22b.1
推论
（续上）既然他在一切方面都算兄弟，亡夫兄弟即使是 禁婚所生，也照样与亡兄的遗孀结成转房之系。
-
……亡夫兄弟即使是 禁婚所生，也同样与他的 叔娶之妇 结成转房之系。
the husband’s brother also causes a levirate bond with his yevama even if he is a mamzer.
← 转房卷总目·第二章 怎样是兄弟之妻
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 13 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）既然他在一切方面都算兄弟，亡夫兄弟即使是 禁婚所生，也照样与亡兄的遗孀结成转房之系。
……亡夫兄弟即使是 禁婚所生，也同样与他的 叔娶之妇 结成转房之系。
the husband’s brother also causes a levirate bond with his yevama even if he is a mamzer.
密释纳说「他在一切方面都是他的兄弟」，这是就什么律法说的？答：就继承他的产业，以及身为祭司时可为他沾染不洁而说。
密释纳说：他在一切方面都是他的兄弟。
§ The mishna stated that he is his brother in all respects.
革玛拉问：这是就哪一条 哈拉哈 说的？
The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this said?
革玛拉答：是就继承他的产业、以及他若是祭司便可为他沾染不洁而说的，因为兄弟属于祭司可以参与其丧事、为之沾染不洁的亲属之列。
The Gemara answers: To inherit from him, and to become ritually impure for him if he is a priest, as a brother is one of the relations for whom a priest is permitted to become ritually impure by attending his funeral.
革玛拉问：他既是兄弟，这岂非不言自明？答：人或会以为祭司不为血统有瑕疵的兄弟沾染不洁，正如经文显示，丈夫为合格的妻子沾染不洁，却不为不合格的妻子沾染不洁。
革玛拉问：这岂不是不言自明吗？他本是他的兄弟。
The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious, as he is his brother?
革玛拉答：你可能会以为，祭司不为血统有瑕疵的兄弟沾染不洁，因为关于祭司经上写着：「祭司不可为民中的死人沾染自己；除非为他骨肉之亲的」（利未记 21:1–2），而夫子说过：「他骨肉之亲的」，这就是他的妻子，祭司可以为妻子沾染不洁。
The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that a priest does not become impure for his brother of flawed lineage, since it is written with regard to priests: “None shall defile himself for the dead among his people except for his kin, that is near unto him” (Leviticus 21:1–2), and the Master said “his kin”; this is his wife, and a priest may defile himself for his wife.
和合本 21:2 下文续列「父母、儿女、弟兄」；革玛拉把「骨肉之亲」（原文 שארו）解作妻子。
可是经上又写着：「作丈夫的在民中，不可沾染自己，成为俗的」（利未记 21:4），意思是他不可为妻子沾染不洁。
But it is written: “He shall not defile himself, being a husband among his people, to profane himself” (Leviticus 21:4), implying that he may not defile himself for his wife.
原文 בעל 和合本译作「为首」，全句作「祭司既在民中为首，就不可沾染自己，成为俗的」；革玛拉读作「丈夫」，这里照革玛拉读法译。
这表面上的矛盾这样化解：有作丈夫的为妻子沾染不洁，也有作丈夫的不为妻子沾染不洁。
This apparent contradiction is resolved as follows: There is a husband who does become impure for his wife, and there is a husband who does not become impure.
怎样说呢？
How so?
妻子若是合格、准许嫁给祭司的，他就为她沾染不洁；妻子若是不合格嫁给祭司的，他就不为她沾染不洁。
He becomes impure for his wife if she was fit and was permitted to a priest, but he does not become impure for his wife if she was unfit to marry a priest.
所以密释纳要教导：祭司也为身为 禁婚所生 的兄弟沾染不洁。革玛拉问：何不比照不合格的妻子？答：不合格的妻子按律必须遣出，兄弟却始终是兄弟。
同样，人或许以为：祭司为血统无瑕、不是 禁婚所生 的兄弟沾染不洁，却不为血统有瑕疵的兄弟沾染不洁。
So too, one might have thought that a priest becomes impure for a brother who is of unflawed lineage and not a mamzer, but he does not become impure for a brother of flawed lineage.
所以密释纳来教导我们：他也为身为 禁婚所生 的兄弟沾染不洁。
Therefore, this comes to teach us that he does become impure for a brother who is a mamzer.
革玛拉问：何不也这样说：祭司既因这同一理由不为不合格的妻子沾染不洁，也就不为不合格的兄弟沾染不洁？
The Gemara asks: Say this also, that by the same reasoning by which a priest may not become impure for a wife who was unfit for him, he may not become impure for an unfit brother either.
他既不为不合格的妻子沾染不洁，也就不该为不合格的兄弟沾染不洁吧？
Just as he does not become impure for an unfit wife, he should not become impure for an unfit brother?
革玛拉答：两种情形不同：在那里，就不合格的妻子而言，她是注定要被遣出的，因为照妥拉律法，不合格的妇人必须休掉。
The Gemara answers: The two cases are different, as there, with regard to the unfit wife, she stands to be dismissed, since according to Torah law unfit women must be divorced.
因此他不为她沾染不洁。
For this reason he does not become impure for her.
这里，他却是他的兄弟。
Here, he is his brother.
由迦南婢女或外邦女子所生的兄弟不算兄弟，理由是经上说「妻子和她的儿女要归主人」：婢女所生之子的血统随母亲，不随父亲。
密释纳说：只是有兄弟是由迦南婢女或外邦女子所生的除外，因为在这些情形下他不算兄弟。
§ The mishna says: Except for whoever has a brother born from a Canaanite maidservant or from a gentile woman, as in these cases he is not considered a brother.
革玛拉问：这条 哈拉哈 的理由是什么？
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha?
革玛拉答：关于与迦南婢女生子的希伯来奴仆，经上说：「妻子和她的儿女要归主人」（出埃及记 21:4）。
The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to a Jewish slave who has children with a Canaanite maidservant: “The wife and her children shall be her master’s” (Exodus 21:4).
这表示儿女也具迦南奴仆的身分，可见迦南婢女所生之子的血统随母亲，不随父亲。
This means that the children also have the status of Canaanite slaves, which implies that the lineage of a Canaanite maidservant’s child comes from the mother and not from the father.
密释纳说任何一种儿子都使父亲的妻子免于转房之系；拉夫犹大 说「无论何种」是要添上 禁婚所生，因为经文「没有儿子」可读作「察看他」。
密释纳说：凡有儿子的，无论是何种儿子，那儿子都使他父亲的妻子免于一切转房之系。
The mishna states: With regard to anyone who has a son of any kind, that son exempts his father’s wife from any levirate bond.
革玛拉问：「无论何种」一语添上了什么？
The Gemara asks: What is added by the phrase: Of any kind?
拉夫犹大 说：它添上身为 禁婚所生 的儿子。
Rav Yehuda said: It adds a child who is a mamzer.
禁婚所生 何以使妇人免于一切转房之系？
What is the reason that a mamzer exempts a woman from any levirate bond?
因为关于转房，经上说：「没有儿子」（申命记 25:5）。
As the verse states with regard to levirate marriage: “And he has no [ain lo] child” (Deuteronomy 25:5).
「没有」一语可以读作「察看他」。
The phrase ain lo can be understood as ayyen alav, meaning investigate him.
音训：原文 אין לו（没有）读作 עיין עליו（察看他）。
就是说，要察看他是否真的无子，因为任何儿子，即使是 禁婚所生，都使寡妇免于转房之系。
That is to say, investigate whether he is indeed childless, because any child, even a mamzer, exempts the widow from a levirate bond.
密释纳说 禁婚所生 儿子打父亲或咒骂父亲须受刑罚。革玛拉问：咒骂之禁只及于「行你百姓之所行」的人，这父亲既与禁婚的妇人同房，何以仍受保护？
密释纳说，身为 禁婚所生 的儿子若打他父亲或咒骂他，须受刑罚。
It states in the mishna that a child who is a mamzer is liable to receive punishment if he strikes his father or curses him.
革玛拉问：他为什么该当受罚？
The Gemara asks: Why should he be liable?
这里该读这节经文：「也不可毁谤你百姓的官长」（出埃及记 22:28），这节经文被解作：咒骂之禁只及于行你百姓之所行的人。
Read here the verse: “You shall not curse a ruler of your people” (Exodus 22:27), which is interpreted to imply that the prohibition against cursing applies only to one who acts according to the deeds of your people.
英译依希伯来本作 22:27，和合本为 22:28，全句作「不可毁谤神，也不可毁谤你百姓的官长」。
然而这父亲必定曾与禁于他的妇人同房，才会生下身为 禁婚所生 的儿子。
However, this father must have engaged in sexual relations with a woman who was forbidden to him in order to have a child who is a mamzer.
所以他没有行百姓之所行。
Therefore, he did not act according to the deeds of the people.
既然如此，这儿子打他、咒骂他，为什么该当受罚？
In that case, why should this son be liable to receive punishment for hitting him or cursing him?
答：拉夫非尼哈 引 拉夫帕帕 的话，说这是指悔改了的人；父亲在 禁婚所生 出生后悔改，儿子咒骂他便该受罚。
革玛拉答：正如 拉夫非尼哈 引 拉夫帕帕 的话，就另一件事所说：这是指悔改了的人。
The Gemara answers: As Rav Pineḥas said in the name of Rav Pappa with regard to a different matter: This is referring to one who performs repentance.
这里也是，指的是在 禁婚所生 出生之后悔改了的人。
Here too, it is referring to one who performed repentance after the mamzer was born.
此后他便被视为照 哈拉哈 生活，所以他那身为 禁婚所生 的儿子咒骂他，便该当受罚。
He is thereafter considered to be living in accordance with halakha, and so his mamzer son is liable to receive punishment for cursing him.
革玛拉驳：生下 禁婚所生 的人还能悔改吗？拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚 说「弯曲的不能变直」正指此人。答：至少如今他算是行你百姓之所行的人。
革玛拉驳道：他在生下 禁婚所生 之后，真的还能悔改吗？
The Gemara objects: Is he in fact able to repent after fathering a mamzer?
我们岂不是在密释纳里学过：拉比西缅·本·梅纳西亚 说：何谓「弯曲的不能变直」（传道书 1:15）？
Didn’t we learn in a mishna that Shimon ben Menasya says: Which is: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight” (Ecclesiastes 1:15)?
所引密释纳原文只称「西缅·本·梅纳西亚」，未冠拉比称号；照库里条目写。
这是指与近亲禁婚者同房、由她生下 禁婚所生 的人。
This is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a relative who is forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her.
由此可见，他没有完全悔改的可能。
This implies that he has no possibility of achieving total repentance.
革玛拉答：至少如今，他悔改之后，便算是行你百姓之所行的人。
The Gemara responds: At least now, after repenting, he is considered as one who acts according to the deeds of your people.
他虽不能完全补救所犯的过，他的儿子咒骂他或打他，仍该当受罚。
Although he cannot totally rectify his transgression, his child is liable to receive punishment for cursing or hitting him.
拉比们教导：误与身为父亲之妻之女的姐妹同房，须献两份赎罪祭；拉比犹大之子拉比约西 说只因她是姐妹而负罪。
拉比们教导：人若误与自己的姐妹同房，而她是他父亲合法之妻的女儿，他须负罪，要献两份赎罪祭。
§ The Sages taught: He who unwittingly engages in sexual relations with his sister, who is the daughter of his father’s lawful wife, is liable and must bring two sin-offerings.
一份因为她是他的姐妹，另一份因为她是他父亲之妻的女儿，这在妥拉中是另一节经文所载。
He must bring one sin-offering because she is his sister and another because she is the daughter of his father’s wife, which is mentioned in a separate verse in the Torah.
拉比犹大之子拉比约西 说：他只因她是他的姐妹而负罪，不因与父亲之妻的女儿同房之禁而负罪。
Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda says: He is liable only because she is his sister alone, and not because of the prohibition against engaging in sexual relations with the daughter of his father’s wife.
英译与原文此处作「本·犹大」，下文作「拉比犹大之子」，所指为同一人；照库里 之间464 的写法统一。
拉比们的理由：利未记 18:9 已禁姐妹，何必又有 18:11 讲「父亲之妻的女儿」？可见是要使他因两重身分各负一罪。
革玛拉问：拉比们，就是这条 《巴拉伊塔》 的首位 坦拿，理由何在？
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the baraita?
他们说：既然妥拉写着：「你的姐妹，不拘是异母同父的，是异父同母的……都不可露她们的下体」（利未记 18:9），何必还要「你父亲之妻从你父亲生的女儿，她是你的姐妹……不可露她的下体」（利未记 18:11）这节经文呢？
They said: Since it is written in the Torah: “The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother…you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:9), then why do I need the verse: “The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of your father, she is your sister…you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:11)?
利未记 18:11 和合本作「你继母从你父亲生的女儿……不可露她的下体」，其中「她是你的姐妹」一语和合本译作「本是你的」后接叠用的「妹」字；论证系于原文 בת אשת אביך 与 אחותך היא 两语，这里照原文改写。
由此可得：这多出的经文是要使他因她是他的姐妹、又因她是他父亲之妻的女儿而分别负罪。
Conclude from this that the additional verse serves to make him liable separately due to the fact that she is his sister and due to the fact that she is his father’s wife’s daughter.
拉比犹大之子拉比约西 的理由：经文说「她是你的姐妹」，是要限定只因姐妹的身分负罪。
而 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 说：经文说「她是你的姐妹」，这是来限定、强调：你因她是他的姐妹而使他负罪，却不因她也是他父亲之妻的女儿而再使他负罪一次。
And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The verse states: “She is your sister,” which comes to limit and emphasize that you hold him liable due to the fact that she is his sister but you do not hold him liable a second time due to the fact that she is also his father’s wife’s daughter.
拉比们用「她是你的姐妹」来使与同父同母的姐妹同房者受罚，以示贤哲不凭轻重推论推出额外的禁令。
革玛拉问：拉比们怎样用「她是你的姐妹」这节经文呢？
The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis do with this verse: “She is your sister”?
他们需要它，来使与既是他父亲之女、又是他母亲之女的姐妹同房的人受罚，以表明贤哲不凭逻辑推论，就是轻重推论，推出额外的妥拉禁令。
They require it in order to hold him liable to receive punishment for having relations with his sister who is both the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother, to say that the Sages do not derive an additional Torah prohibition by way of a logical derivation, i.e., an a fortiori inference.
就是说，他既因与父亲之女同房、又因与母亲之女同房而受罚，那么她若同是他父亲与母亲之女，似乎更当如此；然而这里并没有新的禁令。
In other words, although it would seem that since he is liable to receive punishment for having relations with his father’s daughter and also for his mother’s daughter, this must be all the more true in a case where she is the daughter of both his father and his mother, yet nevertheless, there is no new prohibition here.
所以妥拉把这件事明文教导，以示贤哲不可凭轻重推论推出额外的禁令。
Therefore, the matter was taught explicitly in the Torah, to teach that the Sages may not derive additional prohibitions by way of a fortiori inferences.
拉比犹大之子拉比约西 反驳：若只为此，经上写「你的姐妹」就够了，何必加「她是」？可见「她是」是要限定只因姐妹的身分负罪。
而 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 说：若是如此，经文是为这个目的而写的，那位慈悲者只写「你的姐妹」就够了。
And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If so, that the matter was written for this purpose, then the Merciful One should have written only: Your sister.
何必要「她是」一语呢？
Why do I need the phrase “she is”?
这是限定这条 哈拉哈，教导：误与同为他父亲之妻之女的姐妹同房，你因她是他的姐妹而使他负罪，却不另因她是他父亲之妻的女儿而使他负罪。
This limits the halakha and teaches that for unintentional intercourse with his sister who is also his father’s wife’s daughter you hold him liable because she is his sister; you do not additionally hold him liable because she is his father’s wife’s daughter.
拉比们解释「她是」一语：免得你说贤哲一般可以凭轻重推论推出额外的禁令。
拉比们又怎样解释多出来的「她是」一语呢？
And how do the Rabbis interpret the additional phrase “she is”?
虽然已写了「你的姐妹」，仍需要写「她是」，免得你说贤哲一般可以凭逻辑推论，就是轻重推论，推出额外的禁令。
Although “your sister” is written, it was necessary to write “she is” so that you not say that generally the Sages may derive additional prohibitions by way of a logical derivation, i.e., an a fortiori inference.
革玛拉说明这原则怎样从经文推出：「你的姐妹」本可由轻重推论得出，经文却明写出来；「她是」则表明在一切事上都不可凭轻重推论推出未明言的禁令。
革玛拉解释这原则怎样从经文推出。
The Gemara explains how this principle is derived from the text.
因为你若要说：那位慈悲者在妥拉中写「你的姐妹」一语何必呢？这本可以由轻重推论推出，因而看来多余。
As, if you would say: Why do I need the term “your sister” that the Merciful One writes in the Torah, since it is possible to derive this by a fortiori inference and it therefore appears redundant?
答案是：妥拉写下这看似多余的词，是要教导这原则：凡可以凭轻重推论推出的事，经文多此一举把它明写出来。
The answer is that the Torah wrote this apparently redundant term to teach the principle that with regard to a matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, the verse unnecessarily wrote it explicitly.
那位慈悲者写「她是」一语，是要教导：正如在这事上贤哲不可凭轻重推论推出额外的禁令，在其他一切事上，他们也不可推出经文未曾明言的额外禁令。
The Merciful One writes the term “she is” in order to teach that just as in this case the Sages may not derive additional prohibitions by way of an a fortiori inference, so too, in all other cases they may not derive additional prohibitions that are not stated in the text.
拉比犹大之子拉比约西 说：若是为了这个用意，「她是你的姐妹」就该写在讲异母异父姐妹的那一节，而不是写在讲父亲之妻之女的这一节。
而 拉比犹大之子拉比约西 说：若这是那经文的用意，那位慈悲者就该把「她是你的姐妹」写在另一节经文里，就是说「你的姐妹，不拘是异母同父的，是异父同母的」那一节，而不是写在讲父亲之妻之女的那一节。
And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: If this is the reason for the verse, then let the Merciful One write: She is your sister, in the other verse, which states: “The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother,” and not in the verse that speaks of the daughter of one’s father’s wife.
拉比犹大之子拉比约西 用「你父亲之妻的女儿」来教导：只有母亲是父亲可与之缔结婚姻的人，才算姐妹；由迦南婢女或外邦女子所生的姐妹不在其内。
革玛拉问：拉比犹大之子拉比约西 又怎样用「你父亲之妻的女儿」这节经文呢？
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, do with this verse, which states: “The daughter of your father’s wife” (Leviticus 18:9)?
英译注出处为利未记 18:9，此语实见于利未记 18:11。
他需要它来教导：人只有与这样的异母姐妹同房才负罪：她的母亲是你父亲可以与之缔结婚姻的人，即便她实际上并非他的妻子。
He requires it to teach that one is liable only for relations with a half-sister whose mother is someone with whom there is a possibility of forging marital ties with your father, even if she was not in actuality his wife.
这是要排除他由迦南婢女或外邦女子所生的姐妹，因为你父亲不能与她们缔结婚姻，订婚对这些女子不生效力。
This comes to exclude his sister from a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman, with whom your father cannot have marital ties, since betrothal does not take effect with these women.
革玛拉问：何不说「你父亲之妻的女儿」是要排除被强暴的妇人所生的姐妹？答：不能这样说，理由见 拉瓦 所言。
革玛拉问：何不就说：「你父亲之妻的女儿」专是教导嫁给他父亲之妇人所生的女儿，从而把被强暴的妇人所生的姐妹排除在「他的姐妹」之外？
The Gemara asks: So say: “Your father’s wife’s daughter” comes to teach specifically the case of a daughter from a woman married to his father, thereby excluding from the definition of: His sister, his sister from a woman who had been raped.
她若是由一个未嫁给他父亲的妇人所生，或许就不算他的姐妹。
Perhaps if she was born of a woman who was not married to his father she would not be considered his sister.
革玛拉答：你不能这样说，原因就在 拉瓦 所说的话。
The Gemara answers: You cannot say that due to the reason said by Rava.
拉瓦 指出经文间的矛盾：利未记 18:10 似乎容许那妇人的孙女与外孙女，18:17 却明言禁止。
因为 拉瓦 提出一个矛盾：一节经文写着：「不可露你孙女或是外孙女的下体」（利未记 18:10），由此推知，她的孙女或她的外孙女是准许的。
As Rava raised a contradiction: In one verse it is written: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:10), which implies, consequently, that her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter is permitted.
而另一处写着：「你既露了妇人的下体，就不可再露她女儿的下体，也不可娶她孙女或是外孙女」（利未记 18:17），明言她的孙女和外孙女都是禁止的。
And it is written elsewhere: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter” (Leviticus 18:17), which states explicitly that her son’s daughter and daughter’s daughter are prohibited.
这些经文怎样调和呢？
How can these texts be reconciled?
拉瓦 解答：前一节讲他所强暴之妇人，后一节讲他所娶之妇人。可见父亲即使只是强暴了一个妇人，与她所生的女儿仍是他的异母姐妹。
这里讲的是他所强暴之妇人的女儿，在这种情形下，他可以娶她的女儿，只要那女儿不同时是他自己的女儿。
Here, it is referring to a daughter by a woman whom one raped, in which case he is allowed to marry her daughter provided she is not also his daughter.
那里讲的是他所娶的妇人，在这种情形下，无论如何都禁止娶她的女儿。
There, it is referring to a woman whom one married, in which case it is forbidden to marry her daughter under any circumstances.
然而，即使是他父亲强暴了一个妇人，他仍可以娶这妇人与别人所生的女儿。
However, even in a case where one’s father raped a woman, one is still permitted to marry the woman’s daughter by another man.
他父亲若与这妇人生了女儿，他便禁与那女儿同房，因为她是他同父异母的姐妹。
If one’s father had a daughter with this woman, one would be prohibited from having a relationship with that daughter, as she is his paternal half-sister.