with the Commentary of Medhatithi 280 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 286 из 350Следующая ⇒

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 509), which adds the following notes: — The term ‘Kuṭumba’ stands for the family-property; hence the meaning is that ‘out of the property that belongs to many persons, women shall not make an extraction, withdrawal, without the consent of the owners of that property’; similarly ‘svakāt’ — i.e., out of the property that belongs exclusively to her husband, and not to the other members of the family, — she shall not make an extraction without the owner’s consent.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 69), which explains ‘nirhāra’ as expenditure; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 215a), which explains ‘nirhāra’ as ‘vyaya’.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Mahābhārata (13.47.24).

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 511). — ‘After her husband’s death, what the wife inherits from him she may use as she likes; but during his life-time, she shall save that property or spend it on the family.’

VERSE 9.200

Section XXV - Strīdhana (property of the wife)

पत्यौ जीवति यः स्त्रीभिरलङ्कारो धृतो भवेत् ।
न तं भजेरन् दायादा भजमानाः पतन्ति ते ॥२००॥

patyau jīvati yaḥ strībhiralaṅkāro dhṛto bhavet |
na taṃ bhajeran dāyādā bhajamānāḥ patanti te ||200||

The ornament worn by the woman during her husband’s life-time, her heirs shall not divide; if they divide it, they become outcasts. — (200)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

Buhler mispresents Nandana, being misled by the wrong reading ‘bhartṛbhāve’ (while the husband lives) for ‘bhartrabhāve’ (on the death of the husband). There could be no division of the property by the heirs while the husband was alive.

This verse is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 686), which adds that ‘Dhṛtam’ means ‘possessed as her own private property, having been given to her as a loving present’; — and in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 70), which explains ‘dhṛtam’ as ‘presented to her by her husband or other relatives and worn by her.’

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.147) in support of the view that ‘if a woman has been living apart from her husband, her property shall not be taken by her heirs’; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 509), which notes that the Prakāśa has stated that Medhātithi has explained the meaning to be that ‘the heirs shall not take even those ornaments that may have been worn by the woman with her husband’s consent, even though not actually given to her’; — in Aparārka (p. 752), which adds that this refers to such ornaments as have been worn by the woman constantly; — in Smṛtitattva II (p. 184), which also reproduces the aforesaid remark of Medhātithi, that an ornament worn by the woman with her husband’s consent becomes her property even though not actually given to her; — in Smṛtisāroddhāra (p. 332), which says that the phrase ‘dhṛto bhavet’ implies that what was not actually worn by her should be divided.

Comparative notes by various authors:

Viṣṇu (17.22). — ‘Ornaments worn by women during their husband’s life-time, the heirs shall not divide among themselves; if they divide them, they become outcasts.’

Āpastamba (Vivādaratnākara, p. 509) — ‘The ornaments belong to the wife.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 495). — ‘When the property has been divided by the heirs, the ornaments and the nuptial presents of the mother shall be taken by her daughter.’

Baudhāyana (Do.). — ‘The mother’s ornaments, as also other formal presents made to the mother, the daughter shall take.’

VERSE 9.201 [Disqualifications to Inheritance]

Section XXVI - Disqualifications to Inheritance

अनंशौ क्लीबपतितौ जात्यन्धबधिरौ तथा ।
उन्मत्तजडमूकाश्च ये च के चिन्निरिन्द्रियाः ॥२०१॥

anaṃśau klībapatitau jātyandhabadhirau tathā |
unmattajaḍamūkāśca ye ca ke cinnirindriyāḥ ||201||

Eunuchs and outcasts, those born blind or deaf, idiots and the dumb, as well as those deficient in any organ, are entitled to no shares. — (201)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

(verses 9.182-201)

(No Bhāṣya available.)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva II (p. 385), as enumerating persons not entitled to inheritance, and hence to the offering of funeral oblations; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 201, and again on p. 366), where ‘nirindriyāḥ’ is explained as ‘whose organs have become deficient through some disease’; — in Mitākṣarā, (2.140), which has the following notes; — ‘Nirindriya’ is one whose organs have disappeared by reason of some disease; — these persons are debarred from inheritance, being entitled to mere subsistence and clothing; if they are not supported, his relations become degraded. The Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following explanations: — ‘Jātyandha-badhirāḥ’ are those who are blind and deaf by birth, — ‘mūka’ is one who is incapable from birth of uttering words, — thus are these two distinguished from ‘nirindriya,’ which means those who have lost some organ as the result of disease.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 487), which adds the following notes: — The term ‘jāti’ is added with a view to denote incurability, — ‘jaḍa,’ one who is incapable of distinguishing what is his own and what belongs to others, — ‘nirindriyāḥ’ includes the lame and the like, who are not entitled to the performance of śrauta and smārta rites; — and in Dāyakramasaṅgraha, (p. 29).

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha, (p. 73), which explains ‘nirindriyāḥ’ as devoid of the olfactory and other organs; — in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 40), which explains ‘nirindriya’ as one who has lost his organs through disease; — and in Madanapārijāta, (p. 682), which has the same explanation of ‘nirindriya’ and adds that all these men have no share in the property, but they have to he supported.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.201-202)

Gautama (18.43). — ‘An idiot and a eunuch should he supported.’

Do. (Vivādaratnākara, p. 486). — ‘According to some, even the son born of the wife of equal caste should not receive inheritance if she is addicted to unrighteousness.’

Baudhāyana (2.3.37-40) — ‘Granting food, clothes and shelter, they shall support those who are incapable of transacting business; viz., the blind, the idiot, those immersed in vice, the incurable invalid, and the like; — as also those who are neglectful of their duties and occupations; — but not the outcast or his offspring.’

Āpastamba (2.14.1). — ‘He should, during his life-time, divide his property equally amongst his sons, — excepting the eunuch, the insane and the outcast.’

Do. (Vivādaratnākara, p. 486) — ‘All who are endowed with righteousness are inheritors of property; if one uses wealth unrighteously, him the father shall disinherit, even if he be the eldest son.’

Vaśiṣṭha (17.52-54). — ‘But those who have entered a different order receive no share; — nor those who are eunuchs, insane or outcasts; — the eunuch and the insane have a claim to maintenance.’

Viṣṇu (15.32-33). — ‘Outcasts, eunuchs, persons incurably diseased, and those deficient in organs of sense or action, do not receive a share; — but they should be maintained by those who take the inheritance.’

Yājñavalkya (2.140). — ‘The eunuch, the outcast, the son of the outcast, the cripple, the insane, the idiot, the blind and one suffering from an incurable disease have no share in the property; but they should be maintained.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 749). — ‘One who harbours ill-will towards his father, the outcast, the eunuch and one who has committed one of the minor offences, should not receive any share, even when they are body-born sons; — what to say of those that are only Kṣetraja sons?’

Do. (Vivādaratnākara, p. 489). — Those suffering from chronic or incurable diseases, the idiot, the insane, the blind and the cripple should be supported by the family; but their sons are entitled to shares in the property.’

Kātyāyana (Do., p. 750). — ‘One born of a wife married irregularly, one begotten by a Sagotra husband, and one who has gone away as a renunciate, do not inherit property.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Vivādaratnākara, p. 486). — ‘One who has been excommunicated ceases to have any claims to inheritance or the funeral offering of food and water.’

Bṛhaspati (Do., p. 487). — ‘Even though a son may have been born from a wife of equal caste, yet he cannot inherit property if he is devoid of good qualities.’

Devala (Do., p. 489). — ‘On the father’s death, the eunuch, the leper, the insane, the idiot, the blind, the outcast, the outcast’s child and the religious hypocrite, do not share in the inheritance; but food and clothing are given to all these, except the outcast. The sons of these however, if they are free from defects, should receive their share in the property.’

VERSE 9.202

Section XXVI - Disqualifications to Inheritance

सर्वेषामपि तु न्याय्यं दातुं शक्त्या मनीषिणा ।
ग्रासाच्छादनमत्यन्तं पतितो ह्यददद् भवेत् ॥२०२॥

sarveṣāmapi tu nyāyyaṃ dātuṃ śaktyā manīṣiṇā |
grāsācchādanamatyantaṃ patito hyadadad bhavet ||202||

But it is fair that the wise man shall give even to all these food and clothing to the best of his ability; if he does not give it at all, he becomes an outcast. — (202)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘All these’ — Eunuchs and the rest.

‘At all’ — throughout life.

‘Food and clothing’ — being necessary for the keeping of the body; it is implied that he should provide enough to enable them to engage the necessary servants and other attendants; specially because in the case of the blind and the rest, living would be impossible without a servant. Those again for whom marriage is permitted, the provision made should include that for their wives also.

‘To the best of his ability’ — the food and clothing provided shall be in accordance with the man’s own wealth.

‘Outcast’ — this is purely declamatory. — (202)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Atyantam’ — ‘For life’ (Medhātithi and Kullūka); — ‘at all’ (taken with ‘adadat’, ‘not giving’) [Nārāyaṇa].

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā, (2.140) to the effect that if the persons mentioned in the preceding verse are not properly maintained the persons responsible become ‘degraded,’ — ‘atyantam’ means ‘for life’; it goes on to add that these persons are debarred from inheritance only if they are found to have the said disqualifications before the division of the patrimony, — not after the partition has taken place; and that if the said disqualifications are subsequently removed by medication, they get their share in the property. It concludes by saying that the said disqualifications are applicable in the case of women also.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 487), which adds the following notes: — ‘Sarveṣām,’ of the eunuch and the rest, — ‘atyantam,’ for life; — in Vyavahāramayūkha, (p. 73), to the effect that those who are not entitled to inheritance are yet entitled to maintenance throughout life; — in Parāśaramādhava, (Vyavahāra, p. 366), which explains ‘atyantam’ as ‘for life’ — in Madanapārijāta, (p. 682), which adds the following notes: — ‘Sarveṣām,’ those not entitled to inheritance, — ‘atyantam,’ for life; — the said disqualifications are effective bars only if found before partition, not if they are found after partition, or if they are cured by medication, or if the necessary expiatory rites are duly performed; — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī, (p. 349 and 575); — and in Vīramitrodaya, (Vyavahāra, 221b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.201-202)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.201.

VERSE 9.203

Section XXVI - Disqualifications to Inheritance

यद्यर्थिता तु दारैः स्यात् क्लीबादीनां कथं चन ।
तेषामुत्पन्नतन्तूनामपत्यं दायमर्हति ॥२०३॥

yadyarthitā tu dāraiḥ syāt klībādīnāṃ kathaṃ cana |
teṣāmutpannatantūnāmapatyaṃ dāyamarhati ||203||

If the eunuch and the rest should somehow happen to have longing for a wife, the child of such of them as have issue is entitled to inheritance. — (203)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Longing’ — desire to meet, with a view to sexual intercourse. When there is such longing, the man shall marry. And if there is issue from the marriage, the ‘child’ — whether a son or a daughter — ‘is entitled to inheritance’ — to. a share in the property.

The share to which a daughter is entitled has already been explained.

“In the case of the eunuch of the ‘airy’ (infructuous) ‘semen,’ the desire for sexual intercourse is there; but, how could he have any ‘issue’?”

It has already been declared above (167) that — ‘if a son is born to the wife of a dead man, a eunuch, an invalid, etc.’ (which shows that such men can have a ‘soil-born’ son, and this is possible only if they have wives).

Or, the verse may be taken as indicating that in the case of such men, marriage could only he prompted by lust. If marriage wore prompted entirely by religious motives, how could there be any marriage for the men mentioned, being as they are not entitled to the performance of any religious rites? Then again, the person born blind, the lame, and the eunuch of the ‘airy semen,’ have been declared to be fit for the Initiatory Ceremony; the lunatics and others of that kind however are not fit for that ceremony; how then can there be any marriage in the ease of those latter?

‘And the rest’ — stands for only those already mentioned above (i.e., the invalid, etc); but if the phrase ‘and the rest’ were taken as including all, then the ‘outcast’ also would become included, which, bring contrary to Law, would be undesirable.

Or, the present rule may be taken as referring to the case where the man becomes insane or otherwise disabled, after he has been ‘initiated’ and ‘married.’

“But the clause ‘if they happen to have, longing for a wife’ — could not apply to the ease of those who are already married.”

Not so; ‘longing for a wife’ (which has been explained as meaning desire for sexual intercourse) is quite possible in the case of married men.

The older writers have found in the present rule something that is usefully applicable to the case of also such marriages as are contracted for purely religious purpose?. So that for the eunuch also, — who is entitled to the performance of such rites as are prescribed by Smṛtis — it is only right that there be marriage, even in the absence of sexual desire. As for the rites prescribed in Śrutis, it is only one who has already got a son that is entitled to the ‘laying of fire’ (which is a necessary accompaniment for those rites); so that the eunuch can never be entitled to them. And it has been already explained what really prompts the marriage in such cases. — (203)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Kathañcana’. — This indicates that the eunuch and the rest are not worthy to marry (Kullūka).

‘Apatyam’. — The Kṣetraja son (Kullūka, Rāghavānanda and Nandana).

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 488), which explains ‘tantu’ as child; — in Aparārka (p. 750), to the effect that marriage is legal for the persons enumerated in 201; it remarks that in view of the epithet ‘jāti’, ‘born’, in the term ‘jātyandha’, the present verse cannot be taken as referring to cases where the disabilities appear after marriage; it comes to the conclusion that the disability to inheritance cannot thus be due to their not marrying and hence not being able to perform religious rites; it must be due to the mere authoritative assertion of the law.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Saṃskāra, p. 195) as indicating that the marriage of the said persons is sanctioned.

Comparative notes by various authors:

[See Texts under 201-202.]

Gautama (28.44). — ‘The male offspring of the idiot receives his father’s share.’

Viṣṇu (15.34-38). — ‘Of the idiot and the rest the legitimate sons receive a share; — but not the children of an outcast, — provided they are born after the commission of the act that rendered the parents outcasts.’

Yājñavalkya (2.141). — ‘Of the eunuch and the rest, the Body-born and the Kṣetraja sons, if they are free from defects, are entitled to shares; and their daughters should be maintained till they are made over to their husbands.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Aparāka, p. 751). — ‘One born of the outcast is an outcast, except the female child.’

Nārada (Vivādaratnākara, p. 419). — ‘The sons of these are entitled to shares.’

Kātyāyana (Do., p, 491). — ‘The son of a wife married irregularly is entitled to inheritance when he belongs to the same caste as his father; so also is the son born of a regularly married wife, even though she may have been of a different caste; but the son of a woman married in the reverse order is not entitled to a share; to him his kinsmen should give food and clothing.’

VERSE 9.204 [Property of Brothers, and their Mutual Relationship]

Section XXVII - Property of Brothers, and their Mutual Relationship

यत् किं चित् पितरि प्रेते धनं ज्येष्ठोऽधिगच्छति ।
भागो यवीयसां तत्र यदि विद्यानुपालिनः ॥२०४॥

yat kiṃ cit pitari prete dhanaṃ jyeṣṭho'dhigacchati |
bhāgo yavīyasāṃ tatra yadi vidyānupālinaḥ ||204||

Whatever property the eldest brother acquires after the death of the father, a share of that shall belong to the younger brothers, if they are devoted to learning. — (204)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If the eldest brother acquires more properly, either through some hereditary friend, or from the king or his ministers or his priests, or out of the farm, by the employment of special methods, — such property shall be common to all the brothers; and the eldest brother shall not entertain any such notion as that — ‘this property, which was not acquired by our father, has been acquired by me, through my own efforts, and hence it is mine only.’

‘Devoted to learning’; — this shows that the rule here laid down pertains to mechanics, artisans and others who subsist by learning; such as physicians, dancers, musicians and so forth — (204)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This refers to a united family — as rightly remarked by Kullūka.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 507), which explains the meaning to be that, if after the death of the father, the eldest brother should happen to acquire some property by means of exceptional learning or such other means, in that property the acquirer shall have two shares, and each of the younger brothers one share, if they are devoted to study.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.118), which notes the explanation of the verse as that ‘on the death of the father, or even during the father’s life-time, if any brother, eldest, youngest or the middle one, happen to die, his shares are to go to the other brothers, and that, the implication is that wealth obtained from friends and so forth is partible’, — and then goes on to criticise it as unwarranted, and concludes that the verse sets forth an exception to the general rule that property acquired by each brother separately is impartible.

It is quoted by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 192), which adds that the younger brothers are as much entitled to inherit the property of the eldest brother as that of the father, — but with this difference that the father’s property they inherit even when they are not learned, but to the brother’s property only those are entitled who are learned.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 9.204-208)

Gautama (28.30 31). — ‘What a learned co-parcener has acquired by his own efforts, he may, at his pleasure, withhold from his unlearned co-parceners. Unlearned co-parceners shall divide their acquisitions equally.’

Yājñavalkya (2.116, 118-119). — ‘If one is able to support himself and does not desire a share in the father’s property, he shall be separated after having been given some little trifle; the law is that the division, equal or unequal, should be exactly as the father makes it. — If among co-parceners some one has, by himself acquired some property, without detriment to the paternal property, — and if he has obtained friendly or nuptial gifts, — all such property shall not go to the co-parceners. If the ancestral property had been taken away by strangers, and subsequently one of the co-parceners recovers it, he shall not give it to the other co-parceners; similarly whatever one may have gained by learning.’

Mahābhārata (13.105.11.)

Viṣṇu (18.42). — (Same as Manu 208.)

Ṛṣyaśṛṅga (Aparārka, p. 724). — If one of the co-parceners recovers the landed property previously lost, the other co-parceners shall receive their share of it, after having given the fourth part of it to the recoverer.’

Kātyāyana (Do.). — ‘If some one, living upon food given by a stranger, has acquired learning, and by means of learning thus acquired, he acquires some property, that property is what is called the gain of learning; and such property is not divided; what one obtains from a pupil, or from officiating at sacrifices, or by answering doubtful questions, or by putting questions, or by expounding his own knowledge or by teaching — this also is called the gain of learning; such property is not to be divided, etc., etc., etc. The learned shall not give to the unlearned any part of what he has gained by learning, but they shall give a share to those who are superior, or even equal to them in learning.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 507). — ‘Those who acquired learning in the family itself, either from their father or from their brothers, — if such persons acquire property by their learning or by bravery, that shall be divided — says Bṛhaspati.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 725). — ‘What is acquired by learning or by bravery, or as a present in marriage, — all this shall not be sought after by co-parceners at the time of partition.’

Vyāsa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 510). — ‘What was given to one by the grandfather or the father as a loving gift, as also what was given by the mother, should not be taken away from him.’

Do. (Do., p. 502). — ‘The property that one has acquired by his own effort, without drawing upon the paternal property, — as also what he has gained by his learning, — all this he shall not give to his co-parceners.’

Nārada (Do.). — ‘The learned shall not give to the unlearned any part of his gain of learning, unless he wishes to do so; provided that he had acquired those gains without employing any part of the paternal property for that purpose. The brother who supports the family of the brother while the latter is acquiring learning, should, even though he be unlearned, obtain some share of the property acquired by that learned brother. (Then it reproduces Manu 204.)’

Do. (Vivādaratnākara, p. 501). — ‘The property acquired by bravery, or inherited from one’s wife, or that acquired by learning, — these are declared to be not liable to division; so also what may have been given by the father as a loving gift, or what the mother may have given through love, out of her own property.’

Do. (Do., p. 508). — ‘In a joint family whatever conveyances or weapons one member acquires through bravery and such qualities, in that the brothers also shall have shares ; i.e., the acquirer shall have two shares and the rest, one share each.’

Śaṅkha-Likhita (Do., p. 503). — ‘There shall be no division of the dwelling-house, of water-vessels, of ornaments, of such women and clothes as have been used, and of water-drains, — so says Prajāpati.’

Gautama (Do., p. 508). — ‘Among brothers living in the joint family, what the learned acquires by learning — the unlearned also shall divide equally.’

Vaśiṣṭha (Do.). — ‘Those who may have specially worked to acquire the property shall receive two shares.’

Brhaṣpati (25.77-78). — ‘If among re-united co-parceners, anyone should acquire property through learning, valour, or other independent effort of his own, a double share must be given to him; the rest shall take equal shares. Whatever has been given to one by the paternal grandfather, or the father, or the mother, all that shall not be taken from him; he shall keep likewise the property acquired by valour, and also the wealth of his wife.’

VERSE 9.205

Section XXVII - Property of Brothers, and their Mutual Relationship

अविद्यानां तु सर्वेषामीहातश्चेद् धनं भवेत् ?? ।
समस्तत्र विभागः स्यादपित्र्य इति धारणा ॥२०५॥

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров