← 祝祷卷总目·第二章 他正读诵时
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。
接上文：当先便溺、洗手、系经匣、诵《听》、祷告——这才是完完全全领受天国之权。
就当先去便溺，洗手，系上 经匣，诵 《听》，然后祷告；这才是完完全全领受天国之权。
should relieve himself, wash his hands, don phylacteries, recite Shema, and pray, and that is acceptance of the complete Kingdom of Heaven.
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 说 拉比约哈难 说：这样行的人，经上算他如同筑了坛、在其上献了祭——据诗篇 26:6「我要洗手表明无辜，才环绕你的祭坛」。拉瓦 反问：岂不更该说如同全身浸洗？因经上说「洗净」，不说「洗手」。
同样，拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 说 拉比约哈难 说：凡先便溺、洗手、系 经匣、诵 《听》，然后祷告的，经上算他如同筑了一座坛、又在坛上献了祭，正如经上所写：「我要洗手表明无辜，耶和华啊，我要这样环绕你的祭坛」（诗篇 26:6）。
On a similar note, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who relieves himself, washes his hands, dons phylacteries, recites Shema, and prays, the verse ascribes credit to him as if he built an altar and offered a sacrifice upon it, as it is written: “I will wash in purity my hands, and I will encircle the altar of the Lord” (Psalms 26:6).
拉瓦 对他说：师尊岂不以为，这样行的人如同全身浸洗过了么？因为经上写的是「我要洗净」，并没有写「我要洗手」。
Rava said to him: Do you not maintain, Master, that one who does so, it is as if he immersed his entire body, as it is written: “I will wash in purity,” and it is not written: “I will wash my hands”?
原文那一节作 אֶרְחַץ בְּנִקָּיוֹן כַּפָּי，字面兼有「洗净」与「洗手」两读之间的余地；和合本作「洗手表明无辜」。中文一旦选定读法，拉瓦 所据的那点空隙便看不见了。
拉维纳 对 拉瓦 说：师尊请看这位从以色列地来的少壮学者，说了一句令人称奇的话——无水洗手的，以土、石或木片擦手便足。
拉维纳 对 拉瓦 说：我师，请看这位从 以色列地 来的 少壮学者，他说了一句令人称奇的话——人若没有水洗手，以土、以石、或以一片木擦手便足了。
Ravina said to Rava: My Master, look at this Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] who came from Eretz Yisrael and said something astonishing: One who has no water with which to wash his hands, it is sufficient that he wipes his hands with earth, a rock, or a sliver of wood.
拉瓦 答：他说得好——经上岂是写「我要用水洗」？写的是「洗净」，凡能洁净者皆可。故 拉夫希斯达 常咒那到祷告的时候还绕道去寻水的人。
拉瓦 回 拉维纳 说：他说得好；经上岂是写着「我要用水洗」么？
Rava replied to Ravina: He spoke well, as, is it written: I will wash with water?
写的是「洗净」，凡能使人洁净的都算——所以 拉夫希斯达 常咒诅那到祷告的时候还绕道去寻水的人。
In purity, is written referring to anything that cleans, as Rav Ḥisda would curse one who went out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.
论寻水：那话单指诵《听》——其时有限，寻水恐误了时。祷告可以整日诵，故当绕道寻水。绕多远？一帕尔萨。且只论前行；若在身后，连一米尔也不必回。由此可推：一米尔不必回，不足一米尔则当回。
论到寻水，革玛拉 说：那话单指诵 《听》——诵 《听》 的时候有限，人若去寻水，恐怕过了时候。
With regard to seeking water, the Gemara comments: This applies only to the recitation of Shema, as the time for its recitation is limited, and if one goes seeking water he may run out of time.
至于祷告，那是整日都可以诵的，所以人当绕道去寻水。
However, for prayer, which may be recited all day, one must go out of his way to seek water.
那么当绕多远去寻水呢？
And how far must one go out of his way to seek water?
远至一 帕尔萨。
As far as a parasang [parsa].
而这一 帕尔萨，只论在他前头的；若水在他身后，他连一 米尔 也不必回头去取。
And this, one parsa, applies only before him but behind him, he need not return even one mil.
由此可以推得：一 米尔 他不必回头，可是不足一 米尔 的，他就当回头去取。
From this one may infer that he need not return one mil, but one must return less than one mil.
密释纳：诵《听》而自己耳中听不见的——或因念得太轻，或因本是聋者——算尽了本分。拉比约西 说：不算。
人诵 《听》 而自己耳中听不见的——或因他念得太轻，或因他本是聋者——算尽了本分。
One who recites Shema and did not recite in a manner audible to his own ear, either because he read inaudibly or because he is deaf, fulfilled his obligation.
拉比约西 说：他不算尽了本分。
Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.
诵《听》而字母咬得不够准的，拉比约西 说算尽了本分；拉比犹大 说不算。
人诵 《听》 而其中字母咬得不够准的，拉比约西 说：他算尽了本分。
One who recited Shema and was not sufficiently precise in his enunciation of its letters, Rabbi Yosei says: He fulfilled his obligation.
拉比犹大 说：他不算尽了本分。
Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not fulfill his obligation.
倒着诵《听》的，不算尽本分。诵而念错的，当回到错处再诵。
人倒着诵 《听》——就是不照次序念那几节——他不算尽了本分。
One who recited Shema out of order, meaning he did not read the verses sequentially, he did not fulfill his obligation.
人诵而念错了的，当回到 《听》 里出错的那一处再诵。
One who recited and erred, should return to the place in Shema that he erred.
拉比约西 何以要人诵得自己耳中听得见？因经上说「你要听」，他取其字面：要叫你的耳听见你口里所出的。首位坦拿则以为「你要听」另有所教——凡听得懂的语言都可诵，不限希伯来语。
我们这段密释纳所议的，是人诵 《听》 而自己听不见，算不算尽了本分。
The discussion in our mishna dealt with the question of whether or not one who recites Shema without hearing it fulfilled his obligation.
革玛拉 理清密释纳所引两说：拉比约西 何以要人诵 《听》 诵得自己耳中听得见？
The Gemara clarifies the opinions cited in the mishna: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ear?
因为经上写着「你要听」，而 拉比约西 取其字面，意思是：要叫你的耳听见你口里所出的。
Because it is written: Shema, hear, and Rabbi Yosei holds that this is to be understood literally, meaning: Make your ears hear what your mouth utters.
首位 坦拿 以为人纵然听不见自己所诵的 《听》，也算尽了本分；他以为「你要听」是另有所教——凡你听得见、听得懂的语言，都可以用来诵 《听》，并不非用希伯来语不可。
The first tanna, who holds that one fulfills his obligation even if he does not hear his recitation of Shema, holds that Shema, hear, comes to teach something else; one may recite Shema in any language that one can hear and understand, and there is no requirement to recite Shema specifically in Hebrew.
拉比约西 也认首位坦拿从「你要听」推出的那一条；只是他以为这一个词可推出两条 哈拉哈——一是凡语言皆可诵，二是须诵得自己耳中听得见。
拉比约西 也认首位 坦拿 从「你要听」一词推出的那一条；只是 拉比约西 以为：这一个词可推出两条 哈拉哈——一是凡语言皆可用来诵 《听》，二是须诵得自己耳中听得见。
And Rabbi Yosei agrees with the principle derived by the first tanna from the word Shema; however Rabbi Yosei holds: Derive two halakhot from the word Shema; first, one may recite Shema in any language, and second, one must recite it in a manner audible to his own ears.
别处论分什一之律的密释纳说：能言而不能听的聋者，按理不可分举祭——因分举祭须诵祝，而他听不见自己所诵；但事后若已分了，所分的仍是有效的举祭。
我们在别处一段论分什一之律的密释纳里学过：能说话而不能听的聋者，按理不可分 举祭，因为分 举祭 须诵一段祝祷，而他听不见那祝祷。
We learned there in a mishna regarding the laws of separating tithes: A deaf person who can speak but cannot hear may not separate teruma ab initio, because he must recite a blessing over the separation of teruma and he is unable to hear the blessing.
但事后若他已经分了，所分的仍是有效的 举祭。
But after the fact, if he did separate it, his teruma is valid teruma.
问：这位坦拿是谁——他以为聋者所分事后算作举祭，按理却不可分？
革玛拉 问：这位 坦拿 是谁呢？他以为能说话而不能听的聋者若分了 举祭，事后算作 举祭，按理却不可这样行。
The Gemara asks: Who is this tanna who holds that if a deaf person who can speak but cannot hear separates teruma, it is considered teruma after the fact, but ab initio he may not do so?
拉夫希斯达 说：那是 拉比约西——正如我们密释纳所学：诵《听》而自己耳中听不见的算尽本分，这是 拉比犹大 之说；拉比约西 说不算。
拉夫希斯达 说：那是 拉比约西，正如我们那段密释纳所学的：人诵 《听》 而自己耳中听不见的，算尽了本分。
Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in our mishna: One who recites Shema and did not recite it so it was audible to his own ear, he fulfilled his obligation.
这是 拉比犹大 之说。
This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
拉比约西 说：他不算尽了本分。
Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.
拉夫希斯达 详说：拉比约西 说「事后也不算」，单指诵《听》——那是妥拉所定之责；至于举祭，所虑者是那一段祝祷，而祝祷出于拉比所立，分举祭本不系于祝祷，故事后仍算尽了本分。
拉夫希斯达 详说：拉比约西 说聋者连事后也不算尽了本分，单指诵 《听》 而言——那是 妥拉 所定之责。
Rav Ḥisda elaborates: Rabbi Yosei only stated that a deaf person did not fulfill his obligation even after the fact with regard to the recitation of Shema, which is a biblical obligation.
至于 举祭，所虑的乃是分它时所诵那一段祝祷。
But with regard to teruma, the concern is due to the blessing recited over its separation.
而那祝祷是拉比所立之律，分 举祭 这件事本身并不系于那祝祷。
And the blessing is by rabbinic law, and the separation of teruma itself is not contingent upon the blessing.
无论诵不诵那祝祷，所分的 举祭 都算生效；所以在聋者这一例上，他事后算是尽了本分。
The separation of teruma takes effect regardless of whether or not a blessing is recited, so in the case of a deaf person, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact.
诘之：你何以断定那是 拉比约西 之说？或许是 拉比犹大——他于诵《听》也说事后算、按理不可。你说凭「诵而听不见」这一措辞——那是事后的说法，坦拿没有用按理的说法。
革玛拉 诘那「此段密释纳合于 拉比约西 之说」的断语：你从哪里推出这是 拉比约西 的意思？
The Gemara challenges the assertion that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: And from where do you infer that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?
或许它合的是 拉比犹大 之说——他于诵 《听》 一事也说：人若没有诵得自己耳中听得见，事后算是尽了本分，按理却不可这样行。
Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he said that with regard to the recitation of Shema as well, if one did not recite it in a manner audible to his own ears, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact, but ab initio he may not do so.
这一说与 举祭 那一例里那位 坦拿 的意思正相同。
This opinion is identical to that of the tanna in the case of teruma.
你要知道这话不错，因为密释纳所教的是：「人诵 《听》 而自己耳中听不见的。」
Know that this is true because it was taught in the mishna: One who recites Shema without it being audible to his own ear.
那位 坦拿 是把这一争摆在「事后」的情形上说的。
The tanna formulated the dispute in a case which was after the fact.
若他已经这样诵了 《听》，是的，他算尽了本分。
If one already recited Shema in this manner, yes, he fulfilled his obligation.
那位 坦拿 并没有用「按理」的说法来措辞——就是说，并没有说「人可以诵得自己耳中听不见」——因为照 拉比犹大，按理是不可这样行的。
The tanna did not formulate the case in the mishna using ab initio language, i.e., one may recite Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears because, ab initio, he may not do so according to Rabbi Yehuda.
驳回此证：密释纳用「事后」的措辞，并不证明 拉比犹大 也以为按理不可；乃是要把 拉比约西 那一说的严处说尽——连事后也不算。若为传 拉比犹大 之意，则连按理也可以。
革玛拉 驳回这一证。
The Gemara rejects this proof.
他们解说：密释纳把这条 哈拉哈 用「人诵了」这样「事后」的措辞教出来，并不足以证明 拉比犹大 也以为按理不可诵得自己耳中听不见。
In explanation, they say: The fact that the mishna taught the halakha utilizing the after the fact language: One who recited, does not prove that Rabbi Yehuda also holds that one may not ab initio recite Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears.
倒是说：密释纳这样措辞，是要把 拉比约西 那一说的严处说尽——他说人若这样诵 《听》，连事后也不算尽了本分。
Rather, the mishna formulated the halakha in that manner is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that if one does so, even after the fact, he did not fulfill his obligation to recite Shema.
因为若只为传 拉比犹大 之意，那么连按理，他也可以不听自己所诵而尽本分。
As, if it sought to convey the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation without hearing the recitation.
再诘：你把举祭那段密释纳定为 拉比约西 之说——他以为事后也不算；那么巴拉伊塔所教的又当如何？它说：《谢饭祷》不可只在心里诵，若已如此诵了，仍算尽了本分——而《谢饭祷》与《听》一样是妥拉之诫。
革玛拉 诘这一断语：你把那段论 举祭 之律的密释纳定为合于谁的意思呢？
The Gemara challenges this conclusion: How did you establish the reasoning of the mishna dealing with the laws of terumot?
定为合于 拉比约西——他以为人不听自己所诵的，连事后也不算尽了本分。
In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that one who does not hear his recitation does not fulfill his obligation even after the fact.
那么一段 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的又当如何？它说：人不可只在心里诵 《谢饭祷》、诵得听不出声来；他若已这样诵了，仍算尽了本分。而 《谢饭祷》 与 《听》 一样，是 妥拉 所定之诫，不像分 举祭 时所诵那一祝。
But what about that which was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals, which like Shema and unlike the blessing on separating teruma is a Torah commandment, in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation?
这段巴拉伊塔合于谁？既不合 拉比约西，也不合 拉比犹大。若说合 拉比犹大——照上文所解，他连按理也可，那又何须避着不在心里诵？若说合 拉比约西——他以为连事后也不算。
这段 《巴拉伊塔》 合于谁的意思呢？
In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
既不合 拉比约西 的意思，也不合 拉比犹大 的意思。
It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
因为你若说它合 拉比犹大——照 革玛拉 上文所解他的立场，他连按理也可以这样尽本分，不必诵出声来。
As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say according to the way the Gemara explained his position that even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation in that manner, and he need not recite it audibly.
既然如此，人又何须避着、不在心里诵那一祝呢？
In that case, why should one refrain from reciting the blessing in his heart?
你若说它合 拉比约西——他以为人这样行，连事后也不算尽了本分。
And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; he holds that even after the fact, he did not fulfill his obligation.
那么只得回到那一解：拉比犹大 以为事后算、按理不可。故《谢饭祷》那段巴拉伊塔合于 拉比犹大。
那么，我们只得怎样说呢？
Rather, what must we say?
只得回到那一解：拉比犹大 以为事后是的，他算尽了本分；按理却不可，人不该诵得自己耳中听不见。
We must revert to the explanation that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who holds that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but ab initio, no, one may not recite it in a manner inaudible to his own ears.
所以那段论 《谢饭祷》 的 《巴拉伊塔》，合的是 拉比犹大 的意思。
Therefore the baraita concerning Grace after Meals is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
又诘：那么 拉比西缅·本·帕齐 之子 拉比犹大 所传那段巴拉伊塔——能言而不能听的聋者按理便可分举祭——又合于谁？
革玛拉 就此发问：那么 拉比西缅·本·帕齐 之子 拉比犹大 所传那段 《巴拉伊塔》 又当如何？它说：能说话而不能听的聋者，按理便可分 举祭。
The Gemara questions this: But what about that baraita which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who speaks but does not hear may, ab initio, separate teruma.
那一段 《巴拉伊塔》 合于谁的意思呢？
In accordance with whose opinion is that baraita?
照上文所说，它既不合 拉比犹大（他说事后可、按理不可），也不合 拉比约西（他说连事后也不算）。那么它究竟合谁？
照我们上文所说的，它既不合 拉比犹大 的意思，也不合 拉比约西 的意思。
According to what we have said, it is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
因为你若说它合 拉比犹大——他岂不曾说：事后是的，他算尽了本分，虽然自己耳中听不见；按理却不可，他不能那样尽本分？
As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, although it was inaudible to his own ears, but ab initio, no, he may not fulfill his obligation in that manner?
你若说它合 拉比约西——他岂不曾说：人若听不见自己所诵的，连事后也不算尽了本分？
And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, didn’t he say that if he does not hear himself, even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?
既然如此，这段 《巴拉伊塔》 所载的是谁的意思呢？
If so, whose opinion is reflected in this baraita?
只得回到前解而略作修正：它其实合 拉比犹大，连按理聋者也可分举祭；这不难解——一处是他自己的意思，一处是他师尊的意思。巴拉伊塔载：拉比犹大 托 拉比以利亚撒·本·亚撒利雅 之名说，诵《听》须诵得耳中听得见；拉比梅伊尔 却说，要紧在心里的存意。
那么只得回到前面那一解，略作修正而说：它其实合 拉比犹大 的意思，而且连按理，聋者也可以分 举祭。
Rather, we must revert to the previous explanation but with a slight revision, and say that actually it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and even ab initio, a deaf person may also separate teruma.
这样便不难解，密释纳与 《巴拉伊塔》 之间也无相违之处——因为一处是他自己的意思，一处是他师尊的意思。
And this is not difficult and there is no contradiction between the mishna and the baraita, as this is his own opinion and that is his teacher’s opinion.
正如一段 《巴拉伊塔》 所教：拉比犹大 托 拉比以利亚撒·本·亚撒利雅 之名说：人诵 《听》 须诵得自己耳中听得见，正如经上所说：「以色列 啊，你要听：耶和华我们的神是独一的主。」这就是说他当如此行；但事后若他没有这样行，仍算尽了本分。
As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites Shema must make it audible to his ears, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” This means that he must do so, but after the fact, if he failed to do so, he nevertheless fulfilled his obligation.
那 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说：拉比梅伊尔 对他说：经上说「我今日所吩咐你的，都要记在你心上」——拉比梅伊尔 解这一句的意思是：那些话要紧在心里的存意；纵是按理，人也不必把 《听》 诵出声来。
The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: It says: “Which I command you this day, upon your heart;” which Rabbi Meir explains to mean that the significance of the words follows the intention of the heart and even ab initio one need not recite Shema audibly.
既已引全那段巴拉伊塔，纵说 拉比犹大 从其师之说（只有事后才算），也不难解、诸巴拉伊塔亦不相违：许聋者按理分举祭那一段合 拉比梅伊尔，而不许按理诵《谢饭祷》那一段合 拉比犹大。
革玛拉 指出：到了这一步，那段 《巴拉伊塔》 既已全引出来，纵使你说 拉比犹大 是从他师尊之说——聋者只有事后才算尽了本分——也仍不难解，几段 《巴拉伊塔》 之间也不相违。
The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this point and the entire baraita has been cited, even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, that only after the fact, does a deaf person fulfill his obligation, it is, nevertheless, not difficult and the different baraitot are not contradictory.
因为那许聋者按理便可分 举祭 的一段，合的是 拉比梅伊尔 的意思；而那说人按理不可只在心里诵 《谢饭祷》、事后却算尽了本分的一段，合的是 拉比犹大 的意思。
As this baraita permitting a deaf person to separate teruma ab initio is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while this baraita that holds that he may not recite Grace after Meals ab initio but after the fact he fulfilled his obligation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
革玛拉 引一桩相类的：《经卷》那一卷的密释纳说，人皆可诵以斯帖书卷，唯聋者、痴愚者、未成年者不可；拉比犹大 则以未成年者为可。
革玛拉 引一桩与此相类的、论诵 以斯帖书卷 之事：我们在那边、就是 以斯帖书卷 卷的一段密释纳里学过：人人都可诵 以斯帖书卷，唯有聋者、痴愚者 与未成年者不可。
The Gemara cites a similar discussion with regard to the reading of the Megilla: We learned in a mishna there in tractate Megilla: All are fit to read the Megilla except a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor.
拉比犹大 则以未成年者为可。
And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit.
问：那位以为聋者连事后所诵也不算的坦拿是谁？拉夫马塔纳 说：是 拉比约西——正如我们密释纳所学（引前文）。
革玛拉 理清一问：那位以为聋者连事后所诵也不算的 坦拿 是谁？
The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who holds that even after the fact, the reading of a deaf person is not valid?
拉夫马塔纳 说：是 拉比约西，正如我们那段密释纳所学的：人诵 《听》 而自己耳中听不见的，算尽了本分。
Rav Mattana said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in our mishna: One who recites Shema and did not recite it so it was audible to his own ear, fulfilled his obligation.
这是 拉比犹大 之说。
This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
拉比约西 说：他不算尽了本分。
Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.
问：你从哪里断定《经卷》所引那段密释纳合于 拉比约西，以为聋者事后所诵也不算？（下文接叶十五背）
革玛拉 问：你从哪里断定，那段自 以斯帖书卷 卷所引的密释纳合于 拉比约西 的意思，以为聋者事后所诵也不算数呢？
The Gemara asks: From where do you conclude that the mishna cited from tractate Megilla is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and that after the fact his reading is also not valid?