135b.1
解答
——那条哈拉哈才立下来。西奈显现以先所守的诸诫，是引不出凭据来的。
-
——那条 哈拉哈 才立下来。
halakha was introduced.
-
西奈显现以先所守的诸诫，是引不出凭据来的。
No proof can be cited from the observance of mitzvot prior to the revelation at Sinai.
← 安息日卷总目·第十九章 拉比以利以谢论割礼
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。
——那条哈拉哈才立下来。西奈显现以先所守的诸诫，是引不出凭据来的。
——那条 哈拉哈 才立下来。
halakha was introduced.
西奈显现以先所守的诸诫，是引不出凭据来的。
No proof can be cited from the observance of mitzvot prior to the revelation at Sinai.
革玛拉 问：果真如此么？论这条哈拉哈岂不是有相争的话么？因为论剖腹所生的孩子与有两层包皮的，拉夫胡纳 与 拉夫希亚·巴尔·拉夫 相争：一位说当为他犯安息日行割礼，一位说不当。他们所争的单在可否为他犯安息日；至于第八日给他行割礼，我们断然是行的，虽然剖腹所生的不使母亲染不洁。答曰：那两争是相连的——执当犯安息日的，也执当在第八日行；执不当犯的，也执不必在第八日行。
革玛拉 问：果真如此么？
The Gemara asks: Is that so?
论这条 哈拉哈，岂不是有相争的话么？
Wasn’t it stated that there is a dispute with regard to this halakha?
因为论那剖腹所生的孩子，与那有两层包皮的，拉夫胡纳 与 拉夫希亚·巴尔·拉夫 是相争的。
As it was taught with regard to a child born by caesarean section and one who has two foreskins, Rav Huna and Rav Ḥiyya bar Rav disputed their status.
一位说：当为他犯安息日，给他行割礼；一位说：不当为他犯安息日。
One said: One desecrates Shabbat on his behalf and performs the circumcision; and one said: One does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf.
他们所争的单在可否为他犯安息日这一层；至于第八日给他行割礼，论根本我们断然是行的，虽然剖腹所生的孩子并不使他母亲因生产而染不洁。
They only disagree with regard to whether or not it is permissible to desecrate Shabbat on his behalf; however, with regard to circumcising him at eight days, in principle, we certainly circumcise him, even though the birth of a child by caesarean section does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth.
革玛拉 答：那两处相争是彼此相连的。
The Gemara answers: The two disputes are interdependent.
那执当为这孩子的割礼犯安息日的，也执当在第八日给他行割礼。
The one who holds that one desecrates Shabbat for this child’s circumcision also holds that one must circumcise him on the eighth day.
那执不可为这孩子的割礼犯安息日的，执不必在第八日给他行割礼。
The one who holds that one may not desecrate Shabbat for this child’s circumcision holds that one need not circumcise him on the eighth day.
革玛拉 说：拉比阿西 那一句——第八日行割礼之责系于他的出生使不使母亲因生产染不洁——正与众坦拿所争的一件相当，正如我们所学：家生的奴仆有生后一日就受割礼的，也有第八日才受割礼的；用银子买来的奴仆也有生后一日受割礼的，也有第八日才受割礼的。
革玛拉 说：拉比阿西 那一句——第八日受割礼之责系于他的出生使不使他母亲因生产而染不洁——正与众坦拿所争的一件相当，正如我们所学：迦南婢女在犹太人家里所生的家生之子，在律上算作迦南的奴仆，他犹太人的主人有责给他行割礼——那样的有生后一日就受割礼的，也有第八日才受割礼的。
The Gemara comments: The issue of Rabbi Asi’s statement that the obligation to circumcise after eight days depends upon whether or not his birth renders his mother ritually impure due to childbirth is parallel to a tannaitic dispute, as we learned: There is a home-born child of a Canaanite maidservant born in a Jewish home, who has the legal status of a Canaanite slave and his Jewish owner is obligated to circumcise him, who is circumcised at the age of one day, i.e., immediately after birth; and there is a home-born child circumcised at eight days.
用银子买来的奴仆，也有生后一日就受割礼的，也有第八日才受割礼的。
And there is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at one day, and there is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at eight days.
那条巴拉伊塔讲明：家生之子有一日受割的，也有八日受割的。怎么讲呢？犹太人买了怀孕的婢女，她在他手下生了孩子——那是用银子买来、第八日受割礼的奴仆，因为那胎是连婢女一同买来的。他若买了已生产过的婢女，又连她的孩子一同买来，那孩子一进他手下他就当给他行割礼——那是用银子买来、生后一日就受割礼的奴仆。
那条 《巴拉伊塔》 讲明说：家生之子有生后一日就受割礼的，也有第八日才受割礼的。
The baraita explains: There is a home-born child who is circumcised at one; and there is a home-born child circumcised at eight.
这话怎讲呢？
How so?
犹太人若买了怀孕的婢女，她后来在他手下生了孩子——那是用银子买来、第八日才受割礼的奴仆，因为那胎是连那婢女一同买来的。
If a Jew purchased a pregnant maidservant and she then gave birth to a child while in his possession; that is a slave purchased in a money transaction who is circumcised at eight days, as the fetus was purchased along with the maidservant.
他若买了已经生产过的婢女，又连她的孩子一同买来，那孩子一进他手下，他就当给那孩子行割礼——那是用银子买来、生后一日就受割礼的奴仆。
If he purchased a maidservant who had already given birth and purchased her child along with her, he is obligated to circumcise the child as soon as the child enters his possession; this is a slave purchased in a money transaction, who is circumcised at one day.
照样，家生之子有第八日受割礼的。怎么讲呢？他买了婢女，她在他手下怀孕生子——那是第八日受割礼的家生之子。拉夫哈马 说另有分别：婢女先生了孩子，他随后才叫她浸洗作婢女的——那是生后一日受割礼的家生之子；他若先叫她浸洗，她随后才生的——那是第八日受割礼的家生之子。
照样，家生之子也有第八日才受割礼的。
And likewise, there is a home-born child circumcised at eight days.
这话怎讲呢？
How so?
他若买了婢女，她在他手下怀孕生子——那是第八日才受割礼的家生之子。
If he bought a maidservant and she became pregnant in his possession and gave birth; that is a home-born child circumcised at eight days.
拉夫哈马 说其中另有分别：那婢女若先生了孩子，他随后才叫她浸洗、归作婢女的——那是生后一日就受割礼的家生之子。
Rav Ḥama says there is a distinction: If the maidservant gave birth and he subsequently had her immerse for the purpose of becoming a maidservant, that is a home-born child circumcised at one day.
他若先叫她浸洗，她随后才生孩子的——那是第八日才受割礼的家生之子。
But if he had her immerse and she then gave birth; that is a home-born child circumcised at eight days.
头一位坦拿却不分「先浸洗后生」与「先生后浸洗」两样。可见那孩子的出生虽不使他母亲因生产染不洁——她未浸洗以先本不受诸诫所约束，也不受生产之不洁——他仍在第八日受割礼。拉夫哈马 与头一位坦拿所争的，正是 拉比阿西 所说的那条哈拉哈。
至于头一位 坦拿，他并不分「他先叫她浸洗、她随后才生」与「她先生了、他随后才叫她浸洗」这两样。
And the first tanna does not distinguish between whether he had her immerse and she then gave birth, or whether she gave birth and he then had her immerse.
可见那孩子的出生虽不使他母亲因生产而染不洁——她未浸洗以先本不受诸诫所约束，也不受生产之不洁——他仍在第八日受割礼。
Apparently, even though the child’s birth does not render his mother ritually impure due to childbirth, as she is not obligated in mitzvot before immersing and she is not susceptible to ritual impurity of childbirth, he is circumcised at eight days.
拉夫哈马 与头一位 坦拿 所争的，正围着 拉比阿西 所说的那条 哈拉哈。
The dispute between Rabbi Ḥama and the first tanna revolves around the halakha stated by Rabbi Asi.
论众坦拿这一争，拉瓦 说：依 拉夫哈马 的意思，家生之子一日受割的、八日受割的，与买来之奴一日受割的、八日受割的，四样都寻得着例：婢女先生了孩子，他随后才叫她浸洗——那是一日受割的家生之子；他先叫她浸洗，她随后才生——那是八日受割的家生之子。
论到众 坦拿 这一争，拉瓦 说：依 拉夫哈马 的意思，家生之子生后一日受割礼的、家生之子第八日受割礼的、用银子买来之奴生后一日受割礼的、用银子买来之奴第八日受割礼的，这四样都寻得着例，就是照下面这样：
With regard to the dispute between the tanna’im, Rava said: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥama, cases can be found of a home-born child circumcised at one day, a home-born child circumcised at eight days, a slave purchased in a money transaction circumcised at one day, and a slave purchased in a money transaction circumcised at eight days, in the following manner: If a maidservant gave birth and he subsequently had her immerse, that is the case of a home-born child circumcised at one day.
婢女若先生了孩子，他随后才叫她浸洗——那就是生后一日受割礼的家生之子；他若先叫她浸洗，她随后才生——那就是第八日受割礼的家生之子。
If he had her immerse and she then gave birth, that is the case of a home-born child circumcised at eight days.
用银子买来、第八日受割礼的奴仆，是这样的：犹太人买了怀孕的婢女，连那胎也一同出价买了，随后叫她浸洗，她才生。用银子买来、生后一日受割礼的奴仆，是这样的：这一个买了那婢女，那一个、就是别人，买了她的胎；那胎的主人既在她母亲身上无分，那孩子一生下来就可受割礼。
用银子买来、第八日才受割礼的奴仆，是这样的：犹太人买了怀孕的婢女，连那胎也一同出价买了；随后叫她浸洗，她才生下孩子来。
A slave purchased in a money transaction is circumcised at eight days in a case where a Jew purchased a pregnant maidservant and thereby paid for and purchased the fetus as well, and then had her immerse, and she then gave birth.
用银子买来、生后一日就受割礼的奴仆，是这样的：这一个人买了那婢女，那一个人、就是别人，买了她的胎；那胎的主人既在她母亲身上无分，那孩子一生下来就可以受割礼。
A slave purchased in a money transaction is circumcised at one day in a case where that person purchased a maidservant, and that person, i.e., someone else, bought her fetus; since the owner of the fetus has no share in its mother, the child may be circumcised immediately after birth.
只是依头一位坦拿的意思，别样情形固然都寻得着例；至于「生后一日受割礼的家生之子」，又当从哪里寻例呢？
只是依头一位 坦拿 的意思，别样情形固然都寻得着例；至于「生后一日就受割礼的家生之子」，又当从哪里寻着例呢？
However, according to the opinion of the first tanna, granted that all the cases can be found; however, how can the case of a home-born child circumcised at one day be found?
拉比耶利米 说：那可在这样的事上寻着——人买那婢女，是为买她的胎，并不买那婢女自身。
拉比耶利米 说：那可在这样的事上寻着——人买那婢女，是为买她所怀的胎，并不买那婢女自身。
Rabbi Yirmeya said: It can be found in the case of one who purchases a maidservant for the purpose of purchasing rights to her fetus without purchasing the maidservant herself.
革玛拉 问：这话依那说「为所出之物而买，不算买了那物本身」的一位讲得通——就是人为果子买田，并没有买那田本身。只是依那说「为所出之物而买，就算买了那物本身」的一位，又当怎么讲呢？他并不分买那婢女自身与买她所生的孩子。
革玛拉 问：这话依那说「为所出之物而买，不算买了那物本身」的一位讲得通——就是人为果子买了田，并没有买那田本身。
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of the one who said that a transaction to purchase an item for its product is not a transaction to purchase the item itself, i.e., one who purchased a field for its fruit did not purchase the field itself.
只是依那说「为所出之物而买，就算买了那物本身」的一位，又当怎么讲呢？他并不分「买那婢女自身」与「买她所生的孩子」这两样。
However, according to the opinion of the one who said that a transaction to purchase an item for its product is a transaction to purchase the item itself, what can be said, as he does not distinguish between the purchase of the maidservant herself and the purchase of the children that she bears?
拉夫梅沙尔希亚 说：依那一位的意思，当讲作人买那婢女、却立约不叫她浸洗：他们可以约定，他不叫她浸洗归作婢女，她仍作外邦人。那样一来，那孩子就是生在犹太人家里的奴仆，割礼这一诫一生下来就临到他。
拉夫梅沙尔希亚 说：依那一位的意思，当讲作人买那婢女、却立约不叫她浸洗。
Rav Mesharshiya said: According to this opinion, it must be explained as referring to one who purchases a maidservant on condition that he will not have her immerse.
他们可以约定：他不叫她浸洗归作婢女，她仍作外邦人。
They can stipulate that he will not have her immerse as a maidservant and that she will remain a gentile.
在那样的事上，那孩子就是生在犹太人家里的奴仆，割礼这一诫一生下来就临到他。
In that case, the child is a slave born to a Jew, and the mitzva of circumcision is in effect immediately upon birth.
革玛拉 引一条相关的巴拉伊塔，那里教说 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列 说：论到人，凡生后活过三十日的，就不再疑他是未足月而死的，乃算作要活下去的寻常孩子。凭据出在赎买与估价之律：「其中在一月之外所当赎的……一舍客勒是二十季拉」（民数记 18:16），可见不足一月的婴孩不定价值，因为他能不能存活还有疑。照样，牲畜初生的活过八日，就不再疑牠是未足月而死的，正如经上说：「才生的公牛，或是绵羊，或是山羊，七天当跟着母；从第八天以后，可以当供物蒙悦纳，作为耶和华的火祭」（利未记 22:27）。
革玛拉 引一条相关的 《巴拉伊塔》，那里教说 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列 说：论到人，凡生后活过三十日的，就不再疑他是未足月而死的，乃算作要活下去的寻常孩子。
The Gemara cites a related baraita where it was taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to people, any child that remains alive thirty days after birth is no longer suspected of being a stillborn, and is assumed to be a regular child who will go on living.
凭据是出在论赎买与估价之律所说的：「其中在一月之外所当赎的，要照你所估定的价，按圣所的平，用银子赎，一舍客勒是二十季拉」（民数记 18:16）；可见不足一月的婴孩不定价值，因为他能不能存活还有疑。
Proof is cited from that which is stated with regard to the laws of redemption and valuations: “And their redemption, from a month old you shall redeem according to your valuation, five shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the Sanctuary; it is twenty gera” (Numbers 18:16), indicating that no value is ascribed to an infant less than a month old, as its viability is uncertain.
照样，牲畜初生的活过八日，就不再疑牠是未足月而死的，正如经上说：「才生的公牛，或是绵羊，或是山羊，七天当跟着母；从第八天以后，可以当供物蒙悦纳，作为耶和华的火祭」（利未记 22:27）。
Likewise, a newborn animal that survives for eight days is no longer suspected of being a stillborn, as it is stated: “When a bullock or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27).
革玛拉 问：这岂是说，孩子若还没有活过三十日，论几条哈拉哈就当疑他是未足月而死的么？
革玛拉 问：这岂是说，那孩子若还没有活过三十日，论几条 哈拉哈 就当疑他是未足月而死的么？
The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference: If the child did not yet remain alive for thirty days, it is considered an uncertainty whether or not it is a stillborn with regard to several halakhot?