If the dam was fluttering about the nest, if she touched it with her wings, it is obligatory to let her fly away, but not when her wings do not touch it; if there was but one young bird, or one egg, it is nevertheless obligatory to let the dam fly away, because the Scripture uses the term (Deuteronomy 22:6): "nest," i.e. any nest. When some of the young birds are already on the wing, or that the eggs are addled, the precept does not apply, for it is written, "And the dam sitting upon the young birds, or upon the eggs." Even as the young birds are supposed in the text to be live ones, thus also must the eggs be fit for incubation [and to produce life], from which term addled eggs are [of course] excluded; and even as the eggs [to complete the process of incubation] require the care of the dam, thus also must the young bird mentioned in the text yet require the nurture of the dam, consequently those birds which are already able to fly are excluded. Should a person have let the dam fly away, and she returns constantly to the nest, even four or five times [or oftener], he is bound to let her fly away, for it is said, "Thou shalt surely let the dam go," &c. When a person says, "I take the dam, and set the young birds free," he must let the dam go also, since it is written, "Thou shalt surely let the dam go." If he takes the young birds first, and then puts them again in the nest, and the dam returns, he is no longer bound to let her fly away again.
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.
