← 岁首卷总目·第二章 若不认识
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 20 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。
（续上）……说太阳正向否认它为神的人射箭，拿彩虹当它的弓。彩虹凹的一面总是背着太阳，免得看来像太阳手里拿的弓。
……说太阳正向那些否认它神性的人射箭，拿彩虹当作它的弓。
that the sun is shooting arrows at those who deny its divinity, using the rainbow as its bow.
彩虹凹的一面总是背着太阳，好叫它看来不像太阳手里拿着的弓。
The concave side of the rainbow always faces away from the sun, so that it does not look like a bow held by the sun.
§ 密释纳教：盘问证人时要问：月亮离地平线多高、偏向哪一边？一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教：证人若作证说看见月亮在太阳北边，他的话有效；若说在南边，他什么也没说，因这不可能。革玛拉问：另一条 《巴拉伊塔》 岂不是反过来教：看见在太阳南边的有效，说在北边的什么也没说？
密释纳教导：盘问证人包括以下这些问题：月亮离地平线有多高？它偏向哪一个方向？
§ The mishna taught that the examination of the witnesses included the following questions: How high was the moon over the horizon, and in which direction did it tilt?
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教导：若证人作证说，他看见月亮在太阳的北边，他的话是有效的。
It was taught in one baraita: If the witness testifies that he saw the moon to the north of the sun, his statement is valid.
然而他若说他看见它在太阳的南边，他就什么要紧的话也没有说，因为这是不可能的。
However, if he says that he saw it to its south, he has not said anything of significance, as this is impossible.
革玛拉问：另一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里岂不是教导相反的话：他若作证说看见月亮在太阳的南边，他的话是有效的。
The Gemara asks: Isn’t the opposite taught in a different baraita: If he testifies that he saw the moon to the south of the sun, his statement is valid.
然而他若说看见它在太阳的北边，他就什么也没有说。
However, if he says he saw it to its north, he has not said anything.
革玛拉答：这不难。第二条 《巴拉伊塔》 论的是夏季，那时月亮在太阳南边；第一条论的是雨季，那时月亮在太阳北边。
革玛拉答：这不难。
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.
这里，在上面所提的第二条 《巴拉伊塔》 里，论的是夏季，那时月亮在太阳的南边；那里，在上面所提的第一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里，论的是雨季，那时月亮在太阳的北边。
Here, in the second baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the summer, when the moon is to the south of the sun; there, in the first baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the rainy season, when the moon is to the north of the sun.
众贤在 《巴拉伊塔》 里教：一个证人说看见月亮离地平线有两犁柄高，另一个说有三犁柄高，他们的见证有效，这样小的出入合乎情理；一个说三犁柄、另一个说五犁柄，见证就无效。然而这不是说证人本身不合格：两人各可与另一个作同样见证的人合在一起。
众贤在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教导：若一个证人说他看见月亮离地平线有两个犁柄高，另一个说有三个犁柄高，他们的见证是有效的，因为这样小的出入是合乎情理的。
The Sages taught in a baraita: If one witness says that he saw the moon two plow handles high above the horizon, and the other one says it was three plow handles high, their testimony is valid, as a small discrepancy of this kind is reasonable.
然而若一个说他看见月亮离地平线有三个犁柄高，另一个说有五个犁柄高，他们的见证就是无效的，因为这样的出入是不能接受的。
However, if one says that he saw the moon three plow handles above the horizon, and the other one says it was five plow handles high, their testimony is void, as that discrepancy is unacceptable.
然而这并不表示这两个证人本身不合格，因为他们任何一个都可以与另一个见证合在一起，就是说，他可以把他的叙述与另一个作同样见证之证人的叙述合在一起。
However, this does not mean that the witnesses themselves are disqualified, as either of them may join with another testimony, i.e., he may combine his account with that of another witness who testifies likewise.
众贤在另一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教：证人若说：我们其实没有看见月亮本身，是看见它映在水里、映在玻璃灯笼里，或是隔着薄云看见的——就不可为它作证，只有直接看见月亮才算数。若说看见水里映着半个月亮、隔着云看见半个、在灯笼里看见半个，也不可作证。
众贤在另一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教导：若证人说：我们其实没有看见月亮，而是看见它映在水里，或是看见它映在一个玻璃灯笼里，或是隔着薄云看见它，他们就不可为它作证，因为只有直接看见月亮才能被接受。
The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: We did not actually see the moon, but we saw it reflected in the water, or we saw it reflected in a glass lantern, or we saw it through thin clouds, they may not testify about it, as only a direct sighting of the moon is acceptable.
若他们说：我们看见水里映着月亮的一半，或是隔着云看见它的一半，或是在一个灯笼里看见它的一半，他们仍不可为它作证。
If they say: We saw half of the moon’s reflection in the water, or we saw half of it through the clouds, or we saw half of it in a lantern, they still may not testify about it.
革玛拉分析：既然这样看见整个月亮都不算有效的见证，还须教只看见一半的不可作证吗？其实 《巴拉伊塔》 是这样说的：一半映在水里、一半直接在天上看见；或一半隔着云、一半在天上；或一半在灯笼里、一半在天上——虽然直接看见了一半，仍不可作证，直到他们在天上看见整个月亮。
革玛拉分析这条 《巴拉伊塔》：既然论到人用这种方式看见整个月亮，你已说这不是有效的见证，那还须要教导他只看见它的一半时不可作证吗？
The Gemara analyzes this baraita: Now, if when one sees the entire moon in this manner, you said that this is not valid testimony, is it necessary to teach that one may not testify when he sees only half of it?
其实，这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是这样说的：若证人看见月亮的一半映在水里，另一半直接在天上；或是一半隔着云、一半在天上；或是一半在一个灯笼里、一半在天上，尽管他们直接看见了月亮的一半，他们也不可为它作证，直到他们在天上看见整个月亮。
Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses saw half of the moon’s reflection in water and half of it directly in the sky, or half of it through the clouds and half of it in the sky, or half of it in a lantern and half of it in the sky, although they saw half of the moon directly, they may not testify about it until they see the entire moon in the sky.
众贤在另一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教：证人若说：我们有一刻看见了新月，却没有再看见它，就不可为它作证。革玛拉问：他们须一直看着它这么久吗？为何须长时看见？
众贤在另一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教导：若证人说：有一刻我们看见了新月，但我们没有再看见它，他们就不可为它作证。
The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: One moment we saw the new moon, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it.
革玛拉问：他们须要一直看着它到这样的地步吗？就是说，他们为什么须要长时间地看见它？
The Gemara asks: Must they go on watching it to such an extent, i.e., why should they have to see it for a long period of time?
阿巴耶 说：《巴拉伊塔》 是这样说的：证人若说：我们是偶然看见月亮的，并没有去找它；后来特意回去找，好作精确的见证，却没有再看见——就不可作证。理由何在？因为可以说，他们头一次看见的不过是一小团圆圆的白云，他们误以为是月亮，所以再找时就找不到了。
阿巴耶 说：这条 《巴拉伊塔》 是这样说的：若证人说：我们是自己偶然看见月亮的，没有去找它，随后我们特意回去找它，好为它作精确的见证，但我们没有再看见它，他们就不可为它作证。
Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses say: We saw the moon on our own accord, i.e., by chance, without looking for it, and then we returned to look for it on purpose, to deliver precise testimony about it, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it.
理由是什么？
What is the reason?
因为可以说：头一次他们所看见的，只不过是一小团圆圆的白云，他们把它误认作月亮，所以当他们再找它时，找不到它。
Because one can say that the first time it was merely a small round white cloud that they saw, which they mistook for the moon, and that is why when they looked for it again they could not find it.
密释纳：证人经盘问、见证被接受以后，法庭之首说：分圣了。众人随他应声说：分圣了，分圣了。无论新月是按时在上月第三十日被看见，还是没有按时被看见（那样次日作月朔不须证人），法庭都要分圣，正式宣告这一日为月朔。
证人被盘问过、他们的见证被接受以后，法庭之首说：分圣了。
After the witnesses have been examined and their testimony accepted, the head of the court says: It is sanctified.
众人都随他应声说：分圣了；分圣了。
And all the people respond after him: It is sanctified; it is sanctified.
无论月亮是在它预定的时候、就是在上一个月的第三十日被看见，还是没有在它预定的时候被看见——在那情形里，确立次日为月朔并不须要证人——法庭都要把它分别为圣，并正式宣告这一日为月朔。
Whether the moon was seen at its anticipated time, on the thirtieth day of the previous month, or whether it was not seen at its anticipated time, in which case witnesses are not necessary to establish the following day as the New Moon, the court sanctifies it and formally proclaims the day as the New Moon.
拉比撒督之子拉比以利亚撒 说：新月若没有按时被看见，法庭次日就不分圣月朔，因为天上的法庭已把它分别为圣了，不须地上的法庭再分圣。
拉比撒督之子拉比以利亚撒 说：若新月没有在它预定的时候被看见，法庭在次日就不把月朔分别为圣，因为天上的法庭已经把它分别为圣了，不须要地上的法庭再添一次分圣。
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon on the following day, as the celestial court in Heaven has already sanctified it, precluding the need for the additional sanctification by the earthly court.
密释纳教：法庭之首说：分圣了。革玛拉问：法庭须分圣月朔，这从何推出？拉比希亚·巴尔·加姆达 传 拉比约西·本·扫罗，又传 拉比犹大·哈纳西 说：经上说：「于是摩西将耶和华的节期传给以色列人」（利未记 23:44）——由此推出法庭之首要说「分圣了」：可见摩西——他的地位等同大公议会之首——是以正式的方式宣告节期与月朔的。
密释纳教导：法庭之首说：分圣了。
The mishna teaches that the head of the court says: It is sanctified.
革玛拉问：这些事——法庭必须把月朔分别为圣——是从哪里推出来的？
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the court must sanctify the New Moon, derived?
拉比希亚·巴尔·加姆达 说 拉比约西·本·扫罗 说 拉比犹大·哈纳西 说：经上说：「于是摩西将耶和华的节期传给以色列人」（利未记 23:44）。
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the verse states: “And Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44).
由此推出：法庭之首要说「分圣了」，因为从这节经显然可见，摩西——他的地位等同于大公议会之首的地位——是以正式的方式宣告诸节期与诸月朔的日期的。
From here it is derived that the head of the court says: It is sanctified, as it is evident from the verse that Moses, whose status was equivalent to that of the head of the Great Sanhedrin, declared the appointed times of the Festivals and New Moons in a formal manner.
§ 密释纳又教：法庭之首说「分圣了」之后，众人随他应声说：分圣了，分圣了。革玛拉问：这从何推出？拉夫帕帕 说：经上说：「你们要宣告它们为圣会」（利未记 23:2）——不读作「它们」，要读作「你们」，好像经文说「你们所宣告的，就是你们」：这多出的「你们」表明，月份不但要由法庭之首宣告，也要由你们众人宣告。拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：是从「这些就是我的节期」（利未记 23:2）推出的——「这些」也可解作「他们」，表明他们众人也当说出、宣告我的节期。
密释纳又教导：法庭之首说了「分圣了」以后，众人都随他应声说：分圣了；分圣了。
§ The mishna further teaches that after the head of the court says: It is sanctified, all the people respond after him: It is sanctified; it is sanctified.
革玛拉问：我们从哪里推出这一点？
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this?
拉夫帕帕 说：经上说：「你们要宣告它们为圣会」（利未记 23:2）。
Rav Pappa said that the verse states: “Which you shall proclaim them [otam] to be sacred convocations” (Leviticus 23:2).
和合本利未记 23:2 作「耶和华的节期，你们要宣告为圣会的节期，这些就是我的节期」。讲法系于原文 אֹתָם（它们）改读 אַתֶּם（你们），故正文照英译译作「你们要宣告它们为圣会」。
不要读作「它们」，要读进这节经里「你们」，好像经文说的是：你们所宣告的，你们。
Instead of otam, read into the verse: You [atem], as though the verse stated: Which you shall proclaim, you.
这多出来的「你们」一词教导：月份不但要由法庭之首宣告，也要由你们，就是众人宣告。
This superfluous word you teaches that the month must be proclaimed not only by the head of the court, but also by you, the people.
拉夫纳赫曼·巴尔·以撒 说：它是从「这些就是我的节期」（利未记 23:2）这一语推出来的。
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that it is derived from the phrase: “These are [hem] My appointed seasons” (Leviticus 23:2).
「这些」原文 הֵם，亦可解作「他们」。
「这些」一词也可以解作「他们」，这表明他们，就是众人，也应当说出、宣告我的节期。
The term hem can also mean: They, which indicates that they, the people, should likewise say and announce My appointed seasons.
革玛拉又问：我何必要众人说「分圣了」两遍？答：因为经上写着「圣会」，是复数，表明他们要宣告两遍。
革玛拉进一步问：我为什么须要众人宣告「分圣了；分圣了」两遍？
The Gemara further asks: Why do I need the people to declare: It is sanctified; it is sanctified, twice?
革玛拉答：理由是经上写着「圣会」（利未记 23:2），用的是复数，这表明他们必须宣告它两遍。
The Gemara answers that the reason is that it is written: “Sacred convocations” (Leviticus 23:2) in the plural, which indicates that they must announce it twice.
§ 密释纳教：拉比撒督之子拉比以利亚撒 说：新月若没有按时被看见，法庭次日就不分圣月朔。革玛拉引别的意见：《巴拉伊塔》 教：贤者 帕莱莫 说：新月若按时被看见，法庭就不分圣，因为新月如期出现，不须特别的分圣；若没有按时被看见，法庭就必须分圣。
密释纳教导：拉比撒督之子拉比以利亚撒 说：若新月没有在它预定的时候被看见，法庭在次日就不把月朔分别为圣。
§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon on the following day.
革玛拉就此引出别的意见：一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教导：贤者 帕莱莫 说：若新月在它预定的时候被看见，法庭就不把月朔分别为圣，因为新月是如期出现的，不须要任何特别的分圣。
The Gemara cites other opinions in this regard: It is taught in a baraita that the Sage Palaimo says: If the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon, as the new moon appeared as expected and there is no need for any special sanctification.
然而若新月不是在它预定的时候被看见，法庭就必须把月朔分别为圣。
However, if the new moon was seen not at its anticipated time, the court must sanctify the New Moon.
《巴拉伊塔》 续：拉比西缅之子拉比以利亚撒 说：无论哪种情形，法庭都不正式分圣月朔，如经上说：「第五十年你们要当作圣年」（利未记 25:10）——由此推出：年你们须在法庭里正式分圣，月你们不须正式分圣，因为天上自会使它们成圣；只须向众人宣布某日定为月朔即可。拉比犹大 传 撒母耳 说：哈拉哈 照 拉比撒督之子拉比以利亚撒：新月按时被看见，法庭就分圣新月；没有按时被看见，就不分圣。
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：拉比西缅之子拉比以利亚撒 说：无论在哪一种情形，法庭都不正式把月朔分别为圣，正如经上所说：「第五十年你们要当作圣年」（利未记 25:10）；由此推出：你们必须在法庭里正式把年分别为圣，然而你们不须要正式把月分别为圣，因为它们是由天上自动分别为圣的。
The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In either case, the court does not sanctify the New Moon formally, as it is stated: “And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year” (Leviticus 25:10), from which it is derived: You must formally sanctify years in court, but you do not have to formally sanctify months, as they are sanctified automatically by Heaven.
而是，只须向众人宣布某一日已被定为月朔就够了。
Rather, it is enough merely to announce to the public that a certain day was established as the New Moon.
拉比犹大 说 撒母耳 说：哈拉哈 是照 拉比撒督之子拉比以利亚撒 的意见：若新月在它预定的时候被看见，法庭就把新的月份分别为圣；然而若它没有在它预定的时候被看见，他们就不把它分别为圣。
Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, that if the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court sanctifies the new month; however, if it was not seen at its anticipated time, they do not sanctify it.
阿巴耶 说：我们在一条密释纳里也学过：若法庭与全以色列民都看见了新月，证人也被盘问过，法庭却没来得及在天黑前说「分圣了」，上个月就算作满月三十日。这表明：满月，是——这情形须把上月延长；分圣，不——不须正式分圣，因为这时月朔不在它预定的日子。
阿巴耶 说：我们也在一条密释纳里学过：若法庭与全体以色列民都看见了新月，证人也被盘问过了，然而法庭没有来得及在天黑以前说「分圣了」，上一个月就被算作一个满月，就是三十日的月。
Abaye said: We, too, learn in a mishna: If the court and all of the Jewish people saw the new moon, and the witnesses were interrogated, but the court did not manage to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, the previous month is rendered a full, thirty-day month.
这表明：满月，是；就是说，在这情形里，必须把上一个月延长。
This indicates that full, yes; i.e., in this case, it is necessary to extend the previous month.
然而分圣，不；就是说，不须要正式把这个月分别为圣，因为在这情形里，月朔不是落在它预定的日子。
However, sanctified, no; there is no need to formally sanctify the month, as the New Moon does not occur on its anticipated date in this case.
革玛拉驳这论证：这里没有证据，因为密释纳须要提到上月算作满月三十日——你或以为，法庭与全以色列民既都看见了新月，事已公开，就不须把上月算作满月；所以密释纳教我们：即便这样，上月仍须延长。然而月朔次日仍可能须正式分圣。
革玛拉驳回这个论证：这里没有证据，因为这条密释纳须要提到这个月被算作一个满月，就是三十日的月。
The Gemara rejects this argument: There is no proof from here, as it was necessary for the mishna to mention that the month is rendered a full, thirty-day month.
理由是，你或许会以为：既然法庭与全体以色列民都看见了新月，这事已成了公开的知识，所以不须要把上一个月算作满月。
The reason is that it might enter your mind to say that since the court and the entire Jewish people saw the new moon, it has become public knowledge and therefore there is no need to render the previous month a full, thirty-day month.
因此，这条密释纳教我们：即便在这情形里，上一个月也必须被延长。
Consequently, the mishna teaches us that even in this case the previous month must be extended.
尽管如此，月朔仍有可能须要在次日被正式分别为圣。
Nevertheless, it is still possible that the New Moon must be formally sanctified on the following day.
密释纳：拉班迦玛列 在他楼房的墙上挂着一块板，上面画着月亮的各种形状，他拿给那些来作证、却说不清所见的平民看，对他们说：你们看见的是像这样的，还是像那样的？
拉班迦玛列 有一幅月亮各种形状的图，画在一块挂在他楼房墙上的板上，他会把它拿给那些来为新月作证、却不能充分描述他们所见之物的平民看。
Rabban Gamliel had a diagram of the different forms of the moon drawn on a tablet that hung on the wall of his attic, which he would show to the laymen who came to testify about the new moon but were unable to describe adequately what they had seen.
他会对他们说：你们看见的是像这样的形状，还是像那样的？
And he would say to them: Did you see a form like this or like this?
革玛拉问：许人造这类形像吗？经上岂不是写着：「你们不可做什么神像与我相配，不可为自己做金银的神像」（出埃及记 20:23）？这节经解作：你们不可造我的侍从——就是为事奉神而造的天体，包括日月——的形像。
革玛拉问：而许人造这类的形像吗？
The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to create these types of forms?
英译作出埃及记 20:20，是希伯来经文节数，和合本为 20:23。讲法系于「与我」（אִתִּי）一语，读作「我的侍从」。
经上岂不是写着：「你们不可做什么神像与我相配，不可为自己做金银的神像」（出埃及记 20:23）吗？这节经被解释为教导：你们不可造我的侍从的形像，就是那些为事奉神而被造的天体，包括太阳与月亮。
Isn’t it written: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold” (Exodus 20:20), which is interpreted as teaching: You shall not make images of My attendants, i.e., those celestial bodies that were created to serve God, including the sun and the moon?
§ 阿巴耶 说：妥拉只禁造那些能照其样式仿造出来的侍从的形像；日月既无人能仿造，这禁令就不及它们。如 《巴拉伊塔》 所教：人不可照圣所的样式建屋，不可照圣所 前廊 的样式建门廊，不可照圣殿院子建院子，不可照圣殿里的桌子造桌子，不可照圣殿里的灯台造灯台；然而人可以造——（下接 24之间）
阿巴耶 说：妥拉只禁止造那些能照它们的样式仿造出一件物件来的侍从的形像。
§ Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only the images of those attendants with regard to which it is possible to reproduce an item in their likeness.
既然没有人能仿造太阳与月亮，这禁令就不适用于这些物体。
Since it is impossible for anyone to reproduce the sun and the moon, the prohibition does not apply to these objects.
正如一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里所教：人不可照圣所的确切样式建一座房屋，也不可照圣所的 前廊 的确切样式建一道门廊，也不可建一个与圣殿院子相对应的院子，也不可造一张与圣殿里的桌子相对应的桌子，也不可造一座与圣殿里的灯台相对应的灯台。
As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not construct a house in the exact form of the Sanctuary, nor a portico in the exact form of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, nor a courtyard corresponding to the Temple courtyard, nor a table corresponding to the table in the Temple, nor a candelabrum corresponding to the candelabrum in the Temple.
然而人可以造
However, one may fashion