with the Commentary of Medhatithi 232 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 238 из 350Следующая ⇒

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.229-230)

Viṣṇu (5.137-138). — ‘Cattle being attacked, during daytime, by wolves or other ferocious animals, and the keeper not going to repel the attack, the blame shall fall upon him; — and he shall make good to the owner the value of the cattle that may have perished.’

Yājñavalkya (2.164). — ‘The cowherd shall deliver, in the evening, the cattle exactly as they had been made over to him; if any cattle dies or becomes lost through his negligence, the hired cowherd should be made to replace them.’

Nārada (6.11-13). — ‘Those cows which a cowherd takes to the pasture every day when the night is over, he shall bring back again in the evening, after they have eaten and drunk. If such a cow meets with an accident, he shall struggle to save her as best he may; if he is unable to rescue her, he shall go quickly to announce it to his master. Should he neither struggle to save her, nor raise a cry, nor announce it to his master, the cowherd shall make good the value of the cow to the owner, and must pay a fine to the King.’

Bṛhaspati (16.20). — ‘A cowherd saves cattle from danger of reptiles, robbers and tigers, and from caverns or pits; let him try his best to protect them, call out for help, and give notice to his master.’

VERSE 8.230

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

दिवा वक्तव्यता पाले रात्रौ स्वामिनि तद्गृहे ।
योगक्षेमेऽन्यथा चेत् तु पालो वक्तव्यतामियात् ॥२३०॥

divā vaktavyatā pāle rātrau svāmini tadgṛhe |
yogakṣeme'nyathā cet tu pālo vaktavyatāmiyāt ||230||

Responsibility for the safe keeping during the day rests with the keeper, and during the night, with the owner, ip in his own house; if otherwise, the keeper should be responsible. — (230)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If there arises any neglect regarding the safe keeping of the cattle, ‘during the day,’ — such as those going to be described under 232, — ‘the responsibility’ — blame — ‘rests with the keeper’; and he has to bear the blame

‘During the night,’ the blame lies with the owner, — if the animals die while tied up; — ‘if in his house,’ — if they have been safely penned in the house by the keeper.

‘If otherwise,’ — i.e., if they have not been brought into the house during the night, and have been kept in the pastures, — the blame lies with the keeper.

The meaning is as follows: — During the time that the cattle are under the charge of the keeper, if they graze in the cultivated field of a man, or if they are killed, — the fault lies with the keeper; but if anything happens after they have been made over to the owner, then it lies with this latter.

As the blame is in connection with non-safety, the term ‘yoga-kṣema,’ ‘safety,’ should be taken as figuratively indicating its opposite; just as the epithet ‘beautiful-eyed’ is applied to a blind man. — (230)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 171) which says: — If there is anything remiss in the safety of the cows during the day, the ‘vaktavyatā,’ responsibility, blame, lies on the keeper; if it is at night, then on the owner; — but if the ‘yogakṣemam’ (which is its reading for ‘yogakṣeme,’ i.e.,) the agreement between the keeper and the owner, is ‘otherwise,’ then during the night also, the keeper is responsible.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 772), which explains ‘vaktavyatā’ as fault or blame; — and in Smṛtitattva (p. 530), which quotes Kullūka, who explains the second half as meaning that ‘if during the night also the cattle are in charge of the keeper, then if there is any thing wrong, the blame lies on the keeper’; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi, (p. 81).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.229-230)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.229.

VERSE 8.231

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

गोपः क्षीरभृतो यस्तु स दुह्याद् दशतो वराम् ।
गोस्वाम्यनुमते भृत्यः सा स्यात् पालेऽभृते भृतिः ॥२३१॥

gopaḥ kṣīrabhṛto yastu sa duhyād daśato varām |
gosvāmyanumate bhṛtyaḥ sā syāt pāle'bhṛte bhṛtiḥ ||231||

If the hired cattle-keeper is one paid with milk, he shall, with the owner’s permission, milk the best out of ten; this shall be the ‘wages’ of the keeper, if he receives no other wages. — (231)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The author is going to describe the details regarding the ‘safe keeping’ (mentioned in the preceding verse).

One who ‘keeps’ the ‘cattle’ is the ‘cattle-keeper,’ the herdsman. Sometimes he is engaged on fooding and other kinds of wages, and sometimes on milk. Of these he who is ‘paid with milk shall milk the best — varām — out of ten’; — or the ‘worst,’ ‘avarām,’ — the initial ‘a’ being mixed up with the preceding vowel.

The wages are to be commensurate with the labour involved in the keeping. If the man receives nothing else, — in the shape of subsistence, — he shall take the milk of one cow. The exact wages, more or less, of the man shall be determined according to this rate. Thus for the work of looking after milch and non-milch cows, heifers, bulls and calves, the owner shall apportion to the keeper sometimes the third, and sometimes the fourth, part of the entire milk-produce.

This verse is meant only to alîord some indication of the subject. In fact in each individual case, local custom has got to be followed.

If the herdsman of the village omits to look after the eattle, with the idea of having his wages fixed beforehand, then he shall not. milk one of the ten cows, without having obtained the owner’s permission.

‘With the owner’s permission’; — this has been added for the purpose of precluding the possibility of the keeper taking the milk in lieu of the ‘fooding’ on which he has been engaged. The meaning is that if he milks the cow without the owner’s permission, he shall he punished.

‘This’ — i.e., what has been just mentioned — ‘shall be the wages if he receive no other wages’; i.e., this shall be the wages of the keeper engaged ‘on milk.’

‘Hired’ — i.e., he who takes up the work of keeping the cattle for the purpose of making a living, and not for acquiring spiritual merit.

Or, the meaning of the verse may he that “if the man, entirely out of his own wish, takes the milk of every tenth cow, he shall he regarded as a thief; but if he has obtained the owner’s permission, then it becomes his due ‘wages,’ and there is nothing wrong.”

“But in the case mentioned in the verse also, if the man took the milk without the owner’s permission, he would be doing something wrong.”

True; but in this case he would be only liable to punishment, and he would not be a ‘thief’; while in the other case he would be either a ‘thief’ or a ‘misappropriator of a trust.’

This verse should have gone before; some people read it later on. — (231)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 170), which adds the following notes: — ‘Kṣīrabhṛtaḥ’, whose wages consist of milk only; — ‘duḥyad daśato varām,’ he should milk that cow (for himself) which is the best among ten cows; — ‘sā,’ the said milk of the one cow; — ‘pāle’, for the cowherd; — ‘abhṛte,’ who is not paid any thing else in the shape of fooding, clothing, and so forth.

This is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 772) winch adds the following explanation: — That keeper of the cattle who has his wages paid in milk, shall, with the owner’s permission, milk the best cow among ten milch cows, taking that for himself, — this being the ‘wage’ of the cattle-keeper who does not receive wages in any other form; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 80), which explains ‘Kṣīrabhṛtaḥ’ as ‘one whose wages are paid in the form of milk only’; — he shall milk the best of ten cows; — ‘abhṛte’, the keeper who gets no fooding and clothing, — and notes that this refers to the keeper of milch-cattle only: — in Kṛtyakalpataru (104b), which explains ‘Ksīrabhṛtaḥ’ as ‘one whose wages consist of milk only; he shall milk for himself that cow which may be the best among ten cows — but only once’; — ‘abhṛte’ one who receives no food or clothing; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 136b), which says that the milk of the best among ten cows is to be taken by the cowherd only when he receives nothing else as wages.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (5.139). — ‘If the cowherd milks a cow without permission, he shall pay twenty-five Kārṣāpaṇas as a line.’

Nārada (6.10). — ‘For tending a hundred cows, a heifer shall be given to the cowherd as his wages every year; for tending two hundred cows, a milch cow, and he shall be allowed to milk all the cows every eighth day.’

Bṛhaspati (16.19). — ‘A man hired for attendance on the wild cows of another person shall receive the whole milk every eighth day.’

VERSE 8.232

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

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.’

VERSE 8.233

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

विघुष्य तु हृतं चौरैर्न पालो दातुमर्हति ।
यदि देशे च काले च स्वामिनः स्वस्य शंसति ॥२३३॥

vighuṣya tu hṛtaṃ caurairna pālo dātumarhati |
yadi deśe ca kāle ca svāminaḥ svasya śaṃsati ||233||

But the keeper shall not have to make good what has been taken away by thieves openly, — if he informs his own master of it at the proper place and time. — (233)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

But the keeper shall not have to make good what has been taken away by thieves openly, — if he informs his own master of it at the proper place and time.

‘Openly’ — publicly, with beat of drums; — when the cattle is thus taken away by thieves, the keeper is not made to pay for it. The term ‘openly’ is meant to indicate the helplessness of the keeper; the sense being that in a case where there are a large number of thieves, and they have taken away the cattle by force, — the keeper is let off; specially if he ‘at the proper time — i.e., immediately — informs the master, — ‘at the proper place’ — i.e., wherever the master may happen to be.

“But how could the man know whether the master was on the spot or at his house?”

There is no force in this; even in a case where the master is not on the spot, some substitute of his is bound to be there, who would inform the king or his officer and would have the thieves pursued.

‘His own’; — this has been added for the purpose of precluding the possibility of the information being given directly to the king. The keeper’s own master could make every effort to recover his property — on being informed by the keeper; — not so the king; — and further, it would be extremely difficult for the keeper to convey any information to the king directly.

If the keeper gives the information after the thieves have gone away after taking the cattle, — the blame would lie with him. — (233)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka, (p. 772), which explains ‘Kilviṣī’ (its reading being ‘na pālastatra kilviṣī,’ for ‘na pālo dādumarhati’) as ‘blame-worthy’; — in Mitākṣarā (2.164) to the effect that the keeper should not be made to pay to the owner the value of such cattle as are carried away by thieves ‘by force,’ i.e., openly, by beat of drums and so forth; — provided that he reports it to the owner at the same time and places (this latter being added in Bālambhatṭṭī as explaining the latter half of the verse); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi, (p. 81) which explains ‘deśe’ as ‘place where a search could be made;’ — and in Kṛtyakalpataru, (105a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 137a), which explains ‘vighuṣya’ as ‘with a flourish of the trumpet’ and so forth, — ‘deśe’ as at ‘the place where the master lives’, — and kāle as ‘immediately after the robbery’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada. — (6.12, 16). — ‘If a cow under the cowherd’s charge meets with am accident, he shall struggle to save her as best he may. If he is unable to rescue her, he shall hasten to announce the fact to his master. For an animal seized by robbers, though he raised a cry, the cowherd shall not be made to pay; provided he gives notice to his master at the proper time and place.’

Vyāsa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 172). — ‘If a cattle perishes or is taken away, when the cowherd has been captured, or during an attack on the village, or during anarchy, — the cowherd shall not he held to blame.’

VERSE 8.234

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

कर्णौ चर्म च वालांश्च बस्तिं स्नायुं च रोचनाम् ।
पशुषु स्वामिनां दद्यान् मृतेष्वङ्कानि दर्शयेत् ॥२३४॥

karṇau carma ca vālāṃśca bastiṃ snāyuṃ ca rocanām |
paśuṣu svāmināṃ dadyān mṛteṣvaṅkāni darśayet ||234||

On the death of the animals, he shall make over to the owner their ears, skin, tail-hairs, bladder and tendons and the concrete bile, and also point out their marks. — (231)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When, on the expiry of their lives, the animals have died, the ears and other limbs should be made over to the owner.

The ‘concrete bile’ is a powder obtained from the horns of cows.

‘Bladder’ — is a particular part of the body.

‘Marks’ — such as ‘cleft ears’ and the like, which serve to distinguish the animals; — these should be pointed out.

In this manner, does the keeper become absolved from blame.

By seeing the marks the particular animal becomes identified. — (234)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.164), to the effect, that if the cattle placed in charge of a keeper should die by chance, then he should make over its ear and other things to the owner; — where Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes: — ‘Charma’, skin; — ‘bālān’, hairs, as indicating the death of the animal; — ‘basti,’ a part of the urinary organ; — ‘snāyu’ is fat; — ‘pūyāni’ is another reading; — ‘rocanā’, the yellow pigment in the cow’s eyes; — all these should be shown to the owner of the cattle; — when these die; and other parts of its body also should be brought up; such as the horns, hoofs and so forth, which would indicate the particular animal that may have died. If we read ‘Aṅkāṃśca,’ it would mean the marks made on the body of the animal should be shown; in the reading ‘aṅkāni’ or ‘aṅgāni,’ the meaning would be that while showing the marks, he should hand over the ears &c.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 175), which notes that all that is meant by mentioning the ‘ears’ &c. is that the distinguishing features of the dead animal should be shown. It explains ‘mṛteṣu’ as ‘in the case of those dying at a distance’, and ‘aṅgāni’ as such comparatively lasting parts of the body as the horns and so forth. It notes that ‘aṅgādi’ is another reading for ‘aṅgāni’, in which case ‘ādi’ stands for such other signs of this animal as may be well known.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 265), as laying down that in the case of animals dying by chance, its ear &c. should be shown to the owner; — in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 96), as laying down sure evidence of the death of cattle; it explains ‘aṅka’ as the horn and so forth, ‘as explained by Madana’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 137a), which notes the readings ‘aṅgādi’, ‘aṅgāni’ and ‘aṅkādi’, — it explains ‘aṅka’ as ‘such marks of recognition as the horn, the ears and so forth’, — and adds that ‘ādi’ is meant to include witnesses.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (6.17). — ‘In the ease of the death of an animal entrusted to his care, the herdsman is free from blame, if he can produce the tail, the horns and other things.’

VERSE 8.235

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

अजाविके तु संरुद्धे वृकैः पाले त्वनायति ।
यां प्रसह्य वृको हन्यात् पाले तत् किल्बिषं भवेत् ॥२३५॥

ajāvike tu saṃruddhe vṛkaiḥ pāle tvanāyati |
yāṃ prasahya vṛko hanyāt pāle tat kilbiṣaṃ bhavet ||235||

When goats and sheep have been surrounded by wolves, and the keeper does not come for ward, — if the wolf forcibly kill any, the blame shall lie with the keeper. — (235)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Goats and Sheep,’ — ‘Sheep’ also includes the wild goat.

When these have been ‘surrounded by wolves’ — jackals and the rest — and they are not killed outright at the very first onset, — so that there is time to come forward and rescue the animals, — and yet ‘the keeper does not come forward’ — to rescue them; under such circumstances, if the wolf should ‘forcibly kill any,’ — the blame lies with the keeper. That is, he should he made to make it good to the owner, and also perform an expiatory rite.

Cows are large animals, and hence cannot he ‘surrounded’ by jackals, etc.; hence the present verse has specified ‘goals and sheep’; it does not follow that the rule applies to these animals only; so that this same rule applies to the case of young calves also. — (235)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 773): — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 175), which notes that ‘goats and sheep’ stand for all such animals as are liable to be attacked by wolves; and explains ‘Samruddhe’ as attacked; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 265), which adds the following notes: — ‘Anāyati’, not coming to ward off the attack, — ‘yām’, animal belonging to the category of ‘goats and sheep — this pertains to cases where the attack takes place in easily accessible places; in the case of its coming in a place which is inaccessible, no blame attaches to the keeper; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (105b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 137a), which explains ‘anāyati’ as ‘if he does not come to avert the danger.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

Narada (6.15). — ‘If goats and sheep are surrounded by wolves, and the herdsman does not come to their assistance, he shall he responsible for any animal that the wolf attacks or kills.’

Viṣṇu (5.137-138). — ‘Cattle being attacked, during daytime, by wolves or other ferocious animals, and the keeper not going to repel the attack, the blame shall fall upon him; and he shall make good to the owner the value of the cattle that has perished.’

VERSE 8.236

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

तासां चेदवरुद्धानां चरन्तीनां मिथो वने ।
यामुत्प्लुत्य वृको हन्यान्न पालस्तत्र किल्बिषी ॥२३६॥

tāsāṃ cedavaruddhānāṃ carantīnāṃ mitho vane |
yāmutplutya vṛko hanyānna pālastatra kilbiṣī ||236||

When however, they are grazing together in the forest, duly protected, — if a wolf pounces upon one and kills it, — the keeper is not to blame. — (236)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the preceding verse the dual number in ‘ajāvike’ (‘goats and sheep’) is based upon the fact that two kinds of animals are meant; though in reality, being a copulative compound of the names of ‘animals,’ it should have taken the singular ending. In the present verse we have the feminine plural, in consideration of the individual animals concerned.

‘Duty protected,’ ‘together’; — kept together, flocked in one place; having their movements hitherto duly checked; — while grazing in the forest, before the eyes of the keeper; — if a wolf should suddenly emerge out of a thicket and pounce upon and kill one of them; — in this case the keeper is not to be blamed. Because it is absolutely impossible for a man to shut out every little opening in the forest, consisting as it does of endless trees and thickets and creepers; and wolves are always on the lookout for such openings.

Познавательные статьи:



Алгоритмические операторы Matlab

Конструирование и порядок расчёта дорожной одежды

Исследования учёных: почему помогают молитвы?

Почему терпят неудачу многие предприниматели?