From "fledglings or eggs," I would understand: the minimum of "fledglings" — two; the minimum of eggs — two. If there were only one fledgling or one egg, whence do I derive that he must still send away the mother bird? From "nest" — in any event.
"bird": Scripture speaks of a clean bird. — But perhaps it speaks of an unclean bird too? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 14:11) "Every clean bird you may eat": This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever "bird" is mentioned in Scripture, a clean bird is understood (unless specified otherwise). … I might think to exclude (from the mitzvah) geese or hens that nested in an orchard; it is, therefore, written "before you," (and these are considered "before you").
Whence do I derive (the same for a nest found) on the ground? From "or on the ground." "on the way": What is the intent of this? Just as the "way" is not "in your hand" (i.e., at your disposal), so (the mitzvah obtains with) all that is not "in your hand" — whence they ruled: Doves of a dove-cote and doves of a loft and birds that nested in jars or in towers, and geese and hens that nested in an orchard and rebelled (i.e., flew away) are subject to the mitzvah of sending away. (Birds that) nested in the house and Herodian doves, which are thoroughly domesticated, are not subject to the mitzvah, (being considered "in your hand.")
"and the mother-bird lying on the fledglings": Just as fledglings are alive, so the eggs must be viable — to exclude winnowed (non-viable) eggs. And just as eggs require the mother-bird, so, fledglings (to be subsumed in the mitzvah) must require the mother-bird, to exclude those that are able to fly.
"and the mother-bird lying": when she is lying on them — to exclude her flying over them. I might think (that the mitzvah does not obtain) even if her wings (in her flying) touch them; it is, therefore, written "and the mother-bird lying on the fledglings — even if she is not (in "tight" bodily contact) with them.
I might think that an unclean bird lying on the eggs of a clean bird, or a clean bird lying on the eggs of an unclean bird were subject to the mitzvah; it is, therefore, written "the mother-bird lying on the fledglings — all must be of the same kind (i.e., clean birds).
"You shall not take the mother-bird together with the young": From (Vayikra 14:4) "And he (the Cohein) shall take for the one (i.e., the leper) to be cleansed two live clean birds," I might think that he should take them to cleanse a leper; it is, therefore, written "You shall not take" — even to cleanse the leper.
11
לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם – מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
"You shall not take the mother-bird": a negative commandment.
(דברים כב ו) כִּי יִקָּרֵא – פְּרָט לַמְזֻמָּן.
(Devarim 22:6) "If there chance before you a bird's nest": to exclude what is normally found there.
מִעוּט אֶפְרוֹחִים – שְׁנַיִם, מִעוּט בֵּיצִים – שְׁנַיִם. מִנַּיִן אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא אֶפְרוֹחַ אֶחָד אוֹ בֵיצָה אַחַת חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: קַן – קַן מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
From "fledglings or eggs," I would understand: the minimum of "fledglings" — two; the minimum of eggs — two. If there were only one fledgling or one egg, whence do I derive that he must still send away the mother bird? From "nest" — in any event.
מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים, יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַוָּזִים וְתַרְנְגוֹלִים שֶׁקִּנְּנוּ בַּפַּרְדֵּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְפָנֶיךָ,
"bird": Scripture speaks of a clean bird. — But perhaps it speaks of an unclean bird too? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 14:11) "Every clean bird you may eat": This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever "bird" is mentioned in Scripture, a clean bird is understood (unless specified otherwise). … I might think to exclude (from the mitzvah) geese or hens that nested in an orchard; it is, therefore, written "before you," (and these are considered "before you").
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בַּדֶּרֶךְ.
This tells me (that the mitzvah obtains) only in the private domain. Whence do I derive (the same for) the public domain? From "on the way."
עַל הָאִילָנוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּכָל עֵץ.
Whence do I derive (that the mitzvah obtains with a nest found) on trees? From "on any tree."
עַל הָאָרֶץ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ.
Whence do I derive (the same for a nest found) on the ground? From "or on the ground." "on the way": What is the intent of this? Just as the "way" is not "in your hand" (i.e., at your disposal), so (the mitzvah obtains with) all that is not "in your hand" — whence they ruled: Doves of a dove-cote and doves of a loft and birds that nested in jars or in towers, and geese and hens that nested in an orchard and rebelled (i.e., flew away) are subject to the mitzvah of sending away. (Birds that) nested in the house and Herodian doves, which are thoroughly domesticated, are not subject to the mitzvah, (being considered "in your hand.")
וְהָאֵם רוֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרוֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים, מָה אֶפְרוֹחִים בְּנֵי קַיָּמָא – אַף בֵּיצִים בְּנֵי קַיָּמָא, יָצְאוּ מוּזָרוֹת. מָה בֵּיצִים צְרִיכוֹת לְאִמָּן – אַף אֶפְרוֹחִים צְרִיכִים לְאִמָּם; יָצְאוּ הַמַּפְרִיחִים, שֶׁאֵין צְרִיכִים לְאִמָּם.
"and the mother-bird lying on the fledglings": Just as fledglings are alive, so the eggs must be viable — to exclude winnowed (non-viable) eggs. And just as eggs require the mother-bird, so, fledglings (to be subsumed in the mitzvah) must require the mother-bird, to exclude those that are able to fly.
וְהָאֵם רוֹבֶצֶת – כְּשֶׁהִיא רוֹבֶצֶת עֲלֵיהֶם, פְּרָט לִמְעוֹפֶפֶת. יָכוֹל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּנָפֶיהָ נוֹגְעוֹת בַּקֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ עִמָּהֶם.
"and the mother-bird lying": when she is lying on them — to exclude her flying over them. I might think (that the mitzvah does not obtain) even if her wings (in her flying) touch them; it is, therefore, written "and the mother-bird lying on the fledglings — even if she is not (in "tight" bodily contact) with them.
יָכוֹל עוֹף טָמֵא רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר, וְעוֹף טָהוֹר רוֹבֵץ עַל בֵּיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא, יְהֵא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם מִין אֶחָד.
I might think that an unclean bird lying on the eggs of a clean bird, or a clean bird lying on the eggs of an unclean bird were subject to the mitzvah; it is, therefore, written "the mother-bird lying on the fledglings — all must be of the same kind (i.e., clean birds).
לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים, מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יד ד) ״וְלָקַח לַמִּטַּהֵר שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים חַיּוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת״, יָכוֹל יִקָּחֶנָּה לְטַהֵר בָּהּ אֶת הַמְּצוֹרָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים, אֲפִלּוּ לְטַהֵר בָּהּ אֶת הַמְּצוֹרָע.
"You shall not take the mother-bird together with the young": From (Vayikra 14:4) "And he (the Cohein) shall take for the one (i.e., the leper) to be cleansed two live clean birds," I might think that he should take them to cleanse a leper; it is, therefore, written "You shall not take" — even to cleanse the leper.
לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם – מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
"You shall not take the mother-bird": a negative commandment.