(接上面未完的一句)——也是不蒙悦纳的。
-
——也是不蒙悦纳的。
and unacceptable.
← 逾越节卷总目·第三章 这些犯禁之物
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。
(接上面未完的一句)——也是不蒙悦纳的。
——也是不蒙悦纳的。
and unacceptable.
众贤教:人当情愿变卖所有的,去娶学者的女儿。寻不着学者的女儿,便娶当世大人物的女儿——那些人虽不是学者,却是敬虔的。寻不着当世大人物的女儿,便娶会众首领的女儿。寻不着会众首领的女儿,便娶收济贫之银的人的女儿。寻不着收济贫之银的人的女儿,便娶塾师的女儿。惟不可娶 地之民 的女儿,因他们如同害虫,他们的妻如同爬物——他们过日子犯着许多条禁。论他们的女儿,经上说「与兽淫合的必受咒诅」(申命记 27:21),因她们如同牲畜,全无知识,也无是非之心。
众贤教:人当情愿变卖自己所有的,去娶学者的女儿。
The Sages taught: A person should always be willing to sell all he has in order to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar.
他若寻不着学者的女儿,便当娶当世大人物的女儿——那些人虽不是学者,却是敬虔的。
If he cannot find the daughter of a Torah scholar, he should marry the daughter of one of the great people of the generation, who are pious although they are not Torah scholars.
他若寻不着当世大人物的女儿,便当娶会众首领的女儿。
If he cannot find the daughter of one of the great people of the generation, he should marry the daughter of one of the heads of the congregations.
他若寻不着会众首领的女儿,便当娶那收济贫之银的人的女儿。
If he cannot find the daughter of one of the heads of the congregations, he should marry the daughter of one of the charity collectors.
他若寻不着收济贫之银的人的女儿,便当娶塾师的女儿。
If he cannot find the daughter of one of the charity collectors, he should marry the daughter of one of the schoolteachers.
惟不可娶 地之民 的女儿,因他们如同害虫,他们的妻也如同爬物——他们过日子犯着许多条禁。
However, he should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus [am ha’aretz] because they are vermin and their wives are similar to a creeping animal, as their lifestyle involves the violation of numerous prohibitions.
论他们的女儿,经上说:「与兽淫合的必受咒诅」(申命记 27:21);因她们如同牲畜,全无知识,也无是非之心。
And with regard to their daughters the verse states: “Cursed is he who lies with an animal” (Deuteronomy 27:21), as they are similar to animals in that they lack any knowledge or moral sense.
革玛拉接着论不学之人。一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比犹大·哈纳西 说,不学之人不可吃肉,因经上说「这是走兽和飞鸟的 妥拉」(利未记 11:46)。他这样解:凡研习 妥拉 的,可以吃走兽与飞鸟的肉;凡不研习 妥拉 的,便不可吃走兽或飞鸟的肉。
革玛拉接着论那不学之人。
The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to an ignoramus.
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比犹大·哈纳西 说,不学之人不可吃肉,因经上说:「这是走兽和飞鸟的 妥拉」(利未记 11:46)。
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is prohibited for an ignoramus to eat meat, as it is stated: “This is the law [torah] of the beast and of the fowl” (Leviticus 11:46).
他这样解:凡研习 妥拉 的,可以吃走兽与飞鸟的肉;凡不研习 妥拉 的,便不可吃走兽或飞鸟的肉。
He expounds: Anyone who engages in Torah study is permitted to eat the meat of animals and fowl, and anyone who does not engage in Torah study is prohibited to eat the meat of animals or fowl.
革玛拉接着录众贤论不学之人几句极重的话;他们说得过头,是因所说的这一等人不但粗野,且是作恶的(高昂众)。拉比以利亚撒 说:赎罪日逢安息日,把不学之人刺死也是许的。他的门生对他说:师尊哪,至少说「宰了他」罢。他对他们说:我是有意用「刺」字的,因「宰」那一个词,人宰牲畜时是要念祝辞的;「刺」这一个词,无论何处都不必念祝辞。
革玛拉接着录众贤论不学之人几句极重的话;他们说得这样过头,是因所说的这一等人不但粗野,且是作恶的(高昂众)。
The Gemara proceeds to mention some sharply negative statements of the Sages in which they overstated their negative sentiments with regard to ignoramuses, although these ignoramuses were wicked in addition to being boors (ge’onim).
拉比以利亚撒 说:赎罪日逢安息日,把不学之人刺死也是许的。
Rabbi Elazar said: It is permitted to stab an ignoramus to death on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat.
他的门生对他说:师尊哪,至少说「宰了他」罢。
His students said to him: Master, at least say that it is permitted to slaughter him.
他对他们说:我是有意用「刺」这个字的,因「宰」那一个词,人宰牲畜的时候是要念祝辞的;至于「刺」这一个词,无论在哪里都不必念祝辞。
He said to them: I intentionally used the word stab, as this term, slaughtering, requires a blessing when one slaughters an animal, and that term, stabbing, does not require a blessing in any context.
拉比以利亚撒 说:路上不可与不学之人结伴而行,恐他害了同行的人,因论托拉说「因为他是你的生命,你的日子长久」(申命记 30:20)。不学之人一点托拉也不曾学,可见他连自己的性命也不顾;别人的性命,更不必说了。
拉比以利亚撒 说:路上不可与不学之人结伴而行,恐那不学之人害了同行的人,因论托拉说:「因为他是你的生命,你的日子长久」(申命记 30:20)。
Rabbi Elazar said: It is prohibited to accompany an ignoramus while traveling on the road due to concern that the ignoramus might try to harm his traveling partner, as it is stated with regard to Torah: “For it is your life and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy 30:20).
不学之人一点托拉也不曾学,可见他连自己的性命也不顾;别人的性命,更不必说了。
An ignoramus has not studied any Torah, indicating that he is not concerned about his own life; with regard to another’s life, all the more so.
拉比撒母耳·巴尔·纳赫马尼 传 拉比约哈难 说:把不学之人像鱼一样剖开也是许的。拉比撒母耳·巴尔·以撒 说:而且可以从他背上剖,刺断脊髓叫他立时死了,不必从肚腹下手。
拉比撒母耳·巴尔·纳赫马尼 传 拉比约哈难 说:把不学之人像鱼一样剖开也是许的。
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is permitted to tear open an ignoramus like a fish.
拉比撒母耳·巴尔·以撒 说:而且可以从他背上剖,刺断脊髓叫他立时死了,不必从肚腹下手。
Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: And one may cut him open from his back and thereby cause his immediate death by piercing his spinal cord rather than his stomach.
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比阿奇瓦 说,我作不学之人的时候,曾说:谁把一个学者交给我,我必像驴一样咬他!他的门生对他说:师尊哪,说「像狗一样咬他」罢。他对他们说:我是有意这样说的,因驴一咬便碎了骨头,狗咬却不碎骨头。
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比阿奇瓦 说,我作不学之人的时候,曾说:谁把一个学者交给我,我必像驴一样咬他!
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: When I was an ignoramus I said: Who will give me a Torah scholar so that I will bite him like a donkey?
他的门生对他说:师尊哪,说「像狗一样咬他」罢。
His students said to him: Master, say that you would bite him like a dog!
他对他们说:我是有意这样说的,因这一样、就是驴,一咬便碎了骨头;那一样、就是狗,咬却不碎骨头。
He said to them: I specifically used that wording, as this one, a donkey, bites and breaks bones, and that one, a dog, bites but does not break bones.
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比梅伊尔 素常说,凡把女儿嫁与不学之人的,如同把她捆了放在狮子面前。这是为什么呢?狮子怎样撕了所猎的就吃、全不知羞,不学之人也怎样打了妻子便与她同房、并不先安抚她,也全不知羞。
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比梅伊尔 素常说,凡把自己女儿嫁与不学之人的,如同把她捆了放在狮子面前。
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: Anyone who marries off his daughter to an ignoramus is considered as though he binds her and places her before a lion.
这是为什么呢?
Why is this so?
狮子怎样撕了所猎的就吃、全不知羞,不学之人也怎样打了妻子便与她同房、并不先安抚她,也全不知羞。
Just as a lion mauls its prey and eats and has no shame, so too, an ignoramus strikes his wife and then engages in sexual relations with her without appeasing her first, and has no shame.
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比以利以谢 说,我们若不是为生意上要用他们,这些不学之人早把我们杀了。
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:拉比以利以谢 说,我们若不是为着生意上要用他们,这些不学之人早把我们杀了。
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If we did not need the ignoramuses for business, they would kill us.
革玛拉转论那还有几分体恤之心的不学之人(梅伊里注)。拉比希亚 教说:凡当着不学之人的面研读托拉、叫那人因自己不能学而蒙羞难过的,如同当他的面与他已聘的妻行淫,因经上说「摩西将律法传给我们,作为雅各会众的 产业」(申命记 33:4)。不要读作 产业(产业),要读作 已聘之妻(已聘之妻)。托拉在人研读、与之成亲以先,正比作以色列人已聘的妻。
革玛拉转论那还有几分体恤之心的不学之人(梅伊里注)。
The Gemara shifts to a discussion of an ignoramus who has some degree of sensitivity (Me’iri).
拉比希亚 教说:凡当着不学之人的面研读托拉、叫那人因自己不能学而蒙羞难过的,如同当他的面与他已聘的妻行淫,因经上说:「摩西将律法传给我们,作为雅各会众的 产业」(申命记 33:4)。
Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Anyone who engages in Torah study in the presence of an ignoramus, causing the ignoramus embarrassment and anguish over his inability to study Torah, is considered as though he had sexual relations with the ignoramus’s betrothed bride in his presence, as it is stated: “Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance [morasha] for the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4).
不要读作 产业,要读作 已聘之妻。
Do not read it as inheritance [morasha]; rather, read it as betrothed [me’orasa].
托拉在人研读、与她成亲以先,正比作以色列人已聘的妻。
The Torah is compared to the betrothed bride of the Jewish people until one studies it and thereby consummates his marriage with it.
他又照样说:不学之人恨学者,比列国恨以色列人还深;而不学之人的妻恨学者,比他们自己还深。《托塞夫塔》 里教过:那学过托拉又撇下所学的,恨学者比这一切人都深。
他又照样说:不学之人恨学者,比列国恨以色列人还要深。
Similarly, he said: The hatred which ignoramuses have for a Torah scholar is greater than the hatred that the nations of the world have for the Jewish people.
而不学之人的妻恨学者,比不学之人自己还要深。
And the wives of the ignoramuses hate Torah scholars more than the ignoramuses themselves.
《托塞夫塔》 里教过:那学过托拉、又撇下所学的,恨学者比这一切人都深。
It was taught in the Tosefta that one who studied Torah and left his studies hates Torah scholars more than all of them.
众贤教:论不学之人说过六句话——不可托他们作见证,就是不可派他们作某事某约的见证人;也不可收他们的见证,因他们靠不住;不可把机密告诉他们,因他们必泄漏出去;不可派他们作孤儿产业的 管家,恐他们妄用孤儿的产业;照样,不可派他们作济贫之银的看守;末了,路上不可与他们结伴,为着自己的安危。也有人说:连他们丢的东西也不必声张——就是说,人拾着这样一个人所失的物,尽可留下,不必费力去寻主(梅伊里注)。
众贤教:论不学之人,说过六句话——不可托他们作见证,就是不可派他们作某一件事、某一桩约的见证人。
The Sages taught: Six statements were made with regard to ignoramuses: One may not entrust them with testimony, i.e., one may not appoint them as witnesses to a particular event or transaction.
再者,不可收他们的见证,因他们靠不住;也不可把机密告诉他们,因他们必泄漏出去。
Additionally, one may not accept testimony from them, as they are not considered trustworthy, and one should not reveal a secret to them, as they will reveal it.
不可派他们作孤儿产业的 管家,恐他们妄用了孤儿的产业。
One may not appoint them as steward [apotropos] over an estate belonging to orphans, due to concern that they might make improper use of the orphans’ property.
照样,不可派他们作济贫之银的看守。
Likewise, one may not appoint them as guardian over a charity fund.
末了,路上不可与他们结伴而行,为着自己的安危。
Finally, one should not accompany them while traveling on the road, due to concern for one’s safety.
也有人说:连他们丢的东西也不必声张——就是说,人拾着这样一个人所失的物,尽可留下,不必费力去寻那物主(梅伊里注)。
And there are those who say: One does not even announce their lost items, meaning that if one finds a lost article from such a person, he is allowed to keep it without making an effort to locate the owner (Me’iri).
革玛拉问:头一位 坦拿 何所据,以为拾着不学之人的失物仍当声张呢?革玛拉解说:因有时从他生出端正的后裔来,那产业要归他们享用,正如经上说「他只管预备,义人却要穿上」(约伯记 27:17)——恶人尽可为自己预备,末了却归义人使用。
革玛拉问:头一位 坦拿 何所据,以为拾着不学之人的失物仍当声张呢?
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who holds that one must announce having found the lost article of an ignoramus?
革玛拉解说:因有时从他生出端正的后裔来,那产业要归他们享用,正如经上说:「他只管预备,义人却要穿上」(约伯记 27:17)。
The Gemara explains: Sometimes upstanding offspring will come from him and will consume the property, as it is stated: “He may prepare it but the just shall put it on” (Job 27:17).
恶人尽可为自己预备,那物末了却归义人使用。
It is possible for a wicked person to prepare something for himself that will later be used by a righteous person.
革玛拉回来解密释纳。所教的是:照样,人出了耶路撒冷而手里带着祭肉的,须回耶路撒冷去烧它,正如人当回去除自己的酵一样。照 拉比梅伊尔,这条 哈拉哈 管一鸡蛋大的祭肉或酵物;拉比犹大 不以为然,说两样都以一橄榄大为最小之量。
革玛拉回来解这密释纳。
The Gemara returns to explaining the mishna.
所教的是:照样,人出了耶路撒冷而手里带着祭肉的,须回耶路撒冷去烧它,正如人当回去除自己的酵一样。
It was taught: And so too, one who left Jerusalem with sacrificial meat in his possession must return to Jerusalem to burn it, just as one is required to return in order to remove leaven from his possession.
照 拉比梅伊尔,这条 哈拉哈 管的是一鸡蛋大的祭肉或酵物;拉比犹大 不以为然,说这两样都以一橄榄大为最小之量。
According to Rabbi Meir, this halakha applies with regard to an egg-bulk of sacrificial meat or leaven, whereas Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says the minimum amount for both is an olive-bulk.
革玛拉问:这岂不是说 拉比梅伊尔 以一鸡蛋大为算得上一物的最小之量,而 拉比犹大 以一橄榄大也算得上一物么?革玛拉据《祝祷卷》一条密释纳出一违:人吃多少,才叫同席的当与他一同行 邀祷 呢?照那密释纳里不署名的一说(那通例是 拉比梅伊尔 的意思),一橄榄大便够了;拉比犹大 说:一鸡蛋大才是叫同席当行 邀祷 的最小之量。这与两位在本处密释纳里的意思,看来正相反。
革玛拉问:这岂不是说 拉比梅伊尔 以一鸡蛋大为算得上一物的最小之量,而 拉比犹大 以一橄榄大也算得上一物么?
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds that an egg-bulk is the minimal amount that is considered significant, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that an olive-bulk is also considered significant?
革玛拉据 祝祷 卷一条密释纳出一违:人吃多少,才叫同席的当与他一同行 邀祷 呢?
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in Berakhot: How much food must one eat in order to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun?
照那密释纳里不署名的一说——那通例是 拉比梅伊尔 的意思——一橄榄大便够了。
An olive-bulk of food is sufficient according to the unattributed opinion in the mishna, which is generally that of Rabbi Meir.
拉比犹大 说:一鸡蛋大才是叫同席的当行 邀祷 的最小之量。
And Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom one ate in a zimmun.
这与两位在本处密释纳里的意思,看来正相反。
This seems to contradict the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna here.
拉比约哈难 说:这两处里有一处的两说当对调,须改正过来。
拉比约哈难 说:这两处里有一处的两说当对调,须改正过来。
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The opinions are reversed in one of these sources, and must be emended.
阿巴耶 说:其实不必对调。那一处所争的是解经,这一处所争的是推理。怎么说呢?那一处论 邀祷,所争的是解经:拉比梅伊尔 以为「你吃得饱足,就要称颂耶和华你的神」(申命记 8:10)当这样懂——「你吃」是吃,「得饱足」是喝;而律法上通行的一条是:算得上「吃」的是一橄榄大。拉比犹大 则以为「你吃得饱足」说的是那带着饱足的吃;怎样算带着饱足的吃呢?是吃了一鸡蛋大。
阿巴耶 说:其实不必对调。
Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse the opinions.
那一处所争的是解经,这一处所争的是推理。
There, they disagree with regard to the interpretation of verses, while here, they disagree with regard to logical reasoning.
怎么说呢?
How so?
那一处论 邀祷,所争的是解经。
There, with regard to zimmun, they disagree with regard to the interpretation of verses.
拉比梅伊尔 以为「你吃得饱足,就要称颂耶和华你的神」(申命记 8:10)当这样懂:「你吃」,那是吃;「得饱足」,那是喝。
Rabbi Meir holds that the verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10) should be understood as follows: “And you shall eat,” that is eating; “and be satisfied,” that is drinking.
而律法上通行的一条是:算得上「吃」的,是一橄榄大。
The standard halakhic principle is that eating is defined as the consumption of an olive-bulk.
拉比犹大 则以为:「你吃得饱足」说的是那带着饱足的吃。
And Rabbi Yehuda holds: “And you shall eat and you shall be satisfied” refers to eating that includes satisfaction.
那么怎样算带着饱足的吃呢?
And what is considered eating with satisfaction?
是吃了一鸡蛋大。
It is consumption of an egg-bulk.
至于这里论酵物与圣物,两位所争的不是解经,乃是推理:拉比梅伊尔 以为「须回去取圣物」这一条比着它染不洁的定量——它惟有一鸡蛋大才染得不洁,故也惟有一鸡蛋大才须回去。拉比犹大 则以为「须回去取圣物」这一条——(本面末句未完,接叶五十正。)
至于这里,就是论酵物与圣物那两件,两位所争的不是解经,乃是推理;因 拉比梅伊尔 以为:「须回去取那圣物」这一条,是比着它染不洁的定量定的。
However, here, in the cases of leaven and consecrated food, they disagree not with regard to the interpretation of verses but with regard to logical reasoning, as Rabbi Meir holds: The requirement to return consecrated food is analogous to its ritual impurity.
它既惟有一鸡蛋大才染得不洁,那么也惟有一鸡蛋大,人才须回去取它。
Just as its susceptibility to ritual impurity is only when it is the size of an egg-bulk, so too, the requirement to return it is only when it is the size of an egg-bulk.
拉比犹大 则以为:「须回去取那圣物」这一条——
And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The requirement to return consecrated food