Manava Dharmashastra 4.222

4.222

tryahaṃ kṣapaṇamabhojanam | amatyā'buddhipūrvakam | buddhipūrve tu kṛcchraṃ caret | tacca kṛcchraṃ smṛtyantaraikavākyatvāttaptakṛcchram | tatra retoviṇmūtraprāśane taptakṛcchramāmnātam | 'amatyā pāne payogrutamudakaṃ vāyuḥ pratitryahaṃ taptātikṛcchraḥ | tato'sya saṃskāra iti' | aprakaraṇe ca prāyaścittavacanaṃ doṣātiśayadarśanārtham | anyatamasyeti ṣaṣṭhīnirdeśātparigrahaduṣṭa evedaṃ prāyaścittaṃ manyante na kālasvabhāvasaṃsargaduṣṭe | śuktaparyuṣitādau caturvidhaṃ hyabhojyam | kāladuṣṭaṃ śuktaparyuṣitādi | saṃsargaduṣṭaṃ madyānugatādi | svabhāvaduṣṭaṃ laśunādi | parigrahaduṣṭaṃ prakṛtābhojyānnānāṃ yat | atrocyate | satyam | caturvidhamabhojyaṃ bhavati | ṣaṣṭhīnirdeśo'pyasti | kiṃtu yadi śuktādernedaṃ prāyaścittaṃ syāttadiha prakaraṇe teṣāmupādānamanarthakamevāpadyeta | pañcame hi tayoḥ pratiṣedho nāsti | tasmādiha prāyaścittārthamevaivamādīnāmupādānam | tatra tarhi kimartham ? tatraiva vakṣyāmaḥ | yadapi 'garhitā nādyayoragniḥ' (11 | 56 ) 'abhojyānāṃ tu bhuktvā'nnamiti' ( 11 | 152 ) ca tatsarvamekādaśe vibhāgato nirṇeṣyate |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Three days fast;’—i.e., he shall not eat anything for three days.

‘Unknowingly,’—not intentionally.

In the case of its being done intentionnlly, one should perform the ‘Kṛcchra’ penance. And this ‘Kṛcchra’ should be the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra,’ in view of what other Smṛti texts have laid down. One such text (Gautama 23.2) has prescribed the ‘Tapta-kṛcchra’ as to be performed in the case of eating semen; ordure and urine;—viz., ‘In the event of drinking these intentionally, one shall live upon milk, butter, water and air—upon each of these for three days; this is the Taptātikṛcchra; and then follows his purification,’

The present being not a section dealing with Expiatory Rites, the mention of such a rite is meant to indicate the seriousness of the offence.

In view of the phrase, ‘of any one of these,’ being in the Genitive form, some people have held that the Expiatory Rite here prescribed is meant to apply to only those cases where the food actually belongs to the persons mentioned, and not where it is objectionable by reason of time, or by its very nature, or by contact. Among such articles of food as sour-gruel and the like, non-eatability is of four kinds:—(1) some things are non-eatable, because of time ; e.g., sour-gruel, things kept overnight, and so forth; (2) some are non-eatable, because of contact; e.g, things that have come in contact with wine and such things; (3) some are non-eatble by their very nature; e.g., garlic and such things; (4) some are non-eatable by reason of their owner; e.g., the food of the persons enumerated in the present context.

Our answer to the above is as follows:—It is quite true that there are four kinds of non-eatability; it is true also that the text has used the Genitive form; but if the Expiatory Rite here prescribed did not pertain to such food as sour gruel and the like, but only to what is objectionable in regard to its owner, then the mention of these in the present connection would be entirely meaningless. For the prohibition of these two things is coining under Discourse V. From this it is clear that their mention in the present context is only for the purpose of prescribing the Expiatory Rite.

“Why, then, should they he mentioned in Discourse V.?”

This we shall explain at that place. As for the exact meaning and purpose of such texts as—(a) ‘the eating of the first two is objectionable’ and (b) ‘having eaten the food of persons whose food should not he eaten,’ etc. (11.152),—we shall explain all this in detail under those same texts—(222).