English translation — תצא א

A.

On the words "lema'an yitav lekha etc." — the conclusion of the verse "shale'ach teshalach et ha'em etc." ¹

— Rashi explains: "If a light commandment that involves no monetary loss, the Torah said 'lema'an yitav lekha veha'arakhta yamim'²,

all the more so for the reward of weighty commandments."

Commentators ask?

That by Rashi there is a difficulty: How does it come that specifically by shilu'ach haken,

which is indeed a light commandment etc.,

the reward of "lema'an yitav lekha etc." is promised in the Torah?

Therefore Rashi cautions,

that on the contrary, this is the very reason: Therefore the Torah chose to write the reward specifically by a light commandment,

so that from it one should derive with a kal vachomer regarding all other commandments which relative to it are "chamurot" — their fulfillment is connected with more difficulties⁴

than the fulfillment of the commandment of shilu'ach haken.

One must however understand: Rashi took the explanation "if a light commandment etc."

(seemingly)

from the Sifri and Mishnah⁵,

and there it is said: "a light commandment <b>that</b> <b>is like an issar</b> etc." — so how does Rashi say here "a <i>light</i> commandment <b>that has</b> no monetary loss",

that in it there is <b>entirely</b> no monetary loss?

It is difficult to answer and to distinguish,

that the Sifri and the Mishnah are founded according to the way of halachah but Rashi on the Torah is according to the way of the simple meaning,

and with this the difference between them would be correct — because here it is after all speaking about a specific <b>reality</b>,

the monetary value of the mother,

where there is seemingly no place to say that according to the way of halachah it is different than according to the way of the simple meaning.

Therefore it is not understood: how does Rashi teach in his commentary,

that by sending away the nest there is entirely no monetary loss at the time when in the Sifri and in the Mishnah

(especially if they are the source for his commentary)

it is said that there is by it indeed a monetary loss,

only that it amounts merely to "like an issar"?

2.

The reason why Rashi must differ from the Sifri and the Mishnah and cannot write "shehi ke'isar",

is understandable: if one will say that shiluach haken is connected with some kind of monetary loss.

Then the question arises: why does the Torah not say "lema'an yitav lecha etc." by such a mitzvah which has entirely no monetary loss?

And this itself compels to say

(according to the simple interpretation),

that shiluach haken is indeed such a mitzvah in which there is entirely no monetary loss.

The question, however, is,

as above,

<i>:</i> how <b>can</b> Rashi say so — how is it possible that in a matter that has to do with a reality

(whether by shiluach haken there is a monetary loss or not),

should Rashi assume differently than the Sifri and the Mishnah?

In truth, the difficulty is not only from the side of the Sifri and the Mishnah,

but right here on the spot itself it is difficult: it is indeed a simple thing that also the "mother" has a certain monetary value,

and consequently it is indeed unavoidable that by sending away the "mother" one should not lose a "small thing"⁶

at least — and how does Rashi say that sending away the nest is a commandment that has no financial loss?

3.

There is a question in halacha⁷

whether "prevention of profit" is considered like "loss" or not.

And superficially,

according to the opinion

(according to halacha)

that prevention of profit is accepted like loss,

there is a rationale to answer the difference between Rashi and the Mishnah and Sifri:

When a person finds a "bird's nest" and sends away the mother,

he does not incur a loss through it,

since the mother never belonged to him; it is no more than prevention of profit: were it not for the command "you shall surely send away the mother," he could have taken her for himself.

And therefore it stands in the books and Mishnah "that it is like an issar,"

because according to the way of the halachah, prevention of profit is also considered a monetary loss

(according to one opinion).

But in Rashi

(the plain sense)

it is said "&lt;b&gt;that there is no&lt;/b&gt; monetary loss in it,"

it will not be diminished from what is found in his purse.

For in the intellect of a "child of five

(for Scripture)

it is established that prevention of profit is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; equivalent to loss.

4.

But it is difficult to answer thus,

because after all it is a clear thing and even a child feels within himself that also the prevention of profit occupies a place in a person.

And since so,

the question returns to its place: why does

the Torah choose to state the reward "in order that it be good for you etc." by the commandment of sending away the mother bird where there is at least prevention of profit

(like an issar),

whereas this would seemingly be more appropriate to be said by such a commandment where there is not even any prevention of profit?

But the Torah says explicitly the reward "that it may be well with you, etc." regarding the commandment of sending away the mother bird — this itself is a proof that with "that there is no monetary loss" in Rashi,

is meant a situation where the person suffers no loss at all,

even not a prevention of profit⁹.

H.

Besides the aforementioned question

(How is it possible to say that regarding sending away the mother bird there is no monetary loss — even not prevention of profit),

there is another thing not understood:

In the mitzvah of sending away the nest, a specific action is required — taking and sending away the "mother"; and especially further,

that by nature the mother does not want to abandon her children,

and therefore it is mostly necessary even a certain effort in the action.

So it is difficult

(in the manner of the aforementioned question)

: Why did the Torah not choose better to state the reward "that it may be well with you etc." for such mitzvos that are very easy to fulfill; that not only is there no financial loss,

but also no action

(as in sending away the nest)

is not necessary ¹⁰

— such as the mitzvah of Shema for example,

which is only in speech?

6.

After the reward of "in order that it be good for you and you will lengthen days",

the Torah adds another reward: when you build a new house etc.

As Rashi translates it: "If you fulfill the commandment of sending away the nest,

you will eventually build a new house and fulfill the commandment of a parapet &lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

since a mitzvah brings a mitzvah and you will reach a vineyard and a field&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

and fine garments&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;.

Therefore these sections are juxtaposed."

Also Rashi's commentary requires explanation: that which Rashi says "and you will reach a vineyard and a field and fine garments",

he learns it from the verse in connection with &lt;b&gt;their&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;commandments&lt;/b&gt; — "You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds etc." ; "You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey etc." ; "You shall not wear a garment of mixed wool and linen etc."&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

— which stand here in the portion

(immediately after "when you build a new house and make a parapet for your roof"),

in proximity to the commandment of sending away the nest.

It is not understandable: why does Rashi say only "and you will arrive at a vineyard and field and at nice garments" and does not thereby conclude "and you will fulfill the mitzvah of

you shall not sow your vineyard with mixed seeds,

you shall not plow etc. you shall not wear mixed wool and linen etc." — differently than by a house,

where after he says "your end is to build a new house" he elaborates "and you will fulfill the mitzvah of a parapet, for one mitzvah brings another mitzvah"?

Also one must understand: in Midrash Tanchuma here

(source of this Rashi)

it adds — before "therefore they were juxtaposed etc." — "you will merit the mitzvah of tzitzis etc. a wife and children".

Why does Rashi omit this?

7.

The explanation of all the above:

It lies in the nature of the "mother",

that even after one sends her away from the "children",

she should return to the nest again and again.

And consequently it turns out,

that regarding the commandment of sending away the mother bird, there is even no prevention of profit — since it lies &lt;b&gt;in the nature&lt;/b&gt; of the mother that she should return.

According to the way of halacha one learns from the language "send you shall send the mother",

that after her returning one must send her away again and so even a hundred times¹⁸.

But according to the way of the simple meaning,

it is on the contrary — that he sent her

(once)

away — then from now and onward she is already:

(a)

not "while she is still on her young",

(b)

"designated" — which Rashi had first explained that then the commandment of sending is not present¹⁹.

And therefore the Mishnah and Sifri say "that it is like an issar",

because he may not take her also after the later return

(before "he took the young etc.")

— he does not have the "like an issar"²⁰.

But in the way of the simple meaning it is — as above — the obligation of "send you shall send the mother" applies only one time,

and therefore Rashi says "that there is no loss of money".

8.

With this it will be understandable that by the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird there is never any trial: there is no <b>any</b> financial loss involved in it as mentioned above; also²¹

by it there are usually no other difficulties.

And consequently it turns out,

that the fulfillment of this mitzvah is easier than all other mitzvos.

By all other mitzvos it is possible that they may often be connected with difficulties.

Such as the mitzvah of Kriyas Shema,

which although ordinarily it is even easier than sending away the mother bird,

with this that it is only in speech — nevertheless it can be the case,

that its fulfillment should come with difficulty.

For example: when he is then preoccupied and occupied with another engagement,

from which it is difficult for him to tear himself away and recite Kriyas Shema²².

Moreover: there are several commandments

(including also sending away the nest,

apparently)

it can indeed be that due to exertion or honor etc. he should be "closing his eyes as if he does not see" — which the <i>Torah</i> <b>must</b> warn about — a few verses earlier²³.

One must say that regarding sending away the nest, one is in the commandment "you shall surely send away the mother" obligated only when "you shall take the young for yourself" — <b>and according to its simple meaning</b> of the verse that <b>the reason</b> for the obligation of "send away" is the prohibition "you shall not take the <b>mother</b> upon the <b>young</b>".

And consequently,

when a person is preoccupied with something else,

or — old and not according to his honor²⁴,

then he will indeed also not occupy himself with taking the "young" and therefore the command "you shall surely send away the mother" <b>does not exist</b>; and if,

again,

he engages in "you shall take the young for yourself",

then he is indeed not preoccupied with other matters and therefore it is a <b>light</b> commandment to .

fulfill — without any disturbance from side distractions and also without financial loss.

And therefore the Torah chose to say the reward "in order that it be good for you etc." specifically by the commandment of sending away the mother bird,

because if this had stood by another commandment one could have thought,

that the Torah promised by them the reward "in order that it be good for you and prolong your days" because their fulfillment is <b>often</b> connected with difficulties,

and consequently one could not have learned from them that this reward also exists by sending away the mother bird,

since there <b>never</b> is this difficulty.

Therefore "in order that it be good for you etc." is said specifically by sending away the mother bird,

because from this one can learn with a kal vachomer,

upon <b>all</b> other commandments,

as above.

9.

And here one also sees how the commentary of Rashi on the Torah,

according to the plain meaning,

is connected also with the halachic part of the Torah:

There is an inquiry in Chavos Yair²⁵

: whether in the commandment of "send away, you shall send away the mother" one is obligated specifically in a case when one takes the young,

or the commandment applies every time one finds a bird's nest — also when one does not want to take the young.

One sees from Rashi of our [passage],

that according to the language of Rashi <b>commandment</b> <b>135</b>

(plainly,

without any limitations)

and according to the content of his commentary one is obligated in the commandment of "send away, you shall send away the mother" only then when "the young you shall take for yourself",

as above section 8.

10.

Based on the above, it can be said,

that what Rashi continues further: "If you fulfill the commandment of sending away the nest, in the end you will build a new house and fulfill the commandment of a fence, for one commandment draws another commandment,"

he means to say that after "a new house" there are &lt;b&gt;two&lt;/b&gt; types of reward: the main reward

(like the vast majority&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

of the promises in the Torah — physical promises)

"in the end you will build a new house",

and

(a commandment)

(— "you will fulfill the commandment of a fence").

And the &lt;b&gt;second&lt;/b&gt; type of reward

"draws another commandment"

is specifically in a house — because the commandment of a fence is similar to the commandment of sending away the nest; i.e.,

that

according to the simple interpretation,

the fulfillment of one commandment draws only &lt;b&gt;such&lt;/b&gt; a commandment which is &lt;b&gt;similar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

to the first performed commandment.

And therefore the commandment of sending away the nest brings about the commandment of a fence,

because the commandment of a fence is equal to the commandment of sending away the nest in this respect,

that

(a)

also in the commandment to build a fence, a Jew is obligated specifically when he builds a new house for himself — similar to the obligation of "you shall surely send away the mother,"

which applies specifically at the time of "the young &lt;b&gt;you shall take&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;for yourself&lt;/b&gt;";

(b)

the reason for the commandment of a fence is

(according to the simple interpretation)

to prevent cruelty: "and you shall not put blood in your house"&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

— and also in sending away the nest,

according to the simple interpretation&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

the avoidance of cruelty is expressed.

Based on this it is understandable,

why Rashi does not say “and the commandments of ‘You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed seeds,’

‘You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey,’

‘You shall not wear a garment of mixed wool and linen’ — because these commandments do not have this particular similar&lt;i&gt;ity&lt;/i&gt; to the commandment of &lt;i&gt;sending away&lt;/i&gt; the mother bird.

And consequently, by them remains only the reward “you will reach a vineyard and a field and beautiful garments”

(in the manner of “in the end you will build a new house”).

And since “four corners” is in “your garment” and not three — there is not by it any praise and reward&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

— one must say

(according to the simple interpretation)

that &lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; decisor

(and all the more so — “woman” that follows it)

already have no “juxtaposition” to the section of sending away the mother bird.

11.

According to Rashi,

will also become clear the <b>order</b> of the verses:

A "new house" is not of such a type of necessity and human needs as are a vineyard and field and fine garments

(And as is known³¹,

that among the three types of food,

clothing and dwelling³²,

the necessity of food is greater than

of clothing,

and the necessity of clothing is greater than of dwelling).

Accordingly,

then "When you build a new house" should have a priori come after³³

"You shall not sow your vineyard [with mixed seeds]... you shall not wear a garment of mixed wool and linen...",

for then the details of the reward would have been presented in a comprehensible order: that as reward for the mitzvah he will receive not only food

(vineyard and field)

and clothing

(fine garments),

but also a new house.

Why then does "When you build a new house" come before vineyard and field and fine garments?

According to Rashi, however, it is straightforwardly understandable: because the connection of "When you build a new house" to the commandment of sending away the mother bird is also from the aspect of the commandment of "You shall make a parapet for your roof" — unlike the connection of the other verses which is only that "you will come to a vineyard and field and to fine garments" and not from the aspect of the commandments within them — therefore the verse "When you build a new house and you shall make a parapet for your roof" must stand adjacent to the commandment of sending away the mother bird³⁴.

12.

From the matters of "the wine of Torah" in our Rashi's commentary:

The inner reason thereof, that when a command is stated in the language of "source" — like the command of sending away the nest which was said with the language "send" — one learns from this according to the way of <b>halacha</b> that this means "even a hundred times":

Action in itself is in measurement and limitation.

And so it is even when the action comes from intellect and emotions,

that then it is done with vitality — because also intellect and emotions are limited powers.

But when the action comes from will and all the more so when it comes from the essence of the soul,

and by way of example like that which a person does in order to save himself from a danger may it not happen,

is since the essence of the soul is indeed not limited — therefore although the action comes through the power of action³⁵,

the will or the essence of the soul affects also upon the power of action,

that its activity should be without limitations³⁶.

And this is the reason that a command in the infinitive form means "even a hundred times":

An ordinary command is connected only with the power of action

(for the directive is — that one should <b>do</b>)

; but a command in the <b>infinitive</b> form means,

that in the action the "source" must express itself,

that it must emanate from the will and essence of the soul which is the source of all powers.

And therefore it is "even a hundred times",

because from the perspective of the essence of the soul all limitations fall away³⁷.

13.

But nevertheless,

although "shalach" is a term of "source",

it means according to the simple meaning to send away only <b>one</b> time — because in the beginning of the service

(when one is still in the level of simple meaning,

of a "ben chamesh"),

even when the "source" is aroused,

the will and essence of the soul,

the revealed powers are still not affected from it in a manner that they too should be without limitations: from the arousal of the essence of the soul he indeed fulfills the commandment

(not like before the arousal,

when he did not think at all about fulfillment of the commandments,

and on the contrary: one had to guard against "an abomination to the Lord your God" which is spoken of in the previous verse³⁸

— <b>before</b> "when a bird's nest chances before you"³⁹),

but his fulfillment of the commandments is still very much <b>at the beginning</b>,

until — that from the arousal he is ready to fulfill <b>only</b> a "light commandment that has no monetary loss" — where he does not lose even a small thing — like an issar.

But since the arousal of the will and essence of the soul has come out into actual deed,

"one commandment brings about another commandment" and the fulfillment of the commandment of sending away the nest,

which is a light commandment,

already brings about the fulfillment of the commandment of a parapet regarding which there is indeed a monetary loss.

14.

And it can be said that this is also the inner reason that "When you build a new house" stands before "You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed seeds, etc., you shall not plow, etc., you shall not wear a garment of mixed wool and linen, etc."

(Also according to the explanation that "one mitzvah brings about another" means — to each of &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; the mitzvos)

This awakening of the will and essence of the soul,

which at the beginning expresses itself in the fulfillment of only a "light mitzvah",

is also afterwards, when it "brings about" and awakens to fulfill even severe mitzvos,

these are such mitzvos which are in the category of "house",

the distant encompassing [light],

which is connected with yechidah; and after this, when the aspect of yechidah influences him to fulfill the mitzvos which are connected with the aspect of "house" even when he has a deficiency in them — then begins for him the order of service from below upward: first "vineyard and field" — the aspect of food,

and afterwards "fine garments" — the aspect of garment

(the &lt;b&gt;near&lt;/b&gt; encompassing [light]).

15.

And this is also connected with the matter of the month of Elul

(that Parshas Teitzei is always read in the month of Elul⁴⁰)

The awakening of teshuvah of the month of Elul is — regarding from now onward —

(primarily)

a general shift⁴¹,

and therefore it works initially to do only an "easy mitzvah".

But because the awakening is in such a manner that ultimately it brings to the fulfillment of all the mitzvos — because of that itself,

through the awakening itself — one is <b>already</b><b>⁴²</b>

merited to a good writing and sealing,

as the verse says that because of the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird itself

(even before it brings to the fulfillment of the mitzvah of a fence)

it will be "it will be good for you and you will lengthen days",

which according to the <b>simple meaning</b> of Scripture — <b>the world</b> <b>of action</b> — the "it will be good for you and you will lengthen days" means simply in this world²⁶,

that there will be a good and sweet year in all details,

in children,

life and sustenance,

and in all of them — prosperity.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Teitzei 5727)