While the mitzvah of shiluach hakein presents itself as a simple, innocent and charming mitzvah, it is not at all straightforward. Tracing the exposition of this mitzvah through Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, Rishonim, and Acharonim, we encounter extraordinary perspectives that turn the simple understanding upside-down. These relate to the understanding of the purpose of the mitzvah - some seeing the goal as minimizing a bird's distress, others as creating such distress - as well as the logic behind its rewards. It also has halachic ramifications regarding whether it is an optional mitzvah which applies only in a case where one wants the eggs, or if one is obligated (or at least recommended) to do it even if one does not want the eggs, and even praised for actively seeking out opportunities to do so. Shiluach hakein highlights the profound, irreconcilable differences between the rationalist and mystical schools of thought, and shows how they result in radically different notions of what doing mitzvos is all about.
Shiluach HaKein: The Transformation of the Mitzvah is a comprehensive study of this important topic. You can download the document after making a donation to The Torah and Nature Foundation, the non-profit foundation that funds The Biblical Museum of Natural History. The recommended amount is $5. But if you want to take this opportunity to express your gratitude for the RationalistJudaism website, OR, if you want to support the museum's project of teaching about Torah and the natural world, it would certainly be appropriate and appreciated to give a larger donation!
You can make a donation via PayPal or credit card by clicking on the following icon. After the payment, the museum will email the document to you. (If you have any difficulties, write to office@BiblicalNaturalHistory.org)
Contents
Introduction 5
I. Rationalist Approaches 7
In the Midrash 7
In the Rishonim 8
II. The Mishnah: No Speaking Of Mercy 10
Explanation #1: Anti-Christian Measures 10
Explanation #2: Highlighting Inequalities 12
Explanation #3: A Decree, Not God’s Mercy 12
3a. An Incomprehensible Statute 12
3b. Medieval Rationalist Interpretations 14
Explanation #4: Cruelty, Not Mercy 15
III. Mystical Approaches 17
Esoteric Reasons 17
Benefits of Cruelty 17
The Cruel Engineering of Compassion 18
IV. Optional, Recommended or Obligatory? 21
Relating the Halachah and the Rationale 21
Determining the Halachah 22
1. Optional - Only if one wants the young 23
2. Obligatory, Recommended, or Praiseworthy 26
A Mitzvah to Seek Out? 28
V. Rewards and their Logic 31
Good Days and a Long Life 31
Midrashic Rewards 32
Highlighting Anti-Rationalism 34
Modern Anti-Rationalists 35
Conclusion 36
Bibliography 39
I was reading the Little Midrash Says to my child the other night. It says that the Talmud (Nedarim 10a) tells of some tzaddikim who would become nezirim just so that they could bring a korban chatas. It appears that there's a machlokes about the history, though: a different sage said that tzaddikim did not become nezirim on purpose in order to bring a chatas.
ReplyDeleteMy point in offering that gemara is that there seems to be a position which says that some tzaddikim went way out of their way to fulfill a certain mitzvah. This, to me, sounds pertinent to the issue of why some people (perhaps not tzaddikim) peculiarly go out of their way to do shiluach haken.
The thing to do is to create an online institute, like R. Marc Angel has done, and sell memberships.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of those mitzvos that make me want to CRY when I hear story after story about frum people cruely tormenting birds to "get the zechus of this tremendous mitzvah"! (Which is supposed to be a segulah for lots of life problems.) What is being done is antithetical to what the Torah said and the values that the Torah was trying to impart. It's cruel, and the Torah was specifically trying to prevent that cruelty. I am SO glad that you wrote an essay about it!! I could write a book on all the bird-torture stories I've heard in relation to the way this mitzvah is practiced by my coreligionists. Even before reading the article, I appreciate your writing it! :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for an excellent article which was very helpful in clarifying the different irreconcilable understandings of this mitzvah. I used to perform it frequently (with gloves on so the mother bird would come back to avoid unnecessary cruelty) hoping for one of the rewards - children and a house (we got neither!), and my daughter wants me to do it again, but after reading your piece I won't be doing it anymore for no reason. On the other hand Rav Yisroel Belsky tells a story of his daughter who didn't have children and they decided to do the mitzvah as a segulah. The husband did it, but wasn't sure if he had done it correctly, so all in all he did it three times and she did it once. We were in Kiryat Sefer when it happened... They had quadruplets - three boys and a girl!!
ReplyDeleteRabbi Slifkin,
ReplyDeletePlease consider changing the "Suggested Donation" to $10 instead of $5.
For Americans $5 is a slice of pizza and a soda. Your article is 40 pages!
Sorry for giving you my unsolicited 2-cents, but, until you hire an agent, or gabbai, it is up to us "chassidim" to look out for your best interests..........
>>> They had quadruplets - three boys and a girl!!
ReplyDeleteCheck if she was taking fertility pills...its more likely that was reason for the quadruplets, not the segulah.
gosh what supposedly intelligent people will believe.
Many women get fertility treatment with no results. If the couple did not have children for long time then certainly they tried various treatments before. But those who don't believe that everything depends on G-d, can believe in pills.
DeleteLazar,
DeleteDo you believe in DNA? Ashkenazi women carry genes that seem linked to certain diseases, so says the NY Times. They've got a name for the gene. And they see how it causes specific diseases in specific women.
Genes, pills, diseases, cures by scientists using science, all as real as can be.
I don't think the anecdote is intended to imply a cause and effect relationship. :)
DeleteI would like to present an answer to the proof of Rabbi Yair Bachrach, that the mitzvah is obligatory, from the Talmudic passage:
ReplyDeleteI might have thought that one should travel the mountains and hills in order to find a nest,
therefore it tells us “When you happen across it”—only when it happens for you. (Talmud,
Chullin 139b)
Based on the Ramban (and possibly Rambam) that “the reason for the prohibition is to teach us the trait of compassion,” the Talmud may be proposing that “I might have thought that one should travel….” at least once in one’s lifetime, in order to learn the trait of compassion, therefore it tells us…. There is no mitzvah at all unless “you happen across it.”
For only $5, you can save $600 on the mitzvah!
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean that the rationalist approach is a segulah for parnasah? ;-)
ReplyDeleteThe “cruelty, not mercy” shita, IMO, has a major problem in dealing with the Mishna you cited:
ReplyDelete“If someone says, “Your mercy extends upon the nest of birds”… we silence him. (Mishnah,
Berachot 5:3)”
They would have to interpret the Mishna as saying: I would think that the act of sending away the mother is an act of mercy…not so ! …in fact it is an act of cruelty. In other words, the Mishna is teaching us a “metzius.” It is not the derech of the Mishna to use strong language such as “meshaskin oso” when clarifying a metzius.
I also find the shita of searching in the wilderness for birds to be bizarre. The Torah generally gives a time frame for positive commandments; Daily for tefillin, once a year for festivals etc. It seems as if this shita is equating Shiluach Hakein to Talmud Torah / Tztitzis etc, which are mitzvos that one has a constant/daily obligation to perform. Nowhere is this even remotely hinted to in the Torah.
I wish to thank you for your article. I thought it was fascinating, thorough, and exceptionally clear in laying out the historical framework and the philosophies and driving forces behind the different viewpoints.
I agree with Avi Katz's comments, though I would still appreciate hearing R' Slifkin's thoughts on my first comment, which implies that you could've added one gemara to your analysis.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the peshat in both torah and talmud (Chulin) is that shiluach haken is a conditional mitzvah rather than an absolute one. If it were absolute, then the torah would not begin the description of the mitzvah with the words "If you happen upon", and the Gemara would not emphasize that one is not required to seek out a nest being tended to by a bird. Moreover, the torah states, "..you may not take the mother bird together with the offspring. Do send away the mother and then you can take the offspring..". While the sages often take a phrase out of context, no one subsequently has the right to disregard the latter half of the cited verse. In other words, the sending away the mother is connected to taking the offspring. If there is no interest in the offspring then the entire parsha is of academic interest only.
ReplyDeleteConsider also the fact that no mention is made in the perek of shiluach haken in Chulin of some supposed absolute mitzvah. If there was such a thing, that would be a rather peculiar omission.
The censure of a shaliach tzibbur in Berachot, I believe, who adds the invocation of "Your mercy extends to the bird's nest" is due to a presumptive innovation by that person. The torah doesn't give an explicit reason and doesn't prohibit trapping and killing birds (or taking the offspring in the absence of the mother bird). If anything, the primary reason for sending away the mother bird is more likely due to avoiding a subversion of the Divine intent. GOD implanted an instinct in the mother bird to guard her nest. That maternal instinct may not be converted into a tool for capturing both mother and offspring. That is why the reward for avoiding such action is the same as that promised for honoring parents.
Great article! One question though. If the rationale behind the mitzvah is to perform acts of compassion to animals would we stop performing this mitzvah if it was determined by biologists or other scientists that sending the mother bird away causes more distress (for various reasons) as this would be going against the purpose of the mitzvah or would you continue to do the mitzvah when appropriate but accept the Mystical approach of a cruel act rather than a compassionate one?
ReplyDeleteAlso what effect would this have on other Mitzvahs, such as would we really care what the scroll inside the mezzuzah said or if it were written perfectly if the whole purpose was to remind us to perform the Mitzvahs? Wouldn't the most important part be the case rather than the scroll in this instance?
-Daniel
This booklet assumes that both Rationalists and Mystics are giving reasons for mitzvos. I disagree with that assumption that Mystics can give mystical reasons for mitzvos. My argument is that mystical “reasons” for mitzvos are given by theurgical statements in the form of “If you do X, Y will occur.” These types of statement may make us want to do X, in order to accomplish Y, but they do not give us any reason why God made the world with these rules. The opposite could easily be true. Thus, the “reasons” given by mystics are not reasons for mitzvos, but effects of mitzvos. The mystic has only moved the question from why we should do X, to why does X have such an effect. The mystic is then faced with the real issue of what is the reason for the command to do X. There are several possible answers. One answer is that there are no reasons other than the will of God. The Rationalist approach, which the Ramban adopts is that the world is structured with these mystical effects because God wants us to act in a certain way. Thus, the rationalistic approach is perfectly compatible with the mystical approach. The last approach, which illustrates the danger mysticism poses to traditional religion, is the deterministic approach under which God does not structure the world at all: the world, including all the mystical effects of mitzvos, is unchangeable. Many Mystics, such as the Ramban have adopted the rationalistic view. Many have adopted the view that there are no reasons for mitzvos. However, it cannot be assumed, simply from the fact that the Mystic discusses only mystical reasons for mitzvos, that he believes that there are no reasons for mitzvos. He may be discussing the mystical effects of mitzvos, without focusing on the reasons for mitzvos. Because the deterministic view is usually seen as heretical, we find many qualifications in mystical literature that try to avoid this view, where the robust mystical system reaches only up to a given point, while the ineffable God, who acts with a will is above this system.
ReplyDeleteDoes Rabbi Slifkin, or anyone on this blog, know of something written in English from a basically traditional (Orthodox) perspective which talks about the history of Kabbalah and the historical and academic controversies about it at the time it was written, and afterwards (until today)?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that having an understanding of this issue would help those of us who are seeking to sort out the Mystical vs Rational approaches to Judaism.
Thanks.
Gershom Sholem wrote THE textbook - major trends in jewish mysticism. it's readable, comprehensive and a bit out of date, but i think exactly what you are looking for...
Deletethe littman library has a few books (one by rachel elior which I found absolutely incomprehensible...)
You can read this online.
DeleteIt's written by an anonymous charedi rabbi and gives a pretty good historical background. Rabbi slifkin brought it a couple of years ago in one of his posts.
http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/ZoharEnglish.pdf
Michapeset, I know that Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, in "Meditation and Kabbalah" talks about this history.
ReplyDeletehow can the reason for the mitzva be to cause the rbs"o to have compassion over the jews in exile, when the torah is for all time - what about before and after the jews were in exile, what was the reason for the mitzva then acc to this explanation?
ReplyDeleteThanks Phil. I'll look it up.
ReplyDeleteJust some of my personal experience with Shiluach Hakein. I arranged Shiluach Hakein for a friend of mine some ten years ago and he had his first child about a week shy of of nine months later, after eight or nine years of childlessness. I told this to Shiluach Hakein pioneer and author Rabbi Dan Schwartz of Jerusalem and he told me he has been told 1000 such stories (actually IIRC he said 1500 but I'll underestimate it to 1000) and in a very disproportionate amount of instances, the babies are boys. This seems to be consistent with the very literal meaning of "v'et haBANIM tikach". I assume that the number has increased in the past ten years.
ReplyDeleteJosh Waxman on his blog explains this situation very, very well.
DeleteThe more rational analysis of this stuff, the more a mature Judaism can replace a self-deceiving one..!
Have you a link pls?
DeleteRM
reject:
ReplyDeletethis is called regression toward the mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
combined with self-selected reporting.
kol tuv,
josh
also, an expansion of this idea, and an explanation of why we would expect this disproportionate amount of boys, in a post at parshablog.
ReplyDeletekol tuv,
josh
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI liked your explanation of why to expect more boys. Well done.
The theory of regression toward the mean was interesting. But is it an accepted mathematical theory? On Wikipedia, and the linked talk boards, it seems to be questioned.
thanks.
ReplyDeleteas far as i understand it, regression toward the mean is a standard and accepted part of statistics. (and i've heard people who are quite knowledgeable about statistics refer to it and use it). what seems to be questioned in that Talk page, if i understand you and it correctly, is specific applications or extensions of it, or mathematical formulations of it. but consult your local orthodox statistician. :)
kt,
josh
The alleged success of these kinds of segulot looks like an example of survivor bias. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-survivor-bias-distorts-reality/
Deletemem said... "how can the reason for the mitzva be to cause the rbs"o to have compassion over the jews in exile, when the torah is for all time - what about before and after the jews were in exile, what was the reason for the mitzva then acc to this explanation?"
ReplyDeleteRabbi Elazar asks your question in the Zohar. The Zohar answers something about souls in exile, whatever that means.
Interesting article. I thought you'd mention the reward of a long life referring to Olam Haba. How do you reconcile this with the rewards described in the midrashim? Or do you just leave it as a machloket? The charedi world wouldn't be too happy with that answer.
ReplyDeleteWhile on the topic, how do you approach reward and punishment in general that's mentioned in the midrashim and Gemara?
It's Shiluach HaKAN, not HaKein.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's shiluach ha-KEIN. (in contrast to when "nest" is a prefix, when it's "kan".)
ReplyDeleteRegarding my comment above: August 16, 2010 4:32 PM - I still feel the same way, although I have since read the monograph. It is actually one of my favorite as it relates directly to an action, a mitzvah, on a very practical level.
ReplyDeleteIt is one thing to look at Judaism from a different outlook or perspective. It is quite another to practice it differently. This is one of the ways where not only does a rationalist approach directly affect the actions one will take in performing the mitzvah, but the actions one would take in performance of the mitzvah based on a rationalist approach could be completely OPPOSITE from the actions one would take in the kabbalistic approach to performing the same mitzvah.
And being someone who appreciates animals, I very much appreciate that living animals can be protected by Torah and Orthodox halachah as opposed to being tortured in the name of Torah and halachah.
Michapeset - try:
ReplyDeletehttp://hashkafacircle.com/shiurim/category/history-of-kaballah/
I have not (yet) bought and read the article, so you may have brough this up already, but i saw in the Tanḥuma this week a statement that you're not obligated to climb up to the top of a tree to do the mitsva -- only if it's easily accessible. That would also indicate a "if you come across it" obligation as opposed to "go out and find one".
ReplyDeleteGreat, now I get a chance to ask Rabbi Slifkin again to address my comment above (the first one on the list.)
ReplyDeleteAnd are there tzaddikim who go out of their way to go to war and find a non-jewish girl so that they can do the mitzvah of yefas toar?
ReplyDeleteOr get divorced just to write the get?
DeleteOr steal so they can do hashavat g'zeila?
DeleteOne could make a case for chinuch in this one mitzvah as well.
DeleteHow about murdering someone so the beis din can fulfill the commandment of executing you? It's not even your mitzvah—you're just facilitating one for others, and it's they who get the schar, not you. Such selfless tzidkus!
Delete(The reply above was to a different post.)
Simon, well said.
ReplyDeleteMichapeset.. instead of looking in R. Aryeh Kaplan's book on Meditation, I would look at his introduction to Sefer Yetzirah. It gives a different history than the one in his book about Meditation.
His second history seems to come from having more intimate knowledge of the details at that point.
Also his introduction to the Bahir has a slightly different history as well.
http://www.amazon.com/Bahir-Aryeh-Kaplan/dp/0877286183
http://www.amazon.com/Sefer-Yetzirah-Creation-Aryeh-Kaplan/dp/0877288550/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315560687&sr=1-1
I believe you can read some of the pages online.
RNS: A fair question (but I'm sure I could come up with a distinction). Still, did you use that source from Nedarim in your essay? And do you think it's relevant to the discussion?
ReplyDeleteReuven & Ameteur - Thank you. However, my question on AUGUST 19, 2010 1:22 AM asking for something written in English from an Orthodox perspective which talks about the history of Kabbalah and the associated controversies, was written over a year ago. (When Rabbi Slifkin reposted this, all the comments from that original post were transferred as well).
ReplyDeleteI have since done some reading on the subject and found the following two items in particular to be very informative:
#1:
http://www.mesora.org/ToharHayihud.pdf
This first link had the following text before it:
"I recently received the attached paper written by an elderly Rav and Maggid Shiur who wishes anonymity. He realizes the venomous attacks others suffered through the ages when opposing what is popular. He only wishes to shield his family by concealing his name. He cares none about his own battles.
He cites so many fine arguments and authoritative sources, refuting Kabbalah and its heretical tenets.
Please study it, and enjoy, as he wishes to spread the truth. If you are in chinuch, or know of others who would also benefit from this tremendous research and documentation, please share this work without restraint, as he wishes.
I strongly suggest all mechanchim make copies, distribute, and also email this to others."
#2:
http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/ZoharEnglish.pdf
This second link had the following text from Rabbi Slifkin written with it from:
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2010/10/you-dont-mess-with-zohar.html
Personally I have never really explored the issue, beyond the aforementioned view of the Chassam Sofer. There was an article on this which was floating around the net a few years ago, which you can download at this link. I can't give it a haskamah, since I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough in this area to evaluate it, and I haven't even read it carefully; just enough to see that it needs quite a bit of editing! But the quotations at the end, from unnamed Charedi gedolim, are fascinating and show just how divisive and explosive this issue is.
The suffering caused by shiluach hakein, while deplorable and unecessary, is insignificant compared to the torture inflicted upon the hundreds of millions of animals in factory farms -- businesses which nearly all frum Jews patronize continually without thinking twice about it. Shechitah is a mitzvah, and it is a mitzvah to separate milk and meat, but like shiluach hakein, divorce and yefas toar, these are optional mitzvot that cause considerable suffering. Some Jews do eat meat specifically for mystical reasons -- to help elevate the souls of the animals -- but most do it out of habit or conformity. Most people don't want to hear about the suffering of farmed animals, or doubt that it is so bad, but suffering is extremely well documented and this information is easily accessible (including through numerous examples of undercover video footage), and we have no real excuse to close our eyes to the consequences of our own actions in supporting these industries. As affirmed by the American Dietetic Association, it is also extremely well-documented that wholly plant-based diets are healthy and safe for virtually all people.
ReplyDelete"Whoever has compassion for other creatures is shown compassion from Heaven; whoever does not have compassion for other creatures is not shown compassion from Heaven" (Shabbos 151b). This is not mysticism, but a the basic a-turn-for-a-turn principle.
While sometimes mysticism may lead to cruel practices, this isn't necessarily so. The shiluach hakein issues seems to arise because of entrepreneurs taking advantage of people's beliefs in segulot, not because of a widespread mystical tendency to cause suffering to others in hopes of good results. In the mystical school of thought with which I am most familiar -- Breslover chassidut as taught by R' Brody and Arush -- there is rarely a mention of segulot (none of which cause suffering to other beings), but the most prominent emphasis is on how developing emuna and bitachon helps one to overcome negative character traits such an anger -- and this is seen as the ultimate purpose of all the mitzvot. So even if the rationalist view is that mitzvot are meant mainly for character development, some mystical sects see character development as paramount as well. As an additional example, the kabbalist (and student of the Arizal) Chaim Vital said that a "person should therefore be more meticulous about eliminating bad character traits than fulfilling the positive mitzvos and the prohibitions," since bad character traits cause sin.
Haven't read the essay, but in case you missed CR Hertz, see his Chumash and this from R. Hirsch..........
ReplyDelete"The mother bird, brooding over its chicks, presents an awe-inspiring image. This simple act of nature conveys the most important ethical imperative. The Mitzvah speaks to man as he encounters nature. "Observe carefully a lowly creature faithfully fulfilling its life's purpose by protecting and rearing its young. Act at your peril before you disrupt such an awesome sight of nature. And remember at the same time to ponder and take the lesson to heart."
I would point out that at leas some Achronim learn that the Rambam's shitta is that shiluach hakein is actually a lav hanitak lasay. There actually is no mitzvah to do unless you've violated the aveira of taking the eggs with the mother, similar to the mitzvah to return stolen property after you've stolen it. One such Acharon is Rav Yehuda Fishel Perlow, writing on Rav Saadia Gaon. If you'll take a peek in the Rambam, I think you'll find this to be rather clear, actually.
ReplyDeleteR' Slifin, is my question too objectionable to answer?
ReplyDelete(If you choose to answer it, you need not post this particular post I'm typing now.)
I was wondering if this applies to chickens, and presuming yes do people actually send the chickens away to get the eggs? If they don't do it can we eat them? And would this case be different since the chickens are not slaughtered and eaten on the same day (the one's who are producing eggs). Or the other rule that it is distressful to the bird to even see it, apply.
ReplyDeleteWild birds in the public domain. So I suppose it does in Hawaii or India and China where there are wild Junglefowl.
DeleteIt appears to me that the source I found by accident, from Nedarim 10a, is eminently related to the topic of people who way out of their way to fulfill a certain mitzvah. And you missed it! (Sorry to sound so harsh, but you weren't responding to my questions when I asked politely.)
ReplyDeleteI already responded. It depends what kind of mitzvah it is. Nobody ever divorced their wife in order to do the mitzvah of remarrying her. So IF you take the Zohar's approach to Shiluach hakein, you'll try to do it, but otherwise, not.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, you responded to my question with questions, but you never answered the question. Nedarim 10a, did you use that source in your essay, and, whether you did or didn't, do you think it is relevant?
ReplyDeleteWhat, you didn't even read the essay???!!
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think it's relevant.
I'm cheap.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think the Talmudic source is extremely relevant. You should ask others what they think.
I was just recently reading RSRHirsch's Horeb, and he seems to suggest a whole different rationale for the mitzvah that has nothing to do with the eggs.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I forget what it is. All I remember is that it is very different from what most people say.
Tzvi Ben Roshel, the Mishnah says (Chullin, perek Shiluach Haken, first Halacha) that the mitzvah applies only to birds that one happens upon, but if one raises birds in a particular spot indoors, one is exempt from the mitzvah.
ReplyDeleteNobody ever divorced their wife in order to do the mitzvah of remarrying her.
ReplyDeleteNot yet, but the idea is really appealing. The true believer could work in another mitzvah en route by first hating his wife so that he can do the mitzvah of giving her a get. The beauty is that, even if afterwards the wife refuses the second kidushin from the mamzer, at least he gets eternal reward for giving her a get.
Interesting post, i may have missed something in your essay but did not see you explain if we are to understand it in a purely rational commandment, why then did chazal give certain instances when one would be pottur eg: hekdesh, bird not hefker, etc etc
ReplyDeleteDon't know if someone posted this, but I always thought the approach viewing it as an obligation would be like saying one should go around and shecht animals even if he doesn't need the meat to fulfill shechita.
ReplyDeleteClearly, shechita is a humane way of slaughtering. However, it is even more humane to let the animal live, if you don't need the meat.
See Dor Revi'i on Hulin 139b where he refutes the position of the Havot Yair that shilu'ah ha-kein is an absolute requirement. The Havot Yair does not say that there is an obligation to look for a nest, accepting that the obligation is contingent on coming across a nest. However, the Havot Yair says that if one does come across the nest, one is absolutely required to send the mother away and take the eggs for himself. The Dor Revi'i argues that the entire obligation is contingent both on coming across the nest and on wanting the eggs. But if one doesn't want the eggs, one is not required to send away the mother and to take the eggs even though he doesn't want the eggs.
ReplyDeletehttp://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37184&st=&pgnum=387
Natan Slifkin said...
ReplyDeleteNo, it's shiluach ha-KEIN. (in contrast to when "nest" is a prefix, when it's "kan".)
I would suggest it's actually shiluach ha-EIM (or perhaps shiluach MIN ha-kein)
Mark Symons
Would love to read this but only have a shekel account - can you add the NIS option in Paypal (if there is)?
ReplyDeleteThanks
(I meant add! Not ass!!!)
Sorry, don't know how... but you can just use the 'send money' option and send it to my email address, zoorabbi@zootorah.com
ReplyDeleteThe great Rosh hayeshiva and mequbal has often been heard to bemoan the fact that chasing segulot has become an alternative to dikduk bemitzvot,emunah and bitachon.
ReplyDeleteThe shiluachhakan.com website echoes the lyrics of the Rolling Stones Song "girl with far away eyes"
ReplyDelete......Well the preacher kept right on saying that all I had to do was send
Ten dollars to the church of the sacred bleeding heart of J....
Located somewhere in Los Angeles, California
And next week they'd say my prayer on the radio
And all my dreams would come true.....
Mick Jagger's cynicism is being acted upon by esteemed rabbonim!
After I download the article, do I have your permission to send it to 2 other people?
ReplyDeleteSure, I just hope you're not one of those people who donates one cent...
DeleteSurely not. Your insights are constantly worth a great deal more than that...
DeleteIt happens quite often!
DeleteI had the rare privilege to perform this fascinating mitzvah last year when a mourning dove roosted in the yard of the house we are renting (we first had to clarify the interesting issue of whether or not the nest was "mezuman", but ultimately got that sorted out with our local rav and our landlord, who conveniently enough, is also a frum guy).
ReplyDeleteIt was an extraordinary opportunity to teach my young son about the compassion the Torah mandates for our fellow living things.
Even still, I think I'll also teach not to smoke and to look both ways when crossing the street, since relying only upon the Torah's promise of arichut yamim seems... well, a little irrational.
Incidentally, we did not keep the eggs, but decided the mitzvah was worth doing nonetheless since it was so manifestly a "miztvah haba'ah leyad[einu]".
How did it teach him compassion?
DeleteI explained to him that the reason (or if you prefer, a reason) for the mitzvah is that even though H-shem permits us to eat/use animals (and their eggs), he insists that we cause the minimum necessary distress to them when doing so. So we send away the mother bird when taking her eggs to minimize her distress at having her eggs taken (in keeping with the view of the Rambam, at least as he articulates in the Guide).
DeleteMoreover, I explained that, since we did not actually need the eggs, there was no reason for us to keep/harm them, further demonstrating respect/compassion for living things (and their offspring).
While I agree that it would be rather ridiculous to venture into the woods seeking out random birds to send away in hopes of fulfilling this mitzvah, I think you'll agree that there is "al mi lismoch" when it comes to a case where one is presented with the opportunity to perform the mitzvah (even if one doesn't need the eggs).
And lest you counter that we may have caused undue distress to the mother bird by frightening her, I can assure you that, since this mother bird was apt to flee at the merest hint of human proximity (i.e., she flew away effectively any time someone even walked by her tree) and to return just as quickly once the "threat" had passed, I am confident that the distress caused was minimal.
Also, lest anyone suggest that we may have "tainted" the eggs with our smell such that the mother bird would not return to care for them, I'm sure Rav Slifkin would be happy to explain that that is a myth (as expected, she returned to the nest as soon as we were finished). In fact, just a few days later she hatched 3 beautiful squabs, and my family had the opportunity to observe them until they were fledged.
So, to answer your question: perhaps it was not the mitzvah that taught him compassion, but rather I endeavored to teach him compassion via the pedagogic tool of a mitzvah that may be designed to teach compassion.
Deletereject --
DeleteWith respect, the fact that you [claim to] know of cases in which performing the mitzvah of shiluach hakein seemed to result instantaneously in the conception of children could not be more meaningless. Your anecdotal, “personal experience” affords absolutely the flimsiest evidence of the efficacy of the mitzvah to influence childbearing. Basically, even if your friend Schwartz can attest to 1,000 such cases, that constitutes what scientists would call nothing more than an uncontrolled, unblinded, unrandomized sample (compounded by the likely bias of Schwartz as a so-called “Shiluach Hakein pioneer”, to say nothing of his possible conflicts-of-interest).
In order to demonstrate with any degree of certainty that it was the performance of shiluach hakein that caused barren women to conceive, you could design an experiment in which you gathered, say, 2,000 infertile women of childbearing age, randomly selected 1,000 of them to perform the mitzvah and 1,000 of them not to, and followed the 2 groups forward in time to see which group had more pregnancies. Of course, you would have to perform the appropriate statistical analyses on the results to ensure that:
1. Any difference detected was not due to chance. And,
2. Any difference detected between the 2 groups was in fact “statistically significant” (i.e., if the mitzvah group resulted in 999 pregnancies, but the non-mitzvah group managed 998, that infinitesimal difference would likely not be meaningful).
Then, and only then, could you plausibly make the any convincing claim about a relationship between shiluach hakein and childbearing. Somehow, I fear you might be disappointed by the results of such an experiment, though.
Also, incidentally, if your friend’s wife of some-ten-years-ago really did give birth to her first child “about a week shy of nine months” after performing shiluach hakein, it is likely she was simply already pregnant when she performed the mitzvah.
JC, what RNS is saying is that according to rationalistic thought, there is no Mizvah in sending away the mother bird unless you want the eggs for food and therefore since you are taking them anyway, you should be compassionate and send her away so she won't have to experience the pain of seeing you take her young. Therefore, according to the rationalists you did not perform any mitzvah at all but rather at best you did something foolish and at worst cruel (since it is likely that the mother feels a sense of anguish until she returns to find the eggs safe and sound).
DeleteOf course kabbalistically this mitzvah is a great tikkun for the world and a personal segulah. Tikun bc the pain of the bird is "meorer rachamei shamayim" on the Jewish people and taking the eggs is a segula for fertility (et habanim tikach lach).
All I can say is that on the chance that kabbalah is real, and correct, bringing the geula to the world and children to suffering barren women is probably more compassionate than not causing pain to a bird.
By that logic, there is no reason to wear tzitzit every day. Obviously, the mitzvah to wear tzitzit only applies if one happens to wear a 4-cornered garment, and I don't see a lot of 4-cornered garments being modeled in GQ or sold in the department stores these days. So why put on a 4-cornered garment for no purpose other than to fulfill the mitzvah?
DeleteRav Slifkin used the example of the eishet yefat to'ar as an example of a mitzvah that we do not try to seek out to in order to perform it, but I would counter that there are mitzvot that we do seek out to perform even if we have no rational reason to do so (like wearing a 4-cornered garment specifically to fulfill the mitzvah of putting tzitzit on it).
The fact of the matter is, I don't believe in "segulos" in the slightest, the only reason I performed shiluach hakein is because, as Rav Slifkin points out, it was an easy, low-cost (to both me and the bird, as I explained above) mitzvah to perform when I happened upon a bird's nest in close proximity to my home, even if I did not need the eggs (in the same way that I put on a ridiculous 4-cornered gament under my shirt every AM for no reason other than to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit).
I think you acted rationally according to the interpretation of Ramban, that the reason for the mitzvah is to teach people the midah of compassion (as opposed to the bird receiving compassion.)
DeleteRabbi Natan,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned Chatam Sofer's view that Zohar is mostly not Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. This inspired me to write a bit about this topic which has confused me for some time-- the topic of halacha and sod. Perhaps you can, or already have, write about it someday. I've seen Chatam Sofer write that we don't mix halacha with sod. However, there are many others who disagree, and there are minhagim that many keep which are based on sod. One example is waiting a half hour-1 hour after milk before eating meat, which is based on Zohar. I am wondering, when do poskim decide that the halacha must confirm to the sod as stated in Zohar or by Ari Hakadosh and when do they ignore it?
I have also seen poskim who are afraid to change Talmudic laws which shouldn't apply anymore, because they say that there is an unknown sod behind it? How can they mix sod with halacha? Even Rabbi Shimon didn't do that, because he held that we darshinan taama dikra, and I presume he didn't consider the sod behind the mitzvah when he expounded on verses!
As a side note: Even if Rabbi Shimon didn't author the entire Zohar, it is still sod and a chelek of Torah misinai, and was presumably mostly written by tanaaim and amoraim (chazal), so it is emet and also considered chazal (even if it is merely compared to Tosefta and other "outside" sforim). Also, if Rabbis like Ari and Gra, who spoke to Eliyahu Hanavi and definitely asked him about the veracity of Zohar, believed in every word of the Zohar as true, then I too believe in it, and will not listen to the conspiracy theorists who try to implant doubts in my head about a chelek of Torat Moshe Misinai.
Just Curious, I hope that you don't mind a bit of mussar as we approach Rosh Hashana/Yom Kippur. We can all use improvement - I, perhaps more than others. Rav, an early and leading Amora, has stated that mitzvot are given to refine people. By following a kabbalistic type rationale against the position of the weight of Rishonim who have addressed the issue, you were not providing a good model for your young son. While he may not yet appreciate the halachic and ideological ramifications, or the cruelty involved in forcing a mother bird to abandon her young, he is likely to remember this incident when he grows up. You did not teach compassion; you taught ritualistic based cruelty. But it is more than cruelty; it is a demonstration of unconcern for the divine wisdom that implanted a protective instinct in the mother bird. While such unconcern is a step above taking advantage of the divinely implanted protective instinct to obtain the eggs or chicks - an affront to the Creator, it certainly offers no promise of reward for this action. Had you left the nest alone, your child could have seen how the dove is protective of her eggs and devoted to their care. This would become more obvious when they hatch. Its a good model for parental behavior. Of course, this assumes that keeping the child from disturbing the nest was practical. Perhaps there was not much choice in the matter. But it certainly was not a mitzvah or a good parental lesson.
ReplyDeleteBe well,
Y. Aharon
I once met a guy who made a living by arranging for people to fulfill the mitzvah fo shiluach hakein -- for a fee.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to cry.
"one such institution has been renamed Yeshivat Tzaar Baalei Chaim by its various detractors."
ReplyDeleteYeshivat Chilul HaShem might also be a good nickname.
Let me take the belated opportunity to correct a misstatement in my comment 2 years ago on 9/8/14. I meant to state, "..taking advantage of the divinely implanted protective instinct to obtain the mother bird as well as the eggs or chicks..". Somehow the 'to obtain the mother bird..' got omitted. My attitude towards the subject remains as before. The continuing news items where people, including Rebbes, look to fulfill a supposed mitzva illustrates the foibles of treating mitzvot as irrational or mystical rituals rather than as actions aimed at improving and refining the performer (the view of the early Amora, Rav).
ReplyDeleteY. Aharon
Rebbes do it for the photo op. If lucrative, they'll arrange a $eudat mitzvah, with sponsors and opportunity for followers to give a pidyon. Litvish rebbes, too.
DeleteImagine, someone going out of their way to kill an animal. Not to bring anguish to an animal, but to kill it. And not for food.
ReplyDeleteFrom Nedarim 10a (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): Early Chasidim yearned to be able to bring a Chatas, since (they never needed to bring one due to sin, for) Hash-m does not bring mishaps through them. They would accept a Nedavah of Nezirus, in order to bring a Chatas (at the end of Nezirus);
1.R. Shimon says, they did not become Nezirim. One may bring Olah, Shelamim or Todah and its four types of bread for Nedavah, but not Nezirus, for a Nazir is called a sinner - "me'Asher Chata Al ha'Nefesh."
Elisha ben Abuyah
ReplyDeleteDevarim 22:6 If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young; 7 thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, but the young thou mayest take unto thyself; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty clear the Torah means that if you happen to come across a nest. This may occur when seeking food or just by chance. Actually, if you contrive a situation to do it it does not seem it would qualify.
Why the law ?
Some have said to teach or show mercy even unto the animals. Kal V'chomer how much more to people !
ACJA explains another reason may be conservation. If you only take the eggs the mother will be able to lay eggs another time. Thus, your days (and your tribes) will be prolonged on this earth because you have not wiped out a food resource.
Stumbled on this statement by ibn Ezra today: "I heard that a pious scholar used to wander in the streets searching for someone with a fowl so he might ritually slaughter it. The pious scholar's mind was on the blessing. He wanted to fulfill the daily quota of a hundred blessings." (Sefer Yesod Mora ve-Sod haTorah 2:13. Ibn Ezra himself does not take this position. )
ReplyDeleteIMHO "Shiluach Hakein" is also a misnomer. It's would be much more appropriate to call it "Shiluach HaEIM". You don't send away the nest, you send away the mother!
ReplyDeleteIn note 24 page 15 you say Tabori, p. 126, notes that in Hilchot Shechitah 13:7 Rambam issues a ruling based on the idea of not taking advantage of the mother’s desire to protect her young.
ReplyDeleteOir sameach (quoted) here has already noted this apparent contradiction.
Just out of interest had you seen the Oir sameach ?
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=109162&rid=5218