לִשְׁמֹ֞ר אֶת־מִצְוֺ֤ת יְהוָה֙ וְאֶת־חֻקֹּתָ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֛ר אָנֹכִ֥י מְצַוְּךָ֖ הַיּ֑וֹם לְט֖וֹב לָֽךְ׃
Que guardes los mandamientos de SEÑOR y sus estatutos, que yo te prescribo hoy, para que hayas bien?
Ramban
IF A BIRD’S NEST CHANCE TO BE BEFORE THEE. This also is an explanatory commandment, of the prohibition ye shall not kill it [the dam] and its young both in one day,134Leviticus 22:28. because the reason for both [commandments] is that we should not have a cruel heart and be discompassionate, or it may be that Scripture does not permit us to destroy a species altogether, although it permits slaughter [for food] within that group. Now, he who kills the dam and the young in one day or takes them when they are free to fly [it is regarded] as though he cut off that species.
Now, he [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim135Guide of the Perplexed III, 48. that the reason for the commandment to release the mother bird when taking its nest and the prohibition against killing the dam with its young on one day is in order to admonish us against killing the young within the mother’s sight, for animals feel great distress under such circumstances. There is no difference between the distress of man and the distress of animals for their young, since the love of the mother and her tenderness to the children of her womb are not the result of reasoning or [the faculty of intelligent] speech, but are produced by the faculty of mental images136“Machshavah.” So in Al Charizi’s translation which was used by Ramban. In Ibn Tibbon’s translation the term is ham’dameh — “imagination.” which exists among animals even as it is present in man. But if so137This is Ramban’s reason for disagreeing with Rambam’s explanation. the main prohibition in killing the dam and its young applies only when killing [first] the young and [then] the dam [but not vice versa, whereas the Torah forbids it to be done either way]! But it is all an extraordinary precaution,138For — in defense of Rambam’s explanation — we would be forced to add that the primary prohibition is against killing first the young and then the dam; the prohibition against first killing the dam and then the young is but a precautionary measure lest one may accidentally reverse the order. While we might contend this in defense of Rambam’s theory, Ramban concludes, “and it is more correct etc.” This explanation would seem to be more logical because it does not differentiate between the order of taking or slaughtering the dam and its young. Hence Ramban’s language. The full significance of this theory of Ramban will be made clearer further on in the text. and it is more correct [to explain them as prohibitions] to prevent us from acting cruelly.
And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said further:135Guide of the Perplexed III, 48. “Do not contradict me by quoting the saying of the Sages,139Berachoth 33b. See Note 168 further on. ‘He who says in his prayer: Even to a bird’s nest do Thy mercies extend [etc., they silence him,’ which would seem to imply that there is no reason other than the Will of G-d for the commandment to release a dam when taking its nest], for that is one of two opinions, namely, the opinion of the Sage who holds that the commandments [of the Torah] have no other reason but the Will of the Creator. We follow the second opinion that there is a reason for all commandments.” And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] raised a difficulty from a text in Bereshith Rabbah [which contradicts his theory that there is a reason for every commandment]. The text reads:140Bereshith Rabbah 44:1. Rambam’s discussion of the text is found in “Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26. “And what difference does it make to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether an animal is slaughtered from the front of the neck or the back? Surely you must say the commandments have been given only for the purpose of refining [disciplining] men through them, as it is said, Every word of G-d is refined.”141Proverbs 30:5. This text of Bereshith Rabbah implies that some commandments have no other reason than the fact that they were so willed by G-d, which contradicts Rambam’s main thesis that there are reasons for all commandments. Rambam proceeds (“Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26) to explain this text, in harmony with his theory. In the lengthy discussion to follow, Ramban will strongly agree with Rambam’s main theory that there is a reason for every commandment. As for the difficulty posed by the text of Bereshith Rabbah, he will offer his own solution.
Now, this theory, categorically stated by the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] concerning the commandments that there is a reason for them, is indeed very clear. There is a reason, benefit, and improvement for man in each of them, aside from the reward by Him Who commanded it, blessed be He! Our Sages have already stated:142Sanhedrin 21b. “Why were the reasons for the commandments not revealed? etc.”143See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 330-331. And they further interpreted:144Pesachim 119a. “And for stately clothing145Isaiah 23:18. The Hebrew reads: v’limchaseh athik, which the Rabbis interpret to mean: “and to the things concealed by the Ancient of days (G-d)” — there will be a special reward for him that reveals these secrets that lie hidden in the commandments of the Torah. — this refers to one who uncovers matters that were concealed by the Ancient of days.146Daniel 7:13. And what are these matters? They are the reasons for [the commandments of] the Torah.” The Rabbis have further expressed themselves on the subject of the Red Heifer147Bamidbar Rabbah 19:3-4. concerning which Solomon said, “I achieved [a knowledge of the reasons for] everything, but the section of the Red Heifer I examined, inquired into, and searched; All this have I tried by wisdom; I said, ‘I will get wisdom,’ but it was far from me.148Ecclesiastes 7:23. And Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, ‘To you I reveal the reason of the Red Heifer, but for others it is a statute [a commandment for which we know no reason].’ For it is written, And it shall come to pass in that day, that there shall not be light, but heavy clouds ‘v’kipaon’ (and thick).149Zechariah 14:6. The word is spelled yekipaon,150In other words, by tradition we are to read the word v’kipaon, although in the Masoretic text it is written yekipaon, in the future tense, as explained in the text. intimating that matters concealed from you in this world are destined ‘to be revealed’ in the World to Come, like a blind man who suddenly sees, as it is written, And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not,151Isaiah 42:16. and it is further written, These things have I done and I did not leave them undone,151Isaiah 42:16. for I have done them already to Rabbi Akiba” [meaning that the explanations were revealed to Rabbi Akiba].
Thus the Rabbis explained that our lack of knowledge of the reasons of [the commandments of] the Torah is but a barrier in our minds, and that the reason for the most difficult of the commandments [i.e., the Red Heifer] has already been revealed to the Sages of Israel [such as Rabbi Akiba, as mentioned in the above Midrash]. There are many such texts among the words of the Rabbis, and Torah and Scripture, which teach to that effect; and the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentioned some of them. But those Agadic [homiletic] statements, presenting difficulty to the Rabbi, are in my opinion, intended to express another thought as follows:
The benefit from the commandments is not derived by the Holy One Himself, exalted be He. Rather, the advantage is to man himself, to withhold from him physical harm or some evil belief, or unseemly trait of character, or to recall the miracles and wonders of the Creator, blessed be He, in order to know the Eternal. It is this [which the Rabbis intended in saying]140Bereshith Rabbah 44:1. Rambam’s discussion of the text is found in “Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26. that the commandments were given “for the purpose of refining men,” that they may become like “refined silver,” for he who refines silver does not act without purpose, but to remove therefrom any impurity. So, also, the commandments eliminate from our hearts all evil belief, and [are given] in order to inform us of the truth and to recall it always. Now this very same Agadah [homily] is mentioned in the Yelamdeinu152See Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196, for explanation of the term. in the section of These are the living things:153Leviticus 11:2. — The text quoted is found in Tanchuma (Buber), Shemini 12. ”And what difference does it make to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether one eats of an animal which is ritually slaughtered or if he just stabs it? Do you benefit Him or harm Him at all? Or what does it matter to Him if one eats clean animals or unclean? If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself.154Proverbs 9:12. Surely the commandments have been given only to refine men, as it is said, The words of the Eternal are pure words,155Psalms 12:7. As silver refined in a crucible on the earth, purified seven times. and it is further said, Every word of G-d is refined.141Proverbs 30:5. This text of Bereshith Rabbah implies that some commandments have no other reason than the fact that they were so willed by G-d, which contradicts Rambam’s main thesis that there are reasons for all commandments. Rambam proceeds (“Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26) to explain this text, in harmony with his theory. In the lengthy discussion to follow, Ramban will strongly agree with Rambam’s main theory that there is a reason for every commandment. As for the difficulty posed by the text of Bereshith Rabbah, he will offer his own solution. Why? So that [the word of G-d] should protect you.” Thus it is clearly stated here that the Rabbis [in this Midrash], meant to say merely that the benefit [accruing from observance of the commandments] is not for His sake exalted be He, [nor] that He is in need of the light of the candelabrum as one might think, or that He needs the food of the offerings and the odor of the incense as might appear from their simple meanings. Even regarding the memorial He hath made for His wonderful works,156Psalms 111:4. that He commanded us to perform in memory of the Exodus and Creation, the benefit is not for Him, but so, that we should know the truth and be meritorious enough to be worthy that He protects us, for our utterances and remembrances of His wonders are accounted by Him as things of nought, and vanity.157Isaiah 40:17. And the Midrash brought proof from [the law specifying] slaughter by cutting the neck in front or in the back, meaning to state that all the benefits are to us and not to the Holy One, blessed be He, because it is impossible to say concerning slaughter that there is more benefit and glory to the Creator, blessed be He, by cutting the neck in front than by cutting it in the back or by stabbing the animal. Rather, all these advantages are to us — to lead us in paths of compassion even during [the process of] slaughtering. And then the Rabbis brought another proof: “Or what does it matter to Him if one eats clean things,” — that is, foods permissible to the eater — “or eats unclean things,” that is, forbidden food concerning which the Torah declared they are unclean unto you.158Leviticus 11:28. However, He implied that [these laws were given to us] so that we might develop a fine soul and be wise men perceptive to the truth. By quoting the verse, If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself154Proverbs 9:12. the Rabbis [in the above Midrash] mentioned the principle that the commandments pertaining to rites such as slaughter by [cutting of] the neck are to teach us traits of good character. The Divinely ordained commandments which define the species [of animals and birds which are permissible to us] are to refine our souls, just as the Torah has said, and ye shall not make your souls detestable by beast, or by fowl, or by any thing wherewith the ground teemeth, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.159Ibid., 20:25. If so, all the commandments are solely to our advantage. This is as Elihu said, If thou hast sinned, what doest thou against Him? And if thy transgression be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?160Job 35:6. And again he states, If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him? Or what receiveth He of thy hands?161Ibid., Verse 7. This is a consensus in all the words of our Rabbis. Thus they asked in Yerushalmi Nedarim162Yerushalmi Nedarim IX, 1. whether they may open the way [to release one from a vow or oath] by reason of the honor due to G-d163Before releasing a person from a vow or oath, the Sage must ascertain that, had the supplicant known of a particular fact, he would not have made the vow or oath. The question arose whether the Sage may say to him, “If you had known that he who vows is evil in the eyes of G-d, would you still have vowed?” See also, Ramban in Numbers 30:2 (Vol. IV, pp. 345-346). in matters between man and G-d. On this question the Rabbis answered [there]: “What is an example of [a vow being released because of] the honor due to G-d? [If you say that it is a case where he swore] ‘I shall not make a Booth, I shall not take the palm-branch, I shall not put on phylacteries’ — but do you call this ‘by reason of the honor due to G-d?’ It is for oneself that [the observance of the commandments] helps, just as it is said, If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him? Or what receiveth He of thy hands?161Ibid., Verse 7. If thou hast sinned, what doest thou against Him? And if thy transgression be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?”160Job 35:6. Thus the Rabbis have explained that even the palm-branch, the Booth, and the phylacteries concerning which He commanded that they shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes; for by strength of hand the Eternal brought us forth out of Egypt164Exodus 13:16. — are not ordained to honor G-d, blessed be He, but to have compassion on our souls. And the Sages have already arranged it for us in the [Closing] Prayer on the Day of Atonement, stating: “Thou hast distinguished man from the beginning, and hast recognized him [to be privileged] to stand before Thee, for who shall say unto Thee, ‘What doest Thou?’ and if he be righteous what can he give Thee?” Similarly, it states in the Torah, which I command thee this day for thy good,165Above, 10:13. as I have explained.166Ibid., Verse 12. So also, And the Eternal commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Eternal our G-d, for our good always.167Ibid., 6:24. And the intent in all these expressions is “for our good,” and not for His, blessed and exalted be He! Rather, everything we have been commanded is so that His creatures be refined and purified, free from the dross of evil thoughts and blameworthy traits of character.
So, too, what the Rabbis have stated,168The Rabbis of the Gemara made the following remark with reference to the Mishnah quoted above (see text at Note 139): “He who says in his prayer: ‘Even to a bird’s nest do Thy mercies extend’ etc., they silence him.” The reason for this law as stated in the Mishnah is now explained by the Rabbis of the Gemara: “Because he [the supplicant] treats etc.” (see text). — Berachoth 33b. “Because he treats the ordinances of G-d like expressions of mercy, whereas they are decrees”169“To inform them that they are His servants, and that they keep His commandments, decrees and statutes, even such matters concerning which Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel saying, ‘What need is there for this commandment?’” (Rashi ibid). Now, this text of the Mishnah and Gemara was explained above by Rambam as exemplifying the opinion that there is no reason for fulfillment of the commandments of the Torah other than the Will of the Creator, while we follow the second opinion that there is a reason for every commandment. Ramban will now proceed to explain this text, in accordance with the accepted opinion that there is a reason for every commandment, thus making this text to be the consensus of all Sages. means to say — that it was not a matter of G-d’s mercy extending to the bird’s nest or the dam and its young, since His mercies did not extend so far into animal life as to prevent us from accomplishing our needs with them, for, if so, He would have forbidden slaughter altogether. But the reason for the prohibition [against taking the dam with its nest, or against killing the dam with its young in one day] is to teach us the trait of compassion and that we should not be cruel, for cruelty proliferates in man’s soul as it is known that butchers, those who slaughter large oxen and asses are men of blood;170Psalms 55:24. they that slaughter men,171Hosea 13:2. are extremely cruel. It is on account of this [cruelty] that the Rabbis have said:172Kiddushin 82a. Amalek is the symbol of cruelty, as he attacked the enfeebled, faint and weary, (further 25:18). “The most seemly among butchers is a partner of Amalek.” Thus these commandments with respect to cattle and fowl are not [a result of] compassion upon them, but they are decrees upon us to guide us and to teach us traits of good character. So, too, the Rabbis refer to all commandments of the Torah — positive and negative — as “decrees,” as they said173Mechilta, Bachodesh 6. See Vol. II, p. 286, where Ramban quotes the same text with some minor changes. in the parable of “the king who entered a country, and his attendants said to him, ‘Promulgate decrees upon them.’ He, however, refused, saying, ‘When they will have accepted my sovereignty, I will promulgate decrees upon them.’ Similarly did the Holy One, blessed be He, [say to Israel], ‘You have accepted My sovereignty: I am the Eternal thy G-d,174Exodus 20:2. accept My decrees: Thou shalt have no other gods etc.’”175Ibid., Verse 3.
However, in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah176Sefer Habahir, 104-105. See Vol. I, p. 24, Note 42. there is an interpretation with respect to releasing a mother bird when taking its nest, which states that there is a secret in this commandment. “Rabbi Rechimaie said, What is the meaning of that which is written, Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go,177Verse 7. and it did not say ‘the father?’ [This implies that the verse commands] only Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go with the honor of that ‘understanding’178Here used in a Cabalistic sense. See my Hebrew commentary p. 451. which is termed ‘the mother of the world,’ as it is written, Yea ‘im’ (if) thou call for understanding.179Proverbs 2:3. The Sefer Habahir obviously intimates that the word be read eim (mother), thus suggesting: “the mother [of the world] is called ‘understanding.’” And what is the meaning of the phrase, and the young, take thou to thee?177Verse 7. Said Rabbi Rechimaie, It means those young that she raised. And what are they? They are the seven days of [the Festival of] Tabernacles, and the laws of the seven days of the week etc.” Thus this commandment alludes to a great matter, and therefore the reward for the observance thereof is abundant, [as it is said], that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.177Verse 7.
Now, he [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim135Guide of the Perplexed III, 48. that the reason for the commandment to release the mother bird when taking its nest and the prohibition against killing the dam with its young on one day is in order to admonish us against killing the young within the mother’s sight, for animals feel great distress under such circumstances. There is no difference between the distress of man and the distress of animals for their young, since the love of the mother and her tenderness to the children of her womb are not the result of reasoning or [the faculty of intelligent] speech, but are produced by the faculty of mental images136“Machshavah.” So in Al Charizi’s translation which was used by Ramban. In Ibn Tibbon’s translation the term is ham’dameh — “imagination.” which exists among animals even as it is present in man. But if so137This is Ramban’s reason for disagreeing with Rambam’s explanation. the main prohibition in killing the dam and its young applies only when killing [first] the young and [then] the dam [but not vice versa, whereas the Torah forbids it to be done either way]! But it is all an extraordinary precaution,138For — in defense of Rambam’s explanation — we would be forced to add that the primary prohibition is against killing first the young and then the dam; the prohibition against first killing the dam and then the young is but a precautionary measure lest one may accidentally reverse the order. While we might contend this in defense of Rambam’s theory, Ramban concludes, “and it is more correct etc.” This explanation would seem to be more logical because it does not differentiate between the order of taking or slaughtering the dam and its young. Hence Ramban’s language. The full significance of this theory of Ramban will be made clearer further on in the text. and it is more correct [to explain them as prohibitions] to prevent us from acting cruelly.
And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said further:135Guide of the Perplexed III, 48. “Do not contradict me by quoting the saying of the Sages,139Berachoth 33b. See Note 168 further on. ‘He who says in his prayer: Even to a bird’s nest do Thy mercies extend [etc., they silence him,’ which would seem to imply that there is no reason other than the Will of G-d for the commandment to release a dam when taking its nest], for that is one of two opinions, namely, the opinion of the Sage who holds that the commandments [of the Torah] have no other reason but the Will of the Creator. We follow the second opinion that there is a reason for all commandments.” And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] raised a difficulty from a text in Bereshith Rabbah [which contradicts his theory that there is a reason for every commandment]. The text reads:140Bereshith Rabbah 44:1. Rambam’s discussion of the text is found in “Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26. “And what difference does it make to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether an animal is slaughtered from the front of the neck or the back? Surely you must say the commandments have been given only for the purpose of refining [disciplining] men through them, as it is said, Every word of G-d is refined.”141Proverbs 30:5. This text of Bereshith Rabbah implies that some commandments have no other reason than the fact that they were so willed by G-d, which contradicts Rambam’s main thesis that there are reasons for all commandments. Rambam proceeds (“Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26) to explain this text, in harmony with his theory. In the lengthy discussion to follow, Ramban will strongly agree with Rambam’s main theory that there is a reason for every commandment. As for the difficulty posed by the text of Bereshith Rabbah, he will offer his own solution.
Now, this theory, categorically stated by the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] concerning the commandments that there is a reason for them, is indeed very clear. There is a reason, benefit, and improvement for man in each of them, aside from the reward by Him Who commanded it, blessed be He! Our Sages have already stated:142Sanhedrin 21b. “Why were the reasons for the commandments not revealed? etc.”143See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 330-331. And they further interpreted:144Pesachim 119a. “And for stately clothing145Isaiah 23:18. The Hebrew reads: v’limchaseh athik, which the Rabbis interpret to mean: “and to the things concealed by the Ancient of days (G-d)” — there will be a special reward for him that reveals these secrets that lie hidden in the commandments of the Torah. — this refers to one who uncovers matters that were concealed by the Ancient of days.146Daniel 7:13. And what are these matters? They are the reasons for [the commandments of] the Torah.” The Rabbis have further expressed themselves on the subject of the Red Heifer147Bamidbar Rabbah 19:3-4. concerning which Solomon said, “I achieved [a knowledge of the reasons for] everything, but the section of the Red Heifer I examined, inquired into, and searched; All this have I tried by wisdom; I said, ‘I will get wisdom,’ but it was far from me.148Ecclesiastes 7:23. And Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, ‘To you I reveal the reason of the Red Heifer, but for others it is a statute [a commandment for which we know no reason].’ For it is written, And it shall come to pass in that day, that there shall not be light, but heavy clouds ‘v’kipaon’ (and thick).149Zechariah 14:6. The word is spelled yekipaon,150In other words, by tradition we are to read the word v’kipaon, although in the Masoretic text it is written yekipaon, in the future tense, as explained in the text. intimating that matters concealed from you in this world are destined ‘to be revealed’ in the World to Come, like a blind man who suddenly sees, as it is written, And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not,151Isaiah 42:16. and it is further written, These things have I done and I did not leave them undone,151Isaiah 42:16. for I have done them already to Rabbi Akiba” [meaning that the explanations were revealed to Rabbi Akiba].
Thus the Rabbis explained that our lack of knowledge of the reasons of [the commandments of] the Torah is but a barrier in our minds, and that the reason for the most difficult of the commandments [i.e., the Red Heifer] has already been revealed to the Sages of Israel [such as Rabbi Akiba, as mentioned in the above Midrash]. There are many such texts among the words of the Rabbis, and Torah and Scripture, which teach to that effect; and the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentioned some of them. But those Agadic [homiletic] statements, presenting difficulty to the Rabbi, are in my opinion, intended to express another thought as follows:
The benefit from the commandments is not derived by the Holy One Himself, exalted be He. Rather, the advantage is to man himself, to withhold from him physical harm or some evil belief, or unseemly trait of character, or to recall the miracles and wonders of the Creator, blessed be He, in order to know the Eternal. It is this [which the Rabbis intended in saying]140Bereshith Rabbah 44:1. Rambam’s discussion of the text is found in “Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26. that the commandments were given “for the purpose of refining men,” that they may become like “refined silver,” for he who refines silver does not act without purpose, but to remove therefrom any impurity. So, also, the commandments eliminate from our hearts all evil belief, and [are given] in order to inform us of the truth and to recall it always. Now this very same Agadah [homily] is mentioned in the Yelamdeinu152See Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196, for explanation of the term. in the section of These are the living things:153Leviticus 11:2. — The text quoted is found in Tanchuma (Buber), Shemini 12. ”And what difference does it make to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether one eats of an animal which is ritually slaughtered or if he just stabs it? Do you benefit Him or harm Him at all? Or what does it matter to Him if one eats clean animals or unclean? If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself.154Proverbs 9:12. Surely the commandments have been given only to refine men, as it is said, The words of the Eternal are pure words,155Psalms 12:7. As silver refined in a crucible on the earth, purified seven times. and it is further said, Every word of G-d is refined.141Proverbs 30:5. This text of Bereshith Rabbah implies that some commandments have no other reason than the fact that they were so willed by G-d, which contradicts Rambam’s main thesis that there are reasons for all commandments. Rambam proceeds (“Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26) to explain this text, in harmony with his theory. In the lengthy discussion to follow, Ramban will strongly agree with Rambam’s main theory that there is a reason for every commandment. As for the difficulty posed by the text of Bereshith Rabbah, he will offer his own solution. Why? So that [the word of G-d] should protect you.” Thus it is clearly stated here that the Rabbis [in this Midrash], meant to say merely that the benefit [accruing from observance of the commandments] is not for His sake exalted be He, [nor] that He is in need of the light of the candelabrum as one might think, or that He needs the food of the offerings and the odor of the incense as might appear from their simple meanings. Even regarding the memorial He hath made for His wonderful works,156Psalms 111:4. that He commanded us to perform in memory of the Exodus and Creation, the benefit is not for Him, but so, that we should know the truth and be meritorious enough to be worthy that He protects us, for our utterances and remembrances of His wonders are accounted by Him as things of nought, and vanity.157Isaiah 40:17. And the Midrash brought proof from [the law specifying] slaughter by cutting the neck in front or in the back, meaning to state that all the benefits are to us and not to the Holy One, blessed be He, because it is impossible to say concerning slaughter that there is more benefit and glory to the Creator, blessed be He, by cutting the neck in front than by cutting it in the back or by stabbing the animal. Rather, all these advantages are to us — to lead us in paths of compassion even during [the process of] slaughtering. And then the Rabbis brought another proof: “Or what does it matter to Him if one eats clean things,” — that is, foods permissible to the eater — “or eats unclean things,” that is, forbidden food concerning which the Torah declared they are unclean unto you.158Leviticus 11:28. However, He implied that [these laws were given to us] so that we might develop a fine soul and be wise men perceptive to the truth. By quoting the verse, If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself154Proverbs 9:12. the Rabbis [in the above Midrash] mentioned the principle that the commandments pertaining to rites such as slaughter by [cutting of] the neck are to teach us traits of good character. The Divinely ordained commandments which define the species [of animals and birds which are permissible to us] are to refine our souls, just as the Torah has said, and ye shall not make your souls detestable by beast, or by fowl, or by any thing wherewith the ground teemeth, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.159Ibid., 20:25. If so, all the commandments are solely to our advantage. This is as Elihu said, If thou hast sinned, what doest thou against Him? And if thy transgression be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?160Job 35:6. And again he states, If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him? Or what receiveth He of thy hands?161Ibid., Verse 7. This is a consensus in all the words of our Rabbis. Thus they asked in Yerushalmi Nedarim162Yerushalmi Nedarim IX, 1. whether they may open the way [to release one from a vow or oath] by reason of the honor due to G-d163Before releasing a person from a vow or oath, the Sage must ascertain that, had the supplicant known of a particular fact, he would not have made the vow or oath. The question arose whether the Sage may say to him, “If you had known that he who vows is evil in the eyes of G-d, would you still have vowed?” See also, Ramban in Numbers 30:2 (Vol. IV, pp. 345-346). in matters between man and G-d. On this question the Rabbis answered [there]: “What is an example of [a vow being released because of] the honor due to G-d? [If you say that it is a case where he swore] ‘I shall not make a Booth, I shall not take the palm-branch, I shall not put on phylacteries’ — but do you call this ‘by reason of the honor due to G-d?’ It is for oneself that [the observance of the commandments] helps, just as it is said, If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him? Or what receiveth He of thy hands?161Ibid., Verse 7. If thou hast sinned, what doest thou against Him? And if thy transgression be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?”160Job 35:6. Thus the Rabbis have explained that even the palm-branch, the Booth, and the phylacteries concerning which He commanded that they shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes; for by strength of hand the Eternal brought us forth out of Egypt164Exodus 13:16. — are not ordained to honor G-d, blessed be He, but to have compassion on our souls. And the Sages have already arranged it for us in the [Closing] Prayer on the Day of Atonement, stating: “Thou hast distinguished man from the beginning, and hast recognized him [to be privileged] to stand before Thee, for who shall say unto Thee, ‘What doest Thou?’ and if he be righteous what can he give Thee?” Similarly, it states in the Torah, which I command thee this day for thy good,165Above, 10:13. as I have explained.166Ibid., Verse 12. So also, And the Eternal commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Eternal our G-d, for our good always.167Ibid., 6:24. And the intent in all these expressions is “for our good,” and not for His, blessed and exalted be He! Rather, everything we have been commanded is so that His creatures be refined and purified, free from the dross of evil thoughts and blameworthy traits of character.
So, too, what the Rabbis have stated,168The Rabbis of the Gemara made the following remark with reference to the Mishnah quoted above (see text at Note 139): “He who says in his prayer: ‘Even to a bird’s nest do Thy mercies extend’ etc., they silence him.” The reason for this law as stated in the Mishnah is now explained by the Rabbis of the Gemara: “Because he [the supplicant] treats etc.” (see text). — Berachoth 33b. “Because he treats the ordinances of G-d like expressions of mercy, whereas they are decrees”169“To inform them that they are His servants, and that they keep His commandments, decrees and statutes, even such matters concerning which Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel saying, ‘What need is there for this commandment?’” (Rashi ibid). Now, this text of the Mishnah and Gemara was explained above by Rambam as exemplifying the opinion that there is no reason for fulfillment of the commandments of the Torah other than the Will of the Creator, while we follow the second opinion that there is a reason for every commandment. Ramban will now proceed to explain this text, in accordance with the accepted opinion that there is a reason for every commandment, thus making this text to be the consensus of all Sages. means to say — that it was not a matter of G-d’s mercy extending to the bird’s nest or the dam and its young, since His mercies did not extend so far into animal life as to prevent us from accomplishing our needs with them, for, if so, He would have forbidden slaughter altogether. But the reason for the prohibition [against taking the dam with its nest, or against killing the dam with its young in one day] is to teach us the trait of compassion and that we should not be cruel, for cruelty proliferates in man’s soul as it is known that butchers, those who slaughter large oxen and asses are men of blood;170Psalms 55:24. they that slaughter men,171Hosea 13:2. are extremely cruel. It is on account of this [cruelty] that the Rabbis have said:172Kiddushin 82a. Amalek is the symbol of cruelty, as he attacked the enfeebled, faint and weary, (further 25:18). “The most seemly among butchers is a partner of Amalek.” Thus these commandments with respect to cattle and fowl are not [a result of] compassion upon them, but they are decrees upon us to guide us and to teach us traits of good character. So, too, the Rabbis refer to all commandments of the Torah — positive and negative — as “decrees,” as they said173Mechilta, Bachodesh 6. See Vol. II, p. 286, where Ramban quotes the same text with some minor changes. in the parable of “the king who entered a country, and his attendants said to him, ‘Promulgate decrees upon them.’ He, however, refused, saying, ‘When they will have accepted my sovereignty, I will promulgate decrees upon them.’ Similarly did the Holy One, blessed be He, [say to Israel], ‘You have accepted My sovereignty: I am the Eternal thy G-d,174Exodus 20:2. accept My decrees: Thou shalt have no other gods etc.’”175Ibid., Verse 3.
However, in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah176Sefer Habahir, 104-105. See Vol. I, p. 24, Note 42. there is an interpretation with respect to releasing a mother bird when taking its nest, which states that there is a secret in this commandment. “Rabbi Rechimaie said, What is the meaning of that which is written, Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go,177Verse 7. and it did not say ‘the father?’ [This implies that the verse commands] only Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go with the honor of that ‘understanding’178Here used in a Cabalistic sense. See my Hebrew commentary p. 451. which is termed ‘the mother of the world,’ as it is written, Yea ‘im’ (if) thou call for understanding.179Proverbs 2:3. The Sefer Habahir obviously intimates that the word be read eim (mother), thus suggesting: “the mother [of the world] is called ‘understanding.’” And what is the meaning of the phrase, and the young, take thou to thee?177Verse 7. Said Rabbi Rechimaie, It means those young that she raised. And what are they? They are the seven days of [the Festival of] Tabernacles, and the laws of the seven days of the week etc.” Thus this commandment alludes to a great matter, and therefore the reward for the observance thereof is abundant, [as it is said], that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.177Verse 7.
Haamek Davar
This portion is puzzling. Everything possible to ask within the power of man is expressed in this request. What else further could be asked? In fact, the Midrash (Midrash Tehillim 27:5) relates that when David said “One thing I ask from Hashem, this I beseech, let me sit in house of Hashem all the days of my life…” G-d said to David, “You said ‘One thing I ask from Hashem…’, but you asked for many things?” [David] answered, “You too said ‘What does Hashem ask of you…’ and then asked for many things.” Even though it is only a light-hearted exchange, still it is certain that both Hashem and David would not have asked for more than what they said initially. Adding to the difficulty, [on this verse] the Talmud (Megillah 25a:10) comments, ‘Is fear [of Heaven] a minor thing?’ and it answers, ‘Yes, to Moshe it is a minor thing.’ What makes this passage surprising is that fear [of Heaven] is not the only item to consider, so why did the Talmud ask on it more than love or service with all one's soul? Another aspect that’s hard to understand: since it started with asking to love Him, why did it immediately contradict the request by saying it is “for your own good”? Rashi (Rashi on Deuteronomy 10:13) explains that phrase to mean ‘in order that it shall be good for you’, which is the opposite of love. But all this notwithstanding, we need to understand to whom is this verse speaking. If it is speaking to all of Israel equally, how is it possible [to expect] this spiritual level of fear [of Hashem] and love [of Hashem] from the least of Israel, who are not capable of reaching them at all? Love can only be reached by means of Torah or service in the Temple, which are the bread that joins Israel to their Father in Heaven, as it writes in the book of Numbers 28:2 in the verse “my sacrifice, my bread…”, and in many other places. How could Hashem come with complaints against His creations to ask of them something which is impossible to achieve in a natural way? And if you will suggest that it speaks only to those fit to achieve these things, see the verse did not specify who it was speaking to. Rather it must be that you can contemplate and deduce from this verse itself that Hashem is not asking from Israel [as a whole], but from each person according to their ability. For behold it writes “to walk in all of His ways”, but it doesn't write “ *and* to walk in all of His ways”, like it writes [next] “and to love Him and to serve…” So too in verse 13, “to guard the commandments of Hashem”, but not “ *and* to guard…” It is clear that it is like the start of a separate expression, and from this we can understand the matter. It is appropriate to know that there are four spiritual levels in Israel, as we explained in the portion of Balak “How goodly are your tents…” They are (1) heads and leaders of Israel, (2) scholars, also called the elders of Israel, (3) laymen occupied with earning a living, and (4) women, servants and children. Each one of these groups differs from the other in terms of what Hashem asks of them. That is why it writes in the portion “You are standing today, all of you, your heads, your tribes, your elders and your officers. Every man of Israel, your infants, your women... to cross over into the covenant of Hashem…” On the face of it, why did the text need to include these [groups]? It writes “You are standing today, all of you... to cross over into the covenant of Hashem.” Everyone is included! Rather, it is because each one has a separate covenant, and what Hashem asks of this group He does not ask of that group, almost as if [these expectations] are forbidden to a second group, as we will explain. Proceeding in the order used in the verse: “Your heads, your tribes.” These are the heads and directors of that generation, who can be described as ‘working for the needs of the community’. They are not permitted to stop this work, not even to toil in love [of Hashem] or closeness [to Him], because that would not be in keeping with the diligence required of them in their unadulterated service of the community. It states in Tractate Shabbat: ‘Hosting guests is even greater than receiving the Divine Presence, as it says “Please do not pass from upon your servant.”’ The explanation is not that someone who merits to receive the Divine Presence cannot be compared to someone who is a host to guests, but simply that this particular mitzvah is greater than the other one and pushes it aside, like our father Avraham did even at the very moment he stood before Hashem, as it writes “And Hashem appeared to him,” but when he saw guests he begged leave from Hashem to depart from Him but without leaving completely, rather He should wait for him until he had treated the guests in a manner fitting for them. From this we can understand [the priority of] taking care of communal needs, for they embody a commandment even greater than hosting guests. Behold, someone involved in taking care of communal needs is exempt from the commandment to read Shema, as related in a Tosefta in Brachot: ‘This is the reason that Rabi Yishmael thought Rabi Akiva and Rabi Elazar ben Azariya did not read the Shema: because they were taking care of communal needs.’ How much more so is this commandment so great as to push aside the commandments of love [of Hashem] and closeness [to Him], which themselves are pushed aside before practical, active obligations, as is written in the portion of tzitzit. If so, then what does Hashem ask of the leaders of Israel? Not love [of Hashem] and closeness [to Him], nor guarding the performance of good deeds, but fear [of Him], meaning he should be steeped constantly in fear of Hashem. This is because someone in a leadership position who is taking care of the needs of the public, could be drawn to seek his own benefit or honour through his deeds. He might grant advantage to those who flatter him or alternatively, to someone who encroaches on his honour he might hide his eyes from seeing his suffering or even find opportunity to cause him evil. That is why it writes about him “What does Hashem ask of you, only to fear [Him].” At all times he needs to know “above even a high official is a higher authority...” There is a further reason for him to fear Hashem more than anyone else – because transgressions between man and his fellow are not easily atoned for. It states “man is considered forewarned [for damages] whether by accident or on purpose,” which is not the case regarding sins between a man and Heaven. King David says: “I hate those who hate You... examine me Hashem and know my heart... see if I have vexatious ways, and guide me on a path of eternity.” The explanation is: if I err in my evaluation of someone as one of those who hate You and as a result pursue him and hate him, but in fact I am not in line with the truth, then it would be better for me to die, that You should “guide me on a path of eternity.” For the mistake cannot be fixed and repentance will not help. This specific expectation applies to the heads and leaders of Israel and no others.
Bekhor Shor
From you. 'I request nothing from you but fear and love', for all the commandments are not from you but rather from Him; if He gives you a house, make a mezuzah and a fence [for its flat roof]. Clothing, make fringes. Money, make of it donations. Grain and grape juice and wine, make from them priestly and other tithes. A son, circumcise him. It turns out, performance of the mitzvot is ultimately from God! There is no Arab merchant in the world who, when given 20 dinarim, doesn't give because of this to the One who has commanded regarding it half of the money or a third, and this holds for him goodness. And so too, because of the Holy Blessed One we are able to praise all that You have made and give to him, and not beg at the doors. And this is that he does not ask from us a gift, just fear and love and the intention of the heart, and thus it is written (Job 41:3): "Who has a previous claim on Me, that I should repay him? All that is under the heavens is Mine!" -- I am first to give to them, before they give to Me anything. And so said David, "what is yours has been given to you". And not only do you do a mitzvah, but you even receive benefit! As it is written "to your own good" (Deuteronomy 10:13). And from this verse, our rabbis saw a hint (Menachot 43b) of one hundred daily blessings, as it is written "What [mah/מה] does the Lord your God ask of you?" Do not read "what" [mah/מה], rather one hundred [me'ah/מאה] -- and there are one hundred letters in this verse from "And now", when you read "what" with the additional alef (making it "me'ah"), that in one hundred there are one hundred letters. For within the verse there are 99 letters, and with the alef there are a round 100. And now there are two [hundreds]! -- one that you read, and a further one of the 100 letters.