Deuteronomy 22:7  You shall send away the mother, and [then] you may take the young for yourself, in order that it should be good for you, and you should lengthen your days.

Gemora Hulin: 142(a): From the words “In order that it shall be good for you” we learn that just as an easy negative commandment [such as sending away the mother bird] the Torah states that the reward is long life, this is surely the case for more difficult commandments.

Torah Temimah – Colloquial translation of Note #68

The [Torah] refers to the command to cause minimal damage to the mother bird as a negative command. Regarding the explanation of the [famous] agada relating to this verse, see the commentary on Parshat VeEtchanan on the verse: Honor your father and mother in order that you shall have long life.

It is appropriate now to comment on the observation made by Chavas Yair on the Shulchan Aruch Section 67 regarding this mitzvah. The Chavas Yair questions whether the command to send away the mother bird [when taking the mother bird’s young for food] applies only when one wants to take the young for food or whether it is a commandment to shoo away the mother birds and take the young [whether you are desiring the young for food or not. Since the command is to chase away the mother bird, we can thereby fulfill a commandment of the Torah by doing so whether we are actually looking for food or not.]

All of the Chavas Yair’s comments on this issue are not necessary. I am personally amazed, in general, how one could possibly think to say that the Torah commands a person to involve himself in this mitzvah against his will [if he doesn’t want to collect the young birds for food.] Isn’t it indeed clear and beyond any doubt that the whole purpose of this mitzvah is to [train ourselves] not to be hard-hearted and to take the young while the mother bird is still crouching [nearby to protect them.] So, even though ultimately the purpose of all creation is for the sake of Man as is shown by the permission to slaughter animals for food, nevertheless the Torah commands us to only take the young in this manner so that the other bird won’t see her young being taken.

This being the case that the Torah is only providing us a permitted method, but certainly someone who does not desire the young for food, it is certainly appropriate for him to skip this entire mitzvah completely. Actually, the opposite is true. By skipping the mitzvah completely a person causes happiness to the mother and to the young by leaving them alone. There is absolutely no logic to say that there is a commandment to cause a separation between things that naturally belong together. This is similar to the commandment to not slaughter an animal and it’s young on the same day. There is clearly no command to actual slaughter one of them. So too with our situation here [with the mother bird.]

In addition to all that we have just stated based on reason and logic, on can also find legal precedent mentioned explicitly in the Chidushe ha’Ran comments on Gemora Hulin 140(a). There the Ran discusses the issue of a bird that has killed a person. In that case, a person is exempt from the command of chasing it away when taking its young, since one is obligated to capture the bird to bring it to the Court to fulfill the commandment of “you shall remove the evil from your midst”. The Ran asked the [legalistic] question of why the positive command plus the negative command relating to the sending away of the mother bird does not “overpower” or take precedence over the single positive command of “you shall remove the evil from your midst”. The Ran answers this question by stating that the commandment of “removing the evil from your midst” is an obligatory commandment while the commandment of the sending away the mother bird is not an obligatory commandment since if he doesn’t want the young for food there is no command to chase away the mother bird.

So behold, the Ran’s words explicitly support my explanation above. It is a wonder that the Chavas Yair and other commentators who so deeply question this point and none have even brought the proof from the Ran [mentioned above.]

Regarding the other point that we wrote above concerning the main reason for the command of sending away the mother bird is to teach us to not be hard-hearted towards the mother bird, [please] don’t reply to me and quote the Mishna Brachos 33(a): If one says “may Thy mercies extend to a bird’s nest…he is silenced. The gemora goes on to say that he is silenced because he presents the measures taken by the Holy One, blessed be He, as springing from compassion, whereas they are but decrees. Indeed this would imply apparently that the reason for this command is not to teach mercy.

Really this is no contradiction at all to what I said earlier. The reason why we are obligated to heed G-d’s commandments is truly because they are decrees from G-d. We do not obey G-d’s commandments only because of the purpose that is hidden within them. If that were the only reason for doing G-d’s commands, it would be possible to stray off the true path in each man following his own point of view according to his knowledge and his spirit. This is as is noted in Gemora Sanhedrin 21(b) where it discusses the question of why the reasons for the commandments were not revealed. The answer given there is that indeed for two commandments reasons were explicitly given and this led righteous people to stumble and err regarding these commandments.

Translator Note: This lengthy somewhat legalistic note stresses the Torah Temimah’s view that the Torah and its commandments are whole and good. For him it is unthinkable that one should go out of his way to chase away the mother bird and take the young even if one had no need for the food. Some have suggested that one should indeed do this because one is then fulfilling a command written in the Torah! To the Torah Temimah, this approach does not make any sense at all and ignores the whole reason for the commandment.

Leviticus 16:1 “And the LORD spoke unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the LORD, and died;”

Jerusalem Talmud Chapter1 Halachah 1 “After the death of… A braita teaches: why does it mention their death in the context of Yom Kippur?  To teach that just as Yom Kippur atones for Israel, so too the death of the righteous atones for Israel.”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #1:

The reason and value of why the death of the righteous atones is not clearly explained.  It appears according to what is written in Pirkei of Rabbi Eliezer chapter 17 regarding the death of Saul (II Samuel 21:14):” And they buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the sepulchre of Kish his father; and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was entreated for the land.”

When The Holy One Blessed is He saw how they dealt kindly with him (they fasted, cried and eulogized as the verse explains), He was filled with mercy, as the verse says “And after that God was entreated for the land.”

Inferred from this, is that death alone does not atone rather the honor and mourning accorded upon the death of the righteous, which is the honor of Hashem, atones.

Editor’s note: Judaism is not a religion of saints.  The concept of one dying to atone for the congregation is antithetical to Judaism.  While there is a custom to visit the cemetery during the month of Elul up through Yom Kippur, the Mishnah Berurah is adamant that one’s focus should not be on praying to the deceased rather one should entreat Hashem to help in the merit of the righteous.  The death and merit of the righteous do not magically atone for us.  It is the honor we give them and the lessons we learn from how they lived their lives that should change us for the better so that Hashem will help us in their merit.

Deuteronomy 33:11 –May the Lord bless his army (chelo) and favorably accept the work of his hands;

Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma, Chapter 2, Halacha 3:  “There was an incident with one priest (cohen) whose arm had become disabled. Nevertheless, they would not let him NOT do the incense service in the temple. This was to fulfill the words of the verse: May G-d bless his blemished one (chelo) and accept the work of his hands.”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #36:

That is to say: they were hoping that [even though he was technically disqualified due to his disability] by doing the Incense service, his hand would become healed.

Editor’s Note: I really love this note where they encouraged a disabled person to perform the service in the temple, even though he technically should not have been doing it. Perhaps I misunderstand this gemora, but I think I understand it accurately.

Exodus 30:13 – This they shall give, everyone who goes through the counting: half a shekel according to the holy shekel. Twenty gerahs equal one shekel; half of [such] a shekel shall be an offering to the Lord.

Jerusalem Gemora Shekalim Chapter 6:Halacha 3 – Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai said “Any Cohen who doesn’t also contribute the shekel is guilty of a sin as the verse says, ‘this shall they give’. All twelve tribes must give”

 Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on the last section of Note #22:

Note that according to the Rambam and the Ramban, the obligation to contribute half a shekel begins when one reaches the age of thirteen plus one day as with all the other mitzvoth of the Torah.  Their opinion is that even though the following verse states “from age twenty and above” that is specifically speaking of the [time in the desert] and the obligation to contribute to the “Trumat HaAdanim”. Our verse, however, speaks of the contribution for the communal sacrifices and no age is specified. Therefore our verse applies from the age of thirteen. However, Rabbi Ovadia Bartenura in Chapter 1:43 of Shekalim and the Chinuch and the Rokeach HaGadol in Section 232 and the Vilna Gaon in his commentary on the Yerushalmi Shekalim Chapter 1:3; all have the opinion that the obligation to contribute to the communal sacrifices begins at the age of twenty as the simple meaning of the text would imply. The Vilna Gaon even states that this is the opinion of the Yerushalmi against the opinion of the Tosafot Yom Tov who questioned the above mentioned opinion of Rabbi Ovadia Bartenura.

A halachic ramification of this dispute that has a practical application in our day is mentioned by the Besamim Rosh in his halachic response relating to the Rosh’s comment in Section 69 that women are exempt from the obligation to pray the musaf prayer. The reasoning is that since this prayer is specifically connected to the musaf animal sacrifice that was offered [on Shabbat and Holidays in the Temple] and the funds for this sacrifice came from the half a shekel communal contribution, therefore women, who are exempt from the half a shekel communal contribution, are automatically exempt from the musaf prayer that corresponds to it. This opinion is also mentioned by Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his commentary on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Hayim Section 106.

If this is the case, then according to Rabbi Ovadia Bartenura and the Chinuch and the Vilna Gaon anyone under twenty years old is exempt from the half a shekel. According to this logic mentioned above then they are also not included in the musaf sacrifice and are also exempt from the musaf prayer. Further, anyone who is exempt from a mitzvah cannot complete it on behalf of someone else. Therefore, we should not choose anyone less than twenty years old to lead the musaf prayer in synagogue. That would [indeed] be a new teaching and very astounding!

Editor’s Note: In this note, the Torah Temimah goes on a tangent to discuss and critique a halachic opinion exempting women from the obligation to pray the musaf prayer. I believe that in the Torah Temimah’s world view, and the world view of religious people in general, the more obligations one has, the better. The Torah Temimah defends women and their status in many of his comments. This is one example.

Exodus 30:19 – Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet from it

Responsa of the Rashba (Section 191): This verse is the source of the law mentioned in the Gemora (Brachot 15a) that one must wash before prayer

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #32:

[Our verse above is speaking of Aaron and his sons washing their hands and feet before offering the sacrifices but it is the source of the law for washing before prayer] Because prayer [in our day] has its source [and function] equal to sacrifices [at the time of the temple] as is discussed in the Gemora Brachot 26b. However, [the use of this verse as the source for this law] is only a hook [and not a definitive proof]. We know that it is only a hook because the law of prayer is that if one does not have water available one may use pebbles or dirt or wood chip to clean one’s hands. However for the sacrifices in the temple, it was absolutely required to use water, else one may not perform the sacrifice as is stated in Gemora Zevachim 19b.

Note that the Rambam in Chapter 4 of the Laws of Prayer states that for all prayers one must wash one’s hands, but the for the morning prayers one must wash his hands and his feet. The Ravad (Abraham ben David) criticizes this statement of the Rambam and states that he does not know the source from which the Rambam stated this. Many commentaries struggle to answer this criticism of the Rambam but me (the Torah Temimah) the answer is clear. The Rambam is of the same opinion as the Rashba noted above that the source for the obligation to wash for prayer is from the obligation to wash before the sacrificial offerings in the temple. Since this is the case, we see clearly that the obligation for prayer is to wash one’s hands and one’s feet as in the verse above.

This being the case, it is clear why the Rambam distinguishes between the morning prayer and the other prayers of the day. As the Rambam states in the beginning of the Laws for Prayer, the Biblical obligation of prayer is only once a day. The other prayers of the day are rabbinic decrees. Therefore, for the other prayers of the day, we only need to be careful that we are clean. However, for the initial prayer for the day we need to fulfil the requirement of performing it as did the priests in the temple [and wash both our hands and our feet.]

Note also that that in Gemora Brachot 53a we learn in a Mishna that the verse in Leviticus 11:44 that states: “you shall make yourselves holy and be holy” [is not repetitive]. The first mention of the word “holy” refers to the washing before eating [bread] and the second mention of the word “holy” refers to the law of washing after eating [bread, and before reciting the blessing after the meal].

This reason for this statement of the Gemora is apparently not clear nor is its source clear. [I believe] that the source is almost certainly that of the second braita mentioned in Tanna d’Vei Eliyahu on our verse above.

There the beraita states, “What is the biblical source of the obligation for washing the hands? It is from the obligation of Moshe and Aaron and his sons [to wash before performing the sacrifices] For the People of Israel [in general] the source is the verse in Leviticus “make yourselves holy and be holy”. It was because of this that Rabban Gamliel would eat [all] his food in a state of purity [indicating that he had washed before eating].” [End quote of the beraita.]

In other words, just like Moshe and Aaron made themselves holy by washing before performing the sacrifices through washing, so too when it says “holy” and refers to the People of Israel it also refers to washing.

See also Tosafot in Gemora Hulin 2b where Tosafot state that it is forbidden for an unclean person to eat unclean food. There he quotes the verse “make yourselves holy and be holy” as the source for this law. This indicates that Tosafot understood this verse as a caution to the People of Israel to eat [all food] in a state of purity. The GRiV comments that he does not know the source of Tosafot’s statement and that if one looks at the Gemora Brachot 53b, one will see that the verse “make yourselves holy and be holy” is used for a different teaching.

In my opinion though, it is clear that the Tosafot were using the beraita quoted in Tanna d’Vei Eliyahu [as their source.]

Editor’s Note: In this note, the Torah Temimah shows the source of the Rambam’s opinion that there is an obligation to wash one’s hands and one’s feet before the Morning Prayer. This answers the challenge of the Ravad on the Rambam. He then shows the source to wash before and after eating bread. In doing he answers the challenge to Tosafot’s comment on Gemora Hulin 2b.