Manava Dharmashastra 5.157

5.157

pūrveṇāpadi jīvikārthaḥ parapuruṣasaṃsargo niṣiddho'nena putrārthā pravṛttirniṣidhyate | evaṃ kila śrūyate “nāputrasya loko'sti” iti | liṅgaṃ ca tatrāvivakṣitamataḥ putrārthe prasaṅga idamucyate | bahūni sahastrāṇi 'kumārā eva brahmacāriṇo''kṛtadārā naiṣṭhikāsteṣāmanekāni sahasrāṇi divaṃgatāni svargaṃ prāpnuvanti | niyogastu navame ( ślo0 56 i0 ) gurvicchayā vihitaḥ, nātmatantratayā putrārthinyāḥ | akṛtvā kulasantatiṃ kulavṛddhyarthā saṃtatistāmakṛtvā putrānajanayitvetyarthaḥ | anekānīti nañsamāsasyottarapadārthaprādhānyena bahuvacanaṃ cintyam | satyapyekatvapratiṣedhe dvayādisaṃkhyāvacanaṃ durlabham | tathā hyayaṃ svadharmāveśena parityaktasvagatikatvenācchāditatadrūpo'pyatidīrghasaṃkhyāviśeṣānācaṣṭe | yathā mokṣe grāma iti | uktaṃ ca cūrṇikākāreṇa “anekasmāditisiddhyatīti” | ekavacanaprayogaśiṣṭisiddhiṃ darśitavān | asahāyavacano vā'yamanekaśabdaḥ | asahāyāni gatāni, bhāryā sahāyabhūtā eṣāṃ nāsīdityarthaḥ |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The preceding verse has prohibited intercourse with another man for the purpose of maintenance; the present verse prohibits it, if betaken to for the purpose of continuing the race.

It has been declared that ‘there is no heaven for the childless person (‘aputrasya’).’ But in this sentence no significance attaches to the masculine gender used. In view of this text a widow might be prompted to take to another husband; and it is for meeting such a case that we have the present text.

‘Many thousands of unmarried students’—life-long celebates—‘have gone to heaven’—do go to heaven.

As for the‘Niyoga’ that is prescribed for the widow in Discourse IX, that refers to a case where she is commanded to do so by her elders and not where she herself desires offspring.

‘Without having perpetuated their race’—The begetting of offspring is for the purpose of perpetuating one’s race; and they did not do it; i.e., they did not beget children.

‘Many, anekāni’.—In a negative compound the latter term forms the predominant factor: hence the use of the plural ending is open to question. Even though the compound contains the negation of unity, vet plurality is inadmissible. What the word signifies therefore is a very large number, though its exact nature is not expressed, and the character of unity is abandoned. Just as it is in the case of such words as ‘modat’ (?), ‘grāmaḥ’ and the like which denote multitude. Says the author of the Cūrṇikā—‘The form anekasmāt becomes justified where he has declared the correctness of the use of the singular number.

Or, the term ‘aneka’ may signify‘alone, helpless’; the meaning being ‘the men who had become helpless by the death of their wife.’—(157).