One such cases is “sinful” or “vicious” for adharma and “moral” or “virtuous” for dharma in the translation of Medhātithi’s commentary. I am sure that there are cases in which such a translation could make sense, but not in Medhātithi.

Medhātithi follows the Mīmāṃsā approach and defines dharma as what is prescribed by the Veda or is in line with the duties prescribed by the Veda and adharma as its opposite. Translations such as “sinful” or “virtuous” suggest that actions have an intrinsic moral value logically prior to the commands applied to them. By contrast, this is not the case. Violence is not adharma because it is intrinsically “sinful” or “vicious” and in fact Medhātithi explains that the Jyotiṣṭoma violence is not adharma at all.