91b.1
解答
——淫乱的事，就是男与男苟合。
-
——淫乱的事，就是男与男苟合。
promiscuity, i.e., homosexual behavior.
← 逾越节卷总目·第八章 那妇人
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 13 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。
——淫乱的事，就是男与男苟合。
——淫乱的事，就是男与男苟合。
promiscuity, i.e., homosexual behavior.
革玛拉回来论上头只引了一半的那条 《巴拉伊塔》 本身，它的全文是这样：论妇人，在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上，纵她独自一个，也为她宰逾越的羊羔。到第二个 逾越节羔羊 上，我们叫她附在别人身上，就是说她可以同别人报一伙，却不为她一个人宰；这是 拉比犹大 的话。拉比约西 说：论妇人，在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上，纵她独自一个，也为她宰逾越的羊羔；头一个 逾越节羔羊 上纵她独自一个也为她宰，更不必说了。拉比西缅 说：论妇人，在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上我们叫她附在别人身上；到第二个 逾越节羔羊 上，就全然不为她宰。
革玛拉回来论上头只引了一半的那条 《巴拉伊塔》 本身，它的全文是这样：论妇人，在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上，纵她独自一个，也为她宰逾越的羊羔。
The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself, i.e., the baraita partly cited previously, the full version of which states: A woman; on the first Pesaḥ, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself.
到第二个 逾越节羔羊 上，我们叫她附在别人身上，就是说她可以同别人报一伙，却不为她一个人宰；这是 拉比犹大 的话。
And on the second Pesaḥ, we make her ancillary to others, i.e., she may join others in a group registered for a Paschal lamb but we do not slaughter a lamb on her behalf if she is by herself; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
拉比约西 说：论妇人，在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上，纵她独自一个，也为她宰逾越的羊羔。
Rabbi Yosei says: A woman; on the second Pesaḥ, one slaughters the Paschal lamb on her behalf even if she is by herself.
头一个 逾越节羔羊 上纵她独自一个也为她宰，更不必说了。
And needless to say we also slaughter on her behalf even if she is by herself on the first Pesaḥ.
拉比西缅 说：论妇人，在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上我们叫她附在别人身上；到第二个 逾越节羔羊 上，就全然不为她宰。
Rabbi Shimon says: A woman; on the first Pesaḥ we make her ancillary to others, and on the second Pesaḥ we do not slaughter on her behalf at all.
三人所争的是什么呢？革玛拉解道：他们所争的，是论头一个与第二个 逾越节羔羊 那几节经文当怎样解。拉比犹大 所持的是：「按着人数……为羊羔计算」（出埃及记 12:4）那一节里的「人」字，把众人都收进来了，连妇人在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上也算在内。你若说：既如此，第二个 逾越节羔羊 上也该把妇人收进来；可论那在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上没有献、到第二个 逾越节羔羊 上又疏忽不献的人，经上写着「那人要担当他的罪」（民数记 9:13），这就显明：男人不献第二个 逾越节羔羊 要担罪，妇人却不担罪。
三人所争的是什么呢？
With regard to what do they disagree?
革玛拉解道：他们所争的，是论头一个与第二个 逾越节羔羊 那几节经文当怎样解。拉比犹大 所持的是：「按着人数……为羊羔计算」（出埃及记 12:4）那一节里的「人」字，把众人都收进来了，连妇人在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上也算在内。
The Gemara explains that they disagree about how to interpret the various verses that refer to the first and second Pesaḥ: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the use of the word souls in the verse: “According to the number of the souls…you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4), includes everyone, and even women, in the first Pesaḥ.
你若说：既如此，第二个 逾越节羔羊 上也该把妇人收进来；可论那在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上没有献、到第二个 逾越节羔羊 上又疏忽不献的人，经上写着「那人要担当他的罪」（民数记 9:13），这就显明：男人不献第二个 逾越节羔羊 要担罪，妇人却不担罪。
And if you say that if so, even on the second Pesaḥ, women should also be included, but it is written with regard to one who had not offered a Paschal lamb on the first Pesaḥ and then neglected to bring one on the second Pesaḥ: “That man shall bear his sin” (Numbers 9:13), which indicates that a man, yes, he is liable for not having brought a Paschal lamb on the second Pesaḥ, but a woman, no, she is not liable.
你若说：既如此，妇人在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上就该全然撇在外头，连附在一伙里也不可，这话也不对，因经上说：「要照逾越节的一切律例守这节」（民数记 9:12）。这一节把头一个 逾越节羔羊 与第二个相比，所以妇人仍可以单单附在一伙里算数。
你若说：既如此，妇人在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上就该全然撇在外头，连附在一伙里也不可，这话也不对，因经上说：「要照逾越节的一切律例守这节」（民数记 9:12）。
And if you say that if so, a woman should be totally excluded from participating in the second Pesaḥ, and even in a group in an ancillary manner on the second Pesaḥ she should have no part, this is not correct, because the verse states: “According to the entire statute of the Paschal lamb they shall offer it” (Numbers 9:12).
这一节把头一个 逾越节羔羊 与第二个相比，所以妇人仍可以单单附在一伙里算数。
The verse compares the first Pesaḥ to the second, and it is therefore effective to enable women to be included in a group in a merely ancillary manner.
至于 拉比约西，他的缘由是什么呢？论头一个 逾越节羔羊，经上写着「按着人数」，连妇人也收在内。论第二个 逾越节羔羊，经上写着：「那洁净而不行路的人若推辞不守逾越节，那人要从民中剪除」（民数记 9:13）。「人」这个字连妇人也收在内。那么那一节末了说「那人要担当他的罪」，看去像是单说男人不守第二个 逾越节羔羊 才担罪，这一句又是要撇开哪一款呢？是要撇开未成年的人，免他因没有入逾越的羊羔而受 剪除 之罚。
至于 拉比约西，他的缘由是什么呢？
And Rabbi Yosei, what is the reason for his opinion?
论头一个 逾越节羔羊 ，经上写着「按着人数」，连妇人也收在内。
As it is written with regard to the first Pesaḥ: “According to the number of the souls,” which includes even a woman.
论第二个 逾越节羔羊 ，经上写着：「那洁净而不行路的人若推辞不守逾越节，那人要从民中剪除」（民数记 9:13）。
And it is written with regard to the second Pesaḥ: “The man who is ritually pure, and is not on a journey, and refrains from offering the Paschal lamb, that same soul shall be cut off from among his people” (Numbers 9:13).
「人」这个字连妇人也收在内。
The word soul includes even women.
那么那一节末了说「那人要担当他的罪」，看去像是单说男人不守第二个 逾越节羔羊 才担罪，这一句又是要撇开哪一款呢？
But if so, the conclusion of that verse, which states: “That man shall bear his sin,” which appears to emphasize that specifically a man is liable for not participating in the second Pesaḥ, is there to exclude what case?
是要撇开未成年的人，免他因没有入逾越的羊羔而受 剪除 之罚。
It is there to exclude a minor who did not participate in the Paschal lamb from the punishment of karet.
至于 拉比西缅，他的缘由是什么呢？论头一个 逾越节羔羊，经上写着「人」字。这就教明：男人可以单为他一个献逾越的羊羔，妇人却不可。你若说：既如此，妇人就该全然撇在外头、连附在一伙里也不可，这话也不对，因经上说「按着人数」，那自然把妇人收在内，所以妇人仍可以附在一伙里算数。
至于 拉比西缅，他的缘由是什么呢？
And Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason for his opinion?
论头一个 逾越节羔羊 ，经上写着「人」字。这就教明：男人可以单为他一个献逾越的羊羔，妇人却不可。
It is written in a verse concerning the first Pesaḥ “man.” This teaches that a man, yes, a Paschal lamb may be brought on his behalf alone, but a woman, no.
你若说：既如此，妇人就该全然撇在外头、连附在一伙里也不可，这话也不对，因经上说「按着人数」，那自然把妇人收在内，所以妇人仍可以附在一伙里算数。
And if you say that if so, a woman should be totally excluded from participating even in a group in an ancillary manner, this is not correct, because the verse states: “According to the number of the souls,” which certainly includes women, and it is therefore effective to enable women to be included in a group in an ancillary manner.
你若说：照这样，妇人在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上也该附在一伙里算数，这话不对，因托拉把妇人从第二个 逾越节羔羊 上撇开了，如经上写着：「那人要担当他的罪。」这就显明：男人是，妇人不是。那一节到底是把妇人从哪一样上撇开呢？你若说是从守第二个 逾越节羔羊 这一分上撇开，那是不通的。她在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上既没有这一分，第二个 逾越节羔羊 上她没有这一分，还用得着说么？这是明摆着的，因第二个 逾越节羔羊 原不过是为那些疏忽了头一个的人再开一次门。倒不如说：那一节分明是连附在一伙里算数也把妇人撇开了。
你若说：照这样，妇人在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上也该附在一伙里算数，这话不对，因托拉把妇人从第二个 逾越节羔羊 上撇开了，如经上写着：「那人要担当他的罪。」这就显明：男人是，妇人不是。
And if you say that according to this, even on the second Pesaḥ women should be able to participate as part of a group, this is not correct, because the Torah excludes women from participating on the second Pesaḥ, as it is written: “That man shall bear his sin.” This indicates that a man, yes; a woman, no.
那一节到底是把妇人从哪一样上撇开呢？
From what precisely does the verse exclude women?
你若说是从守第二个 逾越节羔羊 这一分上撇开，那是不通的。
If you say it is from the obligation to participate in the second Pesaḥ, this cannot be.
她在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上既没有这一分，第二个 逾越节羔羊 上她没有这一分，还用得着说么？
Since now, on the first Pesaḥ, a woman has no obligation, on the second Pesaḥ is it necessary to say that a woman is not obligated?
这是明摆着的，因第二个 逾越节羔羊 原不过是为那些疏忽了头一个的人再开一次门。
This is obvious, since the second Pesaḥ exists only as a second opportunity for those who neglected to participate in the first Pesaḥ.
倒不如说：那一节分明是连附在一伙里算数也把妇人撇开了。
Rather, is it not clear that the verse excludes women from participating even in an ancillary fashion?
革玛拉要辨明 拉比西缅 说妇人在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上也撇在外头，出处何在。拉比西缅 论头一个 逾越节羔羊 所说那写着「人」字的一节，究竟是哪一节呢？我们若说他所指的是「各人要按着父家取羊羔，一家一只」（出埃及记 12:3），那是不对的，因那一节他另有用处——要拿它推出 拉比以撒 所说的那一层，他说：我们从那一节学到，惟有成年的人才能代别人得着一物，未成年的人却不能代别人得着。
革玛拉要辨明 拉比西缅 说妇人在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上也撇在外头，出处何在。
The Gemara clarifies the source for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that women are excluded also from the first Pesaḥ.
拉比西缅 论头一个 逾越节羔羊 所说那写着「人」字的一节，究竟是哪一节呢？
And what is the verse that employs the term “man” that Rabbi Shimon spoke of with regard to the first Pesaḥ?
我们若说他所指的是「各人要按着父家取羊羔，一家一只」（出埃及记 12:3），那是不对的，因那一节他另有用处——要拿它推出 拉比以撒 所说的那一层，他说：我们从那一节学到，惟有成年的人才能代别人得着一物，未成年的人却不能代别人得着。
If we say that he is referring to the verse: “They shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household” (Exodus 12:3), this is incorrect, because he needs that verse for the derivation of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: We learn from that verse that only a man, i.e., an adult, can acquire an object on behalf of others; but a minor cannot acquire on behalf of others.
倒不如说，拉比西缅 这条 哈拉哈 是从「按着各人的饭量为羊羔计算」（出埃及记 12:4）那一节推出来的罢。这却难通。拉比约西 既执 拉比西缅 的意思、说逾越的羊羔不可献在私坛上，料想 拉比西缅 也执 拉比约西 的意思、说逾越的羊羔可以为一个人宰。既如此，拉比西缅 正要拿「按着各人的饭量」那一节去教「我们可以为一个人宰逾越的羊羔」，因那一节正是 拉比约西 那条 哈拉哈 的出处。
倒不如说，拉比西缅 这条 哈拉哈 是从「按着各人的饭量为羊羔计算」（出埃及记 12:4）那一节推出来的罢。
Rather, perhaps Rabbi Shimon derived his halakha from the verse: “According to every man’s eating you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4).
这却难通。
This is problematic.
拉比约西 既执 拉比西缅 的意思、说逾越的羊羔不可献在私坛上，料想 拉比西缅 也执 拉比约西 的意思、说逾越的羊羔可以为一个人宰。
Since Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a Paschal lamb cannot be offered on an improvised altar, presumably Rabbi Shimon also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that a Paschal lamb can be slaughtered for an individual.
既如此，拉比西缅 正要拿「按着各人的饭量」那一节去教「我们可以为一个人宰逾越的羊羔」，因那一节正是 拉比约西 那条 哈拉哈 的出处。
If so, Rabbi Shimon needs that verse, “according to every man’s eating,” in order to teach that we may slaughter the Paschal lamb for an individual, since that verse is the source of Rabbi Yosei’s halakha.
革玛拉为 拉比西缅 分诉，说他果然是拿那一节作他论头一个 逾越节羔羊 那一说的出处：拉比西缅 尽可对你说：若果然如此、那一节单是要教 拉比约西 论私坛那条 哈拉哈，托拉本只消写「按着他的饭量」就是了——那是单数的说法，已显明逾越的羊羔可以为一个人宰。那么多写「人」这个字，又有什么用意呢？可见你从那一节学得出两条 哈拉哈 来：一是逾越的羊羔可以为一个人宰，二是那一个人须是男人，不可是妇人。
革玛拉为 拉比西缅 分诉，说他果然是拿那一节作他论头一个 逾越节羔羊 那一说的出处：拉比西缅 尽可对你说：若果然如此、那一节单是要教 拉比约西 论私坛那条 哈拉哈，托拉本只消写「按着他的饭量」就是了——那是单数的说法，已显明逾越的羊羔可以为一个人宰。
The Gemara justifies that Rabbi Shimon does indeed use the verse as the source of his opinion with regard to the first Pesaḥ: Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: If so, if it were true that the verse was only meant to teach Rabbi Yosei’s halakha concerning improvised altars, the Torah should have simply written: According to his eating, which is phrased in the singular and therefore indicates that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual.
那么多写「人」这个字，又有什么用意呢？
What then is the significance of the additional term “man”?
可见你从那一节学得出两条 哈拉哈 来：一是逾越的羊羔可以为一个人宰，二是那一个人须是男人，不可是妇人。
It must be that you learn from the verse two separate halakhot, that the Paschal lamb may be slaughtered for an individual and that it must be for a man and not a woman.
拉比以利亚撒 说过：妇人在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上这一分是本分，在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上是可行可不行的，且越过安息日——这话是合哪一位的意思呢？革玛拉先问他这话本身通不通：第二个 逾越节羔羊 在妇人既是可行可不行的，何以又越过安息日呢？倒不如把他的话改一改，说：妇人在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上是可行可不行的，在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上是本分，且越过安息日。这一断是合哪一位的意思呢？是合 拉比犹大 的意思，就是上头所说的。
拉比以利亚撒 说过：妇人在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上这一分是本分，在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上是可行可不行的，且越过安息日——这话是合哪一位的意思呢？
In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Elazar said: A woman’s participation in the first Pesaḥ is mandatory, and her participation in the second Pesaḥ is optional and overrides Shabbat?
革玛拉先问他这话本身通不通：第二个 逾越节羔羊 在妇人既是可行可不行的，何以又越过安息日呢？
Before resolving this question, the Gemara questions whether Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is even reasonable: If offering the second Pesaḥ is optional for a woman, why does it override Shabbat?
倒不如把他的话改一改，说：妇人在第二个 逾越节羔羊 上是可行可不行的，在头一个 逾越节羔羊 上是本分，且越过安息日。
Rather, emend his statement and say: A woman’s participation in the second Pesaḥ is optional, and her participation in the first Pesaḥ is mandatory and overrides Shabbat.
这一断是合哪一位的意思呢？
In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling?
是合 拉比犹大 的意思，就是上头所说的。
It is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda, as stated previously.
拉比雅各 传 拉比约哈难 的话说：我们不为逾越的羊羔立一伙全由归化之人凑成的，恐怕他们在这事上过于讲究，白白把那祭弄成不合式的。归化的人守律往往格外热心，或因不明底细，在这祭所要的几样以外又添出细节来，以致白白把它弄成不合式的。
拉比雅各 传 拉比约哈难 的话说：我们不为逾越的羊羔立一伙全由归化之人凑成的，恐怕他们在这事上过于讲究，白白把那祭弄成不合式的。
Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We do not make a group for the Paschal lamb that is composed entirely of converts, because perhaps they will be overly meticulous with it and cause it to become unnecessarily disqualified.
归化的人守律往往格外热心，或因不明底细，在这祭所要的几样以外又添出细节来，以致白白把它弄成不合式的。
Converts can be especially zealous in their observance, and out of ignorance may cause an offering to be unnecessarily disqualified by adding extra details to the requirements of the offering.
众贤在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教道：逾越节头一夜吃逾越的羊羔、 无酵饼 与苦菜，是本分。从此以后，就是那余下的几日，是可行可不行的。拉比西缅 说：在男人是本分，在妇人是可行可不行的。
众贤在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教道：逾越节头一夜吃逾越的羊羔、 无酵饼 与苦菜，是本分。
The Sages taught in a baraita: Eating the Paschal lamb and matza and bitter herbs on the first night of Passover is mandatory.
从此以后，就是那余下的几日，是可行可不行的。
From here on, i.e., the remaining days, it is optional.
拉比西缅 说：在男人是本分，在妇人是可行可不行的。
Rabbi Shimon says: For men it is mandatory and for women it is optional.
革玛拉要辨明头一位 坦拿 末一句究竟指着什么说：那条 哈拉哈 说头一夜以后是可行可不行的，是就哪一样说的呢？你若说是就逾越的羊羔说的——那羊羔在七日之内还有么？断乎没有；既如此，说头一夜以后吃它是本分还是可行可不行，就不成话了。倒不如说是就 无酵饼 与苦菜说的；可那样一来，那条 《巴拉伊塔》 末一句——拉比西缅 说「在男人是本分，在妇人是可行可不行的」——你又要怎么讲呢？末一句若单指 无酵饼 与苦菜，拉比西缅 岂不成了说妇人不必吃这两样么？
革玛拉要辨明头一位 坦拿 末一句究竟指着什么说：那条 哈拉哈 说头一夜以后是可行可不行的，是就哪一样说的呢？
The Gemara clarifies the precise intention of the last clause of the first tanna: To which part of the baraita does the halakha that eating after the first night is optional refer?
你若说是就逾越的羊羔说的——那羊羔在七日之内还有么？
If you say it is referring to the Paschal lamb, is there a Paschal lamb all seven days?
断乎没有；既如此，说头一夜以后吃它是本分还是可行可不行，就不成话了。
Certainly not, and consequently it does not make sense to speak of whether eating it is mandatory or optional after the first night.
倒不如说是就 无酵饼 与苦菜说的；可那样一来，那条 《巴拉伊塔》 末一句——拉比西缅 说「在男人是本分，在妇人是可行可不行的」——你又要怎么讲呢？
Rather, if you say that it is referring to matza and bitter herbs, how will you say and explain accordingly the last part of the baraita, i.e., Rabbi Shimon says: For men it is mandatory and for women it is optional.
末一句若单指 无酵饼 与苦菜，拉比西缅 岂不成了说妇人不必吃这两样么？
If the second clause is referring only to matza and bitter herbs, then Rabbi Shimon would appear to be saying that women are exempt from eating them.
这就难通了：拉比西缅 岂不领 拉比以利亚撒 所说的那一层么？他说妇人按托拉的律有吃 无酵饼 这一分，虽那是一条系着时候的当行之命；因经上说：「不可同吃有酵的饼；七日之内要吃无酵饼」（申命记 16:3），这就教明：凡系着「不可吃有酵之饼」那条禁令的，也一样系着「当起来吃 无酵饼 」那条当行之命。那些妇人既系着不可吃有酵之饼那条禁令——因妇人本当守托拉一切的禁令——就也系着当起来吃 无酵饼 那条当行之命。可见 拉比西缅 那一句并不是就 无酵饼 说的。
这就难通了：拉比西缅 岂不领 拉比以利亚撒 所说的那一层么？他说妇人按托拉的律有吃 无酵饼 这一分，虽那是一条系着时候的当行之命；因经上说：「不可同吃有酵的饼；七日之内要吃无酵饼」（申命记 16:3），这就教明：凡系着「不可吃有酵之饼」那条禁令的，也一样系着「当起来吃 无酵饼 」那条当行之命。
This is difficult: Does Rabbi Shimon not accept that which Rabbi Elazar said, that women are obligated in the command of eating matza by Torah law, despite the fact that it is a time-bound, positive mitzva, as it is stated: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shall you eat matzot with it” (Deuteronomy 16:3), which teaches that all who are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread are also subject to the positive mitzva to arise and eat matza?
那些妇人既系着不可吃有酵之饼那条禁令——因妇人本当守托拉一切的禁令——就也系着当起来吃 无酵饼 那条当行之命。
And those women, since they are subject to the prohibition to not eat leavened bread, since women are required to observe all the prohibitions of the Torah, they are subject also to the positive mitzva to arise and eat matza.
可见 拉比西缅 那一句并不是就 无酵饼 说的。
Clearly, Rabbi Shimon was not referring to matza.
倒不如说那条 《巴拉伊塔》 当这样读：逾越节头一日吃逾越的羊羔、 无酵饼 与苦菜，是本分。从此以后，就是逾越节余下的几日，吃 无酵饼 与苦菜是可行可不行的。拉比西缅 说：逾越的羊羔在男人是本分，在妇人是可行可不行的——这正合他上头所说的意思。
倒不如说那条 《巴拉伊塔》 当这样读：逾越节头一日吃逾越的羊羔、 无酵饼 与苦菜，是本分。
Rather, say instead that the baraita should be read as follows: Eating the Paschal lamb, matza, and bitter herbs on the first day of Passover is mandatory.
从此以后，就是逾越节余下的几日，吃 无酵饼 与苦菜是可行可不行的。
From here on, i.e., the remaining days of Passover, it is optional to eat matza and bitter herbs.
拉比西缅 说：逾越的羊羔在男人是本分，在妇人是可行可不行的——这正合他上头所说的意思。
Rabbi Shimon says: The Paschal lamb is mandatory for men and optional for women, in accordance with his opinion stated previously.
居丧之痛中的人，就是至亲死的那一日正在守丧的，不可吃祭物。按托拉的律，这条禁令单管死的那一日，到了次夜，祭物本是可吃的。众贤所断的却把居丧之痛的时候延到那一夜。虽然如此，居丧之痛中的人仍当在晚上浸身、吃他那只逾越的羊羔。别样的祭物他却仍不可吃。至于那听见死讯的人——就是他至亲死了三十日以上，他才晓得——他所守的居丧之痛，是众贤所断的一层。
居丧之痛中的人，就是至亲死的那一日正在守丧的，不可吃祭物。
An acute mourner, i.e., a mourner on the day of the death of an immediate relative, is prohibited from eating sacrificial food.
按托拉的律，这条禁令单管死的那一日，到了次夜，祭物本是可吃的。
By Torah law, the prohibition applies only to the day of death itself, but it is permitted to partake of sacrificial food on the following night.
众贤所断的却把居丧之痛的时候延到那一夜。
By rabbinic decree, the period of acute mourning is extended to include the night as well.
虽然如此，居丧之痛中的人仍当在晚上浸身、吃他那只逾越的羊羔。
Despite this, an acute mourner immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening.
别样的祭物他却仍不可吃。
But he may still not eat other sacrificial food.
至于那听见死讯的人——就是他至亲死了三十日以上，他才晓得——他所守的居丧之痛，是众贤所断的一层。
However, one who hears about the death of his dead, i.e., he discovers that one of his immediate relatives died more than thirty days after the death, his status of acute mourning applies on a rabbinic level.