ספר דברים כב ו כי יקרא קן צפור לפניך גם זו מצוה מבוארת מן אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד כי הטעם בשניהם לבלתי היות לנו לב אכזרי ולא נרחם או שלא יתיר הכתוב לעשות השחתה לעקור המין אף על פי שהתיר השחיטה במין ההוא והנה ההורג האם והבנים ביום אחד או לוקח אותם להיות להם דבירה לו וכאילו יכרית המין ההוא.
So in suggesting that the ta'amei mitzva for kan tzippor and oso ve-es beno are basically the same, so the Ramban also, it’s not only the Ramban is juxtaposing, you know, you find this concern elsewhere in the Torah as well, the concern that לבלתי היות לנו לב אכזרי ולא נרחם or the concern with not mashchis hammin, but the Ramban is referring back to what he writes in the hakdamah to Sefer Devarim, which is that Sefer Devarim is mishneh Torah. הספר הזה עניינו ידוע שהוא משנה תורה. Right, the Ramban sees that each of the chamisha chumshei Torah, it’s not stam that the Torah is divided into five parts, but there’s a thematic unity to each of the chamisha chumshei Torah. That each of the chamisha chumshei Torah is a unit unto itself, which is why Torah is subdivided to chamisha chumshei Torah. And that’s how the Ramban famously explains that Sefer Bereishis is Sefer Yetzirah, and Sefer Shemos is Sefer Ge’ulah, and Sefer Vayikra is Toras Kohanim, and Sefer Devarim is mishneh Torah. So what does mishneh Torah mean? It’s the second. That most of the mitzvos, most, not all, the Ramban does highlight that there are some mitzvos mechudashos in Sefer Devarim, but most of the mitzvos in Sefer Devarim are not appearing for the first time. Either they’re simply being repeated by way of reinforcement, azhara achar azhara, or they’re being elaborated upon. Now the mitzvah of kan tzippor seems to be entirely mechudashos, and again that wouldn’t be a pircha on the definition of Sefer Devarim as mishneh Torah, because again the Ramban in the hakdamah said rov mitzvos and it’s not that it has to be this way, but aliba de-emes it is this way that on one level it’s not a mitzvah mechudashas and that’s what the Ramban is saying: גם זו מצוה מבוארת מן אותו ואת בנו. Meaning this is as it were an extension on the level of ta'amei mitzva, on the level of concerns, on the level of what the Torah’s goal is, so this is not a mitzvah mechudashas in the sense that it’s elaborating upon the mitzvah of oso ve-es beno. That just as by the mitzvah of oso ve-es beno the Torah said that the way we act vis-a-vis animals has to be in such a way, לבלתי היות לנו לב אכזרי ולא נרחם, that those middos need to be evident not only in our bein adam le-chavero, in our interaction with people, but those middos need to be present and therefore evident in how we interact with the animal world. So that yesod is already in Sefer Vayikra. That yesod is already at the core of mitzvah of oso ve-es beno, so in that sense this isn't on that level, this is not a mitzvah mechudashas. This is a mitzvah which is already mevu’eres in albeit again in terms of the way it’s being implemented concretely is a new application, but it’s a new application of a yesod shenisba’er kvar earlier in Sefer Vayikra. So the Ramban has two possible ta'amei mitzva for each of these, both for oso ve-es beno as well as for. what's the balance between on the one hand the Torah allows for shechita and the Torah allows us to consume meat? So how does that not translate into the vilti היות לנו לב אכזרי רחמנא ליצלן? So the Torah has constraints. Ultimately the ta'amei mitzvah for oto v'et b'no, not to shecht the mother and its offspring in the same day, or for kan tzipor that you can only take the eggs after sending the mother away, is because each of these is sort of a microcosm, would be a microcosm of destroying an entire min. Again, really on one level, does it make a difference whether you shecht oto v'et b'no or you shecht two cows who are only first cousins rather than being oto v'et b'no? So really it doesn't make a difference, there are as many other cows left in the world, but on a conceptual level, when you're sort of when you oker a nuclear family as it were, you oker the mother and its offspring, the mother bird and the banim, so then as it were on a microcosmic level that's hashchatas hamin. So this actually you see this in the Ramban, you see traces of this kemidomeh in the Ramban elsewhere also. If you ask what the Jewish perspective is on should we be concerned if there's danger for a certain species becoming extinct? So you see from the Ramban that there is a concern, so that is something which is a native Jewish concern because that's what these mitzvos speak to. These mitzvos speak to that Hakadosh Baruch Hu created the world, so it was ratzon Hashem that there should be so many species in the world. Hakadosh Baruch Hu populated the world with so many species and ratzon Hashem is that the world should continue to be populated by these species. I think the Ramban says in Sefer Vayikra as the ta'amei mitzvah, as some of the ta'amei mitzvah for kilayim, is that for let's say for kilei ilanos, kilei zera'im, and kilei behemah, not kilei begadim, but for the other forms of kilayim, cross-mating animals, you know, making hybrids in terms of planting, that the Torah assar's it because again Hakadosh Baruch Hu created species. Those were the units of the briah. The units of the briah is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu created, he created different species of animals, and when one cross-mates בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, when one cross-mates those animals, so one is blurring those units of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's briah, which is the same type of concern here of not to lose the species entirely and also not to sort of blur its identity. Okay. V'khasav ba'Moreh Nevuchim: כי טעם שלוח הקן וטעם אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד כדי להזהיר שלא ישחט הבן בעיני האם.
Even though in halacha לא תשחטו אותו ואת בנו is in either sequence, you can't shecht the mother and its offspring in the same day in either order, whether it's the mother first or the offspring second, but really the concern is שלא ישחט הבן בעיני האם כי יש לבהמה דאגה גדולה בזה.
There's, as we know, there's Hakadosh Baruch Hu, it's a natural, the maternal instinct is... To human beings, right? Don't go near a mother bear's cubs, right? There is a maternal instinct in the animal kingdom as well. ואין הפרש בין דאגת האדם לדאגת הבהמות על בניהם כי אהבת האם וחנותה לבני בטנה איננה נמשכת אחרי השכל והדיבור.
It doesn't require, it's not a function of abstract reasoning and logic, אבל היא פעולת כח המחשבה המצוי בבהמות כאשר היא מצויה באדם.
No, it's more of just an instinctive visceral reaction. It's not a, again, an abstract, it's not a function of abstract reflection. ואם כן אין עיקר האיסור באותו ואת בנו רק בנו ואותו.
That's what we just said. Avel hakol harchaka. But why did the Torah ossur both? Again, it's I guess what the acharonim would call an asyag d'oraisa as it were. That if, if it's muttar to shacht the aim and the mother, just not the mother and if it's just not the the the vlad. If it would be ossur only to shacht the vlad and then the mother, or the vlad in the presence of the mother, but it was muttar to shacht the mother and then the vlad, so you'd get mixed up and you'd you'd do one, you'd do the other. Avel hakol harchaka. ויוסר נכון בעבור שלא נתאכזר. ואמר הרב, the Rambam, al teshiv elai, don't refute me, mimamar hachachamim haomer, the Mishna in Brachos, האומר על קן ציפור יגיעו רחמיך, so the Mishna says meshaskin oso. If a person improvises in his shevach to Hakadosh Baruch Hu and says Hakadosh Baruch Hu's rachamim are so great and that they they extend that they even encompass the kan tzipor, so the Gemara the Mishna says meshaskin oso. So one explanation of the Gemara is that the reason meshaskin oso, what's inappropriate about this? So one reason the Gemara gives, one explanation the Gemara gives, is because עושה מדותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא רחמים ואינן אלא גזירות.
So the Rambam says don't challenge me how am I giving reasons for this mitzvah in particular and all mitzvos in general, doesn't that view in the Gemara indicate that there are no reasons? Isn't that what that view is saying, עושה מדותיו של הקדוש ברוך הוא רחמים ואינן אלא גזירות?
Says the Rambam don't challenge me with that, כי זו אחת משתי סברות. If you look there in the Gemara, that's one of two explanations for the Mishna. V'ein hachi nami, that is sevaras mi sheyireh כי אין טעם למצוה אלא חפץ הבורא. Why did Hakadosh Baruch Hu give this mitzvah? He willed it. You can't you can't say any there's nothing more to say, there is nothing more than that. אין טעם למצוה אלא חפץ הבורא. Why is the osoh v'es benoh ossur? Hakadosh Baruch Hu wills that it should be ossur. Why is why is why is there a din of shiluach haken? Hakadosh Baruch Hu willed it. That's it. That's all there is to it. V'anachnu, v'ein hachi nami, what I, the Rambam, am doing in in explaining ta'amei hamitzvos taka doesn't doesn't fit with that opinion of the Gemara. However, זו אחת משתי סברות ואנחנו מחזיקים בסברה השניה שיהיה בכל המצוות טעם.
I follow and and and that's what I'm building upon the other view in the Gemara which says this is the wrong reason. It's not that there isn't a reason, but it's מפני שמטיל קנאה במעשה בראשית because it implies that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is concerned with a mother bird but he's not concerned with I don't know if you're gonna hunt rabbits for their fur. So he's he's he's worried about the mother bird but he's not worried about the rabbits. So how does that make any sense? It doesn't make any sense. So clearly the reason you're giving for al kan tzipor is it doesn't make any sense. Not that you shouldn't be giving reasons, but you're not giving the right reason. And that's what we follow שיהיה בכל המצוות טעם. V'huksha lo od, Rambam says that the Rambam also was bothered by מה שמצא בבראשית רבה המדרש בבראשית רבה וכי מה איכפת לו להקדוש ברוך הוא בין שוחט מן הצואר לשוחט מן העורף.
So if you shacht the animal from the back of the neck, therefore you're going to break the spine first. So then you gotta make the animal into a neveilah. You're not gonna be allowed to eat it. If you shochet from the front of the neck, the tzavar, not the oref, so then you're allowed to eat it. What then makes a difference to ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu whether you shochet from the front or you shochet from the back? לא נתנו המצוות אלא לצרף בהן את הבריות שנאמר כל אמרת אלוה צרופה.
So the Rambam understands that that medrash also reflects a view that there is no reason for the mitzvos. That's what it means, וכי מה איכפת לו להקדוש ברוך הוא בין שוחט מן הצוואר לשוחט מן העורף.
There is no reason. It's just chefetz ha-borei. Now, says the Ramban, so ad kan his quoting from the Rambam, here is his reaction to the Rambam. וזהו ענין שגזר הרב במצוות שיש להם טעם מבואר הוא מאוד.
The position that the Rambam takes is compelling, כי בכל אחד טעם ותועלת ותיקון לאדם לבד שכר מאת המצווה יתברך.
Every mitzvah, there's content to the mitzvah, there's a purpose, there's something that it does to rectify, to help perfect the person, in addition to the fact that ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu gives the s'char. וכבר אמרו רבותינו ז"ל מפני מה לא נתגלו טעמי תורה,
which clearly means that there are ta'amei Torah, right? If the Gemara in Sanhedrin says why didn't the Torah reveal the reasons, so that reflects that there are reasons which were not revealed. וכבר דרשו ולמכסה עתיק זה המגלה דברים שכיסה עתיק יומין ומאי ניהו טעמי תורה.
A person who reveals ta'amei mitzvos is revealing that which ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu had originally initially hidden. וכבר דרשו בפרה אדומה שאמר שלמה על הכל אמרתי אחכמה ופרשה של פרה אדומה חקרתי ושאלתי ופשפשתי אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני.
Again, so all these ma'amarim reflecting that there are ta'amim for all the mitzvos. ואמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה: לך אני מגלה טעם פרה אדומה ולאחרים חוקה. וכתיב והיה ביום ההוא לא יהיה אור יקרות וקפאון, יקפאון כתיב, דברים המכוסים מכם בעולם הזה עתידים להיות צפויים לעולם הבא,
ke-haden samya, like a blind person, de-tzafi, who's granted the blessing of sight. וכתיב והולכתי עיוורים בדרך לא ידעו. וכתיב אלה הדברים עשיתים ולא עזבתים שכבר עשיתים לרבי עקיבא. הנה בארו שאין מניעת טעמי התורה ממנו.
The fact that some mitzvos appear to have no reasons, that's not from ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu, it's not that objectively there are no reasons, ella ivaron besichlenu. It's our blindness, it's our inability to understand. ושכבר נגלה טעם החמורה שרמזנו לחכמי ישראל. וכאלה רבות בדבריהם ובתורה ובמקרא דברים המודיעים כן.
Veharav hiskim bahen. Meaning, the Ramban says, he's about to take the next step, wherever you turn in Chazal, it's clear that mitzvos have reasons, right? Wherever you turn in Chazal, it's just axiomatic the mitzvos have reasons, right? The Rambam presents it as a major, major dispute in the Amoraim, in Chazal, as to whether mitzvos have reason. Ramban says no, wherever you turn, it's just axiomatic the mitzvos have reasons, right? The Gemara doesn't even say mitzvos have reasons, it just fast forwards to מפני מה לא נתגלו טעמי תורה. The Gemara doesn't even emphasize that mitzvos have reasons, it's pointing out that Shlomo ha-Melech there was one that he wasn't able to figure out the reason for. Wherever you look it's clear that mitzvos have reasons. Ai, the two ma'amarim that the Rambam speaks about? אבל אלו ההגדות שנתקשו על הרב לפי דעתי ענין אחר להם.
I think there's a different pshat than the Rambam says. I don't think these two ma'amarim reflect a dissenting view. שרצו לומר שאין התועלת במצוות להקדוש ברוך הוא בעצמו יתברך.
When the Bereishis Rabbah says וכי מה איכפת להקדוש ברוך הוא שוחט מן הצוואר או שוחט מן העורף,
they're not saying that there is no reason to distinguish and the whole thing is just sort of inscrutable ratzon, they're saying וכי מה איכפת להקדוש ברוך הוא? ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu doesn't need. It's not that there's some need, that there's some... Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesn't need. It's not that the zayn need, that something that one is doing for Hakadosh Baruch Hu when one shochats min hatzavar and doesn't shochat min haoref. Mitzvos are not to yield something that benefits Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That's what it means וכי מה אכפת ליה להקדוש ברוך הוא. Don't think that the mitzvos yield something for Hakadosh Baruch Hu, that the mitzvos are addressing a need of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. No, that's not the case at all. אבל התועלת באדם עצמו. The yield is for us. Mitzvos are they're not divine centric they're anthropocentric in the sense that they're focused on us, that we're the beneficiaries of mitzvos, Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not the beneficiary of mitzvos. That's what it means וכי מה אכפת ליה להקדוש ברוך הוא. אבל התועלת באדם עצמו למנוע ממנו נזק או אמונה רעה או מדה מגונה או לזכור הנסים והנפלאות הבורא יתברך לדעת את השם וזהו לצרף בהם.
What letzaref doesn't mean to test, but it means to purify. Right? לא נתנו המצות אלא לצרף בהן את הבריות. So the Rambam understood it's a test. There's no reason, it's a test. You're gonna listen, you're not gonna listen. And the Ramban says no, letzaref means it's to purify the briyos. It's not to yield something for Hakadosh Baruch Hu, it's to purify us. The mitzvos will help us avoid an emunah ra'ah, will help us avoid a midah meguna, will help us avoid nezek, will help us lizkor hanissim vehaniflaos. It's to purify us, sheyihyu kekeseph tzoruf. Because ki hatzoref hakaseph, the person who's purifying, that it should be pure silver, אין מעשהו בלא טעם. He's not acting without reason אבל להוציא ממנו כל סיג. He's looking to remove any impurity. וכן המצות להוציא מלבנו כל אמונה רעה ולהודיענו האמת ולהזכירו תמיד.
And the Ramban says al peratio, that that's what the Midrash in Bereishis Rabbah means, because you find a parallel Midrash which is more elaborate. ולשון זו ההגדה עצמה הוזכרה בילמדנו בפרשת זאת החיה וכי מה אכפת להקדוש ברוך הוא בין שוחט בהמה ואוכל או נוחר ואוכל.
Right? Shocheit means that you do the shechitah in conformance with hilchos shechitah. Nocheir means you taki kill the animal at the shneiy simanim, but not necessarily conforming with hilchos shechitah. Maybe you take a knife and you stab it at the shneiy simanim in a way that doesn't conform with hilchos shechitah. כלום אתה מועילו או כלום אתה מזיקו? Are you benefiting Hakadosh Baruch Hu or are you harming Hakadosh Baruch Hu depending upon whether you do shechitah or nechira? או מה אכפת לו בין אוכל טהורות או אוכל טמאות? אם חכמת חכמת לך.
What you do benefits or harms you, right? Mitzvos are for our benefit, or if we ignore them, our detriment rachmana litzlan. הלא נתנו המצות אלא לצרף בהן את הבריות שנאמר אמרת ה' אמורות טהורות ונאמר כל אמרת אלוה צרופה למה שהיא מגן על החוסים בה הנה מפורש בכאן לא באו לומר אלא שאין התועלת אליו יתעלה שיצטרך לאורה כמחשב מן המנורה ושיצטרך למאכל הקרבנות וריח הקטרת כנראה מפשוטיהן ואפילו הזכר לנפלאותיו שעשה שצוה לעשות זכר ליציאת מצרים ומעשה בראשית אין התועלת לו רק שנדע אנחנו האמת ונזכה בו עד שנהיה ראויים להיות מגן עלינו כי דבורנו וזכרנו בנפלאות מאפס ותוהו נחשב לו.
It doesn't affect Hakadosh Baruch Hu. והביא ראיה מן השוחט מן הצואר והעורף למה שכולם לנו ולא להקדוש ברוך הוא.
Okay, right so there's much more here so bli neder I guess we'll continue this on Monday.