Comentário sobre Deuteronômio 22:6

כי יקרא IF [A BIRD’S NEST] CHANCE TO BE [BEFORE THEE IN THE WAY … THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE MOTHER WITH THE YOUNG] — If it chance to be, this excludes that which is always ready at hand (in thy court yard) (Sifrei Devarim 227:1; Chullin 139a).

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.

כי יקרא קן צפור, when one chances across this without having planned it.

When you chance upon a nest ~ On the approach of man, were not for the compassion on her young, the dam would naturally leave the chicks in order to escape. But her maternal love prompts her to scorn prudence and risk her life to save them. Man should therefore not take her so that her righteousness and her love with which she loves her young should not lead her to suffer. This is to teach us to respect the good moral qualities and inculcate in our hearts the idea that one never suffers a loss for doing justice. Had we been permitted to take the mother bird away from her young, man would have concluded that pity was an undesirable and foolish quality, bringing suffering on those exercising it. And now, knowing that taking her is forbidden to us, the essence of the quality of mercy will be inculcated in our hearts very deeply.

לא תקח האם על הבנים, “do not take the mother bird with the young birds.” Nachmanides writes that the rationale behind this commandment is the same as the one behind the prohibition to slaughter both a calf and its mother on the same day. The purpose of the legislation in both instances is to ensure that our hearts will not become insensitive to animal’s feelings, as once they have become such, the next step is insensitivity to our fellow humans’ feelings. Alternately, the legislation is a reminder by the Torah that we must not do something, which, if duplicated many times would lead to the extinction of the species in question. Maimonides in his Moreh Nevuchim section 3,48 writes that the reason for both the above-mentioned pieces of legislation is to avoid a mother animal watch its young being slaughtered before its own eyes, as the sensitivity to such a happening is as great among animals as it is among humans. Nachmanides, questioning Maimonides’ approach, writes that if it were correct the legislation of לא תשחטו אותו ואת בנו, “do not slaughter mother animal and its young,” should apply only when the younger animal is slaughtered first. Once the mother animal has been slaughtered there is no reason not to proceed with the slaughter of its young. Halachah forbids the slaughtering of both generations on the same day regardless of the order in which these animals are slaughtered. [Compare Maimonides’ own ruling in chapter 12 of hilchot shechitah, that if someone first slaughters the cow, and then two of her calves on the same day, he has committed 2 transgressions and is punished separately for each. Ed.] It is therefore more likely that the point of these two items of legislation in the Torah is to prevent Jews from becoming cruel.

While on top of her young. But if she is hovering in the air above the young, it is permitted to take her.

V. 6. כי יקרא וגו׳. Die vorhergehenden Gesetze (Verse 1 — 5) haben für das der Begründung und Entwicklung entgegengehende Volksleben die großen Grundsätze der Solidarität und Brüderlichkeit für die Erhaltung des Eigentums und Förderung der Unternehmungen des Nächsten, sowie der Aufrechthaltung der geschlechtlich gesonderten Berufs- und Lebensweise des Mannes und Weibes proklamiert. Jene bilden ebenso die Grundsäulen des sozialen Verkehrs, wie diese dem "Hause" zur Grundlage dient, das ja den Granitboden bildet, auf welchem überhaupt alle nationale Wohlfahrt beruht. Schon V. 5 war in dieser Beziehung das Weib in den Vordergrund gestellt. Davon, dass nicht יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, dass das Weib die ganze Hoheit und Würde seines Berufs als "Mutter des Hauses" begreift und in dieser "Beschränkung" sich hoch achtet und hoch geachtet, geschützt und unangetastet dasteht im Volke, davon wie von nichts anderem hängt das Gedeihen und der ewige Fortschritt des Volkslebens ab, und die allseitige Würdigung des Frauenberufes ist ein bedeutsamer Gradmesser für die sittliche Stufe eines Volkes.

כי יקרא כן צפור לפניך בדרך, “if you encounter by chance a bird’s nest on your way, etc.;” the reason why these paragraphs follow one another is that the performance of one commandment brings in its wake the performance of additional commandments. (Compare Devarim Rabbah, 6,4 on our portion). Seeing that the reward for the performance of the commandment just discussed results in your enjoying long life, you will have the opportunity to devote yourself for more years to Torah study. When you build a house for yourself, you will be able to perform the commandment of erecting a fence on the edges of its roof to protect anyone from falling off it. When the Torah follows with the warning not to mix seeds of different plants when planting a vineyard, you will enjoy harvesting the fruit of that vineyard. When you are warned not to harness an ox and a donkey to the same plough, [as it would result in the donkey suffering pain, seeing it is so much weaker. Ed.] you will enjoy owning many oxen and many donkeys as a result of observing that commandment. When the Torah subsequently warns you not to wear garments in which linen and wool have been woven in the same cloth [except when commanded to do so for the tzitzit in certain situations], you will be able to afford buying a beautiful tallit on which to perform the commandment to attach these fringes. (Compare Tanchuma, section 2). The commandment to own garments which qualify for the attaching of these fringes is extremely important as we know from the Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 32. According to a statement on that folio, anyone who is meticulous about the observance of that commandment will eventually be in command of 2800 servants. This statement is based on Zecharyah 8,23: בימים ההמה אשר יחזיקו עשרה אנשים מכל לשונות הגוים והחזיקו בכנף איש יהודי לאמר נלכה עמכם כי שמענו אלוקים עמכם, “in those days ten men from nations of every tongue will take hold,-they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak and say: ‘let us go with you, for we have heard that G–d is with you.’ [There are 70 tongues, multiplied by ten multiplied by four corners on each garment of a Jew adorned with tzitzit. Ed.] This is also the interpretation of Jeremiah 17,11-12: קורא דגר ולא ילד, עושה עושר ולא במשפט, “like a partridge announcing that it has hatched young when this is not true, or like amassing riches illegally;” this is followed by the line: “כסא כבוד מרום מראשון, “o throne of glory exalted from of old;” how does this line connect with the line preceding it?” it teaches that the partridge proclaiming to have hatched young from its eggs had stolen those eggs from another species of bird sitting on them only after they had already been hatched. Then they proceed to eat those chicks which belong to another category of bird. When the chicks try to fly and are unable to, they become victims to predators. Who caused this sequence? Whoever steals eggs that are not his own. The prophet uses this simile to describe the gentiles who boast about their ill gotten gains which are the result of robbery. These gentiles, who destroyed the Holy Temple by burning it, will eventually have to pay for their crime by becoming totally extinct. (Compare Tanchuma, section two on our portion)

כי יקרא קן צפור, “if a bird’s nest happens” (to be along the way you are walking,) the reason why this paragraph has been written here is because it also deals with chance encounters on the way, i.e. בדרך, “on the way,”

לא תקח האם THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE MOTHER so long as she is sitting upon the young.

לא תקח האם על הבנים, I have already elaborated on this verse in connection with the prohibition to boil the young in the milk of its mother (Exodus 23,19) Similar considerations are valid in connection with the prohibition of אותו ואת בנו. The practices, if carried out, look as if the person carrying it out is insensitive, cruel by nature, and is so anxious to satisfy his palate that all considerations of feelings of others are of no concern to him.

Indem daher das Gesetz nun zu Bestimmungen übergeht, die überwiegend der Konstituierung des Familienlebens angehören, stellt es eine Institution an die Spitze, die jedem im Volke zum Bewusstsein bringt, welche hohe Bedeutung dem häuslichen Wirken eines weiblichen Wesens das Gesetz beimisst, indem es diesem Wirken selbst bis in den Kreis des Tierlebens nachgeht, einer Vogelmutter im Momente ihrer Muttertätigkeit Immunität zusichert und die Betätigung dieser Würdigung eines weiblichen Wesens in seinem Berufe von jedem fordert, der die Gelegenheit dazu findet.

קן צפור, “a bird’s nest;” whenever the word צפור instead of עוף occurs in the Torah meaning bird, it refers to a ritually pure bird, one that Israelites are allowed to eat if slaughtered in the prescribed fashion. Therefore the legislation following next applies only to this category of birds. (Compare Rabbi Yitzchok in the Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 139)

כי יקרא וגו׳ (siehe Bereschit S. 326). Das Nest hat bis jetzt in keiner Beziehung zu dir gestanden, es wird jetzt erst von dir betroffen, פרט למזומן: das Gesetz spricht nur von herrenlosen Vögeln, nicht aber von solchen, die dem Menscheneigentum angehören (Chulin 139 b). קֵן von קנן, verwandt mit גנן schützen, bezeichnet zunächst den zur geschützten Vogelwohnung, insbesondere zum Schutz der Jungen dienenden Raum, das Vogelhaus. Übertragen, bezeichnet es aber auch die im Neste wohnenden Jungen. So כנשר יעיר קנו (Kap. 32. 11). — צפור: nur reine Vögel (daselbst siehe Bereschit S. 125 u. 230). Es spricht nur von dir vom Gesetz zum Genuss gestatteten Vögeln, bei welchen dir daher die Veranlassung zur Aneignung nahe liegt.

לא תקח האם על הבנים, “you must not take the mother bird together with its young ones;” it would be an act of cruel insensitivity, comparable to cooking the kid in the milk of itsmother, something the Torah has repeatedly forbidden. (Deut.14,21) as well as the prohibition to slaughter, even as a sacrifice, a mother cow together with its calf on the same day. (Leviticus 22,28) Our author considers the requirement that the fruit of one’s vineyard even after four years may be consumed by the owner only in Jerusalem, as also in a category intended to teach us how not to give in to the urge to indulge in drinking wine, etc.

אפרחים או ביצים, nicht nur, wenn mehrere Junge oder mehrere Eier sich finden, auch nur ein Junges oder ein Ei heißt קן (daselbst 140 b). Wie פרח die aus der Knospe frei gewordene Blüte heißt, so heißt das aus dem Ei geschlüpfte Junge: אפרח.

על הבנים, “with the young.” Other examples of the word על being used as meaning “with,” are found in Leviticus25,31, על שדה הארץ יחשב, “it will be considered as belonging with the fields of the land.” Compare also Numbers 28,10, על עולת התמיד, with the daily burnt offering, or Numbers 19,5: על פרשה ישרוף, “he is to burn it together with its excrement.”

,והאם das Gesetz spricht nur von dem weiblichen Vogel, nicht aber von dem , männlichen, selbst wenn ein solcher mit dem Brüten oder der Pflege der Jungen betroffen würde (daselbst). על האפרחים: sie vor Kälte zu schützen, על הביצים: zum Brüten. Indem על האפרחים או על הביצים wiederholt wird, und es nicht kürzer heißt: עליהם, wird daran (daselbst) gelehrt: לאקושי אפרחים לביצים וביצים לאפרחים, dass sich אפרחים und ביצים gegenseitig näher bestimmen, die Jungen müssen noch wie Eier der Mutterpflege bedürftig, צריכין לאמן, nicht schon flügge, מפריחין, sein, und die Eier wie Junge lebensfähig, בני קיימא, nicht schon verdorben, מוזרות, sein. Ebenso folgt aus תקח לך (V. 7), dass die Jungen noch nicht טרפה, nicht bereits tödlich verletzt seien, לך ולא לכלביך (a). Die Mutterpflege muss noch notwendig und nicht schon zwecklos sein 140.

The same reason applies to the law which enjoins that we should let the mother fly away when we take the young. The eggs over which the bird sits, and the young that are in need of their mother, are generally unfit for food, and when the mother is sent away she does not see the taking of her young ones, and does not feel any pain. In most cases, however, this commandment will cause man to leave the whole nest untouched, because [the young or the eggs], which he is allowed to take, are, as a rule, unfit for food.