Manava Dharmashastra 3.115

3.115

yadyapi pratijñātasya vastunastenaiva krameṇa viśeṣakathanaṃ yuktaṃ, tathāpīha svalpavaktavyatvādbhojanīyā iti prāptaṃ parityajya saṃkhyānirdeśo'nena kriyate | devānuddiśya dvau brāhmaṇau bhojayet | pitṝṇāṃ kṛtye trīna | ubhayatra vā, daive ekaṃ pitrye caikam | yadyapi 'pitrye' ityatra pituridamiti pitṛśabdena devatācodanā, tathāpi pitṛpitāmahaprapitāmahā uddeśyāḥ | tatraikaikasyaikaikaṃ bhojayet, na tvevaikaṃ sarvebhyaḥ, pṛthakpṛthagdevatātvāt | uktaṃ ca gṛhyakāreṇa "na tvevaikaṃ sarveṣām", "piṇḍairvyākhyātam" iti | yathaikaḥ piṇḍaḥ sarvebhyo na nirvapyate tathaiva brāhmaṇo'pi na bhojyata ityarthaḥ | ihāpi vakṣyati, "nimantrayeta tryavarān" iti | bhojanārthameva tannimantraṇaṃ, nādṛṣṭārtham | ataśca pitṛkṛtye trīṃstrīniti draṣṭavyam | tathā cāha "na cānnairanbhojayet" iti | evaṃ ca kṛtvā 'ekaikamapi vidvāṃsam'ityetadapyevameva draṣṭavyam | ekaikasyaikaikamiti | api ca naivātraikaikamubhayatretyetadvidhīyate, vistarapratiṣedhārtho'yamanuvādaḥ | yathā "viṣaṃ bhakṣaya mā cāsya gṛhe bhuṅkṣveti " | "yadyevaṃ 'dvau daive' ityeṣo'pi vidhirna syādasyāpyanyārthatayopapatteḥ | athāyaṃ vidhiraprāptatvādekakamityeṣo'pi kasmānna bhavati" | atrāha | mā bhūd dvayoreko'pi vidhiḥ | " kutastarhi saṃkhyāvagamaḥ " | ' nimantrayeta tryavarāniti ' | " nanu tatra daivagrahaṇaṃ nāsti " | smṛtyantarāttarhi saṃkhyāvagamaḥ | 'ayujo vā yathotsāhamiti' 'yugmāndaive' iti ( yājña-1 | 227 ) | yadi vā'yaṃ saṃkhyāvidhiḥ syādvistaraprāptyabhāvātpratiṣedho'narthakaḥ | tasmādyāvadbhirbrāhmaṇairbhojitairvistare ye doṣāste na bhavanti tāvanto bhojanīyāḥ | pitrye'yugmāḥ daive tu dvāveva |

Even though wealthy, one should feed two at the rite performed in honour of the gods, and three at that in honour of the Pitṛs; or one only at each of the two rites he should not indulge in large company.—(125)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Though as a rule each subject should be propounded in the same order in which it has been mentioned before,—and according to this the persons to be fed should have been described first,—yet the present verse describes their number first; because there is very little to be said on this point.

With reference to the gods, one should feed two Brāhmaṇas, and at the rite performed in honour of the Pitṛs he should feed three; ‘or one at each of the two’—i.e., one at the rite in honour of the Gods and one at that in honour of the Pitṛs.

Though the word used in the Text is ‘pitṛ,’ which shows that the entity to whom the offering is to be made is the Father, yet, as a matter of fact, the offering is to be made to the Father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Hence, at the śrāddha, one should food one Brāhmaṇa for each of these three,—and not one only for all three; because each of them constitutes a distinct ‘recipient of offering.’ Says the author of the Gṛhyasūtra (Āśvnlāyana, 4. 7.2-4)—‘Not only one for all; it has been explained by means of the balls;’ that is, just as only one ball is not offered to all, so only one Brāhmaṇa should not be fed for all. Here also the author will say later on—‘he should invite at least three;’ and the invitation there spoken of is for the purpose of feeding them, and not for the purpose of any merely transcendental result. It is for this reason that at the rite in honour of ancestors one should feed three,—that is, three times three, specially as it has been declared that ‘one should not feed the least number.’ This same explanation applies also to what is said below (in 129) regarding the feeding ‘even one learned person at each;’ which means that one for each of the three ancestors.

Further, the words ‘or only one at each of the two’ does not contain an injunction; it is only a reiteration made for the propose of introducing the prohibition of ‘large company;’ just as we have in the statement—‘eat poison, do not eat in his house.’

“If that be so, then the assertion ‘he should feed two at the rite in honour of the gods’ also may not be an injunction; as this also could be explained as subservient to something else. If, however, this be regarded as an Injunction, on the ground that what it says is not knowable from any other source,—then, why cannot the statement ‘one at each’ also be an Injunction?”

The answer to this is that neither of the two statements may be regarded as an Injunction.

“Whence, then, could we know the number (to be fed)?”

From the assertion—‘he should invite at least three.’

“But in that passage there is no mention of the rite in honour of the gods.”

Well, in that case, we can learn the number from another Smṛti:—‘an odd number, according to one’s enthusiasm,’ ‘an even number at the rite in honour of the gods’ (Yājñavalkya, ācāra, 227).

Further, if the present verse contained an Injunction of the number to be fed, then, since there would be no possibility of any idea arising regarding the ‘large company,’ the prohibition of it would be absolutely uncalled for.

From all this it follows that only so many Brāhmaṇas should be fed, by feeding whom one would not fall into those difficulties that might arise from the feeding of too many men. That is, at the rite in honour of the ancestors, an odd number, and at that in honour of the gods, only two.

Even when the man is extremely wealthy,—very rich,—‘he should, not indulge in large company.’—(125)