Verse 8.207

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

दक्षिणासु च दत्तासु स्वकर्म परिहापयन् ।
कृत्स्नमेव लभेतांशमन्येनैव च कारयेत् ॥ २०७ ॥

dakṣiṇāsu ca dattāsu svakarma parihāpayan |
kṛtsnameva labhetāṃśamanyenaiva ca kārayet || 207 ||

He who abandons his work after the fees have been paid, should receive his full share; and the work should be got done by another.—(207)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The sacrificial fees are paid at the ‘Mid-day Extraction’; if a priest gives up his work after that, the fee paid to him shall not be refunded; he ‘should receive it’—i.e., he should not be made to refund it.

The work should be completed by the sacrificer, through another person, paying him an additional fee. This has been added with a view to preclude the following notion—“Everything in connection with sacrifices should be done by priests,—persons become priests when they have been appointed as such,—this appointment can be made only at the prescribed time, which is before the commencement of the performance, so that if an appointment were to be made during the performance, it would become defective,—and yet the performance has got to be finished,—and if it has to be finished in a defective form, I shall get only those details performed which can be done by the priests other than the one who has gone away.” The sense is that only that much of deficiency has to be admitted as cannot be avoided; and every little detail that can he done should be done.

Some people have held that the verb ‘should be got done’ is to be construed with the ‘priest’; the meaning being that the sacrificer shall pay to the remaining priests higher fees and get the abandoned work done by them, if he cannot do it himself; but, as before the payment of the final fee, the burden of finishing the performance rests with the sacrificer.—(207)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Kārayet’—‘The sacrificer should have it done by another priest’ (Medhātithi);—‘the defaulting priest should have it done by another (Nārāyaṇa, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 837);—in Paraśāramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 222), which explains ‘anyena’ as ‘by some from among that group of priests to which he himself belongs’;—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 118);—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 49), which says—‘if the priest leaves his work after, having received the fee after the midday rites, then he is to return the entire fee, and get the work completed by his son or others’;—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (89b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Yājñavalkya (2.265).—(See under 206.)

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 120).—‘After a Priest has been appointed, if the sacrificer appoint another, the fee shall be paid to the former; if he happen to go out for some time, then his return shall be awaited, and the sacrificer shall not go on with the performance during his absence. If the completion of the performance becomes urgent, he may have it completed; and on his return, the priest may be given some fee.’

Nārada (3.8-11).—‘When an officiating priest has met with an accident, another priest shall officiate for him, and receive from him his part of the fee. Where an officiating priest forsakes a sacrificer, who is no offender and is free from guilt,—or when a sacrificer forsakes a faultless priest,—they shall both be punished. There are three sorts of officiating priests: hereditary, appointed by the sacrificer himself, and one who performs the priestly functions of his own accord, through friendship; the above law applies to the hereditary and appointed priests; no sin attaches to the forsaking of the priest acting of his own accord.’