Manava Dharmashastra 5.127

5.127

kāravaḥ śilpinaḥ sūdaka rajaka tantuvāyādayasteṣāṃ hasto nityaṃ śuddhaḥ | ataśca jananamaraṇāśaucayostatspṛśyatā'sti | na tu purīṣādilepe dṛśyamāne śuddhatā vijñeyā |
yaduktaṃ “sadyaḥ śaucāḥ prakīrtitāḥ” iti tadevedam | atra cāpaunaruktyam | manuśākhe'syānupadeśāt |
viṣayāntaramapyasti | “anācāntāstantuvāyā vayanti” tantūnāṃ stambhavaśleṣaṇārthaṃ yatpiṣṭamaṇḍādi dīyate, tadbhājanaṃ ca yatra tatra bhūmau nidhīyate, tāvatī yā'śuddhiḥ snānena nivartyate | na tu svabhāvāśucīnāṃ sparśastaistasya śuddhatā vijñeyā, na hi teṣāṃ tatkārukarmavihitam |
evaṃ caiṣaivopapattiriti mlecchasaṃsṛṣṭānāsapi nāśucitvam, tatra śaṅkhavacanātprokṣaṇābhyukṣaṇe | tatra hi paṭhitam “kāruhastaḥ śucistathā''karadravyāṇīti” |
paṇyaṃ vyavahārāya yaddravyaṃ rūpakairvikrīyate'nyena vā dravyeṇa mīyate, tatpaṇyaṃ tacca prasāritamāpaṇabhūmau śuci | anekakretṛsaṃsargādbhūmau ca lepanādirahitāyāṃ sthāpanādyu paghātastena nāśuci punaḥpunardṛśyamānopaghātam | prasāritagrahaṇādgṛhāvasthitasya buddhau sthite'pi paṇye na śuddhiḥ | siddhānānāṃ tu saktvapūpādīnāṃ satyapi śucitve'bhakṣyatā śaṅkhavacanādeva “āpaṇīyānyabhakṣyāṇīti” |
brahmacārigatamasmādeva sāhacaryātpūrvauktā śuddhirīdṛśa upaghāte vijñāyate | bhikṣamātrāsya rathyākramaśamaśucidarśanaṃ śvayuniṣṭhīvanamanekahastasaṃpāto bhikṣāyā ityādyupaghātaḥ saṃbhāvyate | ‘medhyatayā’ śucitvamāha |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
‘Kāru’ is artisan; such as the cook; the dyer, the weaver and so forth the hand of these people is ‘always pure.’ It is for this reason that they are touchable even during periods of impurity caused by birth or death. But it does not mean that their hand is to be regarded as pure even when found to be actually bearing the stains of ordure or such unclean things.

What is stated here is on the same footing with what as been asserted before regarding certain people being ‘immediately purified.’ Nor is there any superfluous repetition; as no such purification has been declared anywhere else in the Institutes of Manu. Then the present text contemplates another case also, e.g. weavers, as a rule, weave cloth without bathing for separating the yarns from the pillars they make use of dough and gruel &c.;—they place the vessels containing these things at random:—the ‘impurity’ involved in all this is what is negatived by the present text; and it is not meant that people who are impure by their very nature are to be regarded as ‘touchable’ by taking to the work of artisans; because such work has not been ordained for them.

This same reasoning holds good regarding the view that things touched by Mlecchas are not impure. In connection with these, sprinkling and washing have to be done, as laid down by Śaṅkha, who reads—‘The artisan’s hand is pure, and so also are substances in a heap.’

‘Merchandise’;—the substance that is sold for money, or is exchanged for some other substance, is called ‘merchandise’; and when this is ‘spread out’ in the market-place, it is pure. That is, it does not become defiled by such contaminations as being handled by several purchasers, being spread out on unwashed ground and so forth, even though one may perceive such contaminations again and again. Since the text speaks of its being ‘spread out’, it follows that so long as the thing is stored within a room, it is not pure, even though it is ‘in the market-place’.—As regards cooked substances, such as fried flour, cakes and the like,—though these also are ‘pure’ (when spread out in the market-place), yet they are not fit for eating; as declared by Śaṅkha—‘things exposed in the marketplace are not fit for eating’.

‘Held by the student’.—By reason of the ‘purity’ being spoken of in this verse along with this term, it is to be regarded as pertaining to such contamination as the following—(a) treading along the public road in course of begging (b) the sight of unclean objects, (c) spitting and sneezing, (d) the dropping of one hand on the food obtained and so forth,—all which are probable.

‘Sacred’;—this is meant to imply purity—(127).