← 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 10 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。
若是这样，论割礼，我们怎能给他行呢——只怕他是未足月而死的，就不可为他的割礼犯安息日。
若是这样，论割礼，我们怎能给他行呢？
If so, with regard to circumcision, how can we circumcise him?
只怕他是未足月而死的，那就不可为他的割礼犯安息日。
Perhaps he is a stillborn and one may not desecrate Shabbat for his circumcision.
拉夫阿达·巴尔·阿哈瓦 说：这样算来，两面看都可给他行割礼——他若是活得成的孩子，那行割礼的尽可给他行；若不然、他若是未足月而死的，那行割礼的不过割一块肉罢了，人割死尸的肉、或割那在律上算同死尸的肉，算不得作了伤，也就没有行禁工。
拉夫阿达·巴尔·阿哈瓦 说：这样算来，两面看都可以给他行割礼：他若是活得成的孩子，那行割礼的尽可给他行；若不然、他若是未足月而死的，那行割礼的不过是割一块肉罢了——人割死尸的肉、或割那在律上算同死尸的肉，算不得作了伤，也就没有行什么禁工。
Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One may circumcise him whichever way you look at it, based on the following calculation: If he is a child who will live, the circumcisor may well circumcise the child, and if not, if the child is a stillborn and the circumcisor is merely cutting flesh, one who cuts the flesh of a corpse or the flesh of one with the legal status of a corpse is not considered to have made a wound, and therefore has not performed a prohibited labor.
革玛拉 举一难：那么一条巴拉伊塔所教的又怎讲呢——疑是七个月、疑是八个月所生的，不可为他犯安息日行割礼。何以呢？我们尽可安息日给他行割礼，因为两面看都合宜：他若是活得成的孩子，那行割礼的尽可给他行；若不然，他不过是割死尸的肉，并不犯安息日的什么禁例。
革玛拉 举一难：那么一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的又怎讲呢——疑是怀七个月所生、疑是怀八个月所生的孩子，不可为他犯安息日、给他行割礼。
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And however, with regard to that which was taught in a baraita: If there is uncertainty whether he was born after seven months of pregnancy, and uncertainty whether he was born after eight months, one does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf and circumcise him.
革玛拉 问：这是什么缘故呢？
The Gemara asks: Why?
我们尽可安息日给他行割礼，因为两面看都是合宜的。
Let us circumcise him on Shabbat, as whichever way you look at it, that is appropriate.
他若是活得成的孩子，那行割礼的尽可给他行；若不然，他不过是割死尸的肉，并不犯安息日的什么禁例。
If he is a child that will live, the circumcisor may well circumcise the child, and if not, he is merely cutting the flesh of a corpse, which does not violate any Shabbat prohibitions.
玛尔·巴尔·拉维纳 说：我与 拉夫纳胡米·巴尔·撒迦利亚 这样讲开了——论割礼本身，那孩子连安息日我们也的确给他行；所说「不可为他犯安息日」，单是就着安息日预备割礼所需之工说的，那是依 拉比以利以谢 的意思——他执按时割礼的预备之工越过安息日。
玛尔·巴尔·拉维纳 说：我与 拉夫纳胡米·巴尔·撒迦利亚 把这一件这样讲开了——论割礼本身，那孩子连安息日我们也的确给他行。
Mar, son of Ravina, said: Rav Naḥumei bar Zekharya and I interpreted this as follows: Indeed, as for circumcision itself, we do indeed circumcise that child even on Shabbat.
所说「不可为他犯安息日」，单是就着安息日预备割礼所需之工这一层说的，那是依 拉比以利以谢 的意思——他执按时所行割礼的预备之工越过安息日。
It was only necessary to say that one does not desecrate Shabbat on his behalf with regard to the issue of preparing facilitators of circumcision on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that actions that facilitate circumcision at its appointed time override Shabbat.
阿巴耶 说：孩子生后没有活满三十日算不算活得成，正与众坦拿论利未记 11:39 那一节所争的一件相当：那一节被解作要把八个月所生的收进来。大牲畜素常怀九个月才生；那样的牲畜若八个月就生，所生的算作活不成，宰牠也不使牠洁净，乃算作自死之牲，不但不可吃，摸牠挪牠的还染不洁。拉比犹大之子拉比约西与拉比西缅之子拉比以利亚撒说：宰牠就使牠洁净，不算自死之牲。
阿巴耶 说：孩子生后还没有活满三十日算不算活得成，这一层正与众 坦拿 论下面这一节所争的一件相当：「你们可吃的走兽若是死了，有人摸牠的尸体，必不洁净到晚上」（利未记 11:39）。
Abaye said: The issue of whether a child who has not yet survived thirty days from his birth is considered viable is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im with regard to the interpretation of the verse: “And if any animal of which you may eat shall die, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39).
那一节被解作是要把怀八个月所生的收进来。
The verse is interpreted as coming to include offspring of eight months.
大牲畜素常是怀九个月才生的。
Large domesticated animals typically give birth after a gestation period of nine months.
那样的牲畜若怀八个月就生，所生的算作活不成的；宰牠也不使牠洁净。
If an animal of that sort gives birth after eight months, its offspring is deemed to be not viable and its slaughter does not purify it.
乃是算作自死之牲；那不但不可吃，凡摸牠挪牠的还要染不洁。
Rather, it assumes the status of an unslaughtered animal, which is not only prohibited to be eaten, but also transmits ritual impurity to those who touch or move it.
拉比犹大之子拉比约西 与 拉比西缅之子拉比以利亚撒 说：宰牠就使牠洁净，不算作自死之牲。
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, say: Its slaughter purifies it, and it does not assume unslaughtered animal status.
这岂不是说他们所争的正是这一层么——这一位夫子执那牲算是活的，所以宰牠有效，与凡洁净的牲畜一样；那一位夫子、就是头一位坦拿，执牠算是死的。
这岂不是说他们所争的正是这一层么？
What, is it not that this is the matter with regard to which they disagree?
就是这一位夫子执那牲算是活的，所以宰牠有效，与凡洁净的牲畜一样；那一位夫子、就是头一位 坦拿，执牠算是死的。
That this Master holds that the animal is considered alive and therefore its slaughter is effective, as is the case with regard to all pure animals, while this Master, the first tanna, holds that it is considered dead.
拉瓦 说：若是这样，他们与其争不洁与洁净这一层，何不争吃这一层呢——就是那所生的宰了以后可否吃。他们既没有争这一点，可见所争的另有缘由。
拉瓦 说：若是这样，他们与其争不洁与洁净这一层，何不就争吃这一层呢——就是那所生的宰了以后可否吃。
Rava said: If so, instead of disagreeing over the issue of impurity and purity, let them disagree over the issue of eating, i.e., whether it is permitted to eat this offspring after it is slaughtered.
他们既没有争这一点，可见他们所争的另有一层缘由。
Since they did not dispute this point, their disagreement must revolve around a different factor.
倒不如说：众人都认牠算是死的；只是拉比犹大之子拉比约西与拉比西缅之子拉比以利亚撒执牠的分位如同将毙之牲——那是有病、十二个月内必死的牲畜。论将毙之牲，牠虽因活不长而在律上算作死的，宰了却仍使牠洁净，岂不是这样么？牠不像自死之牲那样传不洁，虽然不可吃。这里也是一样。众拉比不认这话，说：那与将毙之牲不相类，因为将毙之牲在成为将毙以先曾有合用的时候；这八个月所生的，却不曾有过合用的时候。
倒不如说：众人都认牠算是死的；只是 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 与 拉比西缅之子拉比以利亚撒 执牠的分位如同 将毙之牲 一样，就是那有病、十二个月内必死的牲畜。
Rather, it must be that everyone agrees that it is considered dead, yet Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, hold that it has the legal status like that of a tereifa, an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months.
论 将毙之牲，牠虽因活不长久、照 哈拉哈 算作死的，然而人若把牠宰了，那宰仍使牠洁净，岂不是这样么？
With regard to a tereifa, is it not that even though it is considered dead from the perspective of halakha because there is no possibility of long-term survival, nevertheless, if it is slaughtered, its slaughter purifies it?
牠不像自死之牲那样传不洁，虽然牠是不可吃的。
It does not cause ritual impurity like an unslaughtered animal, even though it may not be eaten.
这里也不例外，是一样的。
Here too, it is no different.
众拉比不认这话，说：那与 将毙之牲 不相类，因为 将毙之牲 在成为 将毙之牲 以先，曾有过一段合用的时候。
And the Rabbis, who do not accept this claim, say: It is not similar to a tereifa, since a tereifa had a period of fitness before it became a tereifa.
至于这怀八个月所生的牲畜，却不曾有过合用的时候。
However, this animal that was born after eight months of pregnancy did not ever have a period of fitness.
你若说：那从胎里就是将毙之牲、生下来就那样的，又当怎么讲呢——牠也不曾有过合用的时候。答曰：两处是有分别的。那里论将毙之牲，牠那一类是有「宰」可言的；这里论未足月而死的，牠那一类并没有「宰」可言，因为未足月而死的牲畜，无论怎样宰都不合式。
你若说：那从胎里就是 将毙之牲、生下来就那样的牲畜，又当怎么讲呢？
And if you say: With regard to an animal that was a tereifa from the womb and was born in that condition, what is there to say?
牠也不曾有过合用的时候。
It too never had a period of fitness.
两处是有分别的。
There is a distinction between the cases.
那里论 将毙之牲，牠那一类是有「宰」可言的；这里论未足月而死的，牠那一类并没有「宰」可言，因为未足月而死的牲畜，无论在什么情形下宰都不合式。
There, with regard to a tereifa, there is slaughter in its type; here, with regard to a stillborn, there is no slaughter in its type, as there is no circumstance where slaughter of a stillborn animal is appropriate.
众贤面前提出一疑：众拉比与 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列 相争么——他执凡生后活过八日的牲畜就算活得成的？你若说他们相争，所疑的就是：哈拉哈依他的意思断呢，还是不依他的意思断呢？
众贤面前提出一疑：众拉比与 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列 相争么——他执凡生后活过八日的牲畜，就算是活得成的。
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that any animal that survived for eight days after birth is presumed viable, or not?
你若说他们相争，所疑的就是：这条 哈拉哈 依他的意思断呢，还是不依他的意思断呢？
If you say that they disagree, the dilemma is: Is the halakha in accordance with his opinion, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion?
你且来听我们所学的作凭据：牛犊在节期生的，节期可以宰牠。可见 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列 的意思不为人所从，不必等牲畜生后八日。革玛拉 驳道：这里所论的是哪一样呢？是人确知牠的月数已满、断然不是未足月而死的那一样。
你且来听我们所学的作凭据：牛犊在节期生的，节期可以宰牠。
Come and hear proof from that which we learned: With regard to a calf that was born on a Festival, one may slaughter it on the Festival.
可见 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列 的意思不为人所从，人不必等那牲畜生后八日。
Apparently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion is not accepted, and one need not wait eight days after the animal is born.
革玛拉 驳这凭据：我们这里所论的是哪一样呢？
The Gemara refutes this: With what are we dealing here?
是人确知牠怀胎的月数已满、断然不是未足月而死的那一样。
It is a case in which one is certain that its months of gestation were completed, and therefore, it is certainly not stillborn.
你且来听我们所学的另一处凭据：拉比犹大 与 拉比西缅 虽争节期可否验头生牲畜的残疾，却都认头生的牲畜若生来就带着残疾，那就算是预备好可用的，不算搁置之物，行家可以验牠、断那残疾是不是长久的。可见头生的牲畜生下来当日就可以宰。革玛拉 也驳这凭据：那是人确知牠的月数已满、断然不是未足月而死的那一样。
你且来听我们所学的另一处凭据：拉比犹大 与 拉比西缅 虽相争节期可否验头生牲畜的残疾，却都认：头生的牲畜若生来就带着残疾，那就算是预备好可用的。
Come and hear another proof from that which we learned: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who disagreed with regard to whether or not it is permitted to inspect firstborn animals for blemishes on a Festival, agree that if a firstborn animal was born with its blemish, it is considered prepared for use on the Festival.
那样的不算搁置之物；行家可以验牠，断那残疾是不是长久的。
It is not deemed set-aside and an expert may examine it to determine whether or not it is a permanent blemish.
可见头生的牲畜生下来当日就可以宰。
Apparently, a firstborn animal may be slaughtered on the day of its birth.
革玛拉 也驳这凭据：那是人确知牠怀胎的月数已满、断然不是未足月而死的那一样。
The Gemara refutes this proof as well: It is a case in which one is certain that its months of gestation were completed, and it is certainly not stillborn.
你且来听这一疑的解法，就是 拉夫犹大 奉 撒母耳 之名所说的：这一件的哈拉哈依 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列 的意思断。既这样断了，就可推出众贤是与他相争的。革玛拉 断说：果然由此把上头那两疑都解开了。
你且来听这一疑的解法，就是 拉夫犹大 奉 撒母耳 之名所说的：这一件的 哈拉哈 依 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列 的意思断。
Come and hear a solution to the dilemma, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha in this matter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
既这样断了这条 哈拉哈，就可推出众贤是与他所断相争的。
Nonetheless, from the fact that the halakha was ruled in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, by inference, the Sages disagree with his ruling.
革玛拉 断说：果然由此把上头所起那两疑都解开了。
The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this the resolution to both dilemmas raised above.
阿巴耶 说：未满三十日的婴孩从房顶掉下来、或被狮子吃了的，众人都认他算是活过的——那本是活得成的孩子，遭祸才死。他们所争的，是那婴孩打了个呵欠、就是生后略略喘息随即死了的：这一位夫子、就是众拉比，执他算活过的，因为他是活着生下来的；那一位夫子执他算是死生的，直等他生后活满一个月才不算。
阿巴耶 说：未满三十日的婴孩从房顶掉下来、或被狮子吃了的，众人都认他算是活过的；那本是活得成的孩子，是遭祸才死的。
Abaye said: With regard to a baby less than thirty days old that fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion, everyone agrees that he is considered to have been alive; it was a viable baby that died in the accident.
他们所争的，是那婴孩打了个呵欠、就是生后略略喘息、随即死了的那一样。
Where they disagree is in a case where the baby yawned, i.e., breathed momentarily after birth, and then immediately died.
这一位夫子、就是众拉比，执那婴孩算是活过的，因为他是活着生下来的；那一位夫子执他算是死生的，直等他生后活满一个月，才不算死生。
This Master, the Rabbis, hold: The baby is considered to have been living, since it was born alive; and this Master holds: It is considered to have been born dead until it lives a month after its birth.
那婴孩算不算活过，在实事上有什么分别呢？分别在免不免他母亲的叔娶之责：人若死了没有儿女，他妻子怀着孕、后来生了活得成的孩子，那妇人就免了叔娶；那孩子若是死生的，那人就算无子而死，他的寡妇就有叔娶之责。
那婴孩算不算活过，在实事上有什么分别呢？
What practical difference is there whether or not the baby is considered to have been alive?
分别在免不免他母亲的叔娶之责。
The difference is to exempt the child’s mother from levirate marriage.
人若死了没有儿女，他的妻子怀着孕、后来生了活得成的孩子，那妇人就免了叔娶之责；那孩子若是死生的，那人就算无子而死，他的寡妇就有叔娶之责。
If a man died with no children, and his wife was pregnant and a viable child was born, the woman is exempt from levirate marriage; however, if the child was born dead, the man is considered to have died childless, and his widow is obligated in levirate marriage.
革玛拉 举一难：这岂是说孩子从房顶掉下来、或被狮子吃了的，众人都认他算是活过的么？拉夫帕帕 与 拉夫胡纳·巴尔·拉夫约书亚 岂不是一次到了 拉夫伊迪·巴尔·阿维恩 之子的家里，他为他们备了一只三生的牛犊、是生后第七日宰的；他们对他说：你若等到晚上才宰，我们就吃了；如今你没有等，我们就不吃。可见牲畜没有活满八日、还不能确知牠活得成就宰的，仍疑牠是未足月而死的；孩子生后三十日内遭祸而死的也是一样。
革玛拉 举一难：这岂是说孩子从房顶掉下来、或被狮子吃了的，众人都认他算是活过的么？
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that to say that if the child fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion, everyone agrees that it is considered to have been alive?
拉夫帕帕 与 拉夫胡纳·巴尔·拉夫约书亚 岂不是一次到了 拉夫伊迪·巴尔·阿维恩 之子的家里，他为他们预备了一只三生的牛犊，是那牛犊生后第七日宰的么？
Didn’t Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, happen to come to the house of the son of Rav Idi bar Avin, and he prepared for them a third-born calf on the seventh day after its birth.
他们对他说：你若等到晚上才宰，我们就吃了。
And they said to him: Had you waited to slaughter it until the evening, we would have eaten from it.
如今你既没有等，我们就不吃。
Now that you did not wait, we shall not eat from it.
可见牲畜没有活满八日、还不能确知牠活得成就宰了的，仍疑牠是未足月而死的；孩子在生后三十日内遭祸而死的也是一样。
Apparently, if a calf is slaughtered before it was alive for eight days and definitely viable, suspicion that it is stillborn remains; the same is true of a child who dies from an accident within thirty days of birth.
倒不如把 阿巴耶 那句改过来说：那婴孩打了个呵欠随即死了的，众人都认他从起头就算是死的。他们所争的，是那从房顶掉下来、或被狮子吃了的：这一位夫子、就是 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列，执他算是死的；那一位夫子执他既不是自己死的，就算是活过的。
倒不如把 阿巴耶 那句话改过来说：那婴孩打了个呵欠随即死了的，众人都认他从起头就算是死的。
Rather, Abaye’s statement must be reformulated: When the baby yawned and died, everyone agrees that it is considered to have been dead from the outset.
他们所争的，是那从房顶掉下来、或被狮子吃了的：这一位夫子、就是 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列，执他算是死的；那一位夫子执他既不是自己死的，就算是活过的。
Where they disagree is in a case when it fell off a roof or was eaten by a lion: This Master, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds: It is considered to have been dead; and this Master holds that since it did not die on its own, it is considered to have been alive.
革玛拉 记说：拉夫迪米·巴尔·约瑟 的儿子得了一个孩子，未满三十日那孩子死了，他就坐下为他举哀。他父亲 拉夫迪米·巴尔·约瑟 对他说：你举哀，是想吃人给居丧者的美食么？照哈拉哈，孩子未满三十日而死的算作死生，人不为他举哀。他对他说：我确知牠怀胎的月数已满。
革玛拉 记说：拉夫迪米·巴尔·约瑟 的儿子得了一个孩子。
The Gemara relates: A baby was born to the son of Rav Dimi bar Yosef.
未满三十日，那孩子就死了。
Within thirty days the baby died.
他就坐下为那孩子举哀。
He sat and mourned over him.
他父亲 拉夫迪米·巴尔·约瑟 对他说：你举哀，是想吃人给居丧者的美食么？
His father, Rav Dimi bar Yosef, said to him: Are you mourning because you wish to partake of the delicacies fed to mourners?
照 哈拉哈，孩子未满三十日而死的算作死生的，人不为他举哀。
The halakha deems a child that dies before thirty days stillborn, and one does not mourn over it.
他对他说：我确知这孩子怀胎的月数已满。
He said to him: I am certain that its months of gestation were completed.
革玛拉 又记一件相类的：拉夫阿施 一次到了 拉夫卡哈纳 的家里。他家遭了一件事，就是他的孩子生后未满三十日死了。拉夫阿施 见他坐着为那孩子举哀，就对他说：夫子不从 拉夫犹大 奉 撒母耳 之名所说的么——他说哈拉哈依 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列，惟有活满三十日的孩子才不算死生。他对他说：我确知这孩子怀胎的月数已满，他算不得死生的。
革玛拉 又记一件相类的：拉夫阿施 一次到了 拉夫卡哈纳 的家里。
The Gemara similarly relates that Rav Ashi happened to come to Rav Kahana’s house.
他家遭了一件事，就是他的孩子生后未满三十日就死了。
A matter befell him, i.e., his child died within thirty days of its birth.
拉夫阿施 看见他坐着为那孩子举哀。
Rav Ashi saw him and observed that he was sitting and mourning over him.
他对他说：夫子不从 拉夫犹大 奉 撒母耳 之名所说的么——他说这条 哈拉哈 依 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列 的意思断，惟有活满三十日的孩子才不算作死生的。
He said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that only a child who lived for thirty days is not considered stillborn?
他对他说：我确知这孩子怀胎的月数已满，他算不得死生的。
He said to him: I am certain that its months of gestation were completed and he is not to be considered a stillborn.
有话说众贤议论这一问：婴孩生后三十日内死了、撇下他母亲作无子的寡妇，人还没有断定她有没有叔娶之责，她就起身许配了别人——这当怎样断呢？拉维纳 奉 拉瓦 之名说——
有话说：众贤议论这一问：婴孩生后三十日内死了、撇下他母亲作无子的寡妇；人还没有断定她有没有叔娶之责，她就起身许配了别人——这当怎样断呢？
It was stated that the Sages discussed the following question: What is the ruling in a case where a baby died within thirty days after birth, leaving its mother a childless widow, and before they decided whether or not she was obligated in levirate marriage, she stood and was betrothed to another?
拉维纳 奉 拉瓦 之名说——
Ravina said in the name of Rava: