72b.1
解答
——遇着那样的光景,安息日根本没有一处摆着要被越过。(那当在安息日行割礼的孩子既已行过了,剩下的只有那当在安息日前一日行的;行割礼的人本当晓得安息日再没有割礼可行,因过了第八日才行的割礼不越过安息日。)故他若在安息日行了,就要担罪。可在后一段里,他行割礼的时候,安息日正摆着要为他被越过——因那当在安息日行割礼的孩子还没有行。
-
——遇着那样的光景,安息日根本没有一处摆着要被越过。
In that case, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden at all.
-
那当在安息日行割礼的孩子既已行过了,剩下的只有那当在安息日前一日行的;行割礼的人本当晓得安息日再没有割礼可行,因过了第八日才行的割礼不越过安息日。
Since the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was already circumcised, and the only one left is the baby who should have been circumcised on Friday, the circumciser should have known that he has no circumcisions to perform on Shabbat, because a circumcision that was delayed beyond the eighth day does not override Shabbat.
-
故他若在安息日行了,就要担罪。
Therefore, he is liable if he performed the circumcision on Shabbat.
-
可在后一段里,他行割礼的时候,安息日正摆着要为他被越过——因那当在安息日行割礼的孩子还没有行。
In the latter clause, however, the circumcision was performed in a situation where Shabbat stands to be overridden for him, as the baby who should have been circumcised on Shabbat was not yet circumcised.
72b.2
推论
既明白这一切都系于「安息日摆着要不要被越过」,那么便可以这样说:这里论会众的祭也是一样——安息日正摆着要为会众的祭被越过。既是这样,人在安息日无心之间为会众之祭的名分而宰了别样的祭,就免了献赎罪祭,因他晓得会众的祭安息日总要献,他这一错便有几分说得过去。
-
既明白这一切都系于「安息日摆着要不要被越过」,那么便可以这样说:这里论会众的祭也是一样——安息日正摆着要为会众的祭被越过。
Based on the understanding that everything depends on whether or not Shabbat stands to be overridden, it may be argued that here too, Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to a communal offering.
-
既是这样,人在安息日无心之间为会众之祭的名分而宰了别样的祭,就免了献赎罪祭,因他晓得会众的祭安息日总要献,他这一错便有几分说得过去。
Therefore, one who on Shabbat unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, because he knows that communal offerings must be brought on Shabbat, and consequently there is some justification for his error.
72b.3
反驳
拉夫阿施 对 拉夫卡哈纳 说:这一解有难处——这里也尽可以说安息日正摆着要为一般的婴孩被越过,因孩子的第八日若逢安息日,那一日是许行割礼的;这样他这一错也有一点点说得过去。拉夫卡哈纳 对他说:话诚然是这样。可就这一个人说,安息日并没有摆着要被越过,因再没有一个孩子当在安息日行割礼了。既是这样,他若无心之间在安息日行了割礼,就不算是在忙着行诫命的时候犯了禁。
-
拉夫阿施 对 拉夫卡哈纳 说:这一解有难处——这里也尽可以说安息日正摆着要为一般的婴孩被越过,因孩子的第八日若逢安息日,那一日是许行割礼的;这样他这一错也有一点点说得过去。
Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana that this explanation is difficult: Here too, it may be argued that Shabbat stands to be overridden with regard to babies in general, as it is permitted to circumcise a baby whose eighth day occurs on Shabbat, and so there is some minimal justification for his mistake.
-
拉夫卡哈纳 对他说:话诚然是这样。
Rav Kahana said to him: That is indeed so.
-
可就这一个人说,安息日并没有摆着要被越过,因再没有一个孩子当在安息日行割礼了。
However, with regard to this person, Shabbat does not stand to be overridden, as there is no longer any child who is supposed to be circumcised on Shabbat.
-
既是这样,他若无心之间在安息日行了割礼,就不算是在忙着行诫命的时候犯了禁。
Therefore, if he unwittingly performed a circumcision on Shabbat, it is not considered as if he performed a transgression while preoccupied with the performance of a mitzva.
72b.4
提问
我们在密释纳里学过,论别样的祭人无心之间在安息日为逾越之祭的名分而宰了:那几只若本不宜作逾越之祭,他要献赎罪祭;若是合宜的,拉比以利以谢 断他当献,拉比约书亚 免了他。革玛拉问:把「宜作逾越之祭的」与「不宜的」分开的,是哪一位 坦拿 呢?
-
我们在密释纳里学过,论别样的祭人无心之间在安息日为逾越之祭的名分而宰了:那几只若本不宜作逾越之祭,他要献赎罪祭;若是合宜的,拉比以利以谢 断他当献,拉比约书亚 免了他。
We learned in the mishna with regard to all other offerings that one unwittingly slaughtered on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, that if they were not fit for the Paschal offering, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and if they were fit, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.
-
革玛拉问:把「宜作逾越之祭的」与「不宜的」分开的,是哪一位 坦拿 呢?
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that distinguishes between offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb and those that are not fit?
72b.5
解答
革玛拉说明:是 拉比西缅,因一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:人无心之间在安息日为逾越之祭的名分而宰了别样的祭,无论那几只是宜作逾越之祭的还是不宜的;照样,他无心之间在安息日为会众之祭的名分而宰了别样的祭:他都免了献赎罪祭;这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。拉比西缅 说:论那宰了不宜之祭的,拉比以利以谢 与 拉比约书亚 并不相争,那一件上众人都同他要担罪。他们所争的是哪一件呢?是那宰了合宜之祭的——拉比以利以谢 断他当献赎罪祭,拉比约书亚 免了他。(这就见得我们这条不署名的密释纳是照 拉比西缅 的意思。)
-
革玛拉说明:是 拉比西缅,因一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:人无心之间在安息日为逾越之祭的名分而宰了别样的祭,无论那几只是宜作逾越之祭的还是不宜的;照样,他无心之间在安息日为会众之祭的名分而宰了别样的祭:他都免了献赎罪祭;这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。
The Gemara explains: It is Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita: If one unwittingly slaughters other offerings on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, whether they are offerings that are fit for the Paschal lamb or they are offerings that are not fit, and similarly, if he unwittingly slaughters other offerings for the purpose of communal offerings on Shabbat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
-
拉比西缅 说:论那宰了不宜之祭的,拉比以利以谢 与 拉比约书亚 并不相争,那一件上众人都同他要担罪。
Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree about one who slaughtered offerings that are not fit, for in that case all agree that he is liable.
-
他们所争的是哪一件呢?
With regard to what did they disagree?
-
是那宰了合宜之祭的——拉比以利以谢 断他当献赎罪祭,拉比约书亚 免了他。
With regard to one who slaughtered offerings that are fit, for Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin-offering and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.
-
这就见得我们这条不署名的密释纳是照 拉比西缅 的意思。
This indicates that the unattributed ruling of our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
72b.6
引证
拉夫贝瓦伊 传 拉比以利亚撒 说:连人把一只平安祭的牛犊为逾越之祭的名分宰了,拉比梅伊尔 也免他——虽然人素常不至于把牛犊错当作羊羔。拉比泽拉 对 拉夫贝瓦伊 说:可 拉比约哈难 岂不是说过,拉比梅伊尔 承认人在安息日宰了有残疾的牲畜要献赎罪祭么?他对他说:论有残疾的牲畜,他心里一概不为它们忙着,因他晓得那几只本不宜作祭。可这一只牛犊,他心里正忙着要把它献作一样祭,故他会弄错。
-
拉夫贝瓦伊 传 拉比以利亚撒 说:连人把一只平安祭的牛犊为逾越之祭的名分宰了,拉比梅伊尔 也免他——虽然人素常不至于把牛犊错当作羊羔。
Rav Beivai said that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peace-offering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though one does not ordinarily mistake a calf for a lamb.
-
拉比泽拉 对 拉夫贝瓦伊 说:可 拉比约哈难 岂不是说过,拉比梅伊尔 承认人在安息日宰了有残疾的牲畜要献赎罪祭么?
Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Beivai: But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that Rabbi Meir conceded that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he is liable to bring a sin-offering?
-
他对他说:论有残疾的牲畜,他心里一概不为它们忙着,因他晓得那几只本不宜作祭。
He said to him: With regard to blemished animals, he is not at all preoccupied with them, because he knows that they are ineligible to be offered as sacrifices.
-
可这一只牛犊,他心里正忙着要把它献作一样祭,故他会弄错。
But as for this calf, he is preoccupied with sacrificing it as an offering, and he may therefore make a mistake.
72b.7
提问
拉瓦 在 拉夫纳赫曼 面前提出一疑:人无心之间把一只未曾分别为圣的牲畜为逾越之祭的名分宰了,拉比梅伊尔 要怎样说呢?他这一件上也免他么?拉夫纳赫曼 对他说:纵他把未曾分别为圣的牲畜为逾越之祭的名分宰了,拉比梅伊尔 也免他。
-
拉瓦 在 拉夫纳赫曼 面前提出一疑:人无心之间把一只未曾分别为圣的牲畜为逾越之祭的名分宰了,拉比梅伊尔 要怎样说呢?
Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: If one unwittingly slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering, what would Rabbi Meir say?
-
他这一件上也免他么?
Would he exempt him in this case as well?
-
拉夫纳赫曼 对他说:纵他把未曾分别为圣的牲畜为逾越之祭的名分宰了,拉比梅伊尔 也免他。
Rav Naḥman said to him: Rabbi Meir would exempt him even if he slaughtered an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering.
72b.8
反驳
拉瓦 问他:可 拉比约哈难 岂不是说过,拉比梅伊尔 承认人在安息日宰了有残疾的牲畜要献赎罪祭么——因那几只断不会作祭献上;而未曾分别为圣的牲畜也照样断不会作祭献上。拉夫纳赫曼 答:这中间尽可以分别看。有残疾的牲畜与无残疾的混不到一处,故弄错本无正当的缘由;可这一等、就是未曾分别为圣的,与已分别为圣的极易混,外面看来分不出来,故弄错的人便免了。
-
拉瓦 问他:可 拉比约哈难 岂不是说过,拉比梅伊尔 承认人在安息日宰了有残疾的牲畜要献赎罪祭么?因那几只断不会作祭献上;而未曾分别为圣的牲畜也照样断不会作祭献上。
Rava asked him: But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that Rabbi Meir concedes that if one slaughtered blemished animals on Shabbat he is liable to bring a sin-offering, as they are never sacrificed as offerings, and similarly, unconsecrated animals are never sacrificed as offerings?
-
拉夫纳赫曼 答:这中间尽可以分别看。
Rav Naḥman responded: There is room for a distinction.
-
有残疾的牲畜与无残疾的混不到一处,故弄错本无正当的缘由;可这一等、就是未曾分别为圣的,与已分别为圣的极易混,外面看来分不出来,故弄错的人便免了。
Blemished animals cannot be confused with unblemished ones, and so there is no legitimate reason for error; but these, i.e., unconsecrated animals, can easily be confused with consecrated animals, as they are externally indistinguishable from one another, and therefore one who confuses them is exempt.
72b.9
反驳
拉瓦 再问:拉比梅伊尔 的缘由当真在乎「这一等混得到、那一等混不到」么?可 拉夫贝瓦伊 岂不是传 拉比以利亚撒 说,连人把一只平安祭的牛犊为逾越之祭的名分宰了,拉比梅伊尔 也免他么——虽然牛犊断不会错当作合宜作逾越之祭的牲畜。既是这样,可见 拉比梅伊尔 的缘由在乎他心里正忙着要把那牛犊献作一样祭,故他弄错了、为逾越之祭的名分宰了它,也就免了。可人把未曾分别为圣的牲畜为逾越之祭的名分宰了,何以也当免呢?他心里并不为着把它献作一样祭忙着。
-
拉瓦 再问:拉比梅伊尔 的缘由当真在乎「这一等混得到、那一等混不到」么?
Rava asked further: And is Rabbi Meir’s reason really that these can be confused and these cannot be confused with a legitimate offering?
-
可 拉夫贝瓦伊 岂不是传 拉比以利亚撒 说,连人把一只平安祭的牛犊为逾越之祭的名分宰了,拉比梅伊尔 也免他么?虽然牛犊断不会错当作合宜作逾越之祭的牲畜。
But didn’t Rav Beivai say that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Meir would exempt him even in the case of a calf of a peace-offering that he slaughtered for the purpose of the Paschal offering, even though there is no way to mistake a calf for an animal that can be brought for the Paschal offering?
-
既是这样,可见 拉比梅伊尔 的缘由在乎他心里正忙着要把那牛犊献作一样祭,故他弄错了、为逾越之祭的名分宰了它,也就免了。
Therefore, it is apparent that Rabbi Meir’s reason is that he is preoccupied with sacrificing the calf as an offering, and consequently he is exempt if he erred and slaughtered it for the purpose of a Paschal lamb.
-
可人把未曾分别为圣的牲畜为逾越之祭的名分宰了,何以也当免呢?
But why should one be exempt if he brought an unconsecrated animal for the purpose of a Paschal offering?
-
他心里并不为着把它献作一样祭忙着。
He is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering.
72b.10
解答
拉夫纳赫曼 对他说:照 拉比梅伊尔,这两条缘由都管用。人心里若正忙着要把那牲畜献作一样祭,纵那一只与他本当献的混不到一处,他也免了。那牲畜若与他所分别出来作祭的极易混,纵他心里并不为着把它献作一样祭忙着,他也免了。这样一说,正把有残疾的牲畜排开了——那一等既与无残疾的混不到一处,他心里也不为着献它忙着。
-
拉夫纳赫曼 对他说:照 拉比梅伊尔,这两条缘由都管用。
Rav Naḥman said to him: Both reasons apply according to Rabbi Meir.
-
人心里若正忙着要把那牲畜献作一样祭,纵那一只与他本当献的混不到一处,他也免了。
If one is preoccupied with bringing the animal as an offering, he is exempt even though the animal cannot easily be confused with the one he was supposed to sacrifice.
-
那牲畜若与他所分别出来作祭的极易混,纵他心里并不为着把它献作一样祭忙着,他也免了。
And when the animal can easily be confused with the one set aside as an offering, he is exempt, even though he is not preoccupied with bringing it as an offering.
-
这样一说,正把有残疾的牲畜排开了——那一等既与无残疾的混不到一处,他心里也不为着献它忙着。
This comes to exclude blemished animals, which cannot be confused with unblemished animals and with whose sacrifice he is not preoccupied.
72b.11
引证
革玛拉记道:拉比泽拉 与 拉比撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 坐在 拉比撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 的廊下,坐着说:拉比西缅·本·拉基什 说,人无心之间把一扦剩肉——那是禁着不可吃、有意吃了要受 剪除 的——与一扦烤好的圣肉混了,吃了它:他要献赎罪祭。(他虽存心要行一条诫命,可他既无心之间犯了「不可吃剩肉」那一条禁,就当献赎罪祭。)
-
革玛拉记道:拉比泽拉 与 拉比撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 坐在 拉比撒母耳·巴尔·拉夫以撒 的廊下,坐着说:拉比西缅·本·拉基什 说,人无心之间把一扦剩肉——那是禁着不可吃、有意吃了要受 剪除 的——与一扦烤好的圣肉混了,吃了它:他要献赎罪祭。
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak were sitting on the porch of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, and they sat and said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one unwittingly confused a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, which it is prohibited to eat and which makes one liable to receive the punishment of karet when one eats it intentionally, with a spit of roasted sacrificial meat, which is a mitzva to eat, and he ate it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
-
他虽存心要行一条诫命,可他既无心之间犯了「不可吃剩肉」那一条禁,就当献赎罪祭。
Although he intended to do a mitzva, since he unwittingly transgressed the prohibition against eating leftover sacrificial meat, he must bring a sin-offering.
72b.12
引证
他们又传说 拉比约哈难 说:人无心之间与自己行经的妻子同房,要献赎罪祭。可他若无心之间与那等着与他行叔娶之礼的嫂子同房,而她正在经期:他便免了,因同房这一举本身就是一条诫命。(人的兄弟死了没有儿女,按托拉之律他有本分娶那寡嫂、「与她同房」〔申命记 25:5〕;故他在要行这条诫命之间纵误犯了禁,也免了献赎罪祭。)
-
他们又传说 拉比约哈难 说:人无心之间与自己行经的妻子同房,要献赎罪祭。
And they further reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
-
可他若无心之间与那等着与他行叔娶之礼的嫂子同房,而她正在经期:他便免了,因同房这一举本身就是一条诫命。
But if he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law who was waiting to become his wife through levirate marriage while she was menstruating, he is exempt, because the act of intercourse itself is a mitzva.
-
人的兄弟死了没有儿女,按托拉之律他有本分娶那寡嫂、「与她同房」(申命记 25:5);故他在要行这条诫命之间纵误犯了禁,也免了献赎罪祭。
A man whose brother died without children is obliged by Torah law to marry his deceased brother’s widow and “come to her” (Deuteronomy 25:5), so that even if he mistakenly transgressed while attempting to fulfill the mitzva, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.
72b.13
推论
革玛拉要断 拉比约哈难 与 雷什·拉基什 那一断合不合:有人说,头一件、就是人无心之间吃了一扦剩肉的,拉比约哈难 更要断他当献赎罪祭,因他吃那肉时其实并没有行成一条诫命,虽然他存心要行。这与第二件不同——那里那人无心之间与行经的妻子同房,他至少行了一条小小的诫命,底下就要说明。
-
革玛拉要断 拉比约哈难 与 雷什·拉基什 那一断合不合:有人说,头一件、就是人无心之间吃了一扦剩肉的,拉比约哈难 更要断他当献赎罪祭,因他吃那肉时其实并没有行成一条诫命,虽然他存心要行。
The Gemara attempts to determine whether Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees or disagrees with Reish Lakish’s ruling: Some say that all the more so in the first case, where one unwittingly ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, Rabbi Yoḥanan would deem him liable to bring a sin-offering, for he did not actually perform a mitzva when he ate the meat, even though he intended to do so.
-
这与第二件不同——那里那人无心之间与行经的妻子同房,他至少行了一条小小的诫命,底下就要说明。
This stands in contrast to the second case, where the person unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, where he at least performed a small mitzva, as will be explained shortly.
72b.14
推论
也有人说:照 拉比约哈难,那吃了剩肉的一件,他倒免了献赎罪祭。这是什么缘由呢?那里,他与行经的妻子同房,所以担罪,是因他本当问她在不在经期;他既没有问,就当献赎罪祭。可这里,他吃了一扦剩肉,并没有一个可问的人,故不当献赎罪祭。
-
也有人说:照 拉比约哈难,那吃了剩肉的一件,他倒免了献赎罪祭。
Others say that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan in that case where one ate leftover sacrificial meat, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.
-
这是什么缘由呢?
What is the reason?
-
那里,他与行经的妻子同房,所以担罪,是因他本当问她在不在经期;他既没有问,就当献赎罪祭。
There, where he had sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he is liable, for he should have asked her if she was menstruating, and because he failed to do so he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
-
可这里,他吃了一扦剩肉,并没有一个可问的人,故不当献赎罪祭。
But here, where he ate a spit of leftover sacrificial meat, he did not have anyone to ask, and so he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.
72b.15
提问
革玛拉问:照 拉比约哈难,人无心之间与嫂子同房何以就免了呢?是因他行了一条诫命、就是叔娶之礼那一条么?若是这样,那么他无心之间与行经的妻子同房,他也行了一条诫命——他正忙着行生养众多那一条诫命。革玛拉答:我们这里所论的是他妻子已经怀孕的光景,那一次同房生不出后裔来。
-
革玛拉问:照 拉比约哈难,人无心之间与嫂子同房何以就免了呢?
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is different about one who unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law, in that he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering?
-
是因他行了一条诫命、就是叔娶之礼那一条么?
Is it that he performed a mitzva, i.e., the mitzva of levirate marriage?
-
若是这样,那么他无心之间与行经的妻子同房,他也行了一条诫命——他正忙着行生养众多那一条诫命。
If so, then also in the case where he unwittingly engaged in sexual intercourse with his wife while she was menstruating, he performed a mitzva, for he occupied himself in the fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation.
-
革玛拉答:我们这里所论的是他妻子已经怀孕的光景,那一次同房生不出后裔来。
The Gemara answers that we are dealing here with a case where his wife is pregnant, such that intercourse cannot lead to procreation.
72b.16
提问
革玛拉再问:纵然如此,还有夫妇之欢那一条诫命在。(作丈夫的本分之一,是按时与妻子同房〔见出埃及记 21:10〕,那也算一条诫命。)革玛拉答:我们所论的是不当她夫妇之欢的日期那一件。
-
革玛拉再问:纵然如此,还有夫妇之欢那一条诫命在。
The Gemara raises another question: Nevertheless, there is the mitzva of the enjoyment of conjugal rights.
-
作丈夫的本分之一,是按时与妻子同房(见出埃及记 21:10),那也算一条诫命。
One of a husband’s marital obligations is to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife at regular intervals (see Exodus 21:10), and this is considered a mitzva.
-
革玛拉答:我们所论的是不当她夫妇之欢日期的那一件。
The Gemara answers that we are talking about a case where it is not the time of her conjugal rights.
72b.17
提问
革玛拉又问:纵然如此,拉瓦 岂不是说过,人有本分叫妻子因一条诫命而喜悦么?(就是说:她若愿意,他就当与她同房,纵不当她夫妇之欢的日期也一样。)革玛拉答:我们所论的是近她该来月期的日子——那几日禁人行房,因虑着那妇人或者已经来了,或者要在行房之间来。
-
革玛拉又问:纵然如此,拉瓦 岂不是说过,人有本分叫妻子因一条诫命而喜悦么?
The Gemara asks further: Even so, didn’t Rava say that a man is obligated to please his wife through a mitzva?
-
就是说:她若愿意,他就当与她同房,纵不当她夫妇之欢的日期也一样。
That is to say, he must engage in sexual intercourse with her when she so desires, even if it is not the time of her conjugal rights.
-
革玛拉答:我们所论的是近她该来月期的日子——那几日禁人行房,因虑着那妇人或者已经来了,或者要在行房之间来。
The Gemara answers that we are dealing with a case where it was near her expected date of menstruation, when sexual relations are prohibited due to a concern that the woman may already be menstruating or that she may begin to menstruate during the sexual act.
72b.18
解答
革玛拉问:若是这样、他们是近那妇人该来月期的日子行房、本当避开的,那么他与嫂子同房而她原来正在经期,他也当担罪才是,因那时叔娶之礼那一条诫命并不管用。革玛拉说明:论到嫂子,他在她面前仍旧 腼腆,不好意思问她近不近该来月期的日子;论到自己的妻子,他在她面前并不腼腆,本当问她的。
-
革玛拉问:若是这样、他们是近那妇人该来月期的日子行房、本当避开的,那么他与嫂子同房而她原来正在经期,他也当担罪才是,因那时叔娶之礼那一条诫命并不管用。
The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if they engaged in sexual intercourse near the woman’s expected date of menstruation when he should have refrained from doing so, then even in the case where he had sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law and she turned out to be menstruating, he should also be liable, as the mitzva of levirate marriage does not apply at that time.
-
革玛拉说明:论到嫂子,他在她面前仍旧 腼腆,不好意思问她近不近该来月期的日子;论到自己的妻子,他在她面前并不腼腆,本当问她的。
The Gemara explains that with regard to his sister-in-law, he is still shy [bazeiz] in front of her and uncomfortable asking her whether she is close to her expected menstruation date, whereas with regard to his wife, he is not shy in front of her, and so he should have asked her.
72b.19
提问
革玛拉问:拉比约哈难 论「人在行诫命之间弄错了」那一断,是照哪一位的意思立的呢?你若说他是照 拉比约西 立的,正如我们在一条密释纳里学过:拉比约西 说,住棚节头一个节期日若逢安息日,他忘了,把自己的 棕枝 拿到 公共区 去,又在那里带着走了一程,无心之间作了一样禁着的工:他免了献赎罪祭。那是因他拿出去是有凭据的——就是说,他是存着行诫命的心去作的。
-
革玛拉问:拉比约哈难 论「人在行诫命之间弄错了」那一断,是照哪一位的意思立的呢?
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, in accordance with whose opinion did he rule with regard to one who erred while engaged in a mitzva?
-
你若说他是照 拉比约西 立的,正如我们在一条密释纳里学过:拉比约西 说,住棚节头一个节期日若逢安息日,他忘了,把自己的 棕枝 拿到 公共区 去,又在那里带着走了一程,无心之间作了一样禁着的工:他免了献赎罪祭。
If you say he ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: If the first Festival day of the festival of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried his lulav out into the public domain and continued to transport it there, unwittingly performing a prohibited labor, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.
-
那是因他拿出去是有凭据的——就是说,他是存着行诫命的心去作的。
That is because he carried it out with permission, that is to say, he was acting with the intention of fulfilling a mitzva.
72b.20
解答
拉比约西 那一断与 拉比约哈难 这一断,中间尽可以分别看:或者那里是另一样,因他时候紧迫。(按托拉之律,棕枝 那一条诫命一年只管一日,故他急着要行,就顾不得自己正犯着一条托拉之禁。)这与叔娶之礼不同——那一件并不限定在某一日办,他也就不那样急。
-
拉比约西 那一断与 拉比约哈难 这一断,中间尽可以分别看:或者那里是另一样,因他时候紧迫。
There is room to differentiate between Rabbi Yosei’s ruling and that of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Perhaps it is different there, as he is pressed for time.
-
按托拉之律,棕枝 那一条诫命一年只管一日,故他急着要行,就顾不得自己正犯着一条托拉之禁。
Since by Torah law the mitzva of lulav applies only one day a year, he is anxious to fulfill the mitzva and therefore does not realize that he is violating a Torah prohibition.
-
这与叔娶之礼不同——那一件并不限定在某一日办,他也就不那样急。
This is unlike the case of levirate marriage, which need not be performed at any specific time and about which he is less pressured.
72b.21
推论
不如说,拉比约哈难 这一断是照我们密释纳里 拉比约书亚 论献祭的意思立的——照 拉比约书亚,人无心之间在安息日为逾越之祭的名分而宰了别样的祭,那牲畜若本合宜作逾越之祭,他便免了献赎罪祭。可这里也尽可以分别看:或者那里 拉比约书亚 免他,也是因他时候紧迫。
-
不如说,拉比约哈难 这一断是照我们密释纳里 拉比约书亚 论献祭的意思立的——照 拉比约书亚,人无心之间在安息日为逾越之祭的名分而宰了别样的祭,那牲畜若本合宜作逾越之祭,他便免了献赎罪祭。
Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yoḥanan issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua in our mishna with regard to offerings, for according to Rabbi Yehoshua, one who unwittingly slaughtered another offering on Shabbat for the purpose of a Paschal offering, and the animal was fit to be brought as a Paschal offering, is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.
-
可这里也尽可以分别看。
Here too, however, there is room to differentiate.
-
或者那里 拉比约书亚 免他,也是因他时候紧迫。
Perhaps there also we can say that Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time.
72b.22
推论
不如说,拉比约哈难 这一断是照 拉比约书亚 论婴孩的意思立的——两个婴孩,一个当在安息日前一日行割礼,一个当在安息日行;那行割礼的人忘了,把那当在安息日前一日行的,在安息日给他行了。那一件上,行割礼的人免了献赎罪祭。可这里又尽可以分别看:或者那里 拉比约书亚 免他,也是因他时候紧迫。
-
不如说,拉比约哈难 这一断是照 拉比约书亚 论婴孩的意思立的——两个婴孩,一个当在安息日前一日行割礼,一个当在安息日行;那行割礼的人忘了,把那当在安息日前一日行的,在安息日给他行了。
Rather, one might say that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to babies, one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve and the other on Shabbat, and the circumciser forgot and circumcised the one that should have been circumcised on Shabbat eve on Shabbat.
-
那一件上,行割礼的人免了献赎罪祭。
In that case the circumciser is exempt from bringing a sin-offering.
-
可这里又尽可以分别看:或者那里 拉比约书亚 免他,也是因他时候紧迫。
But once again there is room to differentiate: Perhaps there too, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him because he is pressed for time.
72b.23
推论
不如说,拉比约哈难 这一断是照 拉比约书亚 论 举祭 的意思立的,正如我们在一条密释纳里学过:有一个祭司正吃着 举祭,后来才查明他是被休之妇的儿子、或是行过 脱鞋礼 之妇的儿子,因而不得作祭司、也不可吃 举祭——拉比以利以谢 断他当偿本值并加五分之一,与凡非祭司而误吃 举祭 的一样;拉比约书亚 却免了他。(这一件上,那人自以为是祭司、以为自己在行一条诫命而吃了 举祭,其实是犯了禁;然而 拉比约书亚 仍免了他那素常的罚。)看去,这与 拉比约哈难 那一断正相类。
-
不如说,拉比约哈难 这一断是照 拉比约书亚 论 举祭 的意思立的,正如我们在一条密释纳里学过:有一个祭司正吃着 举祭,后来才查明他是被休之妇的儿子、或是行过 脱鞋礼 之妇的儿子,因而不得作祭司、也不可吃那圣物——拉比以利以谢 断他当偿本值并加五分之一,与凡非祭司而误吃的一样;拉比约书亚 却免了他。
Rather, we should say that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to teruma, as we learned in a mishna: If a priest was eating teruma, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a woman who underwent ḥalitza and he is therefore disqualified from the priesthood and may not eat teruma, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to pay the value of the principal and an additional fifth, like any non-priest who unwittingly ate teruma, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.
-
这一件上,那人自以为是祭司、以为自己在行一条诫命而吃了,其实是犯了禁;然而 拉比约书亚 仍免了他那素常的罚。
In this case, one who thought he was a priest and therefore fulfilling a mitzva when he ate the teruma was actually committing a transgression, but nevertheless, Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him from the ordinary penalty.
-
看去,这与 拉比约哈难 那一断正相类。
On the face of it, this is similar to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling.
72b.24
解答
可这一比也驳得回,因那一件或当照 拉夫贝拜·巴尔·阿巴耶 的意思解。因 拉夫贝拜·巴尔·阿巴耶 说过:那条密释纳所论的,是一个不合式的祭司在逾越节前一日吃那属 举祭 的有酵之物——那时候紧迫,因他若不赶紧吃了,就得把它烧了。
-
可这一比也驳得回,因那一件或当照 拉夫贝拜·巴尔·阿巴耶 的意思解。
This comparison can, however, be rejected, for perhaps that case should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Beivai bar Abaye.
-
因 拉夫贝拜·巴尔·阿巴耶 说过:那条密释纳所论的,是一个不合式的祭司在逾越节前一日吃那属 举祭 的有酵之物——那时候紧迫,因他若不赶紧吃了,就得把它烧了。
For Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: The mishna is talking about a disqualified priest who ate teruma which is leaven on the eve of Passover, whose time is pressing, because if he does not eat it quickly he will have to burn it.
72b.25
解答
也可以另举一层来分别:吃 举祭 是另一样,因那一事称作圣殿的职事,而慈悲之主许祭司血脉之人所办的职事算数,纵他其实不合作祭司也一样。
-
也可以另举一层来分别:吃 举祭 是另一样,因那一事称作圣殿的职事,而慈悲之主许祭司血脉之人所办的职事算数,纵他其实不合作祭司也一样。
Alternatively, there may be another reason to differentiate: Eating teruma is different, because it is called sacred service, and the Merciful One validates service performed by someone of priestly descent even if he is not fit for the priesthood.
72b.26
引证
正如我们在一条密释纳里学过:有一个祭司正站着在坛上献祭,后来才查明他是被休之妇的儿子、或是行过 脱鞋礼 之妇的儿子——他到那时所献在坛上的祭都不合式,因惟有断为合式之祭司所办的职事才蒙悦纳。拉比约书亚 却断它们合式。我们又说过:拉比约书亚 凭的是什么缘由呢?因论利未一支经上写着:「耶和华啊,求你降福在他的家产上,悦纳他手里所办的事」(申命记 33:11)——这是教人:事既成了,神就悦纳那祭司手里所办的,纵后来查明他办那职事的时候其实是不合式的。
-
正如我们在一条密释纳里学过:有一个祭司正站着在坛上献祭,后来才查明他是被休之妇的儿子、或是行过 脱鞋礼 之妇的儿子——他到那时所献在坛上的祭都不合式,因惟有断为合式之祭司所办的职事才蒙悦纳。
As we learned in a mishna: If a priest was standing and sacrificing offerings on the altar, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman who underwent ḥalitza, all the offerings that he offered on the altar until that time are disqualified, because only service performed by a priest deemed fit is acceptable.
-
拉比约书亚 却断它们合式。
And Rabbi Yehoshua validates them.
-
我们又说过:拉比约书亚 凭的是什么缘由呢?
And we said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua?
-
因论利未一支经上写着:「耶和华啊,求你降福在他的家产上,悦纳他手里所办的事」(申命记 33:11)——这是教人:事既成了,神就悦纳那祭司手里所办的,纵后来查明他办那职事的时候其实是不合式的。
As it is written with regard to the tribe of Levi: “Bless, Lord, his substance and accept the work of his hands” (Deuteronomy 33:11), which teaches that after the fact, God accepts the work of a priest’s hands, even if it becomes clear that he was actually disqualified at the time he performed the service.
72b.27
提问
革玛拉问上头所说的一层:举祭 哪里称作职事呢?革玛拉说明:正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教:有一件事,拉比塔尔丰 晚上不曾到学舍去。早晨 拉班迦玛列 遇见他,对他说:你昨晚为什么不到学舍来呢?他对他说:我在办圣殿的职事。他对他说:你这话样样叫人希奇;圣殿既已毁了,这时候我们哪里还有职事呢?他对他说:经上说——
-
革玛拉问上头所说的一层:举祭 哪里称作职事呢?
The Gemara questions what was stated above: And where is teruma called service?
-
革玛拉说明:正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教:有一件事,拉比塔尔丰 晚上不曾到学舍去。
The Gemara explains: As it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Tarfon, who did not come in the evening to the study hall.
-
早晨 拉班迦玛列 遇见他,对他说:你昨晚为什么不到学舍来呢?
In the morning, Rabban Gamliel found him and said to him: For what reason did you not come in the evening to the study hall?
-
他对他说:我在办圣殿的职事。
He said to him: I was performing sacred service.
-
他对他说:你这话样样叫人希奇;圣殿既已毁了,这时候我们哪里还有职事呢?
He said to him: All your words are astonishing; from where do we have service in this time after the destruction of the Temple?
-
他对他说:经上说——
He said to him: It says in Scripture: