Can someone please explain this mitzva to me? I have a robin sitting on its nest on my deck. Why would I want to send away the mother bird?

TIA

Rivkaleah,
well the only reason you would want to send away the robin mother bird is if your planning on only eating her young or have srumble eggs. however since this is not likly the case you wouldn't want to send the mother bird away if you don't mind her there.

B"H
If I am not mistaken, "Shiluach haken" only applies to those species of birds that are ritually clean (Kosher). Still, one is not required to eat the birds or eggs that he takes from the nest. The problem with the robin is that I know no one who has a mesora regarding the kashrus of robins.

David

The Robin Erithacus reubeucula is listed as a kosher bird by the זבחי כהן Livorno 1832.

You do not send the bird away if you are not going to eat the eggs or bird.

We had a problem with Yeshiva students killing off endangered species a number of years ago. They apparantly had a different view.

Some authorities hold, that if you come to a new country, that the traditions of all the Jews in the country concerning Kosher birds are valid.



Aryeh Shore

Sending away the mother bird concerns both a kosher bird and bird that "you find on you way" (Dvarim 22) like when walking in a field or those who put their nest on a roof, but the mitzva ddoes not refer to those who regularly live in the house, or those who put their nest inside yourhome - on your desk (!). I have pigeons who regularly make their nest in my porch.
The commandment is double: If you want take the the baby birds to eat them (which you don't have to do, but are allowed to), you MUST send away the mother first. So that the one who took the baby birds before sending away the mother and she dies, is punished by stripes (Halachot Shechita 13:1).

This is what I thought - that if you were going to eat the baby bird/egg then send away the mother so she would not feel any pain. I believe that I've been confused by a frum friend who sent away the mother bird , but my friend had no intention of doing anything with the baby bird/egg. My friend just sent away the bird stam.

The Pischei Teshuva in YD 392:1 brings the Chavos Yair who concludes that one who chances upon a nest should do shiluach haken even if he does not have any interest in the eggs or chicks. Even though strictly speaking there is no obligation, but he compares it to not wearing a four cornered garment. One who doesn't wear such a garment has no obligation of tzitzis, but the Gemora in Menachos writes that in a time of Divine anger he will be punished for not fulfilling the mitzva of tzitzis. Here too, it is most advisable to send away the mother and take the eggs. Afterwords they may be returned, but many birds will not return to sit on eggs that have been touched by human hands.
Also, many sefarim bring a concept that one should make an effort to fulfill all 613 mitzvos. According to this concept, it would be a pity to pass up an opportunity literally on your doorstep.

On the other hand, most communities certainly do not have a tradition to eat robins. I couldn't find anyone who discusses whether their is an imperative to do shiluach haken on a bird that is kosher according to the Torah but we have no tradition to eat. According to the Chavos Yair there may very well be such an obligation, even though you could not eat the eggs(anyways they are probably fertilized and have blood spots).

However, since it is on your property the nest and eggs technically belong to you. Therefore, you cannot do shiluach haken this year, as stated in Shulchan Aruch 372:2. For next year, if the robin returns, you could declare that you do not want your porch to acquire the nest and eggs for you, and then you would have the opportunity to perform this uncommon mitzvah.

This mitzvah I understand is described as one of the simplest... however I guess I have knack at finding it not quite so simple...

It occured to me some years ago that if there were a fallen nest, or nest on a very low branch, that a person would come upon it, the mother bird's nature to not abandon her nest would be very strong, and she'll stay there even when a predator spots it.

And in this fashion the mother bird and her young will be at risk from a predator.

If however the person shoo's away the mother bird and causes her to abandon the nest, then she can go on to make another nest somewhere else.

In cases where a woman's life is in danger by her being pregnant, I understand that Jewish law values her life so much more than the potential life of unborn fetus that abortion in such a case is done... she can go one to have children in the future when she survives the pregnancy that needed to be terminated.

I think by my take on the above that its a similar relative value -- by performing this mitzvah the mother bird goes on to make a new nest, otherwise, she'll go down with the ship.

If there is a way to take away the nest and position it in a safe higher ground, perhaps the mother will return to it, particularly if the eggs or young birds are not handled?

If we know for a fact that if she leaves the nest to the human predator she will never return, then perhaps a Jew is obligated to give the baby birds or unhatched eggs a quick and painless end rather than starvation?

The Chavas Daas brought in PT 292:1and Rav Akiva Aiger there Paskins you should send it even though you're not taking the eggs. He proves it from which the Gemarah excludes having to run after it to go in the mountains etc. This would imply that if you pass it on yourself your obligated, regardless of any other factor.

Correction-Should say Chavas Yair

Quote "like when walking in a field or those who put their nest on a roof, but the mitzva does not refer to those who regularly live in the house, or those who put their nest inside your home - on your desk (!)."

It doesn't apply if they make nest in any place on your property, since your property acquires without your knowledge if it's a "watched" property(Kinyon Chatzer hamishtameres .) Shach 3 and 6.

quote:

Originally posted by Rivkaleah:
This is what I thought - that if you were going to eat the baby bird/egg then send away the mother so she would not feel any pain.

Rivkaleah,

Actually, I heard just the opposite. The reason we send away the mother and take up her fledgling young or eggs is so that she will return to her nest and discover that her chicks have been taken, and then go off to cry and moan the loss of her young. G-d, at seeing this, says (as it were) that if a mere bird feels so much compassion over its young, how much more then should He feel compassion over his nation, Israel.

David

After discussing the Rishonim and Achronim which disagree with the Chavat yair, Rav Henkin in his teshuva continues...(my translation)
And so we find there is no obligation to send away the mother unless one wants the offspring and if one sends away the mother and does not take the offspring for himself, he has not done the mitzveh. As it is written in sefer mromei sedeh that there is no mitzveh of sending away the birds and this is the simple minhag (end of quote) and from this we can understand that we have no custom of doing this mitzveh and we have not seen any gedolim or tzaddikim trying to do it except a few individuals,
and I think the reason is that today we are not accustomed to eat eggs or to raise fledglings, and in Mesechet Chulin 140a there is a drash, you should take the eggs for you and not for your dogs. evenmore so one should not take the eggs to throw them in the garbage. and therefore if one does not use the eggs he is not doing the mitzveh and he transgresses the concept of al Tashchit...
The commentators (Ramban) say the reason for the mitzveh is not to be cruel...

Aryeh Shore

Quote "Rav Henkin in his teshuva continues"

Which Rav Henkin are you referring to? (It's a big Nafka Minah how authoritive it is.)

Quote "The commentators (Ramban) say the reason for the mitzveh is not to be cruel..."


Of course you're aware of a specific gemarah that says it has nothing to do with that, so it's not so simple: Brachos 33b as paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

2. But why do we silence one who says, "Your mercy is upon a bird's nest"?

(d) Answer #2 (The other of R. Yosi bar Avin and R. Yosi bar Zvida): He says that the Mitzvos are because of Hashem's mercy -- this is wrong, they are decrees (to publicize that Yisrael are His servants).
Also, we don't make Nafka Minas for Halachos based on the reasons given in the Rishonim. If the Torah obligates it, we can't prove from the reasons of the Rishonim otherwise.

Quote "Actually, I heard just the opposite. The reason we send away the mother and take up her fledgling young or eggs is so that she will return to her nest and discover that her chicks have been taken, and then go off to cry and moan the loss of her young. G-d, at seeing this, says (as it were) that if a mere bird feels so much compassion over its young, how much more then should He feel compassion over his nation, Israel."

This is the reason of the Zohar. The chavas Yair brings this also as a proof that you can send them without needing the eggs (that the bird cries on the separation, even though you didn't take the eggs.

The quote is Rav Yehuda Henkin. He has four volumes of Shaalot Teshuvot and receive simicha from his grandfather (Rav Yosef Henkin), that is why he calls it Bnei Banim. He is the most prolific posek in my section of Judiasm.

Mishloach Kain
There would appear to be a contradiction between those rishonim who say it is to reduce the characteristic of cruelity and the gemara. As you are probably aware, there are some who want to use it to define tzaar baal chaim. I think it is related more to the debate whether one should give reasons for the mitvot or not than this specific case.
As a drash, the bird (yonah) of Israel is to reduce its cruelity as and so as not to be contaminated by the cruelity of Amelek at the end of the same parsha.

Aryeh

Quote "The quote is Rav Yehuda Henkin. He has four volumes of Shaalot Teshuvot and receive simicha from his grandfather (Rav Yosef Henkin), that is why he calls it Bnei Banim. He is the most prolific posek in my section of Judiasm."

So thus, it's not as authoritive as his grandfather would be.


Quote "I think it is related more to the debate whether one should give reasons for the mitvot or not than this specific case."

There are 2 ways of viewing it. besides giving the reason, there is Paskining from that reason, especially to make a Nafka Minah for a Kulah. (To be MAchmer like an individual reason wouldn't be that objectable.) Especially when that reason is not so simple, that you have a Gemarah against it.

It's true that there are many who disagree with the Chavos Yair, including the Chasam Sofer, if one absolutely doesn't want the eggs. However, R' Wozner's son in Chaye HaLevi writes that if one wants to take the eggs for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzva this is sufficient grounds according to everyone. Also, he considers this enough that there is no problem of Bal tashchis or tzaar baalei chaim.

Furthermore, there is a simple solution. If the nest is on private property and one declared that he does not want his property to acquire the eggs for him, when he chases away the mother he can declare that now his property should acquire the eggs for him. This way he can fulfill the mitzva without ever touching the nest or eggs, and the mother will return to sit on them.