众人都认:人在别人使素祭发过酵以后再使它发酵的,仍要担责(利未记 6:17、2:11);阉了又阉的也要担责(利未记 22:24)——精索既剪了尚且有责,全摘下的更不必说;那一句正是要把「剪后再摘的也有责」收进来。可见已阉之人再叫他绝育仍有责。故只可说:这药单许那年老不能生育的人用。
-
——众人都认:人在别人使素祭发过酵以后再使它发酵的,仍要为这再加的一次发酵担责,因为经上说「不可搀酵烤」(利未记 6:17),又说「凡献给耶和华的素祭都不可有酵」(利未记 2:11)。
Everyone agrees that one who leavens a meal-offering after one who already leavened it is liable for the additional leavening, as it is stated: “It shall not be baked leavened” (Leviticus 6:10), and it is also stated: “No offering that you sacrifice to God shall be made with leaven” (Leviticus 2:11).
-
众贤解这话说:凡在圣所的祭物上所行的每一次发酵,人都要担责。
The Sages interpreted this to mean that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a Temple offering.
-
照样,众人都认:人在别人阉过以后再阉的,也要担责,因为经上说「凡肾子损伤的,或是压碎的,或是破裂的,或是骟了的,不可献给耶和华;在你们的地上也不可这样行」(利未记 22:24)。
Similarly, everyone agrees that one who castrates after one who castrates is liable, as it is stated: “Those whose testicles are bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, shall not be offered to the Lord, and you shall not do this in your land” (Leviticus 22:24).
-
照理说,精索剪了尚且有责,肾子全摘下来的更不必说了。
Presumably, if one is liable when the seminal vesicles are cut, when the testicles are detached altogether all the more so one is liable.
-
倒不如说:那一句正是要把「在别人剪了以后再摘的也有责」这一层收进来。
Rather, this comes to include that one who detaches after one who cuts is liable.
-
可见人叫那已经绝育的再绝一次育,仍是有责的。
Apparently, one is liable for sterilizing one who is already castrated.
-
倒不如说:那能叫人绝育的药,惟有年老不能生育的人才许用。
Rather, we must say that it is permitted to use a remedy that causes sterility in an old man who is no longer capable of procreating.