← 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 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）经文的「节期」指节期酬恩祭：凡可作节期酬恩祭的牲畜，即牛羊，吃了算尽欢乐的诫命；鸟祭和素祭不能作节期酬恩祭，就排除在外。
这教导说：吃那些可以作节期酬恩祭的牲畜，即牛羊，就算尽了欢乐的诫命。
This teaches that eating those animals from which the Festival peace-offering may come, i.e., sheep and cattle, is a fulfillment of the mitzva of rejoicing.
这就把那些不能作节期酬恩祭的，即鸟祭和素祭，排除在外了。
This excludes these, i.e., bird-offerings and meal-offerings, from which the Festival peace-offering may not come.
拉夫阿施 说：不必从「在你的节期中」来推，只凭「你要欢乐」就够了；鸟祭和素祭本无欢乐可言，因为吃的欢乐只来自牲畜的肉。
拉夫阿施 说：这条 哈拉哈 无须从「你要在你的节期中欢乐」推出，把「节期」一词解作节期酬恩祭。
Rav Ashi said: There is no need to derive this halakha from “And you shall rejoice in your feast” by explaining that the word feast is referring to the Festival peace-offering.
这条 哈拉哈 只凭「你要欢乐」一语就可推出：这就排除了那些毫无欢乐可言的鸟祭和素祭，因为吃的欢乐只来自牲畜的肉。
Rather, this halakha is derived simply from the phrase “And you shall rejoice.” This excludes those bird-offerings and meal-offerings that do not have an element of rejoicing, as the joy of eating is provided only by animal meat.
那么 拉夫阿施 如何处置「在你的节期中」？答：这是为 拉夫但以理·巴尔·凯提纳 转述 拉夫 的话：节中日不可娶妻，因为「你要在你的节期中欢乐」，只在你的节期中欢乐，不在你的妻子身上欢乐。
革玛拉问：那么 拉夫阿施 怎样解释「在你的节期中」这一语呢？
The Gemara asks: And what does Rav Ashi do with the phrase: “In your feast”?
革玛拉答：这一语是用来教导 拉夫但以理·巴尔·凯提纳 所说的话。
The Gemara answers: That phrase comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rav Daniel bar Ketina.
因为 拉夫但以理·巴尔·凯提纳 说，拉夫 说：从哪里得知，人不可在节中日娶妻？
As Rav Daniel bar Ketina said that Rav said: From where is it derived that one may not marry a woman on the intermediate days of the Festival?
因为经上说：「你要在你的节期中欢乐」，表示人只当在你的节期中欢乐，而不在你的妻子身上欢乐。
As it is stated: “And you shall rejoice in your feast,” indicating that one should rejoice only in your feast and not with your wife.
密释纳：吃的人多而财产少的，可以多献酬恩祭、少献燔祭，好让家人吃酬恩祭的肉；财产多而吃的人少的，就该多献燔祭、少献酬恩祭。
吃的人多、即家口多而财产少的人，可以多献酬恩祭、少献燔祭，好用酬恩祭的肉供家人吃。
One who has many eaters, i.e., members of his household, and a small amount of property, may bring many peace-offerings and few burnt-offerings, so he can feed the members of his household with the peace-offerings.
财产多而吃的人少的人，就当多献燔祭、少献酬恩祭。
If one has much property and few eaters, he should bring many burnt-offerings and few peace-offerings.
密释纳：两样都少的，就照密释纳所定的最低数额：朝见燔祭一个银马阿，节期酬恩祭两个银币；两样都多的，就照经上说「各人要按自己的力量，照耶和华你神所赐的福分」。
若财产和家口这两样都少，论到这样的人，就是密释纳（见叶二正）所说的：贤哲们定了最低数额，在圣殿献朝见燔祭的要一个银马阿，献节期酬恩祭的要两个银币。
If both these and those, his property and the members of his household, are few, with regard to this individual it is stated in the mishna (2a) that the Sages established the smallest amount of one silver ma’a for the burnt-offering of appearance in the Temple and two silver coins for the Festival peace-offerings.
若吃的人和财产两样都多，论到这样的人，经上说：「各人要按自己的力量，照耶和华你神所赐的福分，奉献礼物」（申命记 16:17）。
If both his eaters and his property are many, with regard to this individual it is stated: “Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God, which He has given you” (Deuteronomy 16:17).
财产少的人从哪里多献酬恩祭？拉夫希斯达 说：把自己的财产合上第二什一的钱，买一头大公牛，肉就多了。拉夫舍舍特 对他说：贤哲们说过可以牲畜合牲畜。
论到密释纳所说吃的人多而财产少的可以多献酬恩祭，革玛拉问：他从哪里来多献酬恩祭呢？
With regard to the mishna’s statement that one who has many eaters and a small amount of property may bring many peace-offerings, the Gemara asks: From where can he bring many peace-offerings?
他并没有多少财产。
He does not have much property.
拉夫希斯达 说：他把自己的财产合上第二什一的钱，买一头大公牛来献。
Rav Ḥisda said: He combines his property with the second-tithe money and brings a large bull.
这样，他就有许多酬恩祭的肉了。
In this way he will have a lot of meat from the peace-offering.
拉夫舍舍特 对他说：贤哲们说过，可以牲畜合牲畜。
Rav Sheshet said to him: The Sages said that one may combine an animal with another animal.
拉夫舍舍特 的驳难意思不明，革玛拉问他在说什么。若是说只许牲畜合牲畜、不许钱合钱，他直说「不可钱合钱」就是了。其实他是说：连牲畜合牲畜也可以，你何必把他限于买一头大牲畜，不让他另用第二什一的钱再买别的祭牲？
既然 拉夫舍舍特 的驳难意思不明，革玛拉问：他对 拉夫希斯达 说的是什么？
Since Rav Sheshet’s objection is unclear, the Gemara asks: What is he saying to Rav Ḥisda?
若说他是这样对他说：贤哲们说过只可牲畜合牲畜，而不可钱合钱去买一头大公牛，那他直说「不可钱合钱」就是了。
If we say that he was saying to him as follows: They said that one may only combine an animal with another animal, but one may not combine money with other money to purchase one large bull, then let him simply say: One may not combine money with other money.
其实，他对他说的是这个：贤哲们说过，连牲畜合牲畜也是可以的。
Rather, this is what he said to him: The Sages said that one may even combine an animal with another animal.
拉夫希斯达 啊，你为什么把这人限于只买一头大牲畜呢？
Why did you, Rav Ḥisda, limit him to the purchase of one large animal?
为什么不也提出，这人可以用第二什一的钱另献别的祭牲呢？
Why not also suggest that this individual may bring other animals from second-tithe money?
革玛拉问：拉夫舍舍特 这话合乎谁的意见？既不合 希兹基亚（只许牲畜合牲畜），也不合 拉比约哈难（只许钱合钱）。
革玛拉问：拉夫舍舍特 这话是照谁的意见说的？
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Sheshet say this?
这既不合 希兹基亚 的意见，他说只可牲畜合牲畜；也不合 拉比约哈难 的意见，他说只可钱合钱。
It is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥizkiya, who said that one may combine only one animal with another animal, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that one may combine only money with other money.
若说争论的只是诸位 阿摩拉，所引的 《巴拉伊塔》 并不相争，拉夫舍舍特 可另立己见，也不成；因为那则 《巴拉伊塔》 说「头一次吃的必须出于俗物」，可见虽可再合一头，却不可钱合钱去买哪怕一头。
你若说：相争的是诸位 阿摩拉，而引来支持他们意见的那几则 《巴拉伊塔》 并不相争，所以 拉夫舍舍特 可以就此提出自己的意见；这是不成的，因为那则 《巴拉伊塔》 教导说：头一次吃的必须出于俗物。
And if you would say: It is the amora’im who disagree, whereas the baraitot that were cited in support of their opinions do not disagree and therefore Rav Sheshet may present his own opinion on the matter, this cannot be the case, as the baraita teaches: The first eating must come from non-sacred property.
就是说，人所吃的头一头祭牲必须完全出于俗物，只有第二头才可以掺合。
In other words, the first animal one eats must come entirely from non-sacred property, and combining is permitted only for the second animal.
这表明人虽可以在头一头之外再合上一头，却不可钱合钱去买哪怕一头祭牲。
This indicates that although one may combine an additional animal with that first one, one may not combine money with other money to purchase even one animal.
革玛拉解释「头一次吃的」：俗物与第二什一的钱合用时，头一次吃所需分量的价值须出于俗物，那头牲畜其余的价值可出于第二什一。所以照 拉夫舍舍特 的意见，可以分买两头，也可以合钱买一头，只要头一次吃的出于俗物。
革玛拉解释说：
The Gemara explains.
「头一次吃的」是什么意思呢？
What is the meaning of: The first eating?
意思是：人把俗物的钱和第二什一的钱合用时，祭牲中头一次吃所需分量的价值，必须出于俗物的钱。
This means that when one combines non-sacred money with second-tithe money, the monetary value of the required measure of the first eating from the offering must come from non-sacred funds.
但那头牲畜其余的价值，可以出于第二什一的钱。
However, the remaining value of that animal may come from second-tithe funds.
因此，照 拉夫舍舍特 的意见，人可以牲畜合牲畜，就是买两头各别的牲畜，一头用俗物的钱，一头用第二什一的钱。
Therefore, according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, one may combine an animal with another animal, i.e., by purchasing two separate animals, one from non-sacred funds and one from second-tithe money.
另一个做法是用合起来的钱买一头牲畜，只要头一次吃的出于俗物的钱。
Another option is to purchase one animal with combined funds, provided that the first eating is from non-sacred funds.
乌拉 转述 雷什·拉基什：为节期酬恩祭分出十头，头一天献了五头，其余五头可在第二天或其余任何一天献，不犯「不可加添」，因为只是补足头一天的祭。拉比约哈难 说：他既在头一天献到中途停下，其余的就不可在别的日子献，否则如同多守一日。
乌拉 说，雷什·拉基什 说：人若为他的节期酬恩祭分出十头牲畜，在节期头一天献了其中五头，他可以在节期第二天或其余任何一天，回头献剩下的五头。
§ Ulla said that Reish Lakish said: If one separated ten animals for the purpose of his Festival peace-offering, and he sacrificed five of them on the first day of the Festival, he may return and sacrifice the remaining five on the second day of the Festival, or on any of the other days.
这并无「不可加添」（申命记 12:32）这条禁令的顾虑，好像他把头一天守了两次似的；因为剩下的祭不过是补足头一天的祭。
There is no concern for the prohibition of: “You shall not add” (Deuteronomy 13:1), as though he were celebrating the first day twice, because the remaining offerings merely complete the first day’s offerings.
英译依希伯来本作申命记 13:1，和合本为 12:32：「不可加添，也不可删减」。
拉比约哈难 说：既然他在初献节期酬恩祭的那一天献了头五头就停下，其余的牲畜就不可再在别的日子献，因为那会被看作多守了一天。
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since he stopped after the first five offerings on the day on which he first brought the Festival peace-offerings, he may no longer sacrifice the remaining animals on the other days, as that would be considered celebrating an extra day.
拉比阿巴 说：两位 阿摩拉 并不相争，所指情形不同：拉比约哈难 说的是没有言明何时献的，便推定他本意是全在头一天献；雷什·拉基什 说的是起初就明言要在节期各日献的。
拉比阿巴 说：这两位 阿摩拉 并不相争，因为他们所指的是不同的情形。
Rabbi Abba said: And these amora’im do not disagree, as they are referring to different circumstances.
这里 拉比约哈难 说的，是人没有言明他打算何时献这些祭的情形，因此推定他本意是在头一天全数献上。
Here, Rabbi Yoḥanan is speaking of a case where one did not specify when he intended to sacrifice these offerings, and therefore it is assumed that he meant to sacrifice them all on the first day.
那里 雷什·拉基什 说的，是人起初就明说他打算在节期各日献这些祭的情形（见 拉比奴·哈纳内尔 注）。
There, Reish Lakish is referring to a case where one explicitly said at the outset that he intended to bring them on all the days of the Festival (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).
革玛拉问：这没有言明的情形究竟如何？若是当天已无时间可献，他没献显然只因没时间，改日献的自然只算补足头一天的义务，并不禁止。
革玛拉问：论到这没有言明的情形，其详情如何？
The Gemara asks: With regard to this case where he did not specify, what are the circumstances?
若说是当天已没有时间可献，就是说他把所有牲畜都带来头一天献，却发觉时间不够全数献上，那就可以推定他没有献，是因为当天已没有时间了。
If we say that there was no time left in the day to sacrifice, i.e., he brought all his animals on the first day and realized that there was not enough time to sacrifice all of them, one can assume that the reason that he did not bring them is that there was no time left in the day.
若是这样，他在别的日子所献的祭，当然只算补足头一天的义务。
If so, his offering on another day is certainly considered merely the completion of the obligations of the first day.
在这情形下，他添献这些祭并不被禁止。
In this case his bringing of the additional offerings is not prohibited.
若说是家里吃的人不够，因祭肉不可剩下，他才没有献其余的；那么他没献也只因吃的人不够，同样不是禁止添献的情形。
你若说，这是指他家里吃的人不够，又因祭肉不可剩下，他才没有献其余的祭。
But rather, you must say that this is referring to a case where he does not have enough eaters in his household, and as one may not have leftovers, he did not sacrifice the remaining offerings.
这里也是如此：他没有献，是因为吃的人不够。
Here too, the fact that he did not sacrifice them is because he does not have enough eaters.
这同样不可能是禁止添献的那个情形。
Again, this cannot be the case in which it is prohibited to sacrifice the extra offerings.
革玛拉答：不，这裁定只为当天尚有时间、家里也有吃的人的情形而设；他头一天既没有献，可见是有意留下，所以节期其余的日子就不可再献。
革玛拉答：不，这条裁定只是为当天尚有时间、他家里也有吃的人的情形而需要教导的。
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this ruling only in a case where there is time left in the day and he has eaters in his household.
他既没有在节期头一天献上，由此可以推断，他是有意留下不献的。
From the fact that he did not sacrifice them on the first day of the Festival, one can conclude from it that he left them intentionally.
因此，他就不可在节期其余的日子再献了。
Therefore, he is no longer permitted to sacrifice them on the other days of the Festival.
革玛拉说：可以推想 拉比约哈难 也同意言明了的可以在其余日子献；因为 拉文 从以色列地来到巴比伦时转述他的话：分出十头、头一天献了五头的，可以在第二天回头献其余五头。这与 乌拉 所转述的显然相抵。
革玛拉评论说：这也合理，拉比约哈难 同意人若言明自己的打算，就可以在其余的日子献这些祭；因为 拉文 从以色列地来到巴比伦时说，拉比约哈难 说：人若为他的节期酬恩祭分出十头牲畜，在节期头一天献了五头，他可以在节期第二天回头献其余的五头。
The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees that if one specifies his intentions he may sacrifice the offerings on the remaining days, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one separated ten animals for his Festival peace-offering, and he sacrificed five on the first day of the Festival, he may return and sacrifice the other five on the second day of the Festival.
拉比约哈难 的这两句话，一句由 乌拉 转述，一句由 拉文 转述，看来彼此相抵。
These two statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan, cited by Ulla and Ravin respectively, apparently contradict each other.
岂不是可由这相抵推知：这里说的是没有言明的情形，那里说的是明言了打算的情形？革玛拉断定：确实可由此推知。
岂不是可以从这相抵之处推知：这里所论的是人没有言明的情形，那里所指的是人明说了自己打算的情形吗？
Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this contradiction that this statement here is dealing with a case where one did not specify, whereas there it is referring to a situation where one stated his intentions explicitly?
革玛拉断定：确实可以由此推知，正是如此。
The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from here that it is so.
又有人说过，拉夫舍门·巴尔·阿巴 转述 拉比约哈难 的话……（下接叶九正）
也有记载说，拉夫舍门·巴尔·阿巴 说，拉比约哈难 说：「……」
It was also stated that Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: