Manava Dharmashastra 3.146

3.146

bhṛtakādhyāpakaḥ bhṛtakaḥ san yo sthito'dhyāpakaḥ| bhṛtaka iti 'yadīyadadāsi vedamadhyāpayāmīti' yaḥ pravartate paṇena sa bhṛtakādhyāpakaḥ| eṣā hi bhṛtiḥ prasiddhā kāyavāhādiṣu| yastviyatā dhaneneyadveṣyāpayāmīti na niścitya vacanavyavasthayā, pūrvamadhyāpayati labhate cādhyāpanārthaṃ, nāsau 'bhṛtakādhyāpakaḥ'| anirūpitaparimāṇapūrvacāryadāne vihitamadhyāpanam| evaṃ bhṛtakādhyāpitaḥ| yo vyutpannabuddhiḥ satyakāmavat svayaṃ bhṛtiṃ dattvā'dhīte sa evamucyate| yastu pitrādinā bhṛtiṃ datvā upādhyāyāntarābhāve'dhyāpyate na tasya vigarhitācāratvam| bālo hi pitrā pratiṣiddhebhyo nivartanīyaḥ| etaduktaṃ "gurau śiṣye ca yājyaśceti"| śūdrasya śiṣyo vyākaraṇādividyāsu | guruśca śūdrasyaiva | upasarjanībhūtasyāpi sambandhaḥ, smṛtiśāstratvāt | vigarhitācāratvasya sarvaśeṣatvāt | śūdragurutvaṃ ca garhitaṃ nānyat | vācā duṣṭaḥ paruṣānṛtabhāṣī | abhiśasta ityanye | kuṇḍagolakau vakṣyamāṇau |

One who teaches for a stipulated fee, he who is taught by one who teaches for a stipulated fee, the pupil and also the teacher of a Śūdra, one who is reprehensible in speech, the son of an adulteress and the son of a widow.—(156)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘One who teaches for a stipulated fee’— one who teaches only while be is engaged on a fee; one who undertakes the work of teaching after having made the stipulation that ‘if you pay me so much, I shall teach you the Veda,’ is called ‘one who teaches for a stipulated fee.’ Such is the form of payment known among bearers and others. If, however, without having verbally stipulated that one would receive a certain amount of money, one does the work of teaching and receives payment afterwards, then such a teacher is not ‘one who teaches for a stipulated fee.’ In fact, teaching in return for payment of an amount not previously stipulated, has been actually sanctioned.

Similarly, ‘one who is taught by one who teaches for a stipulated fee;’ this is the name given to one who himself, like Satyakāma, pays a stipulated fee and then reads with the teacher. The boy, however, who, in the absence of any other teacher, is put by his father and others under the tuition of one who is paid a stipulated fee, is not regarded as ‘of reprehensible practice.’ Because it is for the father to save the boy from all that is prohibited. It has been declared (in 8.317)—‘The pupil and the sacrificer transmit their guilt to the Teacher.’

‘The pupil of a Śūdra’— in the learning of Grammar and other Sciences.

‘Teacher’—of the Śūdra, Though the term ‘śūdra,’ forms the subordinate factor in the compound ‘śūdraśiṣya,’ yet it is construed with the following word; such construction being permissible in works on Smṛti. Then again, the condition of being ‘reprehensible practice’ is a qualification that governs all that is said here, and it is only the teaching of the Śūdra. that is reprehensible, not the teaching of any other higher caste.

‘Reprehensible in speech’—i.e., rude and untruthful of speech. Others explain this to mean ‘one who is accused of a serious offence.’

‘The son of an adulteress and the son of a widow’—to be described later on (174),—(156).