Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the signs of a -kosher bird: “Any bird that claws its prey and eats it is non-kosher.”

Ramban (Vayikra 11:13) famously remarks that the quality of cruelty that is involved in being a bird of prey is what renders the animal non-kosher. Eating such animals will somehow transfer this quality into the soul, and therefore we must abstain.

Sefer Daf al Daf quotes a question on this Ramban. The Gemara (63a) discusses a particular non-kosher bird known as the Chasidah. This Chasidah’s name shares the Hebrew root of the word chessed, kindness. The Gemara explains: Why is it called ḥasida? Since it performs charity [ḥasidut] for its fellows, giving them from its own food.” However, this quality of kindness is the opposite of cruelty. Why then is this bird rendered not kosher? There are two answers given, each with moral lessons.

True, this bird does kindness. But only for its peers. In other words, it is a form of self-serving altruism. It is kind to its immediate neighbors in order to promote its overall safety and well-being. While practical and functional, it does not come from a universal love for all. It is closer to a tribal loyalty.

While this feature alone of familial loyalty is a value, as it is stated in Yeshaiyahu (58:7) “Do not hide from your own flesh,” i.e., make yourself available to take care of a family, this is still not the same as general kindness and love to all.

The second answer given is of a more homiletical nature. We are not praising this bird. Rather, we are accusing this bird of false piety, that is, it offers its friends “chassidus,” preaching and moralizing, when they actually need concrete help.

This is a challenge in human behavior. Sometimes we see a person in great distress, and indeed we have certain judgments, which may be accurate or not, about their moral character and how they wound up in this situation. We feel guilty and want to help them, but we also feel frustrated because we might know that their pattern is self-destructive or somehow they’re doing this to themselves. However, at the moment that they are in distress, it is poor timing to moralize. At that time, we just need to help. Later on, when they are out of distress, if we do believe that we can offer some feedback that’s constructive and help them in the future, that might be a good idea. But at the time of their distress when they need physical help, it’s important to give it if at all possible and not part of an enabling process. Even if we determine that helping them really is just enabling them (which may exempt us from helping as per Bava Metzia 32a and Kli Yakkar Shemos 23:5) and they are the kind of person who is in denial and refuses to help himself, so we may decline to help, still preaching and moralizing is cruel.

It is instructive to note what our sages said in regard to Iyov’s friends who ostensibly came to comfort him, but ended up preaching at him:

Bava Metzia (58b) warns: If torments afflict a person, if illnesses beset him, or if he buries his children, one may not speak to him as the friends of Iyov did, asserting that his sins brought about his fate. What did Iyov’s friends do wrong? Weren’t they simply following the teaching in Berachos (5a), as it states: “when a person experiences suffering, he should examine his actions to identify and correct any sins that may have brought it about.” The answer is, this is meant as a personal, introspective exercise – one of humility and self-reflection. While it is true that a person should engage in self-reflection, it is utterly inappropriate to say such things to someone who is suffering.