Manava Dharmashastra 5.81

5.81

rājaśabdo'yamabhiṣekādiguṇayogini varṇamātre lakṣaṇyā vartate | yata āha yasya syādviṣaye sthitaḥ | jātiviśeṣāvacchinnaviṣayeśvaravacanatve lakṣaṇā, na ca śabdārthaḥ | sajyotiḥ | saha jyotiṣā vartate | divā prete dinaiva, rātrau tu tannāsti | evaṃ rātrau rātrireva nāhaḥ | idameva jñāpakamanyatra rātrigrahaṇe'hargrahaṇe'pyahorātrapratipatteḥ | yathā ‘rātribhirmāsatulyābhirutryahamekāhamiti’ | ‘ahnā caikene’tyatra tu rātrigrahaṇaṃ pādapūraṇārtham | rātrāvagnijyotiḥ | evaṃ hyagnihotrabrāhmaṇe ‘agninā vai tejasā tejasvinyādityena tejasā na bhavati’ | aśrotriye'vedādhyāyini, anūcāne, kṛtsnamahaḥ | rātrau na bhavatyeva—utpanne'pi rātrau nimitte | “kathaṃ punaraśrotriye'nūcāne | evaṃ hi smaryate ‘pravacane sāṅge'dhītīti’|” satyaṃ pravaktā'pyanūcāna ucyate | tenaivaṃ kathañcidaṅgādigranthārthānyaḥ pravakti tasminnayamaharvidhiḥ | upasampanne ca gurau pūjyatvena mukhye, ācārye vā vidhyantarabhāvāt | kecittu śrotriye tvityatra nañaṃ sambadhnanti | iha nañaḥ praśleṣeṇa yo'nyeṣāmupādhyāyastasya ca na kaścitpremaṃ vidhimācakṣate |

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):
The name ‘rājan’ is really applied indirectly to the man of a particular caste as endowed with the qualifications of anointment and the rest; that it is so is clear from the clause‘in whose realm he lives.’ In fact when the word signifies the lord of a country belonging to a particular caste, it does so only by indirect indication, and not by direct denotation.

‘Till the light’—i.e., it continues along with the light. That is, if the death occurs during the day, the impurity lasts during the day only, and it does not go on into the night; similarly if the death occurs at night, it lasts during the night only, and does not extend to the day. The fact that the text has used this peculiar expression—‘sajyotiḥ’, ‘till the light’—in the present context (when only day, and only night are meant),—is indicative of the fact that whenever the term ‘day’ or ‘night’ is used, it means both day and night; e.g., in verses 5.66 and 5.59. in 5.64 also, where the term ‘night’ is used in addition to the term ‘day’, it is added only for the purpose of filling up the metre.

At night, the ‘light’ is that of fire, as we rend in the Brāhmaṇa-text bearing upon the Agnihotra—‘The night becomes resplendent with the light of fire, not with the light of the Sun.’

In the case of the ‘non-learned’—who does not study the Veda—‘teacher’—it lasts during the whole day; it does not extend to the night, even when the cause of impurity happens during the night.

“How can a ‘non-learned’ man be a ‘teacher’? In fact it is only one who has learnt the Veda along with its subsidiary sciences that is entitled to do the work of teaching.”

True; but a mere expounder is also called a ‘teacher.’ Hence what is meant is that ‘in the case of the person who has, somehow, learnt the subsidiary sciences (without learning the Veda) and expounds them, the impurity lasts during the day.’ That this must be the meaning is indicated by the fact that there is a distinct rule reference to the Teacher who is properly qualified, or to the Initiating Preceptor, who is the principal object of reverence.

Some people connect the negative prefix in ‘non-learned’ with the term ‘teacher’; and explain the rule laid down as referring to ‘the learned man who is the teacher of other persons, and bears no relation to the person concerned’.—(81).