← 转房卷总目·第四章 行脱鞋礼的
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 4 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。
革玛拉问：照方才改读的说法，拉比约西 似乎在任何情形都不守为分辨前后两夫之后裔而设的三月之候，难道他不接受这条规定？
革玛拉问：难道 拉比约西 不接受须守三个月、以分辨前夫与后夫之后裔的那条规定吗？
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yosei not accept that there is a decree to wait three months in order to distinguish between the seed of the first and second husbands?
照革玛拉对他话语的改读，看来 拉比约西 在任何情形下都不施行这条规定。
According to the Gemara’s emendation of his statement, it would appear there is no case in which Rabbi Yosei applies the decree.
革玛拉答：确实不接受。或者说他其实接受，用于已成婚而被休的妇人；至于由轻及重的推论所生的难处，可把密释纳改读为：只订过婚而被休的妇人，可在三个月内嫁人。
革玛拉答：确实，他不接受这条规定。
The Gemara answers: Indeed, he does not accept the decree.
你若愿意，也可以说：其实他接受这条规定，并施用于已成婚而被休的妇人。
And if you wish, say that actually, he does accept the decree and applies it in the case of a married woman who was divorced.
至于由轻及重的推论对他见解的质难，可把密释纳改读为：「拉比约西 说：凡只与前夫订过婚而被休的妇人，都可在三个月内嫁人」，因为守候的缘由在此并不适用。
And with regard to the challenge to his opinion from the a fortiori inference, emend the mishna and say: Rabbi Yosei says that all women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may be married within three months, since the reason to wait does not apply in this case.
革玛拉问：这样，拉比约西 的见解岂不与 拉比犹大 相同？答：两人的分别在于曾与前夫成婚、如今要订婚的妇人：一人准她不等三个月便订婚，一人禁止。
革玛拉问：若是这样，拉比约西 的这一见解就与 拉比犹大 的见解相同了。
The Gemara asks: If so, then this opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
两人之间有什么分别？
What difference is there between them?
革玛拉答：两人之间的实际分别，在于曾与前夫成婚、如今要订婚的妇人。
The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case of a woman who was married to her previous husband and seeks to be betrothed.
拉比犹大 认为，曾与前夫成婚的妇人，不必先等三个月便可与她订婚。
Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is permitted to betroth a woman who was married to her previous husband without first waiting three months.
拉比约西 则认为，曾与前夫成婚的妇人，未先等三个月就与她订婚是禁止的。
And Rabbi Yosei holds that it is prohibited to betroth a woman who was married to her previous husband without first waiting three months.
革玛拉问：拉比约西 真禁止曾成婚的妇人不等三个月就订婚吗？巴拉伊塔记他说：一切妇人都可订婚，唯寡妇因守丧三十日除外；只是都须等三个月才可嫁人。
革玛拉问：拉比约西 真认为曾与前夫成婚的妇人，未先等三个月就与她订婚是禁止的吗？
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yosei really hold that it is prohibited to betroth a woman who was married to her previous husband without first waiting three months?
岂不是有一则 《巴拉伊塔》 教导：「拉比约西 说：一切妇人都可不等候便订婚，唯有寡妇除外，因她须为亡夫守丧；她的丧期多久？
Isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that all women may be betrothed without waiting except for a widow, due to the mourning period she must observe for her deceased husband; and how long is her mourning period?
三十日。
It is thirty days.
她们全都须等满三个月，才可嫁人。」
And none of them may be married until they have waited three months.
革玛拉厘清难处何在：若是因巴拉伊塔说一切妇人都可订婚，巴拉伊塔并不比密释纳更有分量；密释纳既可解作只订过婚而被休的妇人，巴拉伊塔也可照样解。
革玛拉厘清这一问：这则 《巴拉伊塔》 构成什么难处？
The Gemara clarifies the question: What difficulty does this baraita pose?
若说是因为这则 《巴拉伊塔》 教导「拉比约西 说：一切妇人都可不等候便订婚」，难道 《巴拉伊塔》 比密释纳更有分量吗？密释纳已被解作是在教导：只与前夫订过婚而被休的妇人，可在三个月内嫁人。
If we say that the baraita teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that all women may be betrothed without waiting, is the baraita stronger than the mishna that was established as teaching that women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may be married within three months?
在这里，这则 《巴拉伊塔》 也同样可以解作是在教导：凡只与前夫订过婚而被休的妇人，都可在三个月内嫁人。
Here, too, the baraita could be established as teaching that all women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may be married within three months.
难处其实出于后半句「她们全都须等满三个月才可嫁人」：可见只是嫁人不准，订婚则无妨，这与先前说他在此点上与 拉比犹大 相争的说法相抵。
其实，难处出于后半句所教的：「她们全都须等满三个月，才可嫁人。」
Rather, the difficulty arises from the latter clause that teaches: And none of them may marry until they have waited three months.
这意味着 拉比约西 认为，不准的单是嫁人，订婚则看来无妨，是准许的。
This implies that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is specifically marrying that is not permitted, but betrothing seems well and is permitted.
这就质难了革玛拉起初的说法，即 拉比约西 在这一点上与 拉比犹大 意见不同。
This challenges the Gemara’s original claim that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda on this point.
拉瓦 把 拉比约西 的话改读为：只订过婚而被休的妇人都可在三个月内嫁人，唯寡妇因守丧三十日除外；曾成婚的妇人则须等满三个月才可订婚。
拉瓦 说：消解这难处，把 拉比约西 的话改读为：「拉比约西 说：凡只与前夫订过婚而被休的妇人，都可在三个月内嫁人，唯有寡妇除外，因她须为亡夫守丧。
Rava said: Resolve the difficulty and emend Rabbi Yosei’s statement to say this: Rabbi Yosei says that all women who were only betrothed to their previous husbands and then divorced may marry within three months except for a widow, due to the mourning period she must observe for her deceased husband.
她的丧期多久？
And how long is her mourning period?
三十日。
It is thirty days.
至于曾与前夫成婚的妇人，须等满三个月，才可订婚。」
And women who were married to their previous husbands may not be betrothed until they have waited three months.
革玛拉问：订婚后守寡的妇人须为丈夫守丧吗？巴拉伊塔教导：订婚未娶的一方死了，另一方不为之守初丧、不为之沾染不洁、不承受遗产，但妇人可收取婚书款。可见密释纳说的是成婚的妇人，为回护 拉比约西 免受 拉夫希斯达 那由轻及重的推论而作的种种改读，全被驳倒。
革玛拉问：订婚后守寡的妇人，须为丈夫守丧吗？
The Gemara asks: But does a woman who became a widow from betrothal have to observe a mourning period for her husband?
拉比希亚·巴尔·阿米 岂不是在一则 《巴拉伊塔》 中教导：「人所聘定的妻子死了，他不为她守初丧；他若是祭司，也不可为她沾染不洁。
Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami teach in a baraita: If one’s wife to whom he was betrothed died, he does not observe a period of acute mourning for her, and if he is a priest he is not permitted to become ritually impure for her.
注：守初丧指亲人死后、下葬之前的那段丧期，英译作 acute mourning。
同样，他若死了，她也不为他守初丧，也不为他沾染不洁。
And similarly, if he dies, she does not observe a period of acute mourning for him and she does not become ritually impure for him.
她若死了，他不承受她的遗产。
If she dies, he does not inherit from her.
他若死了，她可收取婚书款。」
If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract.
这则 《巴拉伊塔》 表明，寡妇唯有曾与丈夫成婚，而非只是订婚，才须为他守丧。
The baraita demonstrates that a widow is required to mourn her husband only if she was married to him and not merely betrothed.
既然如此，拉比约西 在密释纳中的判决显然是说成婚的妇人。
If so, clearly Rabbi Yosei’s ruling in the mishna is referring to married women.
因此，革玛拉为回护他的说法、使之免受 拉夫希斯达 由轻及重的推论所质难，而对他的话所作的一切改读，都被驳倒了。
Accordingly, all of the Gemara’s emendations of Rabbi Yosei’s statement, in order to defend his statement from Rav Ḥisda’s a fortiori inference, are refuted.
革玛拉改答：亚布月九日那一周之前可否订婚，众坦拿有争议。巴拉伊塔说：自亚布月初一至禁食日，公众减少作为，不经商、不建造栽种、不订婚嫁娶；那一周内禁剃发洗衣，也禁订婚；有人说整月皆禁。由轻及重的推论预设那段时期可订婚，既有争议，拉比约西 尽可依从禁止的一说。
其实，亚布月九日所在那一周之前的时期可否订婚，是众 坦拿 之间有争议的问题。
Rather, it must be that the question of whether it is permitted to betroth a woman during the period prior to the week of the Ninth of Av is subject to a dispute between tanna’im.
注：英译 坦拿 为复数，正文作「众 坦拿」。
如一则 《巴拉伊塔》 所教：「自亚布月初一直到初九的禁食日，公众减少作为，不做买卖，不建造栽种，不订婚嫁娶。
As it is taught in a baraita: From the New Moon of Av and until the fast on the ninth, the public reduces its activities, refraining from business transactions, from building and planting, and from betrothing and marrying.
亚布月九日所在的那一周内，禁止剃发、洗衣，也禁止订婚。
During the week in which the Ninth of Av occurs, it is prohibited to cut hair and to launder clothes, and it is prohibited to be betrothed.
有人说：整个月都禁止。」
And some say: It is prohibited for the entire month.
革玛拉质难 拉比约西 禁止寡妇在丧期内订婚的见解，所依据的那个由轻及重的推论，是预设在亚布月九日那一周之前的丧期内可以订婚。
The Gemara’s challenge to Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that it is prohibited for a widow to be betrothed during her mourning period was based on an a fortiori inference that assumes that it is permitted to be betrothed during the mourning period preceding the week of the Ninth of Av.
然而这判决既有争议，拉比约西 便可驳回那个由轻及重的推论，说他依从的是那段时期确实禁止订婚的一说。
However, since this ruling is subject to a dispute, Rabbi Yosei could reject the a fortiori inference by stating that he holds in accordance with the opinion that it is in fact prohibited to be betrothed during that period.
拉夫阿施 强烈反对：怎知巴拉伊塔禁的是真订婚？也许禁的只是订婚筵席，单单订婚则无妨。
拉夫阿施 对此强烈反对：从哪里知道，这则 《巴拉伊塔》 禁止订婚，说的是真正行订婚？
Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: From where is it known that when the baraita prohibits one to be betrothed, it is referring to actually betrothing?
也许禁止的只是摆订婚筵席，单单订婚则看来无妨，是准许的。
Perhaps it is only to make a betrothal feast that is prohibited, but merely to be betrothed seems well and is permitted.
革玛拉问：照此，嫁娶也可说只禁筵席。随即驳回：两者不可相比，成婚即使无筵席也有喜乐，订婚无筵席则只是一道法律程序，无喜乐可言。
革玛拉质疑 拉夫阿施 的反对：若是这样，关于嫁娶的禁令也可同样主张：禁止嫁娶的，也只是摆婚筵，单单嫁娶则看来无妨，是准许的。
The Gemara questions Rav Ashi’s objection: If so, then with regard to the prohibition against marrying as well one could make the same claim: With regard to the prohibition to marry, too, it is only to make a marriage feast that is prohibited, but merely to marry seems well and is permitted.
革玛拉驳回自己的问题：这两者怎能相比？
The Gemara rejects its question: How can these cases be compared?
诚然，成婚即使没有筵席，也有喜乐；订婚若没有筵席，难道有什么喜乐吗？
Granted, from a marriage, even without a feast, there is joy, but from a betrothal without a feast, is there any joy?
那只是一道法律程序而已。
It is merely a legal ceremony.
拉夫阿施 另作解释：新丧与旧丧不同，对后者宜从宽；公众之丧与个人之丧不同，对后者宜从严。故不能由为圣殿守丧的规矩，推论妻子为丈夫守丧的规矩。
其实，拉夫阿施 为 拉比约西 的见解另作解释：新丧，即为刚去世的亲人守丧，与旧丧，即为圣殿被毁这类往事守丧，并不相同；对后者宜于从宽。
Rather, Rav Ashi stated a different resolution of Rav Yosei’s opinion: New mourning, i.e., the mourning for a relative who has just passed away, is different from old mourning, i.e., the mourning over historic events such as the destruction of the Temple, and it is appropriate to be more lenient in the latter.
注：英译此处作 拉夫约西，当是 拉比约西 之误，正文照 拉比约西 写。
公众之丧与个人的私丧也不相同；对后者宜于从严。
And the mourning of the public is different from the private mourning of the individual, and it is appropriate to be more stringent in the latter.
既然如此，就不能由为圣殿守丧的 哈拉哈，以由轻及重的推论，推及妻子为丈夫守丧的 哈拉哈。
As such, it is not possible to form an a fortiori inference from the halakhot of mourning for the Temple to those of a wife mourning for her husband.
密释纳：四兄弟娶了四个妇人，其中几个兄弟无子而死，她们便成了叔娶之妇；在世兄弟中最年长的若愿与她们全数转房，他有权这样做。
四兄弟娶了四个妇人，其中几个兄弟无子而死，她们便因此成了 叔娶之妇。
In a case of four brothers married to four women and some of the brothers died childless, their wives thereby become yevamot.
在世的兄弟中最年长的，若愿与他所有的 叔娶之妇 转房，他有权这样做。
If the eldest of the brothers who survived wished to consummate the levirate marriage with all of his yevamot, he has permission to do so.
密释纳续：人娶了两个妇人而无子死去，其中任何一个与亡夫兄弟同房或行脱鞋礼，便使她的同室妻脱离转房之系，同室妻不必再转房或行脱鞋礼。
人娶了两个妇人而无子死去，她们之中任何一个与 亡夫兄弟 同房或行 脱鞋礼，便使她的同室妻脱离转房之系，这同室妻不必再转房，也不必行 脱鞋礼。
In the case of one who was married to two women and died childless, the intercourse or ḥalitza of either one of the wives with the yavam releases her rival wife from the levirate bond, and the rival wife need not enter into levirate marriage or perform ḥalitza.