Manava Dharmashastra 2.113

2.113

samaṃ śabdaḥ sahārthe | apratipāditayā svadeha eva jarjaritayā yuktaṃ brahmavādinā vedādhyāyino maraṇaṃ, na punarapātre pratipādanam | anena ca jñāyate adhyāpanamapyadhītavedenāvaśyaṃ kartavyaṃ, na kevalaṃ vṛttyartham | nāpi vārttādidānavatphalakāmasyaivādhikāraḥ | tathā ca śrutiḥ “yo hi vidyāmadhītyārthine na brūyātsa kāryahā syāt | śreyaso dvāramapāvṛṇuyāt | adhyāpayenmahadetadyaśasyaṃ vāco'dhikāraṃ kavayo vadanti | asminyoge sarvamidaṃ pratiṣṭhitam | ya evaṃ viduramṛtāste bhavanti |” sa kāryahā syādityanenānadhyāpane doṣamanuvadantī śrutirevāvaśyakartavyatāṃ jñāpayati | iriṇe | pūrvoktaprayojanatrayābhāvo yatra | āpadyapi hi ghorāyāṃ kaṣṭāyāmapi | kaṣṭā āpaduktaśiṣyābhāvaḥ | etaccāvaśyakartavyaṃ satyupapadyate | “nityatve hi mukhyābhāve pratinidhiśiṣyopādānenādhyāpananivṛttiḥ prāptā | vrīhyabhāvavannīvāraiḥ” | ato'syāmavasthāyāmadhyāpanādhikāranivṛttireva | yathoktalakṣaṇātithyabhāve'tithipūjānivṛttiḥ | vapediti lakṣaṇayā bījadharmeṇādhyāpanamucyate | bījaṃ kila kṣetroptaṃ bahuphalaṃ bhavatyevaṃ vidyā'pi | anye tu dhanābhāvanimittāmāpadamācakṣate | atyantadurgatenāpi neriṇe vaptavyeti varaṃ mriyatām | “sarvata evātmānaṃ gopāyed” iti naiṣa vidhiratikrānto bhavati satyapi tathāvidhādhyāpane vṛttyupāye | tadetadayuktam | arthado naiveriṇaṃ, pūrvoktānuvādatvādiriṇaśabdasya | yadi cārthado'pi na bhavati kathamāpadi tatra pravṛttiḥ sambhāvyate, yā niṣidhyate |

The expounder of the Veda may rather perish along with his knowledge; hut he should never sow it on barren soil, even in dike distress.—(113)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The term ‘samam’ means ‘along with.’

It is better that the ‘expounder of the Veda’—the student of the Veda—should die along with his knowledge—unexpounded to any person, and famishing in his own body—than that it should be taught to unfit persons.

From what is here said it follows that one who has studied the Veda should also teach it as a duty, and not merely for making a living; and that it is not only a person desiring a certain result that is entitled to the teaching; just as to the giving of water and such other acts it is not only persons with some motive that arc entitled. Says the Śruti—‘He who, having studied the Science, does not expound it to those who need it, becomes an undoer of what he has done;—one should open the door to welfare; and should teach others; this function of words the poets describe as leading to fame; all this rests in this act; those that know this become immortal.’

When the text calls the man ‘an undoer of what he has done,’ what it means is that the omission of teaching constitutes an offence; and this implies that teaching is something tbat must be done.

‘On barren soil’;—i.e., to a person in whose case none of the three purposes are fulfilled.

‘Even in dire distress’;—i.e., e ven in times of troublous calamity; the ‘distress’ here meant is the absence of properly qualified pupils.

All this would be justified only if teaching were something that must be done.

“Teaching being compulsory, if fully qualified pupils be not available, one might fulfil his duty of teaching by getting hold of substitutes, for qualified pupils; just as in the absence of Vrīhī corn, sacrifices are accomplished by means of Nīvāra corn.”

(With a view to guard against this, the text has added that) under the said circumstances—when properly qualified pupils are not available, the necessity of performing the work of teaching should cease; just as when a properly qualified guest is not available, the necessity of the duty of ‘honouring the guest’ ceases.

‘Sow’;—this term which is directly applicable to the seed, indicates figuratively the work of teaching. Just as the seed sown in the field produces a large outturn, so does knowledge also.

Others have explained ‘distress’ as standing for ‘want of wealth.’ The sense in this case being that even though the man may be in the worst of conditions, he should not sow in barren soil, he should rather die; and by so doing the man could not be transgressing the injunction that ‘one should protect himself from all dangers,’ even though he could have within his reach the means of livelihood in the shape of teaching unqualified pupils.

This explanation however is not right. The pupils who pay money cannot bo called “barren soil”; the term ‘barren soil’ being only a reference to what has gone in the preceding verses. If the ‘giver of wealth’ also were not a qualified pupil, then how could there be any chance of the teacher undertaking the work of teaching him in times of distress,—which chance is prohibited iu the present verse?—(113)

This also is quoted along with 112 in Madanapārijāta (p. 103);—also in Vīdhānapārijāta (p, 523).

Comparative notes by various authors
(Verses 112-113)
See Comparative notes for Verse 2.112.