Verse 11.100

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

गृहीत्वा मुसलं राजा सकृद्द् हन्यात् तु तं स्वयम् ।
वधेन शुध्यति स्तेनो ब्राह्मणस्तपसैव तु ॥ १०० ॥

gṛhītvā musalaṃ rājā sakṛdd hanyāt tu taṃ svayam |
vadhena śudhyati steno brāhmaṇastapasaiva tu || 100 ||

Taking up a club, the King himself shall strike him once. The thief becomes purified by death; but the Brāhmaṇa by penance alone.—(100)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Club’—a particular kind of stick, made of iron or wood.

‘Once,’ ‘himself’—both of these are meant to be emphasised.

‘Becomes purified by death.’—The man shall be struck only; it does not matter whether or not he dies by it; he becomes purified by the stroke of the club.

‘The Brāhmaṇa by penance’—as described below. Here also stress is not meant to be laid upon the term ‘Brāhmaṇa.’ It is for this reason that the next verse contains the term ‘twice-born person’ (in general).

Though the stealing of Kṛṣṇala (grains of gold, used at certain sacrifices) is a serious crime, yet, what is here laid down should be understood as pertaining to the stealing of a hundred gold-pieces. It has been explained that punishment and expiation proceed on the same lines; and, in connection with punishments, it has been said that ‘death shall be the penalty when more than a hundred gold-pieces have been stolen’ (8.321); hence the expiation here put forward should also be taken as pertaining to the stealing of the same quantity.

As regards the assertion that the thief becomes pure by death, it is understood to be based upon the passage—‘For him the King shall take up a weapon made of Udumbara wood, and kill him with it, and he becomes pure by that death.’ And this refers to a case where the stealer is a Kṣatriya or one lower still, and the owner is a highly qualified person.

When, however, the man is prepared to die, he may be made to refund what he has stolen and smeared with butter, live upon cow-dung (?).—(100)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Tapasaiva tu.’—“Kullūka thinks that it indicates that, while a Brāhmaṇa must never be slain by the king, other Āryans also may perform austerities.—According to Rāghavānanda it refers to the optional recitation of the Gāyatri 700,000 times;—according to Nārāyaṇa to other penances, even such as end in death;—Govindarāja takes it as referring to those prescribed in the next verse.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Prāyaścitta, p. 414), which adds the following notes:—The alternative of ‘killing’ is meant for one who is a Brāhmaṇa in name only while ‘austerity’ is for one who is endowed with such qualities as being devoted to sacrifices and so forth. It goes on to add that the death-penalty is meant for cases of intentional stealing; unintentional stealing of gold being possible in cases where a man steals a piece of cloth, to which (unknown to him) a piece of gold may be tied. It adds that the particular ‘austerity’ is, meant as described by Manu himself in the next verse.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 1079), which adds that the term ‘vipraḥ’ does not preclude the other castes; it is emphasised only with a view to indicate that what is here stated is an exception to the general prohibition ‘the Brāhmaṇa shall not he killed this general prohibition is of that act of killing to which one is prompted by mere passion; in the case in question the killing is done as an act of justice, and at the request of the culprit himself. In fact the omission of this act of justice would involve the king in sin.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (3.267), which adds the following note—On being struck once, if the culprit dies, he becomes absolved from his sin; but even if he do not die when struck, he becomes absolved from the sin;—and again, to the effect that, the killing of the Brāhmaṇa under the said circumstances is permissible;—and in Prayaścittaviveka (p. 117).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.99-102)

[See above 8.314-316.]

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.99.