137a.1
推论
——《西弗拉》里不题名的哈拉哈，素常是 拉比犹大 的意思。
-
——《《西弗拉》》里不题名的 哈拉哈，素常是 拉比犹大 的意思。
And an unattributed halakha cited in the Sifra generally reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
← 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 6 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。
——《西弗拉》里不题名的哈拉哈，素常是 拉比犹大 的意思。
——《《西弗拉》》里不题名的 哈拉哈，素常是 拉比犹大 的意思。
And an unattributed halakha cited in the Sifra generally reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：我们在一条密释纳里也学过 拉比犹大 不是一概把阴阳人算作男的。众贤论洁净之水如何分别为圣——就是把红母牛的灰放进活水里——说：凡人都合分别那水为圣，惟聋哑的、痴愚的、未成丁的不合。拉比犹大 说未成丁的合，妇人与阴阳人不合。可见 拉比犹大 不把阴阳人的分位看作男的。革玛拉 断说：果然当这样断。
拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：我们在一条密释纳里也学过：拉比犹大 不是一概把 阴阳人 算作男的。
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too also learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda does not consider a hermaphrodite to be a male in every sense.
众贤论那洁净之祭的水如何分别为圣——就是把红母牛的灰放进可饮的活水里——相争说：凡人都合分别那洁净之水为圣，惟独聋哑的、痴愚的与未成丁的不合。
The Sages disagreed over sanctification of the waters of a purification offering, i.e., the placing of the ashes of the red heifer in potable, running spring water: Everyone is fit to sanctify the waters of a purification offering, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor.
拉比犹大 说：未成丁的合；妇人与 阴阳人 却不合。
Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, but deems a woman and a hermaphrodite unfit.
可见 拉比犹大 不把 阴阳人 的分位看作男的。
Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not consider the legal status of a hermaphrodite to be like that of a male.
革玛拉 断说：果然当这样断。
The Gemara concludes: Conclude from this.
革玛拉 问：割礼诸律有什么不同，以致 拉比犹大 在这一层上把阴阳人算作男的呢？答曰：因为经上写着「你们所有的男子都要受割礼；这就是我与你并你的后裔所立的约，是你们所当遵守的」（创世记 17:10）；他把「所有的男子」一语解作多收之词，凡可算在男子一等里的都收在内。
革玛拉 问：割礼的诸条 哈拉哈 有什么不同，以致 拉比犹大 在这一层上把 阴阳人 归在男的一等里呢？
The Gemara asks: What is different about the halakhot of circumcision, with regard to which Rabbi Yehuda categorizes a hermaphrodite as a male in regard to its laws?
革玛拉 答：那是因为经上写着：「你们所有的男子都要受割礼；这就是我与你并你的后裔所立的约，是你们所当遵守的」（创世记 17:10）；他把「所有的男子」一语解作多收之词，凡可算在男子一等里的都收在内。
The Gemara answers that it is due to the fact that it is written: “This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you: Circumcise for yourselves every male” (Genesis 17:10), and he interprets the phrase “every male” as an amplification including anyone who could possibly be included in the category of a male.
密释纳：人有两个孩子要行割礼，一个当在安息日次日行，一个当在安息日行；他忘了，把那当在安息日过后行的在安息日行了——他当献赎罪祭，因为他行了作伤那一样禁工，却不在行诫命之内，那孩子受割之责还没有临到。
人有两个孩子要行割礼，一个当在安息日次日行，一个当在安息日行；他忘了，就把那当在安息日过后行的，在安息日给他行了——他当献赎罪祭，因为他行了作伤那一样禁工，却不在行诫命之内，那孩子受割礼之责还没有临到。
One who had two babies to circumcise, one of whom he needed to circumcise on the day after Shabbat, and one of whom he needed to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, because he performed the prohibited labor of causing a wound not in the framework of performing a mitzva, as no obligation yet exists to circumcise the child.
密释纳续：他若有两个孩子，一个当在安息日前一日行割礼，一个当在安息日行；他忘了，把那当在安息日前一日行的在安息日行了——拉比以利以谢 判他当献赎罪祭，因为过时的割礼不越过安息日；拉比约书亚 判他无责，因为他本存意行一样诫命，虽然弄错了，究竟行了一样诫命，就免献赎罪祭。
他若有两个孩子，一个当在安息日前一日行割礼，一个当在安息日行；他忘了，就把那当在安息日前一日行的，在安息日给他行了——拉比以利以谢 判他当献赎罪祭，因为过了时的割礼不越过安息日。
If there were two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve, and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one that he should have circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, as circumcision after its appointed time does not override Shabbat.
拉比约书亚 判他无责；他既本存意行一样诫命，虽然弄错了，究竟行了一样诫命，就免了献赎罪祭。
And Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; since he intended to perform a mitzva, and despite his error in fact performed a mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.
众阿摩拉论我们这条密释纳当怎样诵而相争，所据是众坦拿早先的一争：拉夫胡纳 诵头一句作「当献赎罪祭」，拉夫犹大 却诵头一句作「无责」。
众 阿摩拉 论我们这条密释纳当怎样诵而相争，所据是众 坦拿 早先的一争：拉夫胡纳 诵密释纳头一句作「当献赎罪祭」，拉夫犹大 却诵头一句作「无责」。
There is a dispute among the amora’im with regard to the correct version of our mishna, based on an early dispute of the tanna’im: Rav Huna teaches the first clause of the mishna as stating: Liable, whereas Rav Yehuda teaches the first clause as stating: Exempt.
革玛拉 讲明：拉夫胡纳 诵头一句作「当献赎罪祭」，所据是一条巴拉伊塔所教 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：拉比以利以谢 与 拉比约书亚 论那有两个孩子、一个当在安息日行、一个当在安息日过后行，他忘了把那当在安息日过后行的在安息日行了的，并不相争；那样的事上众人都认他当献赎罪祭。
革玛拉 讲明：拉夫胡纳 诵头一句作「当献赎罪祭」，所据是一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的：拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 说：拉比以利以谢 与 拉比约书亚 论那有两个孩子、一个当在安息日行割礼、一个当在安息日过后行，他忘了，把那当在安息日过后行的在安息日给他行了的，并不相争；那样的事上，众人都认他当献赎罪祭。
The Gemara explains: Rav Huna taught the first clause as stating: Liable, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree with regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat and one to circumcise after Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
那么他们所争的是什么呢？是论那有两个孩子、一个当在安息日前一日行、一个当在安息日行，他忘了把那当在安息日前一日行的在安息日行了的：拉比以利以谢 判他为这一样误犯当献赎罪祭，拉比约书亚 判他无责。
那么他们所争的是什么呢？
With regard to what did they disagree?
是论那有两个孩子、一个当在安息日前一日行割礼、一个当在安息日行，他忘了，把那当在安息日前一日行的在安息日给他行了的：拉比以利以谢 判他为这一样误犯当献赎罪祭，拉比约书亚 判他无责。
With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer renders him liable to bring a sin-offering for this unwitting transgression, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.
他们两位都单是从拜偶像那一处推出来的——托拉在那里细定了误犯当献赎罪祭的诸律。拉比以利以谢 执：凡误犯的都照拜偶像之例——托拉论拜偶像既说「不可行那几样」，人误行了就当献赎罪祭；这里也不例外，他既犯了那禁例，就当献赎罪祭。
他们两位都单是从拜偶像那一处推出来的，因为托拉在那里细定了误犯当献赎罪祭的诸条 哈拉哈。
And both of them only derived it from idolatry, where the Torah details the halakhot of bringing a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression.
拉比以利以谢 执：凡误犯的都照拜偶像之例。
Rabbi Eliezer holds: The law of every unwitting transgression is like that of idolatry.
托拉论拜偶像既说「不可行那几样」，人误行了就当献赎罪祭；这里也不例外，他既犯了那禁例，就当献赎罪祭。
Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he transgressed the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
拉比约书亚 却执：那里那误犯不是为行一样诫命而作的，所以当献赎罪祭；这里他本存意行一样诫命，而人在要行一样诫命之间误犯了禁例的，就免献赎罪祭。以上是 拉夫胡纳 的意思，所据是 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 的话。
拉比约书亚 却执：那里那误犯不是为行一样诫命而作的，所以当献赎罪祭。
And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, where the unwitting transgression was not performed in order to fulfill a mitzva, one is liable to bring a sin-offering.
这里他本存意行一样诫命；人在要行一样诫命之间误犯了禁例的，就免了献赎罪祭。
Here, his intention was to perform a mitzva, and one who unwittingly violates a prohibition in the course of attempting to fulfill a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.
以上是 拉夫胡纳 的意思，所据是 拉比西缅·本·以利亚撒 的话。
This is according to the opinion of Rav Huna, based on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.
拉夫犹大 诵头一句作「无责」，所据是一条巴拉伊塔所教 拉比梅伊尔 说：拉比以利以谢 与 拉比约书亚 论那有两个孩子要行割礼、一个当在安息日前一日行、一个当在安息日行，他忘了把那当在安息日前一日行的在安息日行了的，并不相争；那样的事上众人都认他免献赎罪祭，因为那割礼究竟成全了一样诫命。
拉夫犹大 诵头一句作「无责」，所据是一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的：拉比梅伊尔 说：拉比以利以谢 与 拉比约书亚 论那有两个孩子要行割礼、一个当在安息日前一日行、一个当在安息日行，他忘了，把那当在安息日前一日行的在安息日给他行了的，并不相争；那样的事上，众人都认他免献赎罪祭，因为那割礼究竟成全了一样诫命。
Rav Yehuda taught the first clause as stating: Exempt, based on that which was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, as that circumcision fulfilled a mitzva.
那么他们所争的是什么呢？是论那有两个孩子、一个当在安息日过后行、一个当在安息日行，他忘了把那当在安息日过后行的在安息日行了的：拉比以利以谢 判他当献赎罪祭，拉比约书亚 判他无责。
那么他们所争的是什么呢？
With regard to what did they disagree?
是论那有两个孩子、一个当在安息日过后行割礼、一个当在安息日行，他忘了，把那当在安息日过后行的在安息日给他行了的：拉比以利以谢 判他当献赎罪祭，拉比约书亚 判他无责。
With regard to one who had two babies, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, as Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.
革玛拉 在这里也说：他们两位都单是从拜偶像那一处推出来的。拉比以利以谢 执：凡误犯之罪的哈拉哈都照拜偶像之例——托拉论拜偶像既说「不可行那几样」，人误行了就当献赎罪祭；这里也不例外，他既犯了那禁例，就当献赎罪祭。
革玛拉 在这里也说：他们两位都单是从拜偶像那一处推出来的。
And the Gemara notes here too that both of them only derived it from idolatry.
拉比以利以谢 执：凡误犯之罪的 哈拉哈 都照拜偶像之例——托拉论拜偶像既说「不可行那几样」，人误行了就当献赎罪祭；这里也不例外，他既犯了那禁例，就当献赎罪祭。
Rabbi Eliezer holds: The halakha of every unwitting transgression sin is like that of idolatry: Just as with regard to idolatry the Torah stated: Do not perform certain activities, and when one performs them unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin-offering, here too it is no different, and since he violated the prohibition, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
拉比约书亚 却执：那里论拜偶像，人犯那过犯的时候并没有专心在行一样诫命上，所以当献赎罪祭；这里他正专心在行一样诫命上，而凡专心行诫命之间误犯了禁例的，都免献赎罪祭。
拉比约书亚 却执：那里论拜偶像，人犯那过犯的时候并没有专心在行一样诫命上，所以当献赎罪祭。
And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: There, with regard to idolatry, one is liable to bring a sin-offering when he performs the transgression, because he is not preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.
这里他正专心在行一样诫命上；凡专心行诫命之间误犯了禁例的，都免了献赎罪祭。
Here, he is preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva, and anyone who unwittingly transgresses a prohibition while preoccupied with a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.
拉比希亚 把众坦拿这同一争另诵作一样：拉比梅伊尔 素常说：拉比以利以谢 与 拉比约书亚 论那有两个孩子、一个当在安息日前一日行割礼、一个当在安息日行，他忘了把那当在安息日前一日行的在安息日行了的，并不相争；那样的事上众人都认他当献赎罪祭。
拉比希亚 把众 坦拿 这同一争另诵作一样：拉比梅伊尔 素常说：拉比以利以谢 与 拉比约书亚 论那有两个孩子、一个当在安息日前一日行割礼、一个当在安息日行，他忘了，把那当在安息日前一日行的在安息日给他行了的，并不相争；那样的事上，众人都认他当献赎罪祭。
Rabbi Ḥiyya taught another version of the same dispute between the tanna’im: Rabbi Meir would say that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree over one who had two babies, one to circumcise on Shabbat eve and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat; in that case, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
那么他们所争的是什么呢？是论那有两个孩子要行割礼、一个当在安息日过后行、一个当在安息日行，他忘了把那当在安息日过后行的在安息日行了的：拉比以利以谢 判他当献赎罪祭，拉比约书亚 判他无责。
那么他们所争的是什么呢？
With regard to what did they disagree?
是论那有两个孩子要行割礼、一个当在安息日过后行、一个当在安息日行，他忘了，把那当在安息日过后行的在安息日给他行了的：拉比以利以谢 判他当献赎罪祭，拉比约书亚 判他无责。
With regard to one who had two babies to circumcise, one to circumcise after Shabbat and one to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgot and circumcised the one who should have been circumcised after Shabbat on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.
革玛拉 诧异这末一样诵法说：末一句里他并没有行成一样诫命，拉比约书亚 尚且判他无责；头一句里他行成了一样诫命，拉比约书亚 反判他有责么？
革玛拉 诧异这末一样诵法说：末一句里他并没有行成一样诫命，拉比约书亚 尚且判他无责；头一句里他行成了一样诫命，拉比约书亚 反判他有责么？
The Gemara expresses surprise at this last version: Now, after all, in the latter clause, where he did not perform a mitzva, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him; in the first clause, where he performed a mitzva, does Rabbi Yehoshua deem him liable?
拉比雅奈 门下说：那条巴拉伊塔头一句所论的是一样特别的情形——那行割礼的先误把那当在安息日行的孩子在安息日前一日给他行了；那样一来，安息日本没有一处是许人越过的，因为当在安息日受割的孩子已经受了割。至于末一句，那割礼是在安息日本许越过的情形上行的。
拉比雅奈 门下说：那条 《巴拉伊塔》 头一句所论的是一样特别的情形——那行割礼的先误把那当在安息日行割礼的孩子，在安息日前一日给他行了。
In the school of Rabbi Yannai they say: The first clause of the baraita is referring to a unique situation, where the circumcisor first unwittingly circumcised the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat on Shabbat eve.
在那样的事上，安息日本没有一处是许人越过的，因为那当在安息日受割礼的孩子已经受了割礼。
In that case, Shabbat is not given to be overridden at all, since the baby who was supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised.
至于末一句，那割礼是在安息日本许越过的情形上行的。
In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat is given to be overridden.
拉夫阿施 对 拉夫卡哈纳 说：这样讲有难处——头一句里论众孩子而言，安息日也是许越过的，因为孩子第八日逢安息日的，人是可以给他行割礼的。他回说：话诚然是这样；只是论这一个人，安息日就不是许越过的了，因为再没有当在安息日受割的孩子。所以他若误在安息日行了割礼，就算不得在专心行诫命之间误犯了禁例。
拉夫阿施 对 拉夫卡哈纳 说：这样讲有难处——头一句里论众孩子而言，安息日也是许越过的，因为孩子第八日逢着安息日的，人是可以给他行割礼的。
Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: In the first clause too, Shabbat is given to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat.
他回说：话诚然是这样；只是论这一个人，安息日就不是许越过的了，因为再没有当在安息日受割礼的孩子。
He replied: That is indeed so; however, with regard to this person, Shabbat is not given to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat.
所以他若误在安息日行了割礼，就算不得在专心行诫命之间误犯了禁例。
Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, he is not considered to have unwittingly performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.
密释纳：孩子素常第八日受割礼，正如经上说「第八天，要给婴孩割去他包皮的肉」（利未记 12:3）；然而有时第九日、有时第十日、第十一日、第十二日才受，不能更早，也不能更迟。
孩子素常是第八日受割礼的，正如经上说：「第八天，要给婴孩割去他包皮的肉」（利未记 12:3）；然而有时第九日才受，有时第十日、第十一日、第十二日才受，不能更早，也不能更迟。
Although a child is generally circumcised at eight days, as the verse states: “And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), nevertheless, at times he is circumcised at nine days, at times at ten days, at eleven days, and at twelve days, no earlier and no later.
怎么讲呢？照常样，孩子第八日受割礼。他若生在暮昏之际、不能确知生在哪一日，就第九日才受，因为那疑使割礼推迟——只怕生后第八日还没有到。他若在安息日前一日的暮昏之际生的，次一个安息日就不给他行割礼，因为不能确知那是第八日还是第九日，而惟有确然按时的割礼才越过安息日；乃在主日给他行，就成了第十日受割礼。
这话怎讲呢？
How so?
照常的样子，孩子是第八日受割礼的。
In his usual manner, a child is circumcised at eight days.
他若生在暮昏之际、不能确知生在哪一日，就第九日才受割礼，因为那一疑使他的割礼推迟——只怕他生后第八日还没有到。
If he was born at twilight and it is therefore uncertain on which day he was born, he is circumcised at nine days, as his circumcision is postponed due to that uncertainty, as perhaps the eighth day from his birth has not yet arrived.
他若在安息日前一日的暮昏之际生的，次一个安息日就不给他行割礼，因为不能确知那是他生后第八日还是第九日，而惟有确然按时所行的割礼才越过安息日。
If he was born at twilight on Shabbat eve, he is not circumcised on the following Shabbat, due to the uncertainty whether it is the eighth or ninth day since his birth, and only a circumcision definitely performed at the appointed time overrides Shabbat.
乃是在主日给他行割礼；这样一来，他就成了第十日受割礼。
Rather, he is circumcised on Sunday, and the result is that he is circumcised at ten days.
那安息日之后若有节期，节期也不给他行割礼，就成了第十一日受割礼；那安息日之后若接着岁首的两日，就成了第十二日受割礼。
那安息日之后若有节期，节期也不给他行割礼，他就成了第十一日受割礼。
If there was a Festival after that Shabbat, he is not circumcised on the Festival either, and he is circumcised at eleven days.
那安息日之后若接着岁首的两日，他就成了第十二日受割礼。
And if that Shabbat was followed by two days of Rosh HaShana, the result is that he is circumcised at twelve days.
密释纳又立一条哈拉哈：孩子有病的，不给他行割礼，直等他好了。
密释纳又立一条 哈拉哈：孩子有病的，不给他行割礼，直等他好了。
The mishna states another halakha: With regard to a sick child, one does not circumcise him until he becomes healthy.
我们在密释纳里学过：孩子有病的，不给他行割礼，直等他好了。撒母耳 说：婴孩害了病、发高热，后来热退了的，当给他整七日调养，然后才给他行割礼。
我们在密释纳里学过：孩子有病的，不给他行割礼，直等他好了。
We learned in the mishna that one does not circumcise a sick baby until he becomes healthy.
撒母耳 说：婴孩害了病、发高热，后来那热退了的，当给他整七日调养，然后才给他行割礼。
Shmuel said: A baby that was sick and had a high fever, and subsequently the fever left him, one gives him a full seven days to heal before circumcising him.
论这一层，众贤面前提出一疑：那调养的期间，我们要从那七日起头的时辰算到七日后同一时辰、就是整七个昼夜么？还是不必论时辰、单等七日就够呢？
论到这一层，众贤面前提出一疑：那调养的期间，我们要从那七日起头的时辰算到七日以后的同一时辰、就是整七个昼夜呢，还是不必论时辰、单等过了七日就够呢？
With regard to this issue, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do we require, during the recovery period, to wait from the time the seven days begin to the exact same time seven days later, i.e., seven complete, twenty-four-hour periods, or is it enough to wait seven days without taking into account the time of day?
革玛拉 提说：你且来听贤者卢达所教的作解法——他病愈那一日如同他出生那一日。这岂不是说：他出生那一日既不必从生他的时辰算到第八日的同一时辰才给他行割礼，他病愈那一日也不必从他病愈的时辰算到七日后的同一时辰么？
革玛拉 提说：你且来听贤者卢达所教的作这一疑的解法——他病愈那一日如同他出生那一日。
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this from that which the Sage Luda taught: The day of his healing is like the day of his birth.
这岂不是说：他出生那一日既不必从生他的时辰算到第八日的同一时辰才给他行割礼，他病愈那一日也照样不必从他病愈的时辰算到七日以后的同一时辰么？
What, is it not that just as from the day of his birth we need not wait from the time he is born to the same time on the eighth day to circumcise him, so too, with regard to the day of his healing, we need not wait from the time he heals to the same time seven days later?
革玛拉 驳这话：不然，他病愈那一日比他出生那一日更严：从他出生那一日到受割礼，我们不必按时辰算；从他病愈那一日起，我们却要按时辰算足整七日。
革玛拉 驳这话：不然，他病愈那一日比他出生那一日更严。
The Gemara refutes this: No, the day of his healing is superior to the day of his birth.
从他出生那一日到受割礼，我们不必按时辰算；从他病愈那一日起，我们却要按时辰算足整七日。
While from the day of his birth until circumcision we need not wait from time to time, from the day of his healing we need to wait seven complete days from time to time.
密释纳：不割去就废了割礼的碎肉是这几样。割礼所要紧的，是把那遮住冠状之处大半的肉除去；孩子若不是这样受割的，就算作未受割礼的，不可吃举祭。
不割去就废了割礼的碎肉，是这几样。
These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut.
割礼所要紧的，是把那遮住冠状之处大半的肉除去；孩子若不是这样受割礼的，就算作未受割礼的，不可吃 举祭。
The essential element of circumcision is the removal of the flesh that covers most of the corona, and a child that was not circumcised in this manner is considered uncircumcised, and he does not eat teruma.
密释纳续：他若照规矩受了割礼，却生得肉多，看着像没有照规矩受割的，那行割礼的当把它修正，多割去些，免得看着像犯了禁例，好叫他不显作未受割礼的。
他若照规矩受了割礼，却生得肉多，看着像是没有照规矩受割礼的，那行割礼的当把它修正，多割去些，免得看着像犯了禁例，好叫他不显作未受割礼的。
And if he was properly circumcised but he was fleshy, and it appears as though he has not been properly circumcised, the circumcisor should correct it by circumcising more than necessary, to avoid the appearance of transgression, so he will not appear uncircumcised.