Manava Dharmashastra 3.93

3.93

ekasmingrāme yo vasati vaiśvadevakālopasthito'pi nātithiḥ | sāṃgatikaḥ sahādhyāyo sakhyuranyaḥ | tasya hyuttaratra vidhirbhaviṣyati (agre 110 śloke) "vaiśyaśūdrau sakhā ceti" | yo'pi sarvaiṇa saṃgacchate vicitraparihāsakathādibhiḥ, sa sāṃgatikaśabdena yuktaḥ pratiṣeddhuṃ prāgadṛṣṭapūrvo'pi | na ca gṛhasthasya proṣitasyāsya sarvalakṣaṇalakṣito'pyatithiḥ | kiṃ tarhi upasthitaṃ gṛhe vidyāt | yatrāsya nityaṃ sthānam, vasatisthānaṃ yaducyate | proṣitasyāpi bhāryā yatrāgnayaśca tatrāsaṃnihitasyāpi gṛhasthasya bhavatyevātithiḥ | ato yathā saṃvidhāyāmagnihotradarśapūrṇamāsādiṣu pravasati, tadvadatithaye'pi saṃvidhātavyam | vāśabdāttvevaṃ pratīyate—bhāryāgnibhiḥ saha yadā pravāsastadā bhavatyeva grāmāntarasthasyāpyatithiḥ | asaṃnihitasyāpi gṛhe bhāryāgniṣu satsu | tataśca yadi bhāryayā saha pravasedagnayaśca gṛha eva bhaveyustadā nātithipūjāniyama iti | vāśabda upasthitaṃ gṛhe vidyādityetadapekṣayā, na parasparāpekṣayā bhāryāgnīnām |

One should not regard as “guest” a Brāhmaṇa who lives in the same village or who is a companion. He should regard him as such when he arrives at his house, or where the wife and the fires are at the time.—(103)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
One who fives in the same village is not a ‘guest,’ even though he may happen to come just at the time of the ‘Vaiśvadeva’ offerings.

‘Companion’—a fellow-student, other than one’s ‘friend;’ the rule regarding the entertaining of the latter will come later—‘the Vaiśya and the Śūdra and one’s friend, &c., &c.’ (Verse 110).

It appears right to take the term ‘sāṅgatika’ as excluding the man who is in the habit of meeting all men on terms of equality, entertaining them with jokes ami stories,—oven though he be such as has never been met before.

For the Householder, when away from home, no one can be a ‘guest,’ even though he may fulfil all the conditions of one; one is to be regarded as such only when he ‘arrives at one’s house;’ i.e., to the place where one lives permanently, that which is called his ‘abode.’ But even when the man is away from home, if his wife and Fires happen to be there, then the Brāhmaṇa arriving will be his ‘guest,’ even though he himself may not be there. Hence the householder should provide for the entertaining of guests during his absence, in the same manner as he does for the maintenance of the Fires and the performance of the Darśa-Pūrṇmāsa and other periodical sacrifices.

The term ‘or’ implies that (a) when the man goes on a journey taking his wife and the fires with him, then, even during his stay in another village, if some one arrives, he should be treated as a ‘guest;”—(b) that the same is the case at his own house, during his absence, if his wife and Fires are there that hence, when one goes out with his wife, but leaves the Fires at home, the rule regarding the entertaining of guests does not apply.

The term ‘or’ is to be construed with ‘should regard’ not as between the ‘wife’ and the ‘fires.’—(103)