Verse 5.61

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

जननेऽप्येवमेव स्यान् मातापित्रोस्तु सूतकं ।
सूतकं मातुरेव स्यादुपस्पृश्य पिता शुचिः ॥ ६१ ॥

janane'pyevameva syān mātāpitrostu sūtakaṃ |
sūtakaṃ mātureva syādupaspṛśya pitā śuciḥ || 61 ||

Thus also should it be at a birth; but the parturient disability attaches to the parents only; or, the parturient disability would attach to the mother alone, and the father would become purified by bathing.—(61)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The same rule holds good regarding ‘birth’ among Sapiṇḍas. Just as in connection with death several alternative periods of impurity have been laid doom, in consideration of one’s livelihood depending upon the six acts (of giving and receiving gifts and so forth), and also upon the vastness or purity of one’s Vedic learning,—exactly the same holds good regarding cases of birth also; all that is meant to be applicable to the case of birth is impurity pure and simple, without any qualification of time; so that no specifications being found to be indicated here, the case of birth, through its own inherent aptitude, becomes connected with all that has been said (in the way of qualifications and limitations) in connection with death. On the other hand, if the words of the text were taken to indicate the application, to the case of birth, of impurity as specially limited by a particular period of time, then it would be connected only with the period of ten days, which is the principal alternative laid down; and in that case this same period would apply to the case of Vedic Study &c. also. Or, by the closer proximity of the mention of the alternative of the single-day-period, the case of birth would become connected with this latter period only; and thus having its wants supplied by this, it would have no connection with the other alternative periods of ‘three days’ and the rest. And in that case, even in the face of the limitations and restrictions due to livelihood and study, the present text would lay down the same single alternative in connection with both death and birth, and would, irrespective of all qualifications of the persons concerned, become conditioned by their caste only, and thus become incongruous and opposed to usage.

“Under this explanation, the alternative periods of three days and the rest would become applicable also to the women that have been delivered; and this would be contrary to all usage.”

The answer to this is as follows:—This would be the case only if what is laid down in the present verse (regarding the delivered woman) were an optional alternative. As a matter of fact however, the rule laid down is absolutely fixed. It is only thus that the use of the term tu “but” becomes justified.

Then again, the term ‘sūtaka’ used in the text does not directly denote impurity; it could only indirectly indicate the impurity as related to parturition (which is what is directly express sed by the word). But through indirect indication it would be far more reasonable to make it express untouchability, which is more nearly related to parturition. If all kinds of impurity were meant, then the author would have used the word ‘āśauca’ ‘impurity’, itself; and the line would have read ‘āśaucam mātureva syāt.’ From all this it follows that another Smṛti-text having laid down three days (for both parents), and the present text making no mention of any such period, what is here said regarding the ‘parturient disabiliy’ attaching ‘to the mother only’ is an optional alternative. So that between the father and the mother the option applies to the father only.

The father becomes pure after having bathed. This is only by way of a piefatory (prefatory?) statement; from what follows in the next verse the father also remains untouchable for three days. (61).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Medhātithi and Govindarāja omit the first line of 61 and the first line of 62; so that in the place of 61 and 62, they read only one verse made up of the second lines of both 61 and 62.

This verse is quoted in Hāralāta, (p. 15), which explains ‘evameva’ as standing for ‘ten days’ and other periods;—and in Śuddhimayūkha, (p. 37).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (14.14).—‘The rules regarding impurity caused by death of a relation are applicable to that caused by the birth of a child also;—in this case, the impurity falls on the parents,—or on the mother alone.’

Baudhāyana (1.11.1).—‘Referring to births and deaths, they declare that the impurity of Sapiṇḍas lasts ten days.’

Do. (1.11. 19-23).—‘On a birth indeed, the parents become impure for ten days; some declare that the mother alone becomes impure, because people avoid only lying-inwomen; others say that the father alone becomes impure, because the semen is the chief cause, the Veda speaking of sons born without mothers. Hut the correct opinion is that both the parents become impure, because they are equally connected with the event.’

Vaśiṣṭha (4.20-22).—‘The rule regarding impurity should bo exactly the same on the birth of a child, for those men who desire complete purity,—or for the mother and the father alone; according to some for the mother only; they quote the following text:—“On the birth of a child, the male does not become impure, if he does not touch the female.”’

Parāśara (3.31).—(Same as Manu.)

Yājñavalkya (3.10).—‘The impurity (on birth) attaches to the parents; but most certainly and completely to the mother. On the day of the birth however there is no impurity; since on that day the ancestors are born.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparārka, p. 896).—There is no impurity for the male, if he has no contact with the female.’