Pisqa’ 228¹⁰³

1. “You must definitely send away the dam” (Dt. 22:7)— This is a prescriptive commandment. If he sent her away and she returned, and he sent her away and she returned —even five times— is he still under obligation to send her away? ¹⁰⁴ As it is said:. “You must definitely send away the dam” (Dt. 22:7).

footnotes: ¹⁰³ H:237-238; JN2:139. ¹⁰⁴ Cf. M. Hul.12:3.

2. Ducks or chickens that got loose and nested in an orchard— one is under obligation to send the dam away. If the birds are nesting in the house— he need not send the dam away.

“The fledglings or the eggs” (Dt. 22:6)— fledglings are useful as food. Therefore we exclude from the rule dead fledglings, which are useless. Similarly, eggs are useful as food. Therefore we exclude from the rule abnormal eggs, which are useless. The minimum number intended by the plural, fledglings, is two. **and the minimum of eggs is two.**¹⁰⁵ 227.2. Even if there is but one fledgling or one egg, he is obliged to send off the dam. 3. Another word: “If you happen across a bird’s nest” (Dt. 22:6)— any place.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ Cf. Pisqa’

“In the path, in any tree, or upon the ground” (Dt. 22:6)— just as the term, in the path, implies that the birds are free-ranging, we exclude from the rule birds that are tied together, for they obviously have limited range.

“You must definitely send away the dam” (Dt. 22:7)— the verse discusses a clean bird. Or, [perhaps,] is it also [discussing] an unclean bird?

“Every clean bird shall you eat” (Dt. 14:11). This permits us to recognize **a family resemblance among scriptural verses,**¹⁰⁶. A hermeneutical principle whereby usage of a word in a primary context clarifies secondary usages. Thus, wherever the term, “bird,” is used [as in Dt. 22:7, where “dam” appears], the verse is referring to the clean bird [indicated at Dt. 14:11]— as in the words of R. Josiah. Indeed, if he sent her away and returned to his journey, he is under no obligation to repeatedly send her away.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ Heb: binyan ‘ av

“You must definitely send away the dam” (Dt. 22:7)— **The verse is discussing females, not males.**¹⁰⁷

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ The material of 228.2-3 appears to be a condensed reprise of 227.2-4, It is not well-attested in mss and early editions. See F:260, n.3, RH who includes the text in parentheses, and Pardo, ad loc.

4. Regarding the male partridge, R. Eliezer holds that he is under the rule [and must be sent off before taking the young],

“You must definitely send away the dam”— [That is, any bird functioning as the dam]. But sages release him from obligation,

“The dam” (Dt. 22:7)— **but not a male partridge.**¹⁰⁸

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ //M. Hul. 12:2.

5. One who takes the dam from the young—

He receives a judicial beating [for violating the proscription of sending off the dam], yet needn’t then send off the dam.

He must send off the dam, yet does not receive a judicial beating.

Any proscriptive commandment which entails getting up and acting— they do not administer stripes to the transgressor. ¹⁰⁹ A person must not take the dam from the young even to cleanse a victim of Scale-disease. Now, if, regarding a simple commandment— costing at most an issar¹¹⁰ (Roman denarius).—

“So that you should be well, and extend your days” (Dt. 22:7), shouldn’t it follow that the same promise applies **to any of the Torah’s more arduous commandments?}**¹¹¹

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ = M. Hul.12:4. ¹¹⁰ Usually evaluated at 1/24 of a dinar ¹¹¹ =M. Hul. 12:5.The bracketed material has been restored to the citation of the M. Hul. 12:5. RH’s citation of the Mishnah differs somewhat, making the same point. See F:260, l.12.