Manava Dharmashastra 4.71

4.71

asmādeva kevalalloṣṭhagrahaṇāt pūrvokta‘mṛlloṣṭhami’ti ṣaṣṭhīsamāso vijñāyate | ubhayaprādhānye hi mṛdgrahaṇaṃ loṣṭha iva atrākariṣyata | tasyaiva hastena sumardatvātprāptaḥ paryudāsaḥ | sudhāyāstu kāṭhinyādyatnasādhyaṃ mardanaṃ, tannaivāsati prayojane prāptam | mṛlloṣṭhamardanaṃ tu hastena puruṣāṇāṃ svabhāvataḥ keṣāṃcitprāpnoti | tasya paryudāsaḥ | tṛṇacchedī prakṛtaḥ | dantairnakhān khādati | sūcakaḥ piśunaḥ karṇejapaḥ | yaḥ parasya doṣānasataḥ sato vā parokṣaṃ vyākhyāpayati | aśuciruktārthaḥ | vināśamāśu vrajati | na yathā'nyāni vaidikānyaniyatakālāni phalāni evametat—kiṃtarhi—ihaiva janmani acirāddhanādinā viyogo vināśaḥ |

A man who crushes clods, cuts grass or bites his nails, quickly goes to perdition; so also the back-biter and the unclean man.—(71)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
It is in view of the word ‘loṣṭha,’ ‘clod,’ being used here by itself that the compound ‘mṛlloṣṭha’ of the preceding verse has been taken as a Tatpuruṣa compound; for, if both ‘mṛt’ and ‘loṣṭha’ were meant (and the compound were a Dvandva one) then, in the present verse also, ‘mṛt’ would have been mentioned in the same manner as ‘loṣṭha.’ Since clods are capable of being easily crushed, people are likely to do it; hence it becomes necessary to forbid it. As for lime-mortar, its crushing requires great effort, and hence people are not likely to do it needlessly. As for the crushing of earth-clods, on the other hand, some people are inclined, by their very nature, to do it; hence its prohibition.

‘Who cuts grass’—as mentioned in the preceding verse.

‘He who bites his nails’—with his teeth.

‘Sūcakaḥ’—the informer, the back-biter; he who describes, behind his back, the defects, real or unreal, of another person.

‘Unclean’—already explained.

‘Quickly goes to perdition.’—Other Vedic acts are uncertain regarding the time at which their results appear; but the act here mentioned is not so; its result appears ‘quickly’—in this very life—in the shape of the loss of wealth, &c., which is what is meant here by ‘perdition.’

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 183),—and again on (p. 253), as lending support to the idea that the man himself becomes ‘unclean’ by dealing with ‘unclean things.’

Comparative notes by various authors
(verses 4.70-71)
See Comparative notes for Verse 4.70.