Manava Dharmashastra 4.100

4.100

chandāṃsi gāyatryādīnyabhipretāni taiḥ kṛtaṃ yuktaṃ brahma ṛksāma| anekārthatvātkaroterayamatrārtho vyākhyāyate | yathā gomayānkurviti saṃhāre, pṛṣṭhaṃ kurvityunmardane, evamatra yujerarthe vartate | brahma ca chandaśca brahmacchandasī tābhyāṃ kṛtaṃ yuktaṃ brahmacchandaskṛtam | 'brahma' brāhmaṇam, yajurvede brahma yajūṃṣi gāyatryādiyuktāṃśca mantrān | ekasminnevāvasthānake paṭhanti | na yathā bāhvṛcye chāndogye ca vibhāgenai kasmingranthe mantrā anyatra brāhmaṇam | evaṃ prakārabhedādvedānāmevaṃ yuktamiti pūrve vyākhyātavantaḥ |
yathoditena | pūrvo vidhiranāpadyupasaṃhriyate | āpadi adhyāpakasyāsaṃnidhānambahudevatāvibhāgamapekṣamāāṇasya tatrāguṇayataḥ vismṛtaṃ syāt | tasmādāpadyayaṃ vibhāgo nādaraṇīyaḥ |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The term ‘verse’ stands for the ‘Gāyatrī’ and other metres; and the Veda with these, is the Ṛgveda, and also the Sāma Veda. The term ‘kṛta’ is used here in the sense of association, the root ‘kṛ’ having several significations, it is explained as denoting ‘association’ in the present context. The root ‘kṛ’ has the sense of ‘collecting’ in such expressions as ‘gomayān kuru’ (collect cowdung),—it has the sense of rubbing, in the expression ‘pṛṣṭham kuru’ (Rub the back); similarly, in the present text it means ‘association.’

‘Brahmachandaskṛtam’—that which is in verse and prose. In the Yajurveda, there are prose-passages, as also Mantras composed in the Gāyatrī and other metres; both kinds of passages being found in the same chapter. It is not so in the Ṛgveda or in the Sāma Veda; in both of which the mantras (in metre) form one part and the Brāhmaṇas (prose) form a distinct part. It is on the basis of this difference in the character of the Vedas that the text mentions them in the way in which it has done. Thus have the older writers explained the text.

‘According to rule’—This sums up the rules laid down in connection with normal times. In abnormal times, one would need the presence of the Teacher for enlightening him regarding the distinction mentioned in the text; and if, on that account, he were not to repeat the texts, he would forget them; hence, in this case, the aforesaid distinction need not be observed.—(100)