Mbh 12.165.1b

The king should always publicly take away the wealth of such a person as does not practise charity, by acting in this way the king earns great merit. Listen again to me. That Brahmana who has been forced by want to go without six meals,[472] may take away without permission, according to the rule of a person that cares only for today without any thought of the morrow, only what is necessary for a single meal, from the husking tub or the field or the garden or any other place of even a man of low pursuits. He should, however, whether asked or unasked, inform the king of his act.[473] If the king be conversant with duty he should not inflict any punishment upon such a Brahmana. He should remember that a Brahmana becomes afflicted with hunger only through the fault of the Kshatriya.[474] Having ascertained a Brahmana's learning and behaviour, the king should make a provision for him, and protect him as a father protects the son of his own loins. On the expiry of every year, one should perform the Vaisvanara sacrifice (if he is unable to perform any animal or Soma sacrifice). They who are conversant with religion say that the practice of an act laid down in the alternative, is not destructive of virtue. The Viswedevas, the Sadhyas, the Brahmanas, and great Rishis, fearing death in seasons of distress, do not scruple to have recourse to such provisions in the scriptures as have been laid down in the alternative. That man, however, who while able to live according to the primary provision, betakes himself to the alternative, comes to be regarded as a wicked person and never succeeds in winning any felicity in heaven. A Brahmana conversant with the Vedas should never speak of his energy and knowledge to the king. (It is the duty of the king to ascertain it himself.) Comparing again the energy of a Brahmana with that of the king, the former will always be found to be superior to the latter.