Verse 8.232

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

नष्टं विनष्टं कृमिभिः श्वहतं विषमे मृतम् ।
हीनं पुरुषकारेण प्रदद्यात् पाल एव तु ॥ २३२ ॥

naṣṭaṃ vinaṣṭaṃ kṛmibhiḥ śvahataṃ viṣame mṛtam |
hīnaṃ puruṣakāreṇa pradadyāt pāla eva tu || 232 ||

The keeper alone should make good what has strayed, or been destroyed by worms, or killed by dogs, or has perished in an unsafe place,—if it was left without human aid.—(232)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Strayed’—the cattle that has disappeared from sight, and one does not know where it has gone to.

‘Destroyed by worms’;—Worms called ‘ārśaka’ enter through the genital organs of the cow and kill it.

‘Killed by dogs’;—this is mentioned only by way of illustration; so that the same rule applies to the case of cattle being killed by jackals, tigers and other wild animals.

‘In an unsafe place’;—such as holes, pits, stony places and so forth.

All this ‘the keeper shall make good.’—‘if it has been left without human aid.’—The ‘human aid’ in such cases would consist in remaining near the cattle and lighting the stick for keeping away wolves and other animals; and when they are left without all this care. In a case where the man, himself on the point of death, is unable to scare away the tiger—or where if the cattle, running fast, happen to fall into a pit, from which it could not be turned back by the keeper, even when he would be following it,—no fault can lie with the keeper.—(232)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Kṛmibhiḥ’—‘A special kind of worm called Ārohakas’ (Medhātithi) ‘snakes and so forth’ (Rāghavānanda).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 773), which adds that the keeper is to make good the loss by paying the price of the animal lost;—and that ‘nāśa’ of the animal here meant is its being not found, lost;—in Mitākṣarā (2.164), as describing the loss of cattle through carelessness;—in Vivādaratnākara (p. 173), which adds the following notes:—‘Naṣṭam,’ stolen;—‘vinaṣṭam,’ destroyed—by whom?—‘by worms’;—the ‘dog’ stands for other animals also;—‘viṣame,’ place difficult of access; such as the hill-top and so forth;—‘puruṣakāreṇa,’ care and means of rescue adopted by the keeper;—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 81), which has the following notes:—‘Naṣṭam’ stolen by thieves and others,—i.e., what became lost for want proper care on the part of the keeper,—this negligence being the reason why the man should be made to make good the loss;—in Kṛtyakalpataru (105a), which says that ‘śva’ in ‘śvahatam’ stands for carnivorous animals in general;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 1362), which explains ‘viṣame’ as ‘in an inaccessible place,’ and ‘hīnaṃ puruṣakāreṇa’ as ‘what has been destroyed for want of that care which was possible for man to give.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (5.138).—‘The cowherd shall make good to the owner the value of the cattle that may have perished.’

Yājñavalkya (2.165).—‘If a cattle is destroyed through the fault of the cowherd, he shall be fined 13½ Paṇas and made to make good the value of the cattle to the owner.’

Nārada (6.13-15).—‘Should the cowherd neither struggle to save the cow, nor raise a cry, nor announce it to his master, he must make good the value of the cow to the owner, and pay a fine to the King. The cowherd shall make good the value of the cow that has strayed, or been destroyed by worms, or slain by dogs, or met her death by tumbling into a pit,—if he did not duly exert himself to prevent such accidents.’

Brahmapurāṇa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 171).—‘If a cowherd who has received wages leaves the cattle in the desolate forest and roams about in the village, he should be beaten by the King. If a cow under the charge of a cowherd dies through his fault, he should be punished and made to pay a fee to the owner of the cow. If however the cow dies at the house of the owner, through disease or such causes, the owner should he punished and made to pay the wages of the cowherd.’

Āpastamba (2.28.6).—‘If a herdsman who has taken cattle under his care, allows them to perish, or loses them through his negligence, he shall make them good to the owners.’