← 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 5 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 拉夫：众人都承认：人指定作赎罪祭的牲口丢了，另指定一只替它，后来头一只找到了，他若借那没丢的（第二只）得了赎，那丢了的就任其死去。
众人都承认：人指定作赎罪祭的牲口若丢了，他就另指定一只来替它，然后又找到了头一只；他若借那没有丢的——就是第二只——得了赎，那丢了的一只就任其死去。
Everyone concedes that if the animal one designated as a sin-offering became lost, and he designated another animal in its stead and then found the first animal, if he gained atonement through the one that was not lost, i.e., the second one, the one that was lost is left to die.
但照 拉夫——头一对剩下的那只要献上——那只从未作废，第二对多出的那只是为与剩下那只同一用途而指定的，好比人为保险指定两个赎罪祭，丢了一个还能带另一个。拉比奥沙亚 说：众人都同意，人为保险分出两个赎罪祭，借其一得赎，另一个任其吃草直到不合用——可见在这情形里连个人的赎罪祭也不任其死去。
但照 拉夫 的意见——他断定头一对中剩下的那只公山羊是要献上的——那只公山羊从未作废过，第二对中多出的那只，是为着与剩下那只同一的用途而指定的。
However, according to the opinion of Rav, who rules that the remaining goat from the first pair is the one that is sacrificed, that goat was never disqualified, and the extra goat from the second pair was designated to serve the same purpose as the remaining goat.
这好比一个人为保险而指定两个赎罪祭，好叫他若丢了其中一个，仍能带另一个。
This is like one who designates two sin-offerings as a guarantee, so that if he loses one of them he will still be able to bring the other one.
拉比奥沙亚 说：众人都同意，人若为保险分出两个赎罪祭，他借其中一个得赎，第二个就任它吃草，直到它不合用。
And Rabbi Oshaya said that all agree that if one separated two sin-offerings as a guarantee, he gains atonement through one of them, and the second is left to graze until it becomes unfit.
因此在这情形里，就是个人的赎罪祭也不任其死去。
Consequently, even the sin-offering of an individual is not left to die in this case.
革玛拉答：既然 拉瓦 说 拉夫 依 拉比约西——诫命当用头一只行——人指定第二只时，它从一开始就可比于「丢失而分出」的祭；那样，若是个人的赎罪祭，第二只就任其死去。
革玛拉答：既然 拉瓦 说 拉夫 依的是 拉比约西 的意见——拉比约西 说诫命当用头一只牲口来行——那么人指定第二只牲口时，它从一开始就被看作可比于一个因丢失而分出的祭。
The Gemara answers: Since Rava said that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the mitzva should be performed with the first animal, when one designates the second animal, it is considered from the beginning to be comparable to an offering separated in order to be lost.
在那情形里，若是个人的赎罪祭，第二只牲口就任其死去。
In that case, if it is the sin-offering of an individual, the second animal is left to die.
密释纳说 拉比犹大 讲：它当任其死去。照 拉比约哈难（头一对的第二只放去吃草），拉比犹大 说它任其死去，他仍可借第二对的第二只得赎，说得通。
我们在密释纳里学过：拉比犹大 说：它当任其死去。
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: It should be left to die.
照 拉比约哈难 的意见——他说头一对中的第二只公山羊当放去吃草——照 拉比犹大 说它当任其死去，这人仍可借第二对中的第二只公山羊得赎，这倒说得通。
Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the second goat of the first pair should be left to graze, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said it should be left to die, he nonetheless gains atonement with the second goat of the second pair.
但照 拉夫（第二对的第二只放去吃草），照 拉比犹大 它任其死去，那么照 拉比犹大 两只都不能献：头一只不能献，因他以为作废的牲口永远被弃；第二只须任其死去。他借哪一只得赎？答：你以为 拉比犹大 说任其死去的是第二对的第二只么？他说的是头一对的第二只；第二对的第二只是献上的。
但照 拉夫 的意见——他说第二对中的第二只公山羊当放去吃草——而照 拉比犹大 它当任其死去，那么照 拉比犹大，两只公山羊都不能献：头一只公山羊不能献，因为 拉比犹大 认为作废的牲口永远被弃；第二只公山羊又须任其死去。
However, according to Rav, who said that the second goat of the second pair should be left to graze, and according to Rabbi Yehuda it should be left to die, then according to Rabbi Yehuda he cannot sacrifice either of the two goats: The first goat may not be sacrificed because Rabbi Yehuda holds that disqualified animals are permanently rejected, and the second goat must be left to die.
他要借哪一只公山羊得赎呢？
With which goat will he gain atonement?
革玛拉答：你以为 拉比犹大 说「当任其死去」时，所指的是第二对中的第二只公山羊么？
The Gemara answers: Do you maintain that Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the second pair when he said it should be left to die?
拉比犹大 所指的是头一对中的第二只公山羊。
Rabbi Yehuda was referring to the second goat of the first pair.
第二对中的第二只公山羊是要献上的。
The second goat of the second pair is sacrificed.
也有人从密释纳里 拉比犹大 的话提出这驳难：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。
也有人从密释纳里 拉比犹大 的话提出这一驳难。
There are those who raised this objection from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna.
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。
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 拉夫，密释纳前一句所争在会众的赎罪祭（众拉比说第二只去吃草，拉比犹大 说任其死去）；后一句所争在作废的牲口是否永远被弃（众拉比说不被弃，头一只献上；拉比犹大 说被弃，头一只任其死去、第二只献上），说得通。但照 拉比约哈难，密释纳的「又」字表明什么？连众拉比也同意头一对剩下的那只永远作废。革玛拉评说：这确是难处。
照 拉夫 的意见，密释纳的前一句里，他们所争的是会众的赎罪祭，这倒说得通。
Granted, according to Rav, in the first clause of the mishna they disagree with regard to a communal sin-offering.
照众拉比，第二只牲口任其吃草；照 拉比犹大，它任其死去。
According to the Rabbis the second animal is left to graze, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda it is left to die.
后一句里，他们所争的是变得不合献的牲口是否永远被弃。
And in the latter clause they disagree with regard to whether animals that become disqualified as offerings are permanently rejected.
照众拉比，它们不被弃，所以头一只公山羊献上；拉比犹大 则认为它们被弃，所以头一只公山羊任其死去，第二只公山羊献上。
According to the Rabbis they are not rejected and therefore the first goat is sacrificed, whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds that they are rejected and therefore the first goat is left to die and the second goat is sacrificed.
但照 拉比约哈难 的意见，密释纳里「又」这一语表明什么呢？
However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does the term: And furthermore, in the mishna indicate?
连众拉比也同意头一对中剩下的那只公山羊是永远作废的。
Even the Rabbis agree that the remaining goat from the first pair is permanently disqualified.
革玛拉评说：的确，这是一个难处。
The Gemara comments that indeed, this is difficult.
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。革玛拉问：献给神的那只之血洒了、放走的那只任其死去，说得通，因血的诫命尚未照规定弹过、尚未行成。
密释纳教导：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。
§ It was taught in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat should be left to die.
照样，放走的公山羊若死了，献给神的那只公山羊的血就当倒掉。
Similarly, if the scapegoat dies, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled.
革玛拉问：献给神的那只公山羊的血若洒了，放走的公山羊就当任其死去，这倒说得通，因为血的诫命还没有行成——它没有照规定的方式弹过。
The Gemara asks: Granted, if the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled, the scapegoat should be left to die, as the mitzva of the blood has not yet been performed, as it was not sprinkled in the prescribed manner.
但放走的那只若死了，献给神的那只之血为何要倒掉？放走之羊的诫命已行成了——放走之羊惟一缺之不可的是拈阄，祭司已行过；送到阿撒泻勒、推下山崖是由指派的人办的，虽是 按理 的规定，却非缺之不可；事后若那羊以别的方式死了，本分也尽了。
但放走的公山羊若死了，献给神的那只公山羊的血为什么要倒掉呢？
However, if the scapegoat dies, why should the blood of the goat sacrificed to God be spilled?
放走之公山羊的诫命已经行成了。
The mitzva of the scapegoat has already been performed.
论到放走的公山羊，惟一缺之不可的细节是拈阄，而祭司已经行过了。
The only essential detail with regard to the scapegoat is the lottery, which has already been performed by the priest.
把它送到 阿撒泻勒、把它推下山崖，是由一个指派的人来办的；这些虽是 按理 所规定的，却不是缺之不可的。
Sending it to Azazel and pushing it off a cliff are carried out by an appointed person and while they are prescribed ab initio, they are not indispensable.
事后，那公山羊若以别的方式死了，本分也已经尽了。
After the fact, if the goat dies in some other way, the obligation has been fulfilled.
拉比雅奈 学舍的众贤说：经上说「但那拈阄归与阿撒泻勒的羊，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）——放走的公山羊要活到什么时候？直到它另一只的血弹了为止；它若在此之前死了，那血就作废。
拉比雅奈 学舍的众贤说：经上说：「但那拈阄归与 阿撒泻勒 的羊，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）。
The Sages of the house of Rabbi Yannai said that the verse states: “But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be stood alive before the Lord, to make atonement over him, to send him away to Azazel into the wilderness” (Leviticus 16:10).
放走的公山羊要活到什么时候呢？
Until when must the scapegoat be alive?
要活到它另一只的血弹了的时候；它若在那以前死了，那血就作废。
Until the blood of its counterpart is sprinkled, and if it dies before, the blood is disqualified.
我们在别处的密释纳（舍客勒卷 2:1）学过：一城的居民托差人把他们的舍客勒送到圣殿，路上被偷或丢了——若钱已被「收取」（新一年祭用的钱币已在被偷之前从库房取出），差人向圣殿司库起誓，说他们没有擅用那些舍客勒，而是在不知情或被强夺时失去的；因必需的钱币一经取出，一切为此奉献的钱币无论在哪里都算圣殿的产业，后来被偷也不改其地位。差人起了誓，就免于赔偿。
我们在那里的一段密释纳（舍客勒卷 2:1）里学过：一城的居民托一个差人把他们的舍客勒送到圣殿，那些舍客勒在路上被偷了或丢了；若那笔钱已经被收取——就是新一年祭用的钱币在钱被偷以前已从库房里取出——差人就向圣殿的司库起誓，说他们没有擅用那些舍客勒，乃是在他们不知情时被取去，或是被人强夺去的。
We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 2:1): If residents of a city sent their shekels to the Temple with a messenger, and the shekels were stolen or were lost along the way; if the funds were already collected, i.e., the coins for the new year’s offerings were taken from the chamber before the money was stolen, the messengers take an oath to the treasurers of the Temple that they did not unlawfully use the shekels, but that they were taken unbeknownst to them or by force.
这是因为必需的钱币一经取出，其余一切为此奉献的钱币，无论在哪里，都算作圣殿的产业，后来被偷也不改变这地位。
This is because once the necessary coins have been removed, all other coins that have been dedicated for this purpose are considered Temple property wherever they are, and their subsequent theft does not change that status.
差人若起了这个誓，就免于赔钱的责任。
If the messengers take this oath, they are exempt from monetary liability.
密释纳续：若钱被偷时尚未收取，那些钱币仍算奉献之人的产业，所以差人向城中居民起誓，城中居民另奉舍客勒给圣殿顶替。
若这些钱币被偷时那笔钱还没有被收取，这些钱币就仍算作那些把它们奉献给圣殿之人的产业，所以差人向城中的居民起誓，而城中的居民另奉别的舍客勒给圣殿来顶替。
And if the funds were not yet collected when these coins were stolen, the coins are still considered the property of those who dedicated them to the Temple, and therefore the messengers take an oath to the residents of the city, and the residents of the city donate other shekels to the Temple in their stead.
密释纳续：丢失的舍客勒若找着了，或贼归还了，这些与那些都是舍客勒——仍是圣的——但不算次年应奉之数；次年该城的人仍须奉新的舍客勒，他们前一年奉了两倍，并不算尽了第二年的本分。拉比犹大 说：算次年的。
丢失的舍客勒若找着了，或贼把它们归还了，这些与那些都是舍客勒，就是说它们仍是分别为圣的；但它们不算作次年应奉之数。
If the shekels that were lost are found or the thieves returned them, both these and those are shekels, i.e., they remain sanctified, but they do not count toward the amount due the following year.
次年那城的人须奉新的舍客勒；他们前一年奉了两倍，并不算尽了第二年的本分。
The next year the members of that city must donate new shekels; they have not fulfilled the second year’s obligation by having given twice the previous year.
拉比犹大 说：它们算作次年的。
Rabbi Yehuda says: They do count toward the following year.
革玛拉问：拉比犹大 的理由是什么？拉瓦 说：拉比犹大 以为今年的应献之物也可在次年带来，所以可用今年的舍客勒尽次年的本分。
革玛拉问：拉比犹大 意见的理由是什么？
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?
拉瓦 说：拉比犹大 认为今年的应献之物也可以在次年带来，所以人可以用今年的舍客勒来尽次年的本分。
Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds that the obligations of this year are also brought the following year, and therefore it is possible to fulfill one’s obligation for the next year by using the shekels of this year.
阿巴耶 驳这解说：有教导说：赎罪日的公牛与公山羊若丢了，另指定别的替它们；照样，为会众因法庭之指示误拜偶像而献的公山羊若丢了，另指定别的替它们，而原来的牲口找着了——原来的都任其死去，不可日后再献。这是 拉比犹大 的话。拉比以利以谢 与 拉比西缅 说：任其吃草直到不合用，然后卖掉，钱归会众的自愿之祭，因会众的赎罪祭不任其死去。照 拉比犹大，今年的应献之物若可在次年带来，丢了的赎罪日公牛与公山羊就当在次年献上，而不任其死去。拉瓦 对他说：（下一面接续）
阿巴耶 对这解说提出驳难。
Abaye raised an objection to this explanation.
有教导说：赎罪日的公牛与公山羊若丢了，人另指定别的来替它们；照样，为会众因法庭的指示而误拜偶像赎罪的公山羊若丢了，人另指定别的来替它们；而原来的牲口又找着了——原来的牲口都当任其死去，不可在日后献上。
It was taught that if the bull and goat of Yom Kippur were lost and one designated others in their stead, and similarly if the goats which atone for a communal transgression of idol worship by instruction of the court were lost and he designated others in their stead, and the original animals were found, all the original animals should be left to die, and cannot be sacrificed at a later time.
这是 拉比犹大 的话。
This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
拉比以利以谢 与 拉比西缅 说：它们当任其吃草，直到不合用。
Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon say: They should be left to graze until they become unfit.
然后把它们卖掉，卖得的钱用来买会众的自愿之祭，因为会众的赎罪祭不任其死去。
Then they are sold, and the money received in their sale will go to the purchase of a public gift-offering, as a communal sin-offering is not left to die.
照 拉比犹大，今年的应献之物若可在次年带来，那么丢了的赎罪日公牛与公山羊就当在次年献上，而不是任其死去。
According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the obligations of this year may be brought the following year, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that were lost should be sacrificed the following year, and not left to die.
拉瓦 对他说：
Rava said to him: