Verse 11.85

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

तेषां वेदविदो ब्रूयुस्त्रयोऽप्येनः सुनिष्कृतिम् ।
सा तेषां पावनाय स्यात् पवित्रा विदुषां हि वाक् ॥ ८५ ॥

teṣāṃ vedavido brūyustrayo'pyenaḥ suniṣkṛtim |
sā teṣāṃ pāvanāya syāt pavitrā viduṣāṃ hi vāk || 85 ||

If even three of them, learned in the Veda, expound the expiation for the offences, that shall suffice for their purification; as the word of learned men is purificatory.—(85)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This goes on to describe the necessity of men liable to expiation presenting themselves before the Congregation or Court; and the definition of this ‘Court’ is that—‘the Brāhmaṇas learned in the Veda constitute the Court.’

“It is declared (under 12.110) that the ‘Court should consist of at least ten men,’ or again (12.113)—‘a single person learned in the Veda.’”

The number ‘ten’ mentioned in the former text does not refer to the men; it refers to their qualifications; since in the verse following we find the qualifications enumerated—‘knowing the three Vedas, a logician, an exegetist etc., etc.’ (12.111). As regards the ‘single person learned in the Veda’ (12.113),—what this shows is that, even in the absence of the other qualifications—of being a logician and so forth,—if a man possesses the one qualification of knowing the Veda, he becomes qualified for serving on the ‘Court’

The present verse is meant to lay down the exact number of men constituting the ‘Court’ And even though the only qualification mentioned here is ‘knowledge of the Veda’ yet the others—being a logician and so forth,—are also understood. As otherwise mere ‘knowledge of the Veda’ could not be accepted as a definition of the ‘Court.’ All this we shall explain later on (under XII).

“If Vedic learning is not possible without the knowledge of Logic, Exegetics and the rest, wherefore has it been said that ‘even a single man learned in the Veda may make up the Court?’”

All that this latter declaration means is that, even in the absence of all other qualifications, Vedic learning alone by itself would constitute a sufficient qualification. All this we shall explain in connection with the text in question.

From all this it follows that when a man has incurred the liability to perform an expiation, he should question three men assembled together; as a single man is liable to make mistakes or become careles.

This recourse to the ‘Court’ must be taken even by persons who may be themselves learned; and the reason for this is that—‘the word of corned men is purificatory.’

Nor would this make ‘secret expiation’ impossible. Because in that case the offence would not be known to any person; and appearing before the Court is necessary only in cases where the offence has become known. It is what has been spoken of above (22)—‘By confession, by repentance etc, etc.’

This explanation, however, is not right What the present verse refers to is the case where, in the absence of the requisite expiation not having been clearly laid down, it becomes necessary to assume the right expiation, ‘on the basis of the man’s capacity, and the nature of the offence’ (209); and the meaning of the text is that that assumption is to be accepted which is made by three men.—(85)

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 11.72-86)

See Comparative notes for Verse 11.72.