From:          "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash"
To:            yhe-intparsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject:       INTPARSHA -48: Parashat Ki Tetze


                     Yeshivat Har Etzion
           Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
                             
              Introduction to Parashat HaShavua
                             
                      Parashat Ki Tetze
                             
                             
Parashat Ki Tetze - The Command to Send Away the Mother Bird
                   By Rabbi Michael Hattin


Introduction

     As  Parashat Ki Tetze opens, Moshe's life and the  Book
of   Devarim   that  constitutes  his  parting   words   draw
inexorably  closer to their conclusion.  Moshe's impassioned
exhortations  that opened the Book had been  followed  by  a
systematic  review  of  the Torah's  mitzvot,  in  order   to
prepare  the  people for the new life awaiting them  on  the
other  side  of  the  Jordan River.  Parashat  Ki   Tetze  is
replete  with a great variety of those mitzvot, and although
many  have been presented elsewhere in the Torah,  some  are
introduced  here for the very first time.  One of  the  most
intriguing of these mitzvot concerns the "bird's nest,"  and
this week we shall examine how the commentaries' analyses of
this   seemingly   innocuous  passage   yields    some   very
significant and fundamental ideas.

     "If you come across a bird's nest on any tree or on the
     ground,  and it contains baby chicks or eggs, you  must
     not  take  the mother along with her young.  You   shall
     surely  send away the mother first, and only  then   may
     you  take  the  young, in order that  you   might  enjoy
     goodness and length of days" (Devarim 22:6-7).

The Approach of Ibn Ezra

     In  general, the Torah deliberately omits mention of  a
rationale  for  specific  mitzvot,  and  this  case  is    no
exception.   The outline of the act, however, is  clear:  an
individual  who happens to pass a nest and desires  to  take
the eggs or chicks for personal use may not do so as long as
the mother bird is present.  Rather, the mother bird must be
first  sent  away,  and only then may the  young  be  taken.
Rabbi  Avraham  Ibn Ezra (12th century, Spain)  attempts  to
explain  the  passage  in  a  straightforward  manner,    and
provides a rational interpretation that is compelling:

     "The  reason  for  this mitzva is  that   expunging  the
     mother with her young constitutes cruelty of heart,  as
     the  Prophet  Hoshea describes 'the  mother   dashed  to
     pieces with her young.'  This is also the rationale for
     the Torah's prohibition concerning slaughter of the cow
     and her offspring on the same day (see Vayikra 22:28)."
    
     In  other  characteristically terse comments concerning
the  passage in Shemot 23:19 that forbids one 'to  seethe  a
kid in its mother's milk,' Ibn Ezra remarks:
    
     "There  is  no need for us to search for the   rationale
     behind  this  injunction,  for  even   the  wise  cannot
     explain  it.   Perhaps  the Torah   prohibits  this  act
     because it constitutes cruelty of heart to boil  a  kid
     in  its mother's milk, just as we are forbidden to kill
     a  cow and its offspring on the same day or to take the
     mother bird along with its young."

The Inherent Sanctity of Life

     For  Ibn  Ezra,  it is clear that all  three   of  these
mitzvot draw their inspiration from a single idea: to kill a
mother creature and its offspring at the same time betrays a
lack   of   sensitivity   to  life  that    is   inexcusable.
Interestingly, for the Ibn Ezra, it is not the  feelings  of
the  mother  animal that are at the core of the legislation,
for he nowhere states that the aim of the injunctions is  to
minimize her pain on seeing her offspring taken from her  or
put to death.  In fact, in the case of 'seething the kid  in
its  mother's  milk,' or concerning the act of 'slaughtering
the  offspring  on  the same day,' the mother  is  not  even
necessarily  present.  Rather, it is the  character  of  the
perpetrator   that   is  of  paramount  concern,    for   the
indiscriminate destruction of life, symbolized by the mother
perishing along with her young, is what is too abhorrent for
the Torah to countenance.

     This  reading is supported by the Ibn Ezra's proof text
from  the  Book  of Hoshea, for in its larger  context,  the
verses there describe the ghastly aftermath of a battle,  in
which the enemy wantonly exterminated not only the lives  of
the vanquished, but their own moral conscience as well:
    
     "...Therefore shall a tumult arise among  your   people,
     and all of your fortresses shall be plundered, just  as
     Shalmon conquered Bet Arbel on the day of battle,  when
     the  mothers  were dashed to pieces with  their   young"
     (Hoshea 10:14).

     Although  the identity of Shalmon and the  location   of
Bet Arbel have been lost in the sands of time, the memory of
flagrant disdain and bloodthirsty disregard for the sanctity
of  life, the proverbial killing of mothers along with their
children, is still painfully familiar to even us, the  proud
humanity of the Enlightened Age.

     In  light  of  the above, we may now better   appreciate
Yaacov's anxious characterization of his brother Esav on the
eve  of  their confrontation.  Recall that when  Yaacov  was
fearfully  and  feverishly preparing to meet  his  estranged
brother,  after an absence of twenty-odd years, he  implored
God's mercy to be saved from the latter's wrath:
    
     "Please save me from the hands of my brother, from  the
     grasp  of Esav, for I fear that he will attack  me   and
     slay  the  mothers along with the children"   (Bereishit
     32:12).

     Esav's  predilection for barbarity,  his  lack   of  any
moral   compunction,   is  here  exemplified   by    Yaacov's
expectation that his brother's attack will culminate in  the
wholesale massacre of his entire family.  Esav will spare no
one, even slaying the mothers with their children.

Formulating a Comprehensive Principle

     To   go   one  step  further,   by  linking  the   three
prohibitions of the kid, the cow and the bird, Ibn Ezra  may
be  suggesting that there is a common thread that winds  its
way  through all of the Torah's teachings, for each  one  of
the  three  occurs  in a completely different  book  of  the
Chumash  (Sefer  Shemot,  Sefer Vayikra  and  Sefer  Devarim
respectively).  According to his interpretation,  one  might
surmise  that  the  Torah is stating a pervasive  foundation
principle  that  attempts  to  transcend  the  specific   and
somewhat  narrow  ritual application of each  of  the  three
laws.   Taken together, they constitute a powerful statement
about  the sanctity of all life, and the restraint  that  we
must  exercise towards not only other living creatures,  but
more   importantly  towards  other  people  as  well.     The
prohibition of taking the life of the mother with its young,
in  all  of  its variations, seeks to address  much  broader
concerns.   The  Torah  demands that we  strive  to   nurture
sensitive   and  compassionate  characters  that   are    not
indifferent  to life's inherent value and not  apathetic  to
its inviolability.

The  Interpretation  of  Rambam  -  Concern  with   Emotional
Anguish

     The  Rambam (12th century, Egypt) addresses the  mitzva
of  'Shiluach Ha-ken' (sending away of the mother  bird)  in
his Guide to the Perplexed.

     "The command concerning correct slaughter is essential,
     for proper nutrition depends upon vegetation as well as
     upon  meat.   The  healthiest  meats   come  from  those
     animals that the Torah has permitted us to consume,  as
     any  physician  knows.   Since  our   nutritional  needs
     depend  upon  the consumption of other  creatures,   the
     Torah  has mandated for us the most painless and humane
     method  of  killing them.  Thus, one  is   forbidden  to
     cause  unnecessary  pain  to  those   animals  by  using
     methods  of  slaughter that are slow or less effective,
     or by cutting off a limb from a living creature.

     "The  prohibition of slaughtering the  mother   and  her
     offspring on the same day is a safeguard, lest one come
     to  kill  the  offspring in front of its   mother.   The
     anguish  that  the  mother  would   suffer  under  those
     circumstances is very great, for there is no difference
     between  the pain of a human being and the pain  of   an
     animal  in  that situation.  After all,  the   love  and
     concern  of a creature for its young is not a  function
     of  our  enhanced  cognitive  ability,   but  rather  of
     emotional  states that are common to most  higher   life
     forms.   The  Torah has limited this law  to   the  cow,
     sheep  and  goat, for these domesticated creatures   are
     the  ones that we typically consume, and in these cases
     the   mother   of  the  offspring   can   generally   be
     identified.

     "This  is also the reason for the command to send   away
     the mother bird.  By doing so, her anguish is minimized
     when the eggs and chicks are taken away.  Additionally,
     the  eggs that she has already roosted upon as well  as
     the young chicks are geunfit for human consumption.  It
     is  therefore likely that the person will, in the  end,
     decide to leave the nest untouched.  If the Torah shows
     concern  for  the emotional wellbeing  of   animals  and
     birds,  all  the  more so should this be   true  of  our
     concern  for  human beings in general"   (Guide  to  the
     Perplexed, 3:48).

     In  the  above passage, the Rambam indicates  that   the
Torah is directly concerned not only with the physical pain,
but  also  with  the emotional feelings of lower  creatures.
Although we are permitted to consume other animals, we  must
be  especially  careful  not to  cause  undue  distress   and
suffering  in  the  process.  The  method  of  killing   must
therefore  be  quick and immediate, and we must additionally
eschew any possible emotional torment by not dispatching the
offspring in the presence of its mother.

Comparisons and Contrasts

     Although  the  general thrust of Rambam's   approach  of
shunning  savagery seems to concur with that  of  Ibn  Ezra,
there  are  nevertheless a number of subtle but  significant
differences  between  the  two.  According  to  Rambam,   the
passages   can  be  understood  in  the  most    direct   and
straightforward way.  Send away the mother bird so that  she
does not suffer the pain of seeing her young taken from her.
Do  not  slaughter the mother and its offspring on the  same
day so that you will not come to slaughter the offspring  in
its mother's presence.

     For Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, there is a more subtle
message   that  must  be  extrapolated  from  the    specific
injunctions.   His  analysis introduces the  thesis  of  the
sanctity   of  life,  which  is  presented  as  an   abstract
inference  that naturally arises from the three cases.   The
Torah  mandates the sending away of the mother bird so  that
one  does  not come to kill the mother and the chicks.   The
injunctions concerning seething the kid in its mother's milk
or  killing the animal and its offspring on the same day are
understood as protests against a savage worldview that would
sanction  ruthless and indiscriminate killing.   To  kill  a
mother  and  its young is to extirpate man's ethical  sense,
and  constitutes the abnegation of any noble higher  purpose
to which man must aspire.  It is not a concern with the pain
of  a  specific  mother  or offspring that  constitutes  the
kernel of the Torah's legislation, but rather with the  more
inclusive (and elusive) aim of indelibly imprinting upon the
human  psyche the ideal of life's intrinsic and  inestimable
worth.

     Significantly,  unlike Ibn Ezra, the  Rambam  does   not
link  these  two  injunctions with  the  third,  namely   the
prohibition  of  seething  the kid  in  its  mother's   milk.
Rambam  prefers to link the latter with idolatrous practices
that the Torah therefore repudiates, rather than with ideals
of  sympathy  and  compassion.  This 'omission'  is  readily
intelligible,  for  the  case of seething  the  kid  in   its
mother's milk is the only one of the three that involves  an
offspring that has already been killed.  Since at the  stage
of  food  preparation, the meat of the kid  is  not  readily
identifiable as her offspring, nor is the process of cooking
the  meat  an activity at which the mother is likely  to  be
present,   the   prohibition  must  therefore    derive   its
justification from another source.

     For  Ibn Ezra, in contrast, who develops a more  formal
principle   of  life's  inviolability,  the  injunction    of
seething   a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk   constitutes   an
appropriate  source for the derivation.  It is a  deed  that
suggests  insensitivity towards the precious  life-affirming
relationship that is embodied in the embrace of a mother for
its young.

     Finally, it is essential to take note of the fact  that
for  both  Ibn  Ezra and Rambam, the primary thrust  of  the
various  injunctions is that they should  leave  their  mark
upon the human condition.  For Ibn Ezra, the proof text from
Hoshea  was critical, and that passage surely speaks of  the
world of man.  For Rambam,
    
     "if the Torah shows concern for the emotional wellbeing
     of  animals and birds, all the more so should  this   be
     true of our concern for human beings in general."
    
     The  Torah's mitzvot are not meant to be understood  as
narrow  ritual  acts  that address  restricted  or  picayune
circumstances,  but rather as specific, directed  activities
that ideally should impact upon every facet of our lives and
every  fiber  of  our  beings.   Often,  we  fall   prey   to
practicing the mitzvot as detached ceremonial.  As these two
commentaries  make  quite  clear, however,  we  must  rather
strive  to  develop,  by  way of the  mitzvot,  ethical   and
upright  personalities that encompass the entire  experience
of  our  lives and our relationship with others   "in  order
that you might enjoy goodness and length of days."

Shabbat Shalom

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433

Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved

******************************************************