← 转房卷总目·第三章 四个兄弟
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 6 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）怕人以为：同一家嫁一夫的两个妇人，一个须转房，一个须行脱鞋礼。
「……一部分须以 脱鞋礼 解脱。」
and part of it must be released by ḥalitza.
就是说，两个妇人若嫁给同一个男人，其中一个须转房，另一个须行 脱鞋礼 。
That is, if two women were married to a single man, one of these women must enter into levirate marriage and the other must perform ḥalitza.
问：让人这样说又何妨？就算照这误解去做也无害，因行脱鞋礼不犯什么禁令。答：若先转房、后行脱鞋礼，确实无须顾虑。
革玛拉不解：那就让他们这样说吧。
The Gemara wonders: So let them say it.
人若这样以为，又有什么不妥呢？
Why would it be problematic if people thought that?
即使他们照这个错误的想法去做，也不会有害，因为行 脱鞋礼 并不牵涉任何过犯。
Even were they to act upon this mistaken assumption it would cause no harm, as there is no transgression involved in performing ḥalitza.
革玛拉答：他若先与一个完成转房，然后再与另一个行 脱鞋礼 ，那确实没有理由顾虑。
The Gemara answers: If he were to consummate the levirate marriage with one and then later proceed to perform ḥalitza with the other, then indeed there would be no reason for concern.
其实要两妇都行脱鞋礼，是怕他先与一妇行脱鞋礼、再与另一妇转房；那就犯了禁令，因为经上说「凡不为他兄弟建立家室的」，一旦不建立，便不可再建立。
其实，要求与两个妇人都行 脱鞋礼 ，是贤哲所立的规定，免得他先与兄弟的一个妻子行 脱鞋礼 ，随后又与另一个完成转房。
Rather, the requirement to perform ḥalitza with both women is a rabbinic decree that was instituted lest he first perform ḥalitza with one of his brother’s wives and subsequently consummate the levirate marriage with the other.
在这种情形下，他确实会触犯一条禁令。
Under such circumstances, he would in fact be violating a prohibition.
他一旦与第一个妇人行了 脱鞋礼 ，就受这节经文所示的禁令约束：「凡不为他兄弟建立家室的，都要这样待他」（申25:9）。
Once he performs ḥalitza with the first woman he is subject to the prohibition indicated by the verse “So shall it be done to the man who does not build his brother’s house” (Deuteronomy 25:9).
注：英译作「不建立他兄弟的家」；和合本此节作「哥」字相叠，此处照原文 אָחִיו 作「他兄弟」，与叶十背、叶十一正同。
那位慈悲者在这节经文里说：他一旦不建立兄弟的家室，而选择与兄弟的一个妻子行 脱鞋礼 ，就不可再与另一个妻子完成转房来建立它。
In this verse the Merciful One states that once he did not build his brother’s house but rather opted to perform ḥalitza with one of his brother’s wives, he may not proceed to build it by consummating the levirate marriage with a different wife.
拉瓦 说：行转房聘言的兄弟若在死前给那妇人休书以撤销聘言，她的同室妻就对第三个兄弟许可；她本人却受禁，免得与收了休书的待转房之妇混淆——一般给了休书的 叔娶之妇 便不可再转房。
拉瓦 说：在密释纳所述的情形中，行了转房聘言的兄弟若在死前给那妻子一纸休书，以撤销他的转房聘言，她的同室妻就对第三个兄弟成为许可的。
Rava said: If the brother who performed levirate betrothal in the case described in the mishna subsequently gave a bill of divorce to that wife in order to nullify his levirate betrothal before he died, her rival wife is rendered permitted to the third brother.
第三个兄弟可以与第二个兄弟的妻子完成转房，因为这妻子不再被视为带双重转房关系之妇的同室妻。
The third brother is allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with the wife of the second brother because this wife is no longer considered to be the rival wife of a woman with a double levirate relationship.
休书使转房聘言的行为完全作废。
The bill of divorce serves to nullify the act of levirate betrothal completely.
然而，那位兄弟与之行了转房聘言、又收了休书的妇人，对第三个兄弟是受禁的。
However, the woman with whom the brother performed levirate betrothal and then received the bill of divorce is forbidden to the third brother.
为什么呢？
Why is this?
她可能与收了休书的妇人相混淆。
She might be confused with a woman who receives a bill of divorce.
在一般未行转房聘言的情形中，男人若给 叔娶之妇 一纸休书，他就不可再与她完成转房了。
In general cases where levirate betrothal was not performed, if a man gives a yevama a bill of divorce, he is no longer allowed to consummate the levirate marriage with her.
这种情形若准许转房，人可能在其他给了休书的情形中也错误地这样做。
If it were permitted to consummate the levirate marriage in this case, people might mistakenly do so in other cases of divorce as well.
另一说法：拉瓦 说，第二兄弟若给头一位亡兄之妻休书撤销聘言，连她本人也可与第三兄弟转房，因他对她所行的已经除去，她仍只带原先那一重转房之系。
有些人说 拉瓦 的话另一种说法：
There are those who say an alternative formulation of Rava’s statement.
拉瓦 说：第二个兄弟若给头一位亡兄之妻一纸休书，以撤销对她的转房聘言，那么连她本人也可以与第三个兄弟转房。
Rava said: If the second brother gave a bill of divorce to the wife of the first deceased brother in order to nullify his levirate betrothal to her, then even she herself is permitted to enter into levirate marriage with the third brother.
理由是什么？
What is the reason for this?
他对她所行的，他已除去了。
That which he performed with her, he removed.
转房聘言已被休书完全撤销，就好像他什么也没做过。
The levirate betrothal was completely nullified by the bill of divorce, and it is as though he had done nothing at all.
因此，就第三个兄弟而言，她仍带着原先单一的转房之系，好像她的身份从未被第二个兄弟改变过。
Therefore, as far as the third brother is concerned, she remains with her original, single levirate bond, as though her status had never been changed by the second brother.
密释纳：两兄弟娶两姊妹，一个死了，遗孀是另一兄弟之妻的姊妹，免于转房；之后另一兄弟之妻也死了，这 叔娶之妇 虽已不是他妻子的姊妹，仍永远受禁，因她曾一度受禁。
两个兄弟娶了两姊妹，其中一个兄弟死了，此时遗孀作为他妻子的姊妹，免于转房。
In the case where two brothers were married to two sisters, and one of the brothers died, the widow at this point would be exempt from levirate marriage as the sister of his wife.
之后，第二个兄弟的妻子死了。
And afterward the wife of the second brother died.
这 叔娶之妇 虽然不再是他妻子的姊妹，这妇人对他仍是永远受禁的，因为她曾一度对他受禁。
Although the yevama is no longer the sister of his wife, this woman is nevertheless forbidden to him forever, since she had already been forbidden to him at one time.
问：这不是显而易见吗？前面那几条密释纳里尚有第三个兄弟、她与这家并未全然断绝，尚且因曾一度受禁而不可转房；这里只有两兄弟，她与这家已全然断绝，岂不更当受禁？答：这位 坦拿 起初认为那些情形许可，就先教了这条；后来改判为受禁，而密释纳不从原处挪移。
革玛拉问：这不是显而易见吗？
The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious?
试想，在那里，前面那几条密释纳中，还有第三个兄弟，那妇人并未与这一家全然断绝，因为她与那位对她许可的第三个兄弟之间仍有转房的义务，你尚且说她因曾一度受禁而不可转房；那么这里，只有两个兄弟，她与这一家已全然断绝，岂不更显然应禁止她转房吗？
Now, just as there, in the earlier mishnayot, where there was a third brother and so the woman was not disassociated from this household completely, as the levirate obligation existed between her and the third brother to whom she was permitted, you said that she may not enter into levirate marriage because she was forbidden at one time, here, in the case of only two brothers, where she is disassociated from this household completely, is it not all the more so clear that it should be prohibited for her to enter into levirate marriage?
革玛拉答：这位 坦拿 起初教这条密释纳时，认为那些别的情形应判为许可，所以就准许了。
The Gemara answers: The tanna taught this mishna at first, at which time he saw it fitting to rule that those other cases are permitted, and therefore he permitted them.
后来他又认为应判为受禁。
And then he subsequently saw it fitting to rule that they are forbidden.
由于那条裁断新颖，为他所喜爱，他就把它教在前面。
And since that case was novel, it was beloved to him, he taught it earlier.
注：英译 that case 所指，照上下文理解为本条（只两兄弟的情形）当初的新意，故先教；英译句意略含混，暂照字面译。
这条密释纳虽然已经不需要了，密释纳却不从原处挪移。
But despite the fact that this mishna was no longer necessary, the mishna does not move from its place.
贤哲们教导：他若与这受禁的妇人同房，拉比约西 说他兼犯兄弟之妻与妻子姊妹两禁；拉比西缅 说只犯兄弟之妻一禁，因禁上不能再加禁。问：另一条 《巴拉伊塔》 却记他说只犯妻子姊妹之禁？
贤哲们教导：他若与这个对他受禁的妇人同房，就因触犯兄弟之妻的禁令而当受罚，因为她从未因转房诫命而成为许可的；他又因触犯妻子姊妹的禁令而当受罚；这是 拉比约西 的话。
§ The Sages taught: If he engaged in sexual intercourse with this woman who was forbidden to him, he is liable to receive punishment for violating the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife, because she was never rendered permitted by the levirate mitzva, and he is liable to receive punishment for violating the prohibition against marrying a wife’s sister; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.
拉比西缅 说：他只因触犯兄弟之妻的禁令而当受罚。
Rabbi Shimon says: He is liable to receive punishment only for violating the prohibition proscribing a brother’s wife.
拉比西缅 认为，一条禁令已在之处，另一条禁令不能生效；她既已作为他兄弟之妻受禁，附加的禁令就不能生效。
Rabbi Shimon holds that one prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition is already in place, and since she was already forbidden as his brother’s wife, the additional prohibition cannot take effect.
革玛拉问：可是不是有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教导说，拉比西缅 说：他只因妻子姊妹的禁令而当受罚吗？
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: He is liable only due to the prohibition against marrying a wife’s sister?
答：不难。第二条 《巴拉伊塔》 讲的是在世的兄弟先娶妻、亡兄弟后娶其姊妹，妻子姊妹之禁在先；第一条讲的是亡兄弟先娶、在世的兄弟后娶其姊妹，兄弟之妻之禁在先。
革玛拉答：这并不难。
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.
这里，第二条 《巴拉伊塔》 讲的是在世的兄弟先娶了他的妻子，之后如今已故的兄弟娶了她的姊妹的情形。
Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to a case where the living brother married his wife first and afterward the brother who is now deceased married her sister.
在这种情形下，最先加在这 叔娶之妇 身上的是妻子姊妹的禁令，直到后来她嫁给他如今已故的兄弟，兄弟之妻的附加禁令才生效。
In that case, the first prohibition to take effect on the yevama was that of a wife’s sister, and only later, when she was married to his now-deceased brother, did the additional prohibition proscribing a brother’s wife take effect.
那里，第一条 《巴拉伊塔》 讲的是如今已故的兄弟先娶了他的妻子，她因此作为兄弟之妻对这兄弟受禁，之后在世的兄弟娶了她的姊妹，使她又作为他妻子的姊妹而受禁的情形。
There, in the first baraita, it is referring to a case where the brother who is now deceased married his wife first, whereby she became forbidden to the brother as a brother’s wife, and afterward the living brother married her sister, rendering her forbidden as his wife’s sister as well.
问：照 拉比西缅，若亡兄弟先娶，在场的只有兄弟之妻之禁，妻子姊妹之禁从未生效；兄弟之妻之禁遇转房诫命即撤去，那她丈夫死后就该转房了。
革玛拉问：照 拉比西缅 的意见，已故的兄弟先娶了姊妹中的一个，她因此作为兄弟之妻对他的兄弟受禁，之后在世的兄弟娶了她的姊妹，在这种情形下，存在的只有兄弟之妻这一条禁令。
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, in a case where the deceased brother married one of the sisters first, in which case she was forbidden to his brother as a brother’s wife, and afterward the living brother married her sister, the only prohibition in place is that of a brother’s wife.
因此，既然妻子姊妹的禁令从未生效，她丈夫死后，她现在就该转房了。
Therefore, since the prohibition with regard to a wife’s sister never took effect, then after her husband died she should now enter into levirate marriage.
因为兄弟之妻的禁令遇到转房诫命就被撤去，她确实应当转房。
As the prohibition proscribing a brother’s wife is canceled in the face of the levirate mitzva, she should indeed enter into levirate marriage.
拉夫阿施 说：妻子姊妹之禁是悬而待发的；兄弟之妻之禁一旦撤去，它便随即生效，所以她仍因此受禁。
拉夫阿施 说：妻子姊妹的禁令是悬着的。
Rav Ashi said: The prohibition with regard to a wife’s sister remains suspended.
兄弟之妻的禁令若终止，妻子姊妹的禁令就来到并生效。
If the prohibition proscribing a brother’s wife is terminated, the prohibition proscribing a wife’s sister comes and takes effect.
因此，妻子姊妹的禁令显然并未完全消失。
Therefore, it is clear that the prohibition proscribing a wife’s sister is not completely terminated.
所以，男人死后，兄弟之妻的禁令被转房诫命压过时，妻子姊妹的禁令便生效，她因此对他受禁。
Accordingly, when a man dies and the prohibition proscribing a brother’s wife is overridden by the levirate mitzva, the prohibition proscribing a wife’s sister takes effect and she is forbidden to him due to that.
第一条禁令一不存在，第二条禁令立即生效。
The moment the first prohibition ceases to exist, the second immediately takes effect.
问：拉比约西 认为兼犯两禁，难道他主张禁上可以加禁？可是 《巴拉伊塔》 说：犯了当受两种死刑之罪的，处以较重的一种；他却说按最先加于他的关系判。
这条 《巴拉伊塔》 显示 拉比约西 认为，兄弟若与这妇人完成转房，就触犯了两条禁令。
The baraita indicates that Rabbi Yosei holds that if the brother consummated the levirate marriage with this woman he violated two prohibitions.
革玛拉问：拉比约西 难道认为一条禁令已在之处，另一条禁令可以生效吗？
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists?
可是不是有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教导说：犯了当受两种死刑之罪的，判以两种死刑中较重的一种吗？
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One who committed a transgression deserving of two death penalties is sentenced to the harsher of the two deaths?
人若与一个既是近亲禁婚者、又是有夫之妇的女子同房，就犯了这样的罪：他因她是近亲禁婚者而当受一种死刑，又因她是有夫之妇而当受另一种死刑。
One would be guilty of such a transgression if he engaged in intercourse with a forbidden relative who was also a married woman, as he would incur one death penalty due to her being a forbidden relative and one death penalty due to her being a married woman.
拉比约西 说：他是按就这妇人而言最先加于他的那层关系来判的。
Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced according to the first relationship that applied to him with regard to this woman.
（下接叶三十二背）另一条 《巴拉伊塔》 说明 拉比约西 的意思：岳母先守寡或被休、后再嫁，他与她同房，按岳母之禁判；她先为有夫之妇、他后娶其女，按有夫之妇之禁判。可见他认为后禁不能加于前禁之上。
又有一条 《巴拉伊塔》 教导说：拉比约西 说「按最先加于他的那层关系来判」，是在什么情形下说的呢？
And it is taught in a baraita: In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that he is sentenced according to the first relationship that applied to him?
这妇人若是他的岳母，守寡了或被休了，因而对他受禁仅仅因她岳母的身份，后来她嫁了人，又作为有夫之妇受禁，他与她同房，那么他按触犯岳母之禁判罪，因为这是最先加上的禁令。
If this woman was his mother-in-law who was widowed or divorced, and therefore forbidden to him only due to her status as his mother-in-law, and later she married and became forbidden as a married woman and he engaged in sexual relations with her, then he is sentenced for violating the prohibition proscribing his mother-in-law, since this was the first prohibition to apply.
又或者，她原是有夫之妇，后来他娶了她的女儿，于是她成了他的岳母，然后他与她同房，那么他按触犯有夫之妇之禁判罪。
Alternatively, if she was a married woman and then he married her daughter so that she then became his mother-in-law, and then had sexual relations with her, he is sentenced for violating the prohibition proscribing a married woman.