2

The Chinuch, on the mitzva of shiluach hakein says the following:

מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי הַמִּצְוָה. לָתֵת אֶל לִבֵּנוּ שֶׁהַשְׁגָּחַת הָאֵל בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל בְּרִיּוֹתָיו בְּמִין הָאָדָם בִּפְרָט, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (איוב לד, כא) כִּי עֵינָיו עַל כָּל דַּרְכֵי אִישׁ וְגוֹ' וּבִשְׁאָר מִינֵי בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים בַּמִּינִים דֶּרֶךְ כְּלָל, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁחֶפְצוֹ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּקִיּוּם הַמִּין, וְעַל כֵּן לֹא יִכְלֶה לְעוֹלָם מִין מִכָּל מִינֵי הַנִּבְרָאִים, כִּי בְּהַשְׁגָּחַת הַחַי וְקַיָּם לָעַד בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל הַדָּבָר יִמָּצֵא בּוֹ הַקִּיּוּם. וּבְהַנִּיחַ הָאָדָם דַּעְתּוֹ עַל זֶה יָבִין דַּרְכֵי הַשֵּׁם, וְיִרְאֶה כִּי הַמְשָׁכַת קִיּוּם הַמִּינִין בָּעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא כָּלָה וְאָבַד אֶחָד מִכֻּלָּם, מִבֵּיצֵי כִּנִּים וְעַד קַרְנֵי רְאֵמִים מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ, הַכֹּל בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ וְחֶפְצוֹ עַל זֶה.

It is from the roots of this commandment [that it is] to put into our hearts that the providence of God, may He be blessed, is upon all of His creatures — with the human species individually, as it is written (Job 34:21), “For His eyes are upon a man’s ways, etc.”; and upon the other species of animals generally, meaning to say that His desire, may He be blessed, is towards the existence of the [particular] species. And therefore, no species will ever become extinct from all of the species of creatures, as it is due to the providence of the Living and Existing forever, may He be blessed, that their existence is found.

Is this statement, that no species will ever become extinct, meant to be taken literally? Also, is this thought found in other sources?

Improve this question
8
  • The Ramban on the same mitzva could be understood as saying the opposite
    – b a
    Commented Sep 24 at 19:42
  • 2
    The answer might depend on how you translate "מִין". "Species" seems unlikely for this halacha
    – Rabbi Kaii
    Commented Sep 24 at 19:57
  • 1
    @Shababnik how rigorous do you think R. Francis Nataf is being in his translation?
    – Rabbi Kaii
    Commented Sep 24 at 20:47
  • @RabbiKaii I checked the Charles Wengrow translation and it says the same.
    – Y DJ
    Commented Sep 24 at 21:07
  • For example, the extinct speceies of Dodo bird turns out to be the same family as doves and pigeons, the woolly mammoth is from a family of elephants. However the bird nesher with 4 non-kosher signs either never existed or is extinct. Translation nesher as eagle does not match the description.
    – Y DJ
    Commented Sep 24 at 21:11

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Supposing that the Chinuch means exactly what it sounds like. If so, he's wrong. Empirically, we see that many species have become extinct. And therefore, his interpretation, moving as it is, is not correct.

This is not a problem for us. We're not committed to the idea that no Rishon could ever err. Rishonim made mistakes, and Amoraim made mistakes...even Moshe Rabbenu and the Avos and Imahos made a few mistakes.

Hashem is free of all error. Human beings, however great, err.

Improve this answer
5
  • You are likely having a wrong definition of a min. In the Torah it means family, not subfamily, type, genus, or species.
    – Y DJ
    Commented Sep 24 at 21:27
  • 1
    I very much doubt that min corresponds exactly to any zoological classification level. If you believe that it does, I would certainly appreciate evidence. But in any event, my comment began with the words "supposing that." The point of those words was that my comment was contingent. Even if "min" means "species," not "min" definitely does mean "species."
    – Yehoshua Kahan
    Commented Sep 24 at 21:31
  • There is a book on genetics "Replacing Darwin" by Nathaniel Jeanson amazon.com/Replacing-Darwin-New-Origin-Species/dp/1683440757. It discusses the question of species. Do you think that Noach's ark fit all the "species" or all families?
    – Y DJ
    Commented Sep 24 at 21:46
  • 1
    I think that the Teivah could not possibly have fit either absent tremendous nissim. Not least because different types of animals require radically different environments! Imagine trying to keep animals that normally live in a hot and dry environment, such as desert snakes, in the same environment with creatures that normally require a cool and wet environment, like swamp life. So to me, it seems obvious that the Teivah was mere hishtadlus, and could never have worked without nissim that easily rival those of Yetzias Mitzrayim.
    – Yehoshua Kahan
    Commented Sep 24 at 21:47
  • And again, I doubt that "min" maps smoothly onto either the zoological term "species" or the zoological term "family."
    – Yehoshua Kahan
    Commented Sep 24 at 21:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .