Manava Dharmashastra 4.254

4.254

ātmanivedanameva vyaktīkaroti| asya śūdrasya yādṛśa ātmā bhavet yatkulīno yaddeśo yacchilpaśca | yaccikīrṣitam anekakāryeṇa tvāmahamāśrito dharmeṇa anyena vā prayo-janena rājakularakṣādinā | yathā vopacarecchilpenānena tvāṃ seve pādavandanādi gṛhakṛtyakaratve sarvasminnivedita ātmā nivedito bhavati |
anye tu “ātmā vai putranāmāsi” ityapatyavacanamātmaśabdaṃ manyamānāḥ yasya śūdrasya kāmataḥ pravṛttā duhitā vivāhyate tasyānena bhojyānnatocyata ityāhuḥ |
tadayuktam | na tāvadayamātmaśabdo duhitari vispaṣṭaṃ prayuktaḥ | putraśabdo hi puṃsyeva prasiddhataraḥ | na ca parokṣaśabdopadeśena kiṃcitprayojanam | etāvadeva vaktuṃ yuktaṃ 'dadyāduhitaraṃ ca ya' iti |
anye tvārthikādigrahaṇaṃ śūdropalakṣaṇārthaṃ varṇayanti | tena pāraśavasya śvaśurasya ca bhojyānnatā siddhā bhavati |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The text proceeds to show the manner of ‘offering himself.’

‘As may be the character of the man,’—i.e., the family, the country and the profession to which the Śūdra concerned may belong.

‘The work he wishes to do;’—saying, ‘This is the work that I shall do under you, either as my duty, or for s ome other purpose, such as saving myself from being pressed for service at the royal palace, and so forth.’

‘The manner in which he may serve;’—‘I shall serve you with this act of mine;’—‘I shall press your feet, and do other household work.’ When one offers to do all this, then is he said to have ‘offered himself.’

‘Others have taken the word,’ ‘Ātman’ ‘himself,’ in the expression, ‘Ātmanām nivedayet,’ ‘offers himself,’ to mean child—according to the text, ‘thou art my own self, named son;’ and have explained it to mean that ‘one may eat the food of the Śūdra, whose daughter (ātma) one may have married, under the influence of sexual passion.’ This, however, is not right. The term, ‘ātmā’ is never used directly in the sense of daughter; it is only the masculine form ‘putra,’ ‘son,’ that is often found to be so used; and there would be no useful purpose served by the Author using a term, in an indirect sense; it would have been enough to say—‘he who gives his daughter to him.’

Others have explained that the mention of the ‘ploughman’ and others is meant to be indicative of the Śūdra in general; so that it follows that one may cat the food of one’s father-in-law of the ‘Pāraśava’ caste (son of a Brāhmaṇa from a Śūdra mother).—(254)