← 小节期卷总目·第三章 这些人可剃发
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 7 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）续述犹太地与加利利的分歧：一方说安息日仍有某些服丧，即在家中私下所守、旁人看不出的服丧礼；另一方说安息日全无服丧。
……「安息日有某些服丧」，即限于服丧者在自己家中私下所守、旁人察觉不到的服丧礼；而那些人则说：「安息日全无服丧。」
There is some mourning on Shabbat, i.e., with regard to mourning rites that can be observed privately in the mourner’s home and will go unnoticed by other people; whereas those say: There is no mourning on Shabbat at all.
革玛拉解释双方的依据：主张安息日有服丧者，依据「安息日算入服丧之日」；主张全无服丧者，依据「安息日不打断服丧期」。
革玛拉解释：说安息日有某些服丧的人，依据的是所教导的「安息日算入」服丧之日，可见那一日仍守某种程度的服丧。
The Gemara explains: The ones who said that there is some mourning on Shabbat rely on that which is taught, that Shabbat counts as one of the days of mourning, implying that some degree of mourning applies on that day.
说安息日全无服丧的人，依据的是所教导的「安息日不打断」服丧期。
The ones who said that there is no mourning on Shabbat at all base this on that which is taught that Shabbat does not interrupt the mourning period.
后一方论证：若安息日真守服丧，何须特意教导它不打断服丧期？可见安息日全无服丧。
后者这样论证：你若以为安息日有某些服丧，就有难处了：既然已说安息日确实守服丧，还需要教导我们这一日不打断服丧期吗？
The latter argue as follows: If it should enter your mind to say that there is some mourning on Shabbat, there is a difficulty, for now that it has been stated that actual mourning applies on Shabbat, is it necessary to teach us that this day does not interrupt the mourning period?
可见结论必定是：安息日全无服丧。
Rather, the conclusion must be that there is no mourning on Shabbat whatsoever.
革玛拉质问主张全无服丧者：密释纳不是说安息日算入服丧之日吗？答：因后半段要说节日不算入，前半段便顺带说安息日算入，虽然安息日并不守服丧礼。
革玛拉问：可是密释纳不是教导说安息日算入服丧之日吗？这意味着安息日与服丧期的其他日子一样，至少要守某些服丧礼。
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the mishna that Shabbat counts as one of the days of mourning, implying that it is just like the other days of mourning, and at least some mourning rites are practiced on it?
革玛拉答：因为密释纳在后半段要教导节日不算入应守的服丧日数，所以在前半段也教导安息日算入服丧之日，虽然这一日并不守任何服丧礼。
The Gemara answers: Since the mishna wished to teach in the latter clause that the days of a Festival do not count toward the requisite days of mourning, it taught also in the first clause that Shabbat counts as one of the days of mourning, although no mourning rites are practiced on it.
反过来质问主张有服丧者：密释纳何须说安息日不打断服丧期？答：这句本身不必说，只因后半段要说节日打断服丧，前半段才顺带说安息日不打断。
革玛拉问：照说安息日有某些服丧的人，密释纳不是教导说安息日不打断服丧期吗？若安息日本守服丧礼，这话就不必说了。
The Gemara asks: And according to the ones who said that there is some mourning on Shabbat, isn’t it taught in the mishna that it does not interrupt the mourning period, which would have been unnecessary to say if the mourning rites are practiced on it?
革玛拉答：这句话本身并不必要，只因密释纳在后半段要教导节日打断服丧，所以在前半段也教导安息日不打断服丧。
The Gemara answers: This was not necessary for itself, but due to the fact that the mishna wished to teach in the latter clause that the Festivals interrupt the mourning, it taught also in the first clause that Shabbat does not interrupt it.
革玛拉试将此争议比附于诸 坦拿 之间的分歧，引一则 《巴拉伊塔》：死者停放在面前的人，须到别的房间吃饭；无房间则到朋友家；无朋友家则立十掌高的隔断；连隔断都没有，就转脸背着死者吃。
革玛拉问：我们是否可以说，这与诸位 坦拿 之间关于安息日是否也守某些服丧礼的分歧相应？因为一则 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：死者停放在面前的人，要到另一个房间吃饭。
The Gemara asks: Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im with regard to whether or not some mourning rites are observed even on Shabbat, for it was taught in a baraita: One whose deceased relative is laid out before him eats in another room.
若他没有另一个房间，就到朋友家里吃。
If he does not have another room, he eats in the house of a friend.
若他没有朋友家可去，就在自己与死者之间立一道十掌高的隔断，这样才可以吃饭。
If he does not have a friend’s house available, he makes a partition ten handbreadths high between him and the deceased, so that he may eat.
若他连做隔断的材料也没有，就把脸转开、背着死者吃饭。
If he does not have material with which to make a partition, he averts his face from the dead and eats.
《巴拉伊塔》 续言：这样的人吃饭时不斜倚，不吃肉、不喝酒，不为他人诵祝祷，不邀众同诵 《谢饭祷》，别人也不算他入数；他免诵 《听》、免祷 《立祷》、免戴经匣，也免于妥拉中的一切诫命。
无论如何，他吃饭时都不斜倚，因为斜倚是宴席的样子；他不吃肉，也不喝酒；他不在饭前诵祝祷来使旁人尽其本分；他不诵邀众同诵 《谢饭祷》 的辞句，别人也不为他诵祝祷，也不邀他一同诵 《谢饭祷》，因为他不能算作诵邀众辞所需的三人之一。
And in any case, he does not recline while he eats, as reclining is characteristic of a festive meal; and he neither eats meat nor drinks wine; and he does not recite a blessing before eating to exempt others from their obligation; and he does not recite the formula to invite the participants in the meal to join together in the Grace after Meals, and they do not recite a blessing over him nor do others invite him to join in the Grace after Meals, as he cannot be a member of the three required to recite the formula.
注：「邀众同诵」指三人以上同食时由一人邀众一同诵谢饭祷的辞句（希伯来文 זימון）。
他免诵 《听》，免祷 《立祷》，免戴经匣，也免于履行妥拉中提到的一切诫命。
And he is exempt from the recitation of Shema, and from the Amida prayer, and from donning phylacteries, and from performing all of the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah.
《巴拉伊塔》 再言：但在安息日，他照常斜倚、吃肉喝酒、为人诵祝祷、邀众同诵，也须诵 《听》、祷 《立祷》、戴经匣，守妥拉一切诫命。拉班迦玛列 说：既然他须守这些，他就须守一切诫命。
但在安息日，他照常斜倚而吃；他吃肉，也喝酒；他诵祝祷使旁人尽其本分；他诵邀众同诵 《谢饭祷》 的辞句，别人也可以为他诵祝祷，邀他一同诵 《谢饭祷》。
But on Shabbat he reclines at the meal, as per his custom, and eats; and he eats meat and drinks wine; and he recites blessings to exempt others from their obligation; and he recites the formula to invite the participants in the meal to join together in the Grace after Meals, and others may recite blessings on his behalf and invite him to join in the Grace after Meals.
他也须诵 《听》，须祷 《立祷》，须守经匣的诫命，以及妥拉中提到的一切诫命。
And he is also obligated in the recitation of Shema, and in the Amida prayer, and in the mitzva of phylacteries, and in all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah.
注：安息日本不戴经匣，此句照英译直译；原文或意谓经匣之外的其余诫命，存疑。
拉班迦玛列 说：既然他须履行这些与安息日相关的诫命，他就须在安息日履行一切诫命。
Rabban Gamliel says: Since he is obligated to fulfill these mitzvot associated with Shabbat, he is obligated to fulfill all of the mitzvot on Shabbat.
拉班迦玛列 的话含糊不清。拉比约哈难 加以澄清：两方的实际分别在于夫妻同房；照前者，居丧者在安息日也负有与妻子同房的诫命。
拉班迦玛列 的话含糊不清。
Rabban Gamliel’s statement is vague.
下面这句话将它澄清：拉比约哈难 说：两者之间，即无名的第一位 坦拿 与 拉班迦玛列 的见解之间，实际的分别在于夫妻同房。
The following clarifies it: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The practical difference between them, the opinion of the anonymous first tanna and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, is with regard to sexual relations.
注：英译此处作「第一位 坦拿 与 拉比约哈难 的见解」，显系笔误；按上下文，与第一位 坦拿 相对的是 拉班迦玛列，今照文意改正。
照 拉班迦玛列 的说法，居丧者在安息日负有与妻子同房的诫命，正如他须履行其他一切诫命一样。
According to Rabban Gamliel, the acute mourner is obligated in the mitzva to engage in marital intercourse with his wife on Shabbat, just as he is obligated in all the other mitzvot.
革玛拉问：双方不就是在这一点上争论吗？第一位 坦拿 认为安息日私下之事仍须服丧，故不可同房；拉班迦玛列 则认为安息日全无服丧。
革玛拉问：难道他们不是在这件事上争论吗？难道不是一位贤士，即无名的第一位 坦拿，认为安息日在私下的事上仍有某些服丧，所以服丧者不可同房；另一位贤士，即 拉班迦玛列，则认为安息日全无服丧吗？
The Gemara asks: What, is it not with regard to this issue that they disagree: Is it not that one Sage, the anonymous first tanna, holds that there is some mourning on Shabbat with regard to private issues, and therefore the mourner does not engage in sexual relations; and one Sage, Rabban Gamliel, holds that there is no mourning on Shabbat at all?
革玛拉驳回：未必如此。也许第一位 坦拿 禁止同房，只是因为那里死者停放在面前、尚未下葬；在服丧期中死者已葬，就不禁同房。
革玛拉驳回这个论证：你从哪里得出这个结论？
The Gemara rejects this argument: From where do you reach this conclusion?
也许第一位 坦拿 说哀恸的亲人不可同房，只限于那里所论的情形，因为他的死者停放在他面前，还没有下葬。
Perhaps the first tanna is saying that it is prohibited for the grieving relative to engage in sexual relations in the case dealt with only there, because his deceased relative is laid out before him and has not yet been buried.
但在这里，即服丧期间，他的死者已经下葬，不再停放在他面前，同房就不受禁止。
But here, with regard to the period of mourning, when his dead has been buried and is no longer laid out before him, sexual relations are not prohibited.
又或许 拉班迦玛列 许可同房，只限于服丧律法尚未生效之时，因服丧从下葬后才开始；服丧律法已生效时，他也可能禁止同房。
又或许 拉班迦玛列 说哀恸的亲人可以同房，只限于那里的情形，因为服丧的 哈拉哈 尚未生效，服丧要到下葬之后才开始。
And alternatively, perhaps Rabban Gamliel is saying that the grieving relative is permitted to engage in sexual relations only there, where the halakhot of mourning have not yet taken effect, as mourning begins only after the burial.
但在这里，服丧的 哈拉哈 已经生效，他也可能禁止同房。
But here, where the halakhot of mourning have already taken effect, he may also prohibit sexual relations.