Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses The status of the calf fetus inside the cow. It is considered to be, at that time, a part of the mother‘s body. Therefore, if the cow Gores and damages are due from the value of the ox itself, the fetus is included in the lien. Although paternity may have halakhic status (see Chulin 80a), a mother's bond to the fetus is strong by virtue of a literal physical attachment that leaves a psychological imprint, which remains throughout life. Oznayim LaTorah (Emor) uses this idea of unique maternal bond to explain a discrepancy between two different verses:
Vayikra (21:2) grants the Cohen permission to become ritually defiled through contact with a corpse, in order to bury and grieve the death of a close relative:
כִּ֚י אִם־לִשְׁאֵר֔וֹ הַקָּרֹ֖ב אֵלָ֑יו לְאִמּ֣וֹ וּלְאָבִ֔יו וְלִבְנ֥וֹ וּלְבִתּ֖וֹ וּלְאָחִֽיו׃
except for the relatives that are closest to him: his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, and his brother;
In the above verse, the mother is stated first, then the father.
Yet, regarding the Cohen Gadol, who is restricted from even tending to the corpses of his loved ones. the verse (ibid 11) states:
וְעַ֛ל כׇּל־נַפְשֹׁ֥ת מֵ֖ת לֹ֣א יָבֹ֑א לְאָבִ֥יו וּלְאִמּ֖וֹ לֹ֥א יִטַּמָּֽא׃
He shall not go in where there is any dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother.
Here the order of the verse states the father before the mother. Oznayim LaTorah explains that each iteration of the family hierarchy listed in the verses are reacting to a different concern. In the first verse that is referring to the regular Cohen, the logic that allows him to become ritually impure to tend to his relatives, is one of filial closeness. Therefore, the mother comes first. As we have seen above, she has the strongest bond to the child. However, the second verse, which is referring to the Cohen Gadol, is relating to an opposite relational priority. And that is, since he is on such an elevated spiritual level, his devotion to God comes before family. The concern in this verse is about honor and respect. One might think that, perhaps even the Cohen Gadol would be allowed to tend to his father’s corpse, where the social experience is more of fear and honor, than love (see Kiddushin 30b-31a). Therefore the verse states the father first, to emphasize that the Cohen Gadol may not defile himself even for his father, whom there would be a natural inclination to show honor.
The powerful instinct of the mother child bond must be respected. Commenting on the mitzvah of Shiluach Hakeyn (sending the mother bird away when taking the eggs or chicks) the Rambam (Moreh III:48) says there is no difference between the emotional anguish felt by a mother bird and a human mother, as this is not an intellect dependent matter, but rather an instinct. It is the manner of some men, especially newer fathers, to get frustrated with various ways in which mothers set priorities. A mother may insist that a child is unwell despite three doctors making light of her concerns as those of a nervous, histrionic mother. There are numerous stories where in the end the Mom was right, detecting an unknown medical threat. Or a mother may insist that a particular child needs accommodation, a certain snack, article of clothing, lighter discipline etc. The father may be frustrated because the mother’s concerns seem irrational. This is because they are irrational, in they they are non-rational, and instinct-emotion based. Instincts are like the lights on your car’s dashboard. They represent information, not necessarily analytic deductive thought. Is the engine about to blow up, or does it merely need adjustments to the emission control? That is harder to discern, but the point is, one does not ignore the warning light. First, you take the indicator seriously, and then consider what it might represent and how important it is. So too with instinct and intuition, while one does not obey it blindly, one should never make light of it.
The pnimiyis (inner dimension) of the mitzvah of Shliach Hakeyn might be to respect the mother-child bond, and so to have contempt for it, may be a disruption of the powerful force and obligation of this mitzvah. You might ask, why is there then a mitzvah by a mother bird and not a human mother? The answer is, the Torah needs to discuss the exception and not the obvious. This is the same reason why the verse about placing a stumbling block in front a blind man is not taken literally, but rather understood as a prohibition against giving improper counsel. (The Minchas Chinuch 232:4 even considers that if one actually places a stumbling block in front of a blind man, there may be no violation of this prohibition, as even the simple meaning of the verse is taken metaphorically.) So too, the Torah does not need to make a prohibition or mitzvah to respect a mother’s instinct and anguish; this is obvious. We saw in yesterday’s Psychology of the Daf that the Torah does not need to teach the obvious.
If one is an electrician, one must respect the power of electricity, and how it operates. It is less important for the electrician to understand the atomic principles that dictate why, and more important to know how to work with it safely and harness its power. Human instincts are similar. We humans waste much time trying to fight instinct. We think we can operate well without proper sleep, or that somehow human warmth and physical affection are “only” irrational needs. It is irrelevant whether they are rational or not. It is impossible to function well as a human if the basic instincts are not respected and taken into account.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)