Manava Dharmashastra 3.163

3.163

niyogadharmeṇa pravṛtto bhrāturmṛtasya tadbhāryāgamane yo'nurajyeta prītiṃ bhāvayet | kāmataḥ | niyogadharmātikrameṇa “sakṛtsakṛttau” ityevaṃ vidhiṃ hitvā icchānurāgaṃ gāḍhāliṅganaparicumbanādi kuryādasakṛdvā pravarteta, cetasā vā vikriyeta, kāminīpremadṛṣṭibandhavacanādiliṅgenānurāgitvena vibhāvito didhiṣūpatirvedyaḥ | agredidhiṣūpatilakṣaṇaṃ tu smṛtyantarāt jñeyam | “jīvatyagredidhiṣūpatiḥ” iti | kecittu naivāyaṃ samāmnāye śloko'stītyāhuḥ | aparipūrṇaṃ ca liṅgaṃ bruvate | dvayasya lakṣaṇe kartavye, na kartavyakāriṇāmekasyopapadyate | smṛtyantare caitadubhayaṃ lakṣyate“parapūrvāpatiṃ dhīrā vadanti didhiṣūpatim | yastvagredidhiṣūrvipraḥ saiva yasya kuṭumbinī ||” na tviha sambhavati, parapūrvāpateḥ pṛthageva niṣiddhatvāt | tasmādanyo didhiṣūpatiḥ |

He who would lasciviously make love to the wife of his dead brother, even though she may have been appointed according to law (to bear a child by him), should be known as the “didhiṣūpati.”—(173)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
He who, acting in accordance with the law of ‘Niyoga,’ should happen to make love to—take delight in intercourse with—the wife of his dead brother;—‘lasciviously’—i.e., in transgression of the exact form of ‘Niyoga,’—i.e., renouncing the injunction that ‘one should have intercourse with his brother’s wife only once during her periods,’—if he should have recourse, at will, to such advances as cousist in firm embrace, kissing, and so forth,—or if he should have intercourse with her more than once,—or even allow his mind to be inclined that way,—then, such a person, impressed with the mark of passion by such signs, as casting longing glances upon the woman, and so forth, is to be known as the ‘didhiṣūpati.’

The exact definition of the ‘agredidhiṣūpati’ is to be learnt from another Smṛti, which says—‘when the brother is alive, the man is to be known as the agredidhiṣūpati.’

Some people have held that the present verse does not form part of the text at all; and as a reason for this, they urge the fact of its being incomplete. It being necessary to provide definitions of both (the didhiṣūpati and the agredidhiṣūpati), it is not possible for authors who know their business to provide the definition of only one of them; specially, as another Smṛti has provided the definitions of both:—(a) ‘the wise men regard him as didhiṣūpati, who is the husband of a woman who has had a previous husband; and (b) that Brāhmaṇa is to be regarded as the agredidhiṣūpati of whom that woman was the wife;’—and

these definitions are not applicable to the present context (which might have justified the omission by our author); as (the husband of a woman who has had a previous husband’ has been excluded already before (in verse 160). Hence the ‘didhiṣūpati’ must be different from the one defined as such in the passage just quoted (from another Smṛti).—(173)