________________
THE MIMAMSA AND HINDU LAW
105
child becomes the adopted child of the other as well. As the principal purpose of the action is to provide offspring for the dead husband, the result of doing so is that the son occupies the same position to either widow, this being a mere incidental matter. The same text elsewhere cites the Kapiñjala maxim (XI. 1, 38-45) which indicates that, when the plural number is used in any injunction, in the absence of necessity requiring that a large number should be deemed to be meant, the needs of the situation are fully met by restricting the number to three, the minimum indicated.
The sacrificial practice yields one obvious contribution to the law of partnership, such as those of trading companies, bodies of actors, and agricultural concerns. The rule is laid down that the returns are to be divided among the partners according to the amounts of their respective investments, on the analogy of the distribution of the sacrificial fees among the oficiating priests (X, 3, 53-55). Thus, of one hundred cows twelve are given to each of the four principal priests, six to the next four, four each to the next four, and three each to the last group, the amounts being allocated in accordance with the comparative iniportance of their contribution to the carrying out of the offering.
In the domain of quasi-criminal law Raghunandana solves a difficulty by the application of the analogy of the principle of Tantra, where a single performance of an action serves the purpose of more than one principal offering. The problem is raised in the case of the rule that the assailant of a Brahman must perform the Krcchra penance on pain of punishment; if, then, one offends against five Brahmans, Is the penance to be performed five times? The answer on the Tantra principle is in the negative. Medhātithi again has recourse to the Mimāṁsā maxim of Grahaikatva. (III, 1, 13-15), which holds that in a general injunction the singular includes the plural and the masculine the ferninine, in order to solve the doubt raised by the rule of Manu (V, 90) that a Brahman must not drink spirituous liquor, an ingenious objector having suggested that the text is restricted in its application to such action by a single male Brahman. The maxim, it will be seen, differs entirely in its effect from that given above, which in sacrifices and on
