From a contemporary standpoint, 9.225 is widely rejected:
In Chapter 9, Verse 225, Manu states:
"On failure of issue (son) by her husband, a woman who has been authorized may obtain the desired offspring by cohabitation with a brother-in-law (or a close relative of the husband)."
Alternatively, more literally:
"If the husband is without a son, the wife, being authorized, may procure a son by cohabitation with a brother-in-law or a sapinda (near relative) of her husband."
Manusmriti, Chapter 9, Verse 225 stands as a moral and historical prism. How you interpret it depends on your hermeneutic lens:
What is undeniable is this: Verse 225 has outlived its legal utility. Its continued relevance lies not in its application—which is impossible in a constitutional democracy—but in the debate it fuels about the role of ancient texts in modern religious identity. It forces us to ask a difficult question: Can a community revere a text while explicitly rejecting some of its verses? The answer, for most thoughtful practitioners of Hinduism today, is a decisive yes. The Manusmriti is a museum of Indian legal history, not a blueprint for 21st-century justice. manusmriti chapter 9 verse 225
Final takeaway: To cite Manusmriti 9.225 without its historical context is misleading. To ignore its patriarchal violence is dishonest. The only responsible path is to study it as a document of its time—and then gratefully recognize that humanity has, slowly and painfully, moved beyond it.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational and historical analysis. It does not advocate for or against any religious belief. Laws cited are specific to India; other jurisdictions may vary.
Feature: The Existential Reciprocity of Dharma From a contemporary standpoint, 9
Source Text (Manusmriti 9.225): "Yeṣāṃ hi nāsty aṅgakṛtaḥ sadācāro na parāṅmukhaḥ | Tāṃś ca yatnād gopayet tāsāṃ rakṣāṇāṃ hi mūlam idam ||"
Translation: "Those who have no proper conduct—having turned away from the limbs of the law—and are always adverse, one must protect with effort; for this is the root of their protection."
This is the most puzzling part of the verse for modern readers. Today, "usurer" implies an exploitative moneylender. But in ancient Hindu legal texts, usury (charging interest on loans) was not entirely forbidden; it was regulated but considered a morally inferior profession. "On failure of issue (son) by her husband,
Punishing the buyer "like a usurer" likely meant:
Why the distinction?
Manu’s logic appears to be one of intentionality and necessity: