Wenn der Damm über das Nest flatterte, wenn sie es mit ihren Flügeln berührte, ist es obligatorisch, sie wegfliegen zu lassen, aber nicht, wenn ihre Flügel es nicht berühren; Wenn es nur einen jungen Vogel oder ein Ei gab, ist es dennoch obligatorisch, den Damm wegfliegen zu lassen, da in der Schrift der Begriff (5. Mose 22: 6) verwendet wird: "Nest", dh jedes Nest. Wenn einige der Jungvögel bereits auf dem Flügel sind oder die Eier zusammengesetzt sind, gilt das Gebot nicht, denn es steht geschrieben: "Und der Damm sitzt auf den Jungvögeln oder auf den Eiern." So wie die Jungvögel im Text als lebende Vögel angenommen werden, müssen auch die Eier für die Inkubation [und für die Produktion von Leben] geeignet sein, von denen der Begriff "Eier" [natürlich] ausgeschlossen ist; und selbst wenn die Eier [um den Inkubationsprozess abzuschließen] die Pflege des Damms erfordern, muss auch der im Text erwähnte Jungvogel die Pflege des Damms erfordern, folglich werden diejenigen Vögel ausgeschlossen, die bereits fliegen können. Sollte eine Person den Damm wegfliegen lassen und sie ständig zum Nest zurückkehren, sogar vier- oder fünfmal [oder öfter], muss sie sie wegfliegen lassen, denn es heißt: "Du sollst den Damm sicher gehen lassen , "& c. Wenn jemand sagt: "Ich nehme den Damm und befreie die jungen Vögel", muss er auch den Damm gehen lassen, da geschrieben steht: "Du sollst den Damm sicher gehen lassen." Wenn er die jungen Vögel zuerst nimmt und sie dann wieder ins Nest legt und der Damm zurückkehrt, ist er nicht mehr verpflichtet, sie wieder wegfliegen zu lassen.
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
בזמן שכנפיה נוגעות בקן חייב לשלח – as Scripture states (Deuteronomy 22:6), “sitting over [the fledglings or the eggs]” but not flying. But since it is written, “sitting over,” and it didn’t write, “sitting,” we learn from it that if its wings touch the nest, she is liable to be sent away.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If the mother was hovering [over the nest]: If her wings touch the nest, one is obligated to let her go; If her wings do not touch the nest, one is not obligated to let her go. The mother is considered to be sitting upon the nest only so long as at least her wings are touching the nest. If she is just hovering over the nest, and her wings are not touching, one is not obligated to send her away.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
שנאמר שלח – and it implies, forever.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If there was but one young bird or one egg [in the nest], one is still obligated to let the mother go, for it is written: “A nest,” [implying], any nest whatsoever. Although Deuteronomy 22:6 uses the plural form of eggs and fledglings, the obligation is still in place even if there is only one egg or one fledgling. This is because the Torah also uses the word “nest” which implies any nest, so long as there is at least one egg or one fledgling.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
נטל את הבנים – for since he took the fledglings, he had a designated–captive nest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If there were there young birds able to fly or spoiled eggs, one is not obligated to let [the mother] go, for it is written, “And the mother sitting up on the young or upon the eggs:” Just as the young are living beings so the eggs must be such as [would produce] living beings; this excludes spoiled eggs. And just as the eggs need the care of the mother so the young must be such as need the care of the mother; this excludes those that are able to fly. The prohibition applies only to fledglings that cannot fly or to viable eggs. It does not apply to a case where the young birds can already fly or to a case where the eggs are spoiled. This is derived through a midrash which compares the fledglings with the eggs. Just as the fledglings have proven themselves to be viable birds, so too the eggs must show signs of being viable. Spoiled eggs are not covered by the prohibition. And just as the eggs still require the attention of their mother, so too the fledglings must require the attention of their mother. A fledgling which can feed itself and fly, is no longer covered by the prohibition.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If one let [the mother] go and she returned, even four of five times, he is still obligated [to let her go again], for it is written, “You shall surely let the mother go.” Even if the mother bird keeps returning to the nest, the person who finds her there must send her away before taking the young or the eggs. This is derived from the double appearance of the word “shalah” in the Torah, which I have translated as “surely let the mother go.” Although this is a common grammatical construct, the rabbis frequently use it as an opportunity for midrash.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If one said, “I will take the mother and let the young go,” he is still obligated [to let her go], for it is written, “You shall surely let the mother go.” One cannot fulfill the obligation by letting the young go, and taking the mother. Rather, the obligation is to send the mother away and then take the young.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Chullin
If one took the young and brought them back again to the nest, and afterwards the mother returned to them, he is not obligated to let her go. If one let the mother go and took the young, he has now acquired the young birds and eggs. If he then puts them back in the nest and the mother comes and takes them, he is exempt from sending her away again. This is because the eggs are already his.
