Page 243 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

ןנברמ אברוצ ןקה חוליש תוכלה · 241

instance where one wants to take the chicks/eggs. through killing them in a reprehensible man-
The Chazon Ish also writes that it is a mitzva ki- ner by piercing the lower part of their throat or
yumit, and proves his opinion from a beraita in by cutting off one of their members, just as we
Chullin (141b) that states that pigeons of a dove- have explained.
cote or of an attic nesting in someone’s property It is likewise forbidden to slaughter it and its
are chayav in Shiluach Hakein but it’s rabbinically young on the same day, this being a precau-
prohibited to take them because of darkei shalom. tionary measure in order to avoid slaughtering
The Chazon Ish proves from here that if it were an the young animal in front of its mother. For in
absolute chiyuv from the Torah to send away the these cases animals feel very great pain, there
bird whenever one came across a nest, it wouldn’t being no difference regarding this pain be-
make sense to push aside a Torah obligation for a tween man and the other animals. For the love
rabbinic prohibition of “darkei shalom.” and the tenderness of a mother for her child is
We’ve seen that overwhelmingly, the Gema- not consequent upon reason, but upon the ac-
rot, Rishonim, and Acharonim rule that one is tivity of the imaginative faculty, which is found
not obligated to send the mother bird away if in most animals just as it is found in man. This
one does not want the chicks/eggs, and certain- law applies in particular to an ox and a lamb,
ly there is no advantage to searching after a nest. because these are the domestic animals that we
are allowed to eat and that in most cases it is
Various Approaches in the Rishonim to usual to eat; in their case the mother can be dif-
the Mitzva of Shiluach Hakein ferentiated from her young.
From this point, we will begin to explore the This is also the reason for the commandment
opinions of the Rishonim as to the reasoning be- to let [the mother] go from the nest. For in gen-
hind the mitzva of Shiluach Hakein. We will dis- eral the eggs over which the bird has sat and the
cover that there are two main schools of thought, young that need their mother are not fit to be
and that these two approaches affect the modern eaten. If then the mother is let go and escapes
day approach to the performance of the mitzva, of her own accord, she will not be pained by
at times even at odds with the halacha as we’ve seeing that the young are taken away. In most
understood it until now. cases this will lead to people leaving everything
In the Moreh Nevuchim (3:48), the Rambam alone, for what may be taken is in most cases
11
writes: not fit to be eaten. If the Law takes into con-
The commandment concerning the slaugh- sideration these pains of the soul in the case of
tering of animals is necessary. For the natural beast and birds, what will be the case with re-
food of man consists only of the plants deriv- gard to the individuals of the human species as
ing from the seeds growing in the earth and of a whole? You must not allege as an objection
the flesh of animals, the most excellent kinds of against me the dictum of [the Sages], may their
meat being those that are permitted to us. No memory be blessed: He who says: Your mercy
physician is ignorant of this. Now since the ne- extends to young birds, and so on. For this is
cessity to have good food requires that animals one of the two opinions mentioned by us – I
be killed, the aim was to kill them in the easiest mean the opinion of those who think that there
manner, and it was forbidden to torment them is no reason for the Law except only the will [of

11. Translation from Maimonides, M., Pines, S. and Strauss, L. (1995). The Guide of the Perplexed. Chicago [u.a.]: Univ. of Chicago Press.

This volume is not to be distributed. Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.