Manava Dharmashastra 5.14

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).