Manava Dharmashastra 3.206

3.206

nyupya dattvā darbheṣu tān piṇḍān taṃ hastaṃ nirmṛjyāddarbheṣu teṣu yeṣveva piṇḍanirvapaṇaṃ kṛtam | smṛtyantaradarśanāt darbhamūleṣu mārjanam | apare ca-na hastasaṃlagnasyānnasyodakasyaiva darbheṣu saṃśleṣaṇam | yadi na kiñcidapi haste saṃśliṣyettathāpi hastaṃ darbheṣu nirmṛjyādeva | na hyetatpratipattikarmaiva | yenāsati vacanaprayojane na kriyeta | neha śrūyeta 'hastalagnaṃ nirmṛjyāt', kiṃ tarhi 'hastameva' | "nanu ca lepabhāgināmiti śrūyate | tatrāsati lepe na prāpnoti | ataḥ kimucyate 'yadi na kiñcidapi haste saṃśliṣyettathāpi kartavyamiti' |" ucyate | sākṣāt mūrtamannaṃ kadācinna śliṣyati | piṇḍeṣvanuvartyamāneṣu annarasa uṣmāvatsamparkāt saṃkrāmati haste | sa eva 'lepa' ucyate | lepabhāgināmiti ṣaṣṭhī nirmārjanasya tatsambandhitāmāha | na ca lepabhāginaḥ pratyakṣādṛśyāḥ santi yeṣāṃ svasvāmyādisambandho lepasya kriyeta | tasmāllepabhāgināmayaṃ bhāgo'stviti manasā dhyāyeta | śabdena voddiśet | anye tu prapitāmahātpūrve ye pitarastān ‘lepabhāgina’ āhuḥ | asmindarśane ‘prapitāmahapitre’ ‘prapitāmahapitāmahāya’tyādibhiḥ śabdairuddeśaḥ kartavyo'sati tannāmanivedane| hastamityekavacananirdeśādekenāpasavyena hastena piṇḍanirvapaṇaṃ darśayati | prayata ityanuvādo, vihitatvāt | vidhipūrvakamitiśākhāntaradṛṣṭaṃ vidhiṃ parigṛhṇāti | ‘gandhamālyadhūpacchādanasiddhopahāraiḥ piṇḍaṃ nirvapediti’ śaṅkhaḥ | yasviha vidhiḥ śrutaḥ sa svamatenaivokta iti vidhipūrvakamityetadanarthakam | tasmācchākhāntaravidhyupasaṃhārārthaṃ vidhipūrvakamiti vacanam |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Nyupya’—‘having offered,’—‘on kuśa-blades’—he should wipe that hand on those same kuśa-blades,—those same on which the balls have been offered.

In accordance with the opinion of other Smṛtis, the wiping is to be done on the root-end of the kuśa-blades.

Others have held that this rule does not mean simply that the food and water attaching to the hand should be so wiped; in fact, even though nothing may be attached to the hand, yet even the hand itself should be wiped on the blades. The reason for this is that the act here prescribed is not in the nature of the ‘disposal of remnants,’ in which case alone it could he held to be done only when the stated conditions would be present. Specially as what is prescribed is, not that ‘one should wipe what is attaching to the hand,’ but that ‘he should wipe the hand.’

Against this it might be argued that—“we find it stated that the act is ‘for the sake of the Partakers of Smearings,’ which shows that it cannot be done when there is no ‘smearing’ at all. Why, then, should it be said that, even when there is nothing sticking to the hand, the act should be done?”

The answer to this is as follows:—It is possible that solid food may not stick to the hand; but when the ball of food is being rolled up, the juices of the food are sure to stick to the hand, by reason of the contact with heat; and it is this that is called the ‘smearing.’

The genitive ending in ‘lepabhāginām’ connotes the connection of the act of wiping with the particular class of Pitṛs. Any such beings as ‘Partakers of Smearings’ are not visible to the eye; hence it is not possible to bring about their ‘possession’ in connection with the ‘smearing.’ Hence, all that is meant is that ‘one should think in his mind that the smearing is meant to be the share of the ‘Partakers of Smearings;’ or, he may even say this in so many words.

Others have held that ancestors above the great grandfather are spoken of as ‘Partakers of Smearings.’ According to this view, if the names of those ancestors are not pronounced, they may be referred to by means of such expressions as ‘this to the father of my great-grandfather,’ ‘this to the grandfather of my great-grandfather,’ and so forth.

The singular number in ‘hand’ shows that the ball is to be offered with a single hand in the ‘apasavya’ form.

‘Self-controlled’—this is a mere reiteration: such control having been already prescribed above.

‘According to rule’—refers to the rules of procedure laid down in other scriptures; e.g., Śaṅkha says—‘One should offer the ball along with sandal-paint, garlands, incense, doth and dressings.’ The ‘rule’ that has been prescribed in the text by Manu himself has been stated in his own words; hence the phrase, ‘according to rule,’ would be meaningless (if it referred to that rule itself). It is for this reason that this phrase should be taken as summing up the details prescribed in other scriptures.—(216).

Self-controlled, he should, after having offered those balls on Kuśa-blades, according to rule, wipe that hand on those same (Kuśa-blades), for the sake of the “Partakers of Smearings.”—(216)