Manava Dharmashastra 5.37

5.37

yadyeṣāṃ buddhiḥ syāt—‘‘sītāyajñakhaṇḍiyajñacaṇḍikāyāgādiṣu samācārapramāṇeṣu, paśuvadhaḥ phalakāmasya nyāyyaḥ, dṛṣṭā hi paśuvadhopayācitakenātiśayavatī sasyasampattiriti’’— tanniṣedhārthamāha | saṅge prastāvātpaśuvadhaprasaṅge ghṛtapaśuṃ kuryāt ghṛtapaśumeva kuryāt | paśunā yaṣṭavye tatsthāne ghṛtena yajeta devatāḥ | taddhi sāmānyena yāgadravyam | athavā piṣṭapaśuṃ piṣṭamayapaśupratikṛtiṃ kṛtvā devatābhya upaharet, piṣṭena vā puroḍāśādi kṛtvā | ‘‘kathamayaṃ vṛthā paśuvadhaḥ ucyate | hiṃsāyāṃ samācāraḥ pramāṇam’’ | nanu strīśūdrajanānāmavaidyatvānnātra vedamūlatā śakyā kalpayitum | devatārādhanārthaṃ tadā hyetadācaranti| na ca devatārādhanārthāni vaidikāni karmāṇi, guṇatvena devatā śruteḥ | anvayavyatirekamūlatāṃ cātrecchanti, dṛśyate paśuvadhopayācitakena phalasampattiriti manyamānāḥ | ato na vedamūlatā | anvayavyatirekāvapi bhrāntimātram | asakṛdvyabhicārāt | ato'yaṃ śloko nyāyaprāptārthānuvāda eva sauhārdādācāryeṇa paṭhitaḥ |

If there is occasion, he shall make an animal of clarified butter, or an animal of flour; but he shall never seek to kill an animal needlessly.—(37)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
People are likely to entertain such ideas as the following—“at the Sītā - yajña the Khañjikā-yāga, the Caṇḍikā-yāga and the like, which are performed on the authority of usage only, it is right for the man desiring a certain result to kill animals; for it has been found that one obtains a rich harvest by offering sacrifices at which animals are killed.”

With a view to set aside such notions the text says—‘It there is occasion,’—if necessity arises for the offering of an animal in sacrifice,—‘he shall make an animal of clarified butter’; i.e., he shall make clarified butter the sacrificial animal: that is, it being necessary to otter an animal to the Gods, he shall offer, in its place, clarified butter: which is as good a ‘sacrificial material’.

‘Or, he shall make an animal of flour’; i.e. he shall make the figure of an animal with flour, and offer that figure to the Gods; or, it may be taken to mean that ‘instead of the animal he shall offer cakes and other things made of flour’.

“Why is this called needless animal-slaughter, when it is sanctioned by the usage of cultured people?”

Since women, and Śūdras are ignorant of the Veda, such sacrifices as those mentioned cannot be assumed to have any sanction in the Veda: specially as people have reconrse (recourse?) to these sacrifices for the purpose of propitiating the Gods, and no Vedic act is done for the propitiating of Gods; for the simple reason that in connection with Vedic rites, Gods have been mentioned as subordinate factors. In fact, what they urge in support of the performance of the sacrifices in question is the argument based upon negative and positive induction, from the experience that there is rich harvest when Gods are propitiated with the sacrifice of animals. For these reasons, these sacrifices cannot be regarded as having the sanction of the Veda. As for the positive and negative induction that also is entirely mistaken.

From all this it is clear that the present verse only reiterates what is already indicated as the right course by al (all?) kinds of reasons: and it has been put forward by the author through feelings of friendly kindliness.—(37)