Manava Dharmashastra 5

5.1

brahmacārigṛhasthayoradhyāyatrayeṇa ye dharmā vihitāstāñchrutvā ṛṣayo marīcyādayo bhṛgumācāryamidaṃ vakṣyamāṇaṃ vastubruvan pṛṣṭavantaḥ | "nanu cātra snātakasyeti śrūyate | tatra brahmacārigrahaṇaṃ kimartham ?" | ucyate | vṛttasaṃkīrtanametat | brahmacāriṇo dharmā uktā eva | mahātmānamanalaprabhavamiti ca bhṛguviśeṣaṇam | analādagneḥ prabhava utpattiryasya tam | "nanu prathame'dhyāye 'ahaṃ prajāḥ sisṛkṣuḥ' ityatra manorapatyaṃ bhṛguruktaḥ" | satyam | arthavādaḥ | amutra agneḥ sakāśādbhūgorjanma śrutaṃ taddarśanenaivamuktam | tathā ca nāmanirvacanam | "aśadretasaḥ prathamamudadīṣyata tadasāvādityo'bhavat yaddvitīyamāsīttadbhūguriti" | upacārato vaitaducyate | tejasvitāsāmānyādagneriva prasava iti | na cātrābhiniveṣṭavyaṃ kataraḥ pakṣo yukta iti | anirdaṃparatvādasya śāstrasya | sarva evāyaṃ praśnaprativacanasandarbhoṃ vakṣyamāṇasyānnadoṣasya gauravajñāpanārthaḥ | parigrahaduṣṭādannasvabhāvaduṣṭaṃ gurutaramiti | sambandhadoṣātsvarūpadoṣo balavānantaraṅgatvāt | "nanu ca pūrvaṃ bahutaraṃ prāyaścittaṃ śrūyate 'amatyā cāpagaṃ tryahamiti' | iha tu 'śeṣeṣūpavasedahariti' | tatkathamasya gurutaratvam ?" | ucyate | laśunādyapekṣametat | teṣu hi 'matyā jagdhvā pate'diti patitaprāyaścittaṃ bhavati | |

The sages, having heard the duties of the Accomplished Student as just described, said this to the high-souled Bhṛgu, who sprang from fire.—(1)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Having heard the duties of the Student and the Householder as expounded in the foregoing three Discourses, the great Sages, Marīci and others, ‘said to’—asked the following question of—Bhṛgu, their teacher.

“In the text we find the expression of the Accomplished Student—‘snātakasya’; why then do you bring in the Student?”

Our answer to this is that the present verse is meant to be descriptive of what has gone before; and as a matter of fact, the duties of the Student also have been described.

‘High-souled’ and ‘who sprang from the fire’ are the epithets of Bhṛgu;—‘He whose origination was from the fire.’

“But in discourse I, verse 34, Bhṛgu has been spoken of as the son of Manu”.

True; but what was stated there was an imaginary commendation, while what is said here is in accordance with the account found in the Vedas of Bhṛgu having been born out of fire. The name ‘Bhṛgu’ has been thus explained—‘What rose out first out of the fallen semen was the Sun, and what rose as the second was Bhṛgu’. Or, what is asserted here may be only figurative; the origin of Bhṛgu being described as ‘Fire’, on the basis of similarity, as regards effulgence.

In any case, it is not necessary to lay stress upon either of the two explanations as being the more reasonable of the two; because this is not what forms the main subject-matter of the treatise.

The whole of the text, describing the question and the answer, is meant to indicate the importance of the subject of the evils attaching to food; the moaning being that the evils attaching to the food itself are more serious than those attaching to the nature of its gift and acceptance; and this on the ground that the defects attaching to the thing itself are more intimate, and hence more serious, than those arising from contact.

“In connection with the defects of contact, the Expiatory Rite that is laid down is a three days’ fast; while that in connection with the thing itself, is a single day’s fast (5. 20). How then can this latter be said to be more serious?”

Our answer is as follows:—The greater seriousness here spoken of refers to garlic and such things, in connection with which it is stated that—‘by eating these intentionally the man becomes an outcast’ (5.19); so that the expiation necessary would be that which has been prescribed for outcasts (which is very serious).—(1)

5.2

yanmaharṣibhiḥ pṛṣṭaṃ tadidānīṃ darśayati | evamiti śāstravyāpāraparāmarśaḥ | yathoktamiti śāstrārthaṃ parāmṛśati | etena śāstrasandarbheṇa yādṛśo dharma uktastatpunastamanutiṣṭhatāṃ dvijātīnām | 'vipra'grahaṇasya darśanārthatvādvakṣyati (ślo0 26) "etaduktaṃ dvijātīnāmiti" | kathaṃ mṛtyuḥ prabhavati—snātakāvasthāyāṃ brahmacaryāvasthāyāṃ vā | yataḥ paripūrṇāyurbhistairbhavituṃ yuktaṃ purupāyuṣajīvibhiḥ | śatavarṣaṃ puruṣāṇāmāyustataḥ purā'pamṛtyunā maraṇameṣāṃ na yuktam | yata uktam “ācārāllabhate hyāyuḥ” (4|156 ) “japatāṃ juhvatāmiti” ( 4 | 146 ) |
1) "sahhovāca kiṃ me'nnaṃ bhaviṣyatīti | yadidaṃ kiṃcit ā'śvabhya ā kīṭapataṅgebhya" iti |

“How is it, O Lord, that Death overpowers the Brāhmaṇas who are learned in the Vedic lore, and who perform their duty exactly as it has been thus described?”—(2)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The Text now shows what the great Sages asked.

‘Thus’—refers to the manner in which the Treatise has propounded the subject; and ‘exactly as described’—refers to the subject-matter of the Treatise.

Those Twice-born men who perform the duty exactly in the form in which it has been described in the present Treatise:—that all twice born men are indicated by the terms ‘vipra’ ‘brahmana’, in the Text will be clear from what is going to be said in verse 26 below, where ‘twice-born’ is the term used;—‘how is it that Death orerpotrers them’—while still in the state of the ‘Student,’ or in that of the; Accomplished Student’? How is this, when, in reality, they should live the full spun of humun life? The span of a man’s life is a hundred years; so that the death of Brāhmaṇas before that is not proper; specially as it has been declared that ‘from right conduct one attains longevity’ (4.156), and ‘no calamity befalls persons who recite the Veda and. offer oblations’ (4.146). (2).

5.4

“nanu ca svadharmamanutiṣṭhatāmiti praśnena yuktaṃ ‘yena doṣeṇeti’ uttaraśca grantho naivopapadyate” |
ucyate | anabhyāsenetyādidṛṣṭāntatvenocyate | yathā bhavadbhiḥ pratipannā vedānabhyāsādyaḥ purāyuṣo maraṇahetavaḥ, evaṃ vakṣyamāṇo'nnadoṣaḥ | satsvapi vedābhyāsādiṣu na tāvatsvadharmo yaḥ pūrvatra kathitaḥ, kiṃ tvayamannadoṣo garīyastaraḥ | pṛthak prakaraṇāccaitadabhidhīyate | |
28) | jāghanīnidarśanenaikāhnikaṃ ceṣyate | etāvatā atītanyodhau tu na śakyametat jñātumavaśyamaśitenānena jīvatīti | tatra na pratiṣiddhagrāmyakukkuṭādimāṃsabhakṣaṇamiṣyate | prokṣaṇadevābhyarcanarahitasya tu prakṛtatvādastyanujñānam | vyādheśca na kevalamutpannasya nivṛttyarthaṃ yāvatkṛśakṣayyāturadurbalādīnāṃ sarvakālaṃ māṃsāśanaṃ niyamata iṣyate | ‘‘strīmadyanityāḥ kṣayiṇaḥ, śramavyādhyā ca karśitāḥ | nityamāṃsarasāhārā bhrāturāścāpi durbalāḥ ||’’

Bhṛgu, the righteous son of Manu, said to the great sages—“Listen, by what fault Death seeks to destroy the Brāhmaṇas.”—(3).

Death seeks to destroy the Brāhmaṇas on account of their omitting the study of the Vedas, on account of neglect of right conduct, on account of slothfulness and on account of the defects of food.—(4).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Objection—“When the question has been put forward in regard to Brāhmaṇas who perform their duties, it is not right to answer it by indicating the ‘fault’; nor can there be any connection with what follows (in verse 4) [as omission of Vedic Study &c. is not possible for those who perform their duties].”

The answer to the above is as follows:—‘Omission of Vedic Study’ and the rest have been put forward only by way of illustration; the sense being—‘just as the omission of Vedic Study and the rest are acknowledged by you all to be the causes of death, so also are the defects of food, going to be described below. Even when a man carries on Vedic Study &c., the fulfilment of his above-described duty is not complete, if it is beset with the very much more serious drawback of defective food. This is emphasised here in view of the fact that this is an entirely different section (dealing with defects of food). (3-4)

5.5

laśunādayaḥ padārthā loke prasiddhā eva |
kavakaśabdo jātiśabdaḥ | kvacitkrayākuriti prasiddhe'rthe manyate | chatrākāni kavakānyeva | tathāhi kavakaśabdena pratiṣiddhaṃ, chatrākaśabdena prāyaścittaṃ vakṣyati ( ślo0 16 ) ‘‘chatrākaṃ viḍvarāhaṃ ceti” | na ca chatrākaṃ nāma padārthāntaraṃ prasiddham | na cāccharavaryāsāmānyena yo yacchatrākārastaṃ taṃ chatrākamiti yuktaṃ pratipattum | tathā sati suvarcalādīnāṃ samācāravirodhī pratiṣedhaḥ prāpnoti | tasmādyānyeva kavakāni tānyeva chatrākāṇi | tathā ca niruktakāraḥ—“kṣuṇṇāmahicchattrakaṃ bhavati yat kṣudyata iti”| tena yānyetāni bhūmāvakṛṣṭāyāmanupūūrvajāyāṃ ca sitavarṇāāni jāyante tāni ca kavakāni | vakṣyati ca “bhaumāni kavakānīti” | darśitaṃ ca ‘padā kṣuṇṇamiveti’ | pādaprahāreṇa yāni kṣudyante | yato yāni vṛkṣādgulmājjāyante teṣāṃ tadākārāṇāmapratiṣedhaḥ |
kukuṇḍāni kavakāni vaidyake vyākhyātāni | etacca vyākhyānaṃ na gavādiśabdavat | śāke kavakaśabdo loke prayujyate | ato'sya samācārādvaidyakādiśāstrārthe niścayaḥ | pradarśitaścāsau | laśunādīnāṃ tu samānavarṇagandhā api viṣṇunā pratiṣiddhāḥ | pārāśarikāyāṃ tu śabdenaiva niṣedhaḥ prāyaścittaviśeṣārtha uktaḥ "cāndrāyaṇamiti" (a0 11 ślo0 106) | tena lavatakakarṇikārādīnāṃ pratiṣedhaḥ | amedhyaprabhavānyamedhyajātāni ca saṃsargajātāni | anye tvāhūmūlavāstūkavatakevalāmedhyaprabhavānāṃ yuktaḥ pratiṣedhaḥ | tataśca yānyadhikapuṣṭyarthaṃ dhānyaśākādīnyamedhyakṣetrajātāni saṃsṛjyante tāni na duṣyantīti | tadayuktam | śruteḥ sarvasyāpyabhakṣyatvāt | ihāpi ca yadyamedhyasaṃsargamantareṇa na kiṃcidrastūtapadyate tataḥ syādapi | yatastu kiṃcinmedhyājjāyate kiṃcitsaṃsṛṣṭāttato'yaṃ pratiṣedhaḥ kevale'medhyaprabhave, na saṃsṛṣṭe, avatiṣṭhate | māṃsasya satyapi śukraśoṇitāmedhyaprabhavatve nāyaṃ pratiṣedhaḥ, pṛthakprakaraṇārambhāttasya |
47 ) "deśaṃ kālaṃ tathā''tmānaṃ dravyaṃ dravyaprayojanam | upapattimavasthāṃ tu jñātvā śuddhiṃ prayojayet ||” evaṃ vāsaḥsvapi kecidāhuḥ | "tribhya ūrdhvaṃ bahūni" | yadyapi triprabhṛtiṣu bahutvam, yato'lpānāmiti bahuvacanaṃ śrutamatadviparyantānyalpāni | adbhirityupalakṣaṇam | tena yasya vāsaso yenaiva doṣasaṃsargo vyapaiti tadapi draṣṭavyam | tacca prāgdarśitam | prokṣaṇasaṃbandho'bgrahaṇaniyamārthaḥ | udakenaiva prokṣaṇaṃ kartavyam | etenaiva ca bhedena dviḥpāṭhaḥ | etacca mahatyupaghāte śavapurīṣacāṇḍālādisparśe | anyathā tvalpānāmiti prokṣaṇameva | yadi prakṣālitasyāpi lepādi vāsaso nāpaiti tadā tanmātracchedaṃ "utsargo veti” gautamenoktam |

Garlic, leeks and onions, mushrooms and all that proceeds from impure things, are unfit to re eaten by twice-born men.—(5).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The terms ‘garlic’ &c. are well-known among men.

The term ‘karaka’ is the name of a genus, sometimes regarded as the same as the well-known thing ‘kryāku’ (?); mushrooms also are ‘kavaka’; as it is forbidden under the name of ‘kavaka’, while the expiatory rite in connection with its eating has been prescribed under the name of ‘chatrāka,’ in verse 19; and no other thing (except the mushroom) is known by the name ‘chatruka’; nor will it be right to regard, on the basis of verbal similarity alone (between ‘chatrāka’ and ‘chatrākāra’, umbrella-shaped), all those things as ‘chatrāka’ which resemble the umbrella, are ‘chatrākāra’; as in that case the prohibition (of ‘chatrāka’) would apply also to the suvarchala and other things (which also are umbrella-shaped); and this would be contrary to all usage. Hence we conclude tha ‘chatrāka’ and ‘kavaka’ are one and the same thing. Says the author of the Nirukta—‘The chatrāka is kṣuṇṇa, since it is smashed.’ From this it is clear that the name ‘kavaka’ applies to those white shoots that grow out of the earth that has been ploughed; this is also in keeping with what is going to be said in connection with‘kavakas growing out of the earth’ (6.14); and it has also been just pointed out that the name applies to what is ‘smashed’ by a stroke of the foot. It is for this reason (of its being described as growing out of the earth, and of its being mashed by a stroke of the foot) that the prohibition (of ‘kavaka’) is not applicable to those vegetable growths that shoot out of the trunks of trees.

In medicinal treatises the kukuṇḍa has been described as ‘kavaka’; but this explanation (of the name on a purely conventional basis) cannot be accepted in the same manner as that in regard to the term ‘go’ and the rest. Further, as a matter of fact, in ordinary parlance the term ‘kavaka’ is always applied to a vegetable. Hence it is on the basis of usage that the exact signification of the term, wherever it occurs in a medical or other scientific treatise, should be ascertained, and we have already shown what that signification is.

Other things also, which resemble garlic and such things mentioned here, which resemble these latter in colour and smell, have been forbidden by Viṣṇu. In the Smṛti of Parāśara however the prohibition is by name, and this for the purpose of prescribing the special Expiatory Rite of ‘Candrāyaṇa’ in connection with it. From this it follows that ‘lavataka’, ‘karnikāra’ and such other things are forbidden.

‘Things proceeding from impure substances’;—those that grow of impure things or are in contact with them.

Others have declared that it is not right to forbid those things that grow only out of impure things, these standing on the same footing as ‘mūlā’ (radish) ‘cāstuka’ (a kind of grass) and such other things (known to grow out of impure things);—so that the prohibition does not apply to those grains and vegetables growing in fields specially manured for the purpose of enriching the harvest.

This however is not right. Because from what the text says it is clear that all these things are equally unfit to be eaten. Further, what has been suggested might have been accepted, if it were absolutely impossible for anything to grow without the use of impure substances. There are some things however that grow directly out of impure substances, while there are some that grow out of mere connection with them; the right view to take therefore is that the prohibition applies to the former only, and not to the latter.

As regards meat, even though it grows out of semen and blood (both impure substances), yet the present prohibition does not apply to it; because it has been dealt with in a totally different context.—(5)

5.6

vṛkṣakoṭarastrāveṇa hetvantareṇa vā bahiryanmūlaskandhaphalapalāśaśākhākusumavyatiriktaṃ vṛkṣalagnaṃ jāyate sa vṛkṣaniryāśaḥ | lohitagrahaṇātkarpūrādīnāmapratiṣedhaḥ | vraścanācchedanādyeṣāṃ prabhavo janma | evaṃ vṛkṣāderyatkapraveśā ye tatraiva jāyante teṣāmalohitānāmapratiṣedhaḥ | śeluḥ śleṣmātakaḥ prasiddho vaidyakādiśāstrebhyaḥ | na tu sutasya kṣīrasya santānikā, aprasiddhatvāt | yattu "pīyūṣasāhacaryātsantānikā yukteti", -bhavati sāhacaryaṃ viśeṣaheturubhayatra prayoge sati, na punaḥ sāhacaryamadṛṣṭaprayogāṇāṃ prayogajñāpakam | gavyaṃ ca | gavyagrahaṇānmāhiṣāderapratiṣedhaḥ | anādyamagnimātrasaṃyogātpiṇḍībhūtamanāsaktaṃ ca | sadyaḥprasūtāyā goḥ kṣīraṃ 'pīyūṣa'śabdenocyate | "nanu ca kṣīrasya savikārasya daśāhaṃ cāmedhyatāṃ vakṣyati | tricaturāṇi vā'hāni tādṛśaṃ kṣīraṃ bhavati" | satyam | yadi kathaṃcitkasyā api daśāhātpareṇa bhavati tadidamarthavat | prayatnenetyādi padadvayaṃ ślokapūraṇārtham | abhakṣyāṇītyanuvartate |

He shall carefully avoid the red exudation from trees, as also those flowing from incisions, the śelu berries, and ‘curdled milk’ of the cow.—(6)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Exudation from trees’;—anything, apart from the constituent parts of the tree itself,—such as, the root, the trunk, the branches, the leaves, the fruits and the flowers,—which proceeds from the tree, either in the form of some liquid flowing from the cavity in the tree, or in some other form. The epithet ‘red’ excludes, from prohibition, such exudations as the camphor and the like.

Those that have their origin, source, in ‘incisions’; those that flow from the bark and such parts of the tree. These things, if not red, are not forbidden.

‘Śelu’—the śleṣmātaka fruit, to be known from medical and other treatises. It should not be taken to mean the cream of fresh milk; as it is never known to have that meaning. It has been argued that—“it is better to take the word as standing for cream, on account of its proximity to the term, ‘curdled milk’”. But proximity becomes a means of deciding in favour of one of the two possible meanings of a term, only when the term is actually found in usage to be used in both senses; but it can never be the authority for attributing an unheard of meaning to a word.

‘Of the cow’;—this shows that that of the buffalo etc. is not forbidden. The milk is unfit to be eaten if, by mere contact with fire, it becomes ‘curdled’,—i.e., thickened without adhesion; the term ‘pīyūṣa’ is used in the sense of the milk of the newly-calved cow.

“The text is going to declare, as until to be eaten, the milk, along with all its preparations, of the cow for the first ten days of its calving; and it is only during three or four days that the milk is of the nature described above (i.e., curdled by mere contact with fire) [so that no separate prohibition appears to be called for.]”

True; the thing is mentioned in the present verse with a view to those cases where the milk continues to be so ‘curdled’ even after the first ten days.

The two words—‘carefully’ and ‘avoid?—are added only for filling up the metre; since ‘unfit to be eaten’ (of verse 5) continues to be connected with all that is mentioned in the text.—(6)

5.7

atra kṛsarasaṃyāvamiti samāhāre dvandvaḥ | tilaiḥ saha siddha odanaḥ 'kṛsara'śabdenocyate | saṃyāvo bhojyaviśeṣaḥ sarpirguṃḍatilādikṛtaḥ pureṣu prasiddhaḥ | “ye tu yautermiśraṇārthatvādyāni miśrīkṛtyānnāni sādhyante mudrakuṣṭhakādibhistāni saṃyāvaśabdenocyanta” iti, teṣāṃ kṛsaragrahaṇamanarthakam | so'pi hyanena prakāreṇa 'saṃyāva' eva | vṛthāśabdaḥ sarvatrānuṣajyate | yadātmārthaṃ kriyate, na devapitratithyartham | tadā kṛsarādīnāmupadeśa iti | tadayuktam | na hi gṛhasthā ekenārthena pacanti | haviṣa ivāvāpātprabhṛti tadarthyaṃ noddeśaḥ | kiṃ tarhi anuddiṣṭaviśeṣasya sāmānyataḥ kṛtasyānnasya pañcayajñānuṣṭhānaṃ vihitam | tatrākṛtavaiśvadevasya bhojane vihitātikramaḥ, na punaḥ pratiṣedhaḥ samasti | tathā hi dve prāyaścitte bhavataḥ | vihitātikramātpratiṣiddhasevanācca | kṛsarādayastu devatāviśeṣaṃ vāstuyajñādiviṣayamanuddiśya kṛtāścedāhnikavidhayo'pi pratiṣidhyante | yaścāpi 'nātmārthaṃ pacediti' so'pyavaśyakartavyatvāt kṛtātikramasya bhojanaprāptyanuvādo na punaḥ pratiṣedhaḥ | tathā sati dvimūlakalpanāprāyaścittaṃ syādityukam | na cānyārthatvenāpi kṛtasyātmārthatā pākasya niṣeddhuṃ śakyate | pacyamānārtho hi pākastasya taddvārikā na śakyā ātmārthatā niṣeddhuṃ, tenaiva vṛttividhānāt | na hi bhṛtyādiśiṣṭabhojanaṃ gṛhasthasya śeṣasaṃskāro na cātra saṅkalpaḥ śruto, yena 'madarthaṃ pacyatāmiti' pākakāle saṃkalpamātraṃ niṣidhyate | ātmārthaṃ cottarakālamavicāryetyucyate | mithyāsaṅkalpadoṣaśca syāt-devatāthartayā saṅkalpitasyātmārthatayā yoga iti | tasmādayamanuvādo 'yatpacennātmārthamevopayojyaṃ prāgvidhervaiśvadevikāditi' | tathā ca apakvabhojane'pi vidhimetaṃ smaranti-“yadannaḥ puruṣo rājaṃstadannāstasya devatā” iti ( rāmāyaṇe ayodhyākāṇḍe ) | na ca bubhukṣamāṇasyaivādhikāraḥ, gārhasthyapratipattinimittatvāt | tena yadaharna bhuñjīta tadaharapyakurvanpratyavaiti | etaduktaṃ bhavati | svārthaṃ vā pacatu parārthaṃ vā, mā pākṣīditi sarvathā kṛtavaiśvadevātikramādyatratā api na pravartante iti nityatāmanuvadati | yaccāpi paṭhati-“laukike vaidike vā'pi hutotsṛṣṭe jale kṣitau | vaiśvadevastu kartavyaḥ pañcasūnāpanuttaye” iti - anenāpi nityataivaucyate| na hi vaidike vaiśvadevasambhavaḥ | na ca smārtavacane pramāṇamasti | pāyasāpūpamiti | payasā siddha odanaḥ 'pāyasaḥ', na dadhyādi payovikāraḥ | apūpāḥ puroḍāśāḥ | devānnāni samācārapramāṇakāni | havīṃṣi śrutivihitāni hotavyāni—prāgragrahomād—yato haviḥśeṣasya bhakṣyatāṃ vakṣyati | anupākṛtasya ayajñāhatasya paśormāṃsāni | ‘upākaraṇaṃ’ paśoḥ saṃskāraviśeṣaḥ | sa paśuyāgeṣu vihitaḥ | etena ca yajñopayuktaśeṣabhakṣyatā māṃsasya lakṣyate | vṛthāśabdādhikāre'pyanupākṛtagrahaṇamatiśayādiśiṣṭasyāpi govyajamāṃsasya pratiṣedhārtham | govyajamāṃsameva vā'nupākṛtaśabdena vivakṣitam | govyajasyaiva tannālambhaścodito yataḥ śiṣṭaṃ prokṣitamityuktam |

Needlessly cooked Rice-sesamum and Butter-sugar-sesamum, milk-rice and flour-cakes, unconsecrated meat, food of the gods and sacrificial viands;—(7)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Kṛsarasaṃyāran’ is an aggregative copulative compound. Rice cooked with Sesamum is called ‘kṛsara’;—‘saṃyāva’ is a particular article of food, made up of butter, sugar, sesamum and such things, well-known in cities.

Some people, on the strength of the root ‘yu’ (from which the term ‘saṃyāva’ is derived) signifying the act of mixing, explain the term ‘saṃyāva’ as standing for all those articles of food that are prepared by-mixing together different kinds of grains,—such as the mudga, the kuṣṭhaka and the rest.

For these persons the separate mention of ‘kṛsara’ would be superfluous; as this would be included under ‘saṃyāva’, as just explained.

The term ‘needlessly cooked’ is to be construed with all the terms. It stands for what the householder cooks for himself, and not for the sake of Gods, Pitṛs or guests.

This however does not appear to be right. Because the ordinary cooking chat the Householder Hoes is not always for any such set purpose as that of inn king offerings out of it. What happens is that the cooking having been done, without reference to any particular purpose, and only in a general way, the Five Sacrifices have been laid down, as to be offered out of the food thus cooked. So that if the man eats the food without having made the offering to the Viśvedevas out of it, he transgresses a direct injunction; but no prohibition enters into the cuse. According to the present text however, as just explained, such eating would necessitate two expiatory rites,—one due to transgressing an injunction (by not making the offering to the Viśvedevas), and another due to the doing of a prohibited act (of cooking the Rice-sesamum needlessly). If however such articles of food as ‘Rice-sesamum’ and the rest, are cooked without reference to a particular God, or to a particular sacrificial rite,—this involves a transgression of the rules pertaining to one’s daily duties also.

As regards the text ‘one shall not cook for himself’,—this cannot be regarded as a prohibition (; because it being absolutely necessary to Ho the cooking, all that the sentence does is simply to make a reference to the act of eating done by one who has disobeyed the rules (regarding the daily ‘sacrifices’). For, as already pointed out above, if it were a prohibition, there would be a twofold expiatory rite involved. Then again, even when the cooking is done for some other purpose, it cannot be absolutely denied that it has been done by the man ‘for himself’ also. ‘Cooking’ means the act of cooking food, and the fact of its being done for one’s own self cannot be denied by means of the same word; as the man is directed to live upon the same food (i.e., what is left after the feeding of the guests &c). The eating of the remnant, of food, after the guests and others have been fed, (which has been laid down for the Householder) is not meant to be a mere ‘embellishment’ of the Remnant (and not an act necessary for the maintenance of the man himself). Nor has it been laid down anywhere that at the time of cooking the Householder is to make use of any such formula of determination as ‘cook food for me’, which would be regarded as forbidden (by the sentence ‘one shall not cook for himself’) In fact the cooking is said to be ‘for himself’ only in consideration of what happens subsequently. That is to say, if the food were cooked wjth the determination to make an offering to the Gods, and then subsequently the man were to eat it all himself, this would involve the wrong of being false to one’s own resolve also. From all this it is clear that the sentence in question is a mere reiterative reference, the sense being—‘what one cooks, he should not use for himself until he has made the offering to the Viśvedevas’.

It is in view of all this that this same rule has been held to be applicable also to the case of the man eating uncooked food; in accordance with the assertion—‘the Gods of a man have the same food as the man himselt’ (Vālmīkīya Rāmāyaṇa.)

Further, cooking is not to be done only by the hungry householder; in fact, the act of cooking every day forms an integral factor of Householder ship itself. So that even on the day on which the man himself does not eat, if he omits the act of cooking, he incurs sin.

The upshot of the whole is this:—The man may cook for himself, or for others; the words ‘shall not cook for himself’ can only mean that people should not undertake the act, if they do not intend to make the offering to the Viśvedevas. So that this only reiterates the obligatory character of the offering. Similarly also the text that—‘For the removal of the sin of the Five Slaughters, the Viśvedeva-offering shall be made in the ordinary fire, in the Vedic sacrificial fire, in the fire in which oblations have been already poured and the deity dismissed, in water or on the ground, only reiterates the obligatory character of the offering to the Viśvedevas. Because the said offering cannot be made into the Vedic sacrificial fire; specially as there is no authority attaching to a Smṛti text (as against a Śruti text) [so that the text just quoted cannot be taken in its literal sense].

‘Milk-rice and flour-cakes’.—‘Pāyasa’, ‘Milk-rice,’ stands for rice cooked in milk, and not for preparations of milk;—‘Puroḍāśa (?)’ is flour-cake.

‘Food of the Gods’:—what these are can only be ascertained from usage.

‘Sacrificial viands—the materials laid down in the Śruti as to be offered into the Fire.

These are ‘unlit to be eaten only before the Grahahomas; as the text is going to lay down the necessity of eating the remnants of the offerings.

The meat of an animal that has not been ‘consecrated,’—i.e. which has not been killed at a sacrifice.‘Consecration’ is a peculiar form of purification of the animal, prescribed in connection with the ‘Animal-Sacrifice.’ The mention of this indicates that one should eat the remnant of the meat that has been offered at a sacrifice.

Though the Text has already used the qualification ‘needlessly prepared’, yet the epithet ‘unconsecrated’ has been added with a view to forbid the merit of the cow, the sheep and the goa (goat?) that may have been left by the guest and other persons to whom they may have been offered. Or, the term unconsecrated may be taken as refering specially to the meat of the cow, the sheep and the goat; since it is the killing of these animals only that has been enjoined in connection with sacrifices; the other animals being described as already ‘prokṣita’, ‘washed clean’ (fit for cating).

5.8

yadīha‘anirdeśāhaṃ goḥ kṣīramiti’ pāṭhaḥ uṣṭrādīnāmapi daśāhādikaḥ pratiṣedha āśaṅkyeta | anirdeśāgrahaṇānuvṛttyā tatra samācāra ātyantikapratiṣedhārtha āśrayaṇīyaḥ | anirdeśāyā iti tu strīliṅgapāṭhe āśaṅkava nāsti | na hi taddhitāntarairanirdeśāyā śrauṣṭramityādibhiḥ sambandhopapattiḥ | uttaratra ca punaḥ kṣīragrahaṇātsamācārācca uṣṭraikaśaphāvikānirdaśagavīkṣīrāṇi savikārāṇi pratiṣidhyante | sandhinīvivatsayostu kṣīrameva | anirdeśā ca gaurucyate yasyāḥ prasūtāyā daśāhānyanatikrāntāni | sandhinī yā ubhayoḥ prāptadohā kathaṃcidanyatarasminduhyate | prātarapradugdhā sāyaṃ duhyate | sā tu svalpakṣīratvādekasminneva kāle, sā'sau sandhinī | kaścidāha yā mṛtasvavatsā parakīyaṃ vatsaṃ saṃcārrya duhyate sā ‘sandhinī’ | ‘vivatsā’ tu yā satyeva vatse vinākṛtavatsā vatsaprasravaṇamanapekṣya kuṣṭhakayavaśālituṣādinā bhojanaviśeṣeṇa duhyāt | vivatsāyā iti | etenaiva vatsagrahaṇenāvatsā dhenurānīyatāmitivadgoriti labdhe gograhaṇamajāmahiṣyorapratiṣedhārtham | na punaranirdeśāyā ityatra | ataśca gograhaṇaṃ tatrājādyupalakṣaṇārtham | tathā ca gautamaḥ ( 17 | 22-23 ) “gośca kṣīranirdeśāyāḥ sūtake | ajāmahiṣyośca” ityāha | payodhrahaṇaṃ sandhinīkṣīramiti samāsāntavartinaḥ kṣīrapadasya nātisukaraḥ sambandho yataḥ |

The milk of the cow that has not passed its ten days, as also that of the camel and of one-hoofed animals and of sheep; the milk of the irregular cow, as also the milk of the cow without her calf.—(8)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
If we read the opening words as ‘anirdaśāham goḥ kṣīram,’ then the prohibition regarding the milk of the camel and other animals also would be understood as limited to the ten days from calving; so that the qualification ‘that has not passed its ten days’ being taken with every one of the animals, it would become necessary to depend entirely upon usage in support of the absolute prohibition of the milk of the camel and other animals. If however we rend ‘anirdaśāyāḥ’ in the feminine form, then there would be no possibility of the above misunderstanding. Because it would not be possible to interpret the nominal affixes (attached to filenames of the other animals) as, in any way, connecting these animals with the epithet ‘anirdaśāyāḥ’)

In as much as the word ‘milk’ is repeated in the second half of the verse, this implies that what are forbidden by the former half are the milk of the camel, of the one-hoofed animals, of the sheep, of the goat and of the cow within ten days of its calving,—along with all its preparations; while in the case of the ‘irregular’ cow and the cow ‘deprived of its calf’, it is the milk only that is forbidden. Such is the usage also.

That cow is called ‘anirdaśāha,’ ‘not passed its ten days’, in whose case ten days have not passed since her calving.

‘Irregular cow’;—the cow that is expected to give milk both morning and evening, but gives it only at one time; giving milk in the evening only if not milked in the morning; and on account of the supply of milk being scanty, she is milked once only.

Some people explain ‘Sandhini’ as standing for that cow which, on having lost her own calf, is made to yield milk by bringing to her the calf of another cow; and in this case the cow ‘without her calf’ would be one whose calf is alive, but is separated from it, and is milked, independently of the calf, through presenting before her such special articles of food as the husks of barley, rice etc., so that the cow would be called ‘without her calf’ by the calf being held aside; just as people say—‘bring the cow without her calf’.

The ‘cow’ having been already mentioned in the first half, the term is repeated in the second half, with a view to show that similar milk of the goat and the buffalo is not forbidden. The same does not hold good regarding the epithet ‘anirdaśāyāh,’ ‘that has not passed its ten days;’ so that in this connection the ‘cow’ includes the front and the buffalo also. So says Gautama (17.22-23)—‘The milk of the cow that has not passed its ten days, during the period of impurity; also of the goat and the buffalo.’

The term ‘payaḥ’ ‘milk,’ has been added because it is not easy to construe the term ‘of the cow,’ with the term ‘kṣīram,’ ‘milk’ as contained in the compound ‘sandhinīkṣīram.’—(8)

5.9

prāraṇyā gohastimarkaṭādayaḥ | puṃsāṃ kṣīrābhāvaḥ | sarveṣāṃ mṛgāṇāmiti jātimātravivakṣāyāṃ puṃlliṅganirdeśasāmarthyātstrībhiḥ sambandhaḥ | mṛgakṣīraṃ kukkuṭāṇḍamitivat | darśitaṃ caitatpumbhāvavidhau mahābhāṣyakāreṇa | māhiṣaṃ vinā | payopekṣayā napuṃsakanirdeśaḥ | strī mānuṣī | yadyapi 'strī gauḥ somakrayaṇī'tyādau sāsnādimatyarthe prayogadarśanam, tathāpi jātyantarasyāprakṛtatvāt prasiddhataratvāt tatra prayogaḥ syāt | "striyo madhuramicchanti striyo ratnamanuttamamiti" nāryaiva pratīyate | evakāramañjanādipratiṣedhe vyācakṣate | na kevalaṃ strīkṣīraṃ bhakṣaṇe varjyaṃ kiṃ tarhyanyāsvapyevaṃvidhāsu kriyāsu | eṣa tu smṛtyantarasamācārasāpekṣa eva śabdaḥ sūcako yuktaḥ, na tvasyārthasya vācakaḥ |
1) | yeṣu cātra prakaraṇe pratiṣiddheṣu prāyaścittādhikāre pratipadaṃ prāyaścittamanyaducyate "kravyādasūkare”tyādi ( 11 | 156 ) tatra tadeva draṣṭavyaṃ pratipadavihitatvāt | asya copavāsasyānyatra caritārthatvāt |

‘Distilled’.—Distillation consists in allowing the thing to remain soaked in water over-night.

5.10

aviśeṣeṇa sarvaśukteṣu pratiṣiddheṣu keṣucidayamapavādaḥ | śuktānyucyante yāni prāptasārasyāni kālātyayena dravyāntarasaṃsargeṇa vā''mlatāmāpadyante | yathā''srātakādīni madhurāṇi cirakālamatirasatvācchuktāni bhavanti | niṣpīḍito madhurarasaḥ kālato'mlatāmetītyādinā evaṃvidhāni | yāni tu svabhāvato'mlāni dāḍimāmalakajambīrādīni tāni naiva 'śuktāni' | yāni ca prāptakālotpattyādīni | na hyayamamlaparyāyaḥ śuktaśabdaḥ| tatra kevalāni pākataḥ śuktāni pratiṣidhyante | dravyāntaraiśca puṣpamūlakādibhiryojitānyatra jñāyante | tathā ca gautamaḥ ( dha0 17 sū0 14) "śuktaṃ kevalamadadhi"| abhiṣūyante | abhiṣava udakena saṃsṛjya parivāsanam | "yadyevaṃ kāla eva tarhyamlatāhetuḥ” | satyam | etānyapi dravyāṇi | tṛtīyā ca karaṇe sahayoge vā | puṣpādibhirudakena saha abhiṣūyante sandhīyante | kecittvāhuḥ-yatra puṣpamūlānyamlatāṃ janayanti | yāni dāḍimāmalakādīni śuktāni tāni bhakṣyāṇi, yāni drākṣādibhirmadhurairabhiṣūyante sandhīyante tāni na bhakṣyante | abhiṣavo hyucyate śuktatājananam | yāni puṣpādibhiḥ śuktīkriyante | na ca drākṣādīni śuktatāpādakāni | kiṃ tarhi kevala eva kālaḥ | etantu na samyak | aśabdārthatvāt | na hi 'somamabhiṣuṇotīti' śuktaṃ karotīti pratipattiḥ | kiṃ tarhi ya eva prāgvyākhyāto'rthaḥ |

“In that case the sourness would be due to the length of time (so that all these would be included among‘Soured Substances’).”

True; these also are ‘soured substances’; and the Instrumental ending may signify either instrumentality or association. The meaning thus is—‘what are distilled—e.g. made out of—flowers etc. along with water’.

Some people offer the fallowing explanation:—“The roots of trees are directly productive of sourness. Such ‘sour substances’ as the Pomegranate, the Āmalaka and the rest are ‘fit to be eaten’, while those that are distilled from grapes and other sweet things are not eaten. ‘Distillation’ means producing acidity; hence ‘distilled from flowers’ means soured by flowers and such things. Grapes and such other things however are not themselves productive of acidity; in their case it is time alone that is the acidulating agent.”

This however i not right; simply because such is not the meaning of the term (‘distillation’). When one says ‘he is distilling Soma’—this is not understood to mean that he is making it sour; what is understood is as we have explained above.

5.11

kravyāda āmamāṃsabhakṣakāḥ kaṅkagṛdhrādayaḥ | abhakṣyatvatkevalāmāṃ sabhakṣakā gṛhyante | na tūbhayaraktā mayūrādayaḥ |
grāmanivāsinaḥ akravyādā api | ekaśaphā aśvāśvataragardabhādayaḥ |
anirdiṣṭāṃstu nābhakṣyatvenoktāste na bhakṣyā iti | ye tūktāstatraiva bhakṣyāḥ | ye tūṣṭravaḍavaṛkṣagauragardabhāḥ prajākāmasteṣāṃ ca māṃsamaśnīyāditi |
“nanu ca śrutita eva tatra bhakṣyāvāptiḥ | pratyuta nirdiṣṭagrahaṇe sati śrutau coditānāmanyatra bhakṣyatāśaṅkā, ‘anirdiṣṭānvarjayenna nirdiṣṭāniti’ vākyārthapratipatteḥ | na ca smṛtau kecidbhakṣyatvena nirdiṣṭāḥ, yena tadvatiriktaviṣayamanirdiṣṭagrahaṇaṃ vyākhyāyeta | ataḥ śrutau ye'nirdiṣṭāste na bhakṣyā iti prāpnoti” |
ucyate | ācārāvirodhī sa smṛtyarthaḥ | anirdiṣṭagrahaṇamanuvādaḥ |
ṭiṭṭibhaḥ śakunireva, ṭiṭīti yo vāśate | prāyeṇa śabdānukaraṇanimittaṃ śakunīnāṃ nāmadheyapratilambhaḥ | taduktaṃ niruktakāreṇa ‘kāka iti śabdānukṛtistadidaṃ śakuniṣu bahulamiti’ |

He shall avoid all carnivorous birds, and also those living in villages, the one-hoofed animals not specified, and also the Ṭiṭṭibha.—(11)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Carnivorous’;—those that eat raw flesh; such as the Heron, the Vulture &c. What are meant are those that eat raw flesh only; and not those that eat both (raw and cooked flesh), such as the Peacock and the rest.

‘Living in villages’—even though they be not carnivorous.

‘One-hoofed animals;’—e.g., the Horse, the Mule, the Ass and so forth.

‘Not specified’;—i.e. those that have not been specified as fit to be eaten should not be eaten: those that have been so specified are lit to be eaten. For instance, it has been declared that ‘one who desires to obtain offspring shall eat the meat of the camel, the horse, the bear and the white ass’. [and here the one-hoofed animals, horse and white ass, are specified as fit to be eaten].

“The eatability of these animals is known only from this Śruti passage. And the presence of the term ‘specified’ in the verse would he understood to mean that the animals thus specified in the Vedic passage may be eaten even elsewhere (apart from Vedic sacrifices also); the meaning of the text being ‘one shall avoid those nut specified, but not those specified.’ As a matter of fact however, nowhere in the Smṛti have any one-hoofed animals been specified as fit to be eaten, with reference to which the term ‘not specified’ (of the text) could be explained. Hence it comes to this that ‘those not specified in the śruti are unfit to be eaten”.’

Our answer to the above is that such a sense of the Smṛti would be contrary to all usage. The term ‘not specified’ is a mere re-iterative reference.

‘Ṭiṭṭibha’—is a bird which is always screaming ‘ṭiṭ’, ‘ṭiṭ’. In most cases the names of birds are in imitation of their sounds: as says the Nirukta—‘The name Kāka is in imitation of the sound; such is the case with most bird-names.’—(11).

5.12

kalaviṅko grāmacaṭako nigameṣūktaḥ | grāmavāsitvāttasya siddhe pratiṣedhe punaḥ pratiṣedhaḥ striyāścaṭakāyā abhyanujñānārthaḥ | puṃśabdo hyayaṃ vṛṣabhavat | anye tvāraṇyasya nivṛttyarthaṃ manyante | te hi varṣāsu vanavāsino bhavanti | bāhulyavyapadeśācca grāmacaṭakā ucyante | yathā mahiṣā āraṇyāḥ |
plavahaṃsacakravākānāṃ vakṣyamāṇajālapādapratiṣedhātsiddhe pratiṣedhe nityārtha grahaṇam | ata āṭyādīnāṃ vikalpena bhakṣaṇaṃ gamyate |
grāmakukkuṭam | grāmagrahaṇādāraṇyābhyanujñānam |
“kutaḥ punarāraṇyasyābhakṣyatāśaṅkā” |
smṛtyantare hi “kukkuṭo vikirāṇāmiti” paṭhyate | ataścāviśeṣeṇābhakṣyatā prāptā vacanena | tasya sāmānyapratiṣedhasya viśiṣṭaviṣayatā prajñāyate |
“nanu vikalpaḥ kasmānna bhavatyanena śāstreṇāsyābhyanujñānācchāstrāntareṇa cāviśeṣeṇa tasyāpi pratiṣedhāt” | nāyaṃ vikalpasya viṣayaḥ | virodhe hi tulyabalānāṃ vikalpo na cātra virodho'sti | na hyanayoḥ smṛtyoḥ śāstrabhedo'pi | sāmānyasya viśeṣa upasaṃhartuṃ nyāyyatvāt | śākhāntarasmṛtītyasyāpyekaśāstrasya darśitatvāt | "yadyevaṃ jālapādapratiṣedhasyāpi haṃsādiviśeṣa evopasaṃhāro yukto nāviśeṣeṇa kākajālapādānāṃ sarveṣāṃ pratiṣedhaḥ" | bhavedevaṃ yadyapauruṣeyo'yaṃ granthaḥ syāt | bhinnakartṛke tvapauruṣeyatve na sāmānyasya kiñcitprayojanaṃ haṃsādiviśeṣamātraparyavasāne | bhinnakartṛkatve tu pauruṣeyatve sati sāmānyadarśino viśeṣaviṣayamajñānaṃ sambhavati, viśeṣadarśino'pi sāmānyaviṣayam | ubhayośca mūlakalpanāyāmekasya sāmānyavedanaṃ vacanamūlaṃ kalpyate, anyasya viśeṣavacanam | tayośca vaidikayorbhinnaśākhādhītayorasati śāstrabhede, ekavākyataiva nyāyyā | na ca vede paryanuyogo'sti, 'kiṃ sāmānyena yadi viśeṣaniṣṭhatā'; tasya karturabhāvāt | śrutāddhi tatra pratipattiḥ kevalaśabdaśaktisamāśritā | na prayojanavaśenārthāntarakalpanam | rajjudālādayaḥ śākunikebhya upalabdhavyāḥ |

The Sparrow, the Plava, the Haṃsa, the Cakravāka; the village-cock, the Crane, the Rajjudāla, the Dātyūha, the Parrot and the Starling.—(12).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Sparrow’, ‘Kalabiṅka’ (‘Kalaviṅka’), is the name of a village-bird described in the scriptures. Its prohibition being already got at by the general prohibition of all ‘village-birds’, the separate mention of the sparrow implies the catability of the female sparrow;—the term ‘kalabiṅka’ being a masculine just like the term ‘bull.’

Others have explained that this name has been added for the purpose of excluding (from the prohibition) the wild sparrow, which retires to the forest during the rains. They are called ‘village-birds’ because of their living in the villages during the greater part of the year; just as is the case with the ‘wild buffalo.’

The prohibition of the plava, the haṃsa, and the cakravāka being already got at from the general prohibition of all ‘web-footed birds’, the separate mention of these is for the purpose of emphasising the obligatory character of their exclusion.—the eating of the ‘Ātya’ and other ‘web-footed’ birds being regarded as optional.

‘Village-cock’—the specification of the ‘village -cock’ permits the eating of the wild cock.

“But why should there have been any suspicion regarding the non-eatability of the wild cock at all?”

Because another Smṛti text says simply—‘Among birds, the cock’, which indicates that all kinds of cock are equally ‘unfit to be eaten’; it is for this reason that this general statement line been sought by the present text, to be limited in its scope.

“But why cannot this he regarded as a case of option, since the present text permits the eating of the wild crick, which the other text forbids?”

This cannot he a case of option: it is a case of option only when there are two contradictory texts of equal authority hearing upon the same subject; in the present case however, there is no contradiction: there is no difference in the actual teaching of the two Smṛti-texts concerned: because it is quite reasonable to regard the general statement as restricted in its scope; specially as a third independent text has already been quoted above.

“If this be so, then the general prohibition regarding the web-footed birds may be taken as restricted in its scope to the Haṃsa and other specified birds: so that the prohibition does not extend to all crows and web-footed birds.”

This would have been the case if the Smṛti-treatises were not the work of a human author. In the case of works of non-human origin, if they proceed from different sources, there would be no useful purpose by making the general statement restricted to the particular case of the Haṃsa and other birds; while in the case of the work of human authors, if they proceed from different persons, it is quite possible that the person who knows the truth in its general form is ignorant of it in the restricted form, or the person who know it in the limited form is ignorant of it in the wider form; so that when we come to consider the source of the two statements, we assume the existence (in the Veda) of a general statement as the source of one, and a particular statement as the source of the other: and these two Vedic statements occurring in two different recensional texts, the only reasonable course is to construe them together, unless there are distinct injunctions bearing upon the two statements. Specially as no such complaint can be raised against the Vedas as—‘What is the use of the general statement if it is to be taken in its restricted sense?’ There is no room for such a complaint, because there is no author in the case against whom such a complaint could be raised. Specially as in the case of a Vedic statement, the only idea that is obtained is front the actual words of the text, only that which can be derived from the words themselves; and there can be no justification for the assuming of any other meaning, for any purpose whatsoever.

What the ‘Rajjudāla’ and other birds are is to be learnt from persons versed in the science of birds.—(12)

5.13

pratudya prahṛtya cañcvā ye bhakṣayanti | svabhāva eṣa eṣāṃ pakṣiṇām | pratudāḥ śatapatrādayaḥ | jālapādā āṭyādayaḥ | teṣāṃ vikalpa uktaḥ | "nanu ca yatra vikalpa anyataratrecchātaḥ pravṛttiḥ | sā cāpratiṣiddheṣvapi sthitaiva | laukikaṃ hi bhakṣaṇaṃ, tatsatyevārthitve | na śāstrīyaṃ, yena niyamataḥ syāt | tatra vikalpitasya pratiṣedhasya na kiñcitprayojanaṃ paśyāmaḥ" | ucyate | dattottarametat | "yannābuddhipūrvaprayogācchabdādevāvārthāvagatiḥ | pauruṣeyastvayaṃ granthaḥ samāhitacetasā prayatnavatā śatasāhasrikaṃ saṃkṣeptumācāryeṇa praṇītaḥ, yatrāśakyamanarthakaṃ prayoktum | ata ācāryābhidhānaṃ ḍannīṃyate | natu jālapādapratiṣedhe'sati tadviśeṣaṃ haṃsaṃ svaśabdena niṣedhayati | yata etadapi smaraśāmeva | anye tu jālapādastviti pramādapāṭhaḥ syāt" | uktaṃ caitadiṅgitena ceṣṭitena mahatā vā sūtrapraṇayanenācāryāṇāmabhiprāyo lakṣyante | viśeṣaścātrānumīyate | "jālapādārdi na bhakṣayet" iti vivakṣite sāmānyapratiṣedha ubhayo'rthavatvāya | yatra māṃsavikrayārthāḥ paśavo hanyante sā sūnā | āpaṇo māṃsasyetyeke |
vallūraṃ māṃsaṃ saṃśoṣya cirasthāpitam | nakhairvikīrya bhakṣayanti te nakhaviṣkirāḥ | mayūrakukkuṭādayaḥ | āpatsviti vacanāttu teṣāṃ pākṣikī bhakṣyatā'pyasti | sa hi paṭhati 'kukkuṭo vikirāṇāmiti' | na cāsya mānavasya vacanasya kukkuṭopasaṃhāraḥ śakyo vaktuṃ kukkuṭanāmagrahaṇasyānarthakyaprasaṅgāt |

Those birds that feed by striking with their beaks, those that are web-footed, the koyaṣṭi, those that scratch with their nails, those that dive and eat fish, slaughter-house meat, and dried meat.—(13)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
Those that feed by ‘striking’—piercing—‘with their beaks.’ Such is the nature of these birds. The Śatapatra and other birds belong to this class.

‘Web-footed’—The Āti and the rest. That there is an option in regard to this has already been pointed out above (Bhāṣya on 12.)

“Wherever there is an option, it depends upon the man’s wish which of the two options he will adopt: and as a matter of fact, it is only an unforbidden course that can be so adopted. The act of eating is an ordinary temporal act, possible only when there is a desire on the part of the man (to do it); it is not a spiritual act, which would have to be done in any case. So that we do not see any useful purpose that could be secured by an optional prohibition.”

Our answer to this is that this has already been answered.

“But what has been said may be all right in regard to cases where (as in the Veda) the comprehension of the meaning depends entirely upon the words of the text, and there is no intention (of any author) behind them (to indicate their true purport). The present treatise however is the work of a human author, having been composed by him with great care and labour. for the purpose of supplying in brief all the information that was contained in another voluminous work containing a hundred thousand verses; so that no needless word can be used in it. In fact it is for this reason (of his not using a single superfluous word) that the author comes to be regarded as a ‘Teacher’. It is not that there is no prohibition of all web-footed birds in general, in which case alone the prohibition of a particular web-footed bird, the Haṃsa, could be justified. Since the present verse also is a Smṛti-text (and it forbids all web-footed birds in general). Some people have held that the term ‘jālapāda’ (web-footed bird) in the present verse is a wrong reading”.

We have already explained that the intention of the Teacher is undersood with the help of gestures, actions and the spinning out of long explanations; and in the present case particular details are also inferred. What was meant to be said was that ‘one shall not eat web-footed birds in normal times’; but the author has propounded the prohibition in the wider form, with it view to justifying both prohibitions (of web-footed birds in general, and of the Haṃsa in particular).

‘Sūnā’ ‘Slaughter house’, is that place where animals are killed for the purpose of selling their flesh. Others explain it as ‘meat-market’.

‘Dried meat’, ‘Vallura’, is Mesh dried and kept for several days.

‘Nakhuviṣkira’ are those birds that scratch with their nails;—e.g. the Peacock, the Cock &c.

These birds are partly ‘fit to be eaten’ also, in view of the assertion that these may be eaten ‘in abnormal times;’ specially in view of what another Smṛti-writer has said regarding ‘the Cock among birds’ (being eatable). But the present text of Manu cannot be regarded as referring to the Cock; as in that case the separate mention of the ‘Cock’ would be useless.—(13)

5.14

bakabalākākākolādīnāṃ matsyādagrahaṇātsiddhe pratiṣedhe tadanyeṣāṃ vikalpārthaṃ punarvacanam | matsyādā apakṣiṇo'pi matsyādagrahaṇādabhakṣyā vijñeyāḥ nakrādayaḥ, kriyānimittatvānmatsyādaśabdasya | kākolaśca śyeno deśāntaraprasiddheḥ, ayaṃ bāhlīkeṣvevamucyata iti prasiddham | viḍvarāhapratiṣedhāccāraṇyābhyanujñā grāmavāsipratiṣedhaśca pūrvasūtre prakaraṇācchakuniviśeṣaṇārtho vijñeyaḥ | evaṃ hi ceha viḍvarāhagrahaṇamarthavadbhavati | grāmavāsī śūkaro 'viḍvarāhaḥ' | "nanu ca yadi tatra prakaraṇād grāmavāsinaḥ pakṣiṇo gṛhyante, ihāpi 'matsyādāḥ' pakṣiṇa eva grahītuṃ nyāyyāḥ" | naivam | na cātra śakunīnāṃ prakaraṇamasti viḍvarāhamatsyānāmapakṣiṇāmapi nirdeśārtham | sarvaśaḥ sarvadā | utsargo'yaṃ asyāpavādaṃ vakṣyāmaḥ |

The Baka, the Balākā, the Kākola, the Khañjarīṭa, the fish-eaters, and village pigs; as also fish always.—(14)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The prohibition of the ‘Baku, Balākā and Kākola’ being already included under that of ‘fish-eaters’, these have been mentioned separately in order to indicate that the eating of the other fish-eating birds is optional.

‘Fish-eaters’.—Animals other than birds also, which eat fish, are to be regarded as ‘unfit to be eaten’; such animals, for instance, as the alligator and the like; that this is what is meant, is clear from the fact that the name ‘fish-eater’ is to be applied in its literal sense.

Kākola is the same as the Kite, such being its name in foreign lands; for instance, it is known by this name in the Bāhlīka country.

The prohibition of the ‘village-pig’ implies the permission to eat the wild pig. The prohibition of those ‘living in villages’ in the preceding verse (11) should be taken, on the strength of the context, us referring to birds only. It is only thus that there would be any point in the mention of the ‘village-pig’ in the present verse. The pig that lives in villages is called ‘viḍvarāha’, ‘village-pig.’

“If in verse 11, ‘those living in villages’ are to be taken, on the strength of the context, as birds only, then the term ‘fish-eaters’ in the present verse also should be taken as referring to birds only.”

Not so; because the present context is not restricted to birds only; since it mentions also non-birds, such as the ‘village pig’ and‘fish.’

‘Sarvaśaḥ,’— always.

This is a general rule; its exceptions we shall explain later on.—(14).

5.15

pūrvasya matsyapratiṣedhavidherarthavādo'yam | yatsambandhimāṃsaṃ yo'śnāti sa tanmāṃsasambandhinyā'śanakriyayā vyapadiśyate | yathā sarpādau nakulaḥ, mārjāro mūṣakādaḥ, ityādi | yastu matsyādaḥ sa sarvamāṃsāśī bhavati | gomāṃsāda ityapi vyapadeṣṭuṃ yuktaḥ | ato nindātiśayānmatsyānvivarjayet |

He who eats the flesh of an animal, is called the ‘eater of its flesh’; he who eats fish is the ‘eater of all kinds of flesh’; hence one shall avoid fish.—(15).

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
This is a commendatory supplement to the foregoing prohibition of fish.

When one eats the flesh of an animal, he comes to be described as connected with the act of eating that animal; e.g., the mungoose is called ‘serpent-eater’, the cat ‘rat-eater’ and so forth. He who eats fish eats all kinds of flesh; it would be right to speak of him as a ‘beef-eater’ also.

Hence, by reason of the possibility of this calumny, one should avoid fish.—(15).