Comentario citado sobre Zacarías 14:6

Tanchuma on Chukat 8 comments as follows on the words: “they shall take a red cow to you.” The words “a cow to you,” mean that I, G’d, will reveal the meaning of this legislation to you, but for everyone else it will remain in the realm of a חוקה, a statute, beyond their understanding. This interpretation is based on an illuminating comment by Rav Huna on two verses (Psalms 75,3 and Zecharyah 14,6). In the former verse the psalmist writes: At the time I choose I will give judgment equitably.” [At that time the justice of My ways will become revealed to everyone, seeing G’d did not mean to imply that up until that time His justice had been inequitable. Ed.]. In the other verse the prophet quotes G’d as saying: “in that day there shall be neither sunlight nor cold moonlight, but there shall be a continuous day -only the Lord knows when- of neither day or night, and there shall be light at eventide.” The meaning of the verse is that there will remain matters which while they are not revealed to you in this world will be revealed to you in that future, such as the blind man who gains his sight, of whom Isaiah 42,16 writes: “I will guide the blind by a road they did not know, and I will make them walk by paths they never knew I will turn darkness before them to light.....these are the things which I have done and I will not abandon them.” The crucial word in that verse is the word עשיתים, instead of אעשה אותם, i.e. “I have done them,” instead of “I am going to do them” (as we would have expected). This means (according to Tanchuma) that what is described here as a view of the future G’d has already shown to Rabbi Akiva and his companions (who descended into the Pardess).
A different approach to the same verse: Even matters which have not been revealed to Moses will be revealed to Rabbi Akiva. This is based on Job 28,10: “his eyes behold every precious thing.” These words which describe someone as seeing “every precious thing” refer to Rabbi Akiva. Solomon said in Kohelet 7,23: “All this I tested with wisdom; I thought to myself that I would become wise, but it is beyond me.” The words: “I would become wise,” are a reference to the testimony in Kings I 5,9: “the Lord had given wisdom to Solomon and discernment in great measure....and his wisdom was greater than that of all the Kedemites and all the wisdom of Egypt.” What precisely did the wisdom of the Kedemites consist of? They knew how to interpret zodiac signs, were experts in astrology; they were also familiar with the tiar, a bird (raven?) based on Kohelet 10,20: “for a bird of the sky may carry the sound, and some winged creature may betray the matter.”
Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel used to say that he liked three customs of the Orientals. They do not kiss on the mouth but on the hand; when they cut meat they always employ a knife; when they ask someone’s advice on a matter they invariably do this in the field (where they cannot be overheard). This latter practice is based on Yaakov consulting with his wives in the field on his decision to leave Lavan (compare Genesis 31,4). What did the wisdom of the Egyptians which Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel praised consist of? You will find that when Solomon was about to build the Temple he sent word to Pharaoh Necho asking him to supply him with artisans on loan to help him in the construction. How did Pharaoh answer this request? He consulted his astrologers to determine which of his artisans would not live out the year and he then dispatched these artisans to Solomon. When Solomon saw these people he realized with the aid of Holy Spirit that they were all going to die during that year. He provided each one with a shroud and sent them back to Pharaoh with a note reading: “were you short of shrouds in Egypt? Here I send you your artisans back with a gift of shrouds.” When the Book of Kings wrote that Solomon was wiser than “כל האדם, “any man” (or “Adam,”) what precisely did the unique wisdom of Adam consist of? You will find a discussion in the Midrash that when G’d was about to create Adam He consulted with the ministering angels about His plan saying: “let us make Adam in our image and in our likeness.” The angels countered: “what is so special about Adam that You want to bother with him?” G’d responded that the Adam He intended to create would be wiser than they. How did G’d proceed to prove His point? He assembled all the beasts, the birds, etc., and asked the angels to name them. The angels were unable to do this. After G’d had created Adam, He paraded all the animals in front of him and asked him: “what is the name of this animal, etc.?” Adam replied: “this one is called “lion,” this one is called “giraffe,” this one is called “sheep,“ etc.; etc. This is the meaning of Genesis 2,20: “Adam called the names of all the beasts.”‘ All these names Adam gave the beasts were not merely arbitrary names he chose to call them by, but they reflected the essence of each animal respectively. I have already discussed this in greater detail in my commentary on Genesis 2,19. When G’d asked Adam what his own name was, he answered: “Adam.” He explained that he said this seeing he had been created out of אדמה, raw material taken from the soil. Thereupon G’d asked Adam what His name was. Adam answered that G’d’s name was the tetragram. When G’d wanted to know what had given him this idea, (seeing he had not been told) he answered: for You are the Master of all creatures. We know that Adam was correct from Isaiah 42,8 אני י-ה-ו-ה הוא שמי, “I am the Lord, this is My name.” G’d meant that He adopted (or retained this name) seeing the first human being Adam had bestowed it upon Him. This was a pact between Adam and G’d that G’d would henceforth be known by the name bestowed upon him by His first intelligent creature.
When we read in Kings I 5,11 that Solomon was wiser than Eytan the Ezrachi, whom did Jeremiah (author of that Book) have in mind when he wrote these words? It was a reference to Avraham. Psalm 89 is attributed to Avraham as the word האזרחי, at the beginning of that psalm is a reference to the “East” according to our sages in Baba Batra 15. Heyman is understood to be Moses (ibid). The philological connection is established by the word נאמן in Numbers 12,7 that G’d said of Moses בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is trusted in My entire House.” כלכל, another of the wise men mentioned in the chapter of the Book of Kings extolling Solomon’s wisdom is a reference to Joseph (who “provided” for all of Egypt economically with his wisdom). The Egyptians recognized that the only reason a man whom they considered a slave was able to rule over them was the extreme wisdom of Joseph which enabled him to maintain himself in that position. The Egyptians who had been suspicious of Joseph and his ability brought him seventy different pieces of paper, each in a different language, asking him to explain what was written thereon. Joseph was able to read each in its respective language. Not only that; Joseph also knew Hebrew, a tongue which the Egyptians did not understand. We base this on Psalms 81,6: עדות ביהוסף שמו, i.e. an allusion that Joseph knew something in addition to what anyone else knew. The word דרדע, another person named as very wise in Kings 5,11 is a reference to the generation of Israelites who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai in the desert and who had been granted insights exceeding that of any other generation. They were known as the דור דעה, “the generation imbued with knowledge.” The בני מחול who are also listed in the Book of Kings as possessing outstanding wisdom are an allusion to the people of the period of the golden calf whom G’d had forgiven their participation in that sin, hence they were called בני מחול, “people who had been pardoned.”
The Book of Kings there continues in quantifying Solomon’s wisdom by attributing to him no fewer than three thousand parables (proverbs) and over one thousand poems. Concerning this enigmatic statement Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni opines that he made a search of the entire Bible and could not come up with more than approximately 800 verses in which Solomon is mentioned as saying anything of significance. We are therefore forced to interpret these numbers mentioned in the Book of Kings not as original sayings recorded in the Bible but as the number of interpretations offered by Solomon on a far smaller number of texts. When Kings I 5,13 speaks about Solomon “speaking about trees,” one such example may be that Solomon examined the phenomenon of a person afflicted with the skin disease tzoraat requiring some of the wood from the tallest tree (cedar) and some of the wood from the most lowly tree (hyssop) to effect his purification. Solomon suggested that the cause of the affliction was that the person so stricken was guilty of arrogance, considering himself superior to his contemporaries. In order to be cured of this psychological defect he had to “lower” himself (even in his own eyes) to the level of the hyssop, the lowest of the trees in order to be fit to rejoin society. The Book of Kings goes on to describe part of Solomon’s wisdom as his ability to speak על הבהמה ועל העוף ועל הרמש ועל הדגים, “on the mammals, the birds, the creeping creatures and the fish.” He defined the reason why mammals, if fit to eat, require the severing of both the gullet and the windpipe, whereas birds require the severing of only one of these organs. He explained that this was related to the raw material these creatures were made of, i.e. the mammals were created from the soil (Genesis 1,24), whereas the birds were created from a mixture of water and soil, i.e. from mud (Genesis 1,20).
When Solomon is reported as speaking about the creeping things, the meaning is that he explained why eight of these species confer ritual impurity on contact with their carcass, etc. He also explained why people who hunt or injure these species on the Sabbath are guilty of a major infraction of the Sabbath legislation, whereas other related creeping creatures are not treated in that way by halachah, i.e. because these eight species are covered by skin (Shabbat 107). Concerning the statement in Kings that Solomon spoke about the fish, he explained why they do not require ritual slaughter in order to make them fit to eat for Israelites, as we know from Numbers 11,22 where Moses speaks of slaughter for mammals and fowl, but implies that the mere gathering in of fish make them fit to be eaten. In short, Solomon declares that whereas he was able to figure out satisfactory reasons for all the legislations of the Torah concerning these creatures, the reason for the red cow legislation had escaped him. It is interesting that the numerical value of the words והיא רחוקה, which Solomon uses to describe his inability to fathom the meaning of something, is the same as that of פרה אדומה, “red cow” (341).

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.

כיקר is an expression of “disappearing light (אור יקרות)” (as in Zech. 14:6). Others interpret כיקר כרים: like the glory of lambs that are fattened for the slaughter.

and the moon becoming brighter Heb. יקר. Progressively brighter, like (Zech. 14:6), “bright (יקרות) light”; (Ps. 37:20), “like the glory (כיקר) off the meadows.”