(ג) כל שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר ויש שיש לו סנפיר ואין לו קשקשת לפיכך מצא חתיכת דג שיש לו קשקשת אין צריך לחזור אחר סנפיר מצא לו סנפיר לא יאכלנו עד שידע שיש לו קשקשת:
(3) Everything that has scales has fins, and there are [fish] that have fins but not scales. Therefore, if one found a cut of fish that has scales, one does not have to go after fins. If one found fins, one should not eat it until he knows it has scales.
(טז) הַמַּלְאָךְ֩ הַגֹּאֵ֨ל אֹתִ֜י מִכׇּל־רָ֗ע יְבָרֵךְ֮ אֶת־הַנְּעָרִים֒ וְיִקָּרֵ֤א בָהֶם֙ שְׁמִ֔י וְשֵׁ֥ם אֲבֹתַ֖י אַבְרָהָ֣ם וְיִצְחָ֑ק וְיִדְגּ֥וּ לָרֹ֖ב בְּקֶ֥רֶב הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(16) The Angel who has redeemed me from all harm— Bless the lads. In them may my name be recalled, And the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, And may they be teeming multitudes upon the earth.”
(א) כי יקרא קן צפור לפניך גם זו מצוה מבוארת מן אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד (ויקרא כב כח) כי הטעם בשניהם לבלתי היות לנו לב אכזרי ולא נרחם או שלא יתיר הכתוב לעשות השחתה לעקור המין אע"פ שהתיר השחיטה במין ההוא והנה ההורג האם והבנים ביום אחד או לוקח אותם בהיות להם דרור לעוף כאלו יכרית המין ההוא וכתב הרב במורה הנבוכים (ג מח) כי טעם שלוח הקן וטעם אותו ואת בנו לא תשחטו ביום אחד כדי להזהיר שלא ישחוט הבן בעיני האם כי יש לבהמות דאגה גדולה בזה ואין הפרש בין דאגת האדם לדאגת הבהמות על בניהם כי אהבת האם וחנותה לבני בטנה איננו נמשך אחרי השכל והדבור אבל הוא מפעולת כח המחשבה המצויה בבהמות כאשר היא מצויה באדם ואם כן אין עיקר האיסור באותו ואת בנו רק בבנו ואותו אבל הכל הרחקה ויותר נכון בעבור שלא נתאכזר ואמר הרב ואל תשיב עלי ממאמר החכמים (ברכות לג) האומר על קן צפור יגיעו רחמיך כי זו אחת משתי סברות סברת מי שיראה כי אין טעם למצות אלא חפץ הבורא ואנחנו מחזיקים בסברא השניה שיהיה בכל המצות טעם והוקשה עליו עוד מה שמצא בב"ר (מד א) וכי מה איכפת לו להקב"ה בין שוחט מן הצואר לשוחט מן העורף הא לא נתנו המצות אלא לצרף בהם את הבריות שנאמר (משלי ל ה) כל אמרת אלוה צרופה וזה הענין שגזר הרב במצות שיש להם טעם מבואר הוא מאד כי בכל אחד טעם ותועלת ותקון לאדם מלבד שכרן מאת המצוה בהן יתברך וכבר ארז"ל (סנהדרין כא) מפני מה לא נתגלו טעמי תורה וכו' ודרשו (פסחים קיט) ולמכסה עתיק זה המגלה דברים שכסה עתיק יומין ומאי ניהו טעמי תורה וכבר דרשו בפרה אדומה (במדב"ר יט ג ד) שאמר שלמה על הכל עמדתי ופרשה של פרה אדומה חקרתי ושאלתי ופשפשתי אמרתי אחכמה והיא רחוקה ממני (קהלת ז כג) ואמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא אמר לו הקב"ה למשה לך אני מגלה טעם פרה אדומה אבל לאחרים חקה דכתיב (זכריה יד ו) והיה ביום ההוא לא יהיה אור יקרות וקפאון יקפאון כתיב דברים המכוסים מכם בעולם הזה עתידין להיות צפויים לעולם הבא כהדין סמיא דצפי דכתיב (ישעיהו מב טז) והולכתי עורים בדרך לא ידעו וכתיב (שם) אלה הדברים עשיתים ולא עזבתים שכבר עשיתים לר' עקיבא הנה בארו שאין מניעות טעמי תורה ממנו אלא עורון בשכלנו ושכבר נתגלה טעם החמורה שבהם לחכמי ישראל וכאלה רבות בדבריהם ובתורה ובמקרא דברים רבים מודיעין כן והרב הזכיר מהן אבל אלו ההגדות אשר נתקשו על הרב כפי דעתי ענין אחר להם שרצו לומר שאין התועלת במצות להקב"ה בעצמו יתעלה אבל התועלת באדם עצמו למנוע ממנו נזק או אמונה רעה או מדה מגונה או לזכור הנסים ונפלאות הבורא יתברך ולדעת את השם וזהו לצרף בהן שיהיו ככסף צרוף כי הצורף הכסף אין מעשהו בלא טעם אבל להוציא ממנו כל סיג וכן המצות להוציא מלבנו כל אמונה רעה ולהודיענו האמת ולזוכרו תמיד ולשון זו האגדה עצמה הוזכרה בילמדנו (תנחומא שמיני ח) בפרשת זאת החיה וכי מה איכפת לו להקב"ה בין שוחט בהמה ואוכל או נוחר ואוכל כלום אתה מועילו או כלום אתה מזיקו או מה איכפת לו בין אוכל טהורות או אוכל טמאות אם חכמת חכמת לך (משלי ט יב) הא לא נתנו המצות אלא לצרף את הבריות שנאמר (תהלים יב ז) אמרות ה' אמרות טהורות ונאמר כל אמרת אלוה צרופה למה שיהא מגין עליך הנה מפורש בכאן שלא באו לומר אלא שאין התועלת אליו יתעלה שיצטרך לאורה כמחושב מן המנורה ושיצטרך למאכל הקרבנות וריח הקטרת כנראה מפשוטיהם ואפילו הזכר לנפלאותיו שעשה שצוה לעשות לזכר ליציאת מצרים ומעשה בראשית אין התועלת לו רק שנדע אנחנו האמת ונזכה בו עד שנהיה ראויים להיות מגן עלינו כי דבורנו וזכרנו בנפלאותיו מאפס ותוהו נחשבו לו והביא ראיה מן השוחט מן הצואר והעורף לומר שכולם לנו ולא להקב"ה לפי שלא יתכן לומר בשחיטה שיהא בה תועלת וכבוד לבורא יתברך בצואר יותר מהעורף או הניחור אלא לנו הם להדריכנו בנתיבות הרחמים גם בעת השחיטה והביאו ראיה אחרת או מה איכפת לו בין אוכל טהורות והם המאכלים המותרים לאוכל טמאות והם המאכלים האסורים שאמרה בהם התורה (ויקרא יא כח) טמאים המה לכם ורמז שהוא להיותנו נקיי הנפש חכמים משכילי האמת ואמרם אם חכמת חכמת לך הזכירו כי המצות המעשיות כגון שחיטת הצואר ללמדנו המדות הטובות והמצות הגזירות הגדורות במינין לזקק את נפשותינו כמו שאמרה תורה (שם כ כה) ולא תשקצו את נפשותיכם בבהמה ובעוף ובכל אשר תרמוש האדמה אשר הבדלתי לכם לטמא א"כ כלם לתועלתנו בלבד וזה כמו שאמר אליהוא (איוב לה ו) אם חטאת מה תפעל בו ורבו פשעיך מה תעשה לו ואמר (שם פסוק ז) או מה מידך יקח וזה דבר מוסכם בכל דברי רבותינו ושאלו בירושלמי בנדרים (פ"ט ה"א) אם פותחין לאדם בכבוד המקום בדברים שבינו לבין המקום והשיבו על השאלה הזאת אי זהו כבוד המקום כגון סוכה שאיני עושה לולב שאיני נוטל תפילין שאיני מניח והיינו כבוד המקום משמע דלנפשיה הוא דמהני כהדא אם צדקת מה תתן לו או מה מידך יקח אם חטאת מה תפעל בו ורבו פשעיך מה תעשה לו הנה בארו שאפילו הלולב והסוכה והתפילין שצוה בהן שיהו לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך כי ביד חזקה הוציאך ה' ממצרים אינן לכבוד ה' יתברך אבל לרחם על נפשותינו וכבר סדרו לנו בתפלת יום הכפורים אתה הבדלת אנוש מראש ותכירהו לעמוד לפניך כי מי יאמר לך מה תעשה ואם יצדק מה יתן לך וכן אמר בתורה (דברים י׳:י״ג) לטוב לך כאשר פירשתי (שם פסוק יב) וכן ויצונו ה' לעשות את כל החקים האלה ליראה את ה' אלהינו לטוב לנו כל הימים (דברים ו׳:כ״ד) והכוונה בכלם לטוב לנו ולא לו יתברך ויתעלה אבל כל מה שנצטוינו שיהיו בריותיו צרופות ומזוקקות בלא סיגי מחשבות רעות ומדות מגונות וכן מה שאמרו (ברכות לג) לפי שעושה מדותיו של הקב"ה רחמים ואינן אלא גזרות לומר שלא חס האל על קן צפור ולא הגיעו רחמיו על אותו ואת בנו שאין רחמיו מגיעין בבעלי הנפש הבהמית למנוע אותנו מלעשות בהם צרכנו שאם כן היה אוסר השחיטה אבל טעם המניעה ללמד אותנו מדת הרחמנות ושלא נתאכזר כי האכזריות תתפשט בנפש האדם כידוע בטבחים שוחטי השורים הגדולים והחמורים שהם אנשי דמים זובחי אדם אכזרים מאד ומפני זה אמרו (קידושין פב) טוב שבטבחים שותפו של עמלק והנה המצות האלה בבהמה ובעוף אינן רחמנות עליהם אלא גזירות בנו להדריכנו וללמד אותנו המדות הטובות וכן יקראו הם כל המצות שבתורה עשה ולא תעשה גזירות כמו שאמרו (מכילתא בחדש ו) במשל המלך שנכנס למדינה אמרו לו עבדיו גזור עליהם גזירות אמר להם כשיקבלו מלכותי אגזור עליהם גזירות כך אמר הקב"ה קבלתם מלכותי אנכי ה' אלהיך (שמות כ ב) קבלו גזירותי לא יהיה לך וכו' (שם פסוק ג) אבל במדרשו של רבי נחוניא בן הקנה בשלוח הקן מדרש שיש במצוה סוד אמר רבי רחמאי מאי דכתיב שלח תשלח את האם ולא אמר את האב אלא שלח תשלח את האם בכבוד אותה בינה שנקראת אם העולם דכתיב (משלי ב ג) כי אם לבינה תקרא מאי ואת הבנים תקח לך אמר רבי רחמאי אותם בנים שגדלה ומאי ניהו שבעת ימי הסוכה ודיני שבעת ימי השבוע וכו' והנה המצוה הזאת רומזת לענין גדול ולכך שכרה מרובה למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים:
(1) 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, 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 Nebuchim 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 images which exists among animals even as it is present in man. But if so 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, and it is more correct [to explain them as prohibitions] to prevent us from acting cruelly.
And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said further: “Do not contradict me by quoting the saying of the Sages, ‘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: “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.”
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: “Why were the reasons for the commandments not revealed? etc.” And they further interpreted: “And for stately clothing — this refers to one who uncovers matters that were concealed by the Ancient of days. 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 Heifer 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. 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). The word is spelled yekipaon, 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, and it is further written, These things have I done and I did not leave them undone, 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] 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 Yelamdeinu in the section of These are the living things: ”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. Surely the commandments have been given only to refine men, as it is said, The words of the Eternal are pure words, and it is further said, Every word of G-d is refined. 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, 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. 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. 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 thyself 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. 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? And again he states, If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him? Or what receiveth He of thy hands? This is a consensus in all the words of our Rabbis. Thus they asked in Yerushalmi Nedarim whether they may open the way [to release one from a vow or oath] by reason of the honor due to G-d 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? If thou hast sinned, what doest thou against Him? And if thy transgression be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?” 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 Egypt — 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, as I have explained. So also, And the Eternal commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Eternal our G-d, for our good always. 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, “Because he treats the ordinances of G-d like expressions of mercy, whereas they are decrees” 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; they that slaughter men, are extremely cruel. It is on account of this [cruelty] that the Rabbis have said: “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 said 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, accept My decrees: Thou shalt have no other gods etc.’”
However, in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah 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, 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’ which is termed ‘the mother of the world,’ as it is written, Yea ‘im’ (if) thou call for understanding. And what is the meaning of the phrase, and the young, take thou to thee? 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.
Now, he [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim 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 images which exists among animals even as it is present in man. But if so 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, and it is more correct [to explain them as prohibitions] to prevent us from acting cruelly.
And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said further: “Do not contradict me by quoting the saying of the Sages, ‘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: “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.”
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: “Why were the reasons for the commandments not revealed? etc.” And they further interpreted: “And for stately clothing — this refers to one who uncovers matters that were concealed by the Ancient of days. 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 Heifer 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. 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). The word is spelled yekipaon, 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, and it is further written, These things have I done and I did not leave them undone, 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] 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 Yelamdeinu in the section of These are the living things: ”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. Surely the commandments have been given only to refine men, as it is said, The words of the Eternal are pure words, and it is further said, Every word of G-d is refined. 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, 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. 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. 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 thyself 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. 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? And again he states, If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him? Or what receiveth He of thy hands? This is a consensus in all the words of our Rabbis. Thus they asked in Yerushalmi Nedarim whether they may open the way [to release one from a vow or oath] by reason of the honor due to G-d 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? If thou hast sinned, what doest thou against Him? And if thy transgression be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?” 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 Egypt — 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, as I have explained. So also, And the Eternal commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Eternal our G-d, for our good always. 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, “Because he treats the ordinances of G-d like expressions of mercy, whereas they are decrees” 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; they that slaughter men, are extremely cruel. It is on account of this [cruelty] that the Rabbis have said: “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 said 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, accept My decrees: Thou shalt have no other gods etc.’”
However, in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah 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, 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’ which is termed ‘the mother of the world,’ as it is written, Yea ‘im’ (if) thou call for understanding. And what is the meaning of the phrase, and the young, take thou to thee? 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.
(ט) וְהָיָ֣ה כׇל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֣ה ׀ אֲֽשֶׁר־יִשְׁרֹ֡ץ אֶ֣ל כׇּל־אֲשֶׁר֩ יָב֨וֹא שָׁ֤ם נַחֲלַ֙יִם֙ יִֽחְיֶ֔ה וְהָיָ֥ה הַדָּגָ֖ה רַבָּ֣ה מְאֹ֑ד כִּי֩ בָ֨אוּ שָׁ֜מָּה הַמַּ֣יִם הָאֵ֗לֶּה וְיֵרָֽפְאוּ֙ וָחָ֔י כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־יָ֥בוֹא שָׁ֖מָּה הַנָּֽחַל׃ (י) וְהָיָה֩ (יעמדו) [עָמְד֨וּ] עָלָ֜יו דַּוָּגִ֗ים מֵעֵ֥ין גֶּ֙דִי֙ וְעַד־עֵ֣ין עֶגְלַ֔יִם מִשְׁט֥וֹחַ לַחֲרָמִ֖ים יִֽהְי֑וּ לְמִינָה֙ תִּֽהְיֶ֣ה דְגָתָ֔ם כִּדְגַ֛ת הַיָּ֥ם הַגָּד֖וֹל רַבָּ֥ה מְאֹֽד׃
(9) Every living creature that swarms will be able to live wherever this stream goes; the fish will be very abundant once these waters have reached there. It will be wholesome, and everything will live wherever this stream goes. (10) Fishermen shall stand beside it all the way from En-gedi to En-eglaim; it shall be a place for drying nets; and the fish will be of various kinds [and] most plentiful, like the fish of the Great Sea.