——不但如此,换圣分所引的不合式在人死后仍管着。(人把一样祭分别为圣而死了,他儿子当替他献上那祭,那一只仍可因换圣分而废。)再者,它管着会众的祭,如同管着个人的祭一样。可换主人那一层并没有这几样,你也一定说得出同样的话么?它所引的不合式不在这祭本身上;它不管那四样礼,单管把血弹在坛上;它在人死后不管着——主人既死了,这祭便没有真正的主人,故祭司纵存心叫它归别人,这祭仍是合式的;它也不像管个人的祭那样管会众的祭——会众的祭既是全会众的,人无从存心叫它归别的主人。
-
——不但如此,换圣分所引的不合式在人死后仍管着。
And furthermore, the disqualification following from a change in sanctity applies after death.
-
人把一样祭分别为圣而死了,他儿子当替他献上那祭,那一只仍可因换圣分而废。
If one consecrates an offering and dies, his son must bring the offering in his place, and it can be invalidated through a change in sanctity.
-
再者,它管着会众的祭,如同管着个人的祭一样。
Moreover, it applies to communal offerings as it does to the offerings of an individual.
-
可换主人那一层并没有这几样,你也一定说得出同样的话么?
However, can you necessarily say the same thing with regard to a change in owner that does not have these characteristics?
-
它所引的不合式不在这祭本身上;它不管那四样礼,单管把血弹在坛上;它在人死后不管着——主人既死了,这祭便没有真正的主人,故祭司纵存心叫它归别人,这祭仍是合式的;它也不像管个人的祭那样管会众的祭——会众的祭既是全会众的,人无从存心叫它归别的主人。
Its disqualification is not in the offering itself; and it does not apply to all four rites but only to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar; and it does not apply after death, for after the owner has died there is no true owner of the offering, and therefore, if the priest intends to offer it for someone else the offering remains valid; and it does not apply to communal offerings as it does to the offerings of an individual, since it is not possible to have in mind a different owner, as it is owned by the whole community.