What is meant by the blessing and imperative to “be fruitful and multiply”? What are the different levels of this mitzva, and how do they apply to women?
In Brief
In what ways is “be fruitful and multiply,” “peru u-rvu,” a blessing?
- Personally, procreation reflects the unity of the conjugal relationship, the ability to partner with God in an act of creation, and the formation of family ties of care, love, and support.
- Collectively, it is a blessing to settle the world, to perpetuate the covenant and Jewish peoplehood, and to keep faith in redemption.
What is the mitzva of peru u-rvu?
- Some authorities define the mitzva as having at least one male and one female child who themselves can bear children.
- Others define the mitzva as having sexual relations in an effort to conceive a boy and a girl.
- Still others distinguish between a mitzva act of having relations and a mitzva fulfillment of having a boy and a girl.
How can there be an imperative when it’s not fully in people’s hands?
Traditional sources acknowledge the difficulty of fulfilling this mitzva. Yeshayahu even suggests that those who do not merit to have children may establish a greater legacy in serving God. More recently, halachic authorities have recognized children born through assisted reproduction with a father’s sperm as a fulfillment of the mitzva.
Are women obligated in peru u-rvu?
Women are considered exempt from the mitzva.
Why should women be exempt, when it is women who become pregnant and give birth?
The Talmud suggests that a mention of conquest along with peru u-rvu in Bereishit 1:28 is in singular, and thus exempts women from the imperative (conquest is also assumed to have masculine connotations); or that we derive the mitzva from God’s telling Yaakov Avinu to be fruitful and multiply, using the masculine singular.
Meshech Chochma suggests other rationales: that childbearing is too dangerous to be forced on women, that women don’t need a commandment to follow natural inclinations, or that a woman unable to procreate with her husband would have been impelled to divorce.
Do women fulfill the mitzva?
Possibly, either rabbinically, as voluntary fulfillment the Torah-level mitzva, or by playing a part in a husband’s mitzva fulfillment.
A woman can also be said to have an obligation to facilitate her husband’s mitzva fulfillment, since polygyny is prohibited.
What is shevet and who is obligated in it?
Yeshayahu wrote that “for settlement [shevet] did He form it [the world]” (45:18), as a halachic rationale for procreation.
Shevet can be understood as a Divine goal underlying the mitzva of peru u-rvu in which we take part, or as an independent mitzva. Whether women are subject to shevet is a matter of debate.
And what is La-erev, and who is obligated in that?
Kohelet (11:6) states that one should sow seed in the evening, la-erev, even if one has already sown in the morning. This is understood as a metaphor for engagement in procreation both early and later in life, beyond the minimum dictates of peru u-rvu.
- Some halachic authorities view this as an imperative to have as many children as possible. On this view, a married woman could also have a mitzva to facilitate her husband’s la-erev.
- Others, notably Ramban, suggest that this is subject to personal factors and decision-making. On this view, a woman’s relationship with la-erev would also be more flexible.
Some modern-day authorities attempt to define la-erev more precisely, e.g., as having a total of two boys and two girls, while many others maintain that it remains open-ended.
In Depth
Rav Ezra Bick, Ilana Elzufon, and Shayna Goldberg, eds.
A Blessing
From the beginnings of Creation, the Torah emphasizes reproduction as central to life itself. Vegetation and trees are defined from the start as producing seeds and fruit.
בראשית א:יא
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקִים תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינוֹ אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ בוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיְהִי כֵן:
Bereishit 1:11
And God said, Let the earth grow vegetation, grass that gives seed, fruit trees that make fruit according to its kind with its seed within it upon the land, and it was so.
God blesses the fish and birds to be fruitful and multiply.
בראשית א:כב
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקִים לֵאמֹר פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הַמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וְהָעוֹף יִרֶב בָּאָרֶץ:
Bereishit 1:22
And God blessed them saying, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the land.
And in the very first account of humankind’s creation, the Torah presents having children as a blessing:
בראשית א:כח
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:
Bereishit 1:28
And God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land and conquer it and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the skies and every animal that crawls upon the land.
Yet the path to achieving the blessing of procreation is less straightforward than one might think. In the aftermath of eating from the tree of knowledge and sharing the fruit with Adam, Chava is punished with difficult childbearing:
בראשית ג:טז
אֶל הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים וְאֶל אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל בָּךְ:
Bereishit 3:16
To the woman He said, I will greatly increase your painful toil and your pregnancy, in pain will you bear children, but your desire will be for your husband and he will control you.
Rashi reads the first part of this verse as highlighting three distinct punishments: pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children. He explains the second part of the verse as a direct continuation of the first. Notwithstanding the challenges women face with procreation, women still experience sexual desire, the satisfaction of which, according to Rashi, is subject to men’s control:
רש”י בראשית ג:טז
עצבונך – זה צער גידול בנים: והרנך – זה צער העבור: בעצב תלדי בנים – זה צער הלידה: ואל אשך תשוקתך – לתשמיש ואף על פי כן אין לך מצח לתובעו בפה אלא הוא ימשול בך…
Rashi Bereishit 3:16
Your painful toil, this is the travail of raising children. Your pregnancy, this is the travail of pregnancy, in pain will you bear children, this is the travail of childbirth. And your desire will be for your husband. For sexual relations, but even so you do not have the brazenness to ask it of him verbally but rather he will control you [in this respect]…
Rashi’s formulation is based in part on a Talmudic passage that limits a woman’s expression of interest in sexual relations to hinting indirectly, rather than demanding brazenly.1 Later authorities rule that the only limitation is on asking for relations in a coarse fashion, but that more refined verbal expressions of desire are fully permissible.2
Ramban draws a clear connection between the two halves of the verse:
רמב”ן בראשית ג:טז
…שהעניש אותה שתהיה נכספת מאד אל בעלה, ולא תחוש לצער ההריון והלידה
Ramban, Bereishit 3:16
[God] punished her, that she should yearn greatly for her husband, and not worry about the travail of pregnancy and childbirth
According to this approach, Chava’s punishment extends to every stage of a woman’s role in procreation: sexual desire and intimacy, pregnancy, giving birth, and rearing children. A woman is likely to experience especially great pain and distress if she lacks control over her sexual intimacy or fertility, as all too many women have throughout history.
Even Chava’s punishment, however, does not alter the Torah’s fundamental message that procreation is a blessing. Her name, granted by Adam after her punishment, seems to recast her role in childbearing more positively. Conception, pregnancy, and childbearing, with all their challenges, point to a greater whole, motherhood.
בראשית ג:כ
וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ חַוָּה כִּי הִוא הָיְתָה אֵם כָּל חָי:
Bereishit 3:20
And Adam called the name of his wife Chava, for she was the mother of all life [kol chai].
How is Chava’s legacy relevant to the lives of women today?
Two legacies are ascribed to Chava, as the archetypal woman:
First, the challenges of reproduction—sometimes unequal sexual relationships, the physical discomforts of pregnancy, the pain and danger of childbirth, and the trials of raising children.
Second, her core identity as “mother of all life.”
Over the past century, conditions for women in the developed world have changed enormously, so that the challenges of reproduction, Chava’s first legacy, are often felt much less acutely.
Some of the shifts have been social. Many couples enter marriage seeing and respecting each other as equals, including within their intimate relationship.
Other shifts have been driven by medical advances. Contraception is now more effective, safe, and available, so that relations are less likely to lead to unwanted conception and couples can exercise more control over family planning. (We discuss halachic aspects of contraception in our next piece.) Though some women still endure difficult pregnancies, modern medicine can treat a wider range of pregnancy complications. While childbirth is still painful and dangerous, many women have access to effective pain control options. Advances in medical care for women and infants also reduce maternal and infant mortality.
Still, even in societies where women’s reproductive realities have changed, the conditions set forth as consequences for Chava loom large. Women are keenly aware that abstinence is still the only fail-proof form of contraception, access to contraception and to reproductive care is not guaranteed, and childbirth and its aftermath are neither painless nor free of danger.
Perhaps the most universally enduring element of Chava’s first legacy is what Rashi calls tza’ar gidul banim, “the travail of raising children.” Child rearing remains a challenge, often borne primarily by mothers, that social and medical developments have not necessarily eased. The persistence of this challenge seems to figure prominently in recent shifts in attitudes toward Chava’s second legacy, the role of mother.
While in many societies motherhood remains central to a woman’s aspirations and identity, rates of childbearing have been dropping precipitously throughout the developed world. More and more people are having fewer children or no children at all, often by choice. Possible explanations for this shift include lack of social support structures for young families, financial concerns, fears for the future, and broader changes in setting life priorities. As other reproductive challenges have faded and allowed for more exercise of individual preferences, the challenge of tza’ar gidul banim has sometimes overshadowed the meaning of motherhood.
Unique among developed nations, however, Israel has sustained a higher birthrate and remains a very family-oriented society. Judaism’s mitzva of procreation and emphasis on family, have likely been a significant contributing factor in maintaining a pro-natal culture, by attributing deeper meaning to childbearing and child rearing. Journalist Christine Emba makes note of this:3
Christine Emba, “The Real Reason People Aren’t Having Kids”, The Atlantic, August 1, 2024
“Meaning”…tends to stem from uniting in the face of undesirable crises (wars, pandemics) or from the sorts of broadly enforced norms (religious, cultural) that many no longer share. (This could be a clue as to why Israel has bucked the low-birth-rate trend: The religious edict to “be fruitful and multiply” is an accepted part of the national culture, and childbearing is viewed as a contribution to a collective goal.)
Even in the face of the challenges childbearing entails, a preponderance of Jews, at least in Israel, continue to find great meaning and purpose in building a family. A recent letter by a modern Israeli midwife about her experiences in wartime resonates:4
לאה מלמד, מיילדת, במכתב לסיון רהב מאיר 27.8.24
הלידות מאז תחילת המלחמה היו עמוסות ריגשית…. ועכשיו, עשרה חודשים אחרי, גל לידות אחר. אני מוצאת שיש משהו נוסף באוויר. הזוגות שמגיעים עכשיו, הם זוגות שהחליטו להביא חיים לעולם, בזמן משבר. זו בחירה שבראייה מסוימת עשויה להיתפס כחסרת כל הגיון. איך אפשר לחשוב על הבאת חיים לעולם כזה?… מהמיילדות העבריות במצרים, שהייתה בהן ‘יראת אלוקים… ‘ הן ראו מעבר לצו האכזרי של המלך פרעה, נטול המוסר והמצפון. הן הלכו עם אמת אחת, עם ערך של קדושת החיים, גם במחיר סיכון חייהן ממש. המיילדות ידעו אז, ויודעות גם היום, לראות את הצמיחה מתוך השבר, גם כשאחרים מתקשים להאמין שהיא בוא תבוא. היום,אני…שואבת כוחות…מהנשים האלה, שיש להן את אותה ראייה למרחוק, אותה גבורה נשית של אז, במצרים. הן מזכירות לי את יוכבד שמאתגרת את עמרם, בעלה, שסירב להביא עוד ילדים במצרים, ודורשת ממנו לעלות קומה בקומות האמונה, ולהמשיך את החיים על אף המציאות המייסרת. כך נולד משה רבנו. כך בונים עתיד, למען כולנו…
Leah Melamed, Midwife, Letter to Sivan Rahav Meir (Instagram @sivanrahavmeir August 28, 2024)
The births since the beginning of the war were emotionally loaded…But now, ten months later, a new wave of births. I find that there’s something else in the air. The couples arriving now are couples who have decided to bring life into the world in a time of crisis. This is a choice that from a certain perspective is liable to be taken as lacking any logic. How is it possible to think about bringing children into a world like this?…From the Hebrew midwives of Mitzrayim, who had fear of God…they saw beyond the cruel command of Pharaoh the king, devoid of morality or conscience. They went with a single truth, with the value of the sanctity of life, even at the price of real risk to their lives. The midwives knew then, and know today as well, how to see growth within a fracture, even when others struggle to believe that it will come. Today, …I draw strength from…these women, for they have the same long view, the same female heroism as then, in Mitzrayim. They remind me of Yocheved, who challenges her husband Amram, who refused to have more children in Mitzrayim, and demands that he rise to a higher level in faith, to continue life notwithstanding a torturous reality….That’s how we build a future, for all of our sakes…
Even when the travails of childbearing and child rearing seem daunting, Jewish values can inspire couples to transcend them.
God reiterates the blessing in addressing No’ach and his sons upon their departure from the ark:
בראשית ט:א, ו-ז
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹקִים אֶת נֹחַ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ:… שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹקִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם: וְאַתֶּם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ שִׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ וּרְבוּ בָהּ:
Bereishit 9:1, 6-7
And God blessed No’ach and his sons and He said to them: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth….One who spills human blood, by a human shall his blood be spilled, for in God’s image did he make humanity. And you, be fruitful and multiply and swarm on the earth and multiply on it.
The Talmud elaborates on the startling juxtaposition between murder and procreation in a way that sheds additional light on the blessing:
יבמות סג:
תניא, רבי אליעזר אומר: כל מי שאין עוסק בפריה ורביה כאילו שופך דמים, שנאמר: שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך, וכתיב בתריה: ואתם פרו ורבו. רבי יעקב אומר: כאילו ממעט הדמות, שנאמר: כי בצלם אלקים עשה את האדם, וכתיב בתריה: ואתם פרו וגו’. בן עזאי אומר: כאילו שופך דמים וממעט הדמות, שנאמר: ואתם פרו ורבו. אמרו לו לבן עזאי: יש נאה דורש ונאה מקיים, נאה מקיים ואין נאה דורש, ואתה נאה דורש ואין נאה מקיים! אמר להן בן עזאי: ומה אעשה, שנפשי חשקה בתורה, אפשר לעולם שיתקיים על ידי אחרים.
Yevamot 63b
It was taught [in a baraita], Rabbi Eliezer says: Whoever does not occupy himself with procreation, it is as though he sheds blood, as it is said: “One who spills human blood, by a human shall his blood be spilled,” and it is written afterwards: “And you, be fruitful and multiply.” Rabbi Yaakov says: It is as though he diminishes the image, for it is said: for in God’s image did He make humanity, and it is written after it “And you, be fruitful and multiply.” Ben Azzai says: It is as though he [both] spills blood and diminishes the image, for it is said [after both]: “And you, be fruitful and multiply.” They said to Ben Azzai: There are those who expound well and fulfill well, who fulfill well but do not expound well, and you expound well but do not fulfill well! Ben Azzai said to them: And what shall I do, for my soul desires Torah. The world can be maintained through others.
The sages here seem to equate deliberately desisting from procreation with bloodshed. If the human species fails to perpetuate life, we will literally die out. Mortality itself is another consequence of Adam’s sin,5 one that can be offset only through procreation. The repercussions of human extinction would be especially significant because God created humanity in the Divine image. If we do not produce future generations, God’s image will become absent from the world.
And yet Ben Azzai, who promulgates both of these ideas, himself chose not to marry and not to procreate. When challenged, he responds with two important points: First, he, personally, feels compelled to follow a different path, devoting himself exclusively to Torah study. This raises the possibility that there are exceptions to be made in pursuit of the service of God. Furthermore, he suggests that elite Torah scholars like himself might rely on the collective to fulfill this imperative and sustain the world’s population.
Procreation—like marriage—can realize a combination of communal and personal blessings.
Personal Blessings
On a more personal plane, procreation can express the unity of the conjugal relationship:
רש”י בראשית ב:כד
לבשר אחד – הולד נוצר על ידי שניהם, ושם נעשה בשרם אחד:
Rashi Bereishit 2:24
One flesh – The offspring is formed through the two of them, and there their flesh becomes one.
Additionally, through procreation, we partner with God in an act of creation. The Talmud even specifies which partner is responsible for which elements of the child:
נדה לא.
תנו רבנן: שלשה שותפין יש באדם, הקדוש ברוך הוא ואביו ואמו. אביו מזריע הלובן, שממנו עצמות וגידים וצפרנים, ומוח שבראשו, ולובן שבעין. אמו מזרעת אודם, שממנו עור ובשר ושערות, ושחור שבעין. והקב”ה [=והקדוש ברוך הוא] נותן בו רוח ונשמה וקלסתר פנים, וראיית העין, ושמיעת האוזן, ודבור פה, והלוך רגלים, ובינה והשכל.
Nidda 31a
Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: There are three partners in a person, God and his father and his mother. His father gives seed to the white, from which come bones and ligaments and nails, and the brain in his head, and the white of the eye. His mother gives seed to the red, from which come skin and flesh and hair, and the black of the eye. And God gives him spirit and soul and a countenance, and eyesight, and the ears’ hearing, and the mouth’s speech, and the legs’ walking, and discernment and intelligence.
Though modern-day medical science differs from that of Talmudic times, the deeper point of this passage is well taken. Each of the three partners makes an invaluable contribution to the creation of each individual. God’s contribution bears extra weight, as both a partner in the creation of the father and mother and as the source of the person’s soul and spirit.
Children can also bring meaning and joy to life. As parents age, their grown children are often a primary source of care and support. In the Talmud, a woman’s desire to conceive is recognized as a basis for divorce from a man who cannot father children because she anticipates needing progeny to care for her in her old age.
יבמות סה:
ההיא דאתאי קמיה דרב נחמן…אמרה ליה: לא בעיא הך אתתא חוטרא לידה ומרה לקבורה? אמר: כי הא ודאי כפינן.
Yevamot 65b
That [woman] who came before Rav Nachman [for a divorce]…She said to him: Does this woman [i.e., herself] not need a staff for her hand [to lean on in old age] and a shovel for burial? He said, in this case certainly we force him [to divorce].
Ideally, parents nurture and educate their children, and children return blessings to their parents. Mutual, intergenerational support within the family becomes an expression of the Divine image by elevating our life’s purpose beyond our individual needs.
Collective Blessings
Collectively, procreation enables humanity to settle the world, as the prophet tells us that God envisioned from the very start of Creation:
ישעיהו מה:יח
כִּי כֹה אָמַר ה’ בּוֹרֵא הַשָּׁמַיִם הוּא הָאֱלֹקִים יֹצֵר הָאָרֶץ וְעֹשָׂהּ הוּא כוֹנְנָהּ לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ אֲנִי ה’ וְאֵין עוֹד:
Yeshayahu 45:18
For thus said God, Creator of the heavens, He is God, Fashioner of the earth and its Maker, He laid its foundations. Not for void did He create it, for settlement did He form it, I am God and there is no other.
On a national level, procreation serves to perpetuate the Jewish people, in fulfillment of the covenant with our forefathers, as God makes clear to Yaakov:
בראשית לה:יא
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֱלֹקים אֲנִי אֵ-ל שַׁ-דַּי פְּרֵה וּרְבֵה גּוֹי וּקְהַל גּוֹיִם יִהְיֶה מִמֶּךָּ וּמְלָכִים מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ יֵצֵאוּ:
Bereishit 35:11
And God said to him ‘I am E-l Sha-ddai, be fruitful and multiply. A nation and an assembly of nations will be from you and kings will come out of your loins.
From the exodus narrative, procreation also emerges as a collective expression of our determination not to despair, but rather to move forward. In the midrash, Amram must confront what it would mean to have children in the face of a decree that all boy babies would be drowned. Because contraception was not available, the choice of whether or not to continue having children was expressed by a choice to divorce—or to remarry. Amram’s daughter (Miryam), reminds him not to lose hope in the world to come or in the possibility that Pharaoh’s decrees will be abolished in this world.
סוטה יב.
תנא: עמרם גדול הדור היה, כיון שגזר פרעה הרשע כל הבן הילוד היאורה תשליכוהו, אמר: לשוא אנו עמלין. עמד וגירש את אשתו. עמדו כולן וגירשו את נשותיהן. אמרה לו בתו: אבא, קשה גזירתך יותר משל פרעה, שפרעה לא גזר אלא על הזכרים, ואתה גזרת על הזכרים ועל הנקיבות. פרעה לא גזר אלא בעוה”ז [=בעולם הזה], ואתה בעוה”ז [=בעולם הזה] ולעוה”ב [=ולעולם הבא]. פרעה הרשע, ספק מתקיימת גזירתו ספק אינה מתקיימת, אתה צדיק בודאי שגזירתך מתקיימת.
Sota 12a
[A tanna] taught: Amram was the greatest of his generation, once the evil Pharaoh decreed that “every boy who is born, you shall cast into the Nile,” [Amram] said: We labor in vain. He stood up and divorced his wife. Everyone stood up and divorced their wives. His daughter said to him: Father, your decree is harsher than Pharaoh’s. For Pharaoh decreed only regarding the males, and you have decreed regarding the males and the females. Pharaoh decreed only in this world, and you [have decreed] in this world and in the world to come [where these children will never have been born]. The evil Pharaoh, it is doubtful if his decree will stand, but you are righteous and your decree will certainly stand.
The choice to bring new life into a world that seems bleak and threatening is a tremendous act of faith. In advocating for this choice, Miryam reminds us that choosing to have a child at any time is also an act of faith—faith in ourselves, in humanity, and in the future.
Faith in the future is a prerequisite to faith in redemption. Another midrash makes this point more broadly:
תנא דבי אליהו זוטא יד
שאין ישראל ניגאלין אלא אם כן פרין ורבין והוין מליאי של עולם, שנאמר כי ימין ושמאל תפרוצי וגו’ (ישעיה נ”ד ג’).
Tanna De-Vei Eliyahu Zuta 14
For Israel are not redeemed unless they are fruitful and multiply and fill up the world, as it is said “right and left shall you burst forth…” (Yeshayahu 54:3)
From the earliest humans whose settlements spread over the earth, to Yaakov Avinu whose twelve sons became a nation that continued to multiply despite cruel persecution, and forward to the ultimate redemption—the mandate to procreate is the engine that drives human and Jewish history. Collectively, our children are our future.
Metaphysical
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik adds a metaphysical interpretation to the beracha of peru u-rvu:
הגרי”ד סולובייצ’יק, הברכות ביהדות, ימי זיכרון (תירגום מיידיש, משה קרונה) ספרית אלינר תשמ”ו, עמ’ 32–33
הקב”ה [=הקדוש ברוך הוא] בירך לא רק את האדם הגשמי אלא אף את האישיות הרוחנית בברכת “פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ” (בראשית א:כח). כלומר: עלו והתפתחו במעלות הרוח, עלו לפסגות הגבוהות של המחשבה והרוח!…ברכת פרו ורבו פירושה: התגלות האדם לא במובן הביאולוגי בלבד אלא אף התגלותו והתפתחותו באישיותו המיוחדת במלואה ובתוספת כוחות והתאחדותם.
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, “Blessings in Judaism,” in Yemei Zikaron, trans. from Yiddish to Hebrew, Moshe Krone (Eliner Library, 1986) 32–33
God blessed not only physical man but also the spiritual personality with the beracha of “be fruitful and multiply and fill the land” (Bereishit 1:28). Which is to say: Rise up and develop spiritually, rise up to the greatest heights of thought and spirit!… The meaning of the blessing of peru u-rvu is: man’s revelation not only in a biological sense, but also his revelation and development as a unique personality in its fullness, and with the addition of and union with [others’] strengths.
Like the material blessing, this metaphysical expression of procreation is fulfilled in relationship with others:
הגרי”ד סולובייצ’יק, הברכות ביהדות, ימי זיכרון (תירגום מיידיש, משה קרונה) ספרית אלינר תשמ”ו, עמ’ 32
האדם השרוי לבדו, בלי חברותא, יישאר עקר. “ויברך אותם אלקים ויאמר פרו ורבו” (שם א, כב)—כלומר כשהם “אותם” ושרויים יחד
Rav Soloveitchik, “Blessings in Judaism,” in Yemei Zikaron, 32
A person who dwells alone, without a fellow, will remain barren. “And God blessed them and said be fruitful and multiply” (Bereishit 1:22)—which is to say, when they are a “them” and dwell together
For Rav Soloveitchik, the blessing of peru u-rvu applies to any act of bringing the self into fruition through meaningful partnership with others. In addition to broadening the application of peru u-rvu, Rav Soloveitchik’s perspective deepens our appreciation of the meaning of procreation. Having children transcends mere biological reproduction. Together, parents create the conditions for their children to develop into unique personalities, new links in the ongoing collaborative endeavor of creation.
In this piece, we explore the halachic discussion of the blessing to be fruitful and multiply. We begin by outlining the halachic parameters of the mitzva of peru u-rvu (also called pirya ve-rivya) and exploring women’s exemption from it. We then move on to the related halachic mandates of shevet (settling the world) and la-erev (ongoing engagement in procreation) and their implications for women.
An Imperative
Procreation is not only a blessing, but also an imperative. This is complicated, because people are not in total control of their ability to procreate.
תענית ב.-ב:
אמר רבי יוחנן: שלשה מפתחות בידו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שלא נמסרו ביד שליח, ואלו הן: מפתח של גשמים, מפתח של חיה [ע”פ שמות א:יט], ומפתח של תחיית המתים… מפתח של חיה מנין – דכתיב ויזכר אלקים את רחל וישמע אליה אלקים ויפתח את רחמה
Ta’anit 2a-b
Rabbi Yochanan said: There are three keys in the hands of God that were not given over to an agent, and they are: the key of rains, the key of chaya [childbirth, c.f. Shemot 1:19], and the key of the resurrection of the dead….Whence the key of childbirth? As it is written, “And God remembered Rachel and God heard her and opened her womb” (Bereishit 30:22).
The keys to procreation remain elusive, even with the great strides of modern reproductive medicine. Almost two out of every thirteen recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage.6 Approximately one in six people is affected by infertility.7
The lack of ultimate human control over procreation emerges as a key point in halachic debate regarding the nature of the imperative. On the one hand, some authorities maintain that the mitzva revolves entirely around the result, even though some people simply will not be able to fulfill it.
מנחת חינוך בראשית א:ב
מ”מ המ”ע [=מכל מקום המצוות עשה] היינו הבנים והבעילה הוא רק הכשר מצוה דא”א בל”ז [=דאי אפשר בלא זה] והראי[ה] דאם לא הוליד…לא קיים המצוה
Minchat Chinuch Bereishit 1:2
In any case, the positive mitzva is children, and sexual relations are just a preliminary to the mitzva, for it is impossible without this, and the proof is that if he did not have children…he has not fulfilled the mitzva.
On the other, Tosafot suggest that the mitzva act may be relations with intent to conceive:
תוספות בבא בתרא יג. ד”ה כופין
ועשה דפרו ורבו לא מקיים עד גמר ביאה
Tosafot Bava Batra 13a, s.v. “kofin”
…He does not fulfill the positive mitzva of peru u-rvu until having complete sexual relations.
Some later authorities defend this position because the mitzva would otherwise be out of human control:
שו”ת זקן אהרן א:סב
אבל לענ”ד אי”א [=לפי עניות דעתי אי אפשר] לומר כן דגוף המצוה של פ”ו [=פריה ורביה] היא לידת הבנים ולא הביאה, דאיך אפשר שתחייב התורה לאדם דבר כזה שאין בידו לקיימה, דמפתח של יולדת לא נמסר לכל ולאו ברשותו של אדם הוא להוליד…א”ו [=אלא וודאי] שהתורה לא חייבה לאדם כ”א [=כי אם] שיעשה ההשתדלות להוליד בנים, היינו שישא אשה ויבעלנה, והשתדלות הזאת גוף המצוה הוא, ואם עלתה בידו…נפטר שוב מלהשתדל עוד בזה…
Responsa Zekan Aharon EH 1:62
But in my humble opinion it is impossible to say thus, that the mitzva of procreation is the birth of the children and not the sexual relations, for how is it possible that the Torah would obligate a person in a matter like this that it is not in his power to fulfill, for the key of the child-bearer [childbirth] is not given over to all and it is not in a man’s control to have children?… Rather, certainly the Torah only obligated a man to make an effort to have children, that is to marry a woman and have relations with her, and this effort is the core of the mitzva, and if it works out for him [and he has a boy and girl]…he is exempt from making further efforts…
According to this view, the mitzva creates an imperative for a man to marry and to have sexual relations with his wife that could lead to conception. Performance of the mitzva does not depend on the birth of a child as a result of those relations—and thus is not contingent on God’s wielding of the second key.8
Some proponents of the view that having sexual relations is the essential act of performing the mitzva nevertheless distinguish between the mitzva’s performance (also called the mitzva act) and its fulfillment. Fulfilling the mitzva ultimately does depend on the resulting offspring.
רב אלחנן וסרמן, קובץ הערות סט:כז
ונראה לומר דאף דקיום המצוה הוא רק בלידת הבנים, מ”מ [=מכל מקום] מעשה המצוה מה שמוטל על האדם לעשות, היא הביאה…דהלידה באה אח”כ [=אחר כך] מאליה בידי שמים…
Rav Elchanan Wasserman, Kovetz He’arot 69:27
It seems correct to say that, although fulfilling the mitzva is only through the birth of children, nevertheless the mitzva act, which is incumbent upon a man to perform, is sexual relations…for the birth happens afterwards on its own, in the hands of Heaven…
Rav Ezra Bick, Rav at Yeshivat Har Etzion and Halacha Editor-in-Chief of Deracheha, heard this view from Rav Soloveitchik as well.
Assisted Reproduction
Children born through assisted reproduction with the father’s sperm are widely considered to be a fulfillment of the mitzva of procreation. This is readily understood if the fundamental mitzva is the birth of children. Even, however, if performance of the mitzva is understood as the sexual act done in an effort to conceive, intentionally providing sperm for insemination could likewise be considered performing the mitzva. Rav Moshe Feinstein makes this argument, which could readily be extended to IVF.
שו”ת אגרות משה אה”ע ב: יח
וזרע זה שיוציא יכניסו בשפופרת לבטן האשה בימים שראויה להריון אף שלא טבלה. ויצא בזה מצות פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] כשתוליד האשה עי”ז [=על ידי זה]… דהוציא בכוונה על דעת להכניס בשפופרת לבטן אשתו דהוי זה במעשה.
Responsa Iggerot Moshe EH 2:18
This seed that he ejaculates, they insert into the woman’s womb through a tube at a time when she is fit to conceive even if she hasn’t immersed. And through this he has discharged the mitzva of procreation, when the woman has a child through this…For he ejaculated for the purpose of inserting [the semen] through a tube into his wife’s womb and this is an action.
Raising Children and Other Legacies
Though perhaps not technically a fulfillment of the mitzva, raising an adopted child or step-child is also valued similarly to having biological offspring:
מגילה יג.
שכל המגדל יתום ויתומה בתוך ביתו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו.
Megilla 13a
For whoever raises a male or female orphan in his home is considered as though they gave birth to them.
This passage also highlights the connection between bearing children and raising them, which raises the possibility that raising children, too, could be an element of the mitzva of precreation.
Yeshayahu, recognizing those who do not merit to have or raise children, suggests that other forms of serving God may establish an even greater legacy:
ישעיהו נו: ד-ה
כִּי כֹה אָמַר ה’ לַסָּרִיסִים אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְרוּ אֶת שַׁבְּתוֹתַי וּבָחֲרוּ בַּאֲשֶׁר חָפָצְתִּי וּמַחֲזִיקִים בִּבְרִיתִי: וְנָתַתִּי לָהֶם בְּבֵיתִי וּבְחוֹמֹתַי יָד וָשֵׁם טוֹב מִבָּנִים וּמִבָּנוֹת שֵׁם עוֹלָם אֶתֶּן לוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִכָּרֵת:
Yeshayahu 56:4-5
For thus said the Lord to the eunuchs who guard my Shabbatot and have chosen what I desire, and hold on to my covenant. I will give them in My House [Beit Ha-mikdash] and within My walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters, an eternal name that will not be cut off.
Though the eunuchs in this verse had no ability to sire children, Ben Azzai’s choice to prioritize Torah study over procreation may have drawn inspiration from its envisioning of alternative paths to serving God. Perhaps along these lines, Rema notes that we do not force a man who has not fulfilled peru u-rvu to marry a woman who is fertile, against his preferences:
שולחן ערוך אה”ע א:ג
מצוה על כל אדם שישא אשה…ומי שעברו עליו כ’ שנה ואינו רוצה לישא, ב”ד [=בית דין] כופין אותו לישא כדי לקיים מצות פריה ורביה. …הגה: ובזמן הזה נהגו שלא לכוף על זה. וכן מי שלא קיים פריה ורביה ובא לישא אשה שאינה בת בנים…משום שחושק בה או משום ממון שלה, אעפ”י [=אף על פי] שמדינא היה למחות בו, לא נהגו מכמה דורות לדקדק בענין הזיווגים. ואפילו נשא אשה ושהה עמה עשרה שנים לא נהגו לכוף אותו לגרשה, אף על פי שלא קיים פריה ורביה, וכן בשאר ענייני זיווגים….
Shulchan Aruch EH 1:3
It is a mitzva upon every man to marry a woman…And one who has passed twenty years [of age] and doesn’t wish to marry, the beit din compels him to marry to fulfill the mitzva of pirya ve-rivya. …. Rema: And nowadays the practice is not to compel this. And so, someone who has not fulfilled pirya ve-rivya and intends to marry a woman who is not fertile…because he desires her or because of her finances, even though the fundamental halacha would be to protest this, it has not been the practice for several generations to be particular in the matter of matches. And even if he married a woman and remained with her for ten years [without children], it is not the practice to compel him to divorce her, even though he did not fulfill pirya ve-rivya, and so with other matters of matches…
This Rema establishes that religious authorities do not intervene to force people to marry or divorce in a way that will facilitate procreation. It is not customary to block someone who prioritizes other considerations over the potential to procreate from marrying the partner of their choice.
Even with the reproductive imperative in place, our tradition recognizes that some people will not have biological children, sometimes by choice.
Male and Female Offspring
The Mishna records a debate regarding how many male or female children satisfy the imperative to procreate.
משנה יבמות ו:ו
לא יבטל אדם מפריה ורביה אלא אם כן יש לו בנים בית שמאי אומרים שני זכרים ובית הלל אומרים זכר ונקבה שנאמר (בראשית ה’) זכר ונקבה בראם
Mishna Yevamot 6:6
A person should not desist from procreation unless he has children. Beit Shammai say two males and Beit Hillel say a male and a female, for it is said, “Male and female He created them” (Bereishit 5:2).
Beit Shammai pattern their position on Moshe Rabbeinu’s two sons.10 In contrast, Beit Hillel views procreation as creating the nucleus of human continuity, a male and a female, in emulation of Creation.
Halacha follows beit Hillel’s view.11 While additional children may be a continued fulfillment of peru u-rvu, the imperative is fulfilled with one male and one female.
Sex selection is another element of procreation that lies outside of full human control. The Talmud does offer some suggestions for conceiving a boy, for example, if the woman “releases seed” or perhaps climaxes first during relations.
נדה לא.
אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי: אשה מזרעת תחילה – יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחילה – יולדת נקבה, שנאמר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר.
Nidda 31a
Rabbi Yitzchak said Rabbi Ami said: If the woman releases seed first, she gives birth to a male, if the man releases seed first, she gives birth to a female, for it is said, “A woman when she releases seed and gives birth to a male.”
In practice, there seems to be no reliable way (without high levels of medical intervention, through pre-implantation genetic testing) for a couple to choose the sex of the baby they conceive.12 Some couples are blessed with large families of only girls or only boys. Still, it is conceptually significant that our sages suggested potential mechanisms of sex selection. This reflects their recognition both of the impetus to wish for one type of child over another and of the difficulty in achieving the desired result.
Women and Peru U-rvu
What of women’s obligation in peru u-rvu? Given that it is women who become pregnant and give birth, it might seem clear that women are obligated. A mishna, however, presents women’s obligation as a matter of debate, and the gemara suggests several reasons for women’s exemption:
יבמות סה:
מתני’ . האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה, אבל לא האשה; רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר, על שניהם הוא אומר: ויברך אותם אלקים ויאמר להם [אלקים] פרו ורבו.[בראשית א:כח] גמ’. מנא הני מילי? אמר ר’ אילעא משום ר’ אלעזר בר’ שמעון, אמר קרא: ומלאו את הארץ וכבשוה, איש דרכו לכבש, ואין אשה דרכה לכבש. אדרבה, וכבשוה תרתי משמע. אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: וכבשה כתיב. רב יוסף אמר, מהכא: אני אל שדי פרה ורבה [בראשית לה:יא], ולא קאמר פרו ורבו.
Yevamot 65b
Mishna: A man is commanded in pirya ve-rivya, but not a woman. Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: Regarding both of them it says: And God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply (Bereishit 1:28). Gemara: Whence do these words come from? Rabbi Il’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, the verse said: And fill the land and conquer it, it is a man’s way to conquer, and it is not a woman’s way to conquer. On the contrary – ’and conquer it’ ‘ve-chivshuha’ it sounds like [an address to] both [it’s in the plural]. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, the spelling is ve-chibeshah [deficient spelling, resembling the singular]. Rav Yosef said: From here: I am E-l Sha-ddai, pere u-rve [be fruitful and multiply in the singular] (Bereishit 35:11), and it does not say peru u-rvu [in the plural]
The initial discussion centers on Bereishit 1:28, which is a likely source for the mitzva.
בראשית א:כח
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:
Bereishit 1:28
And God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land and conquer it [ve-chivshuha] and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the skies and every animal that crawls upon the land.
Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka understands the straightforward reading of this verse, addressed in the plural to Adam and Chava, as indicating that both men and women are obligated. Yet the gemara gives great weight to the view that women are exempt, presenting two potential explanations for it. First, the verse closely links procreation to conquest. Conquest is not considered a typical female activity, as hinted by the spelling of “ve-chivshuha” in the verse as though it were in the singular (“ve-chibeshah”). As such, women would be included in the beracha of procreation, but not in the imperative.
A second alternative is to derive the imperative to procreate from God’s words to Yaakov, which address him in the masculine singular and thus seem not to include his wives.13
Halacha follows the view that women are exempt:
שולחן ערוך אה”ע א:יג
אשה אינה מצווה על פריה ורביה…
Shulchan Aruch EH 1:13
A woman is not commanded in procreation.
This halachic conclusion, while clearly stated and authoritative, is nevertheless challenging to fully understand. Why don’t the sages follow Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka’s approach? Why should women—the ones who carry pregnancies, give birth, and breastfeed—be exempt from a mitzva in which women are so intensely and essentially involved?
Chabad scholars Sarah Morozow and Rivkah Slonim put this well:
Sara Morozow and Rivkah Slonim, Holy Intimacy: The Heart and Soul of Jewish Marriage (Shikey Press, 2022), 178
For a woman, much more so than for even the most involved father, having children is about being all in. There is no aspect of life that remains untouched by this decision. Which makes it exceedingly counterintuitive that the mitzvah of pru u’rvu is not incumbent upon a woman.
In the spirit of seeking reasons for commandments, let’s explore possible explanations for women’s exemption: conquest, danger, superfluity, and protecting marriage.
Conquest
A first possibility for understanding women’s exemption is to look more closely at the roots of the Talmud’s first suggested rationale. What is being conquered? How is that conquest associated with procreation, and how would it differ for men and women?
I. The Earth In one of Tanchuma’s recensions of this debate, it is the earth, the land, that is conquered. This fits well with a simple reading of the verse: “fill the land and conquer it.”
מדרש תנחומא (ורשא) נח יב
וכבשה כתיב האיש כובש את הארץ ואין האשה כובשת והאיש מצווה על פריה ורביה יותר מן האשה
Tanchuma No’ach 12
‘And conquer it [ve-chivshuha]’ is written, a man conquers the earth and a woman does not conquer, so a man is commanded in procreation more than a woman.
Within the context of the verse, it seems that humanity is enjoined to “conquer” the earth by establishing dominion over the natural world. Conquest could be understood as connoting more of a man’s role than a woman’s. This might especially be the case in a hunter-gatherer (or early agricultural) context of subjugating large and fierce animals.
Establishing and maintaining dominion over territory requires a certain population level, so we can begin to understand why conquest and procreation would be linked, and why there might a distinction between men and women that extends from conquest back to procreation. The Tanchuma’s language softens the distinction, however, by indicating that a woman nevertheless has some type of obligation in peru u-rvu.
II. A Woman According to another suggestion in Midrash Tanchuma, it is the woman whom the man conquers:
מדרש תנחומא (בובר) וישלח יב
[וכבשה כתיב] האיש כובש את האשה ואין האשה כובשת את האישTanchuma Va-yishlach 12
[‘And conquer it ve-chivshuha’ is written]. A man conquers a woman, and a woman does not conquer a man.
This passage is more difficult, suggesting that men and women relate to each other through a sort of predetermined power struggle for domination. Rav Yehuda Shilat suggests that this second explanation refers to dynamics between the couple, including sexual relations:
הרב יצחק שילת, אישות הלכה וכונת התורה (הוצאת שילת, תשע”ח), עמ’ 21
ועל פי זה יש להבין עוד שב”דרכו של איש לכבוש” הכוונה גם למעשה הביאה, שהאיש הוא הפעיל, ולכן דוקא עליו המצוה…
Rav Yitzchak Shilat, Ishut, Halacha Ve-kavanat ha-Torah (Hotza’at Shilat, 2018), 21
According to this, one should further understand that the intention of “it is a man’s nature to conquer” is also regarding the act of intercourse, for the man is the active one, and therefore the mitzva is specifically on him…
This suggestion is reminiscent of Rashi’s interpretation of “he will rule over you” as referring to the sexual realm, likewise in the context of discussing procreation. If we think of sexual intercourse as a male-driven act, then perhaps it could follow that a man would be commanded in this act in a way that a woman, construed as more sexually passive, would not be. This viewpoint would be strengthened were we to view the mitzva of procreation as the sexual act, in which the man plays a direct role, as opposed to viewing the mitzva as having children, in which the woman’s role is dominant.
Danger
In the early twentieth century, Meshech Chochma has suggested three additional potential reasons for women’s exemption. First, that a woman’s life is endangered by childbirth, and thus she cannot be commanded to pursue it:
משך חכמה בראשית ט:ז
פרו ורבו וכו’. לא רחוק הוא לאמר הא שפטרה התורה נשים מפריה ורביה וחייבה רק אנשים, כי משפטי ה’ ודרכיו “דרכי נועם, וכל נתיבותיה שלום”, ולא עמסה על הישראלי מה שאין ביכולת הגוף לקבל….ואם כן, נשים שמסתכנות בעיבור ולידה, – ומשום זה אמרו מיתה שכיחא, עיין תוספות כתובות פג, ב ד”ה [=דיבור המתחיל] מיתה שכיחה – לא גזרה התורה לצוות לפרות לרבות על האשה…רק לקיום המין עשה בטבעה שתשוקתה להוליד עזה משל איש. ומצאנו לרחל שאמרה “הבה לי בנים, ואם אין מתה אנכי” [בראשית ל:ב]…..דבאדם וחוה שברך אותם קודם החטא שלא היה לה צער לידה, היה מצות שניהם בפריה וברביה, ואמר להם “פרו ורבו” (שם א, כח). אבל לאחר החטא שהיה לה צער לידה, והיא רוב פעמים מסתכנת מזה…בנח, אף דכתיב “ויאמר להם פרו ורבו”, הלא כתיב קודם (שם) “ויברך את נח ואת בניו”, אבל נשיהם לא הזכיר, שאינם בכלל מצוה דפרו ורבו. וביעקב קאמר “פרה ורבה” [בראשית לה:יא], וזה נכון.
Meshech Chochma Bereishit 9:7
Peru u-rvu. It is not far off to say that the Torah exempted women from procreation, and obligated only men, because the laws of God and His ways are “the ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace.” And [the Torah] did not overload the Israelite with what the body couldn’t take…And if so, women who are endangered in pregnancy and childbirth, which is why they said death [in childbearing] is common, see Tosafot Ketubot 83b s.v. “death is common,” the Torah did not decree to command a woman to be fruitful and multiply…Only for the sake of perpetuating the species, did He instill in her nature that her desire to give birth is more powerful than a man’s. And we found that Rachel said “Give me children, and if not I am dead” [Bereishit30:2]…For with Adam and Chava, when He blessed them before the sin when she did not have pain with childbirth, procreation was a mitzva for both of them and He said to them “peru u-rvu” [in the plural]. But after the sin, when she had pain with childbirth, and she usually became endangered through this…With No’ach, even though it is written “and He said to them, peru u-rvu” [in the plural], it is written previously “[and God] blessed No’ach and his sons, but it didn’t mention their wives, who are not included in the mitzva of peru u-revu. And to Yaakov He said “pere u-rve” [in the singular, Bereishit 35:11], and this is correct.
Meshech Chochma adds that this might explain why the mentions of procreation to No’ach and to Yaakov do not necessarily include women—unlike the first mention in Bereishit, these verses take place after it has been decreed that childbirth will be painful and dangerous.
This argument suggests that women’s exemption from this mitzva is intended to protect women from forced reproduction. This protection is important even though women often strongly desire to have children, despite the risk and difficulty that entails.
Superfluity
Furthermore, as we explored earlier, Chava is told of her desire for sexual relations alongside the decree of difficult childbirth. That is to say, women have natural sexual desires. Before the advent of reliable contraceptives, any act of sexual intercourse might make a woman pregnant. As such, the relevant question for a woman would have been whether to marry or not, rather than whether to have children or not. For most of Jewish history, a lack of a command to have children would not make a practical difference to someone who would marry in any case.
Meshech Chochma thus suggests that there is no command for women to procreate because women will have sexual desires that are liable to result in conception regardless:14
משך חכמה בראשית ט:ז
עוד יתכן לאמר בטעם שפטרה התורה נשים מפריה ורביה, משום דבאמת הלא הטביעה בטבע התשוקה, ובנקבה עוד יותר…ודי במה שהיא מוכרחת בטבע.
Meshech Chochma Bereishit 9:7
It is further possible to say that the reason the Torah exempted women from procreation is because, in truth, didn’t it implant desire within nature, and for women more so…and it is enough that she [a woman] is naturally compelled…
Protecting Marriage
Finally, Meshech Chochma suggests that since polygyny was permitted by the Torah while polyandry was prohibited, a man unable to conceive with his wife would have married an additional wife, while a woman unable to fulfill the commandment with her husband would have been impelled to divorce:
משך חכמה בראשית ט:ז
…דאם נשא אשה ולא ילדה, מחויב ליקח אשה שיש לה בנים….. לגזור על האשה כי תנשא לאיש ולא יוליד תצא מאהוב נפשה ותקח איש אחר, זה נגד הטבע לאהוב השנוא ולשנוא האהוב. ורק האיש, שיכול לישא עוד אחרת, עליו הטילה התורה מצוה.
Meshech Chochma Bereishit 9:7
…For if he married a woman and she did not give birth, he [the husband] is obligated to marry a[nother] woman who is fertile.…To decree on a woman that if she marries a man and he does not father children she should leave her soul’s beloved and take another man, this is against nature to love the hated and hate the beloved. And only upon a man, who can marry another woman [in addition to his wife], did the Torah cast the mitzva [of peru u-rvu].
As we saw above, a woman has grounds to ask a bet din to compel her husband to divorce her if this is the only way that she can have children to sustain her in her senescence. Meshech Chochma suggests that the Torah is unwilling to force a woman into that choice.
This final rationale differs from the others that we have seen in that it does not rely solely on perceptions of a woman’s inherent nature or desires. Instead, it partially roots this halachic distinction in a central distinction between men and women in marital law.
In Practice
A woman’s exemption from procreation is not the sum total of her relationship to the mitzva. A woman might be said to fulfill a rabbinic mitzva of procreation, or to fulfill the Torah-level mitzva voluntarily, when she has children:
שיטה לא נודע למי, קידושין מא.
מצוה בה יותר מבשלוחה. ואף על גב דאתתא לא מפקדא בפריה ורביה מדרבנן מיהא מיחייבא, אי נמי דאית לה שכר כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה.
Unnamed Early Halachic Authority, Kiddushin 41a
[Betrothal] is a mitzva through herself more than through her agent. And even though a woman is not commanded in procreation, nevertheless, she is rabbinically obligated. Alternatively, because she has a reward as one who is not commanded and does [a mitzva].
The last suggestion, that a woman fulfills the mitzva voluntarily, is a common halachic perspective on a woman’s fulfilling mitzvot from which women are exempt. This type of mitzva fulfillment is viewed favorably, and merits reward. (Learn more here.)
In our discussion here of whether a woman has a mitzva to marry, we saw that many halachic authorities view having children as the main halachic impetus for marriage for both women and men. A woman’s assisting—to put it mildly—her husband in fulfilling the mitzva of peru u-rvu may itself be considered a sort of mitzva:
ר”ן על הרי”ף קידושין טז:
דאע”ג [=דאף על גב] דאשה אינה מצוה בפריה ורביה מ”מ [=מכל מקום] יש לה מצוה מפני שהיא מסייעת לבעל לקיים מצותו
Ran Kiddushin 16b, Rif Pagination
For even though a woman is not commanded in procreation, in any case she has a mitzva because she helps the husband to fulfill his mitzva.
Not only that, but since today a man is not permitted to marry multiple women at once, it is assumed that a halachically observant man who has not yet had children typically marries with the intention of procreating with his wife. As such, a woman has some level of responsibility for her husband’s fulfillment of the mitzva.
Chatam Sofer notes that a woman bears responsibility to her husband to help him fulfil his obligation, even in cases in which a man has already fulfilled the Torah’s mitzva of procreation, and is merely interested in continuing to have children (known in halachic texts as la-erev), which Chatam Sofer considers a mitzva:
שו”ת חתם סופר אה”ע א כ:נ
…ובימיהם שהי[ה] יכול הבעל לישא אשה על אשתו או לגרשה בע”כ [=בעל כורחה] וא”כ [=ואם כן] אם הוא מתואבי בנים …יכול לישא אחרת או לגרש את זו…וכיון דאינו יכול לגרשה בע”כ [=בעל כורחה] ולא לישא אחרת עליה ומתבטל ממ”ע [=ממצוות עשה] של לערב אל תנח ידך צריכא רשות מבעלה או תתרצה לקבל גט ממנו…
Responsa Chatam Sofer EH I 20:50
….In their days, when a husband could marry a woman in addition to his wife or could divorce her against her will, and if, if he were desirous of children…he could marry another or divorce this woman [the first wife]…and since he cannot [nowadays] divorce her against her will or marry another woman in addition to her, and he would forgo the positive mitzva of la-erev al tanach yadecha, [a woman] requires permission from her husband [to drink a sterilizing drink] or, she can agree to receive a bill of divorce from him.
Chatam Sofer would clearly consider the wife of a man who hadn’t yet fulfilled the Torah mitzva of procreation to be even more committed halachically to her husband in this way.
Regardless of why women are exempt from obligation in peru u-rvu, there is nevertheless a halachically meritorious opportunity to fulfil the mitzva, which, for a married woman, becomes its own halachic responsibility.
Life and Fertility
In addition to other elements of procreation out of human control, we also lack control over whether and how long our children live. We’ve seen that the mitzva of peru u-rvu entails having one boy and one girl. Has a person successfully fulfilled the mitzva at the moment the second of these children is born, or do the children need to live on to have their own children?
A Talmudic debate about grandchildren suggests the latter:
יבמות סב:
בני בנים הרי הם כבנים. סבר אביי למימר: ברא לברא וברתא לברתא, וכ”ש [=וכל שכן] ברא לברתא, אבל ברתא לברא לא; א”ל [=אמר ליה] רבא: לשבת יצרה בעיא, והא איכא.
Yevamot 62b
Grandchildren are considered like children. Abbaye thought to say: A son’s son and a daughter’s daughter, and how much more so a daughter’s son, but not a son’s daughter. Rava said to him: We require “for settlement did He form it” and behold there is [settlement with a son’s daughter].
The Talmud is discussing a case where one’s child had a child of their own—and then died. The grandparent can be considered to have fulfilled peru u-rvu through the grandchildren. We can infer that, if his child had died childless, he would not have fulfilled the mitzva of peru u-rvu. In other words, one’s fulfilment of the mitzva depends not just on whether children are born, but on whether they live and reproduce.
Halacha follows the view that one has not fulfilled peru u-rvu unless one’s children are fertile themselves and have children.
שולחן ערוך אה”ע א:ה-ו
כיון שיש לאדם זכר ונקבה, קיים מצות פריה ורביה, והוא שלא יהיה הבן סריס או הנקבה איילונית. …נולדו לו זכר ונקבה, ומתו והניחו בנים, הרי זה קיים מצות פריה ורביה. בד”א [=במה דברים אמורים], כשהיו בני הבנים זכר ונקבה, והיו באים מזכר ונקבה, אף על פי שהזכר בן בתו והנקבה בת בנו…
Shulchan Aruch EH 1:5-6
Once a man has a male and a female [child], he has fulfilled the mitzva of pirya ve-rivya, and that is when the son and daughter are not presumed infertile [based on not experiencing typical puberty]…If a male and female were born to him and they died and left children, this man has fulfilled pirya ve-rivya. In what case were these matters said? When the grandchildren were a male and a female and they came from a male and a female, even if the male is his daughter’s son and the female is his son’s daughter…
Shevet
The Talmudic passage above about peru u-rvu and grandchildren presents Yeshayahu’s statement that “for settlement [shevet] did He form it [the world]” (45:18), as a halachic rationale for procreation. In other words, a central value underlying the mitzva of peru u-rvu is the need for living children who create more living children to populate the world. This principle is known as shevet.
The significance of shevet to our sages is readily apparent, but its exact meaning is more difficult to define. Is shevet simply a Divine goal underlying the mitzva of peru u-rvu? Is it an independent mitzva, in which case we should identify its difference from peru u-rvu?
A mishna points in the mitzva direction. It suggests that shevet is so significant that a man who is half freeman and half bondsman, and thus unable to marry either a bondswoman or a freewoman (and also perhaps exempt from peru u-rvu), must be fully released from bondage for its sake:
משנה גיטין ד:ה
מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין עובד את רבו יום אחד ואת עצמו יום אחד, דברי בית הלל. אמרו לו בית שמאי: תקנתם את רבו ואת עצמו לא תקנתם. לישא שפחה אי אפשר, שכבר חציו בן חורין. בת חורין אי אפשר, שכבר חציו עבד. יבטל–והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה? שנאמר (יש’ מ”ה) “לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה” אלא מפני תקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין … וחזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי בית שמאי:
Mishna Gittin 4:5
One who is half bondsman and half freeman serves his master one day and himself one day, the words of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai said to him: You have rectified [matters] for his master, but for himself you have not rectified [matters]. To marry a bondswoman is impossible, for he is already half freeman. A freewoman is impossible, for he is already half bondsman. Shall he desist [from procreating]? And was the world not created only for procreation, for it is said: “Not for void did He create it, for settlement did He form it.” Rather, on account of tikkun olam [rectifying the world] we force his master to make him a freeman…And Beit Hillel turned to rule in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai.
Here, shevet sounds as though it is an independent mitzva. Another passage in Yevamot seems to suggest that, since the birth of a single child contributes to populating the world, that could potentially fulfill shevet.
יבמות סב.
תניא אידך: ר’ נתן אומר…ובה”א [=ובית הלל אומרים]: או זכר או נקבה. אמר רבא: מ”ט [=מאי טעמא] דר’ נתן אליבא דב”ה [=דבית הלל]? שנא[מר]: לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה, והא עבד לה שבת.
Yevamot 62a
It was taught in another [baraita]: Rabbi Natan says…Beit Hillel say: either a male or a female. Rava said: What is the reason for Rabbi Natan[‘s view] in accordance with Beit Hillel? For it is said: “Not for void did He create it [the world], for settlement [shevet] did He form it,” and this accomplishes shevet.
This passage is less clear on the relationship between shevet and peru u-rvu. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein suggests several different possibilities. We can understand peru u-rvu as a classic mitzva, incumbent on the individual, and shevet as an expression of God’s will in which humankind is meant to partner. Alternatively, the distinction that we drew earlier between ways of understanding peru u-rvu, as oriented to the act of conception or to the resulting children, could provide insight. Perhaps peru u-rvu centers on the actions we take in order to bring children into the world, while shevet is more result-driven.15
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “‘Peru U-revu’ and ‘Shevet’”, shiur notes on VBM
The mitzva of peru u-revu applies to the individual; it casts a personal obligation upon each individual, like the mitzvot of sukka and matza, for example. The obligation of shevet, by contrast, is not formulated as a command, but rather as the Almighty’s will…. From the perspective of God’s will that mankind reproduce and populate the world, it makes no difference whether one fulfills this mitzva personally or causes someone else to fulfill it. All people bear the obligation to increase the world’s population….We would not, however, have the license to force the master to free his servant so that the latter could fulfill some personal obligation that he bears….[W]e may distinguish between the mitzva of shevet and that of peru u-revu differently than we did earlier. The mitzva of periya ve-rivya demands a specific action. Shevet, by contrast, is a mitzva dependent upon the result. According to this explanation, we can understand why sexual relations constitutes a fulfillment of the mitzva of periya ve-rivya, but not, according to the Minchat Chinukh, of the mitzva of shevet, since no children have resulted from the union as of yet.
Even if shevet is a discrete mitzva that helps to define the ultimate purpose of peru u-rvu, it works differently from it. As an underlying principle, perhaps supporting the world population could suffice.
A Woman’s Shevet
Tosafot discuss the parallel case, of a half-bondswoman, half-freewoman, with respect to shevet:
תוספות בבא בתרא יג. ד”ה שנאמר לא תהו בראה וגו’
וחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין…הא דלא כפו אותו משום שבת דשמא אפילו כשתעשה בת חורין לא תקיים משום דלא מפקדא אפריה ורביה כדאמרינן בהבא על יבמתו (שם דף סה: ושם) דאיתתא לא מפקדא אפריה ורביה אבל עבד כשיהיה בן חורין ע”כ [=על כורחו] יקיים…
Tosafot Bava Batra 13a, s.v. “she-ne’emar lo tohu bera’ah”
And she is half bondswoman and half freewoman…That they do not force him [to free her] on account of shevet is because perhaps when she becomes a freewoman she won’t fulfill it, because she is not commanded in pirya ve-rivya, as we say in Yevamot 65b, that a woman is not commanded in pirya ve-rivya, but a bondsman when he becomes free will perforce fulfill [shevet, since he will then be obligated in peru u-rvu]
The assumption seems to be that women are included in shevet, and the question is simply whether this woman will choose to act accordingly. Were she obligated in peru u-rvu once freed, we might be confident that she would strive to fulfil shevet. However, given that she will remain exempt from peru u-rvu even after she is freed, it is less clear that freeing her will further the goal of shevet.
This halacha remains in dispute. Beit Shemuel considers a woman to be included in shevet. For this reason, he mandates selling a sefer Torah to marry off a female orphan:
בית שמואל א:ב
י”ל [=יש לומר] להשיא יתומה נמי מוכרים ס”ת [=ספר תורה] לקיים לשבת יצרה דאשה נמי מצווה על שבת
Beit Shemuel 1:2
One can say that we sell a Torah scroll to marry off even a female orphan in order to fulfill ‘la-shevet yetzarah’ [for settlement did He form it], for a woman is also commanded in shevet.
Aruch Ha-shulchan, on the other hand, considers women to be exempt from shevet, which he understands primarily as a Divine goal and basis for the mitzva of procreation rather than as a personal obligation:
ערוך השולחן אה”ע א:ד
יש מהגדולים שכתבו שהאשה אף שאינה מצווה על פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] מ”מ [=מכל מקום] חייבת בלשבת יצרה ואין עיקר לדברים הללו דכל עיקר מצות פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] הוא מטעם שבת כמ”ש [=כמו שכתבתי] בסעי[ף] א’ והנשים כיון שלא נצטוו על פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] ממילא דלא נצטוו על לשבת …והן אמת שרבותינו בעלי התוס[פות] כתבו דאשה שייך נמי בשבת [גיטין מ”א: וב”ב י”ג א] אבל אין כוונתם שמחוייבות בשבת אלא דשייכות בשבת ובודאי כן הוא שגם הן מרבים בישובו של עולם וקרא דלשבת יצרה אינו צווי אלא סיפור דברים דהקב”ה [=דהקדוש ברוך הוא] ברא עולמו לשיתיישבו בה בני אדם וגם נשים בכלל…
Aruch Ha-shulchan EH 1:4
There are early authorities who wrote that a woman, although she is not commanded in pirya u-rivya, is nevertheless obligated in ‘la-shevet yetzarah.’ And there is no substance to these words, for the whole essence of the mitzva of pirya u-rivya is from the rationale of shevet, as I wrote above, and women, since they were not commanded in pirya u-rivya, naturally they were not commanded in la-shevet…And it is true that our sages the Tosafot wrote that shevet is also relevant for a woman [Gittin 41b and Bava Batra 13a], but their intention was not that they are obligated in shevet, but rather that shevet is relevant for them, and certainly this is so for they, too, increase the settlement of the world, and the verse of ‘la-shevet yetzarah’ is not a commandment but rather an exposition of how God created His world so that people would settle it, and women are included as well…
Aruch Ha-shulchan is careful to acknowledge that women naturally do contribute to the greater effort of shevet, helping to populate the world.
La-Erev
A final aspect of procreation emerges from tannaitic interpretations of a verse in Kohelet, which states that one should sow seed in the evening even if one has already sown in the morning. This verse can be taken as a metaphor for progeny both early and later in life, or for other productive activity such as learning or teaching Torah. The goal of life is not to reach retirement, but rather to maintain active investment in the future.
יבמות סב:
דתניא רבי יהושע אומר נשא אדם אשה בילדותו ישא אשה בזקנותו, היו לו בנים בילדותו יהיו לו בנים בזקנותו, שנא[מר] בבקר זרע את זרעך ולערב אל תנח ידך כי אינך יודע אי זה יכשר הזה או זה ואם שניהם כאחד טובים [קהלת יא:ו] ר”ע [=רבי עקיבא] אומר למד תורה בילדותו, ילמוד תורה בזקנותו. היו לו תלמידים בילדותו, יהיו לו תלמידים בזקנותו, שנא[מר] בבקר זרע את זרעך וגו’
Yevamot 62b
For it was taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yehoshua says, if a man married a woman in his youth, he should marry a woman in his old age, if he had children in his youth, he should have children in his old age, as it is said, “In the morning sow your seed and in the evening do not let your hands rest, for you do not know which will be fit, this or that, or if both of them will be equally good” (Kohelet 11:6). Rabbi Akiva says: if he learned Torah in his youth, he should learn Torah in his old age; if he had students in his youth, he should have students in his old age, for it says “In the morning sow your seed, etc.”
Rabbi Yehoshua’s point is well taken. Each child is different and born into different circumstances. It is often said that children born when one is young and those born in later years have completely different parents. It is difficult to know which children will best continue their parents’ legacy.
Again, there is a difference here between women and men. This message is clearly directed at men, who are typically fertile well into their later decades, whereas women’s fertility has a much earlier endpoint. When men could marry multiple wives, there would also have been more opportunities for a man to fulfill Rabbi Yehoshua’s counsel into his later years without needing to divorce his first wife. In previous eras, marriages between younger women and older men were more common and considered more desirable than they are today.
The Force of La-erev
Early rabbinic authorities debate the halachic force of this statement. The Rif asserts that la-erev is a rabbinic matter, and thus does not affect our Torah definitions of the mitzva of procreation:
רי”ף יבמות יט:
אמר רב מתנה הלכה כדברי ר’ יהושע והא מילתא דרבנן היא אבל דאורייתא כיון שיש לו זכר ונקבה קיים מצות פריה ורביה
Rif Yevamot 19b
Rav Matna said the halacha is in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. And this is a rabbinic matter, but on a Torah level, once he has a male and a female, he has fulfilled the mitzva of procreation.
Even rabbinic matters can take different types of halachic effect. There are two main views on this issue.
I. Absolute Imperative On one extreme, Ba’al Hame’or elevates Rabbi Yehoshua’s words into a rabbinic mitzva whose distinctions from the Torah-level mitzva he deliberately blurs.
המאור הגדול יבמות כ. בדפי הרי”ף
דאיפסקא הלכתא כר”י [=כרבי יהושע] …אפי[לו] יש לו בנים לא יבטל מפריה ורביה ולכתחלה אינו נושא אשה דלאו בת בנים אף על פי שיש לו כמה בנים ומוכר ס”ת [=ספר תורה] לישא אשה בת בנים ואף על גב דמדרבנן היא אין הפרש בכך בין דאורייתא לדרבנן
Ha-me’or ha-gadol Yevamot 20a (Rif pagination)
For the halacha was decided in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua…even if one has children, he should not desist from procreation, and from the outset he should not marry a woman who is not fertile even if he already has several children, and one may sell a Torah scroll to marry a woman who is fertile, and even though it’s rabbinic, there is no distinction in this between Torah level and Rabbinic.
According to this view, a man should make every effort to continue to procreate into his later years.
II. Subject to Personal Decision Ramban, however, takes a very different view, understanding Rav Yehoshua’s words in a much more flexible way:
מלחמת ה’ לרמב”ן, יבמות כ. בדפי הרי”ף
ומיהו כיון דמצוה דרבנן היא כמנהג דרך ארץ מדקא נסיב לה תלמודא בבקר זרע את זרעך ולא הזכירו בזה איסור אלא ישא אשה מצוה דלכתחלה הוא אין כופין ולא קורין עבריינא למי שאינו רוצה לעסוק בה…
Ramban, Milchemet Hashem, Yevamot 20a (Rif pagination)
Nevertheless, since the mitzva is rabbinic, it is in accordance with common mores, since the Talmud used the verse of “in the morning sow your seed” and did not mention a prohibition, rather that marrying a woman is a mitzva le-chat’chila [ideally]. We don’t compel him, and we don’t call someone who does not wish to occupy himself with it [procreation after fulfilling the Torah mitzva] a transgressor…
According to Ramban, there is room for each individual to determine whether and for how long to persist in having children once the Torah-level mitzva of procreation has been fulfilled.
Scope of La-erev
We can apply our discussions of women’s exemption from the mitzva of procreation to la-erev. A woman is exempt, but can fulfill the mitzva voluntarily. If we view la-erev as an imperative, then a married woman may also be seen as having a mitzva to ‘facilitate’ her husband’s performance of la-erev. As we saw previously, Chatam Sofer took the view that a woman has an obligation to her husband to enable him to fulfil la-erev.
If we take la-erev in a more flexible sense, then a woman would surely have no less flexibility than her husband in this matter.
Amount
There seems to be widespread flexibility in defining how many children la-erev calls for. Rambam seems to suggest that there is no set maximum number:
רמב”ם הלכות אישות טו:טז
אף על פי שקיים אדם מצות פריה ורביה הרי הוא מצווה מדברי סופרים שלא יבטל מלפרות ולרבות כל זמן שיש בו כח, שכל המוסיף נפש אחת בישראל כאילו בנה עולם…
Rambam, Laws of Ishut 15:16
Even though a person has fulfilled the mitzva of peru u-rvu, he is commanded rabbinically not to desist from procreating as long as he has strength, for whoever adds a soul to Israel is akin to having built a world…
Rambam’s less definite approach might go hand in hand with the idea that he cites as support for continued engagement in reproduction: If every world brought into existence is incalculably precious, it is difficult to quantify the obligation. Rav Moshe Feinstein rules that la-erev does not necessitate constant childbearing, but it does entail not totally desisting from it:
שו”ת אגרות משה אה”ע ד לב:ג
דנאמר אל תנח ידך שמשמעו שלא יבטל לגמרי…וכן משמע מלשון הרמב”ם שכתב בפט”ו הט”ז [=בפרק ט”ו הלכה ט”ז] אף על פי שקיים פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] ה”ה [=הרי הוא] מצווה מד”ס [=מדברי סופרים] שלא יבטל כ”ז [=כל זמן] שיש בו כח הרי דרק בטול אסור שהוא מניעה לגמרי, אבל אין ענין החיוב כפו”ר [=כפריה ורביה] דמדאורייתא…
Responsa Iggerot Moshe EH 4 32:3
…For it is said “do not let your hands rest,” the implication of which is that he not totally desist….And so is implied from the language of Rambam, who wrote in chapter 15, halacha 16, “Even though he has fulfilled pirya ve-rivya, he is commanded rabbinically not to desist as long as he has strength.” Therefore, the only desisting that is prohibited is total prevention, but the obligation is not like pirya ve-rivya, which is from the Torah…
Among many halachic authorities, this translates into encouraging couples to have as many children as biology allows:
תשובת הגאון הרב חיים קנייבסקי, שו”ת פועה מניעת הריון, עמ’ 30
אין לזה שיעור, וכמה שהקב”ה נותן.
Responsum of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Responsa of Puah Institute on Contraception, p. 30
There is no set amount, as much as God grants.
Perhaps because of increased options for family planning, some recent authorities have sought to be more specific. Among contemporary authorities, Rav Eliezer Melamed has suggested seeing the birth of four or five children as fulfillment of imperatives to procreate (both peru u-rvu and la-erev), and the birth of additional children as further fulfillment of the encouraged norm of la-erev.16
פניני הלכה, שמחת הבית וברכתו ה:ו, הערה 6
כדי לסייע למשפחות ואף לרבנים המשיבים, נלענ”ד [=נראה לפי עניות דעתי] שיש צורך לחלק את מצוות חכמים לשתי מדרגות, ולתת בכך מענה לרוב השאלות. …יש לחלוקה זו סימוכין בשתי סברות: האחת: מצינו שחכמים קבעו את מצוותם כעין מצוות התורה. “כל דתקון רבנן, כעין דאורייתא תקון” (גיטין סה, א, ועוד מקומות)…. שבמידה ואין בארבעה הראשונים שני בנים ושתי בנות, טוב להוליד ילד חמישי, שלרוב המשפחות, בחמישה ילדים כבר יהיו שני בנים ושתי בנות. אבל אין לקבוע כחובה על סמך סברה קלה זו להוליד יותר מחמישה ילדים. שכן גם בארבעה יש כעין דאורייתא מצד המספר, ואף הסיכון שלא יקיים פרו ורבו יורד לחצי, הואיל ומאחד המינים יש שניים. הסברה השנייה פחות מוגדרת אבל יש לה משקל רב: כלל ידוע הוא “פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר”, כלומר, כאשר אין יודעים כיצד חייבים לקיים מצווה מסוימת, יוצאים ורואים כיצד המנהג הרווח אצל שומרי המצוות.
Peninei Halacha (official translation), Simhat Ha-bayit U-virkhato, Procreation, Two Tiers of the Rabbinic Mitzva 5:6, note 6
In order to help these families and the rabbis they consult, it seems to me that it is necessary to divide the rabbinic obligation into two tiers, which will address most questions….Two rationales can be brought to support this division. First, we know that the Sages often pattern rabbinic laws upon Torah laws, as the Talmud states, “Whatever the rabbis ordained, they ordained on the pattern of the Torah” (Gittin 65a et al.)…. if one does not have two boys and two girls among the first four children, it is best to have a fifth child, for in most families, the five children will include two boys and two girls. However, we do not assert on the basis of this speculative reasoning that it is obligatory to have more than five children. Even in a family with four children, the second tier obligation is patterned on the Torah with respect to number, and the risk of not fulfilling the mitzva of procreation has been greatly minimized. The second rationale is not as well defined, but carries great weight. There is a well-known principle that when we are uncertain as to how exactly to perform a specific mitzva, we should look at the prevalent practice among observant Jews. Among families that have no specific physical or mental difficulties (not counting those who enhance the mitzva by having especially large families), the typical number of children is between four and five.
This ruling is particularly striking, in two respects. First, though Rav Melamed is well known for strongly encouraging couples to have large families, he acknowledges here that this might not be right for everyone and that there is a halachic basis not to pursue as big a family as possible. Second, he also concedes that the Halacha regarding la-erev is not clearcut, and this is his original, creative attempt to suggest a compromise between different positions on it in light of common social realities.
In contrast to Rav Melamed, Rav Yehuda Henkin simply suggests that even those who regard la-erev as an imperative would not call for more than two boys and two girls total, mirroring the Torah obligation, a view that he ties to a close reading of the verse in Kohelet:
Rav Yehuda H. Henkin, Responsa on Contemporary Jewish Women's Issues, p. 186
Also, while according to Rambam there is no limit to the number of children mandated by la’erev “as long as he has strength,” it seems likely that according to other rishonim [early authorities] the rabbinical la’erev resembled the Torah mitzvah of pru u’revu in having one son and one daughter, in keeping with the principle “Everything the Sages enacted, they enacted in resemblance to the Torah.” This fits the exposition of the verse in Kohelet, “sow your seed in the morning and in the evening do not rest your hand, that is the same obligation you had in the morning to have a son and a daughter in fulfillment of pru u’revu is the obligation you have in the evening in fulfillment of la’erev. It follows that a man who has two sons and two daughters has fulfilled both the Torah obligation of pru u’revu and the rabbinical vela’erev…
Where some modern-day authorities, like Rav Melamed and Rav Henkin, seek to define la-erev more precisely, many other authorities, like Rav Feinstein and Rav Kanievsky, consider la-erev more open-ended.
Concluding Thought
The experience of parenthood is momentous and transformational. On a collective level, societies, communities, and families depend on procreation for continuity. The bonds of family hold society together. On a personal level, bearing children and raising a family can be one of the most wonderful, joyous, meaningful, and challenging endeavors of a lifetime.
Religiously, having children fulfills the mitzva of peru u-rvu and the mandates of shevet and la-erev. Even where women are not directly obligated, women’s central role in childbearing can be understood as a fulfilment of these mitzvot. Raising a family also creates a multitude of other mitzva opportunities, including educating children for mitzvot and teaching them Torah. Caring for babies and children involves myriad acts of kindness (chessed) and self-sacrifice that refine one’s character, middot.
For women especially, becoming a mother is a pivotal and life-changing choice. This is the case even when it may seem like a foregone conclusion. Balancing the tremendous demands of motherhood with other professional, personal, and religious commitments is no easy task.
In his commentary to Bereishit, Rav Yitzchak Arama connects both sets of life aspirations for women to the two names given to woman at Creation, isha (woman) and Chava (mother of all life):
עקידת יצחק בראשית ט
… יש לאשה שני תכליות. האחד מה שיורה עליו שם אשה כי מאיש לוקחה זאת וכמוהו תוכל להבין ולהשכיל בדברי שכל וחסידות כמו שעשו האמהות וכמה צדקניות ונביאות וכאשר יורה פשט פרשת אשת חיל מי ימצא… והשני ענין ההולדה והיותה כלי אליה ומוטבעת אל הלידה וגדול הבנים כאשר יורה עליה שם חוה כאשר היא היתה אם כל חי. והנה תהיה האשה כאשר לא תלד לסבה מהסבות מנועה מהתכלית הקטן ההוא אל מציאותה ותשאר להרע או להיטיב כמו האיש אשר לא יוליד כי בהשלים עצמו באותו התכלית המיניי המשותף להם נאמר ואל יאמר הסריס הן אני עץ יבש ונאמר ונתתי להם בביתי ובחומותי יד ושם טוב מבנים ומבנות (ישעיה נ”ו) כי ודאי עקר תולדותיהם של צדיקים מעשים טובים…
Akeidat Yitzchak Bereishit 9
…A woman has two purposes [in life]. One is described by the name “isha,” “for from man [ish] this one was taken,” and like him she is able to understand and grasp matters of intelligence and righteousness, as did the matriarchs and several righteous women and prophetesses, and as the straightforward meaning of “A woman of valor, who can find” describes… And the second is the matter of childbearing and being the vessel for birth and raising children, as described by the name “Chava” when she became the mother of all life. And when a woman does not bear children for some reason, she is unable to fulfil that minor purpose, and remains, for better or worse, like the man who does not sire children, for regarding fulfilling himself in that same shared human purpose, it is said, “Let not the eunuch say, I am a dry tree,” and it is said, “I will give them in My House and within My walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters,” for certainly the primary offspring of righteous people are good deeds….
Rav Arama acknowledges that, while most mitzva-observant Jewish women do marry and have children, often raising large families, and this is a Jewish ideal, some women will for various reasons find themselves on other paths, and those paths, too, can be full of religious purpose. Two of the most significant twentieth-century figures in women’s Torah learning, Nechama Leibowitz and Sara Schenirer, were childless, though not by choice. Both lived extraordinarily purposeful religious lives.17
One woman without children reflects on multiple possibilities for fruitfulness:18
'A Tu B'Shvat Thought,' ATIME Newsletter, Chanukah 5761/Winter 2000.Chana Jenny Weisberg, “So, What Do You Do?,” TheJewishWoman.org
The Torah doesn’t say be fruitful via multiplication, but rather it seems like two separate commandments. Be fruitful and multiply. Applying it to us [singles and childless people], we should bear in mind that we can and should be fruitful even though we are not yet ‘multiplying.’ We should make the most of ourselves as spouses, as siblings, as children of parents, as employees/employers and as members of society. In the merit of being the best we can be, may Hashem grant us our most fervent wishes.
At the same time, women who are blessed with fertility sometimes experience tension between the two purposes described by Rav Arama. In a blogpost, Chana Jenny Weisberg reframes them as complementary opportunities for meaning:19
Chana Jenny Weisberg, “So, What Do You Do?,” TheJewishWoman.org
Jewish mysticism teaches us that the parchment that the words are written on, or white fire, is just as important as the words themselves, or black fire. In fact, the white fire between the words is considered a higher form of Torah, which transcends the concrete, limited, contracted black fire….Just as the space taken up by the parchment is twice as large as the space taken up by the words in a Torah scroll, the vast majority of existence is spent maneuvering the white fire of life that exists between the professions….It is in the white fire that we hug our children…The white fire is the domain of the day-to-day, behind-the-scenes work of Jewish mothers, as we sustain our families and communities and our ancient people….Recently, my husband was telling me about a rabbi he met who spends eighteen hours a day studying Torah, teaching, and helping people in need. Impressed, I said, “It’s people like this rabbi who carry the Jewish people on their shoulders.” And my husband said quietly, as if to himself, “You’re right. Although, the funny thing is that I’ve always thought that it is the mothers who carry the Jewish people on their shoulders.”
Further Reading
- Rav Dr Avraham Steinberg, Encyclopedia Refuit Hilchatit, “Pirya Ve-rivya.” Available here.
- Rav Gavriel Goldman and Rav Menachem Burstein, “Pirya Ve-rivya,” Cheshvan 5775. Available here.
- Morozow, Sara, and Rivkah Slonim. Holy Intimacy: The Heart and Soul of Jewish Marriage. Shikey Press, 2022.
Notes
נדרים כ:
בני חצופה, איני? והאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן: כל אדם שאשתו תובעתו – הויין לו בנים שאפילו בדורו של משה רבינו לא היו כמותם…ההיא דמרציא ארצויי
Nedarim 20b
The children of a woman who is brazen [have inherent negative qualities if thus conceived]—Is this really so? But didn’t Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachmani say [that] Rabbi Yonatan said: Every man whose wife demands [intercourse] from him, has children whose like was not seen even in the generation of Moshe Rabbeinu….That [children of such a high level] is when she entices him [but does not ask directly].
פרישה או”ח רמ:ז
“כי אלי תבא” הוא לשון נקייה כי סובל פירושו תבא אלי לחדרי והראיה שלא אמרה עמי תשכב…ומ”ש [=ומה שכתוב] שחצופה היא שתובעתו בפה רצה לומר שפירשה בדבריה התשמיש.
Perisha OC 240:7
“For to me you shall come” [said by Leah to Yaakov] is clean language, for it could be interpreted as “you will come to me to my room.” And the proof is that she did not say “with me you shall lie.”…And that which is written that a brazen woman is one who demands [sexual relations] verbally means that she explicitly mentioned sexual relations.
בכור שור בראשית ג:טז
….עד השתא לא היית צריכה לילד, שהרי לא הייתם ראויים למות, אבל מעתה צריכה את לילד, שהרי מתים אתם, אם לא תולידו הרי העולם כלה [עד] שתמותו…
Bechor Shor, Bereishit 3:16
…Until now you did not need to give birth, for you were not suited for death, but from now on you need to give birth, for you are mortal. If you do not have children, then the world will be destroyed once you die….
8. This is also the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein:
שו”ת אגרות משה אה”ע ב:יח
המעשה שנצטוה בפו”ר [=בפריה ורביה] אינה הולדת הבנים דזה אינו בידו אלא המצוה וחיוב שעליו הוא לבעול אשתו ביאה גמורה שיהיה אפשר מזה להוליד. וראיה לזה מתוס[פות] ב”ב [=בבא בתרא] דף י”ג ד”ה [=דיבור המתחיל] כופין שכתבו … דפו”ר [=דפריה ורביה] לא מקיים עד גמר ביאה עיין שם, הרי דבגמר ביאה נחשב מקיים אף שעדיין לא נתעברה כלל כיון דרק זה בידו לעשות. וחיוב זה לבעול אשתו איכא עליו מצד פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] עד שיולדו לו בן ובת שאז נפטר. ומדויק לשון המשנה ביבמות דף ס”א שלא אמר כמה בנים מחוייב אדם להוליד אלא אמר לא יבטל אדם מפו”ר אא”כ [=מפריה ורביה אלא אם כן] יש לו בנים, דפירושו דמצות פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] שעליו הוא הבעילה שרק זה הוא בידו ואין לו לבטל מזה עד שיהיו לו בנים.
Responsa Iggerot Moshe EH 2:18
The action commanded in pirya ve-rivya is not the birth of children, for that is not in one’s control. Rather, the mitzva and obligation is that it is incumbent on a man to have full intercourse with his wife, from which it is possible to conceive. A proof for this is from Tosafot Bava Batra 13a, s.v. “kofin,” for they wrote that …the positive mitzva of pirya ve-rivya is not fulfilled until full intercourse, see there. This demonstrates that he is considered to fulfill [the mitzva] at the point of full intercourse, even though she has not conceived at all, because only this in his power to do. And this obligation to have intercourse with his wife is incumbent on him, from the perspective of pirya ve-rivya, until a son and a daughter are born to him, and then he is exempt. The language of the mishna in Yevamot 61b is precise, that it does not say how many children a man is obligated to father, but rather says, “a man may not desist from pirya ve-rivya unless he has children,” meaning that the mitzva of pirya ve-rivya that is incumbent on him is intercourse, because only this is in his control, and he may not desist from this until he has children.
9. Additional views appear in the Gemara:
יבמות סב.
תניא: רבי נתן אומר, ב”ש [=בית שמאי] אומרים: שני זכרים ושתי נקבות, ובה”א [=ובית הלל אומרים]: זכר ונקבה. א”ר [=אמר רב] הונא: מ”ט [=מאי טעמא] דרבי נתן אליבא דב”ש [=דבית שמאי]? דכתיב: ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל, הבל ואחותו, קין ואחותו, וכתיב: כי שת לי אלקים זרע אחר תחת הבל כי הרגו קין. ורבנן? אודויי הוא דקא מודית. תניא אידך: ר’ נתן אומר, ב”ש [=בית שמאי] אומרים: זכר ונקבה, ובה”א [=ובית הלל אומרים]: או זכר או נקבה. אמר רבא: מ”ט [=מאי טעמא] דר’ נתן אליבא דב”ה [=דבית הלל] ? שנא[מר]: לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה, והא עבד לה שבת.
Yevamot 62a
It was taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Natan says, Beit Shammai say: two males and two females, and Beit Hillel say: a male and a female. Rav Huna said: What is the reason for Rabbi Natan[‘s view] in accordance with Beit Shammai? For it is written: “And gave birth again, to his brother, Hevel,” Hevel and his sister, Kayin and his sister. And it is written: For God has granted me other seed in the place of Hevel, for Kayin killed him.” And our Rabbis? She was giving thanks. It was taught in another [baraita]: Rabbi Natan says, Beit Shammai say: a male and a female, and Beit Hillel say: either a male or a female. Rava said: What is the reason for Rabbi Natan[‘s view] in accordance with Beit Hillel? For it is said: “Not for void did He create it, for settlement did He form it” (Yeshayahu 45:18) and this accomplishes settlement [shevet].
יבמות סא:
בית שמאי אומרים: שני זכרים. מאי טעמייהו דבית שמאי? ילפינן ממשה, דכתיב: בני משה גרשום ואליעזר;
Yevamot 61b
Beit Shammai say: Two boys. What is the rationale of Beit Shammai? We learn from Moshe, for it is written, “Moshe’s sons were Gershom and Eliezer.”
Sources
A Blessing
בראשית א:יא
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקִים תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינוֹ אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ בוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיְהִי כֵן:
Bereishit 1:11
And God said, Let the earth grow vegetation, grass that gives seed, fruit trees that make fruit according to its kind with its seed within it upon the land, and it was so.
בראשית א:כב
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקִים לֵאמֹר פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הַמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וְהָעוֹף יִרֶב בָּאָרֶץ:
Bereishit 1:22
And God blessed them saying, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the land.
בראשית א:כח
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:
Bereishit 1:28
And God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land and conquer it and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the skies and every animal that crawls upon the land.
בראשית ג:טז
אֶל הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים וְאֶל אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל בָּךְ:
Bereishit 3:16
To the woman He said, I will greatly increase your painful toil and your pregnancy, in pain will you bear children, but your desire will be for your husband and he will control you.
רש”י בראשית ג:טז
עצבונך – זה צער גידול בנים: והרנך – זה צער העבור: בעצב תלדי בנים – זה צער הלידה: ואל אשך תשוקתך – לתשמיש ואף על פי כן אין לך מצח לתובעו בפה אלא הוא ימשול בך…
Rashi Bereishit 3:16
Your painful toil, this is the travail of raising children. Your pregnancy, this is the travail of pregnancy, in pain will you bear children, this is the travail of childbirth. And your desire will be for your husband. For sexual relations, but even so you do not have the brazenness to ask it of him verbally but rather he will control you [in this respect]…
רמב”ן בראשית ג:טז
…שהעניש אותה שתהיה נכספת מאד אל בעלה, ולא תחוש לצער ההריון והלידה
Ramban, Bereishit 3:16
[God] punished her, that she should yearn greatly for her husband, and not worry about the travail of pregnancy and childbirth
בראשית ג:כ
וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ חַוָּה כִּי הִוא הָיְתָה אֵם כָּל חָי:
Bereishit 3:20
And Adam called the name of his wife Chava, for she was the mother of all life [kol chai].
Christine Emba, “The Real Reason People Aren’t Having Kids”, The Atlantic, August 1, 2024
“Meaning”…tends to stem from uniting in the face of undesirable crises (wars, pandemics) or from the sorts of broadly enforced norms (religious, cultural) that many no longer share. (This could be a clue as to why Israel has bucked the low-birth-rate trend: The religious edict to “be fruitful and multiply” is an accepted part of the national culture, and childbearing is viewed as a contribution to a collective goal.)
לאה מלמד, מיילדת, במכתב לסיון רהב מאיר 27.8.24
הלידות מאז תחילת המלחמה היו עמוסות ריגשית…. ועכשיו, עשרה חודשים אחרי, גל לידות אחר. אני מוצאת שיש משהו נוסף באוויר. הזוגות שמגיעים עכשיו, הם זוגות שהחליטו להביא חיים לעולם, בזמן משבר. זו בחירה שבראייה מסוימת עשויה להיתפס כחסרת כל הגיון. איך אפשר לחשוב על הבאת חיים לעולם כזה?… מהמיילדות העבריות במצרים, שהייתה בהן ‘יראת אלוקים… ‘ הן ראו מעבר לצו האכזרי של המלך פרעה, נטול המוסר והמצפון. הן הלכו עם אמת אחת, עם ערך של קדושת החיים, גם במחיר סיכון חייהן ממש. המיילדות ידעו אז, ויודעות גם היום, לראות את הצמיחה מתוך השבר, גם כשאחרים מתקשים להאמין שהיא בוא תבוא. היום,אני…שואבת כוחות…מהנשים האלה, שיש להן את אותה ראייה למרחוק, אותה גבורה נשית של אז, במצרים. הן מזכירות לי את יוכבד שמאתגרת את עמרם, בעלה, שסירב להביא עוד ילדים במצרים, ודורשת ממנו לעלות קומה בקומות האמונה, ולהמשיך את החיים על אף המציאות המייסרת. כך נולד משה רבנו. כך בונים עתיד, למען כולנו…
Leah Melamed, Midwife, Letter to Sivan Rahav Meir (Instagram @sivanrahavmeir August 28, 2024)
The births since the beginning of the war were emotionally loaded…But now, ten months later, a new wave of births. I find that there’s something else in the air. The couples arriving now are couples who have decided to bring life into the world in a time of crisis. This is a choice that from a certain perspective is liable to be taken as lacking any logic. How is it possible to think about bringing children into a world like this?…From the Hebrew midwives of Mitzrayim, who had fear of God…they saw beyond the cruel command of Pharaoh the king, devoid of morality or conscience. They went with a single truth, with the value of the sanctity of life, even at the price of real risk to their lives. The midwives knew then, and know today as well, how to see growth within a fracture, even when others struggle to believe that it will come. Today, …I draw strength from…these women, for they have the same long view, the same female heroism as then, in Mitzrayim. They remind me of Yocheved, who challenges her husband Amram, who refused to have more children in Mitzrayim, and demands that he rise to a higher level in faith, to continue life notwithstanding a torturous reality….That’s how we build a future, for all of our sakes…
בראשית ט:א, ו-ז
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹקִים אֶת נֹחַ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ:… שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹקִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם: וְאַתֶּם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ שִׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ וּרְבוּ בָהּ:
Bereishit 9:1, 6-7
And God blessed No’ach and his sons and He said to them: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth….One who spills human blood, by a human shall his blood be spilled, for in God’s image did he make humanity. And you, be fruitful and multiply and swarm on the earth and multiply on it.
יבמות סג:
תניא, רבי אליעזר אומר: כל מי שאין עוסק בפריה ורביה כאילו שופך דמים, שנאמר: שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך, וכתיב בתריה: ואתם פרו ורבו. רבי יעקב אומר: כאילו ממעט הדמות, שנאמר: כי בצלם אלקים עשה את האדם, וכתיב בתריה: ואתם פרו וגו’. בן עזאי אומר: כאילו שופך דמים וממעט הדמות, שנאמר: ואתם פרו ורבו. אמרו לו לבן עזאי: יש נאה דורש ונאה מקיים, נאה מקיים ואין נאה דורש, ואתה נאה דורש ואין נאה מקיים! אמר להן בן עזאי: ומה אעשה, שנפשי חשקה בתורה, אפשר לעולם שיתקיים על ידי אחרים.
Yevamot 63b
It was taught [in a baraita], Rabbi Eliezer says: Whoever does not occupy himself with procreation, it is as though he sheds blood, as it is said: “One who spills human blood, by a human shall his blood be spilled,” and it is written afterwards: “And you, be fruitful and multiply.” Rabbi Yaakov says: It is as though he diminishes the image, for it is said: for in God’s image did He make humanity, and it is written after it “And you, be fruitful and multiply.” Ben Azzai says: It is as though he [both] spills blood and diminishes the image, for it is said [after both]: “And you, be fruitful and multiply.” They said to Ben Azzai: There are those who expound well and fulfill well, who fulfill well but do not expound well, and you expound well but do not fulfill well! Ben Azzai said to them: And what shall I do, for my soul desires Torah. The world can be maintained through others.
רש”י בראשית ב:כד
לבשר אחד – הולד נוצר על ידי שניהם, ושם נעשה בשרם אחד:
Rashi Bereishit 2:24
One flesh – The offspring is formed through the two of them, and there their flesh becomes one.
נדה לא.
תנו רבנן: שלשה שותפין יש באדם, הקדוש ברוך הוא ואביו ואמו. אביו מזריע הלובן, שממנו עצמות וגידים וצפרנים, ומוח שבראשו, ולובן שבעין. אמו מזרעת אודם, שממנו עור ובשר ושערות, ושחור שבעין. והקב”ה [=והקדוש ברוך הוא] נותן בו רוח ונשמה וקלסתר פנים, וראיית העין, ושמיעת האוזן, ודבור פה, והלוך רגלים, ובינה והשכל.
Nidda 31a
Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: There are three partners in a person, God and his father and his mother. His father gives seed to the white, from which come bones and ligaments and nails, and the brain in his head, and the white of the eye. His mother gives seed to the red, from which come skin and flesh and hair, and the black of the eye. And God gives him spirit and soul and a countenance, and eyesight, and the ears’ hearing, and the mouth’s speech, and the legs’ walking, and discernment and intelligence.
יבמות סה:
ההיא דאתאי קמיה דרב נחמן…אמרה ליה: לא בעיא הך אתתא חוטרא לידה ומרה לקבורה? אמר: כי הא ודאי כפינן.
Yevamot 65b
That [woman] who came before Rav Nachman [for a divorce]…She said to him: Does this woman [i.e., herself] not need a staff for her hand [to lean on in old age] and a shovel for burial? He said, in this case certainly we force him [to divorce].
ישעיהו מה:יח
כִּי כֹה אָמַר ה’ בּוֹרֵא הַשָּׁמַיִם הוּא הָאֱלֹקִים יֹצֵר הָאָרֶץ וְעֹשָׂהּ הוּא כוֹנְנָהּ לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ אֲנִי ה’ וְאֵין עוֹד:
Yeshayahu 45:18
For thus said God, Creator of the heavens, He is God, Fashioner of the earth and its Maker, He laid its foundations. Not for void did He create it, for settlement did He form it, I am God and there is no other.
בראשית לה:יא
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֱלֹקים אֲנִי אֵ-ל שַׁ-דַּי פְּרֵה וּרְבֵה גּוֹי וּקְהַל גּוֹיִם יִהְיֶה מִמֶּךָּ וּמְלָכִים מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ יֵצֵאוּ:
Bereishit 35:11
And God said to him ‘I am E-l Sha-ddai, be fruitful and multiply. A nation and an assembly of nations will be from you and kings will come out of your loins.
סוטה יב.
תנא: עמרם גדול הדור היה, כיון שגזר פרעה הרשע כל הבן הילוד היאורה תשליכוהו, אמר: לשוא אנו עמלין. עמד וגירש את אשתו. עמדו כולן וגירשו את נשותיהן. אמרה לו בתו: אבא, קשה גזירתך יותר משל פרעה, שפרעה לא גזר אלא על הזכרים, ואתה גזרת על הזכרים ועל הנקיבות. פרעה לא גזר אלא בעוה”ז [=בעולם הזה], ואתה בעוה”ז [=בעולם הזה] ולעוה”ב [=ולעולם הבא]. פרעה הרשע, ספק מתקיימת גזירתו ספק אינה מתקיימת, אתה צדיק בודאי שגזירתך מתקיימת.
Sota 12a
[A tanna] taught: Amram was the greatest of his generation, once the evil Pharaoh decreed that “every boy who is born, you shall cast into the Nile,” [Amram] said: We labor in vain. He stood up and divorced his wife. Everyone stood up and divorced their wives. His daughter said to him: Father, your decree is harsher than Pharaoh’s. For Pharaoh decreed only regarding the males, and you have decreed regarding the males and the females. Pharaoh decreed only in this world, and you [have decreed] in this world and in the world to come [where these children will never have been born]. The evil Pharaoh, it is doubtful if his decree will stand, but you are righteous and your decree will certainly stand.
תנא דבי אליהו זוטא יד
שאין ישראל ניגאלין אלא אם כן פרין ורבין והוין מליאי של עולם, שנאמר כי ימין ושמאל תפרוצי וגו’ (ישעיה נ”ד ג’).
Tanna De-Vei Eliyahu Zuta 14
For Israel are not redeemed unless they are fruitful and multiply and fill up the world, as it is said “right and left shall you burst forth…” (Yeshayahu 54:3)
הגרי”ד סולובייצ’יק, הברכות ביהדות, ימי זיכרון (תירגום מיידיש, משה קרונה) ספרית אלינר תשמ”ו, עמ’ 32–33
הקב”ה [=הקדוש ברוך הוא] בירך לא רק את האדם הגשמי אלא אף את האישיות הרוחנית בברכת “פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ” (בראשית א:כח). כלומר: עלו והתפתחו במעלות הרוח, עלו לפסגות הגבוהות של המחשבה והרוח!…ברכת פרו ורבו פירושה: התגלות האדם לא במובן הביאולוגי בלבד אלא אף התגלותו והתפתחותו באישיותו המיוחדת במלואה ובתוספת כוחות והתאחדותם.
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, “Blessings in Judaism,” in Yemei Zikaron, trans. from Yiddish to Hebrew, Moshe Krone (Eliner Library, 1986) 32–33
God blessed not only physical man but also the spiritual personality with the beracha of “be fruitful and multiply and fill the land” (Bereishit 1:28). Which is to say: Rise up and develop spiritually, rise up to the greatest heights of thought and spirit!… The meaning of the blessing of peru u-rvu is: man’s revelation not only in a biological sense, but also his revelation and development as a unique personality in its fullness, and with the addition of and union with [others’] strengths.
הגרי”ד סולובייצ’יק, הברכות ביהדות, ימי זיכרון (תירגום מיידיש, משה קרונה) ספרית אלינר תשמ”ו, עמ’ 32
האדם השרוי לבדו, בלי חברותא, יישאר עקר. “ויברך אותם אלקים ויאמר פרו ורבו” (שם א, כב)—כלומר כשהם “אותם” ושרויים יחד
Rav Soloveitchik, “Blessings in Judaism,” in Yemei Zikaron, 32
A person who dwells alone, without a fellow, will remain barren. “And God blessed them and said be fruitful and multiply” (Bereishit 1:22)—which is to say, when they are a “them” and dwell together
An Imperative
תענית ב.-ב:
אמר רבי יוחנן: שלשה מפתחות בידו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שלא נמסרו ביד שליח, ואלו הן: מפתח של גשמים, מפתח של חיה [ע”פ שמות א:יט], ומפתח של תחיית המתים… מפתח של חיה מנין – דכתיב ויזכר אלקים את רחל וישמע אליה אלקים ויפתח את רחמה
Ta’anit 2a-b
Rabbi Yochanan said: There are three keys in the hands of God that were not given over to an agent, and they are: the key of rains, the key of chaya [childbirth, c.f. Shemot 1:19], and the key of the resurrection of the dead….Whence the key of childbirth? As it is written, “And God remembered Rachel and God heard her and opened her womb” (Bereishit 30:22).
מנחת חינוך בראשית א:ב
מ”מ המ”ע [=מכל מקום המצוות עשה] היינו הבנים והבעילה הוא רק הכשר מצוה דא”א בל”ז [=דאי אפשר בלא זה] והראי[ה] דאם לא הוליד…לא קיים המצוה
Minchat Chinuch Bereishit 1:2
In any case, the positive mitzva is children, and sexual relations are just a preliminary to the mitzva, for it is impossible without this, and the proof is that if he did not have children…he has not fulfilled the mitzva.
תוספות בבא בתרא יג. ד”ה כופין
ועשה דפרו ורבו לא מקיים עד גמר ביאה
Tosafot Bava Batra 13a, s.v. “kofin”
…He does not fulfill the positive mitzva of peru u-rvu until having complete sexual relations.
שו”ת זקן אהרן א:סב
אבל לענ”ד אי”א [=לפי עניות דעתי אי אפשר] לומר כן דגוף המצוה של פ”ו [=פריה ורביה] היא לידת הבנים ולא הביאה, דאיך אפשר שתחייב התורה לאדם דבר כזה שאין בידו לקיימה, דמפתח של יולדת לא נמסר לכל ולאו ברשותו של אדם הוא להוליד…א”ו [=אלא וודאי] שהתורה לא חייבה לאדם כ”א [=כי אם] שיעשה ההשתדלות להוליד בנים, היינו שישא אשה ויבעלנה, והשתדלות הזאת גוף המצוה הוא, ואם עלתה בידו…נפטר שוב מלהשתדל עוד בזה…
Responsa Zekan Aharon EH 1:62
But in my humble opinion it is impossible to say thus, that the mitzva of procreation is the birth of the children and not the sexual relations, for how is it possible that the Torah would obligate a person in a matter like this that it is not in his power to fulfill, for the key of the child-bearer [childbirth] is not given over to all and it is not in a man’s control to have children?… Rather, certainly the Torah only obligated a man to make an effort to have children, that is to marry a woman and have relations with her, and this effort is the core of the mitzva, and if it works out for him [and he has a boy and girl]…he is exempt from making further efforts…
רב אלחנן וסרמן, קובץ הערות סט:כז
ונראה לומר דאף דקיום המצוה הוא רק בלידת הבנים, מ”מ [=מכל מקום] מעשה המצוה מה שמוטל על האדם לעשות, היא הביאה…דהלידה באה אח”כ [=אחר כך] מאליה בידי שמים…
Rav Elchanan Wasserman, Kovetz He’arot 69:27
It seems correct to say that, although fulfilling the mitzva is only through the birth of children, nevertheless the mitzva act, which is incumbent upon a man to perform, is sexual relations…for the birth happens afterwards on its own, in the hands of Heaven…
שו”ת אגרות משה אה”ע ב: יח
וזרע זה שיוציא יכניסו בשפופרת לבטן האשה בימים שראויה להריון אף שלא טבלה. ויצא בזה מצות פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] כשתוליד האשה עי”ז [=על ידי זה]… דהוציא בכוונה על דעת להכניס בשפופרת לבטן אשתו דהוי זה במעשה.
Responsa Iggerot Moshe EH 2:18
This seed that he ejaculates, they insert into the woman’s womb through a tube at a time when she is fit to conceive even if she hasn’t immersed. And through this he has discharged the mitzva of procreation, when the woman has a child through this…For he ejaculated for the purpose of inserting [the semen] through a tube into his wife’s womb and this is an action.
מגילה יג.
שכל המגדל יתום ויתומה בתוך ביתו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו.
Megilla 13a
For whoever raises a male or female orphan in his home is considered as though they gave birth to them.
ישעיהו נו: ד-ה
כִּי כֹה אָמַר ה’ לַסָּרִיסִים אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְרוּ אֶת שַׁבְּתוֹתַי וּבָחֲרוּ בַּאֲשֶׁר חָפָצְתִּי וּמַחֲזִיקִים בִּבְרִיתִי: וְנָתַתִּי לָהֶם בְּבֵיתִי וּבְחוֹמֹתַי יָד וָשֵׁם טוֹב מִבָּנִים וּמִבָּנוֹת שֵׁם עוֹלָם אֶתֶּן לוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִכָּרֵת:
Yeshayahu 56:4-5
For thus said the Lord to the eunuchs who guard my Shabbatot and have chosen what I desire, and hold on to my covenant. I will give them in My House [Beit Ha-mikdash] and within My walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters, an eternal name that will not be cut off.
שולחן ערוך אה”ע א:ג
מצוה על כל אדם שישא אשה…ומי שעברו עליו כ’ שנה ואינו רוצה לישא, ב”ד [=בית דין] כופין אותו לישא כדי לקיים מצות פריה ורביה. …הגה: ובזמן הזה נהגו שלא לכוף על זה. וכן מי שלא קיים פריה ורביה ובא לישא אשה שאינה בת בנים…משום שחושק בה או משום ממון שלה, אעפ”י [=אף על פי] שמדינא היה למחות בו, לא נהגו מכמה דורות לדקדק בענין הזיווגים. ואפילו נשא אשה ושהה עמה עשרה שנים לא נהגו לכוף אותו לגרשה, אף על פי שלא קיים פריה ורביה, וכן בשאר ענייני זיווגים….
Shulchan Aruch EH 1:3
It is a mitzva upon every man to marry a woman…And one who has passed twenty years [of age] and doesn’t wish to marry, the beit din compels him to marry to fulfill the mitzva of pirya ve-rivya. …. Rema: And nowadays the practice is not to compel this. And so, someone who has not fulfilled pirya ve-rivya and intends to marry a woman who is not fertile…because he desires her or because of her finances, even though the fundamental halacha would be to protest this, it has not been the practice for several generations to be particular in the matter of matches. And even if he married a woman and remained with her for ten years [without children], it is not the practice to compel him to divorce her, even though he did not fulfill pirya ve-rivya, and so with other matters of matches…
משנה יבמות ו:ו
לא יבטל אדם מפריה ורביה אלא אם כן יש לו בנים בית שמאי אומרים שני זכרים ובית הלל אומרים זכר ונקבה שנאמר (בראשית ה’) זכר ונקבה בראם
Mishna Yevamot 6:6
A person should not desist from procreation unless he has children. Beit Shammai say two males and Beit Hillel say a male and a female, for it is said, “Male and female He created them” (Bereishit 5:2).
נדה לא.
אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי: אשה מזרעת תחילה – יולדת זכר, איש מזריע תחילה – יולדת נקבה, שנאמר אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר.
Nidda 31a
Rabbi Yitzchak said Rabbi Ami said: If the woman releases seed first, she gives birth to a male, if the man releases seed first, she gives birth to a female, for it is said, “A woman when she releases seed and gives birth to a male.”
Women and Peru U-rvu
יבמות סה:
מתני’ . האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה, אבל לא האשה; רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר, על שניהם הוא אומר: ויברך אותם אלקים ויאמר להם [אלקים] פרו ורבו.[בראשית א:כח] גמ’. מנא הני מילי? אמר ר’ אילעא משום ר’ אלעזר בר’ שמעון, אמר קרא: ומלאו את הארץ וכבשוה, איש דרכו לכבש, ואין אשה דרכה לכבש. אדרבה, וכבשוה תרתי משמע. אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: וכבשה כתיב. רב יוסף אמר, מהכא: אני אל שדי פרה ורבה [בראשית לה:יא], ולא קאמר פרו ורבו.
Yevamot 65b
Mishna: A man is commanded in pirya ve-rivya, but not a woman. Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka says: Regarding both of them it says: And God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply (Bereishit 1:28). Gemara: Whence do these words come from? Rabbi Il’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, the verse said: And fill the land and conquer it, it is a man’s way to conquer, and it is not a woman’s way to conquer. On the contrary – ’and conquer it’ ‘ve-chivshuha’ it sounds like [an address to] both [it’s in the plural]. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, the spelling is ve-chibeshah [deficient spelling, resembling the singular]. Rav Yosef said: From here: I am E-l Sha-ddai, pere u-rve [be fruitful and multiply in the singular] (Bereishit 35:11), and it does not say peru u-rvu [in the plural]
בראשית א:כח
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:
Bereishit 1:28
And God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land and conquer it [ve-chivshuha] and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the skies and every animal that crawls upon the land.
שולחן ערוך אה”ע א:יג
אשה אינה מצווה על פריה ורביה…
Shulchan Aruch EH 1:13
A woman is not commanded in procreation.
Sara Morozow and Rivkah Slonim, Holy Intimacy: The Heart and Soul of Jewish Marriage (Shikey Press, 2022), 178
For a woman, much more so than for even the most involved father, having children is about being all in. There is no aspect of life that remains untouched by this decision. Which makes it exceedingly counterintuitive that the mitzvah of pru u’rvu is not incumbent upon a woman.
מדרש תנחומא (ורשא) נח יב
וכבשה כתיב האיש כובש את הארץ ואין האשה כובשת והאיש מצווה על פריה ורביה יותר מן האשה
Tanchuma No’ach 12
‘And conquer it [ve-chivshuha]’ is written, a man conquers the earth and a woman does not conquer, so a man is commanded in procreation more than a woman.
מדרש תנחומא (בובר) וישלח יב
[וכבשה כתיב] האיש כובש את האשה ואין האשה כובשת את האישTanchuma Va-yishlach 12
[‘And conquer it ve-chivshuha’ is written]. A man conquers a woman, and a woman does not conquer a man.
הרב יצחק שילת, אישות הלכה וכונת התורה (הוצאת שילת, תשע”ח), עמ’ 21
ועל פי זה יש להבין עוד שב”דרכו של איש לכבוש” הכוונה גם למעשה הביאה, שהאיש הוא הפעיל, ולכן דוקא עליו המצוה…
Rav Yitzchak Shilat, Ishut, Halacha Ve-kavanat ha-Torah (Hotza’at Shilat, 2018), 21
According to this, one should further understand that the intention of “it is a man’s nature to conquer” is also regarding the act of intercourse, for the man is the active one, and therefore the mitzva is specifically on him…
משך חכמה בראשית ט:ז
פרו ורבו וכו’. לא רחוק הוא לאמר הא שפטרה התורה נשים מפריה ורביה וחייבה רק אנשים, כי משפטי ה’ ודרכיו “דרכי נועם, וכל נתיבותיה שלום”, ולא עמסה על הישראלי מה שאין ביכולת הגוף לקבל….ואם כן, נשים שמסתכנות בעיבור ולידה, – ומשום זה אמרו מיתה שכיחא, עיין תוספות כתובות פג, ב ד”ה [=דיבור המתחיל] מיתה שכיחה – לא גזרה התורה לצוות לפרות לרבות על האשה…רק לקיום המין עשה בטבעה שתשוקתה להוליד עזה משל איש. ומצאנו לרחל שאמרה “הבה לי בנים, ואם אין מתה אנכי” [בראשית ל:ב]…..דבאדם וחוה שברך אותם קודם החטא שלא היה לה צער לידה, היה מצות שניהם בפריה וברביה, ואמר להם “פרו ורבו” (שם א, כח). אבל לאחר החטא שהיה לה צער לידה, והיא רוב פעמים מסתכנת מזה…בנח, אף דכתיב “ויאמר להם פרו ורבו”, הלא כתיב קודם (שם) “ויברך את נח ואת בניו”, אבל נשיהם לא הזכיר, שאינם בכלל מצוה דפרו ורבו. וביעקב קאמר “פרה ורבה” [בראשית לה:יא], וזה נכון.
Meshech Chochma Bereishit 9:7
Peru u-rvu. It is not far off to say that the Torah exempted women from procreation, and obligated only men, because the laws of God and His ways are “the ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace.” And [the Torah] did not overload the Israelite with what the body couldn’t take…And if so, women who are endangered in pregnancy and childbirth, which is why they said death [in childbearing] is common, see Tosafot Ketubot 83b s.v. “death is common,” the Torah did not decree to command a woman to be fruitful and multiply…Only for the sake of perpetuating the species, did He instill in her nature that her desire to give birth is more powerful than a man’s. And we found that Rachel said “Give me children, and if not I am dead” [Bereishit30:2]…For with Adam and Chava, when He blessed them before the sin when she did not have pain with childbirth, procreation was a mitzva for both of them and He said to them “peru u-rvu” [in the plural]. But after the sin, when she had pain with childbirth, and she usually became endangered through this…With No’ach, even though it is written “and He said to them, peru u-rvu” [in the plural], it is written previously “[and God] blessed No’ach and his sons, but it didn’t mention their wives, who are not included in the mitzva of peru u-revu. And to Yaakov He said “pere u-rve” [in the singular, Bereishit 35:11], and this is correct.
משך חכמה בראשית ט:ז
עוד יתכן לאמר בטעם שפטרה התורה נשים מפריה ורביה, משום דבאמת הלא הטביעה בטבע התשוקה, ובנקבה עוד יותר…ודי במה שהיא מוכרחת בטבע.
Meshech Chochma Bereishit 9:7
It is further possible to say that the reason the Torah exempted women from procreation is because, in truth, didn’t it implant desire within nature, and for women more so…and it is enough that she [a woman] is naturally compelled…
משך חכמה בראשית ט:ז
…דאם נשא אשה ולא ילדה, מחויב ליקח אשה שיש לה בנים….. לגזור על האשה כי תנשא לאיש ולא יוליד תצא מאהוב נפשה ותקח איש אחר, זה נגד הטבע לאהוב השנוא ולשנוא האהוב. ורק האיש, שיכול לישא עוד אחרת, עליו הטילה התורה מצוה.
Meshech Chochma Bereishit 9:7
…For if he married a woman and she did not give birth, he [the husband] is obligated to marry a[nother] woman who is fertile.…To decree on a woman that if she marries a man and he does not father children she should leave her soul’s beloved and take another man, this is against nature to love the hated and hate the beloved. And only upon a man, who can marry another woman [in addition to his wife], did the Torah cast the mitzva [of peru u-rvu].
שיטה לא נודע למי, קידושין מא.
מצוה בה יותר מבשלוחה. ואף על גב דאתתא לא מפקדא בפריה ורביה מדרבנן מיהא מיחייבא, אי נמי דאית לה שכר כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה.
Unnamed Early Halachic Authority, Kiddushin 41a
[Betrothal] is a mitzva through herself more than through her agent. And even though a woman is not commanded in procreation, nevertheless, she is rabbinically obligated. Alternatively, because she has a reward as one who is not commanded and does [a mitzva].
ר”ן על הרי”ף קידושין טז:
דאע”ג [=דאף על גב] דאשה אינה מצוה בפריה ורביה מ”מ [=מכל מקום] יש לה מצוה מפני שהיא מסייעת לבעל לקיים מצותו
Ran Kiddushin 16b, Rif Pagination
For even though a woman is not commanded in procreation, in any case she has a mitzva because she helps the husband to fulfill his mitzva.
שו”ת חתם סופר אה”ע א כ:נ
…ובימיהם שהי[ה] יכול הבעל לישא אשה על אשתו או לגרשה בע”כ [=בעל כורחה] וא”כ [=ואם כן] אם הוא מתואבי בנים …יכול לישא אחרת או לגרש את זו…וכיון דאינו יכול לגרשה בע”כ [=בעל כורחה] ולא לישא אחרת עליה ומתבטל ממ”ע [=ממצוות עשה] של לערב אל תנח ידך צריכא רשות מבעלה או תתרצה לקבל גט ממנו…
Responsa Chatam Sofer EH I 20:50
….In their days, when a husband could marry a woman in addition to his wife or could divorce her against her will, and if, if he were desirous of children…he could marry another or divorce this woman [the first wife]…and since he cannot [nowadays] divorce her against her will or marry another woman in addition to her, and he would forgo the positive mitzva of la-erev al tanach yadecha, [a woman] requires permission from her husband [to drink a sterilizing drink] or, she can agree to receive a bill of divorce from him.
יבמות סב:
בני בנים הרי הם כבנים. סבר אביי למימר: ברא לברא וברתא לברתא, וכ”ש [=וכל שכן] ברא לברתא, אבל ברתא לברא לא; א”ל [=אמר ליה] רבא: לשבת יצרה בעיא, והא איכא.
Yevamot 62b
Grandchildren are considered like children. Abbaye thought to say: A son’s son and a daughter’s daughter, and how much more so a daughter’s son, but not a son’s daughter. Rava said to him: We require “for settlement did He form it” and behold there is [settlement with a son’s daughter].
שולחן ערוך אה”ע א:ה-ו
כיון שיש לאדם זכר ונקבה, קיים מצות פריה ורביה, והוא שלא יהיה הבן סריס או הנקבה איילונית. …נולדו לו זכר ונקבה, ומתו והניחו בנים, הרי זה קיים מצות פריה ורביה. בד”א [=במה דברים אמורים], כשהיו בני הבנים זכר ונקבה, והיו באים מזכר ונקבה, אף על פי שהזכר בן בתו והנקבה בת בנו…
Shulchan Aruch EH 1:5-6
Once a man has a male and a female [child], he has fulfilled the mitzva of pirya ve-rivya, and that is when the son and daughter are not presumed infertile [based on not experiencing typical puberty]…If a male and female were born to him and they died and left children, this man has fulfilled pirya ve-rivya. In what case were these matters said? When the grandchildren were a male and a female and they came from a male and a female, even if the male is his daughter’s son and the female is his son’s daughter…
Shevet
משנה גיטין ד:ה
מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין עובד את רבו יום אחד ואת עצמו יום אחד, דברי בית הלל. אמרו לו בית שמאי: תקנתם את רבו ואת עצמו לא תקנתם. לישא שפחה אי אפשר, שכבר חציו בן חורין. בת חורין אי אפשר, שכבר חציו עבד. יבטל–והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה? שנאמר (יש’ מ”ה) “לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה” אלא מפני תקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין … וחזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי בית שמאי:
Mishna Gittin 4:5
One who is half bondsman and half freeman serves his master one day and himself one day, the words of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai said to him: You have rectified [matters] for his master, but for himself you have not rectified [matters]. To marry a bondswoman is impossible, for he is already half freeman. A freewoman is impossible, for he is already half bondsman. Shall he desist [from procreating]? And was the world not created only for procreation, for it is said: “Not for void did He create it, for settlement did He form it.” Rather, on account of tikkun olam [rectifying the world] we force his master to make him a freeman…And Beit Hillel turned to rule in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai.
יבמות סב.
תניא אידך: ר’ נתן אומר…ובה”א [=ובית הלל אומרים]: או זכר או נקבה. אמר רבא: מ”ט [=מאי טעמא] דר’ נתן אליבא דב”ה [=דבית הלל]? שנא[מר]: לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה, והא עבד לה שבת.
Yevamot 62a
It was taught in another [baraita]: Rabbi Natan says…Beit Hillel say: either a male or a female. Rava said: What is the reason for Rabbi Natan[‘s view] in accordance with Beit Hillel? For it is said: “Not for void did He create it [the world], for settlement [shevet] did He form it,” and this accomplishes shevet.
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, “‘Peru U-revu’ and ‘Shevet’”, shiur notes on VBM
The mitzva of peru u-revu applies to the individual; it casts a personal obligation upon each individual, like the mitzvot of sukka and matza, for example. The obligation of shevet, by contrast, is not formulated as a command, but rather as the Almighty’s will…. From the perspective of God’s will that mankind reproduce and populate the world, it makes no difference whether one fulfills this mitzva personally or causes someone else to fulfill it. All people bear the obligation to increase the world’s population….We would not, however, have the license to force the master to free his servant so that the latter could fulfill some personal obligation that he bears….[W]e may distinguish between the mitzva of shevet and that of peru u-revu differently than we did earlier. The mitzva of periya ve-rivya demands a specific action. Shevet, by contrast, is a mitzva dependent upon the result. According to this explanation, we can understand why sexual relations constitutes a fulfillment of the mitzva of periya ve-rivya, but not, according to the Minchat Chinukh, of the mitzva of shevet, since no children have resulted from the union as of yet.
תוספות בבא בתרא יג. ד”ה שנאמר לא תהו בראה וגו’
וחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין…הא דלא כפו אותו משום שבת דשמא אפילו כשתעשה בת חורין לא תקיים משום דלא מפקדא אפריה ורביה כדאמרינן בהבא על יבמתו (שם דף סה: ושם) דאיתתא לא מפקדא אפריה ורביה אבל עבד כשיהיה בן חורין ע”כ [=על כורחו] יקיים…
Tosafot Bava Batra 13a, s.v. “she-ne’emar lo tohu bera’ah”
And she is half bondswoman and half freewoman…That they do not force him [to free her] on account of shevet is because perhaps when she becomes a freewoman she won’t fulfill it, because she is not commanded in pirya ve-rivya, as we say in Yevamot 65b, that a woman is not commanded in pirya ve-rivya, but a bondsman when he becomes free will perforce fulfill [shevet, since he will then be obligated in peru u-rvu]
בית שמואל א:ב
י”ל [=יש לומר] להשיא יתומה נמי מוכרים ס”ת [=ספר תורה] לקיים לשבת יצרה דאשה נמי מצווה על שבת
Beit Shemuel 1:2
One can say that we sell a Torah scroll to marry off even a female orphan in order to fulfill ‘la-shevet yetzarah’ [for settlement did He form it], for a woman is also commanded in shevet.
ערוך השולחן אה”ע א:ד
יש מהגדולים שכתבו שהאשה אף שאינה מצווה על פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] מ”מ [=מכל מקום] חייבת בלשבת יצרה ואין עיקר לדברים הללו דכל עיקר מצות פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] הוא מטעם שבת כמ”ש [=כמו שכתבתי] בסעי[ף] א’ והנשים כיון שלא נצטוו על פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] ממילא דלא נצטוו על לשבת …והן אמת שרבותינו בעלי התוס[פות] כתבו דאשה שייך נמי בשבת [גיטין מ”א: וב”ב י”ג א] אבל אין כוונתם שמחוייבות בשבת אלא דשייכות בשבת ובודאי כן הוא שגם הן מרבים בישובו של עולם וקרא דלשבת יצרה אינו צווי אלא סיפור דברים דהקב”ה [=דהקדוש ברוך הוא] ברא עולמו לשיתיישבו בה בני אדם וגם נשים בכלל…
Aruch Ha-shulchan EH 1:4
There are early authorities who wrote that a woman, although she is not commanded in pirya u-rivya, is nevertheless obligated in ‘la-shevet yetzarah.’ And there is no substance to these words, for the whole essence of the mitzva of pirya u-rivya is from the rationale of shevet, as I wrote above, and women, since they were not commanded in pirya u-rivya, naturally they were not commanded in la-shevet…And it is true that our sages the Tosafot wrote that shevet is also relevant for a woman [Gittin 41b and Bava Batra 13a], but their intention was not that they are obligated in shevet, but rather that shevet is relevant for them, and certainly this is so for they, too, increase the settlement of the world, and the verse of ‘la-shevet yetzarah’ is not a commandment but rather an exposition of how God created His world so that people would settle it, and women are included as well…
La-Erev
יבמות סב:
דתניא רבי יהושע אומר נשא אדם אשה בילדותו ישא אשה בזקנותו, היו לו בנים בילדותו יהיו לו בנים בזקנותו, שנא[מר] בבקר זרע את זרעך ולערב אל תנח ידך כי אינך יודע אי זה יכשר הזה או זה ואם שניהם כאחד טובים [קהלת יא:ו] ר”ע [=רבי עקיבא] אומר למד תורה בילדותו, ילמוד תורה בזקנותו. היו לו תלמידים בילדותו, יהיו לו תלמידים בזקנותו, שנא[מר] בבקר זרע את זרעך וגו’
Yevamot 62b
For it was taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yehoshua says, if a man married a woman in his youth, he should marry a woman in his old age, if he had children in his youth, he should have children in his old age, as it is said, “In the morning sow your seed and in the evening do not let your hands rest, for you do not know which will be fit, this or that, or if both of them will be equally good” (Kohelet 11:6). Rabbi Akiva says: if he learned Torah in his youth, he should learn Torah in his old age; if he had students in his youth, he should have students in his old age, for it says “In the morning sow your seed, etc.”
רי”ף יבמות יט:
אמר רב מתנה הלכה כדברי ר’ יהושע והא מילתא דרבנן היא אבל דאורייתא כיון שיש לו זכר ונקבה קיים מצות פריה ורביה
Rif Yevamot 19b
Rav Matna said the halacha is in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. And this is a rabbinic matter, but on a Torah level, once he has a male and a female, he has fulfilled the mitzva of procreation.
המאור הגדול יבמות כ. בדפי הרי”ף
דאיפסקא הלכתא כר”י [=כרבי יהושע] …אפי[לו] יש לו בנים לא יבטל מפריה ורביה ולכתחלה אינו נושא אשה דלאו בת בנים אף על פי שיש לו כמה בנים ומוכר ס”ת [=ספר תורה] לישא אשה בת בנים ואף על גב דמדרבנן היא אין הפרש בכך בין דאורייתא לדרבנן
Ha-me’or ha-gadol Yevamot 20a (Rif pagination)
For the halacha was decided in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua…even if one has children, he should not desist from procreation, and from the outset he should not marry a woman who is not fertile even if he already has several children, and one may sell a Torah scroll to marry a woman who is fertile, and even though it’s rabbinic, there is no distinction in this between Torah level and Rabbinic.
מלחמת ה’ לרמב”ן, יבמות כ. בדפי הרי”ף
ומיהו כיון דמצוה דרבנן היא כמנהג דרך ארץ מדקא נסיב לה תלמודא בבקר זרע את זרעך ולא הזכירו בזה איסור אלא ישא אשה מצוה דלכתחלה הוא אין כופין ולא קורין עבריינא למי שאינו רוצה לעסוק בה…
Ramban, Milchemet Hashem, Yevamot 20a (Rif pagination)
Nevertheless, since the mitzva is rabbinic, it is in accordance with common mores, since the Talmud used the verse of “in the morning sow your seed” and did not mention a prohibition, rather that marrying a woman is a mitzva le-chat’chila [ideally]. We don’t compel him, and we don’t call someone who does not wish to occupy himself with it [procreation after fulfilling the Torah mitzva] a transgressor…
רמב”ם הלכות אישות טו:טז
אף על פי שקיים אדם מצות פריה ורביה הרי הוא מצווה מדברי סופרים שלא יבטל מלפרות ולרבות כל זמן שיש בו כח, שכל המוסיף נפש אחת בישראל כאילו בנה עולם…
Rambam, Laws of Ishut 15:16
Even though a person has fulfilled the mitzva of peru u-rvu, he is commanded rabbinically not to desist from procreating as long as he has strength, for whoever adds a soul to Israel is akin to having built a world…
שו”ת אגרות משה אה”ע ד לב:ג
דנאמר אל תנח ידך שמשמעו שלא יבטל לגמרי…וכן משמע מלשון הרמב”ם שכתב בפט”ו הט”ז [=בפרק ט”ו הלכה ט”ז] אף על פי שקיים פו”ר [=פריה ורביה] ה”ה [=הרי הוא] מצווה מד”ס [=מדברי סופרים] שלא יבטל כ”ז [=כל זמן] שיש בו כח הרי דרק בטול אסור שהוא מניעה לגמרי, אבל אין ענין החיוב כפו”ר [=כפריה ורביה] דמדאורייתא…
Responsa Iggerot Moshe EH 4 32:3
…For it is said “do not let your hands rest,” the implication of which is that he not totally desist….And so is implied from the language of Rambam, who wrote in chapter 15, halacha 16, “Even though he has fulfilled pirya ve-rivya, he is commanded rabbinically not to desist as long as he has strength.” Therefore, the only desisting that is prohibited is total prevention, but the obligation is not like pirya ve-rivya, which is from the Torah…
תשובת הגאון הרב חיים קנייבסקי, שו”ת פועה מניעת הריון, עמ’ 30
אין לזה שיעור, וכמה שהקב”ה נותן.
Responsum of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Responsa of Puah Institute on Contraception, p. 30
There is no set amount, as much as God grants.
פניני הלכה, שמחת הבית וברכתו ה:ו, הערה 6
כדי לסייע למשפחות ואף לרבנים המשיבים, נלענ”ד [=נראה לפי עניות דעתי] שיש צורך לחלק את מצוות חכמים לשתי מדרגות, ולתת בכך מענה לרוב השאלות. …יש לחלוקה זו סימוכין בשתי סברות: האחת: מצינו שחכמים קבעו את מצוותם כעין מצוות התורה. “כל דתקון רבנן, כעין דאורייתא תקון” (גיטין סה, א, ועוד מקומות)…. שבמידה ואין בארבעה הראשונים שני בנים ושתי בנות, טוב להוליד ילד חמישי, שלרוב המשפחות, בחמישה ילדים כבר יהיו שני בנים ושתי בנות. אבל אין לקבוע כחובה על סמך סברה קלה זו להוליד יותר מחמישה ילדים. שכן גם בארבעה יש כעין דאורייתא מצד המספר, ואף הסיכון שלא יקיים פרו ורבו יורד לחצי, הואיל ומאחד המינים יש שניים. הסברה השנייה פחות מוגדרת אבל יש לה משקל רב: כלל ידוע הוא “פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר”, כלומר, כאשר אין יודעים כיצד חייבים לקיים מצווה מסוימת, יוצאים ורואים כיצד המנהג הרווח אצל שומרי המצוות.
Peninei Halacha (official translation), Simhat Ha-bayit U-virkhato, Procreation, Two Tiers of the Rabbinic Mitzva 5:6, note 6
In order to help these families and the rabbis they consult, it seems to me that it is necessary to divide the rabbinic obligation into two tiers, which will address most questions….Two rationales can be brought to support this division. First, we know that the Sages often pattern rabbinic laws upon Torah laws, as the Talmud states, “Whatever the rabbis ordained, they ordained on the pattern of the Torah” (Gittin 65a et al.)…. if one does not have two boys and two girls among the first four children, it is best to have a fifth child, for in most families, the five children will include two boys and two girls. However, we do not assert on the basis of this speculative reasoning that it is obligatory to have more than five children. Even in a family with four children, the second tier obligation is patterned on the Torah with respect to number, and the risk of not fulfilling the mitzva of procreation has been greatly minimized. The second rationale is not as well defined, but carries great weight. There is a well-known principle that when we are uncertain as to how exactly to perform a specific mitzva, we should look at the prevalent practice among observant Jews. Among families that have no specific physical or mental difficulties (not counting those who enhance the mitzva by having especially large families), the typical number of children is between four and five.
Rav Yehuda H. Henkin, Responsa on Contemporary Jewish Women's Issues, p. 186
Also, while according to Rambam there is no limit to the number of children mandated by la’erev “as long as he has strength,” it seems likely that according to other rishonim [early authorities] the rabbinical la’erev resembled the Torah mitzvah of pru u’revu in having one son and one daughter, in keeping with the principle “Everything the Sages enacted, they enacted in resemblance to the Torah.” This fits the exposition of the verse in Kohelet, “sow your seed in the morning and in the evening do not rest your hand, that is the same obligation you had in the morning to have a son and a daughter in fulfillment of pru u’revu is the obligation you have in the evening in fulfillment of la’erev. It follows that a man who has two sons and two daughters has fulfilled both the Torah obligation of pru u’revu and the rabbinical vela’erev…
עקידת יצחק בראשית ט
… יש לאשה שני תכליות. האחד מה שיורה עליו שם אשה כי מאיש לוקחה זאת וכמוהו תוכל להבין ולהשכיל בדברי שכל וחסידות כמו שעשו האמהות וכמה צדקניות ונביאות וכאשר יורה פשט פרשת אשת חיל מי ימצא… והשני ענין ההולדה והיותה כלי אליה ומוטבעת אל הלידה וגדול הבנים כאשר יורה עליה שם חוה כאשר היא היתה אם כל חי. והנה תהיה האשה כאשר לא תלד לסבה מהסבות מנועה מהתכלית הקטן ההוא אל מציאותה ותשאר להרע או להיטיב כמו האיש אשר לא יוליד כי בהשלים עצמו באותו התכלית המיניי המשותף להם נאמר ואל יאמר הסריס הן אני עץ יבש ונאמר ונתתי להם בביתי ובחומותי יד ושם טוב מבנים ומבנות (ישעיה נ”ו) כי ודאי עקר תולדותיהם של צדיקים מעשים טובים…
Akeidat Yitzchak Bereishit 9
…A woman has two purposes [in life]. One is described by the name “isha,” “for from man [ish] this one was taken,” and like him she is able to understand and grasp matters of intelligence and righteousness, as did the matriarchs and several righteous women and prophetesses, and as the straightforward meaning of “A woman of valor, who can find” describes… And the second is the matter of childbearing and being the vessel for birth and raising children, as described by the name “Chava” when she became the mother of all life. And when a woman does not bear children for some reason, she is unable to fulfil that minor purpose, and remains, for better or worse, like the man who does not sire children, for regarding fulfilling himself in that same shared human purpose, it is said, “Let not the eunuch say, I am a dry tree,” and it is said, “I will give them in My House and within My walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters,” for certainly the primary offspring of righteous people are good deeds….
'A Tu B'Shvat Thought,' ATIME Newsletter, Chanukah 5761/Winter 2000.Chana Jenny Weisberg, “So, What Do You Do?,” TheJewishWoman.org
The Torah doesn’t say be fruitful via multiplication, but rather it seems like two separate commandments. Be fruitful and multiply. Applying it to us [singles and childless people], we should bear in mind that we can and should be fruitful even though we are not yet ‘multiplying.’ We should make the most of ourselves as spouses, as siblings, as children of parents, as employees/employers and as members of society. In the merit of being the best we can be, may Hashem grant us our most fervent wishes.
Chana Jenny Weisberg, “So, What Do You Do?,” TheJewishWoman.org
Jewish mysticism teaches us that the parchment that the words are written on, or white fire, is just as important as the words themselves, or black fire. In fact, the white fire between the words is considered a higher form of Torah, which transcends the concrete, limited, contracted black fire….Just as the space taken up by the parchment is twice as large as the space taken up by the words in a Torah scroll, the vast majority of existence is spent maneuvering the white fire of life that exists between the professions….It is in the white fire that we hug our children…The white fire is the domain of the day-to-day, behind-the-scenes work of Jewish mothers, as we sustain our families and communities and our ancient people….Recently, my husband was telling me about a rabbi he met who spends eighteen hours a day studying Torah, teaching, and helping people in need. Impressed, I said, “It’s people like this rabbi who carry the Jewish people on their shoulders.” And my husband said quietly, as if to himself, “You’re right. Although, the funny thing is that I’ve always thought that it is the mothers who carry the Jewish people on their shoulders.”
Q&A
Sometimes a quick exchange communicates more effectively, and more personally, than an article. Sometimes, just seeing that others share our questions can make us feel more connected.
Our posted questions and answers are an opportunity to learn from each other. To ask a question of your own, click here!
Hashkafic Q&A
How is Chava’s legacy relevant to the lives of women today?
Two legacies are ascribed to Chava, as the archetypal woman:
First, the challenges of reproduction—sometimes unequal sexual relationships, the physical discomforts of pregnancy, the pain and danger of childbirth, and the trials of raising children.
Second, her core identity as “mother of all life.”
Over the past century, conditions for women in the developed world have changed enormously, so that the challenges of reproduction, Chava’s first legacy, are often felt much less acutely.
Some of the shifts have been social. Many couples enter marriage seeing and respecting each other as equals, including within their intimate relationship.
Other shifts have been driven by medical advances. Contraception is now more effective, safe, and available, so that relations are less likely to lead to unwanted conception and couples can exercise more control over family planning. (We discuss halachic aspects of contraception in our next piece.) Though some women still endure difficult pregnancies, modern medicine can treat a wider range of pregnancy complications. While childbirth is still painful and dangerous, many women have access to effective pain control options. Advances in medical care for women and infants also reduce maternal and infant mortality.
Still, even in societies where women’s reproductive realities have changed, the conditions set forth as consequences for Chava loom large. Women are keenly aware that abstinence is still the only fail-proof form of contraception, access to contraception and to reproductive care is not guaranteed, and childbirth and its aftermath are neither painless nor free of danger.
Perhaps the most universally enduring element of Chava’s first legacy is what Rashi calls tza’ar gidul banim, “the travail of raising children.” Child rearing remains a challenge, often borne primarily by mothers, that social and medical developments have not necessarily eased. The persistence of this challenge seems to figure prominently in recent shifts in attitudes toward Chava’s second legacy, the role of mother.
While in many societies motherhood remains central to a woman’s aspirations and identity, rates of childbearing have been dropping precipitously throughout the developed world. More and more people are having fewer children or no children at all, often by choice. Possible explanations for this shift include lack of social support structures for young families, financial concerns, fears for the future, and broader changes in setting life priorities. As other reproductive challenges have faded and allowed for more exercise of individual preferences, the challenge of tza’ar gidul banim has sometimes overshadowed the meaning of motherhood.
Unique among developed nations, however, Israel has sustained a higher birthrate and remains a very family-oriented society. Judaism’s mitzva of procreation and emphasis on family, have likely been a significant contributing factor in maintaining a pro-natal culture, by attributing deeper meaning to childbearing and child rearing. Journalist Christine Emba makes note of this:3
Christine Emba, “The Real Reason People Aren’t Having Kids”, The Atlantic, August 1, 2024
“Meaning”…tends to stem from uniting in the face of undesirable crises (wars, pandemics) or from the sorts of broadly enforced norms (religious, cultural) that many no longer share. (This could be a clue as to why Israel has bucked the low-birth-rate trend: The religious edict to “be fruitful and multiply” is an accepted part of the national culture, and childbearing is viewed as a contribution to a collective goal.)
Even in the face of the challenges childbearing entails, a preponderance of Jews, at least in Israel, continue to find great meaning and purpose in building a family. A recent letter by a modern Israeli midwife about her experiences in wartime resonates:4
לאה מלמד, מיילדת, במכתב לסיון רהב מאיר 27.8.24
הלידות מאז תחילת המלחמה היו עמוסות ריגשית…. ועכשיו, עשרה חודשים אחרי, גל לידות אחר. אני מוצאת שיש משהו נוסף באוויר. הזוגות שמגיעים עכשיו, הם זוגות שהחליטו להביא חיים לעולם, בזמן משבר. זו בחירה שבראייה מסוימת עשויה להיתפס כחסרת כל הגיון. איך אפשר לחשוב על הבאת חיים לעולם כזה?… מהמיילדות העבריות במצרים, שהייתה בהן ‘יראת אלוקים… ‘ הן ראו מעבר לצו האכזרי של המלך פרעה, נטול המוסר והמצפון. הן הלכו עם אמת אחת, עם ערך של קדושת החיים, גם במחיר סיכון חייהן ממש. המיילדות ידעו אז, ויודעות גם היום, לראות את הצמיחה מתוך השבר, גם כשאחרים מתקשים להאמין שהיא בוא תבוא. היום,אני…שואבת כוחות…מהנשים האלה, שיש להן את אותה ראייה למרחוק, אותה גבורה נשית של אז, במצרים. הן מזכירות לי את יוכבד שמאתגרת את עמרם, בעלה, שסירב להביא עוד ילדים במצרים, ודורשת ממנו לעלות קומה בקומות האמונה, ולהמשיך את החיים על אף המציאות המייסרת. כך נולד משה רבנו. כך בונים עתיד, למען כולנו…
Leah Melamed, Midwife, Letter to Sivan Rahav Meir (Instagram @sivanrahavmeir August 28, 2024)
The births since the beginning of the war were emotionally loaded…But now, ten months later, a new wave of births. I find that there’s something else in the air. The couples arriving now are couples who have decided to bring life into the world in a time of crisis. This is a choice that from a certain perspective is liable to be taken as lacking any logic. How is it possible to think about bringing children into a world like this?…From the Hebrew midwives of Mitzrayim, who had fear of God…they saw beyond the cruel command of Pharaoh the king, devoid of morality or conscience. They went with a single truth, with the value of the sanctity of life, even at the price of real risk to their lives. The midwives knew then, and know today as well, how to see growth within a fracture, even when others struggle to believe that it will come. Today, …I draw strength from…these women, for they have the same long view, the same female heroism as then, in Mitzrayim. They remind me of Yocheved, who challenges her husband Amram, who refused to have more children in Mitzrayim, and demands that he rise to a higher level in faith, to continue life notwithstanding a torturous reality….That’s how we build a future, for all of our sakes…
Even when the travails of childbearing and child rearing seem daunting, Jewish values can inspire couples to transcend them.
Reader Q&A
Podcast
Click here to sponsor this episode!
