12a.1
推论
承叶十一背末句：两个见证之中有一个记差了一个时辰多一点。
-
两个见证之中有一个记差了一个时辰多一点。
and one of them errs by an hour and a bit.
← 逾越节卷总目·第一章 十四日之夜
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 3 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。
承叶十一背末句：两个见证之中有一个记差了一个时辰多一点。
两个见证之中有一个记差了一个时辰多一点。
and one of them errs by an hour and a bit.
拉夫犹大之子拉夫胡纳 把 阿巴耶 这条 哈拉哈 说与 拉瓦 听。拉瓦 驳道：我们若细问两个见证究竟几时，问出说三时的指第三时之初、说五时的指第五时之末，那便是相违之证，断不可据以处死；如今岂可凭一层疑就起来杀人？何况经上说「会众要审判……会众要救他」（民数记 35:24–25），法官当尽力救人免死。
拉夫犹大之子拉夫胡纳 去把 阿巴耶 这条 哈拉哈 说与 拉瓦 听。
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehuda, went and said the halakha of Abaye before Rava.
拉瓦 对他说，阿巴耶 这一解讲不通：我们若细究这两个见证所说的话，问他们那事究竟几时出的，问出说三时的指的是第三个时辰之初、说五时的指的是第五个时辰之末，那便是相违之证，我们断不会凭这样的证把人处死；如今岂可起来凭一层疑就杀人呢？
Rava said to him that Abaye’s explanation must be rejected: And were we to closely examine the statements of these witnesses and ask them when precisely the incident occurred, and find that the one who says at three hours means that it occurred at the beginning of the third hour, and the one who says at five hours means that it occurred at the end of the fifth hour, it would be contradictory testimony and we would not kill the accused on the basis of this testimony; and will we arise and kill based on uncertainty?
他们的证固然可能算数，也一样可能当废。
Although their testimony could be valid, it could also be void.
法庭岂可凭那一层疑把被告处死？
Can the court execute the accused based on that uncertainty?
何况仁慈者在托拉里说：「会众要审判……会众要救他」（民数记 35:24–25），由此可知法官当尽自己所能，救被告免于死刑。
And consider that the Merciful One says in the Torah: “And the congregation shall judge…and the congregation shall deliver” (Numbers 35:24–25), from which it is derived that judges must do everything in their power to save an accused from the death penalty.
拉瓦 遂改其说：照 拉比梅伊尔，人可记差两个时辰略欠一点；照 拉比犹大，人可记差三个时辰略欠一点。先说 拉比梅伊尔：那事或出在第二时之初、或出在第三时之末，两个见证中有一个记差了两个时辰略欠一点——那样的出入是说得过去的。
拉瓦 遂改其说：其实照 拉比梅伊尔 的说法，人可记差两个时辰略欠一点；照 拉比犹大 的说法，人可记差三个时辰略欠一点。
Rather, Rava said: In fact, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person errs by two hours less a bit; according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by three hours less a bit.
革玛拉细说：照 拉比梅伊尔 的说法，人可记差两个时辰略欠一点。
The Gemara elaborates: According to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person errs by two hours less a bit.
怎么讲呢？
How so?
那事出的时候，或是出在第二个时辰之初，或是出在第三个时辰之末；两个见证中有一个记差了两个时辰略欠一点——那样的出入是说得过去的。
When the incident occurred, it was either at the beginning of the second hour or at the end of the third hour and one of the witnesses erred by two hours less a bit, as that is a reasonable discrepancy.
照 拉比犹大：人可记差三个时辰略欠一点——那事或出在第三时之初、或出在第五时之末，两人之中有一个记差了三个时辰略欠一点；照 拉比犹大，那样的出入是说得过去的。
照 拉比犹大 的说法，人可记差三个时辰略欠一点。
According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, a person errs by three hours less a bit.
怎么讲呢？
How so?
那事出的时候，或是出在第三个时辰之初，或是出在第五个时辰之末；两人之中有一个记差了三个时辰略欠一点。
When the incident occurred, it was either in the beginning of the third hour or at the end of the fifth hour, and one of them errs by three hours less a bit.
照 拉比犹大 的意思，那样的出入是说得过去的。
According to Rabbi Yehuda, that is a reasonable discrepancy.
密释纳教过：法官盘问见证有七问——安息年周的第几周、周里的第几年、年里的第几月、月里的第几日、七日的哪一日、一日的第几时、事出在何处。一条 《巴拉伊塔》 又教：盘问与查问有何分别？七问里但凡一个见证说「我不知道」，其证便废；查问则纵两人都说「我们不知道」，其证仍算数。
我们在一条密释纳里学过：法庭的法官盘问见证有七问——那事出在禧年里安息年周的哪一周、那七年周里的哪一年、那一年的哪一月、那一月的哪一日、七日里的哪一日、一日里的第几个时辰、事出在什么地方。
We learned in a mishna: The judges of the court would examine witnesses with seven forms of interrogation: In which seven-year Sabbatical cycle of the Jubilee did the incident occur, in which year of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, in which month of that year, on which date of that month, on which day of the week, at which hour of the day, at which place did the incident occur?
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 又教说：盘问与查问有什么分别？
And it was taught in a baraita: What is the difference between interrogations and examinations?
那七问里，但凡一个见证说「我不知道」，两人的证便废。
With regard to each of the forms of interrogation, if one of the witnesses said: I do not know, their testimony is void.
至于查问，纵使两人都说「我们不知道」，他们的证仍算数。
However, with regard to examinations, even if they both say: We do not know, their testimony is valid.
革玛拉曾议过这条 《巴拉伊塔》：盘问与查问何以两样？答不上盘问的证便废，答不上查问的证倒算数，是什么缘故？
革玛拉接着说。
The Gemara continues.
我们曾议过这条 《巴拉伊塔》：盘问何以是那样，查问何以是这样？
And we discussed this baraita: In what way are interrogations different and in what way are examinations different?
人答不上盘问里的一问，他的证便废；答不上查问里的一问，他的证倒算数，这是什么缘故？
Why is the testimony of a person who cannot answer one of the interrogations void, but his testimony is valid if he cannot answer one of the examinations?
当时所答的是：盘问里但凡一个说「我不知道」，其证便废，因那是一桩你无从坐实其为串谋伪证的证。见证被定为串谋伪证，是别的见证到庭作证说头一对见证当时不可能在场、因他们正与自己同在别处。见证若说不出事在何时何处，便无从指他当时另在别处；托拉不收这样的证。
我们当时所答的是：盘问里但凡一个见证说「我不知道」，两人的证便废，因那是一桩你无从坐实其为串谋伪证的证。
And we said in response: With regard to interrogations, if one of them says: I do not know, their testimony is void, as this is testimony that you cannot render as false, conspiring testimony.
见证之所以被定为串谋伪证，是别的见证到庭作证说：头一对见证断不可能亲见所问那件事，因为他们那时正与我们同在别处。
Witnesses are determined to be false, conspiring witnesses when other witnesses arrive in court and testify that the first pair of witnesses could not possibly have witnessed the incident in question, as they were at a different place at that time together with them.
见证若说不出那事是几时出的、在何处出的，便无从作证说他当时另在别处，也就无从指他为串谋伪证。
If a witness says he does not know when the incident occurred or where it occurred, it would be impossible to testify that he was elsewhere and render him a false, conspiring witness.
凡不能被坐实为串谋伪证的见证，托拉便不收他的证。
The Torah disqualifies the testimony of a witness who cannot be rendered a false, conspiring witness.
至于查问，见证纵记不全每一细目，那仍是一桩你坐实得了其为串谋伪证的证——纵缺那一项，第二对见证仍可作证说头一对那时与自己同在别处。
至于查问，见证纵记不全每一个细目，那仍是一桩你坐实得了其为串谋伪证的证。
However, with regard to examinations, even if the witness cannot remember every detail, it remains testimony that you can render as false, conspiring testimony.
纵缺了那一项，第二对见证仍可作证说：头一对见证那时正与我们同在别处。
Even without that detail, the second pair of witnesses can still testify that the first pair of witnesses was with them in a different place at that time.
由此回到见证所说时辰不符一事：你若说人在「几时」这一问上可记差这么多，那也成了一桩你坐实不了其为串谋伪证的证——别的见证说他们当时另在别处，他们便可回说「我们记差了，那事不在那时，早些或晚些」，如此便无从坐实。
由上文，革玛拉回到见证所说事出何时不相符这件事上。
Based on the above, the Gemara returns to discuss the matter of discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses with regard to the hour that the incident occurred.
你若说人在「那事出在一日的第几个时辰」这一问上可记差这么多，那也成了一桩你坐实不了其为串谋伪证的证：别的见证若说他们那时另在别处，这两个见证便可回说「我们记差了，那事并不出在那个时辰，是早些或晚些」。
And if you say that a person errs by that much, e.g., several hours, with regard to the interrogations of what time of day the incident occurred, this is also testimony that you cannot render as false, conspiring testimony, for if other witnesses claim that they were elsewhere at that time, the witnesses can say: We are mistaken, and the incident did not actually occur at that time, but a few hours earlier or later.
既是如此，便无从坐实他们是串谋伪证了。
Consequently, it is impossible to prove that they are false, conspiring witnesses.
答：我们把头一对见证可记差的那一整段时候都给他们留出来。第二对要坐实他们是串谋伪证，须作证说头一对在那整段时候里都与自己同在。照 拉比梅伊尔，说二时或三时的见证，从第一时之初到第五时之末都给他们留着——两边各算两个时辰的差。
革玛拉解说：我们把头一对见证可记差的那一整段时候，都给他们留出来。
The Gemara explains that we give leeway to the first pair of witnesses for the entire duration of the potential margin of their error.
第二对见证要坐实头一对是串谋伪证，就须作证说头一对在那一整段时候里都与自己同在——虽说他们所说的时辰有出入，那一段时候里他们的证仍是收的。
In order to render them false, conspiring witnesses, the second pair of witnesses must testify that the first witnesses were with them for the entire period during which their testimony would be accepted, despite the discrepancy with regard to the hour in which it occurred.
照 拉比梅伊尔 的意思，作证说那事出在一日第二或第三个时辰的见证，我们从第一个时辰之初一直留到第五个时辰之末。
According to Rabbi Meir, we give the witnesses who testified that the incident occurred at two or three hours of the day, from the beginning of the first hour until the end of the fifth hour.
他们既作证说那事出在第二或第三个时辰，法庭便当把两边各两个时辰的差错都算进去。
If they testified that the incident occurred in the second hour or the third hour, the court must take into account a mistake of two hours in either direction.
论理起头那一边还当多留些——人既可差两个时辰略欠一点，见证若说事出在二时上下，或许差了近两个时辰，那事竟出在日出之先。只是昼与夜人是不会记差的；见证既说事出在白昼第二或第三时，便不可能出在日出之先。
论理，起头那一边还当多给他们留些。
And by right we should give them even more leeway at the beginning.
人既可记差两个时辰略欠一点，那么见证若作证说那事出在一日第二个时辰上下，他们或许差了将近两个时辰，那事竟是出在日出之先的。
Since one errs by two hours less a bit, if the witnesses testified that the incident occurred at approximately two hours of the day, they might have erred by roughly two hours and the incident actually occurred before sunrise.
只是昼与夜之间人是不会记差的；见证既作证说那事出在白昼第二或第三个时辰，那事便不可能出在日出之先。
However, since between day and night people do not err, and as the witnesses testify that the incident occurred during the second or third hour of the day, it could not have occurred before sunrise.
照 拉比犹大，从第一时之初留到第六时之末。论理起头那一边还当多留些——照他的意思人可差三个时辰略欠一点，留的余地本当更宽。此说未完，接下段。
照 拉比犹大 的意思，我们从第一个时辰之初一直留到第六个时辰之末，给见证留出记差的余地。
And according to Rabbi Yehuda, we give the witnesses a margin of error from the beginning of the first hour until the end of the sixth hour.
论理，起头那一边还当多给他们留些，因照他的意思人可记差三个时辰略欠一点，留的余地本当更宽。
And by right we should give them even more leeway at the beginning, as according to his opinion one errs by three hours less a bit, and therefore the margin for error should be greater.