Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Deuteronomy 22:7
[But] thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and [that] thou mayest prolong [thy] days.
Verse 7. Thou shalt – let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee] This passage may be understood literally. If they destroyed both young and old, must not the breed soon fail, and would it not in the end be ill with them; and by thus cutting off the means of their continual support, must not their days be shortened on the land? But we may look for a humane precept in this law. The young never knew the sweets of liberty; the dam did: they might be taken and used for any lawful purpose, but the dam must not be brought into a state of captivity. They who can act otherwise must be either very inconsiderate or devoid of feeling; and such persons can never be objects of God’s peculiar care and attention, and therefore need not expect that it shall be well with them, or that they shall prolong their days on the earth. Every thing contrary to the spirit of mercy and kindness the ever blessed God has in utter abhorrence. And we should remember a fact, that he who can exercise cruelty towards a sparrow or a wren, will, when circumstances are favourable, be cruel to his fellow creatures. The poet Phocylides has a maxim in his admonitory poem very similar to that in the sacred text: –
‘ , ‘ .
PHOCYL. ., ver. 80.
“Nor from a nest take all the birds away;
The mother spare, she’ll breed a future day.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Let the dam go; partly for the birds sake, which suffered enough by the loss of its young; for God would not have cruelty exercised towards the brute creatures; and partly for mens sake, to restrain their greediness and covetousness, that they should not monopolize all to themselves, but might leave the hopes of a future seed for others.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
But thou shall in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee,…. Or “in letting go, let go”, or “in sending, send away” a; that is, willingly, certainly, entirely, frequently, always; so the Jewish canons b,
“if anyone lets her go, and she returns, even four or five times, he is obliged to let her go, as it is said, “in letting go, let go”;”
nay, Maimonides says c, even a thousand times; the canon proceeds,
“if anyone says, lo, I take the dam and let go the young, he is obliged to let her go; if he takes the young, and returns them again to the nest, and after that returns the dam to them, he is free from letting her go;”
that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days; the Targum of Jonathan is,
“that it may be well with thee in this world, and thou mayest prolong thy days in the world to come:”
the same blessing that is promised to observers of the fifth command, which is one of the weightier matters of the law, is made to this; which the Jews say d is but as the value of a farthing, or of little account in comparison of others; wherefore, as Fagius rightly observes e, God, in bestowing such rewards, has regard not to the works of men, but to his own grace and kindness; for what merit can there be in letting go or preserving the life of a little bird?
a “dimittendo dimittes”, Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus; so Ainsworth. b Misn. Cholin, c. 12. sect. 3. c In Misn. ib. d Misn. ib. sect. 5. e In loc.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Deu 22:7 [But] thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and [that] thou mayest prolong [thy] days.
Ver. 7. And that thou mayest prolong, &c. ] They were commanded to spare the dam, because she represented the parents in bringing up of her young ones; and if their days should be for that prolonged, much more for this. The Hebrews reckon this commandment for the least of all in Moses’s law; and yet such a promise is annexed thereunto.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
But thou shalt: The extirpation of any species of birds, whether edible or birds of prey, is often attended with serious consequences, and is always productive of evil; to prevent which was the object of this law. Palestine is situated in a climate producing poisonous snakes and scorpions, and between deserts and mountains, from which it would be inundated by them, as well as with immense swarms of flies, locusts, and mice, if the birds which feed upon them were extirpated. In a moral point of view, it may have been intended to inculcate a spirit of mercy and kindness, and to prevent the exercise of cruelty even towards a sparrow; for he who is guilty of such cruelty will, if circumstances be favourable, be cruel to his fellow-creatures.
that it may: Deu 4:40
thou mayest: Pro 22:4
Reciprocal: Lev 22:28 – ye shall not kill it Deu 5:29 – that it might Deu 6:2 – thy days Eph 6:3 – General