Verse 4.27

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

नानिष्ट्वा नवसस्येष्ट्या पशुना चाग्निमान् द्विजः ।
नवान्नमद्यात्मांसं वा दीर्घमायुर्जिजीविषुः ॥ २७ ॥

nāniṣṭvā navasasyeṣṭyā paśunā cāgnimān dvijaḥ |
navānnamadyātmāṃsaṃ vā dīrghamāyurjijīviṣuḥ || 27 ||

Without having performed the New-Harvest sacrifice, and the animal Sacrifice, the Brāhmaṇa, who has set up the fire, shall not eat new grain or meat,—if he desires to live a long life.—(27)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The term ‘Agnimān’ must stand here for one who has set up the Fire; because ‘observances’ form the subject matter of the context; and it is in connection with the Agnihotra-homa that we have ‘observances’ laid down in the Yajur-veda.

Without having performed the Animal Sacrifice, he shall not eat meat, nor shall be eat new grain without having performed the New-Harvest Sacrifice.

The text next describes the reward accruing from the observing of this rule—‘if he desires to live a long life.’ The term, ‘āyu,’ ‘life,’ denotes the function of the out-and-in-breathings operating continuously. Even though the verb, to live,’ is intransitive, yet we have the accusative ending, in view of the action of ‘desiring,’—this act of desiring being expressed by the verb (‘to live) as ending in the desiderative affix ‘san.’ Though, as a matter of fact, the object of the act of ‘desiring’ is what is denoted by the root to which the desiderative is affixed (i.e., living), and not anything outside the desiderative term itself,—and the desire is subordinate to what is desired,—yet there need be nothing incongruous in the suggested construction, in view of the dictum that ‘the basic term and the affix jointly denote what is expressed by the affix’; so that the accusative ending may be attributed to what is expressed by the desiderative word as a whole. According to this view also, the term ‘āyti’ ‘life,’ would he indicative of a period of time, the meaning being ‘if he desires a life lasting for a long time.’ So that the accusative would he due to the dictum that ‘in the case of intransitive verbs, the time-period may be regarded as an object.’

This rule, relating to the man with the Fire performing the Animal Sacrifice, applies to the case of the Āgrayaṇa sacrifice also. Because the Gṛhya texts have prescribed the Āgrayaṇa as an obligatory rite for one who has only the domestic fire.

As for the rule that ‘the New-Harvest Sacrifice is to be performed in the autumn,’ this refers to the Vrīhi and the Śyāmāka grains, not to the Yava. Nor is it necessary to perform the Harvest-Sacrifice at each and every harvest; nor is it performed with such grains as the Māṣa, the Mudga, and the like. That all this is so follows from the fact that the present text is dependent upon other scriptural injunctions, and it is not itself a self-sufficient injunction, as we have already explained. And in other scriptural injunctions it has been laid down that the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi is to be performed with the Vrīhi, the Śyāmāka and the Yam.

Though this is so, yet other. grains also should not be eaten, until the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi has been performed; since it has been stated in general terms that ‘he shall eat no new grains and if the author had meant to prohibit the eating of only those grains with which the Āgrayaṇeṣṭi is performed, then he should have said—‘He shall not eat the Vrīhi, the Śyāmāka and the Yava, until he has made the offering;’ while what the author of the Sūtra has said is—‘The Āgrayaṇa is to be performed with the Vrīhi, the Śyāmāka and the Vara; one shall eat no new grains until one has made the offering;’ so that the term ‘grain’ cannot stand for any particular grains only.—(27).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gobhila-Smṛti (3.94).—‘The man who eats new grains without having offered it in sacrifice, for him the expiation consists in making the Vaiśvānara offering.’