Verse 3.18

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

दैवपित्र्यातिथेयानि तत्प्रधानानि यस्य तु ।
नाश्नन्ति पितृदेवास्तन्न च स्वर्गं स गच्छति ॥ १८ ॥

daivapitryātitheyāni tatpradhānāni yasya tu |
nāśnanti pitṛdevāstanna ca svargaṃ sa gacchati || 18 ||

If the rites performed by one in honour of deities, Pitṛs and Guests are dominated by her (his Śūdra wife), then the Pitṛs and the Gods do not eat of them; and the man does not go to heaven.—(18)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This prohibition pertains to all times.

Even if a Śūdra girl happens to be married, the rites, herein mentioned, should not be performed in a manner by which she might dominate them. That is to say, the Śūdra wife is not entitled to participate in the husband’s religious acts, in the manner in which wives of the three higher castes arc.

Since she is a ‘wife,’ it might be thought that she is so entitled; and it is in view of the possibility of such notion being entertained that we have the present prohibition. The meaning thus is that when one is going to spend his wealth over some religious act, he need not seek her consent, in the way he seeks that of his wives of the twice-born castes; in other cases, however—such as the expenses incurred for seeking prosperity and obtaining pleasure,—she is not to be disregarded. That she should be employed, like a servant, during the performance of Śrāḍdha, &c., is not prohibited; e.g., there would be no harm if she were to thresh corn and so forth; but she should not be made to serve food and do such other acts.

‘Rites in honour of deities’ are (1) the Daśa-pūrnamāsa and other sacrifices, and (2) the feeding of Brāhmaṇas in honour of Deities, as already explained by us under 2.180.

‘Rites in honour of Pitṛs’—i.e., Śrāddhas and offering of water-libations.

‘Rites in honour of guests’—i.e., the reception and feeding of guests, and offering them water for washing their feet, and so forth.

“The prohibition here put forth is already implied by the rule that wives of one’s own caste should not be superseded by other wives.”

Not so; because the rule speaks of the wife of the same caste being actually present. Hence people might he led. to argue as follows—“If the wife of the Brāhmaṇa’s own caste happens to be in her courses, or absent, then his Śūdra wife may preside over the rites, just like his Kṣatriya and Vaiśya wives; further, the prohibition contained in the rule referred to pertains, not to her title to preside, but simply to the act of examining the clarified butter and so forth, which are done by the wife in accordance with the rule that the clarified butter used at sacrifices should be such as has been examined by the wife; and, as the rule simply mentions the general name ‘wife,’ it may be taken to mean that the act may be done by any wife that has been obtained.”

And it is with a view to prevent this being done,—and of wives of different castes doing the said acts in the same way in which they are done by any one wife from among several wives of the same caste,—that we have the present prohibition.

The ‘domination,’ by the wife is due to her being entitled to the act.

‘The deities and the Pitṛs do not eat of it;’—this means that the acts become futile.

‘He does not go to heaven;’—i.e., if the guest takes food, the householder fails to attain Heaven, which he would attain as the result of his having fed his guests. ‘Heaven’ here stands for all those rewards that have been described as proceeding from the ‘honouring of guests,’ and it is a reference to all that has been said under 3. 106.—(18).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 88), which explains it to mean that ‘she should not be allowed to take a prominent part in the offerings made to the Gods and Pitṛs;’—and in Smṛticandrikā (Saṃskāra, p. 206), which explains ‘tatpradhānāni’ as ‘at which the Śūdra wife presides.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 3.13-19)

See Comparative notes for Verse 3.13.