此节诸家注释，皆随文敷衍，惟尤在径以“酸入肝”以下十五句，谓“疑非仲景原文，后人谬添注脚，编书者误收
之也。细按语意，‘见肝之病’以下，是答“上工治未病”之辞，“补用酸”三句，乃别出肝虚正治之法，观下文“肝虚
则用此法，实则不在用之”，意可见矣。烈谓在泾所云注脚之说，可称千古只眼，惟是此节专为“治未病”而设，“补用
酸”三句，非皆肝虚之治，兼出实脾之法，盖言肝若虚者，用酸补之，若实者，用焦苦补火以助土，甘味直益其土也。
“酸入肝”三句，与上三句针对，尚可为上三句申明其义，可毋谓之谬注。“脾能伤肾”以下十二句，无论补脾以伤肾，
纵火以烁金，然后使肝无伐，获益者少，受伤者反多，已属不经，且于治法亦隔四脏，迂回极矣。更脾得补而生肺金来
克木，仅隔二脏，脾土胜而克水少于涵木，亦隔二脏，忘其近者，而以迂远之说强为穿凿，谬注显然。况凡“脏病惟虚
者受之，而实者不受；脏邪惟实者能传，而虚者不传。”故治肝虚者，直补其肝，以御外侮；治肝实者，先实脾土，以防
滋蔓，此正治也。“肝虚则用此法，实则不在用之”二句，愚见亦以为谬注，删此十四句，则下文虚虚实实等句，一气贯
穿矣。
《金匮》第十三节“清邪居上，浊邪居下，大邪中表，小邪中里”之下，魏柏乡诸本作“ 饪之邪”，徐忠可诸本作
“ 之邪”，医以“ 字读作“谷”字者居多，以致《金匮心典》竟作“谷 之邪”矣。盖因梅诞生《字汇》无此“ ”
字，而“ ”字注云∶面裹属，故误以“谷”字配之，而为难化之物也。考《康熙字典》“ ”字注云∶读与“ ”同，
即以《金匮》 饪之邪”句实之。按“饪为烹调生熟之节，则此句当作馨香可口，过食之而停滞，应读“ （音馨）饪”
为是。以“ ”读“谷”，以“饪”作“ ”，及竟作“谷 ”者，皆非也。
这一节中，各家注释都只是顺着文意敷衍了事，只有尤在泾认为“酸入肝”以下的十五句，怀疑不是张仲景的原文，而是后人错误添加的注脚，编书的人误将其收录进去了。仔细推敲语意，“见肝之病”以下的内容，是回答“上工治未病（高明的医生在治疗疾病之前先预防其传变）”的话；“补用酸”这三句，则是另外提出治疗肝虚证的正法。看下文说“肝虚则用此法，实则不在用之”，意思就很明显了。我认为尤在泾所说的注脚之说，可以称得上是千古独到的见解。但是，这一节专门是为了阐述“治未病”而设立的，“补用酸”这三句，并不全是治疗肝虚的方法，同时也提出了实脾（健脾以制约肝木）的方法。大概意思是：如果肝虚，就用酸味药来补益它；如果肝实，就用焦苦味的药补火以助土（心火生脾土），甘味药直接补益脾土。“酸入肝”这三句，与上面的三句相对照，还可以用来申明上面三句的含义，不能说是错误的注脚。“脾能伤肾”以下的十二句，无论说是通过补脾来伤肾，还是通过助火来烁金，从而使肝不受侵犯，获益者少，受伤者反而多，这已经属于荒谬不经之谈。而且从治法上看，这也隔了四个脏腑，迂回曲折到了极点。再者，脾得到补益而生肺金，肺金来克制肝木，仅隔了两个脏腑；脾土旺盛而克制肾水少于涵养肝木，也隔了两个脏腑。忘记了就近的道理，却用迂远之说强行穿凿附会，显然是错误的注脚。况且凡是“脏病只有虚证才能承受补法，而实证不能承受；脏邪只有实证才能传变，而虚证不会传变。”所以治疗肝虚证，直接补益肝脏，以抵御外邪侵害；治疗肝实证，先充实脾土，以防止病势蔓延，这才是正治之法。“肝虚则用此法，实则不在用之”这两句，我也认为是错误的注脚。删去这十四句，那么下文中关于虚虚实实等论述，就能一气呵成、贯通无阻了。
《金匮要略》第十三节“清邪居上，浊邪居下，大邪中表，小邪中里”之下，魏柏乡等人的版本作“饪之邪”，徐忠可等人的版本作“之邪”。医生们大多将那个字读作“谷”字，导致《金匮心典》竟然作“谷饪之邪”了。这是因为梅鼎祚的《字汇》中没有这个字，而对这个字的注解说是“面裹属（指面食类）”，所以错误地用“谷”字来配合它，把它当作难以消化的食物。考证《康熙字典》，对该字的注解说是：读音与“馨”相同，即用《金匮》中的“饪之邪”这句来证实。按“饪”是烹调生熟的程度，那么这句话应当解释为香气可口，过食之后导致停滞，应该读作“馨饪”是正确的。把该字读作“谷”，把“饪”作其他解，以及竟作“谷饪”的，都是不对的。
In this section, various commentaries merely elaborate on the text superficially. Only You Zaijing (You Yizhong) argued that the fifteen sentences starting from "Sour enters the Liver" are suspected not to be Zhang Zhongjing's original text, but rather annotations added erroneously by later generations, which were mistakenly included by the compilers. Upon careful examination of the meaning, the content following "When seeing liver disease..." is a response to the concept of "Shang Gong treats Wei Bing (The superior physician prevents the transmission of disease before it occurs)." The three sentences "Tonify with sour..." present an alternative primary treatment method for Liver Deficiency. This is evident from the subsequent statement: "If the Liver is deficient, use this method; if it is excess, do not use it." I consider You Zaijing's view that these are annotations to be a unique insight of the ages. However, since this section is specifically designed to expound on "treating Wei Bing," the three sentences "Tonify with sour..." do not solely address Liver Deficiency; they also introduce the method of strengthening the Spleen (to control Liver Wood). The general idea is: if the Liver is deficient, use sour flavors to tonify it; if the Liver is excess, use scorched-bitter flavors to tonify Fire to assist Earth (Heart Fire generates Spleen Earth), and sweet flavors directly benefit Earth. The three sentences "Sour enters the Liver..." correspond to the previous three sentences and can serve to clarify their meaning; thus, they should not be dismissed as erroneous annotations.
Regarding the twelve sentences starting from "The Spleen can injure the Kidney," whether one argues that tonifying the Spleen injures the Kidney, or that assisting Fire melts Metal thereby protecting the Liver, the benefits are few while the injuries are many; this is already absurd. Moreover, therapeutically, this approach involves four organs in sequence, which is extremely circuitous. Furthermore, if the Spleen is tonified, it generates Lung Metal, which then controls Liver Wood, involving only two intervening organs; if Spleen Earth becomes excessive and fails to nourish Liver Wood due to insufficient Kidney Water, this also involves two intervening organs. Forgetting the immediate path and forcing interpretations through distant logic clearly constitutes erroneous annotation. Additionally, it is a principle that "Zang diseases are accepted only by deficiency patterns, not by excess patterns; Zang pathogens transmit only through excess patterns, not through deficiency patterns." Therefore, when treating Liver Deficiency, one directly tonifies the Liver to resist external invasion; when treating Liver Excess, one first solidifies Spleen Earth to prevent the spread of pathology. This is the correct treatment. I also consider the two sentences "If the Liver is deficient, use this method; if it is excess, do not use it" to be erroneous annotations. Deleting these fourteen sentences would allow the subsequent discussions on deficiency-excess imbalances to flow coherently.
Below the thirteenth section of the *Jin Gui Yao Lue* ("Clear pathogens reside above, turbid pathogens reside below, major pathogens strike the exterior, minor pathogens strike the interior"), the editions by Wei Boxiang et al. read "Ren zhi xie (Pathogen of cooking/food)," while those by Xu Zhongke et al. read "[Character] zhi xie." Physicians mostly pronounced the character as "Gu (grain)," leading the *Jin Gui Xin Dian* to render it as "Gu Ren zhi xie." This error arose because Mei Dingzuo's *Zi Hui* lacked this character, and its annotation described it as related to "wheat-based foods," causing an erroneous association with "Grain" and classifying it as indigestible food. Consulting the *Kangxi Dictionary*, the annotation states that the character is pronounced like "Xin (fragrant)." Thus, using the phrase "Ren zhi xie" from the *Jin Gui* confirms this. Since "Ren" refers to the degree of cooking raw and cooked food, this sentence should be interpreted as "aromatic and palatable food, which causes stagnation if overconsumed." Therefore, reading it as "Xin Ren" (Fragrant Cooking/Food) is correct. Pronouncing the character as "Gu," interpreting "Ren" differently, or rendering it as "Gu Ren" are all incorrect.