Verse 9.70

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

यथाविध्यधिगम्यैनां शुक्लवस्त्रां शुचिव्रताम् ।
मिथो भजेता प्रसवात् सकृत्सकृद् ऋतावृतौ ॥ ७० ॥

yathāvidhyadhigamyaināṃ śuklavastrāṃ śucivratām |
mitho bhajetā prasavāt sakṛtsakṛd ṛtāvṛtau || 70 ||

When he has, according to rule, espoused her, clad in white garments and pure in her observances, they shall approach each other once in each season, until issue.—(70)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘According to rule’—in accordance with the rules laid down in the scriptures.

‘Has espoused her’—This would be ‘espousal’ or ‘marriage’ only in name; as the maiden in such a case would he called a ‘punarbhū,’ ‘a remarried widow’; and even though married, she could not be a ‘wife’ (in the real sense of the term); her marriage, which is nominal, being only for a defenite purpose. That this is so is shown in the next verse—‘Having given away his daughter to one man, one shall not give her to another,’—which means, that she should not be given to her younger brother-in-law either; and when she is not given away—and as such does not become the property of the man—how could she he his ‘wife’?

‘Clad in white garments’;—this is a rule that is to be observed by the man approaching the woman; it is to be observed also in other cases of ‘authorisation.’—(70)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted along with 69 in Mitākṣarā (2.127), which adds the following notes:—‘Yathāvidhi,’ in accordance with the scriptures,—‘adhigamya’, having married,—‘anena vidhānena,’ (of the preceding verse) i.e., ‘besmearing himself with clarified butter, with speech held in check and so forth’,—‘śuklavastrām śucivratām,’ with her mind and body under full control,—‘mithaḥ,’ in secret,—shall approach her once during each course, till conception takes place. It proceeds to declare that all this does not make the woman the actual ‘wife’ of the brother-in-law; hence the child bora of this union belongs to the real (i.e., the former) husband;—Bālambhaṭṭī adds that the action of the brother-in-law is purely for the purpose of providing a child for his dead brother; it goes on to add the following notes Kullūka Bhaṭṭa remarks that the fact of the child born of the intercourse here sanctioned belonging to the dead betrothed is clear from the restriction imposed, that there is to be intercourse only once during the course, and that also only until conception takes place.—Having thus stated the view of the older writers, Bālambhaṭṭī enters into a long discussion and comes to the conclusion that the sanction of remarriage must refer to a regular widow—who loses her real husband after full marriage, and not only after betrothal; and it naively remarks that the opinion of the older writers is due to prejudice against ‘niyoga,’ by reason of its having been forbidden during the Kaliyuga.

It is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 129), which also quotes Kullūka Bhaṭṭa’s remark (quoted in Bālambhaṭṭī above). It goes on to add that what is here laid down should be done only if the woman concerned is willing to do it, not otherwise; as is clearly declared by Vaśiṣṭha.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 351);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 737).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.69-70)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.69.