16b.1
引密释纳
密释纳续说：各「双」中名列在前的作 纳西，与之相对的作副 纳西。
-
每一「双」中名列在前的作 纳西 ，与他们相对的作副 纳西 。
The first members of each pair served as Nasi, and their counterparts served as deputy Nasi.
注：副 纳西 原文 אַב בֵּית דִּין，即法庭之长。
← 节仪卷总目·第二章 不可讲解
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。
密释纳续说：各「双」中名列在前的作 纳西，与之相对的作副 纳西。
每一「双」中名列在前的作 纳西 ，与他们相对的作副 纳西 。
The first members of each pair served as Nasi, and their counterparts served as deputy Nasi.
注：副 纳西 原文 אַב בֵּית דִּין，即法庭之长。
拉比们教导：前三「双」中主张不按手的，与后两「双」中主张按手的，作 纳西，其同伴作副 纳西，这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。众贤却说正相反：犹大·本·塔拜 作副 纳西，西缅·本·沙塔赫 作 纳西。
拉比们教导：前三「双」中说不按手的三位，与后两「双」中说要按手的两位，作 纳西 ，与他们相对的作副 纳西 ；这是 拉比梅伊尔 的话。
The Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as Nasi, and their counterparts served as deputy Nasi; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
众贤却说正好相反： 犹大·本·塔拜 作副 纳西 ， 西缅·本·沙塔赫 作 纳西 。
And the Rabbis say the opposite: Yehuda ben Tabbai was deputy Nasi and Shimon ben Shataḥ was the Nasi.
革玛拉问：下面这则 《巴拉伊塔》 是哪位 坦拿 所教？犹大·本·塔拜 起誓说：我若没有处死一个串谋作伪证的人，愿我看不见以色列的安慰。他这样判，是为驳撒都该人：他们说，被诬判的人已被处死，作伪证者才处死；传统之说却是：被诬判的人尚未被处死，作伪证者才处死。
革玛拉问：拉比们在一则 《巴拉伊塔》 里所教的这番话，是哪位 坦拿 所教的？ 犹大·本·塔拜 说：我若没有处死一个串谋作伪证的人，愿我看不见以色列的安慰。
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said: I swear that I will not see the consolation of Israel if I did not kill a conspiring witness.
注：英译作 Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai；原文无「拉比」称谓，照库中定名写。「我若没有……愿我看不见」是起誓的说法，意即「我实在处死了……」。
意思是： 犹大·本·塔拜 判了一个串谋作伪证的人死刑，为要驳斥撒都该人的见解，因为他们说：串谋作伪证的人不处死，除非那被判的人已经被处死了。
This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order to counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed.
他们的见解与传统之说相反，传统之说认为：只有在那因他们的证词被判的人尚未被处死时，串谋作伪证的人才处死。
Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed.
西缅·本·沙塔赫 对他起誓说：你若不是流了无辜人的血，愿我看不见以色列的安慰；因为贤士们说过：串谋作伪证的人，须两人都被证为串谋，才处死、才受鞭刑、才赔钱。
西缅·本·沙塔赫 对他说：你若没有流无辜人的血，愿我看不见以色列的安慰，因为贤士们说过：串谋作伪证的人不处死，除非两人都被证为串谋；若只有一人被证为串谋，他不处死。
Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: I swear that I will not see the consolation of Israel if you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators; if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed.
注：「你若没有流……愿我看不见」也是起誓的说法，意即「你实在流了无辜人的血」。
他们若当受鞭刑，也不鞭打他们，除非两人都被证为串谋。
And they are not flogged if they are liable to such a penalty, unless they are both found to be conspirators.
他们若作伪证说某人欠钱，也不叫他们赔钱，除非两人都被证为串谋。
And if they testified falsely that someone owed money, they do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators.
犹大·本·塔拜 听了，立时立志：除非在 西缅·本·沙塔赫 面前，否则不再断任何律法上的事。
犹大·本·塔拜 听了这话，立时为自己立志：除非在 西缅·本·沙塔赫 面前，否则不再断任何律法上的事，因为他明白自己的判断靠不住。
Hearing this, Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to rule on any matter of law unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ, as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.
《巴拉伊塔》 续说：犹大·本·塔拜 终身伏在那被处死者的坟上求赦，哭声可闻。众人以为是死者的声音；他说：是我的声音，明天他死了，你们就知道——这是婉言说自己。
这则 《巴拉伊塔》 接着说： 犹大·本·塔拜 一生的日子，都伏在那被处死者的坟上，求他饶恕，人可以听见他哭泣的声音。
The baraita further relates: All of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executed individual, to request forgiveness, and his voice was heard weeping.
众人以为那是被处死者的声音，从坟里发出来。
The people thought that it was the voice of that executed person, rising from his grave.
他对他们说：那是我的声音；你们必知道是这样，因为明天，就是将来某个时候，他要死去，他的声音就再也听不见了。
Yehuda ben Tabbai said to them: It is my voice, and you shall know that it is so, for tomorrow, i.e., sometime in the future, he will die, and his voice will no longer be heard.
他说的是自己，只是不愿直接说出关于自己的不祥之事。
Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms.
拉瓦之子拉夫阿哈 对 拉夫阿施 说：这不足以证明那声音不是死者的；或许他在来世已与他和解，或许死者已按天上的律法控告了他，所以声音不再听见。
拉瓦之子拉夫阿哈 对 拉夫阿施 说：这不能确证那声音不是被处死者的，因为或许 犹大·本·塔拜 在来世已经使那被处死者息怒了。
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as perhaps ben Tabbai appeased the executed individual in the World-to-Come.
注：原文只称其父名「ben Tabbai」，即 犹大·本·塔拜。
或者，那死者已经照天上的律法控告了他，所以他的声音再也听不见了。
Or, alternatively, the latter may have prosecuted him by the law of Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.
革玛拉回到原问：这则 《巴拉伊塔》 照谁？若照 拉比梅伊尔——犹大·本·塔拜 是 纳西，西缅·本·沙塔赫 是副 纳西——前者先前在后者面前断案便可理解；若照众贤，副 纳西 本不可在 纳西 面前断案，何须立志？
革玛拉回到原来的问题：这则 《巴拉伊塔》 是照谁的意见？
The Gemara returns to its original question: Whose opinion does this baraita follow?
若说是照 拉比梅伊尔 的意见，他说 西缅·本·沙塔赫 是副 纳西 ，而 犹大·本·塔拜 是 纳西 ，那就好解释：他先前曾在 西缅·本·沙塔赫 面前作出律法裁决，判那串谋作伪证的人死刑；直到那件不幸的事之后，他才立志只在他同伴面前断案。
Granted, if you say it is in accordance with that of Rabbi Meir, who said that Shimon ben Shataḥ was deputy Nasi while Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was Nasi, that explains why he had previously issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ to execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague.
注：英译此句作 Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai，照库中定名写。
可是若说这则 《巴拉伊塔》 是照众贤的意见，他们说： 犹大·本·塔拜 是副 纳西 ， 西缅·本·沙塔赫 是 纳西 ，那他何必立这样的志呢？
But if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbai was deputy Nasi and Shimon ben Shataḥ the Nasi, why did he need to make such a commitment?
副 纳西 可以在 纳西 面前作出律法裁决吗？
May the deputy Nasi issue a halakhic ruling in the presence of the Nasi?
革玛拉驳回：他立志的不是不独自断案，而是连附和别人的裁决也不做，要先听 西缅·本·沙塔赫 的意见。
革玛拉驳回这说法：不是的；他立志不独自断案，是什么意思呢？
The Gemara refutes this: No; what did he mean by accepting upon himself not to rule on his own?
他说的是附和别人的裁决：就连附和别人的裁决，我也不附和，直到我先听过 西缅·本·沙塔赫 的意见。
He spoke with regard to joining the ruling of others: Even with regard to joining the ruling of others, I will also not join until I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.
密释纳说 米拿现 离去、沙迈 进来。他往哪里去了？阿巴耶 说：离去而入了歧途；拉瓦 说：去为王效力。《巴拉伊塔》 也这样说：八十对身穿丝袍的门生随他去为王效力，不再研读妥拉。
密释纳教导： 米拿现 离去， 沙迈 进来。
§ It is taught in the mishna: Menaḥem departed and Shammai entered.
革玛拉问： 米拿现 往哪里去了？
The Gemara asks: To where did Menaḥem depart?
阿巴耶 说：他离去，入了歧途。
Abaye said: He departed and went astray.
注：「入了歧途」原文 יָצָא לְתַרְבּוּת רָעָה，意即离经叛道。
所以密释纳不愿细说他的事。
Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case.
拉瓦 说：他离去为王效力。
Rava said: He departed for the king’s service.
他从王那里领了一个职位，只得离开法庭。
He received a post from the king and had to leave the court.
一则 《巴拉伊塔》 里也这样教导： 米拿现 离去为王效力，有八十对身穿丝袍的门生随他一同去为王做事，从此不再研读妥拉。
This is also taught in a baraita: Menaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with him to work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.
拉夫舍门·巴尔·阿巴 引 拉比约哈难：切莫轻看拉比所定的安息之禁；节日在祭牲头上按手只因近似役使牲畜而属此禁，历代最大的贤士却为它相争。
拉夫舍门·巴尔·阿巴 说， 拉比约哈难 说：你永远不要轻看拉比所定的 安息之禁 ，因为节日在祭牲头上按手，只因算是役使牲畜才被拉比禁止——役使牲畜并不是被禁的工，只是近似工而已——可是历代最大的贤士都曾为它相争。
§ Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A rabbinic decree [shevut] should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing hands on the head of an offering on a Festival is prohibited only as a rabbinic decree because it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet the greatest scholars of each generation disputed it.
革玛拉不解：这是显然的，既是公认的拉比禁令，谁会轻看？答：这是关乎诫命的禁令，按手不为己而为诫命，众贤仍看得很重。
革玛拉对这话感到不解：这是显然的。
The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This is obvious.
既是公认的拉比禁令，人为什么会轻看它呢？
Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly?
革玛拉答：他有必要说这话，因为这是关乎诫命的禁令。
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to state it because it is a rabbinic decree related to a mitzva.
意思是：在牲畜身上按手虽不是为自己的好处，而是为诫命的缘故，这条禁令在众贤眼中仍是要紧的事。
In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.
革玛拉仍不解：这也是显然的，同样是众贤所禁。答：此说是要排除另一说——以为他们所争的是当献的酬恩祭是否须按手；这里告诉我们，争的是拉比禁令，而非按手的本分。
革玛拉仍感不解：这也是显然的。
The Gemara remains puzzled: This too is obvious.
在那种情形下，这举动同样是众贤所禁的。
In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages.
革玛拉答： 拉比约哈难 这话，是要排除另一位的说法，那人说他们所争的是按手的本分本身，即当献的酬恩祭是否须按手。
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement comes to exclude the opinion of the one who said that they disagree with regard to the actual obligation of placing hands, i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands.
所以他告诉我们：他们所争的是一条拉比禁令，而不是按手的本分本身。
He therefore teaches us that it is a rabbinic decree that is the subject of their dispute, not the requirement itself.
拉米·巴尔·哈马 说：从这场争议可知，按手的诫命须用全力按在牲畜头上；否则按手又违犯什么禁令？节日也可以按手了。
拉米·巴尔·哈马 说：你可以从这里、从这场争议学到：按手的诫命不仅要把手放在牲畜头上，我们还要求人用全力按手。
Rami bar Ḥama said: You can learn from here, from this dispute, that the mitzva of placing hands requires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but we also require that one places his hands with all his strength.
因为你若以为不要求用全力，人按手又违犯了什么禁令呢？
For if it enters your mind that we do not require all his strength, what prohibition does one violate by placing his hands?
那就让他在节日也按手吧，因为这完全不像被禁的举动。
Let him place them on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all.
革玛拉引 《巴拉伊塔》 驳：「你晓谕以色列的众子」，又说「他要按手在燔祭牲的头上」，可知以色列的儿子按手，女儿不按。拉比约西 与 拉比以实玛利 说：以色列的女儿按手与否，可以随意。
革玛拉引一则 《巴拉伊塔》 驳此说：「你晓谕以色列的众子」（利未记 1:2）。
The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: “Speak to the children of [benei] Israel” (Leviticus 1:2).
注：和合本作「你晓谕以色列人说」；原文 בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל，字面为「以色列的儿子们」，革玛拉据此排除女子。
「众子」一词，原文字面意思是：……的儿子们。
The word benei literally means: Sons of.
经上紧接着又说：「他要按手在燔祭牲的头上」（利未记 1:4），由此我们学到：以色列的儿子们按手，以色列的女儿们却不按手。
And it states nearby: “And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that the sons of Israel place their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not place them.
拉比约西 和 拉比以实玛利 说：以色列的女儿们按手与否，可以随意。
Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to place their hands.
她们若愿意，可以按手，但并没有按手的本分。
They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so.
拉比约西 说：阿巴·以利亚撒 告诉我，有一回他们把一头作酬恩祭的牛犊牵到妇女院，让妇女在它身上按手，不是因妇女有按手的本分，而是为叫她们心里欢喜。若按手须用全力，岂会为叫妇女欢喜而役使圣物？可见不须用全力。
拉比约西 说：贤士 阿巴·以利亚撒 告诉我这件事：有一回，我们有一头作酬恩祭的牛犊，我们把它牵到妇女院，妇女们就在它身上按手。
Rabbi Yosei said: The Sage Abba Elazar related to me the following incident: On one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placed their hands on it.
我们这样做，不是因为妇女有按手的本分，而是为叫妇女们心里欢喜，让她们能像男子一样，在献祭的每一个细节上都亲自参与。
We did this not because there is an obligation of placing hands in the case of women, but in order to please the women, by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do.
如果你以为我们要求用全力按手，我们岂会为了叫妇女们欢喜，就役使圣物呢？
Now, if it enters your mind that we require placing hands with all one’s strength, would we perform work with consecrated offerings in order to please the women?
用力按在牲畜身上，就算是役使它；人若没有本分却这样做，就是役使了祭牲。
Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering.
那么，岂不可以由此断定，我们并不要求用全力按手吗？
Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this that we do not require placing hands with all one’s strength?
革玛拉驳回：其实仍须用全力，只是那回对妇女说「把手放轻，不要用力」，所以不算役使。又驳：若是这样，「不是因妇女有按手的本分」这理由便无关紧要，该说这根本不算按手才是。
革玛拉驳回这说法：其实我可以对你说，我们确实要求用全力按手，只是那一回他们准许妇女按手，是对她们说：把你们的手放轻，不要用力按，好叫她们的按手不算是役使。
The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I could say to you that we do require placing hands with all one’s strength, but here they allowed women to place their hands by saying to them: Ease your hands and do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work.
革玛拉反问：若是这样，「不是因为妇女有按手的本分」这个理由，与这条律法就不相干了。
The Gemara retorts: If so, then the reason formulated as: Not because there is an obligation to place hands in the case of women, is irrelevant to this law.
他该从「这根本不算按手」这个理由，推出妇女可以这样做才是。
Let him derive the permission for women to do so from the reason that it is not considered placing hands at all.
既然按手须用全力，妇女们所做的这个举动就根本不算按手。
If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands.
拉比阿米 说：他是说了一个理由又加一个理由：一是这不算按手，因为没有用全力；一是为叫妇女们心里欢喜而准许。
拉比阿米 说：他说了一个理由，又说了另一个理由。
Rabbi Ami said: He stated one reason and another.
一个理由是：这根本不算按手，因为不是用全力按的；另一个理由是：他们准许这样做，是为叫妇女们心里欢喜。
One reason is that it is not considered placing hands at all, as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; and another reason is that they allowed it in order to please the women.
拉夫帕帕 说：由此可知，凡安息日不可在其上放物或坐卧的，它的侧面也同样禁止；否则他们本可叫妇女按在牲畜的侧面，即头上而不是背上。
拉夫帕帕 说：由此可知，凡安息日不可在其上放置物件、不可坐在其上的东西，它的侧面也同样禁止；因为你若以为侧面是准许的，他们本可以叫妇女们把手按在侧面，就是按在牲畜的头上而不是背上，因为牲畜的头可算作它的一个侧面。
Rav Pappa said: Learn from this that anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its sides are likewise prohibited, for if it enters your mind to say that the sides are permitted, they could have told the women to place their hands on the sides, i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides.
那么，岂不必须由此断定，侧面是禁止的吗？
Rather, must one not conclude from this that the sides are prohibited?