷什·拉基什 的话，桌子其实也是满的时候和空的时候都被搬动的。
The Gemara answers: The table too is in fact carried full and empty, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish.
因为 雷什·拉基什 说：经上写着「要把饼摆列两行，每行六个，在……洁净的桌子上」（利未记 24:6），这是什么意思？
For Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall set them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure table” (Leviticus 24:6)?
和合本利未记 24:6 作「要把饼摆列两行，每行六个，在耶和华面前精金的桌子上」；希伯来文 השלחן הטהור 字面作「洁净的桌子」，下句的讲解系于此字眼，故照革玛拉读法。
「洁净的桌子」一语，言下之意是它能变为不洁，所以妥拉告诫我们，摆上那十二个饼的时候要确保它洁净。
The words “pure table” teach by inference that it is capable of becoming impure, and therefore the Torah warns us to make sure it is pure when the twelve loaves of bread are placed there.
桌子既是固定的木器，为何受不洁？因为人们会把摆着陈设饼的桌子抬起，给殿院里的朝圣者看：神以饼行常在的神迹，撤下时与摆上时一样热。拉比约书亚·本·利未 引撒母耳记为证。
桌子既是设定放在固定处的木器，本该不受不洁，那么它为什么偏偏受不洁？
And why indeed is the table susceptible to ritual impurity, being that it is a wooden vessel designated to rest in a fixed place and should therefore not be susceptible to impurity?
其实，这节经文教导：人们会把摆着陈设饼的桌子抬起来，把陈设饼展示给站在殿院里的朝圣者看，因为以色列人不准进入桌子所在的圣所；他们会对朝圣者说：看哪，你们在神面前蒙的爱！神以这饼行常在的神迹：安息日从桌上撤下时，饼与前一个安息日摆上时一样新鲜。
Rather, this verse teaches that they would lift the table with the shewbread on it to display the shewbread to the pilgrims standing in the Temple courtyard, as it was prohibited for Israelites to enter the Sanctuary, where the table stood, and they would say to them: Behold your affection before God, Who performs a perpetual miracle with the bread, for when it is removed from the table on Shabbat it is just as fresh as when it was arranged on the previous Shabbat.
正如 拉比约书亚·本·利未 所说：陈设饼上行了一个大神迹：摆上时怎样，撤下时也怎样，如经上说：「撤下来的日子，好放上热饼」（撒母耳记上 21:7），表明它撤下那天与摆上那天一样热。
As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the shewbread: As its condition during its arrangement, so was its condition during its removal, as it is stated: “To place hot bread on the day when it was taken away” (I Samuel 21:7), indicating that it was as hot on the day of its removal as it was on the day when it was placed.
英译用希伯来本节数 21:7，和合本作撒母耳记上 21:6，大意为陈设饼从耶和华面前撤下、换上热饼；此处照革玛拉读法，以经文表明饼撤下时仍热。
革玛拉再问：桌子受不洁，何不归于它的金包覆？《器皿卷》说桌子或小几若以大理石包覆，剩下未包覆之处够放杯子，才仍作木器受不洁；可见器皿身份随外层包覆。圣殿的桌子包金，就该算金属器皿。
革玛拉又问：不妨推断，桌子能受不洁这一点，不是因为它可以搬动，而是因为它的金包覆。
The Gemara asks another question: Let us derive this fact, i.e., that the table can contract ritual impurity, not because it is portable but due to its golden coating.
我们不是在一条密释纳（《器皿卷》22:1）里学过吗：一张桌子或一张杜尔帕基小几，表面有一部分破损脱落，或有人用大理石，即不受不洁的石料把它包覆了，若表面还留有完好或未包覆、够放杯子的一块地方，它仍作为木器受不洁。
For didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kelim 22:1): Concerning a table and a dulpaki that some of its surface became broken off, or that one coated with marble, i.e., stone not being susceptible to impurity: If he left on them a place on the surface that remained unbroken or uncoated, big enough for placing cups, it remains susceptible to impurity as a wooden vessel.
杜尔帕基（dulpaki）是一种小几或三脚桌；正文只写音译与中文。
拉比犹大 说：它必须留有一块完好、未包覆、也够放肉块和饼的地方，才仍作为木器受不洁。
Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have an unbroken and uncoated place big enough for placing pieces of meat and bread as well in order to maintain susceptibility to impurity as a wooden vessel.
从这条密释纳可见，桌子若全用石料包覆，就不受不洁；可见器皿的身份随外层的包覆，而不随它的主要材料。
It is clear from this mishna that if a table is completely coated with stone it is not susceptible to impurity, showing that the status of a vessel follows its external coating, not its main material.
圣殿的桌子既是包金的，就该有金属器皿的身份。
The Temple table, which was coated with gold, should have the status of a metal vessel.
若说皂荚木贵重，不因包覆而失其身份，这合 雷什·拉基什 之说：只有海外来的贱木器才因包覆而失其身份，贵重的马斯米木不然。但照 拉比约哈难，连马斯米木器也因包覆而失其身份，又怎么说？
革玛拉提出一个可能的解答：你若说造圣殿桌子的皂荚木不同，它是一种重要、贵重的木料，所以不因包覆而失其身份，这合乎 雷什·拉基什 的说法；他说：贤士所教导的木器因包覆而失其身份，只就海外来的廉价阿赫瑟拉格木所造的器皿而言，贵重的马斯米木所造的器皿却不因包覆而失其身份。
The Gemara proposes a possible answer: And if you would say that acacia wood, from which the Temple table was made, is different, as it is an important, valuable kind of wood and is therefore not nullified by a coating, this works out well according to Reish Lakish, who said: They taught that a wooden vessel is nullified by its coating only with regard to vessels made of cheap akhselag wood which comes from overseas, but vessels made of expensive masmi wood are not nullified by a coating.
阿赫瑟拉格木（akhselag）、马斯米木（masmi）的确切树种不详，照英译括注取音译。
照这个看法就说得通，我们可以说桌子的皂荚木也不因它的金包覆而失其身份。
According to this opinion it is fine, for we can say that the acacia wood of the table is also not nullified by its golden coating.
但照 拉比约哈难 的说法，他说连贵重的马斯米木器也因包覆而失其身份，又该怎么说？
But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: Even expensive masmi vessels are also nullified by a coating, what is there to say?
若说密释纳讲的是固定的包覆，圣殿桌子的金包覆不固定，这也不行：雷什·拉基什 问过 拉比约哈难，包覆的规则是否只限固定的包覆，是否只限连桌缘都包住的包覆。
革玛拉又提出一个可能的解答：你若说那条密释纳不适用，因为这里密释纳里的木器因包覆而失其身份，是由于它说的是固定的包覆；而那里圣殿桌子的金包覆并没有固定在木头上。这是不可能的。
The Gemara proposes another possible answer: And if you would say that the mishna is not applicable because here in the mishna the wood is nullified by its coating because it is speaking of a fixed coating, whereas there in the case of the Temple table the golden coating is not fixed onto the wood, this is impossible.
因为 雷什·拉基什 不是问过 拉比约哈难 吗：器皿随其包覆的这条律法，只就固定的包覆而言，还是连不固定的包覆也算？
For didn’t Reish Lakish inquire of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Does this law that vessels follow their coating deal only with a fixed coating or even with a coating that is not fixed?
他又问他：只就连桌缘与桌子本身都包住的包覆而言，还是连不包住桌缘的也算？
And he asked him further: Does it deal only with a coating that covers the table’s rim as well as the table itself, or even with one that does not cover its rim?
拉比约哈难 答：固定与否、包住桌缘与否，都没有分别。所以圣殿的桌子既包金，本该受不洁；只好另作解释：这桌子不同……（下接叶二十七正）
拉比约哈难 回答他：固定的包覆与不固定的包覆没有分别；包住桌缘的包覆与不包住桌缘的也没有分别。
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in response: It is not different if it is a fixed coating and it is not different if it is a coating that is not fixed; and it is not different if the coating covers the table’s rim and it is not different if it does not cover its rim.
所以，既然包覆总是决定器皿的身份，圣殿的桌子包了金，就该受不洁。
Therefore, since the coating always determines the status of the vessel, the Temple table, with its gold coating, should be susceptible to impurity.
因此，对于包覆为何不使桌子受不洁，我们必须另作解释：这桌子不同……
Rather, we must say a different explanation as to why the coating does not make the table susceptible to impurity: The table is different