续 《巴拉伊塔》:它们在耶路撒冷北边、三营之外焚烧。拉比约西 说:在倒灰之处焚烧。
-
在耶路撒冷北边,在三营之外。
North of Jerusalem, and outside of three camps.
-
拉比约西 说:它们在倒灰之处焚烧。
Rabbi Yosei says: They are burned in the place of the ashes.
← 盛日卷总目·第七章 大祭司来读
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 4 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 《巴拉伊塔》:它们在耶路撒冷北边、三营之外焚烧。拉比约西 说:在倒灰之处焚烧。
在耶路撒冷北边,在三营之外。
North of Jerusalem, and outside of three camps.
拉比约西 说:它们在倒灰之处焚烧。
Rabbi Yosei says: They are burned in the place of the ashes.
拉瓦 说:在这事上与 拉比约西 相左的是哪位 坦拿?是 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各——《巴拉伊塔》 论「要在倒灰之处焚烧」(利未记 4:12)说:是说那里先已有灰,在这牲口烧之前就被称为灰堆。拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 说:这节指明那地方当是倾斜的,好叫倒在那里的灰往下滚。拉瓦 以为 拉比约西 要求焚烧时先有灰,拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 不要求。
拉瓦 说:在这件事上与 拉比约西 意见相左的,是哪一位 坦拿?
Rava said: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei on this issue?
是 拉比以利以谢·本·雅各,正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 论这一节所教:「要在倒灰之处焚烧」(利未记 4:12),意思是那地方当先已有灰,好叫它在这牲口于那里焚烧以前,就已被称为灰堆。
It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Where the ashes are poured out [shefekh hadeshen] shall it be burned” (Leviticus 4:12), which means that there shall already be ash there in that place, so that it is known as the ash heap even before this animal is burned there.
「倒灰」原文 shefekh hadeshen,shefekh 与「倾斜」meshupakh 同根,本段之辩系于此,中文接不住。
拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 说:这节经文指明那地方当是倾斜的,好叫倒在那里的灰往下滚。
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: This verse indicates that its place should be slanted [meshupakh] so that ash that is deposited there will roll downhill.
同上。
拉瓦 的理解是:拉比约西 要求焚烧公牛时那里先已有灰,拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 却不要求。
Rava understood that whereas Rabbi Yosei requires that there already be ash present when the bull is burned, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov does not.
阿巴耶 对他说:这里证不了什么——或许他们所争的只在那地方是否须倾斜;拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 也可能同意那里起先须有灰,只是添一条:那地方也须倾斜。所以 拉瓦 之说无据。
阿巴耶 对他说:从这里证不出什么,因为或许他们所争的只是那地方是否须倾斜。
Abaye said to him: There is no proof from here, as perhaps they disagree only about whether the place must be slanted.
拉比以利以谢·本·雅各 也可能同意那里起先须有灰,只是他添上一条:那地方也须倾斜。
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov may agree there should be ash there to begin with, but he adds that the place must also be slanted.
因此,拉瓦 的话没有依据可以支持。
Therefore, there is no proof to support Rava’s statement.
众贤教导:经上说「焚烧它们的人要洗衣服」(利未记 16:28),指明只有焚烧赎罪日公牛与公山羊之人的衣服不洁,点火的人、摆柴堆的人的衣服都不洁。谁是焚烧者?是在实际焚烧之时帮手的人。
众贤教导:经上说:「焚烧它们的人要洗衣服」(利未记 16:28),这是指明:只有焚烧赎罪日公牛与公山羊之人的衣服变得不洁,点火之人的衣服不变得不洁,摆柴堆之人的衣服也不变得不洁。
The Sages taught: It states: “And he who burns them shall wash his garments” (Leviticus 16:28), to indicate that only the garments of the one who burns the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are rendered impure, but not the garments of the one who kindles the fire, and not the garments of the one who arranges the pile of wood.
那么谁是焚烧的人呢?
And who is the one who burns?
就是在实际焚烧之时帮着行的人。
It is the one who assists at the actual time of burning.
或以为公牛与公山羊成了灰之后仍使衣服不洁,所以经上说「它们」——它们本身(赎罪日的公牛与公山羊)使衣服不洁,成了灰就不使衣服不洁。拉比西缅 之子 拉比以利亚撒 说:公牛在烧之前使人不洁,肉一经烧了就不再使衣服不洁。
人或以为:公牛与公山羊就是成了灰之后,衣服也会变得不洁。
One might have thought that garments would be rendered impure even after the bull and goat have become ash.
所以经上说:「它们」,指明它们本身——赎罪日的公牛与公山羊——使衣服不洁,但它们一成了灰,就不使衣服不洁。
Therefore, the verse states: Them, to indicate that they themselves, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, render garments impure, but they do not render garments impure once they become ash.
拉比西缅 之子 拉比以利亚撒 说:公牛在焚烧以前使人不洁,但肉一经烧了,它就不再使衣服不洁。
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The bull causes ritual impurity before it is burned, but once the flesh is burned it no longer renders garments impure.
革玛拉问:初一位 坦拿 与 拉比西缅 之子 拉比以利亚撒 之间的实际分别何在?答:分别在于他把它烧成焦团、牲口形状已变却还没真成灰的时候——照 拉比西缅 之子 拉比以利亚撒,它已不再使人不洁。
革玛拉问:初一位 坦拿 的意见与 拉比西缅 之子 拉比以利亚撒 的意见之间,实际的分别是什么?
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?
革玛拉答:他们之间的分别,在于他把它烧成了一团焦物、牲口的形状已经变了、却还没有真成为灰的时候。
The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them when he turned it into a charred mass and the form of the animal has already become distorted but has not actually become ash.
照 拉比西缅 之子 拉比以利亚撒,它已不再使人不洁。
According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it no longer causes impurity.
密释纳:人对大祭司说:公山羊已到了旷野。圣殿里怎知那羊已到旷野?人沿路修了几座高台,有人站在上面挥动巾帕,示意那羊到了;由此知道它已到旷野。
人对大祭司说:公山羊已经到了旷野。
They said to the High Priest: The goat has reached the wilderness.
圣殿里的人怎么知道公山羊已经到了旷野呢?
And how did they know in the Temple that the goat reached the wilderness?
人沿路修了几座高台,有人站在上面挥动巾帕,示意那公山羊到了。
They would build platforms [dirkaot] all along the way and people would stand on them and wave scarves [sudarin] to signal when the goat arrived.
「高台」原文 dirkaot,「巾帕」原文 sudarin,都是借自希腊、拉丁的词,中文只能意译。
由此他们就知道公山羊已经到了旷野。
And therefore they knew that the goat reached the wilderness.
拉比犹大 说:何必要那些高台?他们岂不是早有可靠的记号?从耶路撒冷到旷野边上、行放羊之诫的 贝特·希杜多,相距三 米尔;耶路撒冷的显要护送放羊人走一 米尔、回来一 米尔,再等走一 米尔 的工夫,就知道那羊到了旷野,用不着高台。
拉比犹大 说:他们为什么需要这些高台呢?
Rabbi Yehuda said: Why did they need these platforms?
他们岂不是早已有一个可靠的记号么?
Didn’t they already have a reliable indicator?
从耶路撒冷到 贝特·希杜多——那是旷野的边缘,放走公山羊的诫命就在那里成就——相距三 米尔。
From Jerusalem to Beit Ḥiddudo, the edge of the wilderness, where the mitzva of dispatching the goat was performed, was a distance of three mil.
耶路撒冷的显要人物护送放羊的人走一 米尔,再走回一 米尔,又等候走一 米尔 所需的工夫,他们就知道那公山羊已经到了旷野。
Since the nobles of Jerusalem walked a mil to escort the dispatcher and returned a mil, and waited the time equivalent to the time it takes to walk a mil, they knew that the goat reached the wilderness.
根本不需要那些高台。
There was no need for the platforms.
拉比以实玛利 说:他们岂不是另有一个记号?圣所入口系着一条朱红线,那羊到了旷野、诫命成就了,线就变白,正如经上说「你们的罪虽像朱红,必变成雪白」(以赛亚书 1:18)。
拉比以实玛利 说:他们岂不是另有一个记号么?
Rabbi Yishmael says: Didn’t they have a different indicator?
圣所的入口系着一条朱红线,公山羊一到旷野、诫命成就了,那线就变白,正如经上说:「你们的罪虽像朱红,必变成雪白」(以赛亚书 1:18)。
There was a strip of crimson tied to the entrance to the Sanctuary, and when the goat reached the wilderness and the mitzva was fulfilled the strip would turn white, as it is stated: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they will become white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18).
阿巴耶 说:由此可知 贝特·希杜多 在旷野里;这是要教我们:照 拉比犹大,那羊一到旷野,它的诫命就完成了,不必等到推下山崖。
阿巴耶 说:由此可知 贝特·希杜多 是在旷野里的;这是来教导我们:拉比犹大 认为,公山羊一到了旷野,它的诫命就完成了,就是还没有被推下山崖也是如此,不必再等。
Abaye said: Learn from this that Beit Ḥiddudo is located in the wilderness, and this comes to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda holds that once the goat has reached the wilderness, its mitzva is complete even before it is pushed off the cliff, and there is no need to wait any longer.
章末语:「我们必再回到你这里,两只公山羊」——第六章(שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי)到此为止。本章自 62a.8 起,跨七叶十四面,一百八十四段六百六十句。所办的是**那一对公山羊**:从挑选、拈阄、认罪,直到被推下山崖。 起首是挑选:**两只当样子、高矮、价钱都一样,一同买来**;不一样也合式,因经上重说「公山羊」「公山羊」以放宽——同一理路推到长大痲疯之人的羊羔与鸟、常献祭的两只羊羔(**对着太阳所在之处宰**)。一只若在拈阄后死了,另带一对重拈:拉夫 说头一对剩下的献上(**活的牲口不会被弃**),拉比约哈难 说它去吃草(**一度作废就永远被弃**)。丢了又找着的赎罪日公牛与公山羊为何**任其死去**而不留到来年,革玛拉一连试了好几个理由,末由 拉瓦 定为**恐怕出岔子**——人心里挂着来年合献之物,怕误献了它。 中段是认罪与放羊:大祭司两手按在羊头上认以色列家的罪,**众人听见明言之名从他口中出来,就俯伏在地**。牵羊的人,大祭司们惯例不用以色列人;住耶路撒冷的「巴比伦人」揪羊毛说**「带着我们的罪走吧」**——拉巴·巴尔·巴尔·哈纳 说他们其实是亚历山大人。门生问 拉比以利以谢 一串问题,他一概避而不答,**因他从不说没从老师口中听过的话**;又论金牛犊一事谁死于刀、谁死于瘟疫、谁死于 水肿,利未全族何以无一人拜它。十座棚、十二 米尔,每一棚都说**「这里有食物,这里有水」**——虽没人用过,**筐里有饼的人不像筐里没饼的人**。朱红线一半系在岩石上、一半系在羊角之间;起先系在前廊门口,变白则喜、不变则愁,众贤便把它挪开。阿撒泻勒 一名:或解作最坚硬的山,或解作为乌撒与阿撒业赎罪;**放走的公山羊与猪肉、混纺、脱鞋礼 同列,是撒但与列国挑剔的律例——「我是耶和华,是我定下的」**。 末段是焚烧:公牛与公山羊编成辫子般一团,由四人抬出城外;衣服从何时不洁,诸贤各有所据,并三营之说(神圣临在之营、利未营、以色列营)。人沿路立台挥巾传讯:**公山羊已到旷野**。 下一章「大祭司来读」(בָּא לוֹ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל)自此起头,从大祭司当众诵读妥拉说起。
第七章起首的密释纳:大祭司来读妥拉。他若愿意穿着细麻衣服(先前供职所穿的祭司衣服)读,就可以穿着读;若不愿意,也可以穿自己的白袍读,那不是祭司的衣服。
大祭司来诵读妥拉。
The High Priest came to read the Torah.
他若愿意仍穿着细麻衣服——就是他先前供职时所穿的祭司衣服——来诵读妥拉,就可以穿着它们诵读;若不愿意,他也可以穿自己的一件白袍诵读,那不是祭司的衣服。
If he wished to read the Torah while still dressed in the fine linen garments, i.e., the priestly vestments he wore during the previous service, he may read wearing them; and if not he is permitted to read in a white robe of his own, which is not a priestly vestment.
密释纳续:会堂司事取一卷妥拉交给圣殿山上会堂的主事,主事交给大祭司的副手,副手交给大祭司,大祭司站着从他手里接过。他读「亚伦的两个儿子死了以后」(利未记 16:1)一段与「七月初十」(利未记 23:26 起)一段,然后卷起经卷,放在怀里,说:「我在你们面前所读的以外,这里还写着更多。」民数记里「七月初十」(29:7)一段他背诵。
会堂的司事取一卷妥拉,交给圣殿山上那会堂的主事;会堂的主事交给大祭司的副手,副手交给大祭司,大祭司站着,从他手里接过经卷。
The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the head of the synagogue that stood on the Temple Mount; and the head of the synagogue gives it to the deputy High Priest, and the Deputy gives it to the High Priest, and the High Priest stands and receives the scroll from his hands.
他从经卷里读那以「亚伦的两个儿子死了以后」(利未记 16:1)一节起头的一段,与那以「七月初十」(利未记 23:26 起)一节起头的一段,然后把妥拉经卷卷起来,放在怀里,说:我在你们面前所读的以外,这里还写着更多。
And he reads from the scroll the Torah portion beginning with the verse: “After the death” (Leviticus 16:1) and the portion beginning with the verse: “But on the tenth” (Leviticus 23:26), and furls the Torah scroll and places it on his bosom and says: More than what I have read before you is written here.
民数记里那以「七月初十」(民数记 29:7)一节起头的一段,他随后背诵出来。
The Torah portion beginning with the verse: “And on the tenth,” from the book of Numbers (29:7), he then reads by heart.
密释纳续:读经之后他诵这八段祝谢:论妥拉——赐我们真理之妥拉的;论圣殿的供职——悦纳你的民以色列、收纳你至圣殿中的供职……惟独你是我们存敬畏而事奉的;论感恩——我们向你称谢;论赦罪——在这赎罪日赦免我们的罪孽;论圣殿本身——以「拣选圣殿的」作结;论以色列民本身——以「拣选以色列的」作结;论耶路撒冷本身——以「拣选耶路撒冷的」作结;论祭司本身——以「拣选祭司的」作结;论其余的祷告——以「垂听祷告的」作结。
读经之后他诵下面这八段祝谢:
And he recites after the reading the following eight blessings:
论妥拉:赐我们真理之妥拉的;
Concerning the Torah: Who has given us the Torah of truth;
论圣殿的供职:求你悦纳你的民以色列,收纳你至圣之殿中的供职……因为惟独你是我们存敬畏而事奉的;
and concerning the Temple service: Find favor in Your people Israel and accept the service in Your most holy House... for You alone do we serve with reverence;
论感恩:我们向你称谢;
and concerning thanksgiving: We give thanks to You;
论赦罪:求你在这赎罪日赦免我们的罪孽;
and concerning pardon of iniquity: Pardon our iniquities on this Yom Kippur;
论圣殿本身,以此作结:当受颂赞的……拣选圣殿的;
and concerning the Temple in and of itself, which concludes: Blessed…Who chose the Temple;
论以色列民本身,以此作结:当受颂赞的……拣选以色列的;
and concerning the Jewish People in and of itself, which concludes: Blessed…Who chose Israel;
论耶路撒冷本身,以此作结:当受颂赞的……拣选耶路撒冷的;
and concerning Jerusalem in and of itself, which concludes: Blessed…Who chose Jerusalem;
论祭司本身,以此作结:当受颂赞的……拣选祭司的;
and concerning the priests in and of themselves, which concludes: Blessed…Who chose the priests;
论其余的祷告,以此作结:当受颂赞的……垂听祷告的。
and concerning the rest of the prayer, which concludes: Blessed…Who listens to prayer.
密释纳评说:看大祭司读妥拉的,看不见公牛与公山羊的焚烧;看焚烧的,看不见大祭司读妥拉。这不是因为不许两样都看,而是因两处路远,两样又同时进行。
密释纳评说:看大祭司诵读妥拉的人,看不见那焚烧的公牛与公山羊;看那焚烧的公牛与公山羊的人,看不见大祭司诵读妥拉。
The Mishna comments: One who sees the High Priest reading the Torah does not see the bull and goat that are burned; and one who sees the bull and goat that are burned does not see the High Priest reading the Torah.
密释纳解说:这不是因为人不许两样都看,乃是因为两处之间路途遥远,而两样又是同时进行的。
The Mishna explains: And this is not due to the fact that one is not permitted to see both, but because there was a distant path between them, and the performance of both of them is undertaken simultaneously.
从密释纳说大祭司可穿自己的白袍读经,可推知读妥拉不算供职,不然就须穿祭司衣服。
从密释纳教导大祭司可穿自己的白袍诵读这一点,可以推知:诵读妥拉不算作供职——不然就须穿祭司的衣服。
From the fact that it is taught in the mishna that the High Priest is permitted to read in a white robe of his own, one may derive by inference that the reading of the Torah is not classified as a service, which would have required that he wear priestly vestments.
但密释纳也说:他若愿意穿着细麻衣服读,就可穿着读——即便那是分别为祭司衣服的、而读妥拉不是圣职。革玛拉就提议:由此可知祭司的衣服可以得益处,就是不在供职时也可为自己的需要穿着;这样就解开了一个悬而未决的老问题。革玛拉驳:这证不了,或许读妥拉另当别论,因它是为供职的;所以虽不算真正的供职,大祭司仍可继续穿着祭司衣服。
但密释纳也教导:他若愿意仍穿着细麻衣服诵读妥拉,就可以穿着它们诵读。
But the mishna also teaches: If he wished to read the Torah while still dressed in the fine linen garments, he may read wearing them.
这是如此,虽然那些衣服是分别为祭司衣服的,而诵读妥拉并不是圣职。
This is true even though they are consecrated as priestly vestments and the reading of the Torah is not a sacred service.
因此革玛拉提议:由此可知人可以从祭司的衣服得益处,就是说祭司即便不在供职,也可以从祭司衣服得益处,例如为自己的需要穿着它们。
Therefore, the Gemara suggests: Learn from this that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments, i.e., even when not engaged in performing a service, a priest may derive benefit from the priestly vestments, for example, by wearing them for his own needs.
若是这样,这就解开了一个关于这件事、长久悬而未决的问题。
If so, this would settle a long-standing unresolved dilemma concerning this issue.
革玛拉驳回这一提议:不能从这里举证,因为或许诵读妥拉另当别论,它是为了供职的缘故;所以虽然它本身不算真正的供职,大祭司仍可以继续穿着祭司的衣服。
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: A proof may not be adduced from here because perhaps reading from the Torah is different, since it is for the purpose of the service; therefore, even though it is not a true service in its own right, it is nevertheless permitted for the High Priest to continue wearing the priestly vestments.
因为我们面前曾提出这一问:从祭司的衣服得益处是许可的,还是不许可的?
因为我们面前曾提出这一问:从祭司的衣服得益处是许可的,还是从祭司的衣服得益处是不许可的?
As the dilemma was raised before us: Is it permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments, or is it not permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments?
来听根据密释纳的解答:祭司不穿着圣衣睡觉,怕睡时放屁。可推知:只是睡觉不可,穿着祭司衣服吃饭却可以,虽然吃饭不是供职——可证可以从祭司衣服得益处。革玛拉驳:这证不了,或许吃饭另当别论,因它是为圣殿供职的:《巴拉伊塔》 说经上「他们吃那些用以赎罪之物」(出埃及记 29:33)教人祭司吃祭肉,献祭的主人由此得赎。
来听根据一段密释纳所给这问题的解答:祭司们不穿着圣衣睡觉,因为怕他们睡着时放屁。
Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on a mishna: The priests would not sleep in the sacred vestments out of concern they might pass wind while sleeping.
可以推知:特特不许可的是睡觉,但他们可以穿着祭司的衣服吃饭,虽然吃饭并不是供职。
One may infer: It is specifically sleep which is not permitted, but they may eat while wearing the priestly vestments, even though eating is not a service.
这就当能证明:从穿着祭司衣服得个人的益处是许可的。
This should prove that it is permitted to derive personal benefit from wearing priestly vestments.
革玛拉驳回这一证据:不能从这里举证,因为或许吃饭另当别论,它是为了圣殿供职的缘故。
The Gemara rejects this proof: A proof may not be adduced from here because perhaps eating is different, since it is for the purpose of the Temple service.
正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 所教:经上说:「他们要吃那些用以赎罪之物」(出埃及记 29:33),这教导:祭司吃祭牲的肉,献这些祭的主人就借此得赎。
As it was taught in a baraita that the verse states: “And they shall eat those things with which atonement was made” (Exodus 29:33), which teaches that the priests eat the meat of the offerings and the owners of those offerings thereby achieve atonement.
革玛拉提议从上引密释纳另作推论:只是睡觉不可,不在供职时穿着圣衣走路却可以——可证可以从祭司衣服得益处。革玛拉驳:这推论不对,因照理密释纳本当说穿着祭司衣服走路也不许可。
革玛拉提议从上面所引那段密释纳作另一推论:可以推知特特不许可的是睡觉,但他们即便不在供职,也可以穿着圣衣走路。
The Gemara suggests making a different inference from that mishna cited above: One may infer that it is specifically sleep which is not permitted, but they may walk while wearing the sacred vestments even when not engaged in a service.
这就当能证明:从穿着祭司衣服得益处是许可的。
This should prove that it is permitted to derive benefit from wearing priestly vestments.
革玛拉驳回这一证据:作这一推论是不对的,因为照理密释纳本当说:穿着祭司衣服走路也是不许可的。
The Gemara rejects this proof: It is incorrect to make this inference since by right the mishna should have stated that walking in priestly vestments is also not permitted.