Manava Dharmashastra 3.158

3.158

yadyete stenādayaḥ paṅktidūṣakāḥ - evamanadhīyānastattulyadoṣa ityevamarthaṃ punarvacanam | anye tu vyācakṣate | adhīyānānāṃ kāṇādīnāmasati vartamāne vigarhitācāratve daive kadācitprāptyartham | 'anadhīyāno brāhmaṇo varjyaḥ, yastu adhīte tasmai havyaṃ kimiti na dīyate' - evamarthamevātra havyagrahaṇam | havye anadhīyānaḥ kevalau varjyaḥ | ye ca dṛśyamānagarhitācārāḥ | ato ye ca vacanena ubhayatra pratiṣiddhāste daive pitrye ca varjyāḥ, na tu pitrya eva | tathā ca vasiṣṭhaḥ“atha cenmaṃtravidyuktaḥ śārīraiḥ paṅkidūṣaṇaiḥ | adūṣyaṃ taṃ yamaḥ prāha paṅkipāvana eva saḥ” || iti ||
tṛṇāgniriva śāmyatīti | tṛṇāgniryathā na śaknoti havīṃṣi paktuṃ, hutamātreṇa haviṣā śāmyati udvāti ca | yasminnagnau hutaṃ na bhasmībhavati | na tato homātphalam | evaṃ hi śrūyate “asamiddhe na hotavyam | agnirvai sarvā devatā” iti | evamanadhīyāno brāhmaṇastṛṇāgnitulyaḥ | etadevāha na hi bhasmani hūyata iti | yathā tṛṇāgniḥ prāg bhasmībhavati, na tatra hūyate, evaṃ tādṛśo brāhmaṇo na bhojyate |

The unlearned Brāhmaṇa becomes quenched in the same manner as the fire of dry grass. The sacrificial offering should not be presented to him; as no libation is poured upon ashes.—(168)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
This is re-iterated in the present verse, in order to indicate that, just as the thief and the rest are ‘defilers of the company,’ so equally blameworthy is the unlearned Brāhmaṇa also.

Others offer the following explanation:—The present verse is intended to indicate the occasional admissibility, to the offerings for gods, of such blind and other disabled, but learned, Brāhmaṇas as happen, at some particular time, to be free from any reprehensible practice; the sense of the text being—‘The unlearned Brāhmaṇa should be avoided, but why should not the offering be not presented to one who is learned?’ It is for this reason that the text mentions the ‘offering for gods’ So that what is meant is that, at the offering to gods, it is only the unlearned Brāhmaṇa that should be excluded, while those whose practices are reprehensible, and are on that account distinctly debarred by a direct prohibition, should be excluded from both the offering to gods and that to pitṛs,—and only from that to ancestors. Vaśiṣṭha has said: ‘If a person learned in the Veda happen to be stigmatised by such bodily defects as are regarded as defiling the company, such a person Yama declares to be unblameworthy; in fact, such a person is a sanctifier of the company.’

‘Becomes quenched in the same manner as the fire of dry grass;’—The fire of dry grass cannot cook the sacrificial offerings, and it becomes quenched as soon as the offering is thrown into it, and also becomes extinguished; anything offered into it does not become burnt to ashes; and hence such an offering becomes futile; since it has been laid down that ‘one should not pour libations into fire that is not burning brightly, the fire embodies all deities;’—exactly of the same nature as the fire of dry grass is the unlearned Brāhmaṇa. This is what the text means by the words ‘As no libations are poured on ashes;’ just as the fire of dry gross becomes turned into ash before (burning the offerings), and people do not pour libations into such fire, similarly, the unlearned Brahman is not fed.—(168)