Bhashya
गृहिणा वैश्वदेवाख्यमन्नं यदहन्यहनि निरूप्यत इति के-चित् ।तन्न ।सर्वभोक्तृसाधारणत्वं वैश्वदेवाख्यस्यान्नस्य न सर्वप्राणभृद्भुज्यमानान्नवत्प्रत्यक्षम् ।नापि यदिदमद्यत इति तद्विषयं वचनमनुकूलम् ।सर्वप्राणभृद्भुज्यमानान्नान्तःपाति-त्वाच्च वैश्वदेवाख्यस्य युक्तं श्वचाण्डालाद्याद्यस्य अन्नस्य ग्रह-णम् , वैश्वदेवव्यतिरेकेणापि श्वचाण्डालाद्याद्यान्नदर्शनात् ,तत्र युक्तं यदिदमद्यत इति वचनम् ।यदि हि तन्न गृह्येत साधारणशब्देन पित्रा असृष्टत्वाविनियुक्तत्वे तस्य प्रसज्येयाताम् ।इष्यते हि तत्सृष्टत्वं तद्विनियुक्तत्वं च सर्वस्यान्नजातस्य ।न च वैश्वदेवाख्यं शास्त्रोक्तं कर्म कुर्वतः पाप्मनोऽविनिवृत्तिर्युक्ता ।न च तस्य प्रतिषेधोऽस्ति ।न च मत्स्यबन्धनादिकर्मवत्स्वभावजुगुप्सितमेतत्, शिष्टनिर्वर्त्यत्वात्, अकरणे च प्रत्यवायश्रवणात् ।इतरत्र च प्रत्यवायोपपत्तेः, 'अहमन्नमन्नमदन्तमद्मि' इति मन्त्रवर्णात् ॥
In plain words
Some maintain that the daily food set aside by a householder is the offering known as Vaiśvadeva. That is incorrect. The quality of being shared by all consumers does not apply to the Vaiśvadeva offering in the same direct, visible way it applies to the food eaten by all living creatures. Nor does the scriptural text 'which this is eaten' point specifically to that ritual offering. Since the Vaiśvadeva offering is merely a part of the general food consumed by all beings, it is proper to include food eaten by dogs, outcastes, and others—especially since such food is found everywhere even outside the Vaiśvadeva ritual. Only in the case of universal food does the scriptural statement 'which this is eaten' fit correctly. If the common food mentioned in the Veda were not understood in this universal sense, it would follow incorrectly that such food was neither created nor assigned by the creator, whereas all food is recognized as created and allocated by him. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to say that someone performing the righteous Vaiśvadeva ritual fails to get rid of sin, for there is no scriptural prohibition against it. Unlike fishing or hunting, which are naturally abhorrent, eating for body maintenance is practiced by noble people, and scripture declares that failing to eat brings ritual demerit. Thus, based on the mantra text, 'I am food, I eat the eater of food,' the universal interpretation stands.
Close to the Sanskrit
Some say that food set apart daily by a householder is called the Vaiśvadeva offering. That is not so. The state of being common to all eaters does not belong to the so-called Vaiśvadeva food in the same evident way as the food enjoyed by all living creatures. Nor is the scriptural statement 'which this is eaten' favorable to that interpretation. And because the Vaiśvadeva offering is included within the food eaten by all life-bearers, it is proper to include the food eaten by dogs, outcastes, and the like, since food eaten by dogs and outcastes is seen even apart from the Vaiśvadeva rite. There the statement 'which this is eaten' is proper. If that were not taken by the word 'common', the flaws of not being created or assigned by the father would result for it. But it is accepted that all food is created and assigned by him. Nor is the non-removal of sin appropriate for one who performs the scripture-prescribed Vaiśvadeva action. And there is no prohibition against it. Nor is this naturally despicable like fishing and similar actions, because it is performed by cultured persons, and because demerit is heard of in its non-performance. And elsewise due to the occurrence of demerit, from the mantra text: 'I am food, I eat the eater of food'.