Manava Dharmashastra 3.164

3.164

patyau jīvati tadgṛhe sthitāyāṃ tadbhāryāyāṃ yo gūḍhotpannaḥ bhaṃgyā upapatitvena vā patyuḥ kṣamayā jāyate so'nyajātaḥ kuṇḍa ucyate | mṛte tu golakaḥ | etāvaniyuktāsutāviti kecit | tadayuktam | tayorabrāhmaṇyādevāprāptiḥ | tasmānniyogotpannau kuṇḍagolakau | “kathaṃ punaraniyuktāsutayorabrāhmaṇyamitarayostu brāhmaṇyam” | jātilakṣaṇe patnīgrahaṇāt—sarvavarṇeṣu tulyāsu patnīṣviti’ | sambandhiśabdaśca patnīśabdo bhartṛśabdavat | yajñasaṃyoge ca patnīśabdo vyutpādyate na cānyadīyayā bhāryayā sahānyasya yajñādhikāraḥ | “yadyevaṃ niyogotpannayorapi samānanyāyatvānnaiva brāhmaṇyam” | darśama etannirṇeṣyāmaḥ | mābhūdvā niyuktāniyuktāsutayoḥ kasyacidapi brāhmaṇyam | nanūktamasati brāhmarootṇye prāptyabhāvātpratiṣedhānupapattiḥ | patitapratiṣedhādeva etadbhaviṣyati | dvijātikarmabhyo hāniḥ ‘patanam’ | dvijātikarmatve sati śrāddhabhojanasya kutaḥ patite prāptiḥ | āmnāyate ca pratiṣedho “ye stenapatitā” ( 150 ślo0 ) iti |

“But how is it that the eons born to the unappointed woman are non-Brāhmaṇas, while those born to the appointed woman are Brāhmaṇas?”

This follows from the fact that, in the definition of castes, the term ‘wife’ is mentioned: ‘In the case of all castes, one born of the wife of the same caste, etc., etc.’ (10.5). This term ‘wife,’ like the term ‘husband,’ is a relative one; the term ‘wife,’ ‘patnī,’ again, has been explained (etymologically) as associated with one at sacrificial performances; and no man is entitled to perform.sacrifices in association with another man’s wife.

“If that be so, then no Brāhmaṇa-hood should belong to the sons born to the appointed woman, in whose case also the same reason is applicable.”

This question we shall determine under Discourse 10 (verse 5).

Or, both—the sons of the appointed as well as those of the unappointed woman—may be regarded as ‘non-Brāhmaṇas;’ but the difficulty is that, as has been already pointed out above, if these persons are not Brāhmaṇas, then, there being no possibility of these being admitted to dinners, any prohibition of them would be altogether uncalled for. Specially, as their exclusion would be secured by the exclusion of the ‘out-cast.’ Being an ‘out-cast’ consists in falling off from the duties of the Brāhmaṇa; and as eating at śrāddhas is a duty of the Brāhmaṇa, such feeding may- not be possible for the out-cast. And yet we find his exclusion asserted in verse 150 above,—(174)