← 盛日卷总目·第六章 两只公山羊
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 6 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。
续 拉比约西：第二只若比它好，就带第二只。可见照 拉比约西，两只同时合献时，当优先头一只，除非第二只更好。
第二只若比它好，他就带那一只。
And if the second one was superior to it, he brings that one.
这就表明：照 拉比约西 的意见，两只牲口同时合献时，当优先用头一只，除非第二只更好。
This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yosei, when the two animals become fit for sacrifice at the same time, preference should be given to the first one unless the second one is superior.
拉瓦 说：密释纳的措辞精确地合乎 拉夫，《巴拉伊塔》 的措辞精确地合乎 拉比约哈难。密释纳合乎 拉夫，因它教：若死的是归神的，第二次落着归神之阄的顶它——另一只照旧站着，地位不变，合乎 拉夫。
拉瓦 说：密释纳的措辞精确地合乎 拉夫 的意见，《巴拉伊塔》 的措辞精确地合乎 拉比约哈难 的意见。
Rava said: The language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and the language of the baraita is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
革玛拉解说：密释纳的措辞精确地合乎 拉夫 的意见，因为它教导说：死的若是那要献给神的，第二次落着「归神」之阄的那只公山羊，就顶它的位置。
The Gemara explains: The language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as it teaches: If the one to be sacrificed to God died, that goat upon which the lot for God was drawn shall stand in its stead.
另一只公山羊则照它先前那样站着，就是说它的地位不变，合乎 拉夫 的意见。
And the other goat stands as it stood before, i.e., its status does not change, in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
《巴拉伊塔》 的措辞精确地合乎 拉比约哈难，因它教：密释纳说第二只放去吃草，我不知是头一对的第二只还是第二对的第二只；经上说「要活着安置在耶和华面前，用以赎罪，打发人送到旷野去归与阿撒泻勒」（利未记 16:10），所说的不是那另一只已死的公山羊。何以见得？经上说「要活着安置」是将来时，指明不是那已与死去的另一只一同站过的那只。
《巴拉伊塔》 的措辞精确地合乎 拉比约哈难 的意见，因为它教导说：密释纳说第二只公山羊被放去吃草，我不知道它所指的是头一对的第二只，还是第二对的第二只。
The language of the baraita is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as it teaches: When the mishna says that the second goat is left to graze, I do not know whether it is referring to the second goat of the first pair, or the second goat of the second pair.
经上说：「要活着安置在耶和华面前，用以赎罪，打发人送到旷野去归与 阿撒泻勒」（利未记 16:10），这所指的不是那另一只已经死了的公山羊。
When the verse states: “It shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:10), it is not referring to the goat whose counterpart died.
革玛拉问：从哪里可以推出这一层？就是说，这节经文怎样表明这一点？
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred, i.e., how does the verse indicate this point?
革玛拉答：经上说：「要活着安置」，用的是将来时，这就指明它所指的不是那已经与它死了的另一只一同站过的那只。
The Gemara answers that it states: “It shall be stood alive,” in the future tense, indicating that it is not referring to the one that already stood with its counterpart that died.
希伯来原文 ya'amad（要被安置）的将来时是本段推理的关键，中文动词无时态，只能加「要」字示意。
密释纳说：拉比犹大 又说：献给神的那只之血若在弹之前洒了，放走的那只当任其死去；放走的那只若死了，献给神的那只之血当倒掉，另带两只拈阄。照 拉比约哈难——作废的牲口永远被弃，即便作废的缘故已不在——放走的那只因此任其死去，说得通；但照 拉夫——牲口不永远被弃——放走的那只为何任其死去？
我们在密释纳里学过：拉比犹大 又说：献给神的那只公山羊，它的血若在弹之前洒了，那放走的公山羊就当任其死去。
We learned in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat is left to die.
照样，放走的那只公山羊若死了，献给神的那只公山羊的血就当倒掉，另带两只公山羊来拈阄。
Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled, and two other goats are brought and lots are drawn.
照 拉比约哈难 的意见——他说变得不合献的牲口永远被弃，就是在当初使之作废的缘故已不存在之后也是如此——为这个缘故，放走的公山羊任其死去，这倒说得通。
Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that animals that become disqualified are permanently rejected, even after the source of their initial disqualification is no longer present, due to that reason the scapegoat is left to die.
但照 拉夫 的意见——他说牲口不永远被弃——放走的公山羊为什么要任其死去呢？
However, according to Rav, who said that animals are not permanently rejected, why is the scapegoat left to die?
拉夫 可以说：我不是照 拉比犹大 说的，是照众拉比说的。拉比犹大 以为作废的牲口永远被弃、会众的赎罪祭可任其死去；众拉比两样都不同意，以为作废的牲口并非永远作废，会众作废的赎罪祭不任其死去，而任其吃草到有残疾再卖掉。拉夫 主张头一对剩下的那只要献，是照众拉比「作废的牲口不永远被弃」之说。
拉夫 可以对你说：我不是照 拉比犹大 的意见说我的意见的。
Rav could have said to you: I did not state my opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
我是照众拉比的意见说我的意见的。
I stated my opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
拉比犹大 认为作废的牲口永远被弃，而会众的赎罪祭可以任其死去。
Rabbi Yehuda holds that disqualified animals are permanently rejected and communal sin-offerings may be left to die.
众拉比在这两件事上都不同意，他们认为作废的牲口并非永远作废，会众作废的赎罪祭也不任其死去，而是任它们吃草，直到有了残疾，然后卖掉。
The Rabbis disagree with both issues and hold that disqualified animals are not permanently disqualified, and communal sin-offerings that are disqualified are not left to die, but rather graze until they develop a blemish, and then are sold.
拉夫 主张头一对中剩下的那只公山羊要献上，他是照众拉比的意见说的，就是作废的牲口不永远被弃。
Rav, who holds that the remaining goat from the first pair is sacrificed, states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., that disqualified animals are not permanently rejected.
革玛拉评说：照 拉夫，拉比犹大 与众拉比所争的是作废的牲口是否永远被弃，说得通；但照 拉比约哈难——他以为照众拉比头一对剩下的那只也放去吃草——拉比犹大 与众拉比所争的是什么原则？拉瓦 说：我们岂不是说过，密释纳的措辞精确地合乎 拉夫，要照 拉比约哈难 解密释纳的措辞是难的？
革玛拉评说：照 拉夫 的意见，拉比犹大 与众拉比所争的是作废的牲口是否永远被弃，这倒说得通。
The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav, Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether disqualified animals are permanently rejected.
但照 拉比约哈难 的意见——他认为即便照众拉比，头一对中剩下的那只公山羊也是放去吃草的——拉比犹大 与众拉比是在什么原则上相争呢？
However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that even according to the Rabbis the remaining goat of the first pair is left to graze, with regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree?
拉瓦 说：我们岂不是说过：密释纳的措辞精确地合乎 拉夫 的意见，要照 拉比约哈难 的意见来解说密释纳的措辞是难的？
Rava said: Didn’t we say that the language of the mishna is precise in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and it is difficult to explain the mishna’s language in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan?
密释纳说会众的赎罪祭不任其死去，可见在这样的情形里个人的赎罪祭任其死去。照 拉比约哈难（头一对剩下的放去吃草到有残疾），可以说相类情形下个人的赎罪祭要处死，合乎 拉比阿巴 引 拉夫 之说。因 拉比阿巴 引 拉夫 说：（下一面接续）
我们在密释纳里学过：会众的赎罪祭不任其死去。
We learned in the mishna that a communal sin-offering is not left to die.
这就表明：在这样的情形里，个人的赎罪祭是任其死去的。
This indicates that the sin-offering of an individual in a case like this is left to die.
照 拉比约哈难 的意见——他认为头一对中剩下的那只公山羊要放去吃草，直到有了残疾——这倒可以解说：在相类的情形里，个人的赎罪祭要被处死，合乎 拉比阿巴 奉 拉夫 之名所说的意见。
Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the remaining goat from the first pair is left to graze until it develops a blemish, it can be explained that the sin-offering of an individual in a comparable case is killed, in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abba said that Rav said.
因为 拉比阿巴 说，拉夫 说：
As Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: