FROM A DUCKLING TO A MITZVAH: SHILUACH HA KAN AND KASHRUS

HNC writes in a recent posting about a lost duckling.
Which reminded me of shiluach ha kan.
Naturally.

[It was a simple thread of mental association: poor little lost duckling - bereaved mother bird - missing egg - shiluach ha kan. Voila!
Part of the re-minder was strengthened by a discussion of kashrus on Dovbear's blog. Chicken was mentioned, as well as vegetarianism. Construe a possible associative thread yourself -- it is probably more a case of mental peripheral vison than of any logical connection.]



Shiluach HaKan is the sending away of a mother bird from the nest you wish to raid, providing that the birds in question are kosher. As it says in Devarim (Deuteronomy), Parshas Ki Setzei, psook 22:6 "Ki yikare kan tzipor le faneicha ba derech be chol etz o al ha aretz efrochim o veitzim ve ha em rovetzet al ha efrochim o al ha beitzim, lo tikach ha em al ha banim" (If a bird's nest happens to be in front of you, in any tree or on the ground, with chicks or eggs, and the mother-bird sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the children).

From this derives the mitzvah of chasing away the mother bird, which Avraham Ibn Ezra explains as being like the prohibition against slaughtering a cow and her calf on the same day, as it says in Vayikra (Leviticus), psook 22:28 “"Ve shor o se oto ve et beno, lo tishchatu be yom echad" (And whether it be cow or ewe, you shall not kill it with its young both in one day). He further compares it to the injunction not to cook an animal in its mother’s milk, and likens it to an indiscriminate taking of life.

The Rambam, on the other hand, explains it as a concern not to cause suffering, and believes that the injunction inculcates us with a merciful quality which should carry over into our relations with our fellow man.


This mitzvah surely ties in to our sense of charity and concern for others. We are instructed to refrain from taking it all, much like we are told, in Seyfer Vayikra, Psookim 19:9 through 10 “U vekutzrechem et ketzir artzechem lo techale pe'at sadcha liktzor ve leket ketzircha lo telaket" (And when you reap the harvest of your field, you must not entirely reap the corner of you field, nor gather the gleaning of your harvest), "ve charmecha lo teolel u feret karmecha lo telaket le ani ve lager ta'azov otam..." (and you shall not glean your vineyard, nor gather the fallen fruit, but leave them for the poor and for the stranger...). This is stressed again in psook 23:22, and that there should be provision for the poor and the stranger is reiterated in Dvarim in psook 10:17 through 21 (love the stranger, for you were strangers in Mitzrayim). And then both charity and the issue of gleanings is restated more fully in psookim 24:19 through 22 with the addition of forgotten sheaves, olives left on the branches, and again grapes in the vineyard, which must be left for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow (la ger, la yatom, ve la almana).

What is odd is that along with the mitzvah of honouring ones parents, the reward for Shiluach HaKan is said to be long life, as is written in Psook 22:7 “shaleach teshalach et ha em, ve et ha banim tikach lach le ma'an yitav lach ve ha arachta yamim" (send, send away the mother, but the young you may take for yourself; that it go well with you, and lengthen your days).
Some have read into this that one must send away the mother, one must take the eggs.

Instead, think of it as better interpreted to mean that if you need the eggs, you should nevertheless be gracious.
As you should likewise be with gleanings, field-corners, olives, grapes – do not take all, but leave some for others who are less fortunate or come after.

===========================

Shiluach ha kan also serves to remind one about kashrus, in that in the distinction between substances it echoes the ban on eating meat and milk together.
As it says in Dvarim, psook 14:21 “lo tochlu chol neveila, la ger asher bi shareicha titnena va achala o machor lenachri ki am kadosh ata la Adonai eloheicha; lo tevashel gedi ba chalev imo” (you shall not eat any creature that died naturally, give it to the stranger in your gates or sell it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to the Lord your G-d; don’t seethe a goatling in the milk of its mother!).

[And note again a connection with Tzedaka, this time for Gerim.]


At first glance, the link between things that died of themselves, and boiling baby animals in the milk from their mothers, seems tenuous, obscure even. How are they connected?

Milk is the link of life between animals and their offspring, and as is made clear with the business of the blood, we may partake of one side of the equation but not both. Like with most ritual matters where one can go astray, time is used to set boundaries and provide for ritual ‘plausible deniability’. Go soak yourself, and stay away until evening, or do not eat milk and meat at the same meal, and allow several hours in between to separate the two.

[Note also the connection between purity and 'living liquid' - blood of a sacrifice or freshly slaughtered animal is both taboo and an echo of the mayim chayim with which persons and things are purified, just as there is an echo of sacred ritual in both shechting and teiveling.]


The business of the blood, however, is much more significant. Blood is more the stuff of life than milk, and is sacrificial besides, in addition to sharing the ability of certain liquids to transfer impurity or conduct purity (as detailed in Sefer Vayikra, Parshas Metzora – Infected one, 14:1 to 15:33). Consequently, the specific rule about not consuming the blood is given three times in parshas Re'eh.

Psook 12:16 "Rak ha dam lo tocheilu, al ha aretz tishpechenu ka mayim" (But the blood you must not consume, pour it on the ground like water).

Psook 12:23 "Rak chazak levilti achol ha dam, ki ha dam hu ha nafesh ve lo tochal ha nefesh im ha basar" (But be firm not to consume the blood, as the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh).

Psook 15:23 "Rak et damo lo tochel, al ha aretz tishpechenu ka mayim" (But the blood of it you must not consume (but) pour it on the ground like water).

Whatever is said three times has a seriousness and a weight that should not be taken lightly - it sets a pattern, and establishes criteria.

[Kashrus, of course, is part of the boundary which the Bnei Yisroel must erect between themselves and other nations; it says in Sefer Vayikra (Leviticus), in Parshas Shmini, psook 11:46 "Ki Ani Adonai ha ma'ale et chem me eretz Mitzrayim l'hiyot lachem l'Elohim v'ihyitem kedoshim ki kadosh Ani" (For I am the Lord that brought y'all up from the land of Egypt, to be Elohim to you, and you shall be holy as I am holy.).
Food is probably the easiest seduction, and the path along which many are likely to go native, and eventually blend in. By keeping kosher one can maintain the distance necessary to be separate.]


Like many rules regarding ritual purity, kashrus operates on the principle of excluding everything which is doubtful; that which cannot be clearly recognized as Tahor (ritually pure) is best avoided, lest one inadvertently make a mistake, or by one’s example cause someone else to err. This accounts for the exclusion of animals and foods which are not blatantly Tamei (ritually impure), and for strictness of observance - better safe than sorry. It is for this reason that the Rabbis ruled that one should not eat dairy with meat, even if the animal that yielded the dairy is not related to the animal which gave the meat. Just as Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion, so also a mamleches Kohanim ve goi kadosh (Sefer Vayikra, Parshas Kedooshim, psook 19:6).

===========================

Note that the idea of maintaining a separation, especially as a means of keeping one's own tribal or cultural identity (which is actually the equivalent of ritual purity), is one that occurs among many peoples who lived in contact with other nations and tribes. It is what underlies Scottish tartans, Irish tribal feuds, and European football hooliganism. A separation of foods is in every way a much more positive approach than painting yourself blue and trashing another city after a sporting event.
The only negative aspect is that it means that the sharing of food can only be in one direction, assuming that the party with which one shares food has no religious or ritual limitations of their own that come into play.