Shloka 44
Dāyavibhāga (Inheritance Apportionment) and Household Precedence — Dialogue of Yudhiṣṭhira and Bhīṣma
“यदि तुम्हारे मतमें मूल्य देनेमात्रसे ही विवाहका पूर्ण निश्चय हो जाता है, पाणिग्रहणसे नहीं, तब तो स्मृतिका यह कथन ही व्यर्थ होगा कि कन््याका पिता एक वरसे शुल्क ले लेनेपर भी दूसरे किसी गुणवान् वरका आश्रय ले सकता है। अर्थात् पहलेको छोड़कर दूसरे गुणवान् वरसे अपनी कन्याका विवाह कर सकता है ।।
bhīṣma uvāca | yadi te matena mūlya-dāna-mātreṇaiva vivāhasya pūrṇa-niścayo bhavati, na pāṇigrahaṇena, tadā smṛter idaṃ vacanam eva vyarthaṃ syāt—yad uktaṃ: kanyāyāḥ pitā ekasmād varāt śulkaṃ gṛhītvāpi anyasya guṇavato varasya āśrayaṃ gantuṃ śaknoti; arthāt pūrvaṃ tyaktvā anyena guṇavatā varena svāṃ kanyāṃ vivāhayet || na hi dharmavidaḥ prāhuḥ pramāṇaṃ vākyataḥ smṛtam | yeṣāṃ vai śulkato niṣṭhā na pāṇigrahaṇāt tathā ||
ビ―シュマは言った。「もし汝の考えでは、婚姻が花嫁代を与えただけで完全に確定し、手を取る儀礼（pāṇigrahaṇa）によらぬというなら、スムリティのよく知られた規定は無意味となろう。すなわち、娘の父は、ある求婚者から金品を受け取った後であっても、なお徳の勝れた別の求婚者に身を寄せ得る——つまり最初の者を退け、より相応しい者に娘を嫁がせ得る、という規定である。ダルマを知る者は、決着が金品のみに存し、しかるべき厳粛な pāṇigrahaṇa に存しないという主張を、権威ある証拠とは認めない。教えの要は、商いの支払いが婚姻のダルマ的成就に勝ることはなく、また一家を縛って、より徳高い縁を選ぶことを妨げ得ない、という点にある。」
भीष्य उवाच
Educational Q&A
A marriage is not ethically or legally finalized merely by payment of a fee; its dharmic completion depends on the proper rite (pāṇigrahaṇa). Therefore, accepting a bride-price does not irrevocably bind the girl’s father if a more virtuous suitor is available.
Bhishma addresses a dispute about what makes a marriage binding. He refutes the view that payment alone finalizes the match, citing the dharma-tradition that even after taking a fee from one suitor, the father may choose another worthier groom, because the decisive act is the ritual hand-taking.