Dayanand Saraswati was a religious leader in the 19th century who believed people of all castes should be allowed to study the Vedas. He created the Arya Samaj for this purpose and in the the centres of the Arya Samaj, people of all castes were allowed to undergo the upanayanam ceremony and study the Vedas thereafter. Here's an exerpt from his Satyarth Prakash (1875) in which he says Shudras as well as women should be allowed to study the Vedas:
"Besides, all men have a right to read the Veda or hear it read. History bears testimony to it, as for instance it is written in the Chhandogya Upanishad that Gargee and other women of yore had read the Veda, and even Janshruti, a Shudra by birth, had studied the Veda under Raikyamuni. Moreover, it is clearly written in the 2nd mantra of the 26th Chapter of the Yajur Veda that every one irrespective of caste or sex, has a right to read the Veda or hear it read." pg 269
But then in the Krishna Yajurveda it is clearly stated that Shudras are not supposed to perform yajna, which would bar them from performing the upanayanam ceremony and consequently studying the Vedas.
"...From his feet he meted out the Ekavinça Stoma. After it the Anustubh metre was created, the Vairaja Saman, of men the Çudra, of cattle the horse. Therefore the two, the horse and the Çudra, are dependent on others. Therefore the Çudra is not fit for the sacrifice, for he was not created after any gods. Therefore they depend on their feet, for they were created from the feet." - Krishna Yajurveda 7.1.1
So I wonder how did Dayanand Saraswati who claimed to believe in the authority of the Vedas respond to this. One clue I have found is that he published a Hindi translation of the Yajurveda along with his commentary but he only included the Shukla Yajurveda and ignored the Krishna Yajurveda. So he may have been of the opinion that Krishna Yajurveda was not part of the Vedas but I don't know how one can hold such a position and claim to be believe in the authority of the Vedas at the same time, it seems self-contradictory.
Another possibility might be this. It says in the Manusmriti, a text Saraswati often quoted in his Satyarth Prakash, that if two Vedic statements contradict each other, both are considered valid. So perhaps he read both Krishna Yajurveda 7.1.1 and Shukla Yajurveda 26.2 (which he rightly or wrongly considered to be affirming the right of everyone to study the Vedas) and decided to go with the later. And since there's no requirement to study all the śākhās, he included in his Yajurveda translation only the Kanva śākhā which only contains the Shukla Yajurveda.
"Where there is conflict between two Vedic texts, both are held to be Dharma; both have been rightly pronounced by the wise to be Dharma" - Manusmriti 2.14
A third possibility is that he may have died before he dealt with the Krishna Yajurveda. Perhaps he was going to publish a translation and commentary of the Krishna Yajurveda but died before doing so. Also I'm not sure if every śākhā of the Krishna Yajurveda contains the verses 7.1.1. I know the Taittiriya śākhā contains them since that's the one Ralph TH Griffith chose for his translation and his translation is only the translation of the Krishna Yajurveda into a vernacular language and hence is often referred to. But I don't know if the other three extant śākhās, Maitrayani, Kaṭha and Kapiṣṭhala, contain those verses.
Anyways I think I have exhausted all possibilities I could think of. How do you think he dealt with the verses from the Vedas that pretty much contradicted the foundation of everything he was doing.
