你岂不是说过,论关乎会众的祭,连 拉比约书亚 也承认不洁是许的么?
-
你岂不是说过,论关乎会众的祭,连 拉比约书亚 也承认不洁是许的么?
Didn’t you say that with regard to an offering involving the public, even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that ritual impurity is permitted?
← 逾越节卷总目·第七章 怎样烤
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 7 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。
你岂不是说过,论关乎会众的祭,连 拉比约书亚 也承认不洁是许的么?
你岂不是说过,论关乎会众的祭,连 拉比约书亚 也承认不洁是许的么?
Didn’t you say that with regard to an offering involving the public, even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that ritual impurity is permitted?
不如把 拉比约西 那一句另解。他说「我看 拉比以利以谢 所说的不错」,是就事成以后说的;他说「我看 拉比约书亚 所说的不错」,是就 按理 说的。革玛拉问:事成以后 拉比约书亚 也是承认的,因那条教说:拉比约书亚 承认人若已经弹了血,这祭仍蒙悦纳、仍是合式的。
不如把 拉比约西 那一句另解。
Rather, Rabbi Yosei’s statement should be understood differently.
他说「我看 拉比以利以谢 所说的不错」,是就事成以后说的。
When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, he was referring to after the fact.
他说「我看 拉比约书亚 所说的不错」,是就 按理 说的。
When he said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, he meant ab initio.
革玛拉问:事成以后 拉比约书亚 也是承认的,因那条教说:拉比约书亚 承认人若已经弹了血,这祭仍蒙悦纳、仍是合式的。
The Gemara asks: After the fact Rabbi Yehoshua also concedes, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood, it was accepted and the offering is valid.
革玛拉答:这一件是论不洁,那一件是论祭失落了或烧掉了。革玛拉说明:那条教「拉比约书亚 承认人若已弹了血就蒙悦纳」,说的是祭肉染了不洁的光景;至于祭肉失落了或烧掉了的光景,纵事成以后他也不领。拉比约西 说「我看 拉比以利以谢 所说的、就事成以后而言不错」,正是就那肉失落了或烧掉了的光景说的——那几件上 拉比约书亚 并不让 拉比以利以谢。
革玛拉答:这一件是论不洁,那一件是论祭失落了或烧掉了。
The Gemara responds: This case is with regard to ritual impurity, and that case is with regard to an offering that was lost or burned.
革玛拉说明:那条教「拉比约书亚 承认人若已弹了血就蒙悦纳」,说的是祭肉染了不洁的光景;至于祭肉失落了或烧掉了的光景,纵事成以后他也不领。
The Gemara explains: When it teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood it is accepted, that is with regard to a case in which the meat of the offering became impure; but with regard to a case where the meat of the offering was lost or burned, he does not agree, even after the fact.
拉比约西 说「我看 拉比以利以谢 所说的、就事成以后而言不错」,正是就那肉失落了或烧掉了的光景说的——那几件上 拉比约书亚 并不让 拉比以利以谢。
When Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer after the fact, that was with regard to cases in which the meat was lost or burned, with regard to which Rabbi Yehoshua did not concede to Rabbi Eliezer.
逾越之羊羔的肉若染了不洁,而脂油仍洁净、可在坛上烧,人便不可弹那血。反过来,脂油若染了不洁而肉仍洁净,人倒可以弹血,因那肉仍宜于吃。这是论逾越之羊羔的 哈拉哈——它的正用原在叫报了名的人吃。至于别样的祭便不然:那肉纵染了不洁而脂油仍洁净,人也可以弹血,因这祭到底还有一分是合式的。
逾越之羊羔的肉若染了不洁,而脂油仍洁净、可在坛上烧,人便不可弹那血。
If the meat of the Paschal lamb became ritually impure, and the fat remains pure and may be burned on the altar, one may not sprinkle the blood.
反过来,脂油若染了不洁而肉仍洁净,人倒可以弹血,因那肉仍宜于吃。
On the other hand, if the fat became impure and the meat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood because the meat remains fit to be eaten.
这是论逾越之羊羔的 哈拉哈——它的正用原在叫报了名的人吃。
This is the halakha with regard to a Paschal lamb, whose primary purpose is to be eaten by those who have registered for it.
至于别样的祭便不然。
However, with regard to other offerings it is not so.
那肉纵染了不洁而脂油仍洁净,人也可以弹血,因这祭到底还有一分是合式的。
Rather, although the meat has become impure and the fat remains pure, one may sprinkle the blood, because part of the offering still remains valid.
拉夫基德尔 传 拉夫 说:那肉虽已染了不洁,他若把血弹了,这祭仍蒙悦纳;他不必守第二个 逾越节羔羊。革玛拉问:我们岂不是要人吃那逾越的羊羔么——这一件上分明吃不成。革玛拉答:不曾办成「吃」这一节,并不拦阻这祭蒙悦纳。
拉夫基德尔 传 拉夫 说:那肉虽已染了不洁,他若把血弹了,这祭仍蒙悦纳;他不必守第二个 逾越节羔羊。
Rav Giddel said that Rav said: If one sprinkled the blood despite the fact that the meat was ritually impure, it was nonetheless accepted; one is not obligated to observe the second Pesaḥ.
革玛拉问:我们岂不是要人吃那逾越的羊羔么?这一件上分明吃不成。
The Gemara asks: Don’t we require that the Paschal lamb be eaten, which could not occur in this case?
革玛拉答:不曾办成「吃」这一节,并不拦阻这祭蒙悦纳。
The Gemara answers: Failure to engage in eating the offering does not preclude it from being accepted.
革玛拉问:经上岂不是写着「若是一家的人太少,吃不了一只羊羔,本人就要和他隔壁的邻舍共取一只,按着人数计算;你们预备羊羔,要按着各人的饭量计算」(出埃及记 12:4)么?这就见得托拉要人吃那逾越的羊羔。革玛拉答:那一节所说的不过是一条诫命——当办固然当办,却不拦阻这祭蒙悦纳。
革玛拉问:经上岂不是写着「若是一家的人太少,吃不了一只羊羔,本人就要和他隔壁的邻舍共取一只,按着人数计算;你们预备羊羔,要按着各人的饭量计算」(出埃及记 12:4)么?
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written: “And if the household be too little for a lamb, then he and his neighbor who is close to his house shall take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4)?
这就见得托拉要人吃那逾越的羊羔。
This indicates that the Torah requires one to eat the Paschal lamb.
革玛拉答:那一节所说的不过是一条诫命。
The Gemara responds: This verse is stated as a mitzva only.
当办固然当办,却不拦阻这祭蒙悦纳。
It should be fulfilled, but it does not preclude acceptance of the offering.
革玛拉问:那一节当真不是为着「吃不成就不蒙悦纳」而说的么?一条 《巴拉伊塔》 岂不是教过:「按着人数」——这是教人逾越的羊羔惟为那报了名、因而预先把自己算在人数之内的人宰。我或以为他若为那不曾报名的人宰了,不过像个犯了一条诫命的人,而事成以后那祭仍旧合式。所以经上说「你们预备羊羔,要按着各人的饭量计算」——经上把「逾越的羊羔惟归报了名的人吃」重说一遍,正是要着重:不曾报名便叫这祭不合式。
革玛拉问:那一节当真不是为着「吃不成就不蒙悦纳」而说的么?
The Gemara asks: And was it not stated to preclude acceptance of the offering if it cannot be eaten?
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 岂不是教过:「按着人数」——这是教人逾越的羊羔惟为那报了名、因而预先把自己算在人数之内的人宰。
Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: “According to the number of the souls”; this teaches that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered only for those who have registered for it and have thereby included themselves in advance in the number of the souls?
我或以为他若为那不曾报名的人宰了,不过像个犯了一条诫命的人,而事成以后那祭仍旧合式。
I might have thought that if one slaughtered it for those who have not registered for it, he is merely like one who violates a mitzva, but the offering is still valid after the fact.
所以经上说「你们预备羊羔,要按着各人的饭量计算」——经上把「逾越的羊羔惟归报了名的人吃」重说一遍,正是要着重:不曾报名便叫这祭不合式。
Therefore, the verse states: “According to every man’s eating you shall make your count”; the verse repeated that the Paschal lamb is eaten only by those registered in order to underscore that failure to register precludes the offering from being valid.
而那吃得的人——与那吃不下的病人老人相对——在那一节里是与报了名的人并排说的。既是这样,逾越的羊羔为那不曾报名的人宰的既不合式,它吃不成的时候也不合式。(这就难了 拉夫 的意思。)
而那吃得的人——与那吃不下的病人老人相对——在那一节里是与报了名的人并排说的。
And those who are able to eat the offering, as opposed to the sick or elderly who are unable to eat it, are juxtaposed in the verse to those who registered.
既是这样,逾越的羊羔为那不曾报名的人宰的既不合式,它吃不成的时候也不合式。
Therefore, just as a Paschal lamb is disqualified if it is slaughtered for those who did not register for it, it is disqualified if it cannot be eaten.
这就难了 拉夫 的意思。
This poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rav.
革玛拉答:不如说 拉夫 那一句是照 拉比拿单 的意思立的——那一位说不曾办成「吃」这一节,并不拦阻人办成献这祭的本分,因吃是另一条诫命。
革玛拉答:不如说 拉夫 那一句是照 拉比拿单 的意思立的——那一位说不曾办成「吃」这一节,并不拦阻人办成献这祭的本分,因吃是另一条诫命。
The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who said that failure to engage in eating the Paschal lamb does not preclude one from fulfilling one’s obligation to bring the offering, as the eating is a separate mitzva.
革玛拉问:所指的是 拉比拿单 哪一句呢?我们若说是他这一句——因一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说,拉比拿单 说:我们从哪里知道全以色列人事成以后可凭一只逾越的羊羔办成本分呢?经上说:「以色列全会众把羊羔宰于下午」(出埃及记 12:6)。他问道:全会众都宰它么?各人自宰自己的逾越羊羔是一条诫命么?岂不是一个人替全伙宰么?不如说,这一句的措辞正是教人:全以色列人可凭一只逾越的羊羔办成本分。(那就当作他们都宰了、都办成了本分,虽然他们不能人人吃着一橄榄大。)
革玛拉问:所指的是 拉比拿单 哪一句呢?
The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Natan is this referring to?
我们若说是他这一句——因一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说,拉比拿单 说:我们从哪里知道全以色列人事成以后可凭一只逾越的羊羔办成本分呢?
If we say it is this statement of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that all Jews may fulfill their obligation after the fact with one Paschal lamb?
经上说:「以色列全会众把羊羔宰于下午」(出埃及记 12:6)。
The verse states: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6).
他问道:全会众都宰它么?
He asked: And does the entire assembly slaughter it?
各人自宰自己的逾越羊羔是一条诫命么?
Is it a mitzva for each individual to slaughter his own Paschal lamb?
岂不是一个人替全伙宰么?
Is it not true that only one person slaughters for the entire group?
不如说,这一句的措辞正是教人:全以色列人可凭一只逾越的羊羔办成本分。
Rather, this formulation of the verse teaches that all Jews may fulfill their obligation with one Paschal lamb.
那就当作他们都宰了、都办成了本分,虽然他们不能人人吃着一橄榄大。
It is considered as though they all slaughtered it and fulfilled their obligation, although they cannot all eat an olive-bulk of the offering.
革玛拉答:那一件与眼前这一件比不得——或者那里是另一样,因这几个人若退出去,那祭就宜于那几个人;那几个人若退出去,那祭就宜于这几个人。(全以色列人虽不能同吃一只祭,那祭到底对各人都是合宜的:别人若退得够多,他就吃得着一橄榄大。)
革玛拉答:那一件与眼前这一件比不得——或者那里是另一样,因这几个人若退出去,那祭就宜于那几个人;那几个人若退出去,那祭就宜于这几个人。
The Gemara responds that this is not comparable to the case at hand: Perhaps it is different there, as, if these withdraw from the offering, it is fit for those, and if those withdraw it is fit for these.
全以色列人虽不能同吃一只祭,那祭到底对各人都是合宜的:别人若退得够多,他就吃得着一橄榄大。
Although it is impossible for all Jews to partake of the same offering, the offering is fit for each individual, who could eat an olive-bulk of it if enough other people would withdraw.
不如说,所指的是 拉比拿单 这一句,因一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:有一伙人报名入了一只逾越的羊羔,随后又有一伙也报名入它,而那肉不够叫各人都吃着一橄榄大——先头那一伙,各人都有一橄榄大的,就吃了,免了在第二个 逾越节羔羊 补行那一礼;后头那一伙,各人都没有一橄榄大的,就不吃,仍当在第二个 逾越节羔羊 补行那一礼。
不如说,所指的是 拉比拿单 这一句,因一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教说:有一伙人报名入了一只逾越的羊羔,随后又有一伙也报名入它,而那肉不够叫各人都吃着一橄榄大——先头那一伙,各人都有一橄榄大的,就吃了,免了在第二个 逾越节羔羊 补行那一礼;后头那一伙,各人都没有一橄榄大的,就不吃,仍当在第二个 逾越节羔羊 补行那一礼。
Rather, it is this statement of Rabbi Natan, as it was taught in a baraita: If one group registered for a Paschal lamb and then another group registered for it, and there was not enough meat to allow each person to eat an olive-bulk, the first ones, who have an olive-bulk of the Paschal lamb for each person, eat and are exempt from performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ; the latter ones, who do not have an olive-bulk available from the Paschal lamb for each person, do not eat and are obligated to perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ.
拉比拿单 说:这一伙那一伙都免了在第二个 逾越节羔羊 补行那一礼,因那血已经弹了。(既是这样,他们都办成了本分。)这就见得:照 拉比拿单 的意思,吃不是骨干。
拉比拿单 说:这一伙那一伙都免了在第二个 逾越节羔羊 补行那一礼,因那血已经弹了。
Rabbi Natan says: Both these and those are exempt from performing the ritual of the Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ, as the blood has already been sprinkled.
既是这样,他们都办成了本分。
Therefore, they have all fulfilled their obligation.
这就见得:照 拉比拿单 的意思,吃不是骨干。
This indicates that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, eating is not essential.
革玛拉答:仍可以问一句——或者那里是另一样,因先头那一伙的人若退出去,那祭就宜于后头那一伙的人。革玛拉驳去这一问:若是这样,那条 《巴拉伊塔》 就当教「后头那一伙免了第二个 逾越节羔羊,因先头那一伙本可以退出去」才是。它何以说「因那血已经弹了」呢?由此可学出:这一件全系在血上,而不曾办成「吃」这一节,并不拦阻人办成本分。
革玛拉答:仍可以问一句——或者那里是另一样,因先头那一伙的人若退出去,那祭就宜于后头那一伙的人。
The Gemara responds that one can still ask: Perhaps it is different there, as, if these members of the first group withdraw, it is fit for the members of the second group.
革玛拉驳去这一问:若是这样,那条 《巴拉伊塔》 就当教「后头那一伙免了第二个 逾越节羔羊,因先头那一伙本可以退出去」才是。
The Gemara rejects the question: If so, let it teach that the second group is exempt from the second Pesaḥ since the members of the first group are fit to withdraw.
它何以说「因那血已经弹了」呢?
What is the reason for the statement of the baraita that the blood has already been sprinkled?
由此可学出:这一件全系在血上,而不曾办成「吃」这一节,并不拦阻人办成本分。
Learn from this that the matter depends on the blood, but failure to engage in eating the Paschal lamb does not preclude one from fulfilling his obligation.
革玛拉问:拉夫 为什么非把这条密释纳定作「按理不可弹血」、又照 拉比拿单 的意思解不可呢?我们索性把它定作照众拉比的意思,说纵事成以后也不算办成本分,岂不好么?革玛拉答:拉夫 在这条密释纳上觉出一层难处——它何以教「人不可弹那血」呢?它当教「那祭不合式」才是。不如说:从这一样措辞可学出——**按理 不可把血弹在坛上,事成以后倒无妨**。
革玛拉问:拉夫 为什么非把这条密释纳定作「按理不可弹血」、又照 拉比拿单 的意思解不可呢?
The Gemara asks: What compelled Rav to establish the mishna as teaching that the blood may not be sprinkled on the altar ab initio, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan?
我们索性把它定作照众拉比的意思,说纵事成以后也不算办成本分,岂不好么?
Let us establish the mishna in accordance with the view of the Rabbis and say that even after the fact, no, one does not fulfill his obligation.
革玛拉答:拉夫 在这条密释纳上觉出一层难处——它何以教「人不可弹那血」呢?
The Gemara answers: Rav had difficulty with the mishna: Why does it teach that one may not sprinkle the blood?
它当教「那祭不合式」才是。
It should teach that the offering is disqualified.
不如说:从这一样措辞可学出——按理 不可把血弹在坛上,事成以后倒无妨。
Rather, learn from this use of language that one may not sprinkle the blood on the altar ab initio, but after the fact it seems well.
革玛拉问:照 拉比拿单 的意思,「按着各人的饭量」那一语我又要它作什么呢——它既不教人吃是骨干。革玛拉答:纵照 拉比拿单,那一语也是必要的,为要教人**我们总要一个吃得下的人**。(人虽可以不真吃那逾越的羊羔而办成本分,可他身子若吃不下一点——譬如病人或老人——他就办不成本分。)
革玛拉问:照 拉比拿单 的意思,「按着各人的饭量」那一语我又要它作什么呢?它既不教人吃是骨干。
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, why do I need the phrase “according to every man’s eating,” if it does not teach that the eating is essential?
革玛拉答:纵照 拉比拿单,那一语也是必要的,为要教人我们总要一个吃得下的人。
The Gemara answers: It is necessary, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, to teach that we require a person who is fit for eating.
人虽可以不真吃那逾越的羊羔而办成本分,可他身子若吃不下一点——譬如病人或老人——他就办不成本分。
Although it is possible to fulfill one’s obligation without actually eating the Paschal lamb, if one is physically unable to eat some of it, e.g., one who is sick or elderly, he does not fulfill his obligation.
革玛拉就上头所引几说再议一层。教这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 的是哪一位 坦拿 呢?因众贤教:人为那吃得的人宰了逾越的羊羔,却为那吃不得的人弹它的血,这逾越的羊羔仍旧合式,人也凭它办成了本分。这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是照谁的意思呢?我们且说它是照 拉比拿单 的意思——他执定吃不是骨干——而不照众拉比的意思么?
革玛拉就上头所引几说再议一层。
The Gemara raises a discussion based on the views cited above.
教这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 的是哪一位 坦拿 呢?
Who is the tanna that taught this baraita?
因众贤教:人为那吃得的人宰了逾越的羊羔,却为那吃不得的人弹它的血,这逾越的羊羔仍旧合式,人也凭它办成了本分。
As the Sages taught: If one slaughtered it for individuals who are able to eat it and sprinkled its blood for individuals who cannot eat it, the Paschal lamb itself is valid, and one fulfills his obligation with it.
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是照谁的意思呢?
In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
我们且说它是照 拉比拿单 的意思——他执定吃不是骨干——而不照众拉比的意思么?
Let us say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who holds that eating is not essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?
革玛拉驳去这一拟:纵说它是照众拉比的意思,这条 《巴拉伊塔》 也讲得通。众人都同:存「归谁吃」那一样不合式的心思,惟在宰的时候才叫这祭作废;在弹血的时候存,便不叫它作废。
革玛拉驳去这一拟:纵说它是照众拉比的意思,这条 《巴拉伊塔》 也讲得通。
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
众人都同:存「归谁吃」那一样不合式的心思,惟在宰的时候才叫这祭作废;在弹血的时候存,便不叫它作废。
Everyone agrees that improper intent pertaining to those who will eat the offering disqualifies the offering only if it occurs during the slaughter; it does not disqualify the offering if it occurs during the sprinkling of the blood.
革玛拉问:教这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 的是哪一位 坦拿 呢?因众贤教:人在宰的时候有病、吃不下肉,到弹血的时候却好了;或在宰的时候好好的,到弹血的时候倒病了:人不可为他宰,也不可为他弹血,须等他从宰的时候到弹血的时候一直好着才可。这是照谁的意思呢?我们且说它是照众拉比的意思——他们执定吃逾越的羊羔是骨干——而不照 拉比拿单 的意思么?革玛拉驳去这一拟:纵说它是照 拉比拿单 的意思,也讲得通,因连 拉比拿单 也执定我们总要一个吃得下的人。
革玛拉问:教这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 的是哪一位 坦拿 呢?
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught this baraita?
因众贤教:人在宰的时候有病、吃不下肉,到弹血的时候却好了;或在宰的时候好好的,到弹血的时候倒病了:人不可为他宰,也不可为他弹血,须等他从宰的时候到弹血的时候一直好着才可。
As the Sages taught: With regard to one who was sick and not able to eat meat at the time of the slaughter and was healthy at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, or one who was healthy at the time of the slaughter and sick at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, one may not slaughter or sprinkle blood for him until he is healthy from the time of slaughter until the time of the sprinkling of the blood.
这是照谁的意思呢?
In accordance with whose opinion is this?
我们且说它是照众拉比的意思——他们执定吃逾越的羊羔是骨干——而不照 拉比拿单 的意思么?
Let us say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that eating the Paschal lamb is essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan.
革玛拉驳去这一拟:纵说它是照 拉比拿单 的意思,也讲得通,因连 拉比拿单 也执定我们总要一个吃得下的人。
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The baraita can be understood even if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, because even Rabbi Natan holds that we require a person who is fit for eating.
革玛拉再记一段议论:教这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 的是哪一位 坦拿 呢?因众贤教:人在洁净中宰了逾越的羊羔,此后主人染了不洁:那血当在洁净中弹上,那肉却不可在不洁中吃。这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是照谁的意思呢?
革玛拉再记一段议论:教这一条 《巴拉伊塔》 的是哪一位 坦拿 呢?
The Gemara records a further discussion: Who is the tanna that taught this baraita?
因众贤教:人在洁净中宰了逾越的羊羔,此后主人染了不洁:那血当在洁净中弹上,那肉却不可在不洁中吃。
As the Sages taught: If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb in ritual purity, and after that the owners became ritually impure, the blood should be sprinkled in purity and the meat should not be eaten in impurity.
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是照谁的意思呢?
In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
拉比以利以谢 说:这条 哈拉哈 是有争的,而这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是照 拉比拿单 的意思教的——他执定吃不是骨干——不照众拉比的意思。拉比约哈难 却说:纵说它是照众拉比的意思,也讲得通。这里所论的是什么呢?是会众多半不洁的光景——那样的光景里,众人都同他们连在不洁中也行逾越之礼。
拉比以利以谢 说:这条 哈拉哈 是有争的,而这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是照 拉比拿单 的意思教的——他执定吃不是骨干——不照众拉比的意思。
Rabbi Eliezer said: This halakha is subject to dispute, and it is taught in this baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who holds that eating is not essential, and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
拉比约哈难 却说:纵说它是照众拉比的意思,也讲得通。
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The baraita can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
这里所论的是什么呢?
With what are we dealing here?
是会众多半不洁的光景——那样的光景里,众人都同他们连在不洁中也行逾越之礼。
With a situation in which the majority of the public is ritually impure, in which case everyone agrees that they perform the ritual of the Paschal lamb even in a state of impurity.
革玛拉问:这既是关乎会众的光景,那肉何以不可在不洁中吃呢?(会众多半不洁的时候,他们献得成、也吃得成那逾越的羊羔。)革玛拉答:这一禁是拉比所立的,恐怕主人在弹血以后才染不洁,他们要说:去年我们岂不是也染了不洁、却仍旧吃了逾越的羊羔么?如今我们也要吃。他们却不晓得:去年弹血的时候主人早已不洁,所以那祭可以在不洁中吃;如今弹血的时候主人还是洁净的,是此后才染不洁的——而在洁净中献上的逾越羊羔,纵人人都不洁,也不可在不洁中吃。
革玛拉问:这既是关乎会众的光景,那肉何以不可在不洁中吃呢?
The Gemara asks: If it is in a case involving the public, why is the meat not eaten in a state of impurity?
会众多半不洁的时候,他们献得成、也吃得成那逾越的羊羔。
When the majority of the public is impure, they may sacrifice and even consume the Paschal lamb.
革玛拉答:这一禁是拉比所立的,恐怕主人在弹血以后才染不洁,他们要说:去年我们岂不是也染了不洁、却仍旧吃了逾越的羊羔么?
The Gemara answers that this prohibition is due to a rabbinic decree lest the owners become impure after the sprinkling of the blood, and they will say: Last year, didn’t we become impure, and nevertheless we ate the Paschal lamb?
如今我们也要吃。
Now too, we will eat.
他们却不晓得:去年弹血的时候主人早已不洁,所以那祭可以在不洁中吃。
And they will not know that last year, when the blood was sprinkled the owners were already impure, and therefore the offering could be consumed in a state of impurity.
如今弹血的时候主人还是洁净的,是此后才染不洁的——而在洁净中献上的逾越羊羔,纵人人都不洁,也不可在不洁中吃。
Now, the owners were pure when the blood was sprinkled and became impure only afterward, and a Paschal lamb sacrificed in a state of purity cannot be eaten in a state of impurity, even if everyone is impure.