Manava Dharmashastra 5.33

5.33

pūrvoktāddevādyarcanaśiṣṭāt brāhmaṇākāmanādinimittāt antaraṃ yadbhakṣaṇaṃ so'vidhistena nāśnīyāt māṃsam | uktānuvādo'yam | āpadi prāṇātyaye devādyarcanamapi nāpekyam | "nanu caitadapi nimittatayoktameva | tataśca vidhirevāyaṃ nāvidhiḥ |" satyam | prokṣitasambandhādrovyasyaiva tatra saṃnidhānādāṅkāryā śaśādiviṣaye'bhyanujñānārthamanāpadītyucyate | vidhyarthānuṣṭhānaparo vidhijña ucyate | tathā laukikānuṣṭhāne'pi jānātirupacārātprayujyate | eṣa sa tajjānātīti anuṣṭhānapare prayujyate | atra phalakathāyāṃ—jagdhvā aśāboyeṇa nimittena| pretya mṛtastaiḥ prāṇibhiravaśo'dyate | yena viṣayeṇa yo yeṣāṃ māṃsamaśnāti tasya vividhā pīḍā bhavati, etāvanmātraparametat | anyathā prāyeṇa chāgādimāṃsamaśnanti lokāḥ, na ca chāgādayo māṃsāśinaḥ | athavā tatkṛtena pāpena kravyādbhirapyadyamānastairadyata ityucyate |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
That is called ‘unlawful’ which is done apart from the above-sanctioned occasions—of the worshipping of the Gods, the wish of the Brāhmaṇas and so forth; and in this ‘unlawful’ manner one shall not eat meat.

This is only a reiteration of what has been said before.

‘In normal times’.—In abnormal times of distress, when one’s life is in danger, he need not wait for the worship of the Gods etc.

“Danger to life has already been sanctioned as one of the occasions on which meat may be eaten; so that such eating would be quite lawful, not unlawful.”

True; but what has been said on the previous occasion was in connection with the consecrated meat of the cow, the sheep and the goat; and in the present text the phrase ‘in normal times’ has been added with a view to extend the sanction to the meat of the hare and other animals also.

It is not the mere knower of the law that is called ‘conversant with the late’ but one who, in practice acts up to the law. In connection with ordinary worldly acts also the term ‘know,’ ‘be conversant with,’ is used in this sense; when it is said of a man ‘he knows this’, what is meant is that ‘he acts up to it’.

When the question arises regarding the effect of the act in question, the text says —‘Having eaten meat unlawfully,’—i.e. in a manner not prescribed in the scriptures—‘he shall, on death, he devoured’, by those animals. All that is meant—is that when a man eats meat in an unlawful manner, he suffers various kinds of pain. If these were not meant by the passage (and if it were taken in its literal sense),—then, in as much us it is the meat of the goat that is commonly eaten by people, and the goat is a not carnivorous animal [how could it ‘devour’ its eater?]

Or, the meaning may be that the eater, by virtue of the sin of that act, comes to be devoured by carnivorous animals; and as this would be the result of his having eaten the goat, he would be described as being devoured by the goat.—(33)