Manava Dharmashastra 3.128

3.128

satyāmeva śrotriyatvādipūrvaguṇasaṃpadi maitryādinimittena pratiṣedho'yam | mitraṃ samānasukhaduḥkham ātmanirviśeṣaṃ na śrāddhe bhojayet | dhanaiḥ anyaiḥ asya mitrasya svīkāro maitrīkaraṇam| bhavicchedo vā maitryam, upakāra iti yāvat | na kevalaṃ na mitraṃ bhojayet, yāvadariṃ śatrumapi | nāriṃ na mitraṃ yaṃ vidyādyatra na rāgo na dveṣo, na cānyaḥ kaścitsambandho yatra prītinimittā kāryārthatā śaṃkyeta; arimitrayoḥ pradarśanārthatvāt | tathā sambandhāśaṅkyaiva mātāmahādvayo'nukalpapakṣoktāḥ | "śatrāvapi maitrīkaraṇārthadānasambhāvanā yadi, maitrīkaraṇamiti saṃgrahaḥ, arisaṃgrahaṇaṃ na kartavyam|" vispaṣṭārthaṃ bhaviṣyati |

At a Śrāddha one should not feed a friend; his acquisition shall be made by means of riches. At a Śrāddha one should feed him whom he regards neither as friend nor as foe.—(138)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Even when endowed with the aforesaid qualifications of ‘Vedic learning’ and the rest, the man shall not be fed on account of his being a friend; this is the prohibition contained in this verse.

‘A friend’—one whose happiness and unhappiness are the same as one’s own, and who is in no way different from himself,—‘one should not feed at a Śrāddha.’

‘By means of riches’— by means of other kinds of gifts—‘the acquisition’ of the friend should be made; his friendship obtained; or the benefit of ‘friendship’ may consist in non-separation.

It is not only the friend that one shall not feed; the enemy also should not be fed. ‘Him whom he regards neither as friend nor as foe,’— towards whom one eutertains feelings of neither affection, nor aversion: in regard to whom there could be no suspicion of any relationship due to affection or any other motive; the mention of the ‘friend or foe’ being only illustrative. It is on account of the suspicion of such relationship that the maternal grandfather and others have been mentioned (in 147, 148 below) as secondary alternatives.

“There is possibility of the enemy being fed only where one wishes make a friend of him; hence he also being included under ‘friend’ (should not have been mentioned separately).”

The separate mention is expected to make the matter dearer.—(138)