~ What do all these commandments have in common?
~ What are the problems you see with this? How do you solve them for yourself, if you do?
(1) למען ייטב לך וגו׳ THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU etc. — If in the case of an easy command which involves no monetary loss, Scripture states “Do this in order that it may be well with you and you may prolong your days”, it follows à fortiori that this at least will be a reward for the fulfillment of commands which are more difficult to observe (Chullin 142a).
~ What problem does Rashi solve? Does Rashi have your problem?
MISHNA: Anyone who performs one mitzva has goodness bestowed upon him, his life is lengthened, and he inherits the land. And anyone who does not perform one mitzva does not have goodness bestowed upon him, his life is not lengthened, and he does not inherit the land. GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pe’a 1:1): These are the matters that a person engages in and enjoys their profits in this world, and the principal reward remains for him for the World-to-Come, and they are: Honoring one’s father and mother, acts of loving kindness, hospitality toward guests, and bringing peace between one person and another; and Torah study is equal to all of them. Implication: one is rewarded in this world only for fulfilling these mitzvot, but not all mitzvot. Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: Anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits, has goodness bestowed upon him and is compared to one who fulfills the entire Torah. The Gemara asks: One can learn by inference from here that with regard to those mitzvot listed in the mishna in Pe’a one is rewarded even for one of them, notwithstanding the fact that overall his sins are more numerous. Rav Shemaya said: The other mishna serves to say that if one’s sins and merits were of equal balance, i.e., he has accrued an equal amount of merit and sin, one of these mitzvot tilts the scale in his favor. The Gemara further asks: And does anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits have goodness bestowed upon him in this world? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: Anyone whose merits are greater than his sins is punished with suffering, and he appears to observers like one who burned the entire Torah without leaving even one letter remaining of it. Conversely, anyone whose sins are greater than his merits has goodness bestowed upon him in this world, and he appears like one who has fulfilled the entire Torah without lacking the fulfillment of even one letter of it. Abaye said: When the mishna said that he is rewarded, it means that he has one good day and one bad day. He is rewarded for the mitzvot he performs; nevertheless, occasionally he also has bad days which cleanse him of his sins, and the baraita is referring to those days. Rava said that the mishna and this baraita represent two different opinions. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, who says: There is no reward for performance of a mitzva in this world, as one is rewarded for mitzvot only World-to-Come. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ya’akov says: There is not a single mitzva written in the Torah whose reward is stated alongside it, which is not dependent on the resurrection of the dead. How so? With regard to honoring one’s father and mother it is written: “That your days may be long, and that it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). With regard to the dispatch of the mother bird from the nest it is written: “That it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days” (Deuteronomy 22:7). Despite this, it occurred that there was one whose father said to him: Climb to the top of the building and fetch me chicks. And he climbed to the top of the building and dispatched the mother bird and took the young, thereby simultaneously fulfilling the mitzva to dispatch the mother bird from the nest and the mitzva to honor one’s parents, but upon his return he fell and died. Where is the goodness of the days of this one, and where is the length of days of this one? Rather, the verse “that it may be well with you” means in the world where all is well, and “that your days may be long” is referring to the world that is entirely long. The Gemara asks: But perhaps this incident never occurred? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ya’akov himself saw an incident of this kind. The Gemara asks: But perhaps that man was contemplating sin at the time, and he was punished for his thoughts? The Gemara answers that there is a principle that the Holy One of Blessing does not link a bad thought to an action, i.e., one is not punished for thoughts alone. The Gemara asks: But perhaps he was contemplating idol worship at the time, and it is written with regard to idol worship: “So I may take the house of Israel in their own heart” (Ezekiel 14:5), which indicates that one is punished for idolatrous thoughts. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ya’akov was saying this as well: If it enters your mind that there is reward for performing a mitzva in this world, why didn’t these mitzvot protect him so that he should not come to contemplate idol worship? The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm? The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Elazar is referring those on their way to perform a mitzva, which is different, as one is not susceptible to harm when he is on his way to fulfill a mitzva, in this case the individual was harmed on his return. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say that those on the path to perform a mitzva are not susceptible to harm, neither when they are on their way to perform the mitzva nor when they are returning from performing the mitzva? The Gemara answers: In that case it was a rickety ladder, and therefore the danger was established; and anywhere that the danger is established one may not rely on a miracle, as it is written with regard to God’s command to Samuel to anoint David as king in place of Saul: “And Samuel said: How will I go, and Saul will hear and kill me; and God said: Take in your hand a calf and say: I have come to sacrifice an offering to God” (I Samuel 16:2). Rav Yosef said: Had Aḥer, literally Other, the appellation of the former Sage Elisha ben Avuya, interpreted this aforementioned verse: “That it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16), homiletically, as referring to the World-to-Come, as did Rabbi Ya’akov, son of his daughter, he would not have sinned. The Gemara asks: And what caused Aḥer to sin? There are those who say he saw a case like this, where a son went up to the roof on his father’s command, dispatched the mother bird, and then died. And there are those who say that he saw the tongue of Ḥutzpit the translator of the Torah reading after the latter was executed by the government, thrown in the street, and dragged along by something else, a euphemism for a pig. He said: Shall a mouth that produced pearls lap up dirt? For this reason he went out and sinned.
~ How can we see evil that is not there, and conversely see goodness that is not there?
~ How do the different sages and the Gemarah try to understand the verses in Devarim and regarding honoring parents? What is the final solution proposed?
~ What is the caveat regarding the cases of the rickety ladder and the case of the prophet Samuel?
~ What do you make of the mentioning of Aher in the end?
(ט) ואמנם מצות שחיטת בהמה היא הכרחית מפני שהמזון הטבעי לבני אדם הוא מן הזרעים הצומחים בארץ ומבשר בעלי חיים והטוב שבבשר הוא מה שהותר לנו לאכלו - וזה מה שלא יסופק בו רופא. וכאשר הביא הכרח טוב המזון להריגת בעלי חיים כונה התורה לקלה שבמיתות ואסרה שיענה אותם בשחיטה רעה ולא יחתוך מהם אבר - כמו שבארנו:
(י) וכן אסר לשחוט 'אותו ואת בנו' 'ביום אחד' - להשמר ולהרחיק לשחוט משניהם הבן לעיני האם כי צער בעלי חיים בזה גדול מאד אין הפרש בין צער האדם עליו וצער שאר בעלי חיים כי אהבת האם ורחמיה על הולד אינו נמשך אחר השכל רק אחר פועל הכח המדמה הנמצא ברוב בעלי חיים כמו שנמצא באדם. והיה זה הדין מיוחד ב'שור ושה' מפני שהם - מותר לנו אכילתם מן הביתיות הנהוג לאכלם והם אשר תכיר מהם האם מן הולד:
(יא) וזה הטעם גם כן ב'שילוח הקן' כי הביצים אשר שכבה האם עליהם והאפרוחים הצריכים לאמם על הרוב אינם ראויים לאכילה וכשישלח האם ותלך לה לא תצטער בראות לקיחת הבנים. ועל הרוב יהיה סיבה להניח הכל כי מה שהיה לוקח ברוב הפעמים אינו ראוי לאכילה: ואם אלו הצערים הנפשיים חסר התורה עליהם בבהמות ובעופות כל שכן בבני האדם כולם. ולא תקשה עלי באמרם 'ז"ל' "האומר על קן צפור יגיעו רחמיך וגו'" - כי הוא לפי אחת משני הדעות אשר זכרנום - רצוני לומר דעת מי שחושב שאין טעם לתורה אלא הרצון לבד ואנחנו נמשכנו אחר הדעת השני:
(9) The commandment concerning the killing of animals is necessary, because the natural food of man consists of vegetables and of the flesh of animals: the best meat is that of animals permitted to be used as food. No doctor has any doubts about this. Since, therefore, the desire of procuring good food necessitates the slaying of animals, the Law enjoins that the death of the animal should be the easiest. It is not allowed to torment the animal by cutting the throat in a clumsy manner, by poleaxing, or by cutting off a limb whilst the animal is alive.
(10) It is also prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28), in order that people should be restrained and prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain in the sight of the mother; for the pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings, since the love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but by imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living beings. This law applies only to ox and lamb, because of the domestic animals used as food these alone are permitted to us, and in these cases the mother recognises her young.
(11) 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. If the Law provides that such grief should not be caused to cattle or birds, how much more careful must we be that we should not cause grief to our fellowmen. When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the phrase, "Your mercy extends to young birds," it is the expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the other opinion.
~ How does Maimonides see this mitzvah?
~ What opinions regarding why we follow the commandments does the Rambam wrestle with? Why does it matter?
If the nest of a bird chances to be in front of you: Also this commandment is explained by "it and its son do not slaughter on one day" (Leviticus 22:28); since the reason in both of them is that we should not have a cruel heart and [then] not have mercy, or that the verse should not permit us to be destructive to destroy the species, even though it allowed slaughter within that species. And behold, one who kills the mother and the children on one day or takes them when they are 'free to fly' is as if he cuts off that species. And the teacher (Rambam) in the Guide for the Perplexed 3:48 wrote that the reason of sending [the mother away from] the nest and the reason of "it and its son do not slaughter on one day" is to prohibit killing the child in the eyes of the mother, as animals have great concern about this. And there is no difference between the concern of a person and the concern of animals for their children, since the love of a mother and 'the appeal of the children of its belly' does not stem from the intellect and the [faculty of] speech, but rather it is from the effects of the faculty of thought that is found in animals just as it is found in man. And if [it is as Rambam claims], the main prohibition of 'it and its son' is only [in the sequence] of its son and it, but [in other circumstances] it is all a distancing [from that main prohibition]. And more correct is [that the reason for the commandment is] so that we will not become cruel. And the teacher said: And don't answer me from the statement of the sages [that comes to explain] (Berakhot 33b), "We silence the one who says, 'Your mercy reaches the nest of the bird.' [is because this commandment is a decree that has nothing to do with mercy]," as this is one of two explanations - the explanation of the one to whom it appears that there is no reason for the commandments except for the will of the Creator - but we hold of the second explanation, [according to which] there should be an explanation for all of the commandments. And a further challenge to him is that which he found in Bereshit Rabbah 44:1, "And so what does the Holy One, blessed be He, care whether he slaughters from [the front of] the neck or slaughters from the back - behold, the commandments were only given to make human beings better through them, as it is stated (Proverbs 30:5), 'Every word of the Lord is purifying.'" And this matter that the teacher asserted is very lucid regarding commandments that have a reason, as there is in each one a reason and a purpose and a refinement for the person, besides their reward from their Commander, of Blessed Name. And the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, have already said (Sanhedrin 21b), "For what were the reasons of the Torah not revealed, etc." and they expounded (Pesachim 119a), "'Ancient covering' (Isaiah 23:18) - this is the one who reveals things that were covered by the One of ancient days; and what are they? The reasons of the Torah." And they already expounded about the red heifer (Bemidbar Rabbah 19:3-4), that Shlomo said, "I have mastered it all, but about the topic of the red heifer, I have investigated, I have asked, I have searched - 'I said I will become wise, but it is far from me' (Ecclesiastes 7:23)." And Rabbi Yose beRebbe Chanina said, "The Holy One, blessed be He said to Moshe, 'To you do I reveal the reason of the red heifer, but to others it is a statute (without explanation),' as it is written (Zechariah 14:6), 'And it shall be on that day there will be no light, but heaviness and solidity' - it is written 'will solidify' (even though it is read 'and solidity,' such that the verse expresses a secondary meaning which is now elucidated): That which is covered from you in this world, will be visible in the world to come, like that blind man that [finally] sees, as it is written (Isaiah 42:16), 'And I will guide the blind ones in the path they did not know.' And it is written (there), 'I have done these things and not forsaken them' - as I have already done them for Rabbi Akiva." Behold, they elucidated that the impediment to the reasons for the commandments is not from Him abut rather [from] the blindness of our intellects and that the reason of the most difficult one was already reveled to the sages of Israel. And there are many [statements] like this and many things in Torah and Scripture that indicate [it]. [And] those homiletical statements that were challenging to [Rambam], are about a different matter, according to my opinion. As they wanted to say that there is no gain in the commandment for the Holy One of Blessing Godself, may God be elevated; but [rather] the gain is for the person herself - to prevent one from damage or a bad belief or a disgusting character trait, or to remember the miracles and wonders of the Creator of Blessed Name and to know God. And this is [the meaning of] "to purify them" - that they should be like purified silver; as the action of a smelter is not without a reason, but [rather] to extract all the dross from it. And so [too] are the commandments to extract from our hearts every bad belief and to inform us of the truth and to always remind us of it. And this [idea] is mentioned by the homiletical statement itself in [Midrash] 'Yilamdenu' (Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 8 on Parshat Shmini) on the section, 'This is the animal,' "And so what does it matter to the Holy One of Blessing whether one slaughters an animal and eats or stabs [it] and eats - do you benefit God at all or damage God at all; or what does God care whether one eats pure things or eats impure things. 'If you have become wise, you have become wise for yourself' (Proverbs 9:12) - behold, the commandments were only given to purify the creations through them, as it is stated (Psalms 12:7), 'The words of the Lord are pure words' and it is stated (Proverbs 30:5), 'Every word of the Lord is purified.' Why? So that it protect you" Behold, it is explicit in here that they only came to say that the gain is not for God, may God be elevated; that God should require the light - as might be thought - from the menorah (the candelabra in the Temple) or that he should require the sacrifices for food and the smell of the incense as it would appear from the simple meaning of [the verses]; and even the memory of God's wonders that God did, that God commanded to do [things] in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt and the story of Creation, there is no gain for God - just that we know the truth and merit through it, until we become fit that God should protect us. As our speech and memory of God's wonders are considered nothing and void for God. And he brought a proof from one that slaughters from the [front] of the neck and [its] back, to say that they are all for us and not for the Holy One of Blessing as it is not likely to say about slaughter that there should be gain and honor to the Creator, may God's Name be blessed, from the neck more than from the back or [from] stabbing; but rather they are for us to guide us in the paths of mercy, even at the time of slaughtering. And they brought another proof, "Or what does God care whether one eats pure things" - and these are the permitted foods - "or eats impure things" - and these are forbidden foods, that the Torah stated about them (Leviticus 11:28), "they are impure for you." And through this, he hinted that it is so that we be of clean souls, wise ones, that contemplate the truth. And their saying, "If you have become wise, you have become wise for yourself," they mentioned, because the active commandments - for example, slaughtering of the neck - are to teach us good character traits; and the commandments that are decrees that differentiate species are to purify our souls, as the Torah stated (Leviticus 20:25), "and you shall not make your souls disgusting with the animal and with the bird and with all that crawls on the ground, which I have separated for you as impure." If so, all of them are for our benefit alone. And this is like Elihu said (Job 35:6), "If you sin, how will you effect God; and your transgressions are numerous, what will you do to God?" and said (verse 7), "or what will God take from your hand?" And this is something that is unanimous in all of the words of our teachers. And they asked in the Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:1, whether we can open [an avenue of regret] for [vows] that are between a person and the Omnipresent, with the [damage done to the] honor of the Omnipresent; and they responded to this question, "which is [the damage done] to the honor of the Omnipresent - for example, the sukkah that I am not doing, the lulav that I am not holding, the tefillin that I am not laying?" And it is implied that it is [only the person] that [a commandment] helps, like the [verses], "If you are righteous, what do you give to Him, or what will He take from your hand?" [and] "If you sin, how will you effect Him; and your transgressions are numerous, what will you do to Him?" Behold, they elucidated that even the lulav and the sukkah and the tefillin - that God commanded that they be 'a sign upon your arm and a memory device between your eyes, that Ad-nai took you out of Egypt with a strong hand' - are not for the honor of Hashem, may God be blessed, but [rather] to have mercy on our souls. And they already set this into the prayer of Yom Kippur, "You have separated man from the start and recognized him to stand in front of You, as who will say to You what to do, and if he is righteous, what will he give to You?" And so [too], it stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:13), "for your good," as I have explained (Ramban on Deuteronomy 10:13); and so [too] (Deuteronomy 6:24), "And God commanded us to do all of these statutes to fear Ad-nai, our God, for our good all of the days." And the intention in all of them is that it be good for us and not for God, may God be blessed and elevated; but all that we are commanded is [so that] God's creatures be purified and cleansed without the dross of evil thoughts and disgusting character traits. And so that which they said (Berakhot 33a), "[It is because] he makes the traits of the Holy One of Blessing into mercy and they are only decrees," is to say that God did not worry about the nest of the bird and God's 'mercy did not reach' it and its child; as God's mercy does not extend to creatures with an animal soul, to prevent us from doing what we need to them. As were it so, slaughtering would be forbidden. But [rather], the reason for the proscription is to teach us the trait of mercy and that we not become cruel. Since cruelty spreads in the soul of a man, as it is known with butchers that slaughter large oxen and donkeys, that they are 'people of blood,' 'slaughterers of men' [and] very cruel. And because of this they said (Kiddushin 82a), "The best of butchers are the partners of Amalek." And behold, these commandments with animals and birds are not mercy upon them, but [rather] decrees upon us, to guide us and to teach us the good character traits. And so [too] all of the commandments - positive and negative - are called decrees; as they said (Mekhilta, Bechodesh 6) about a parable of a king that entered into a country: "His servants said to him, 'Make decrees upon them.' He said [back] to them, 'When they accept My kingship, I will make decrees upon them.' So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say; 'You accepted My Kingship - "I am Ad-nai, your God" (Exodus 20:2) - [now,] accept My decrees - "there shall be for you no, etc."' (Exodus 20:3)." But in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunia ben HaKaneh, there is a midrash [that explains] that there is a secret in the commandment: "Rabbi Rechumai said, 'Why is it written, "Surely send away the mother" and it did not say, "the father?" But rather, "Surely send the mother" is in honor of that Discernment (Binah), the Mother of the world, as it is written (Proverbs 2:3), "But you will call discernment, Mother."' What is 'and the children take for yourself?' Rabbi Rechumai said, 'Those children that she grew.' And what are they? The seven days of the sukkah and the laws of the seven days of the week, etc." And behold, this commandment hints to a great matter, and therefore its reward is very large - "so that it will be good for you and you will lengthen your days."
~ How similar and how different is the Ramban (Nachmanides) from the Rambam (Maimonides)?
~ what is the general purpose of mitzvot, for the Ramban?
~ How does the Ramban understand this commandment to be "very great"?
טעם זאת המצוה מבוארת בעצמה, כטעם "אותו ואת בנו" (ויקרא כ"ב כ"ח), וכן "לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו" (שמות ל"ד כ"ו) והוא להרחיק מעלינו האכזריות, אבל מצורף לזה, אומר אני, כי תורתנו השלמה, רצתה לתת לנו דעות שלמות, וזה להקנותנו ידיעת המציאות ככל יכולתנו ולכן כיוונה בזה שתי כוונות: האחת להודיענו מדרגת מציאותנו ונמשך לזה להסיר מעלינו תכונת ההתנשאות והגאוה, וזה כי ידוע, כי סוגנו הכולל הוא גשם, ותחתיו צומח, ותחת הצומח חי, ותחת החי מדבר הוא האדם ואישיו, וזה כלל מציאות עולם היסודות ומבואר כי המון העם ישכלו כל זה, אף כי לגאותנו נתהלל במתת השקר, נדמה שאין יחס בינינו ובין שאר בעלי החי, אף כי עם הצמחים ככרוב ושאר ירקות, אף כי עם השדות; לכן להרחיק ממנו כל הסכלות הזה נתנו לנו מצוות שונות: קצתם בגשם הדומם וקצתם בצמח וקצתם בחי וקצתם במדבר, עד שתחת המדבר שהוא מין האדם דקדק בו מאוד וציוונו השם לחמול על אישי האדם מאיזה עם שיהיו כמו שקדם. רצונו בהילחמנו על העמים – זולת ז' עממים כי הם כחיות רעות – וכן מצות יפת תואר "לא תתעמר בה'" וכן רבים, כל שכן עם האישים שהם מדתנו. "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" – "לא תראה את שור אחיך" ורבים צווים כן, וזה הראש. ואחר על יתר האנשים שאינם מדתנו, ואחר שהפליג במידה הזאת עם כלל מין האדם, ציוונו אחר כך על הכלל ממין החי "כי תאוה נפשך לאכול בשר" – שלא נהרגם ללא צורך רק לאכלה, (אחר שטבע האדם חייב שיתאווה לבשר) כי עיקר הכוונה שלא נאכל בשר רק שנאכל צמחים ולכן בבראשית לא הותר לנו רק עשב השדה, ואחר המבול נתפשט אכילת בעלי חיים שהוא כאילו נאכל אבינו, כי הוא סוגנו הקרוב, ולכן ציוותה התורה לחמול עליהם כמו שזכרו מצות "אותו ואת בנו" וכן "לא תבשל גדי..." וכן "כי יקרא קן..." ואילו יכלה התורה למנענו יותר - היתה עושה, אבל כי היות קורבתנו לסוג החי מעטה מקרבתנו למין המדבר, חילשו ומיעטו במצוה באהבתו ובחמלתו. וכפי מדרגה זו באה אחר החי המצוה בסוג הצמח כמו שקדמה מצות "לא תשחית עצה" (כ' י"ט) ובעבור רחקו יותר, חילשו מצוותו. וכפי מדרגה זו באה אחר הצמח המצוה בסוג הגשם בשדות, כמו שקדמה מצות השמיטה, לתת מנוחת מה לאדמה – כי ממנה לוקחנו, ובעבור רחקו יותר, חילשו מצוותיו. וכלל הדבר: הקננו נותן תורתנו בכלל זה ידיעת חלק גדול מן המציאות והקננו תכונת הענוה והשפלות, עד שנדע ויהיה בין עינינו תמיד, כי אנחנו כחמור ופרד, גם ככרוב ורימון, גם כאבן דומם. גם תיקננו בזה תכונת הרחמנות, שתכליתה לרחם על האיש הטוב "שכל העולם לא נברא אלא לצוות לזה".
Adnei Kesef (Joseph ben Abba Mari ben Joseph ben Yaacov Caspi (1279, Largentière—1340, Tarascon)
The reason for this mitzvah, just like “him and his young” and also “do not boil a kid in its mother milk”, it the eradication of cruelty. But besides that, I say, the Torah wished to give us full understanding and this is to cleanse us from pride and self-importance. We are, as is known, composed of four substances — mineral, vegetable, animal and human — these are the four categories of created things. There are those who foolishly imagine, in our human pride (in which we are praised with the gift of lies), that there is no kinship between us and the rest of the animal world, how much less with the plants and vegetation. To eradicate this foolish notion God gave us certain precepts some concerning mineral, others, vegetable, others, animal and others human. Above all we are bidden to be compassionate to all other human beings, to all human beings of whatever people (with the exception of those 7 peoples that were evil), and that is also the mitzvah of the beautiful captive "you will not oppress her" and many others, and all the more so with those who are actually our people: “love your neighbor as yourself”, "when you see the ox of your brother" and many others. Next in order come our relations with the animal which we are only allowed to slaughter in an approved manner and for eating — “when your soul desires flesh”. We were originally designed to eat only plants as stated in Genesis. It was only after the flood that the consumption of meat became widespread which is tantamount to eating our parent, since it is nearest to our substance. For this reason the Torah commanded us to show pity to them — not slaughter the mother and young on the same day, to send away the mother bird, not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. The Torah did not issue more prohibitions, since the animal world is not as akin to us as other human beings. In a descending scale come the precepts governing the plant world, since they are further removed from us. They are not so stringent again as those affecting the animal world. We are forbidden to cut down fruit trees and the like. After this comes the soil and inert matter which is still further removed but still akin to us, since we were taken from it, but we are more removed from it still. Thus the land itself must be rested every seven years. To conclude: The Torah inculcates in us a sense of our modesty and lowliness, that we should be ever cognizant of the fact that we are of the same stuff as the donkey and mule, the cabbage and pomegranate and even the lifeless stone. And also to fix in us the trait of compassion, that we remember that the compassion is so that we will remember that, regarding a good person "all the world was only created for that person's commandment."
~ Why do we have to shoo away the mother bird, according to the Adnei Kesef?
~ What is, in general, the purpose of mitzvot in his opinion?
How does Luzzatto understand this commandment? Why is it there?
(ו) תָּנֵי חִזְקִיָּה (ירמיה נ, יז): שֶׂה פְזוּרָה יִשְׂרָאֵל, נִמְשְׁלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְשֶׂה, מַה שֶּׂה הַזֶּה לוֹקֶה עַל רֹאשׁוֹ אוֹ בְּאֶחָד מֵאֵבָרָיו וְכָל אֵבָרָיו מַרְגִּישִׁין, כָּךְ הֵן יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶחָד מֵהֶן חוֹטֵא וְכֻלָּן מַרְגִּישִׁין, (במדבר טז, כב): הָאִישׁ אֶחָד יֶחֱטָא, תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹחָאי, מָשָׁל לִבְנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין בִּסְפִינָה נָטַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַקְדֵּחַ וְהִתְחִיל קוֹדֵחַ תַּחְתָּיו, אָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲבֵרָיו מַה אַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹשֶׂה, אָמַר לָהֶם מָה אִכְפַּת לָכֶם לֹא תַחְתִּי אֲנִי קוֹדֵחַ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ שֶׁהַמַּיִם עוֹלִין וּמְצִיפִין עָלֵינוּ אֶת הַסְּפִינָה. כָּךְ אָמַר אִיּוֹב (איוב יט, ד): וְאַף אָמְנָם שָׁגִיתִי אִתִּי תָּלִין מְשׁוּגָתִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲבֵרָיו (איוב לד, לז): כִּי יֹסִיף עַל חַטָּאתוֹ פֶשַׁע בֵּינֵינוּ יִשְׂפּוֹק, אַתָּה מַסְפִּיק בֵּינֵינוּ אֶת עֲוֹנוֹתֶיךָ.
(6) Hezkiya taught (Jeremiah 50:17): "Israel are scattered sheep" - why are Israel likened to a sheep? Just as a sheep, when hurt on its head or some other body part, all of its body parts feel it. So it is with Israel when one of them sins and everyone feels it. (Numbers 16:22): "When one man sins [will You be wrathful with the whole community]." Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai taught a parable: Men were on a ship. One of them took a drill and started drilling underneath him. The others said to him: What are sitting and doing?! He replied: What do you care. Is this not underneath my area that I am drilling?! They said to him: But the water will rise and flood us all on this ship. This is as Iyov said (Job 19:4): "If indeed I have erred, my error remains with me." But his friends said to him (Job 34:37): "He adds transgression to his sin; he extends it among us." [The men on the ship said]: You extend your sins among us. ...
~ According to this midrash, why do we observe mitzvot?