{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe02/sbe0249.htm","path":"hin/sbe02/sbe0249.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe02/sbe0249.htm","text":"1. He should, during his lifetime, divide his wealth equally amongst his sons, excepting the eunuch, the mad man, and the outcast. 1\n2. On failure of sons the nearest Sapinda (takes the inheritance). 2\n3. On failure of them the spiritual teacher (inherits); on failure of the spiritual teacher a pupil shall take (the deceased's wealth), and use it for religious works for the (deceased's) benefit, or (he himself may enjoy it);\n4. Or the daughter (may take the inheritance). 4\n5. On failure of all (relations) let the king take the inheritance. 5\n6. Some declare, that the eldest son alone inherits. 6\n7. In some countries gold, (or) black cattle, (or) black produce of the earth is the share of the eldest. 7\n8. The chariot and the furniture in the house are the father's (share). 8\n9. According to some, the share of the wife consists of her ornaments, and the wealth (which she may have received) from her relations. 9\n10. That (preference of the eldest son) is forbidden by the S\u00e2stras. 10\n11. For it is declared in the Veda, without (marking) a difference (in the treatment of the sons): Manu divided his wealth amongst his sons. 11\n12. Now the Veda declares also in conformity with (the rule in favour of the eldest son) alone: They distinguish the eldest by (a larger share of) the heritage. 12\n13. (But to this plea in favour of the eldest I answer): Now those who are acquainted with the interpretation of the law declare a statement of facts not to be a rule, as for instance (the following): 'Therefore amongst cattle, goats and sheep walk together;' (or the following), 'Therefore the face of a learned Br\u00e2hmana (a Sn\u00e2taka) is, as it were, resplendent;' (or), 'A Br\u00e2hmana who has studied the Vedas (a Srotriya) and a he-goat evince the strongest sexual desires.' 13\n14. Therefore all (sons) who are virtuous inherit.\n15. But him who expends money unrighteously, he shall disinherit, though he be the eldest son. 15\n16. No division takes place between husband and wife. 16\n17. For, from the time of marriage, they are united in religious ceremonies,\n18. Likewise also as regards the rewards for works by which spiritual merit is acquired,\n19. And with respect to the acquisition of property.\n20. For they declare that it is not a theft if a wife spends money on occasions (of necessity) during her husband's absence. 20\n133:1 14. The last S\u00fbtra of Khanda 13 and the first of Khanda 14 are quoted by Colebrooke, Digest, Book V, Text xlii, and Mit\u00e2kshar\u00e2, Chap. I, Sect. iii, Par. 6. Colebrooke translates g\u00eevan, 'during his lifetime,' by 'who makes a partition during his lifetime.' I think that this is not quite correct, and that \u00c2pastamba intends to exhort householders to make a division during their lifetime, as later they ought to become ascetics or hermits. Haradatta introduces into his commentary on this S\u00fbtra the whole chapter on the division of a father's estate amongst his sons, supplementing \u00c2pastamba's short rule by the texts of other lawyers. No doubt, \u00c2pastamba means to lay down, in these and the following S\u00fbtras, only the leading principles of the law of inheritance, and he intends that the remaining particulars should be supplied from the law of custom or other Smritis.\n133:2 Haradatta gives in his commentary a full summary of the rules on the succession of remoter relations. One point only deserves special mention. He declares that it is the opinion of \u00c2pastamba, that widows cannot inherit. In this he is probably right, as \u00c2pastamba does not mention them, and the use of the p. 134 masculine singular 'sapindah' in the text precludes the possibility of including them under that collective term. It seems to me certain, that \u00c2pastamba, like Baudh\u00e2yana, considered women, especially widows, unfit to inherit.\n134:4 'Some say \"on failure of sons,\" others that the rule refers to the preceding S\u00fbtra (i.e. that the daughter inherits on failure of pupils only).'--Haradatta. The latter seems to be the correct interpretation.\n134:5 'Because the word \"all\" is used, (the king shall take the estate) only on failure of Bandhus and Sagotras, i.e. gentiles within twelve degrees.'--Haradatta.\n134:6 'The other sons shall live under his protection.'--Haradatta. Colebrooke, Mit\u00e2kshar\u00e2, Chap. I, Sect. iii, Par. 6.\n134:7 '\"Black produce of the earth,\" i.e. black grain, or according to others black iron.'--Haradatta. Compare for this and the following S\u00fbtras Colebrooke, Mit\u00e2kshar\u00e2, Chap. I, Sect. iii, Par. 6, and Digest, Book V, Text xlviii.\n134:8 The translation given above agrees with what I now recognise to be Haradatta's explanation, and with Colebrooke, Mit\u00e2kshar\u00e2, Chap. I, Sect. iii, Par. 6. Both the P. U. and Mr. U. MSS. of the Uggval\u00e2 read rathah pituramso grihe yatparibh\u00e2ndam upakaranam p\u00eeth\u00e2di tadapi, 'the chariot (is) the father's share; the furniture which (is) in the house, that also.' To this reading Mah\u00e2deva's Uggval\u00e2 on the Hiranyakesi S\u00fbtra points likewise, which gives p\u00eetur antah. The N. U. MS. of the Uggval\u00e2, according to which p. 135 I made the translation given in the Appendix to West and B\u00fchler's Digest (1st edition), leaves out the word amsah, and therefore makes it necessary to combine this S\u00fbtra, with the preceding one, and to translate, 'The father's chariot and the furniture in the house (are) also (the share of the eldest).' This latter translation agrees nearly with that given by Colebrooke, Digest, Book V, Text xlviii, where this and the preceding S\u00fbtra have been joined; but the chariot is not mentioned. A further variation in the interpretation of this S\u00fbtra occurs in Colebrooke's Digest, Book V, Text lxxxix, and Mit\u00e2kshar\u00e2, loc. cit., where the words 'the furniture in the house' are joined with S\u00fbtra 9, and the furniture is declared to be the wife's share. Considering that S\u00fbtra 9 is again quoted in Colebrooke's Digest, Book V, Text cccclxxii, and is not joined with the latter part of S\u00fbtra 8, it is not too much to say that Gagann\u00e2tha has not shown any greater accuracy than his brethren usually do.\n135:9 The Mit\u00e2kshar\u00e2, loc. cit., apparently takes the words 'according to some' as referring only, to property received from relations. I follow Haradatta. The former interpretation is, however, admissible, if the S\u00fbtra is split into two.\n135:10 The S\u00e2stras are, according to Haradatta, the Vedas.\n135:11 Taittir\u00eey\u00e2 Samhit\u00e2 III, 1, 9, 4.\n135:12 'Ath\u00e2pi (now also) means \"and certainly.\" They distinguish, they set apart the eldest son by wealth: this has been declared in the Veda in conformity with (the rule regarding) one (heir, S\u00fbtra 6). He denies (S\u00fbtra 13) that a passage also, which p. 136 agrees with the statement that the eldest son alone inherits, is found in the Veda.'--Haradatta. See Taittir\u00eey\u00e2 Samhit\u00e2 II, 5, 2, 7.\n136:13 Those who are acquainted with the interpretation of the law are the Mim\u00e2msakas. The translation of the second Vedic passage is by no means certain, as the root ribh, translated by 'to be resplendent,' usually means 'to give a sound.' Haradatta thinks that \u00c2pastamba means to show that the passage 'Manu divided his wealth among his sons' is likewise merely a statement of facts, and cannot be considered a rule. This is probably erroneous, as S\u00fbtras 10 and 11 distinctly state, that the practice to allow the eldest alone to inherit, is forbidden by the abovementioned passage of the Veda.\n136:15 Compare for this S\u00fbtra and the following one Colebrooke's Digest, Book V, Text cccxv. The translation of pratip\u00e2dayati, 'expends,' by 'gains,' which is also proposed by Gagann\u00e2tha, is against \u00c2pastamba's usage, see II, 5, 11, 17, and below, II, 8, 20, 19.\n136:16 According to Haradatta, this S\u00fbtra gives the reason why, in S\u00fbtra 1, no share has been set apart for the wife. Compare Colebrooke's Digest, Book V, Text lxxxix, for this S\u00fbtra and the following two.\n137:20 See below, II, 11, 29, 3.","title":"SBE 2: \u00c2pastamba: Prasna II, Patala 6, Khanda 14","type":"page"}