四分律行事鈔資持記 1.279

1.279

通難中。本律四人，但除三法不得作之。（受戒、自恣、出罪，具如前篇。）而不列除受日，則知四人得作。此由當時濫行，復欲盡申所為之義，故問以決之。答中，初三句正答同上文。下推不除所以。初明非五人；故下，顯攝在四人。律中唯三單白，是五人法；自餘差人德衣受日等，並須五人作，而非五人法；故云事同耳。並所為者，總上諸法。不同下，簡異。恐云：若不許四人受日，說戒戒師、結界唱相，身外三人，何以得成？故此釋之。言為僧者，顯前為別。

In resolving the objection: in the root Vinaya, four persons are barred only from performing three rites (receiving ordination, pavāraṇā, and absolution from offenses, fully explained in the previous chapter), but receiving days [away] is not listed as excluded; hence one knows that four persons may perform it. Because at that time this was practiced indiscriminately, and furthermore he wished to explain fully the meaning of "the recipient," he asked this to resolve it. In the answer, the first three sentences directly answer in agreement with the above text. Below, he deduces the reason it is not excluded. First, he clarifies that it is not [a rite of] five persons; from "therefore" onward, he shows that it is subsumed under four persons. In the Vinaya, only three jñaptis are the rites of five persons; all others, such as appointing persons, the kathina robe, and receiving days [away], must be performed by five persons, but are not the rites of five persons; hence it is said that the matter is identical. "All are recipients" summarizes the various rites above. From "unlike" onward, he makes a distinction. Fearing someone might say: "If four persons are not permitted to receive days [away], then for the poṣadha precept master and the one chanting the marks of the sīmā, how can the three persons outside themselves accomplish it?" Therefore, he explains it here. Saying "on behalf of the Saṅgha" shows that the former is distinct.