Manava Dharmashastra 3.127

3.127

yasya pitā apāṭhaḥ svayaṃ tu vedapāraga. sāṅgavedādhyāyī, itarasya tu pitā vedapāragaḥ svayaṃ tu mūrkhaḥ, tayoḥ kaḥ śreyāniti saṃśayaṃ kṛtvā siddhāntamāha | anayoḥ svayaṃ śrotriya pitṛmūrkhasvayaṃmūrkhapitṛśrotriyayoḥ svayaṃmūrkhapitṛśrotriyaṃ jyāyāṃsaṃ praśasyaṃ śrāddhe yogyaṃ jānīyāt, yadyasya śrotriyaḥ pitā| itaro mantrapūjanārthaṃ, na brāhmaṇabuddhyā, kiṃ tu mantrāstena ye'dhītāste tatra pūjyante| na mantrāṇāṃ śrāddhe pūjā vihitā, tasmānnāsau bhojayitavyaḥ| ślokadvayena saṃśayasiddhāntarūpopanyāsenārthavādabhaṃgyā pitṛśrotriyatvamātmaśrotriyatvaṃ ca śrāddhabhojane kāraṇamityetaducyate, na kevalamātmaśrotriyatvam| na tu svayamanadhīyānasya pitṛśrotriyatvena bhojyatā vidhīyate| taduktaṃ "dūrādeva parīkṣeta" iti | atrādhyayanaparīkṣā puruṣadvayaviṣayā'nena niyamyate| jātiguṇaparīkṣā tu tato'dhikapuruṣaviṣayā'pi yathā| atastasyaiva viśeṣābhidhānārthatvādapaunaruktyam |

‘Of these two one should regard him as superior whose father is learned in the Veda; while the other deserves honour for the sake of the veneration due to the Veda.—(137)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Having raised the question as to which is superior of the two—one whose father is illiterate, but he himself is ‘thoroughly versed in the Veda,’ i.e., who has read the Veda along with the subsidiary sciences,—and the other whose father is thoroughly versed in the Veda, but he himself is illiterate,—the author now sets forth the established conclusion.

‘Of these two’—between one who is himself learned in the Veda, but his father is illiterate, and one who is himself illiterate, but his father is learned in the Veda—one should know him to be ‘superior’—more praiseworthy—who is himself illiterate, but his father is learned in the Veda.

‘The other...... for the sake of the veneration due to the Veda’—He is to be honoured, not because he is a Brāhmaṇa, but because he has learnt the Vedic Mantras, which have to be honoured; and since the honouring of the Veda has not been prescribed in connection with Śrāddhas, such a person does not deserve to be fed at these.

What the author does by means of these two verses, propounding us they do a question and its answer, is to indicate, through a laudatory description, that what entitles a man to eat at Śrāddhas is the fact of his father being learned in the Veda, and that of himself being learned in the Veda (the two combined). The mere fact of he himself being learned in the Veda, does not entitle him to the eating, nor the fact of his father being learned in the Veda, while he himself is illiterate.

It is with reference to this that it has been said above (in 130) that ‘one should examine the Brāhmaṇa from far off etc.;’ and the examination of ‘learning’ there mentioned refers to enquiries concerning the learning of both father and son; while those relating to caste and qualif ications, these have to be extended to higher ancestors also. And since it is this distinction that is sought to be brought out in this verse, it cannot be regarded as a needless repetition.—(137)