← 节仪卷总目·第一章 众人都有义务
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）拉比泽拉 质疑密释纳所定的未成年者标准：孩子一路到耶路撒冷，是谁带来的？父亲既能把他带到耶路撒冷，为什么不能再把他带上圣殿山？
「……一直到这里，到耶路撒冷为止，是谁把他带来的？
Who brought him to here, all the way to Jerusalem?
父亲既然能把孩子带到耶路撒冷，为什么不能再把他带上圣殿山呢？」
If the father could bring his child to Jerusalem, why can’t he bring him to the Temple Mount?
阿巴耶 答：到耶路撒冷这一程，是母亲带来的，因为她自己也有欢乐之诫的义务，上京时便带着孩子；从那里起，孩子若能拉着父亲的手从耶路撒冷上到圣殿山，就有义务，否则免除。
阿巴耶 对他说：到这里的一程，因为孩子的母亲在节期也有欢乐之诫的义务，是母亲上京时自己把他带来的。
Abaye said to him: With regard to the way to here, as his mother is also obligated in rejoicing on the Festival, his mother brought him when she herself ascended to the capital.
从这里往后，他若能拉着父亲的手，从耶路撒冷上到圣殿山，就有义务；若不能，就免除。
From this point forward, if he is able to ascend and hold his father’s hand from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, he is obligated, and if not, he is exempt.
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 说：拉比犹大·哈纳西 替 希列学派 反驳沙迈学派的标准：哈拿 说「等孩子断了奶，我便带他上去」，可是 撒母耳 断奶以前早已能骑在父亲肩上，却还没有上会幕；可见要能自己走路的孩子才有朝见之诫的义务。
有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：拉比犹大·哈纳西 替 希列学派 答辩说：照 沙迈学派 的话——不能骑在父亲肩上的孩子才免于朝见之诫——他们就得解释论 撒母耳 的母亲 哈拿 的这节经文：「哈拿却没有上去，对丈夫说：等孩子断了奶，我便带他上去」（撒母耳记上 1:22）。
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded in place of Beit Hillel, that according to the statement of Beit Shammai that a child who is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance, they must explain a verse that deals with Hanna, Samuel’s mother: “But Hanna did not ascend, for she said to her husband: Until the child is weaned, when I will bring him” (I Samuel 1:22).
可是 撒母耳 是已经能骑在父亲肩上的。
But Samuel was able to ride on his father’s shoulders.
断奶的年岁是二十四个月，在此以前 撒母耳 已经大到能骑在父亲肩上，却还不到上会幕去的时候。
The age of weaning is twenty-four months, before which Samuel was already old enough to ride on his father’s shoulders, and yet he was not ready to ascend to the Tabernacle.
注：断奶为二十四个月，英译所补的说明；上会幕指上示罗的会幕。
这表明只有能自己走路的孩子，才有朝见之诫的义务。
This shows that only a child who is able to walk on his own is obligated in the mitzva of appearance.
拉比犹大·哈纳西 的父亲驳他：照你的道理，就该问 哈拿 自己为何不去，她不也有欢乐之诫的义务吗？可见她是因为 撒母耳 需要格外娇养，怕他路上受累，带不了他，自己也就不去了。
拉比犹大·哈纳西 的父亲对他说：照你的道理，就该问 哈拿 本人：她自己不也有欢乐之诫的义务吗？
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s father said to him: According to your reasoning, ask about Hanna herself: Wasn’t she obligated in rejoicing?
注：拉比犹大·哈纳西 之父即 拉班西缅·本·迦玛列。
她为什么不往会幕去，履行她自己负有义务的诫命呢？
Why didn’t she travel to the Tabernacle to fulfill a mitzva in which she herself was obligated?
其实是 哈拿 看出 撒母耳 需要格外娇养，她为 撒母耳 担心，怕他在路上受累虚弱。
Rather, Hanna saw in Samuel the need for extra pampering, and she was concerned about Samuel lest he experience weakness from the journey.
她既不能带他去，自己也就没有去。
Since she was unable to bring him, she herself did not come.
拉比西缅 提出疑难：瘸腿而能骑在父亲肩上登上圣殿山的未成年者（照沙迈学派），以及失明而能拉着父亲的手登上去的未成年者（照两派），哈拉哈 如何——他们有朝见之诫的义务吗？
拉比西缅 提出一个疑难：一个瘸腿的未成年者，却能骑在父亲肩上登上去，照 沙迈学派 的话；还有一个失明的未成年者，却能拉着父亲的手登上去，照 沙迈学派 与 希列学派 两家的话——哈拉哈 如何？
Rabbi Shimon raises a dilemma: With regard to a minor who is lame and yet he is able to ascend on his father’s shoulders, according to the statement of Beit Shammai, and likewise a minor who is blind but is able to hold his father’s hand and ascend, according to the statements of both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, what is the halakha?
这些孩子有朝见之诫的义务吗？
Are these children obligated in the mitzva of appearance?
革玛拉厘清疑难所在：若是治不好的瘸腿、复明无望的失明，成人尚且免除，何须问未成年者；所问的是能治好的瘸腿、能复明的失明——既然日后可能负有义务，现在要不要训练他？
革玛拉追问：这是什么情形？
The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of this case?
若说讲的是治不好的瘸腿未成年者、不能复明的失明孩子，那有什么可疑难的？
If we say that it is referring to a lame minor who cannot be healed, and a blind child who cannot develop sight, what is the dilemma?
成人处在这种情形尚且免除，还用得着问未成年者吗？
Now, if an adult in this state is exempt, is it necessary to ask about a minor?
这个未成年者既然连长大以后都不会负这条诫命，就不必训练他履行。
Since this minor will never be obligated in the mitzva, even when he is an adult, there is no need to train him in its performance.
革玛拉解释：不是的；要问的是能治好的瘸腿未成年者、能复明的失明未成年者。
The Gemara explains: No; it is necessary to ask with regard to a lame minor who can be healed and a blind minor who can develop sight.
哈拉哈 如何？
What is the halakha?
既然这个未成年者日后可能负有义务，此刻是否须训练他？
Since the minor might eventually be obligated, is it necessary to train him at this point?
阿巴耶 定下原则：凡成人依妥拉律法负有义务的情形，未成年者依拉比律法也须受训练；凡成人依妥拉律法免除的情形，未成年者依拉比律法也免除。所以这孩子眼下不须训练，尽管他日后可能负有义务。
阿巴耶 说：凡成人依妥拉律法负有义务的情形，处在同样健康状况的未成年者，依拉比律法也须受训练。
Abaye said: Anywhere that an adult is obligated by Torah law, one must also train a minor in that state of health by rabbinic law.
凡成人依妥拉律法免除的情形，处在同样状况的未成年者，依拉比律法也免除。
Anywhere that an adult is exempt by Torah law, a minor in that same state is also exempt by rabbinic law.
这孩子眼下的状况，成人处在其中是免除的，所以也没有训练他的义务，尽管他将来可能负有义务。
Since in this current condition an adult would be exempt, there is no obligation to train this minor either, despite the fact that he might become obligated in the future.
回到密释纳：沙迈学派说朝见燔祭至少值两枚银币、节期酬恩祭至少值一枚银马阿；希列学派说朝见燔祭至少值一枚银马阿、节期酬恩祭至少值两枚银币。
密释纳教导：沙迈学派 说：朝圣者在节期上圣殿朝见所献的朝见燔祭，至少须值两枚银币；节期酬恩祭至少须值一枚银马阿。
§ The mishna taught that Beit Shammai say: The burnt-offering of appearance, brought by a pilgrim when he appears at the Temple on a Festival, must be worth at least two silver coins, and the Festival peace-offering must be worth at least one silver ma’a coin.
而 希列学派 说：朝见燔祭至少须值一枚银马阿，节期酬恩祭至少须值两枚银币。
And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth at least one silver ma’a and the Festival peace-offering at least two silver coins.
一条 《巴拉伊塔》 列出沙迈学派的两个理由：朝见燔祭全归于神，节期酬恩祭却有部分归主人与祭司吃；又，论 七七节 的经文所定的燔祭多于酬恩祭——燔祭一头公牛、两只公羊、七只羊羔，酬恩祭只两只羊羔。
拉比们在一条 《巴拉伊塔》 里教导：沙迈学派 说：朝见燔祭须值两枚银币，节期酬恩祭只须值一枚银马阿。
The Sages taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth two silver coins, and the Festival peace-offering need be worth only one silver ma’a.
燔祭须值得多，是因为朝见燔祭全都归于神，节期酬恩祭却不是这样：酬恩祭有些部分由献祭的主人吃，另有些部分归祭司吃。
The reason the burnt-offering must be worth more is that the burnt-offering of appearance goes up entirely to God, which is not so with regard to the Festival peace-offering, as parts of a peace-offering are eaten by its owner while other portions are consumed by the priests.
再者，还有一个理由：我们发现，论到集会之节，就是 七七节，经文所列的燔祭多于酬恩祭。
And furthermore, another reason for this difference is that we find with regard to the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, that the verse includes more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings.
所定的祭是一头公牛、两只公羊、七只羊羔作燔祭，酬恩祭却只有两只羊羔。
The sacrificial requirement consists of one bull, two rams, and seven sheep as burnt-offerings, but only two sheep for peace-offerings.
注：见利未记 23:18–19。
希列学派的两个理由：节期酬恩祭在神颁言之前已有，朝见燔祭却不然；又，会幕献殿时众首领所献的，经文列的酬恩祭多于燔祭。
而 希列学派 说：朝见燔祭须值一枚银马阿，节期酬恩祭须值两枚银币。
And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth one silver ma’a and the Festival peace-offering must be worth two silver coins.
这样区分的理由是：节期酬恩祭在神颁言之前，就是在西奈山颁赐妥拉之前，已经有了，朝见之诫却不是这样。
The reason for this difference is that the Festival peace-offering existed before the speech of God, i.e., before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, which is not so with regard to the mitzva of appearance.
再者，还有一个理由：我们发现，论到会幕献殿时众首领所献的供物，经文所列的酬恩祭多于燔祭。
And furthermore, another reason is that we find with regard to the offerings of the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle that the verse includes more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings.
每位首领献一头公牛、一只公羊、一只羊羔作燔祭，作酬恩祭的却是两头牛、两只公羊、五只公山羊、五只羊羔。
Each prince brought one cow, a ram, and a sheep as burnt-offerings, but two cows, two rams, five goats, and five sheep as peace-offerings.
注：见民数记 7:15–17；和合本作「两只公牛、五只公绵羊、五只公山羊、五只一岁的公羊羔作平安祭」，经文为公绵羊五只，英译作两只，此照英译。
希列学派如何回应沙迈学派：全归于神不足为胜，节期酬恩祭有神与人两份享用，反倒更胜；至于集会之节，个人的供物应由个人的供物（众首领所献）推出，不可由公众的供物推出。
革玛拉问：希列学派 为什么不照 沙迈学派 的意见说？
The Gemara asks: And Beit Hillel, what is the reason that they do not say in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai?
希列学派 会回应 沙迈学派 的两条论据。
Beit Hillel would respond to both claims of Beit Shammai.
你说朝见燔祭更胜，因为它全都归于神；正相反，节期酬恩祭更胜，因为它有两份享用：一份在祭坛上归神，一份归人。
With regard to that which you said, that the burnt-offering of appearance is superior because it goes up entirely to God, on the contrary, the Festival peace-offering is superior, as it has two consumptions, by God on the altar and by people.
你又说这条 哈拉哈 是从集会之节，就是 七七节，推出来的；倒可以反过来说：个人供物的诸条 哈拉哈 应当从另一种个人的供物推出，就是从众首领所献的推出；而不可从 七七节 的公众供物推出个人供物的诸条 哈拉哈。
And with regard to that which you said that we derive this halakha from the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, one could argue instead that one should derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from another offering of an individual, i.e., the princes; and one does not derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the communal offering of Shavuot.
反过来问沙迈学派为何不从希列学派：沙迈学派会说，朝见燔祭也在神颁言之前已有——照他们的意见，以色列人在颁赐妥拉之前就在西奈山献了燔祭。
革玛拉反过来问：沙迈学派 又为什么不照 希列学派 的意见说？
The Gemara asks the reverse question: And what is the reason that Beit Shammai do not say in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel?
沙迈学派 会回应 希列学派 的论据：你说节期酬恩祭更胜，因为它在神颁言之前已有；朝见燔祭也是在神颁言之前已有的。
Beit Shammai would respond to the arguments of Beit Hillel: With regard to that which you said, that the Festival peace-offering is superior, as it existed before the speech of God, the burnt-offering of appearance also existed before the speech.
照 沙迈学派 的意见，以色列人在颁赐妥拉之前，已在西奈山献了燔祭。
According to the opinion of Beit Shammai, the Jewish people sacrificed burnt-offerings at Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah.
沙迈学派又说：世代通行之事，应由世代通行之事（七七节 的祭）推出；众首领的供物只是旷野会幕特有的诫命，不能用来推出世代通行之事。
你又说这些供物的诸条 哈拉哈 要从众首领的供物推出；倒可以说：世代通行之事——就是各种节期供物的价值——的诸条 哈拉哈，应当从另一件世代通行之事推出，就是从 七七节 所献的供物推出。
And with regard to that which you said, that one derives the halakhot of these offerings from the offerings of the princes, one could argue that one derives the halakhot of a matter that is performed in all generations, i.e., the value of the different Festival offerings, from another matter that is performed in all generations, i.e., the offerings brought on Shavuot.
却不可从不是世代通行之事推出世代通行之事的诸条 哈拉哈，因为众首领的供物，是专为旷野中的会幕而设的一次性诫命。
However, one does not derive the halakhot of a matter that is performed in all generations from a matter that is not performed in all generations, as the offerings of the princes was a specific mitzva for the Tabernacle in the wilderness.
革玛拉问：照希列学派，节期酬恩祭在颁言之前已有，根据是《出埃及记》「又向耶和华献牛为平安祭」；可是同一节经文不也说「献燔祭」吗？
革玛拉问：照 希列学派 的意见，节期酬恩祭有什么不同，以致说它在神颁言之前已有？是因为经上记着：「又向耶和华献牛为平安祭」（出埃及记 24:5）。
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, what is different about the Festival peace-offering, that it existed before the speech of God, as it is written: “And they sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord” (Exodus 24:5)?
注：和合本此节作「又打发以色列人中的少年人去献燔祭，又向耶和华献牛为平安祭」；「平安祭」即本译所说的酬恩祭。
可是朝见燔祭也提到了，同一节经文岂不是也写着：「去献燔祭」吗？
The burnt-offering of appearance is also mentioned, as isn’t it written in the same verse: “And they sacrificed burnt-offerings”?
革玛拉答：希列学派认为以色列人在西奈山所献的燔祭是常献燔祭，属公众供物，颁赐妥拉之前没有个人燔祭；沙迈学派则认为那是朝见燔祭，属个人供物。
革玛拉回答：希列学派 认为，以色列人在旷野、在西奈山所献的燔祭是常献燔祭，那是公众的供物，因为颁赐妥拉之前并没有个人的燔祭。
The Gemara responds: Beit Hillel hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was the daily burnt-offering, which is a communal offering, as there were no individual burnt-offerings before the giving of the Torah.
而 沙迈学派 认为，以色列人在旷野、在西奈山所献的燔祭是朝见燔祭，那是个人的供物。
And Beit Shammai hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance, which is an individual offering.
阿巴耶 归纳两派：沙迈学派、拉比以利亚撒、拉比以实玛利 都认为西奈山所献的是朝见燔祭；希列学派、拉比阿奇瓦、加利利人拉比约西 都认为那是常献燔祭，不是个人的供物。
阿巴耶 说：沙迈学派、拉比以利亚撒 和 拉比以实玛利 都认为，以色列人在旷野、在西奈山所献的燔祭是朝见燔祭。
Abaye said: Beit Shammai, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Yishmael all hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance.
而 希列学派、拉比阿奇瓦 和 加利利人拉比约西 都认为，以色列人在旷野、在西奈山所献的燔祭是常献燔祭，不是个人的供物。
And Beit Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili all hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was a daily burnt-offering, not an individual offering.
革玛拉逐一说明各人意见的出处：沙迈学派的已如上述；拉比以实玛利 的见于一条 《巴拉伊塔》：总纲是在西奈说的……（下接叶六背）
革玛拉说明各人意见的出处。
The Gemara explains the source for each opinion.
沙迈学派 的，就是我们已经说过的。
Beit Shammai is that which we said.
拉比以实玛利 的，因为有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：拉比以实玛利 说：「总纲是在西奈说的，就是 摩西 在西奈领受了诸诫的总纲，包括十诫；……」
Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: General statements were said at Sinai, i.e., Moses received general mitzvot at Sinai, including the Ten Commandments.