Verse 11.11-12

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

यज्ञश्चेत् प्रतिरुद्धः स्यादेकेनाङ्गेन यज्वनः ।
ब्राह्मणस्य विशेषेन धार्मिके सति राजनि ॥ ११ ॥
यो वैश्यः स्याद् बहुपशुर्हीनक्रतुरसोमपः ।
कुटुम्बात् तस्य तद् द्रव्यमाहरेद् यज्ञसिद्धये ॥ १२ ॥

yajñaścet pratiruddhaḥ syādekenāṅgena yajvanaḥ |
brāhmaṇasya viśeṣena dhārmike sati rājani || 11 ||
yo vaiśyaḥ syād bahupaśurhīnakraturasomapaḥ |
kuṭumbāt tasya tad dravyamāhared yajñasiddhaye || 12 ||

During the reign of a righteous king, if the sacrificial rite of a sacrificer, specially of a Brāhmaṇa, be interrupted for want of one requisite,—that substance may be appropriated, for the completion of that sacrifice, from the house of a Vaiśya possessed of many cattle, who does not perform sacrifices and does not drink the Soma.—(11-12)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 11.11-12)

Inasmuch as the text speaks of the requisite, it follows that the appropriation here permitted applies, not only to the gold necessary for the making up of the sacrificial fee, but also to animals and other things necessary for the sacrifice. All that the text lays down is the appropriation of the thing, and not the mode by which it should be done. Hence the thing may he acquired either by begging, or by exchange or by stealing.

“But it has been said that ownership is not acquired by stealing.”

There is no force in this objection. Since it is directly laid down here, in so many words, that the thing shall be ‘appropriated’; and it has also been said that ‘a sacrifice may be accomplished even by doing a mean act.’

There is nothing to show whether this ‘appropriation’ is permitted only in a case where a sacrifice having been begun, all its requisites are at hand, with the exception of a single article,—or also when it is intended to be taken in hand.

‘Specially of a Brāhmaṇa’—This shows that for the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya also the said appropriation under the said circumstance is permitted.

“What Kṣatriya is there who would beg? Specially as begging is absolutely impossible for the Kṣatriya.”

What you say is not enough. For the Brāhmaṇa also, stealing is forbidden. The fact of the matter is that there is no restriction regarding the method to be employed in the appropriation under the said circumstances.

^‘During the reign of a righteous king’— This is purely reiterative. If the king is righteous and knows the law, he would know that under tin; peculiar circumstances stealing is permitted, and hence the sacrificer would he emboldened to do the appropriation. If, on the other hand, the king did not know the law, he would punish the said appropriation like ordinary theft; and hence under his rule no one would think of doing it.

‘Possessing many cattle’—This stands for all kinds of wealth.

‘Who does not perform sacrifices’—i.e., who does not do any righteous act, in the shape of giving gifts and so forth.

‘Kuṭumba’ stands here for the house. It is stealing from the house that is exceptionally objectionable; hence it is this that is permitted. But no such restriction is meant as that it should be taken ‘from the house’ only; it may be taken also from the threshing yard and such other places, where the particular thing may be available; specially as it is going to be declared later on (Verse 17)—‘either from the threshing yard, or from the field, or from the house.’—(11-12)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

(verse 11.12)

According to Nārāyaṇa and Nandana, ‘the king’ is the agent to be understood with the verb ‘āharet’, ‘may take’;—this being supported by a parallel passage in the Mahābhārata which ends with ‘Yajñārthampārthivo haret’.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.11-14)

Mahābhārata (12.165.6-9).—(Same as Manu.)

Gautama (18.24-27).—‘In order to defray the expenses of a wedding,—and when engaged in a rite enjoined by the secred texts, one may take money from a Śūdra,—or from a man rich in small cattle who neglects his religious duties, though he does not belong to the Śūdra caste,—or from the owner of a hundred cows who has not laid the fire;—or from the owner of a thousand cows who does not drink Soma.’