Parashat Bereishit: Peru U'rvu
The Weekly Mitzva
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur
01:
Parashat
Bereishit
Peru
U'rvu
By Rav
Binyamin Tabory
Sefer
Ha-chinukh says that Peru U'rvu (Procreation) is the first mitzva in the
Torah. In Bereishit 1:28 it says
"E-lohim blessed them and said to them 'Peru U'rvu." Sefer Ha-yeraim (Mitzva 413) says that
the Torah commanded us to fulfill this mitzva in four places. He only cites two of these, our verse
and the commandment given to Noach when he left the ark (Bereishit 9:7). The commentary To'afot Re'em cites the
verse said to Yaakov (Bereishit 35:11) "Prei u'rvei" (which is written in
singular as opposed to "peru u'rvu' which is plural.
There is a
dispute among tanaim (Yevamot 65b) if women are commanded in this mitzva. Tanna Kama maintains that women are
exempt from this mitzva (either because it is related to "kibush," i.e.
conquering, dominion, or because it was said to Yaakov in singular form, man not
woman.) Tosefot (ad. loc) points
out that the statement "Peru U'rvu" made to Adam is to be construed as a
blessing given to both man and woman rather than a mitzva. R. Yochanan Ben Broka, however,
maintains that the original statement made to Adam and Chava is the source of
the mitzva; therefore women are obligated in this mitzva.
Rambam (Hilkhot
Ishut 15:2) and the Shulchan Arukh (Even Ha-ezer 13) codify the halakha
according to Tanna Kama. R. Meir
Simcha Ha-Kohen pointed out in his sefer Meshekh Chokhma that it is possible to
explain that the mitzva given to Adam and Chava was indeed a mitzva incumbent
upon both of them. However, the
mitzva given to Noach was only to him and his sons and Yaakov's mitzva was
definitely addressed only to him.
The reason for this change as to whom the mitzva was given, may be
explained by positing that God did not command mitzvot that were painful,
dangerous and even life threatening. Before the sin of eating from the tree of
knowledge, Eitz Ha-da'at, childbirth was a relatively simply normal event in
life and therefore man and woman were both commanded. After the sin, when God mandated that
there would be the pain of childbirth, woman could no longer be commanded to
bear children. Women would desire
to have children because of an inherent maternal instinct rather than through a
Divine commandment.
R. Meir Simcha
also adds an additional reason.
Since man is biblically entitled to be polygamous, if his wife is
incapable of having children, he would not have to divorce her in order to
fulfill the mitzva; he could merely marry another woman. However, since a woman must be
monogamous, if her husband is incapable of siring children, she would have to be
divorced from her husband in order to fulfill the mitzva. This would contradict the concept of
"derakheha darkhei noam" (the ways of the Torah are pleasant) and therefore
would create an acrimonious situation.
One may also add that this reasoning would not apply to Adam and Chava as
they received the berakha of God to procreate and furthermore could not marry
anyone else even if the berakha were not realized.
It is obvious
that even if women are not obligated to have children, they certainly fulfill
this mitzva if they do have children.
Similarly, they fulfill the mitzva of Kiddushin even if one would assume
that they are not commanded in Kiddushin.
The gemara (Kiddushin 41a) says that although a woman could become
halakhically engaged by proxy, it is a greater mitzva to do so in person. Rishonim raise the obvious question: If
women are not commanded to marry and to have children, why does the gemara say
it is a greater mitzva for them to be personally involved in the mitzva? The Ran (ad. loc.) says that women
fulfill the mitzva as they enable men to fulfill their obligation. The Chida (Birkhei Yosef - Even Ha-ezer
I:16) cites an anonymous Rishon who says that although women are not obligated
to have children, they fulfill the mitzva just as women fulfill the mitzvot of
sukka, shofar, lulav although they are not obligated. This Rishon also suggested that although
women are exempt from the biblical mitzva, they may be obligated by rabbinic
law. This seems to be a novel idea,
that the Rabbis have required women to fulfill a mitzva from which they are
exempt by the Torah.
The mitzva
seems to be independent of any other mitzva and therefore the Rosh (Ketuvot
chapter 1 section 12) says that if one would have children by his mistress
("pilegesh") he would not have to get married. However, Rav Achai Gaon in his
She'ilot (165) maintains that "Bnei Yisrael are required to marry, have children
and be involved in "Peria U'revia."
He cites a proof-text in Yirmiyahu 29:6, "marry and have sons and
daughters." Since this source is
not from the Torah but from the prophets, it does not seem to be a biblical
requirement. It is rather either a
rabbinic law or sage advice. The
admonition of Yirmiyahu begins with advice to people going into exile to invest
in real estate and work the land, as life will go on. He further adds that you should also see
to it that your children marry and have children. This is definitely not a biblical
requirement (see Kiddushin 29a, Rambam Hilkhot Ishut 20:1). It therefore seems that it may be a
rabbinic requirement or merely sage advice to marry prior to having
children.
Sefer
Ha-chinukh concludes by saying that one who negates this mitzva will be sorely
punished as he demonstrates that he does not wish to realize the desire of God
to populate the world.