ki tih'yenah l'ish shtei nashim ha-ahat ahuvah v'ahat s'nu'ah . . . lo yukhal l'vakeir et bein ha-ahuvah al p'nei bein ha-s'nuah ha-b'khor (If a man has two wives, one beloved, and another hated . . . that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, who is indeed the firstborn) (Deuteronomy 21:15-16)

It is puzzling that the Torah felt it necessary to inform us of this law. For on what ground would we have supposed that a father, out of his love for the mother of the second son, could treat the second son as if he were the first-born son?

It appears to our master that the Scripture is here warning us not to use the underlying rationale for a law as the basis for a halakhic inference (she-lo nidrosh ta'ama di-qra). Thus, one might have said that the reason why the Torah gave the first-born son the right to take a double portion of his father's inheritance is that the first son issues from the union between a husband and the wife of his youth, motivated by a surpassing love and an absolute unity. As the product of such a loving union and the first fruit of his father's strength, a first-born son is thus endowed with noble and honorable qualities, as is apparent from the opposite situation: the children of enmity and of conflict become rebellious and sinful, "offspring of evil-doers, sons who deal corruptly" (zera m'rei'im banim mashhitim) (Isaiah 1:4), as the Sages deduce (Nedarim 20b)

"And I will purge out the rebels from among you and those who transgress against Me" (Ezekiel 20:38). R. Levi said: This refers to children belonging to one of the nine categories of enmity between a husband and wife.

It might therefore be supposed that if a man has two wives, one beloved and one hated, and his first-born son is the child of the hated wife, the above reason for bestowing a double portion on the first-born son is invalid, so that the son of the beloved wife is the more deserving of the double portion. To counter such reasoning, the Scripture is teaching us here not to use the underlying rationale for the law as the ground for inferring any qualification in its application, and, thus, to allow the father to treat the son of the beloved wife as if he were the first-born son. The Torah emphasizes that it is the first-born son who is the first fruit of his father's strength and therefore retains the right to be treated as the first-born son under all circumstances.

ki yih'yeh l'ish bein soreir u-moreh, einenu shomei'a b'qol aviv u-v'qol imo, v'yisru oto v'lo yishma aleihem (If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not listen to them) (Deuteronomy 21:18)

In the Sifri, R. Yehudah says that if the boy's mother was unworthy of his father, he cannot be judged a rebellious son. The Sages say in the Talmud that by this he meant that the mother must be similar to the father in voice, appearance, and height. What does this mean?

It appeared to our master to explain the matter in an aggadic fashion. In the natural course of events a child will always listen intently to the words of his father and mother and will be very careful to obey and follow whatever they say. However, if the father and the mother are not in accord but in conflict with each other, so that his father guides him in one direction and his mother guides him in another, then their honor will be diminished in his eyes. He will then not pay heed to either of them any longer even in a matter about which they both agree. He will stop caring about what they say and will not be interested in following their advice. And this we also know from experience.

This is what is meant by the verse "if a man has a stubborn and rebellious son" (ki yih'yeh l'ish bein soreir u-moreh). The reason that the son is rebellious is that he "will not obey" (einenu shomei'a). But understand that the son does not give heed, because he cannot give heed and obey "to the voice of his father and the voice of his mother" (b'qol aviv u-v'qol imo). The word "voice" (qol) is repeated to signify that the parents' opinions are in conflict, so that the son cannot fulfill the will of both. Therefore, even if "they both chastise him" (v'yisru oto) about a matter that they both agree upon, "he will not give heed to them" (v'lo yishma aleihem), but instead tosses their words aside. It is about this that R. Yehudah said, if his mother was unworthy of his father, he cannot be judged a rebellious son, because such a verdict can be rendered only if the father and the mother are in accord in all their opinions and guide him along a single path. Only on this condition, if he does not listen to them, may the verdict appropriate to a rebellious son be rendered upon him.

ki yiqarei qan tzipor (If a bird's nest chances to be) (Deuteronomy 22:6)

In the Midrash Rabbah it is written:

This bears on the verse (Proverbs 4:23): Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life" (mi-kol mishmar n'tzor lib'kha ki mimenu totza'ot hayim).

What is the connection between this verse and the commandment of sending away the mother before taking the nestlings? It appears to our master to explain that the Torah promises the same reward for fulfilling this commandment as for honoring one's father and mother. Concerning both it says (Deuteronomy 22:7), "that it may go well with you, and that you may live long." (See also Deuteronomy 5:16)

But the Midrash (Deuteronomy Rabbah 6) finds it problematic that the reward for the two commandments is the same,

"She does not take heed to the path of life" (Proverbs 5:6). The honoring of parents is the weightiest commandment and its reward is long life . . . and the sending away of the mother bird is the least weighty,1 and what is its reward? Length of days.

So it is astonishing that both commandments should carry the same reward. But the matter may be explained as follows. If we should serve the Eternal for the purpose of receiving a reward, just as a slave serves his master, then we shall each receive a reward commensurate with our service. The greater the service the greater the reward. But we may also serve the Eternal in the manner of a son who serves his father, a son whose every longing is to give honor to his father and to carry out his wishes. If we serve the Eternal in this way, and all our desires and longings are to serve Him in joy and gladness without regard for any reward, then we shall all receive the same reward whether our service is great or small. For then the Eternal will treat us just as a father who, in dividing up his estate, does not distinguish among his children according to how much service they provided him, and does not give a larger portion to the son who was able to do more in his behalf and a smaller one to the son who could provide only a trifling service.

This is the meaning of the Midrash. The verse: "Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life" teaches us that from the equality between the reward for honoring one's parents with that for sending away the mother before taking the nestlings, it is clear that it is the intent of our heart which is of greatest importance. What is essential is to direct our heart toward heaven, for it is from heaven that the longevity mentioned here is bestowed.

And in this way one can explain what the Talmud says at the end of Hulin (142a). A man once told his son to bring him nestlings and the son went to the roof and brought the young birds from their nest and on his way down the son fell to his death. What happened, the Talmud asks, to the longevity that this one was promised for obeying his father and for sending away the mother before taking the nestlings? And the Talmud replies that perhaps he had been harboring idolatrous thoughts, by which the Talmud must have meant that the son did not perform the commandments with the proper intent, for the sake of the Eternal to give Him satisfaction, but instead performed them only for the sake of reward. And this improper intention was referred to metaphorically as "idolatrous." For his intention was not to serve the Eternal, but to serve himself. And although the Eternal does provide a reward even to those who serve Him for the sake of a reward, the longevity promised in this verse relates only to those who serve Him out of love.

Another answer that one might offer is that our Sages say that one who says that the commandment of sending away the mother before taking the nestlings is instructed to keep silent. And this presumably applies to anyone who provides a reason for any of the commandments dictated by reason such as honoring one's parents. The Talmud thus may have meant to say that perhaps the son fell to his death because he had been thinking that he was performing these commandments out of mercy, and because he performed the commandments with that intention, his performance of them did not safeguard him against a fatal mishap. Perhaps this was also the meaning of the Midrash: "Keep your heart with all vigilance." Do not think that we perform the commandments of the Eternal out of mercy.

ki yiqarei qan tzipor l'phanekha ba-derekh ba-eitz o al ha-aretz . . . lo tiqah ha-eim al ha-banim. shalei'ah t'shalah ha-eim v'et ha-banim tiqah lah (If a bird's nest chances to be before you in the way in any tree, or on the ground . . .you shall not take the mother with the young; But you shall let the mother go, and take the young to you) (Deuteronomy 22:6-7)

It states in the Talmud (Hulin 139a)

Our Rabbis taught: It is written (Deuteronomy 22:6): "If a bird's nest chances to be before you in the way, in any tree or on the ground." What does Scripture teach thereby? But because it is also written (Id. 7): "But you shall let the mother go, and take the young" (shalei'ah t'shalah et ha-eim v'et ha-banim tiqah lah) I might suppose that one should go searching over mountains and hills to find a nest, the text therefore states: "chance to be," that is, if it happens to be before you.

From here the Havot Ya'ir (responsum no. 67) concluded that even if one does not want to take anything from the nest, there is an obligation to send away the mother and to take the children, for the Talmud deduced from this verse that "if a bird's nest chances to be before you" teaches us that one is not obligated to go searching for a nest in the mountains and hills in order to fulfill this obligation. And I am amazed, for the deduction of the Talmud is precisely that the formulation "if a bird's nest chances to be before you" teaches us that we do not say that there is an unconditional obligation to seek a nest to be able to send the mother away (as we might have thought from the repetition of the words "shalei'ah t'shalah,"), so that only if it had not been written "if a bird's nest chances to be before you" would I have concluded that there is an absolute obligation to send away the mother and take the children. But it was precisely to preclude this inference that the Scripture wrote "if a bird's nest chances to be before you." Therefore, even if one happens upon a nest, one is not obligated to send away the mother unless he wants to take the children.

Now the Havot Yair bases his inference from the Talmud that there is an absolute obligation to send away the mother and to take the children on the explanation of this obligation given by the holy Zohar, which is that if the mother bird will be distraught and flies from one place to another in search of her children, the mother's pain will arouse the pity of the Omnipresent, blessed be He, on his children in exile. But it is known that the kabalistic explanations are in many cases not in accord with the halakhah, as I have previously shown you in connection with the prohibition of the sciatic nerve (gid ha-nasheh) which, according to the Zohar, is intended to repair the transgression of Jacob in marrying two sisters. For the sciatic nerve is one of the 365 sinews of the body, which correspond to the 365 negative prohibitions listed in the Torah. But this explanation accords only with the opinion of R. Judah who holds that prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to one of the sciatic nerves, but it does not accord with the opinion of the Sages who hold that the prohibition applies to both sciatic nerves. Similarly the kabalistic explanation for the tefilin to be worn on the weaker (left) hand, because the left hand is next to the heart, does not accord with the halakhah, because, according to this reason, a left-handed person should also wear the tefilin on his left hand. But in fact a left-handed person is required to wear the tefilin on his right hand. And there are many other instances in which the kabalistic explanation does not accord with the halakhah. And the opinion of the Havot Ya'ir is also disproved by the Hidushei ha-Ran. (Dor Revi'i al Hulin 139b)