History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.50

v4.c63.t2.50

¹³⁰⁷ गोत्ररिक्थे जनयितुर्न हरेत् दत्रिमः क्वचित् । गोत्ररिक्थानुगः पिण्डो व्यपैति ददतः स्वधा ॥ मनु IX. 142. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 132 and V. Mayūkha p. 115 read 'न भजेद् दत्रिमः सुतः'. But this reading makes no change whatever in the meaning, since in ancient sūtras and smṛtis, the roots '*bhaj*' and '*hṛ*' and derivatives from them are used promiscuously in the same sense with regard to gotra and riktha. Vide the words gotra-bhājaḥ and riktha-bhājaḥ cited above (on p. 650) from Baud. Dh. S. II. 2. 36-37 and Gaut. 28. 30-31, the words 'rikthaṁ bhajeran' (in Gaut. 28. 19) and 'rikthabhāk' (in Gaut. 28. 26), Vas. 17. 84 (tayoralābhe rājā haret), Yāj. II. 132 (पिण्डदोंशहरश्चैषां) and II. 138 (दद्यादपहरेच्चांशं), विष्णुधर्मसूत्र 15. 40 (यश्चार्थहरः स पिण्डदायी). Even 'apaharet' which ordinarily means 'should steal or take away' is used by Yāj. II. 138 only in the sense of 'should take or claim'. Manu (IX. 153 and 154) employs the words 'haret' and 'ādadīyāt' in the same sense. Vide also रिक्थभाक् (in Manu IX. 155) and भजेरन् (in IX. 192). Therefore the learned Judges in *Dattatraya v. Govind* 40 Bom. 429 and in *Bai Kesarba v. Shivsangji* 34 Bom. L. R. 1332 (at pp. 1340-41) unnecessarily enter into a long discussion on 'haret' and 'bhajet' and the several translations of these words by Golapchandra Sarkar and others.