Manava Dharmashastra 5.141

5.141

ācamanāheṇa prāyaścittena yuktaḥ puruṣa ucchiṣṭa ucyate| tadyathā—kṛtamūtrādyutsargaścākṛtaśaucācamanādiśca yaścāmedhyādisaṃsparśadūṣito yadi puruṣo ‘dravyahastaḥ’ hastena ca gṛhītaṃ bhakṣyabhojyādi dravyavastrādi vā yena sa ucyate dravyahastaḥ | vajrahastādivatprayogavyavasthā | sa cetsaṃpṛṣṭo bhavati | tadā anidhāyaiva tadddravyam anapanīya, hastagṛhītadravya evācāmet | “kathaṃ punarhastasthe dravya ācamanasaṃbhavaḥ | ā maṇibandhanātpāṇī prakṣālayediti tatra vidhiḥ” | kecidāhuḥ | śarīrasaṃsparśamātraṃ dravyasya vivakṣitam, na hastasyaiva, evamaśuddhāvapi skandhādyāropite'pi dravye ucchiṣṭasyāśuddhataiva, tathaivācānte śuddhiḥ | ato hastātpradeśāntare prakoṣṭhotsaṅgādike tu dravyaṃ gṛhītvā''cāmet | abhiprāyo yathaiva puruṣāśaucasambandhādaśucyevaṃ tacchaucācchuddhiḥ | gautamena tu “dravyahasta ucchiṣṭo nidhāyācābhet” ityuktam ( gha01 sū0 28) | atra vyākhyājayanti | satyapi tulyasaṅghitatve'tra nidhānamevābhipretam | itarathā dravyahastayorbhayoḥ śuddhau kartavyāyāṃ kaḥ prasaṅgo dravyanidhānasya | ato'ntareṇa vacanaṃ nidhānāprāptervacanaṃ nidhānārthameva | "kathaṃ tarhi dravyasya śuddhiḥ" | prayatena puruṣeṇa gṛhyāt | smṛtyantaravihitena vā prokṣaṇena || "pracarannannapāneṣu ucchiṣṭaṃ saṃspṛśedvi | ācāmeddravyamabhyukṣya evaṃ caiva na duṣyati ||” iti | yadyantareṇa vacanamatra nidhānaṃ labhyate, apyanidhāyaiveti vacanamanarthakam' | ekavākyatvāt smṛtīnāmiha niścitena vidhānena tathā'pyevaṃ vijñāyate | atha punarmatabhedo gamyate | tataśca vikalpaḥ | tasya ca vyavasthā | garīyo dravyaṃ nidhīyate, anyadaṅgarathaṃ kṛtvā'vagamyate | yadā'pi svayamannamaśnāti, bhūyiṣṭhaṃ vā ucchiṣṭaṃ spṛśati, ācamanārhena vā'kṛtācamanena spṛśyate, sarvo'pi dravyasyocchiṣṭaḥ saṃsparśaḥ |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The man who has committed something necessitating ‘washing’ is called ‘unclean’. For instance, one who has passed urine or evacuated his bowels, and has not performed the purificatory ablutions; or when he has been defiled by the contamination of some unclean thing.

‘With some substance in hand;’—the person who is holding in his hand some thing to be eaten or some metal or cloth, &c., is called ‘dravyahastaḥ’, the use of the compound being similar to such compounds as ‘khadgahastaḥ’.

If such a person happens to be touched, then ‘without laying down’—without setting aside—‘that substance’—he should wash.

“How can the man wash, when he has a substance in his hand? The procedure of washing has been described as ‘washing the hand upto the wrists and so forth.”

In answer to this some people offer the following explanation:—What is meant by the man being ‘with some substance in hand’ is that he should have the substance somewhere on his body, not necessarily in his hands. Similarly in the case of impurity also if the man become defiled, the contamination affects substances that may be lying on his shoulders also. Similarly purification is obtained by washing. Hence the man should perform the washing by removing the substance from his hand and keeping it on his fore-arm, in his lap or in some other part part of his body. The meaning is that just as the impurity of the man makes the substance impure so also; the purification of the man renders the substance pure.

Gautama has declared that—‘The man with a substance in hand, happening to become unclean, should wash after having kept away the substance’ (1.28). This they explain as follows: Though both (washing and keeping away) are spoken of together, yet it is the keeping away that is meant to be enjoined by this text, otherwise all that would be necessary in the circumstances would be the purifying of both himself and the substance; and where would there be any necessity for the keeping away of the substance? Hence, since, in the absence of the text quoted, there would be no possibility of the keeping away, this text must be taken as meant only for enjoining this latter. “How then would the substance be purified?” It would be purified by being held by the pure person,—or by the ‘washing’ prescribed by another Smṛti-text: viz: ‘while dealing with foods and drinks if one happens to touch an unclean thing, he should wash the article and then sip water: in this manner it does not become defiled.’

“In the present verse nothing is said regarding the necessity of having to keep away the substance, and yet if it were to be taken as implied, the phrase ‘without laying down’ would be absolutely futile.”

As a matter of fact, the same purpose runs through all Smṛtis; and yet from the direct words of the texts in the present instance we understand that there is a clear difference of opinion (between Manu and Gautama). So that the two should be regarded as optional alternatives; and the rule determining the option would be that—(a) if the substance is a heavy one it shall be laid aside, otherwise it may be kept on the body,—or (b) when the man himself eats the food (carried), or he touches a large quantity of unclean things, or is touched by a person who should have washed but has not yet washed,—in all these cases the touching of the substance would be a source of uncleanliness (141)