03 September 2006

Ki Saitsai



I Just don't get it - 2nd in a series of God knows how many.

Last week I came upon an ad in a local weekly magazine for the opportunity to be mekayem the Mitsva of Sheloach Hakan. It was a timely ad because the Mitsva is brought down in Ki Saitsai (22:6). For a fee, the sponsor will take you to a locale where you can send away the mother bird and keep the eggs for yourself. Shelloach Hakan is a mitsvah that you are not obligated to perform unless the opportunity presents itself. It is considered meritorious to place oneself in the position to perform the Mitsva at least once.

So why is there no ad offering to help me be Mekayem the Mitsva of Eishes Y'fas Toar? They skipped over the first mitsva of the Parsha (21:10) and it's just not right. Come to think of, why do the Chareidim keep their Bochurim out of the IDF?

Think about it, your wife may not be happy about you taking a wartime captive as a new bride. But it really could be the Mitsvah of a lifetime.

  • ===> Use Haloscan: |
  • Do NOT enter new comments here 11 comments Do NOT use. links to this post

    11 Comments:

    At September 03, 2006 8:14 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    Freeing the mother bird has a nice little promise of long life.. taking home a captive, marrying them, and then having rebellious children and killing them, is not.

     
    At September 03, 2006 10:18 PM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    IC, Promise of long life for Sheeloach Hakan is is L'olam Haba. (remember Acher?). All mitsvos the schar is B'olam Haba.

     
    At September 03, 2006 11:10 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    That doesn't change my answer.

     
    At September 04, 2006 6:59 AM, Blogger Ben Avuyah said...

    LOL, great post, how come all the juicy mitzvos have fallen by the wayeside? imagine how much better we could be mekayim the primary first mitzvah of pru urvu if not for that peski rabainu gershom !

     
    At September 04, 2006 9:28 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    Ben A, welcome. Nice to have you on board.

    IC, It sounds like Eesha Yfas Toar is what they call a Mitsvah Yesoma, an orphan mitsvah. That's exactly why it needs a champion :)

     
    At September 04, 2006 11:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    BHB,

    IIRC, doesn't Rashi say there:

    Lo Dibra Torah Elah K'neged Yetzer Hora?

    I know that the mashgichim who give shmuezen in the Yeshivos are very busy with this, that since the soldiers were all Yir'ay Shamayim, it is mind boggling how Rashi teaches, that if the Torah would not have been Matir, they would have married B'Issur.

    But as Daganev pointed out, Chazal already informed us the intention of the Torah, how one thing will lead to another...

    (BTW, I had a good laugh upon reading the post)

    LY

     
    At September 05, 2006 7:47 AM, Blogger Billie Jean said...

    I think that many mitzvot have fallen by the wayside because your wife wouldn't be happy about them.

     
    At September 05, 2006 10:08 AM, Blogger Baal Habos said...

    Billie Jean, thanks for stopping by.

    Irviner really has it right of course, I don't expect the rabbis to push this Mitsvah. As Ba and LY recognized, this post was more of a bit of humour.

    But what are you referring to? What other mitsvos have fallen by the wayside because of my wife?


    I checked your site last week and IIRC you need to read this before I can comment on your site.

    It's about the way you configged your sitemeter.

     
    At September 05, 2006 11:19 PM, Blogger Billie Jean said...

    BHB: Thanks for the heads up. I didn't realise sitemeter made that info available to everyone. I'll fix it up shortly.

    I didn't mean your wife specifically, of course.
    What I was thinking of was polygyny. Although it was only forbidden by Rabbeinu Gershom just over 1000 years ago, polygyny does not seem to have been particularly prevalent before that either (from what I have read, at least). Not to say it didn't exist, but it was less common than one would think. I think wives might have had something to do with that.

     
    At September 05, 2006 11:20 PM, Blogger Billie Jean said...

    In retrospect I probably shouldn't have written many in my previous comment.

     
    At September 06, 2006 3:18 PM, Blogger Irviner Chasid said...

    >I think wives might have had something to do with that.

    The gemorah says... "woe to the man who has more than one wife"...

     

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home