Regarding why the father encouraged to marry off his daughter before puberty, and how to reform this.

Below is from my draft of a blog post I am going to publish. Refer to Baudhayana Dharmasutra 4.1.11-14: >"11. Let him give his daughter, while she still goes naked, to a man who has not broken the vow of chastity and who possesses good qualities, or even to one destitute of good qualities; let him not keep (the maiden) in (his house) after she has reached the age of puberty.[^(\[7\])](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/baudhayana-dharmasutra/d/doc116443.html#note-e-65444)  >14. Three years let a marriageable damsel wait for the order of her father. But after (that) time let her choose for herself in the fourth year a husband (of) equal (rank). If no man (of) equal (rank) be found, she may take even one destitute of good qualities." The question is why does the father incurr sin for each of the daughters menses while she is unmarried? Similarly, why does the husband incurr any sin at all? For context, the father can marry off his daughter before age 12 (puberty), but after puberty he has a 3 year window. Meaning while the daughter is at ages 12-15, the father is a bit of distress. After that window, the girl is 16, and biologically can bear healthy children and thus is allowed to choose her own husband. The standard explanation is that each time a girl has her period, that is an embryo is wasted and a soul is denied to take birth. My initial question was why were there specific time periods for the father and husband to do their duties on the threat of some sort of sin. This got me into a rabbit hole till I read Nithin Shridhara's statement regarding menstruation. So it turns out that a woman's menses in general, even after she is married and having kids, is sort of sinful! Menstruation fundementally has some sin attached to it. Specifcally it amounts to 1/3 the sin of Brahmahatya. This is because, according the Vedic passage, Indra obtained the sin of Brahmahatya and deposited on various objects and beings in the world. When Indra deposited 1/3 the sin on women, menstruation became the mark of the sin, and the compensation was that they could bear children amongst other things. The practical explanation again is that a chance for an egg to get fertilized is missed.   So essentially, there is nothing special in in the menstruation of a girl at ages 12-15. As for why the father and husband get sin if they don't fulfill their roles now makes sense. One way to combat the sin of menstruation if the girl gets married and have kids, as now souls actually take birth. First understand that women are absolved of the sin of menstruation as the sin gets discharged out from the blood. Now, it is the specifically job of the father to ensure a good man for his daughter, so a good amount of the sin naturally ***transfers*** to the father. The husband's job is to ensure the progeny and given that his wife is in his custody, he gets the a good amount of the sin **transfered** to him.  (Admittedly, there is **NO** textual mention of the one-third of Brahmahatya sin being ***transfered*** to the father and husband; this is my *deduction*. However, I think it is a safe deduction).  Why should any amount of sin transfer at all? Just like cows, progeny is revered in Vedic culture, so there is huge importance for progeny, and thus a greater burden on the father and husband as the girl was seen as in their custody. So there was an actual ***need*** for it to **transfer**. However, after the marraige, the father's responsibility is done, and no sin is transfered any longer. After the first child, the debt to the ancestors has been paid, and there is no need to have the sin transfered. With this in mind, we can exegeise out the statements of child marraige in favour of a more ethical system that preserves our religion's importance for progeny.  Here is how. First any major sin occuring to the father during each menses that a girl is not married can be considered as **exaggeration** to simply create an urgency of marrying the girl for the assurance of progeny. Similarly, statements saying the family will go to hell for not marrying off a girl before puberty can be passed of as *exaggerations* for the same reason. Yes, although when I was explaining why sin transfers to father and husband, I proceded as if the sin literally transfered, I am now saying that it is an *exaggeration* soley to create a **sense of** ***urgency***.   Now, here is a potential explanation for the urgent sentiment. As per science, a woman can only have kids from ages 12-45. To be conservative, let us go by the *Sushruta Samhita* which gives the range as ages 12-50, which is 38 years span. More so, a woman's fertility declines at age 30 and after age 37, her fertility declines at an accelerating rate. So let us consider the span of ages 12-37. That is 25 years. In comparrison to a human lifespan, this is short. Not only that, when a women gets pregnant in her 40s, she faces risk of physical complication. **So the idea is that the girl must be married so she can have kids as early as possible before it is too late**. This is more so when you consider that peak fertility, biologically speaking, is late teans to late 20s, which shortens the time frame even more. Remember that a man is fertile throughout his entire life time or atleast till age 70 as per *Sushruta Samhita*. The ancient people likely were aware of all this is some shape or form. Thus, for a culture that emphasised progeny, early marriage for girls was encouraged.  Given all this, we could set the new age bounds for the father to marry off his daughter. On the belief that the girl should be **mentally mature** to have a say in her marraige, the age range of 12-15 must be deemed improper. The new age range is 22-30. A girl's brain is fully developed at age 22 and a woman's fertiltiy declines at age 30. I actually don't agree with the lower bound, but for the sake of example, let us go with it. So now the sense of urgency expressed by the *Smritikara*s can be applicable for when a girl is at ages 22-30. Furthermore, if you still don't like the idea of the sin being an exaggeration, we can say that the father incurrs the sin but only with in the new age bound we set (22-30). Again, I don't agree with this bound, nor do I agree with the incurring of sin being literal. I also think that the father should not marry off the girl before age 22. If you are wondering if there is any pressure on the man to get married, there is. Men have *Pitr Rna*, meaning "debt to the ancestors". A man has to have children to extend his famiy's lineage. In oder to do this, he must marry and procreate according to Dharma.   Another thing is that we now see that we have a perceptible reason for the Smriti injunction, and as per the Mimamsa texts, Smriti injunctions that have a perceptoble reason ("worldly motive", "*hetudarshanam*") have no authority (in the way Vedic injunctions do). Assuming that the lengthy explanation for the sense of urgency I gave above is correct. So in this way, we can exegise out child marriage and deem it immoral without comprimising on the spirit of the Smritis.