← 经卷总目·第二章 颠倒诵读的
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 9 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）那卷是与其余圣卷写在一起的；拉夫犹大 对他说：众贤说过，读这样的书卷不算尽本分。
……那是与其余圣卷写在一起的。
that was written together with the rest of the Writings.
拉夫犹大 对他说：众贤说过：人若从与其余圣卷写在一起的以斯帖书卷诵读，不算尽了本分。
Rav Yehuda said to him: The Sages have said: If one reads from a Megilla that was written together with the rest of the Writings he has not fulfilled his obligation.
拉比约哈难 也说读与圣卷写在一起的书卷不算尽本分，但随即加以限定：这只是论为会众诵读；个人私下诵读，照样尽了本分。
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 说，拉比约哈难 说：人若从与其余圣卷写在一起的以斯帖书卷诵读，不算尽了本分。
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one reads from a Megilla that was written together with the rest of the Writings he has not fulfilled his obligation.
可是他们敲了这条 哈拉哈 的头，就是转述这条判定之后，随即加了一个限定，削去了它的大半效力：他们教这条 哈拉哈，只是论为会众诵读以斯帖书卷而言。
But they hit this halakha on its head, i.e., immediately after reporting this ruling they added a qualification that removed much of its force: They taught this halakha only with respect to reading the Megilla for a congregation.
个人私下诵读以斯帖书卷，即使那书卷与其余圣卷写在一起，也算尽了本分。
An individual who reads the Megilla in private fulfills his obligation even if the Megilla was written together with the rest of the Writings.
只有当众诵读时，才必须用单独成卷的以斯帖书卷。
Only when it is read in public must it be from a Megilla that is a separate scroll.
拉比约哈难 又说：妥拉书卷各页的缝线上下两端须留空不缝，这是从西奈传给摩西的 哈拉哈；但随即说明，这不是因书卷特别神圣，只是为防撕裂：卷得太紧时纸页会张开，卷的人就会放松。
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 又说，拉比约哈难 说：留空不缝的 哈拉哈，就是妥拉书卷的羊皮纸页不可一直缝到边上，而须在上端和下端各留一小段，是从西奈传给摩西的 哈拉哈，就是说，它没有写在妥拉里，而是在口传律法的框架里领受的。
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba also said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha of leaving a space without stitches, i.e., that the parchment sheets of a Torah scroll must not be sewn all the way to the edge, but rather a small margin must be left at the top and at the bottom, is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, i.e., it was not written in the Torah but was received in the framework of the Oral Law.
可是他们随即敲了这条 哈拉哈 的头，说明这条 哈拉哈 并不是出于妥拉书卷特别的神圣；他们乃是说，这只是为了叫它不至撕裂。
But they immediately hit this halakha on its head, explaining that this halakha is not due to the special sanctity of a Torah scroll; rather, they said that it is only so that it not rip.
书卷若卷得太用力，羊皮纸页就会开始张开，因为它们的两端没有缝在一起，卷的人就会停手，不再那样用力地卷。
If the scroll is wound too forcefully, the sheets of parchment will begin to spread apart since they are not sewn together at their extremities, and the one who is winding will cease to wind it so forcefully.
缝线若一直缝到边上，就没有这样的警示，针脚就会把羊皮纸撕裂。
If the stitching went all the way to the end there would be no such warning and the stitches would cause the parchment to rip.
拉比约哈难 又说：神的荣耀向摩西和以利亚显现时，他们所站的洞穴若留有哪怕一根小针大的缝隙，强光透进来，他们就承受不住，因为「人见我的面不能存活」。
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 又说，拉比约哈难 说：神的荣耀向摩西和以利亚显现的时候，他们所站的那个洞穴，若留有哪怕一根小缝衣针大的缝隙——如经上写着：「我的荣耀经过的时候，我必将你放在磐石穴中」（出埃及记 33:22），又写着：「他到了那里，进了一个洞……那时耶和华从那里经过」（列王纪上 19:9–11）——他们就会因那从缝隙透进来的强光而承受不住，因为经上说：「人见我的面不能存活」（出埃及记 33:20）。
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba also said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Had there been left open a crack so much as the size of small sewing needle in the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood when God’s glory was revealed to them, as it is written: “And it shall come to pass, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock” (Exodus 33:22), and: “And he came there to a cave…and, behold, the Lord passed by” (I Kings 19:9–11), they would not have been able to endure due to the intense light that would have entered that crack, as it is stated: “For no man shall see Me and live” (Exodus 33:20).
拉比约哈难 又讲解「版上所写的，是照耶和华……对你们所说的一切话」：神在山上把妥拉的一切推论、文士之言的一切推论，以及文士将来要新立的一切规条，都指示了摩西。文士新立的是什么？就是诵读以斯帖书卷。
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿巴 又说，拉比约哈难 说：经上写着：「耶和华把那两块石版交给我，是神用指头写的。版上所写的，是照耶和华……在山上……对你们所说的一切话」（申命记 9:10），这是什么意思？
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba further said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spoke with you in the mountain” (Deuteronomy 9:10)?
注：英译略去了经文中间的「在大会的日子」「从火中」等语，这里照英译节引，以「……」标出。
这是教导：圣者——愿他受称颂——在山上把一切能从妥拉字句推出的道理、一切能从文士，就是早期贤哲的话推出的道理，以及文士将来要在妥拉的律法之外新立的一切 哈拉哈，都指示了摩西。
This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Moses on the mountain all the inferences that can be derived from the words of the Torah; and all the inferences that can be derived from the words of the Scribes, the early Sages; and also all the new halakhot that the Scribes were destined to introduce in the future in addition to the laws of the Torah.
文士要在妥拉的律法之外新立的，具体是什么呢？
And what is it specifically that the Scribes would introduce in addition to the laws of the Torah?
就是诵读以斯帖书卷。
The reading of the Megilla.
密释纳：任何人都可诵读以斯帖书卷，唯有聋者、痴愚者和未成年者不可；拉比犹大 说未成年者也可以。
任何人都可以诵读以斯帖书卷，唯有聋者、痴愚者和未成年者不可。
Everyone is fit to read the Megilla, except for a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor.
拉比犹大 持不同意见，说未成年者可以诵读以斯帖书卷。
Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says that a minor is fit to read the Megilla.
革玛拉问：认为聋者所诵连事后也不算数的，是哪一位 坦拿？拉夫马塔纳 说是 拉比约西：在诵 《听》 的事上，他认为没有诵到自己耳朵听得见的不算尽本分；诵读书卷想必也是一样。
革玛拉问：哪一位 坦拿 教导，聋者诵读以斯帖书卷，即使在事后，也不，不算数？
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught that the reading of a deaf person, even after the fact, no, it is not valid?
拉夫马塔纳 说：是 拉比约西，因为我们在别处一段密释纳里学过（《祝祷卷》叶十五正）：人若诵 《听》，却没有诵到自己的耳朵听得见，仍算尽了本分。
Rav Mattana said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Berakhot 15a): If one recites the Shema but does not make it audible to his ears, he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation.
这是 拉比犹大 的话。
This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
拉比约西 说：他不算尽了本分。
Rabbi Yosei said: He has not fulfilled his obligation.
拉比约西 的话表明：人听不见自己所说的，就不算尽了本分。
Rabbi Yosei’s statement implies that one who does not hear what he is saying does not fulfill his obligation.
想来诵 《听》 与诵读以斯帖书卷的 哈拉哈 是相同的。
Presumably the halakhot for Shema recitation and Megilla reading are equivalent.
革玛拉质疑：怎知密释纳是照 拉比约西、说聋者连事后也不算？或许它照的是 拉比犹大，只是说聋者按理不可诵读，事后却算数。
革玛拉质疑上面讨论所依据的前提：可是你怎么知道那说聋者不可诵读以斯帖书卷的密释纳是照 拉比约西 的意见，并且它的意思是：聋者诵读以斯帖书卷，即使在事后，也不，不算尽了本分？
The Gemara questions the assumption on which the previous discussion is based: But from where do you know that the mishna, which states that a deaf person may not read the Megilla, reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and that it means to say that even after the fact, no, one does not fulfill his obligation if the Megilla is read by a deaf person?
或许这段密释纳是照 拉比犹大 的意见教的，应当理解为：聋者按理不可诵读，但事后他所诵的算数。
Perhaps the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it should be understood as saying that a deaf person may not read ab initio, but after the fact his reading is valid.
革玛拉驳回：密释纳把聋者与痴愚者、未成年者并列，可见聋者与他们相同：后二者所诵连事后也不算，聋者也是如此。
革玛拉驳回这提议：这不可作此想，因为密释纳把聋者、痴愚者和未成年者的 哈拉哈 一同教导，这表示聋者与痴愚者或未成年者相同。
The Gemara rejects this proposal: This should not enter your mind, as the mishna teaches the halakha of a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor together, implying that a deaf person is similar to an imbecile or a minor.
所以可以推知：正如痴愚者和未成年者所诵即使在事后也不算数，同样，聋者所诵即使在事后，也不，不算数。
Therefore, it may be inferred that just as the readings of an imbecile and a minor are not valid even after the fact, so too, even after the fact, no, the reading of a deaf person is not valid.
革玛拉问：三者并列，也许只因他们都按理不可诵读，事后的地位却各不相同；聋者事后所诵或许算数，照的是 拉比犹大。答：不可能，因为密释纳后一句才标明是他说的，可见前一句不出于他。
革玛拉问：可是也许三种情形并不全然相同。
The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is not so that all three cases are equivalent.
也许论痴愚者和未成年者，这条 哈拉哈 是这样；论聋者，那条 哈拉哈 是那样。
Perhaps with regard to the imbecile and the minor, this halakha is as it is, and with regard to a deaf person, that halakha is as it is.
三种情形虽然一同教导，也许只是因为三者都按理不可诵读；论事后的地位，他们之间可能有分别。
Although all three cases are taught together, this may be merely because in all three cases he may not read ab initio; there may be a difference between them with regard to their status after the fact.
这段密释纳的意思可能是：聋者所诵事后算数，它所引的是 拉比犹大 的意见。
It is possible that the mishna means that the reading of a deaf person is valid after the fact, and is citing the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
革玛拉驳回：不可能说密释纳里不具名的前一位 坦拿 是 拉比犹大，因为后一句教导：拉比犹大 说未成年者可以诵读——由此可推知，密释纳的前一句不是 拉比犹大 教的。
The Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to say that the anonymous first tanna of the mishna is Rabbi Yehuda, as from the fact that the latter clause teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says that a minor is fit, it may be inferred that the first clause of the mishna was not taught by Rabbi Yehuda.
革玛拉再问：也许整段密释纳都出于 拉比犹大，只是前一句不具名、后一句具名？驳回：前一句不许未成年者诵读，后一句却许可，两个相反的意见不能出于同一位贤哲。
革玛拉接着问：可是也许整段密释纳终究都是 拉比犹大 教的，只是密释纳的前一句不具名地教导，后一句则明说是 拉比犹大 的名下所教？
The Gemara continues to ask: But perhaps the mishna in its entirety was taught by Rabbi Yehuda after all, but the first clause of the mishna was taught anonymously, whereas the latter clause was taught explicitly in the name of Rabbi Yehuda.
革玛拉驳回这论证：密释纳的两部分可以相提并论，以致能归于同一位贤哲吗？
The Gemara rejects this argument: Are the two parts of the mishna comparable, that they can be associated with a single Sage?
密释纳的前一句是要取消未成年者诵读的资格，后一句却是要宣布未成年者可以诵读。
The first clause of the mishna comes to disqualify the reading of a minor, whereas the latter clause comes to declare a minor fit.
所以这两个相反的意见，不能理解为同一位贤哲的话。
These two contradictory opinions therefore cannot be understood as the statement of a single Sage.
革玛拉又问：也许整段密释纳仍出于 拉比犹大，只是有缺文，讲的是两种未成年者：未到受训守诫年岁的不可诵读；已到那年岁的，按理也可以诵读。
革玛拉问：可是也许整段密释纳终究表达的是 拉比犹大 的意见。
The Gemara asks: But perhaps the mishna in its entirety expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda after all.
它所教的是论两种不同的未成年者的 哈拉哈，这段密释纳有缺文，少了一些阐明的字句，所教的是这样：任何人都可以诵读以斯帖书卷，唯有聋者、痴愚者和未成年者不可。
And it is teaching the halakha concerning two different types of minors, and the mishna is incomplete, lacking some words of elaboration, and is teaching the following: Everyone is fit to read the Megilla except for a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor.
这话是论什么情形说的呢？
In what case is this statement said?
只是论那还没有到受训守诫年岁的未成年者。
Only with regard to a minor who has not reached the age of training in mitzvot.
至于已到受训守诫年岁的未成年者，连按理也可以诵读以斯帖书卷，因为 拉比犹大 说：已到这所需年岁的未成年者可以诵读以斯帖书卷。
But a minor who has reached the age of training in mitzvot may read the Megilla even ab initio, as Rabbi Yehuda says that a minor who has reached that requisite age is fit to read the Megilla.
革玛拉对这解释提出难处：你既把密释纳归于 拉比犹大，就是认为照他的意见，聋者按理不可诵读，事后所诵却算数。
革玛拉对这样解释密释纳提出难处：你是怎样确立这段密释纳的？
The Gemara raises a difficulty with this interpretation of the mishna: In what manner did you establish the mishna?
你确立它是照 拉比犹大 的意见，并且你认为 拉比犹大 的意见是：聋者按理不可诵读以斯帖书卷，但事后他所诵的算数。
You established it as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and you understand the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to be that a deaf person is disqualified from reading the Megilla ab initio, but after the fact his reading is valid.
那么 拉比西缅·本·帕齐之子拉比犹大 所教的 《巴拉伊塔》 就有难处了：能说不能听的聋者，按理也可以分 举祭。这照谁的意见？照 拉比犹大，他认为听不见的按理不可；照 拉比约西，难处更大，因为他认为连事后也不算。
可是那样一来，拉比西缅·本·帕齐之子拉比犹大 所教的就有难处了，因为他教过一段 《巴拉伊塔》：能说话而不能听的聋者，即使按理也可以分 举祭，虽然他听不见自己在分 举祭 之前所诵的祝祷。
But then that which Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught will present a difficulty, as he taught a baraita: A deaf person who can speak but cannot hear may set aside teruma even ab initio, although he cannot hear himself reciting the blessing that is recited before setting aside teruma.
这段 《巴拉伊塔》 是根据谁的意见呢？
Upon whose opinion is this baraita based?
你若说是照 拉比犹大 的意见，那不可能，因为你已确立 拉比犹大 认为：人诵念了什么而没有听见，在事后，是，他所行的算数，但按理他不该这样做。
If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that cannot be, as you have established that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that if one recites something and does not hear it, after the fact, yes, his action is valid, but he should not do so ab initio.
你若说是照 拉比约西 的意见，那难处就更大了，因为他认为即使在事后，也不，他所行的不算数。
And if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, this is even more difficult, as he maintains that even after the fact, no, his action is not valid.
那么，说聋者即使按理也可以分 举祭 的，是哪一位贤哲呢？
Who, then, is the Sage who would say that a deaf person may set aside teruma even ab initio?
革玛拉反问：难道要说这段 《巴拉伊塔》 照 拉比犹大，而他许聋者按理诵读、拉比约西 则连事后也不许？那么「不可在心里诵《谢饭祷》，诵了仍尽本分」那一段又是谁的意见？两人都对不上。
革玛拉驳回这推论：那么，你要说什么呢？说这段 《巴拉伊塔》 是照 拉比犹大 的意见，而 拉比犹大 许聋者即使按理也可以诵读，拉比约西 却连事后也取消他的资格吗？
The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Rather, what then do you propose to say, that this baraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda and that Rabbi Yehuda permits a deaf person to read even ab initio, whereas Rabbi Yosei would disqualify him even after the fact?
可是那样一来，一段 《巴拉伊塔》 所教的又是谁的意见呢？它说：人不可在心里，就是不出声地诵《谢饭祷》；但他若这样诵了，仍算尽了本分。
But then whose is the opinion that is represented in that which is taught in a baraita: A person should not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, i.e., inaudibly, but if he recited it in this manner, he has fulfilled his obligation.
它既不是 拉比犹大 的意见，也不是 拉比约西 的意见。
It is the opinion of neither Rabbi Yehuda nor Rabbi Yosei.
因为它若照 拉比犹大 的意见，就该连按理也许可；它若照 拉比约西 的意见，那么即使在事后，也不，这样诵的不该算数。
As, if it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it should be permitted even ab initio, and if it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then even after the fact, no, this should not be valid.