Siman 1

When the Holy One, Blessed be He, created His world and created man, male and female, it is written: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it." And likewise after the Flood, He blessed Noah and his sons, as it is written: "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," for the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is for the increase of the human species for the habitation of the world, as the prophet said: "He did not create it for emptiness, He formed it to be inhabited" [Isaiah 45]. And at the time when Israel was exiled to Babylon, the prophet Jeremiah [29] sent to them: "Take wives and beget sons and daughters," meaning—do not say, since we are in exile, why should we increase offspring? Rather, you are obligated to perform the mitzvah according to all that Hashem our God commanded us, and Hashem will do with us according to His will. And it is a positive commandment upon each and every man of Israel to marry a woman and to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation. Therefore, the verse repeated to Noah after the blessing of "be fruitful and multiply," and commanded him and his sons with the mandate of the Torah: "And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm on the earth and multiply on it." This verse is for a commandment, and the first is for a blessing [Rashi]. And it is an exceedingly great mitzvah, because the existence and habitation of the world depend upon it. Therefore, even one who fulfilled the mitzvah and his children died—is obligated to marry a woman and beget children once again, as will be explained. And the reason is because the mitzvah is for the sake of "He formed it to be inhabited," and since they died, he has not fulfilled the habitation [Yevamot 62b]. Consequently, when Hezekiah did not want to marry a woman and beget sons because he saw through the Holy Spirit that unworthy children would emerge from him, the prophet told him in the name of Hashem that he would die in this world and not live in the World to Come. And thus he said to him: "Why do you involve yourself with the secrets of the Merciful One? What you are commanded, you must do, and what is pleasing before the Holy One, Blessed be He, let Him do" [Berakhot 10a]. And as for that which we find our sages, of blessed memory, saying, that from the day the decrees increased it would have been proper not to marry women and not to beget sons [end of chapter "Hezkhat HaBatim"]—this was by way of lamentation in order to increase prayer and supplications, and all the poskim did not cite this for the reason we have written; and so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in a responsum [siman 14]. Furthermore, there the decrees were to force the abandonment of religion, as is explained there, and even that is only for one who has already fulfilled the mitzvah of procreation [Tosafot]. And thus the sages, of blessed memory, said [Yevamot 63b] that anyone who does not engage in procreation is as if he spills blood, as it is said: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," and juxtaposed to it is "And you, be fruitful and multiply." And likewise, he is as if he diminishes the Image, as it is said: "For in the image of God He made man," and it is written after it: "And you, be fruitful and multiply." And he causes the Shekhinah to depart from Israel, as it is said: "To be a God to you and to your offspring after you"—at a time when your offspring is after you, the Shekhinah dwells; if your offspring is not after you, upon whom shall it dwell? Upon the trees and upon the stones? (in wonder) [ibid. 64b]. And anyone who dwells without a wife—dwells without joy, without blessing, without goodness, without peace, without Torah, and without a wall. And he is not called "man" at all, as it is said: "Male and female He created them... and called their name Adam [Man]," for a man without a wife is half a body. And once he marries a woman—his sins are blocked and closed up, as it is said: "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favor from Hashem" [Proverbs 18], because he then distances himself from sinful thoughts and is bound to his home; therefore, he obtains favor from Hashem. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, called the woman a "help," as it is written: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmate against him."

The woman is not commanded regarding pruz u-revu, for the obligation of the mitzvah was placed only upon the male. Since in the blessing of Adam the first it is written, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it," and regarding Noah it is not written "and subdue it" – it comes for an interpretation, to say that the obligation is placed upon one whose way is to subdue the earth, and that is the male and not the female, for it is not her way to go out to war and subdue. Furthermore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Jacob our forefather: "I am El Shaddai, be fruitful and multiply [in the singular]," and He did not use the plural language "be fruitful and multiply [pru u-revu]" – which proves that the obligation is placed only upon him alone [ibid. 65b]. And that which was said to Adam "pru u-revu" in the plural language – that was for a blessing and not for a mitzvah [Tosafot]. And regarding Noah where it is written in the plural language – it is because it refers to Noah and his sons as is explicit in the verse, and therefore it was precise to say: "And you [plural] be fruitful and multiply," meaning that the obligation is upon Noah and his sons, as it is written at the beginning of the matter: "And God blessed Noah and his sons," and to exclude the women even though it is necessary that they too be included in the blessing. For the command to exit the ark was also upon the women as is written there at the beginning of the portion, and He blessed all those who exited the ark, just as He blessed Adam and his wife, for regarding the first creatures it was necessary that the females also be included in the blessing since from them the world was established and without them it is impossible to be fruitful and multiply. And even if there was a command upon the first woman that she be fruitful and multiply – we do not learn from her for future generations, for then it was not possible for Adam to fulfill the mitzvah without her, and likewise Noah and his sons without their wives since they were alone in their world. But afterwards, even though the obligation is not placed upon the females, nevertheless every male will find his mate, for so the Holy One, Blessed be He, ingrained in them, that more than the man desires to marry, the woman desires to be married. And the interpretation of the verse can be explained thus: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it" – meaning: now I command both of you to be fruitful and multiply until you fill the earth with the human species, and then the obligation will be upon the one whose way is to subdue. And likewise to Noah He said to them in the blessing: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," that now the obligation is also upon the females until you fill the earth, and afterwards "And you [plural] be fruitful and multiply" – meaning: only you and not the females. Therefore, regarding Jacob when the world was already full, He said to him in the singular language "be fruitful and multiply," and likewise Jeremiah the prophet when he sent to the members of the exile, he sent to the males that they should take wives, for the obligation is placed only upon them and not upon the females.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 10: Even though a woman is not commanded regarding pru u'rvu, nevertheless, some say she should not remain without a husband due to suspicion. Thus far his words. And in the Tosefta Yevamot chapter 8, it is explained that a woman is permitted to dwell without a husband. And so the Rambam wrote in chapter 21 of Issurei Biah, that a woman has the permission never to marry or to marry a eunuch, see there. However, in chapter 15 of Ishut he wrote that it is a rabbinic commandment that a woman should not dwell without a husband lest she be suspected, see there. However, everything is according to the matter, for in a place where suspicion is not relevant, we are not concerned for this, and furthermore, according to the law, it is certain that we do not compel her, but it is good advice that she should not dwell without a husband to distance herself from suspicion.

There are some of the great authorities who wrote that even though a woman is not commanded in p'ru u'rvu, nevertheless she is obligated in "He created it to be inhabited" (lashevet yetzarah). There is no basis for these words, for the entire essence of the mitzvah of p'ru u'rvu is based on the reason of "inhabiting," as I wrote in section 1. And since women were not commanded in p'ru u'rvu, it follows that they were not commanded in "He created it to be inhabited." This is also proven from the words of the Rambam that we cited in section 3 and from all the poskim, that there is no obligation at all incumbent upon the woman. There is a clear proof for this from what our sages, of blessed memory, said: that if the prevention is from the man, such that he cannot father children—the woman cannot compel him to divorce her, as is written in siman 154. Now, if we were to say that she is commanded in "inhabiting," why could she not compel him? And it is true that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote that a woman also belongs to "inhabiting" [Gittin 41b and Bava Batra 13a], but their intention is not that they are obligated in "inhabiting," but rather that they are relevant to "inhabiting." And certainly this is so, for they too increase the settlement of the world, and the verse "He created it to be inhabited" is not a command but a narrative of matters—that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created His world so that human beings would settle it, and women are also included. And this is what our teachers said there regarding one who is half-maidservant and half-freewoman, who cannot marry either a slave or a free man: that if we were certain she would marry a man, we would compel her master to emancipate her, and he should not hinder the settlement of the world. However, because we are not certain she will marry since she is not commanded, therefore we do not compel her master; see there. And from this itself there is proof that she is not commanded in anything, for if it were not so, how could they write that we are not certain she will marry? Rather, the essence is as I wrote: that certainly one through whom there is a hindrance to the settlement of the world, such as this master who has a slave or maidservant who is half-free, we seek to see that they should be able to increase the settlement of the world, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 267, even though no obligation is incumbent upon them. And that which they wrote there that "He created it to be inhabited" is a great mitzvah—the intention is not that it is a mitzvah incumbent upon this person, for the mitzvah is p'ru u'rvu and whoever was commanded in it. Rather, because the reason for p'ru u'rvu is because of "inhabiting" as I wrote, and it is the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to increase the settlement of His world, therefore the beit din is obligated to see that there should be no hindrance to this great matter, even for one who was not commanded in p'ru u'rvu.

It was written in the She'iltot of Rav Achai Gaon, Parshat Bracha, and this is his wording: "That the House of Israel are obligated to take wives and beget children and engage in parya u'rvya, as it is written: 'Take wives and beget sons and daughters.' And it is not only Israel, but even the star-worshippers are commanded regarding parya u'rvya, as it is written: 'And you, be fruitful and multiply.'" Thus far his words. And in Parshat Noach he also wrote: That the House of Israel are obligated to take wives and beget children and fulfill parya u'rvya etc. Thus far his words, and he did not write there that star-worshippers are commanded regarding parya u'rvya, and the mitzvah of parya u'rvya is not among the mitzvot of Bnei Noach, and so our sages of blessed memory said explicitly [Sanhedrin 59a], and so wrote all the poskim. And it seems to me that even the Gaon does not intend a complete obligation, for here he is not dealing with the fulfillment of the mitzvah which he already wrote in Parshat Noach, and therefore he wrote there "to fulfill parya u'rvya," and here he wrote "and engage in parya u'rvya." Furthermore—if his intention was the fulfillment of the mitzvah, why did he bring the verse from Jeremiah and not the verses of the Torah? Rather, his intention is regarding the way of the world and the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the settlement of His world, and as he concludes there that even one who has fulfilled parya u'rvya should marry a woman capable of bearing children, for this is certainly not a positive commandment of the Torah but rather to increase the settlement of His world, and in this certainly all of mankind is equal. And even though the mitzvah is not incumbent upon the individual man, it applies to the generality of mankind to increase the settlement of the world according to the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He, who blessed Adam and Noach and his sons with the blessing of parya u'rvya, and afterwards warned them saying "And you, be fruitful and multiply," meaning: this is My will. And for Israel, this mitzvah was established upon every individual of Israel to fulfill this mitzvah just as they were commanded regarding all the mitzvot, but the star-worshippers who were not commanded in all the mitzvot—were also not commanded in this such that the obligation would be upon each one of them, but rather upon the collective of the nation was the blessing of Hashem that they should be fruitful and multiply, and it is His blessed will that they engage in the habitation of His world, as I wrote in section 4 regarding women. And therefore he brought the verse from Jeremiah, for the prophet did not warn them regarding mitzvot, but because their hands were weakened in the exile he told them that they should not slacken from the maintenance of the world, and that they should take wives and beget sons and daughters, and likewise it is appropriate to say to all of mankind [and the commentators of the She'iltot struggled with this, see there]. And so our sages of blessed memory said [Yevamot 62b] Bnei Noach are "sons of parya u'rvya," and it does not say they were commanded, but rather to say that they belong to parya u'rvya in the maintenance of the world, for this is the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He [and this is the intention of Rashi there]. And this is like the Torah forbade castrating any living creature, as I wrote in siman 5.

Slaves are not commanded regarding procreation. However, there are some of our teachers who hold that they are commanded, and they wrote the reason: that "be fruitful and multiply" was written regarding all descendants of Noah—even for Canaan. Thus far their words. And the explanation of their words: that even though from Sinai onward the obligation remained only upon Israel, nevertheless, slaves who are obligated in mitzvot like a woman, the obligation remained upon them. And even though a woman is exempt—this is because she is not subject to conquest, and this is like the mitzvah of milah in which the slave is obligated. And this is why they wrote "even for Canaan"—because regarding him it was said, "a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers." And know, that there is a great principle in this: that even those who do not have an obligation to fulfill this mitzvah, nevertheless, when they fulfill procreation they are performing a mitzvah, and a mitzvah relative to an obligation is called voluntary. And the proof for this is from Midrash Tanchuma, parshat Noach, which wrote that the man is commanded regarding procreation more than the woman—it follows that in her case there is also a mitzvah, only that she does not have an obligation to fulfill it. Therefore, if he had children while he was an idolater—he is no longer commanded regarding procreation as will be explained, because even in this he has fulfilled his obligation even though he was not commanded in it as an obligation. See the Ran at the beginning of the second chapter of Kiddushin, and the difficulty of the Anshei Shem is answered, and see what I wrote in siman 36, section 2.

And even though he has fulfilled the mitzvah of procreation and has many sons and daughters, if his wife died or he divorced her—it is forbidden to be without a wife, as it is said: "It is not good for man to be alone," and it is a rabbinic commandment so that he should not come to sinful thoughts [the Rambam, chapter 15 of the Laws of Ishut]. Therefore, even if he knows of himself that he is no longer fit to father children—nevertheless, he should not remain without a wife, because of sinful thoughts [Nimukei Yosef]. And from the plain meaning of the wording of the Shas and the poskim, it implies that there is no distinction in this, and even if he is an old man—he is obligated to take a wife. And behold, we have seen and heard of great and good men who, in their old age upon the death of their wife, do not marry a wife until the day of their death. And it is possible to say that since this is not from the Torah, and the verse "It is not good for man to be alone" is a mere asmachta regarding this matter [Beit Shmuel], and the reason is only because of sinful thoughts of transgression, and they know of themselves that they are far from such thoughts due to their old age and their weakness, therefore they exempt themselves from this. And so too, if he knows of himself that it is difficult for him to attend to a wife—certainly he is exempt, and all the more so when he has nothing with which to support her.

And so the sages commanded that if one recognizes in himself that he is still capable of fathering children—he should marry a woman capable of bearing children, if his financial standing is sufficient to support them. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said: If one married a woman in his youth—he should marry 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 withhold your hand, for you do not know which will succeed, this or that, or if both alike are good," and thus the halacha was ruled [Yevamot 62b]. Nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that when one fears that if he marries a woman capable of bearing children, quarrels and strife will arise between the children and his wife—it is permitted to marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children. But it is forbidden to remain without a wife because of this concern. Thus far his words. For because of the concern of strife, one may nullify "in the evening do not withhold your hand," but not commit a transgression, for there is concern lest his inclination overcome him [Beit Shmuel]. And regarding the general matter of marrying a woman capable of bearing children, the Ramban, of blessed memory, wrote that one does not compel him according to all opinions, for it is not a formal enactment but rather like a settlement of the way of the world, and one is not so stringent with him [Beit Shmuel]. And so it is implied from the words of the Rambam who wrote there: A man should not marry a barren woman, an old woman, an ailonit, or a minor who is not capable of giving birth unless he has fulfilled the mitzvah of peru u'revu. Thus far his words. And it is explained that if he fulfilled peru u'revu—he may marry even one who is not capable of giving birth. And afterwards at the end of the chapter he wrote: Even though a man has fulfilled peru u'revu—he is commanded by the words of the scribes not to cease from being fruitful and multiplying as long as he has strength, for anyone who adds one soul to Israel is as if he built a world. Thus far his words. [See there in the Maggid Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh]. Rather, this is like an enhancement of the mitzvah and a custom of the way of the world as I have written, and if there is some hindrance in the matter—one does not compel him to do so. And an "old woman" is defined as anyone whom everyone calls "mother" in the manner that they call old women, and she is not particular about it [Niddah 9b]. And even if she is particular, once she has reached the total years that they call all women who are in her years such—she is an old woman [Tosafot ibid., and see Rashi Moed Katan 9b s.v. be'anpei, and it requires great investigation].

Our sages, of blessed memory, greatly elevated this mitzvah and equated it to the study of Torah, for they said [Megillah 27a] that one may not sell a Sefer Torah except to study Torah or to marry a woman. It is implied from the words of the She'iltot [Parshat Noach] that even for the need of money for marriage expenses, one may sell a Sefer Torah; see there. And even if he has fulfilled the mitzvah of procreation, but needs to marry a woman capable of bearing children—for example, if he has the means to support them—if he is unable to marry unless he sells the Sefer Torah, some say he should marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children and not sell the Sefer Torah, and some say he should sell the Sefer Torah and marry a woman capable of bearing children, for the mitzvah of "in the evening do not withhold your hand" also overrides the prohibition of selling a Sefer Torah. And if even to marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children he is forced to sell the Sefer Torah, and if he does not sell it he will be forced to remain without a wife—some say he should remain without a wife and not sell the Sefer Torah; and even though he will come to sinful thoughts, and by selling it he would be saved from sinful thoughts, nevertheless, one only sells a Sefer Torah to perform a mitzvah with the money, and not to save oneself from a transgression [Beit Shmuel]. And some say one may sell it, for sinful thoughts are more severe than "He created it to be inhabited" [Chelkat Mechokek]. And this matter is a dispute among the Rishonim [the Ramban wrote that one may sell, and the Nimukei Yosef wrote explicitly that one may not sell], and in the She'iltot of Rav Achai Gaon he ruled that only if he has not fulfilled procreation is he permitted to sell a Sefer Torah, but when he has fulfilled procreation, it is forbidden [see there, Parshat Berachah]. And further laws of selling a Sefer Torah and books are explained in Orach Chaim siman 153 and in Yoreh Deah siman 270; see there.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote [there]: "A woman who gave permission to her husband after the marriage to withhold her onah—this is permitted. In what case does this apply? When he had children, such that he already fulfilled the mitzvah of procreation, but if he has not fulfilled it—he is obligated to engage in relations at every onah until he has children, because it is a positive commandment of the Torah, as it is said: 'Be fruitful and multiply.'" Thus far his words. And even though at all times, as long as he is able to father children, the obligation of 'in the evening do not withhold your hand' rests upon him, as has been written [Beit Shmuel], nevertheless, because of this he is not obligated to engage in relations at every onah, for the obligation is only that he should not abstain entirely, and the obligation of onah is because he is indebted to her, as it is written 'and her onah he shall not diminish,' and since she waived it—it is permitted [Birkei Yosef]. And this is not like the one who says that this refers to a case where he has another wife, but when he does not have another—as in our countries where it is forbidden to marry two women—her waiver is not effective even after he has fulfilled procreation [the glossator on the Taz], for behold, the Rambam explicitly says that because of a positive commandment of the Torah he is obligated to engage in relations at every onah specifically, and not because of the mitzvah of 'in the evening do not withhold your hand' which is not from the Torah, and is only for the sake of the way of the world, as has been written in section 8. And in siman 76 this will be further explained with the help of Heaven.

And when does the obligation to marry a woman fall upon a person? The sages taught: At eighteen for the wedding canopy, and it is explained from the words of the Rambam that this is during the eighteenth year and not at the conclusion of the eighteenth year. And even though in all mitzvot one is obligated from thirteen years and onward, nevertheless, in this mitzvah he is not obligated then, for he must learn, and if he marries a woman he will not be able to learn as much [Chelkat Mechokek]. Furthermore, he is still weak of strength. And in the Gemara we find that one of the sages boasted and said: The reason I am better than my colleagues is that I married at sixteen, and if I had married at fourteen, I would have said to the Satan, "An arrow in your eyes" [Kiddushin 29b], meaning: that the evil inclination would not have overcome him all the days of his life. Therefore, the poskim wrote that one who marries earlier performs a mitzvah of the highest caliber. However, the great ones of these generations wrote that since natures have weakened—one should not marry early at thirteen [Pitchei Teshuva in the name of the Birkei Yosef and Mahari Chasid]. And before thirteen one should not marry, for it is like licentiousness. And even though there are those who wished to distinguish between when the father marries him off and when he marries on his own, nevertheless, the great Acharonim did not agree to this—and it is forbidden in any case. And there is no need to elaborate on this, for in our times it is almost an impossibility.

And even though the obligation is when a person is eighteen years old, nevertheless, if he does not marry until twenty years—he has no transgression, for at twenty one is subject to punishment in the beit din of Heaven. But from twenty and onward, when he does not marry a woman—it is a transgression in his hand, unless he is under duress and it is impossible for him to marry. And thus the sages said ibid.: Until twenty years the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and waits for a person, when will he marry a woman; once he reaches twenty and has not married, He says: May his bones swell. And this is measure for measure, for from the father the bones are created, and this one who does not engage in procreation and diminishes the bones, therefore may his bones swell. And they compel him to marry a woman in order to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation.

However, one who knows within himself that if he marries a woman he will not have the possibility to study Torah, as he will need to toil for the sustenance of his wife and children, and he is twenty years old—he is not obligated to marry a woman if his inclination does not overcome him, for one who is engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah [the Rambam]. And even though one engaged in Torah should not exempt himself from mitzvot, nevertheless, regarding the mitzvah of pru u'rvu, which is a male and a female, he still has time to fulfill it, and it is like a mitzvah that is not passing, which the mitzvah of Talmud Torah pushes aside [it appears to me]. And until when shall he engage in Torah when his inclination does not overcome him? Until the time that he estimates within himself that he has filled his belly with Torah, provided that he does not desist from pru u'rvu entirely [Levush]. And there is one who says that in truth there is no fixed measure for the matter, but the primary ruling is as I have written. And some say that the measure is until twenty-four years and no more [Yam Shel Shlomo, first chapter of Kiddushin]. And if it is possible for him to study even after he marries—he is obligated to marry a woman, and afterward he shall study Torah in purity [ibid.].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said regarding Ben Azzai that he did not marry a woman, and they asked him, and he said: What shall I do, for my soul yearns for the Torah? It is possible for the world to be sustained by others. Therefore, the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that one whose soul yearns for the Torah constantly like Ben Azzai and cleaves to it all his days and did not marry a woman—there is no sin in his hand, provided that his inclination does not overcome him. Thus far their words. And even if it is possible for him to marry a woman and he would have no burden regarding sustenance, if he is like Ben Azzai, who is unable to separate from the Torah at all. However, it is obvious that such a level is not common at all, and even in the time of the sages of the Shas, Ben Azzai was unique and there was no second to him, and the Rif did not bring this at all. And we say in the Yerushalmi that one interrupts Torah study to make a sukkah and a lulav and all the mitzvot, and anyone who learns not to perform—it would be better for him had he not been created. And it was taught in Torat Kohanim: "If you walk in My statutes and keep My mitzvot and perform them"—one who learns in order to perform, not one who learns not to perform, for one who learns not to perform, it would be better for him had he not been created. And Ben Azzai himself, did he not betroth the daughter of Rabbi Akiva, and according to one resolution in the Gemara, he married and separated. And perforce one must say that he was unable to separate from the Torah at all, and perhaps it would have been a danger to life if he had separated from the Torah.

How much is the mitzvah of pruz u'revu, in order to fulfill the positive commandment of "be fruitful and multiply"? A son and a daughter, and once he has a male and a female – he has fulfilled the mitzvah of pruz u'revu. And we learned this from the creation of the world, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, created a male and a female, and they are Adam and Eve. Provided that the son is not a saris and the female is not an ailonit, who are not fit to give birth, for with such as these when they die there is no benefit to the settlement of the world, and His world is still in a state of chaos, and it is written: "He did not create it for chaos, He formed it to be inhabited."

If a male and a female were born to him and they died and left offspring—behold, he has fulfilled the mitzvah of pruz u'rvu, for there is from him the settlement of the world. The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote: In what case does this apply? When the grandchildren were a male and a female and they came from a male and a female, even though the male is his daughter's son and the female is his son's daughter, since they come from both of his children—behold, he has fulfilled the mitzvah of pru u'rvu. But if he had a son and a daughter and they died, and one of them left a male and a female—he has not yet fulfilled this mitzvah. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, transcribed it in the Shulchan Aruch, section 6. And even though a male and a female have emerged from him, nevertheless, the Torah required that he himself should beget a male and a female; for if the intent of the Torah was only that there be a male and a female from his seed, it could have exempted him with a male alone or a female alone, since from each of them there can be a male and a female. Rather, it is certain that the Torah required every man to beget a male and a female, and if they die, there should remain from both of them a male and a female, even if the matter is reversed from female to male and from male to female, but in any event, that seed remains from each of them. And all the more so if there remain from both of them two males or two females that it is not effective, for the second gender is missing. And some say that even when there remain from them two males—it is effective, and even though with two males he does not fulfill it initially, nevertheless, in this case where the second male comes by power of the daughter who exempted him from pru u'rvu—certainly the son stands in place of the daughter. And some say that even if there remain from both of them two daughters—he has also fulfilled pru u'rvu, for since he already fulfilled it and also now seed remains from both of them—it is as if both of them are extant. However, if previously he had two males and they died, and they left a male and a female, it is not effective, for since with the two males he did not fulfill pru u'rvu, it is impossible that he should fulfill it through what emerges from them, even if they beget many. And if he had a son and a daughter, and the daughter died and left a daughter and the son is extant, or the son died and left a son and the daughter is extant—certainly he has fulfilled pruz u'rvu. However, if the daughter died and left a son, and his son is extant and has not yet begotten—according to the opinion of the Rambam he has not fulfilled pru u'rvu, for behold, he does not now have a male and a female. And according to the "some say" that it is effective when two males remain—this is also effective. The general rule of the matter: that when a male and a female remain from his male and female, even if they are the third or fourth generation or more—behold, he has fulfilled pru u'rvu, even if the female is from the male and the male is from the female. And if only from one of them there remains a male and a female, and even many males and females, since from the seed of the second nothing remains—behold, he has not fulfilled it. However, if there remain from them two males or two females—it depends on the opinions that have been explained. And there is one who wishes to say that according to all opinions two males are not effective, and all the more so two females, but it does not appear so from all the poskim, and also the sugya of the Shas implies as we have written.

Even if he has a male and a female from an unmarried woman whom he did not marry with huppah and kiddushin, and even mamzerim, nevertheless he has fulfilled the mitzvah of peru u'revu, and even if they were deaf-mutes or imbeciles, for nevertheless they are his seed and are capable of procreating. But his son from a maidservant or from a gentile woman, and likewise a daughter from them—behold, he has not fulfilled peru u'revu because they are not genealogically attributed after him. And there is one who wishes to say regarding a mamzer specifically when it is known that he is a mamzer. But when it is not known he has not fulfilled it, because the Sages, of blessed memory, said that a mamzer who is not known will not live long. And it does not appear so to me, for in any case: as long as he is alive—he fulfills it through him. And if he dies and leaves seed—he fulfills it through his seed as I have written. And if he dies in his lifetime and does not leave seed, behold even with one who is not a mamzer he has not fulfilled it. And to say that he is not capable of leaving seed and we should consider him like a saris does not follow at all.

It has already been explained that with a son who is a saris or a daughter who is an aylonit—he has not fulfilled the obligation of pru u'rvu. However, if the son is not a saris but merely married an aylonit, or the daughter is not an aylonit but merely married a saris, even though they will not give birth, nevertheless the father has fulfilled pru u'rvu, since his offspring are fit to give birth [Chelkat Mechokek]. And there is one who expresses doubt regarding this, for since, in any event, there will be no settlement of the world from them—he has not fulfilled his obligation. And this reasoning does not appear correct at all, for it is understandable that when he himself fathered a saris or an aylonit, he has not yet fulfilled the mitzvah. But when he fulfilled the mitzvah properly, and they sinned in their marriages, what reasoning is there that he should lose his mitzvah because of what they ruined with their own hands? A person does not sin through the sin of others, for if so, if the son converted (became an apostate), we would also say that he did not fulfill pru u'rvu; and it is not similar to one who had children and they died, for there they were taken by Heaven and consequently his mitzvah was taken, and not when they performed an action. [And know, that there is one who investigated regarding a woman who became pregnant in a bathhouse whether the father fulfilled pru u'rvu. However, since this is not common at all, there is no need to elaborate on this].

If he had children while he was a gentile and he converted – he has fulfilled p'ru u'rvu. And even though he is considered like a newborn child, nevertheless, since they too are beings of procreation, even though they were not commanded, nonetheless, in their generality there is upon them something like an obligation to settle the world, for this is the will of G-d in His blessing to Adam and to Noah as was written in section 5, and the essence of procreation is for the sake of "He created it to be inhabited," and since he has brought about "habitation" in the world – he is no longer obligated in this mitzvah. And that which we wrote, that he fulfilled p'ru u'rvu – the intention is not that he fulfilled this positive commandment, but rather as if to say: that he has achieved procreation such that the mitzvah of p'ru u'rvu is no longer incumbent upon him. But if he had children while he was a slave and was emancipated, even if both he and they were emancipated – he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of p'ru u'rvu, because regarding a slave, the children are not legally related to him, which is not the case with a gentile – his children are legally related to him.

The Rambam and the Tur wrote that this refers to when the father and the sons converted. The commentators wrote that if not so, they certainly do not count for him to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation. And some say that even if he converted alone, he has fulfilled procreation, and so it implies from several great Rishonim. And in truth, since he is like a newborn child, what benefit is there according to the words of the Rambam and the Tur even if the sons converted? Rather, it is certain that he fulfilled his obligation of procreation even from before, and if so, in any case he has fulfilled it. Furthermore, in the Gemara [Bechorot 47b] it is explicitly explained that, on the contrary, when they convert they have no legal relationship to one another. And it appears to me that there is no dispute here, and even the Rambam and the Tur admit that even if he converted alone he is no longer commanded regarding procreation, since from the beginning they were capable of procreation even though they were not commanded, as I have written; however, nevertheless, he did not fulfill the positive commandment as we have explained, for certainly at Sinai when Israel was commanded regarding this mitzvah, it is obvious that the mitzvah was that those entering under the wings of the Shekhinah should give birth to them. But if the sons also converted, they ruled that he has fulfilled this positive commandment. And the reason: even though they do not legally relate to him now, nevertheless previously they did relate to him, and in their generality they were capable of procreation and he engaged in the settlement of the world, and now they have entered under the wings of the Shekhinah—behold, he has literally fulfilled the mitzvah. But without this, granted that he is not commanded now, nevertheless he also did not fulfill the mitzvah.

Regarding what has been explained, that upon reaching twenty years of age we compel one to marry a woman, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in this time the custom is not to compel regarding this. And so too, one who has not fulfilled procreation and comes to marry a woman who is not capable of bearing children, such as a barren woman, an elderly woman, or a minor, because he desires her or because of her money—even though according to the law one should protest against him—it has not been the custom for several generations to be exacting in the matter of matches. And even if he married a woman and remained with her ten years, they have not practiced compelling him to divorce her even though he has not fulfilled procreation. And so too in other matters of matches, provided she is not forbidden to him. Thus far his words. And there is no correct reason for this custom, and all the reasons that were stated regarding this are all rejected [the Gra]. However, the truth is that we do not have the power in our hands to protest, but one who acts on his own should be concerned for his soul. And there is one who wrote that for one who delays in order to find a proper match or for another reason, we do not compel him. Nevertheless, one should not delay because of a reason external to his person for more than until twenty-four years [the Rikash].

According to Torah law, one man may marry many women if he is able to provide for all of them with dignity, and if they consent to live a life of hardship, the authority is in their hands, as it is written: "And seven women shall take hold of one man," etc. Only regarding a yevama is it incumbent upon the beit din to give her proper advice that she should not marry him when they see that it is not good for her. Nevertheless, the advice of the sages is not to marry more than four women even if he is wealthy and able to provide for more, so that each one will receive her onah once a month, for the onah of a talmid chacham is from Sabbath to Sabbath, as has been written in siman 86.

However, for more than eight hundred years, in the days of our teacher Gershom, Meor HaGolah, when he and the sages of his generation saw the mishaps and quarrels resulting from a multiplicity of wives, they stood and enacted with a severe decree and with every stringency in the world that a man shall not marry a wife in addition to his wife. His enactment spread through most of the exiles of Israel—in France, the Island country, the Valley, and in Ashkenaz, and in Russia, and in Poland, and in all the countries of Austria. And they accepted this enactment to such an extent that if in a remote instance one breaches the fence—he is presumed to be a wicked man and a deceiver, and he is loathsome in the eyes of all and they distance themselves from him. And even though some say they only decreed until the end of the fifth millennium, nevertheless, even then the Jews fulfilled and accepted upon themselves and upon their seed to uphold this beautiful enactment, and the government also punishes one who violates this enactment, and the enactment remains in force until the coming of the Redeemer. And even in countries where his enactment did not spread, such as in the lands of Togarma and in the country of Africa, nevertheless, most of them of their own accord conducted themselves thus, not to marry more than one wife. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that there are places that established a custom in their locales not to marry more than one wife, and there even in an ordinary case where he did not stipulate with her—he is not permitted to take another wife, for since they conducted themselves thus, it is as if he stipulated, unless she forgave him, in which case it is permitted to take another. But in places where the enactment of Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGolah spread—her forgiveness is of no avail. And know, that in every city and country where there is a doubt whether the enactment of Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGolah spread or not—one is obligated to uphold it, and we say that presumably it spread, for presumably it is practiced in every place, unless it is known that in this place they never upheld this enactment. And even in the New World—in America and Australia this enactment is practiced, because the majority of Israel who came there came from places where the enactment spread. And if one went from a place where the enactment is practiced to a place where it is not practiced or vice versa—it is certain that one who goes from a forbidden place to a permitted place, the prohibition applies to him even if he does not intend to return, for the prohibition applies to the person and to the place, and this person who left his place—the prohibition applies to him in whatever place he may be [Ran in a response and cited in Beit Yosef, Yoreh Deah, siman 228]. And one who goes from a permitted place to a forbidden place, if he does not intend to return—he automatically enters into the enactment of the place, and it is forbidden for him to marry a wife in addition to his wife. However, one who comes to dwell with his wives from a permitted place to a forbidden place, even if he does not intend to return—nevertheless, he does not need to divorce one of them, for in such a case Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGolah certainly did not enact [see Rosh, first chapter of Chullin, siman 23]. And there is one who says that the prohibition is only upon the men and not upon the women, and therefore if two Ashkenazi women married a Sephardi—there is no prohibition upon them. And this matter is not clarified to me.

And even in a place where it is permitted to marry two women, the sages, of blessed memory, said [Yoma 18b]: A man should not marry a woman in this province and go and marry a woman in another province, lest they pair with one another—the son he fathers in this province with the daughter he fathers in the other province [Rashi]—and it will turn out that a brother marries his sister. The Rambam and the Tur wrote that a great man whose name is known and whose offspring are famous after him is permitted, for they will not come to a pitfall, and so ruled our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, at the end of siman 2. However, there are some of our teachers who disagree on this [the Ra'avad and Yam Shel Shelomo chapter 4 of Yevamot siman 5, and so is the opinion of Tosafot Yevamot 37b, and so it appears is the opinion of the Rif and the Rosh, and see Be'er Sheva]. And behold, even in our time when it is forbidden to marry two women, there is also this concern, for when he divorces his wife or she dies and he marries a woman in another province, he might marry his sister, yet we have never heard that they are careful regarding this. There is one who says that in our time, since it is forbidden to marry two women, when he goes to another province he will take his children with him [Beit Meir]. But the reason is not sufficient, for is it not possible to find a case where he leaves his children with his divorced wife? And also, it is difficult to say that because we are few among the nations, everyone is considered as famous, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 547, see there; for behold, nowadays in large places the Jewish settlement has increased, and there is much Jewish settlement also across the ocean, and every year many travel there. And it appears to me another reason for this: that since nowadays the post office runs quickly every day throughout the entire world, it is almost a distance from reality that the father who is in another province would not constantly receive letters from his offspring whom he left in the other province; if so, automatically the children born to him in the other province will not have the brotherhood between them and the children in the previous province hidden from them.

Whether Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGolah decreed even in the case of a mitzvah, such as a yevamah who fell before him, or in a case of the deferment of a mitzvah, such as one who stayed with his wife ten years and she did not give birth and she does not wish to receive a get—there is a dispute among the poskim regarding this. For our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote simply that he did not decree in such a case, and he may marry the yevamah; and in the case of ten years when she did not give birth—he may marry another. Likewise, he did not decree regarding an arusah; that is to say: when he betrothed his arusah—he may marry another because he has the power to divorce his arusah, and even when she will not consent to receive a get, nevertheless he is not obligated to bring her into the home to become obligated to her for food, clothing, and conjugal rights, and this is not "two wives" [the glossator in the Turei Zahav]. Likewise, even when he did not marry another—we do not compel him to take his arusah, and he has the power to release her with a get, and if she does not wish to receive it—we do not compel him to marry her, and he does not become obligated to her for anything [Beit Shmuel]. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say that the enactment of Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGolah applies even in the case of a mitzvah, and it is forbidden for him to marry his yevamah if he has a wife, but rather he must perform halitzah for her. But in the case of staying ten years and she did not give birth—it is implied from his words that they permit him to marry another, since he wrote: "And in a place where the first is not capable of being divorced, such as if she became insane, or if it is according to the law to divorce her and she does not want to take a get from him—there is room to be lenient to permit him to marry another, and all the more so if she is an arusah and does not want to be married to him or to be released from him." Thus far his words. And in the case of staying ten years and she did not give birth, behold he is obligated by law to divorce her as will be explained in siman 154. However, all the great later authorities have already written that they do not permit all this except by the authority of one hundred rabbis and with the permission of the government. And thus did Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGolah decree: when they see a need to permit, one hundred scholars shall agree to this, and among them shall be many of those who sit on the seat of instruction, and they must be from three provinces even if they are from one kingdom, such as Lithuania, Reissen, and Zamut. Furthermore, they were accustomed to be lenient even from one province and from three districts that are called "Guberniyas." And it is a tradition from the giants of the world that in any matter where the sages of that city see that it is proper to permit this man to take a wife in addition to his wife, and he has for this permission from the government—they shall present the matter before the great ones of that generation and one hundred rabbis shall agree to the permission, and he shall also deposit the amount of the ketubah due to her, as well as the additional ketubah and all her obligations into the hand of the beit din, and afterwards he may marry another [Bayit Chadash and Beit Shmuel]. And it is not specifically that all of them be rabbis, but rather distinguished scholars who are fit for instruction [Noda BiYehudah]. And it is impossible to explain in writing for whom it is proper to permit to marry a wife in addition to his wife, for not all matters are equal; for certainly in a place where it is impossible to live with her, such as if she became insane and the like—the matter is simple that they permit him. Likewise, if she is a prolonged invalid who can never be healed according to the words of the doctors and she is not willing to receive a get, and likewise in the case of staying ten years and she did not give birth and she does not wish to receive a get—certainly they permit him. However, in other matters it is impossible to explain, and much depends on the assessment of the sages of the place. Likewise, if she wishes to receive a get, only that she requests more than her ketubah due to her, if the sages of the place, such as the Rav and the beit din, see that he is able to bear it because this excess is not a great thing according to the status of that man—it is simple that they do not permit him, and he should add for her as she wishes. However, if she requests a vast sum, and according to the assessment of the beit din his standing will be ruined if he gives her what she requests—then they permit him, and so too in all similar cases.

The great authorities further wrote: In the case of a woman who became insane—he should place the get in the hand of an agent for delivery, so that the get will be in his hand until she recovers. And he is obligated to designate a house for her by herself, and he must guard her from licentious behavior, and he is obligated to provide her with maintenance [Bach and Beit Shmuel]. According to this, after she recovers—the agent may deliver this get to her. However, several of the great authorities hesitated regarding this, that she should not be permitted by this get when she recovers, for the reason that any matter which one cannot do now, he cannot appoint an agent to do; and since at the time he delivered the get to the agent she was not fit for divorce—he does not have the ability then to appoint an agent. We have already explained this matter in Choshen Mishpat siman 182, section 4, see there. And several of the great authorities wrote that there is no need at all for the deposition of the get, and what benefit is there in it? For until she recovers she is not divorced, and when she recovers he can write a get for her then. And if it is because he might not want to give a get then, if so, what does his deposition avail, for is it not within his power to nullify the get, and then they would compel him to give a get? And if it is because perhaps she will not consent to receive it, if so, what does it avail that he deposited it [Beis Meir]? And such is the custom among us. However, when they permit him because of another matter, and she is fit for the receipt of a get but she does not consent, when they permit him and he deposits her ketubah—he should also deposit a get, and whenever she consents—she shall receive the get from the agent [it appears to me].

Regarding the number of the one hundred rabbis from the three communities, although it is impossible to be exact such that there would be a third from each community, nevertheless, there must be some specific number from each community, and even if in the other there will be a greater number—one should not be exacting in this.

One who married a woman in addition to his wife – we compel him with all types of compulsion to divorce one of them. And initially, it is proper to endeavor that he divorce the second one, whom he married in violation of the prohibition. However, there is no hindrance in this, and if the first one consents to receive a get, and he desires to remain with the second one – we do not protest against him. And even though there are those who say that after the fifth millennium one does not compel one who violated the enactment of Rabbeinu Gershom, nevertheless, we do not practice accordingly, so wrote our teacher, the Rema – for we have already written that the enactment is in force until the coming of the redeemer, and there is no difference between the fifth millennium and the sixth millennium.

One of the great early authorities ruled regarding one who ascended to Eretz Yisrael and his wife did not ascend with him, and he wishes to marry another woman – he should send her a get via a messenger, and he estimates the time that the get will reach her and marries a woman [Mabit]. And even though there is no proof that she will receive the get, nevertheless, the prohibition no longer applies to him, for behold, by law she was required to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. And granted that it is impossible to compel her to this when she has a reason, as will be explained in siman 75, nevertheless, it is simple that in such a case the decree was not intended that he should sit without a wife, and all the more so since in Eretz Yisrael the enactment did not spread. And granted that the prohibition nonetheless applies to him as I wrote in section 23, nevertheless, it is simple that in such a case even in the diaspora we would endeavor on his behalf to permit him [and all that they questioned against him is answered].

One whose wife converted to the religion of Ishmael, there are those who say that he grants her a get through another and marries another, and in a place where this is the custom—one should not change. However, in a place where there is no custom, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is not necessary to grant her a get, and one should not be stringent in this, and it is permitted to marry another without the divorce of the first. Thus far his words. And only in places where they practice yibbum is it proper to grant her a get, for perhaps he will die and they will come to perform yibbum with his wife, and she is the rival wife of this wicked woman, and she would be like the rival wife of a sotah who is forbidden to the yavam.

A woman who causes her husband to stumble into prohibitions and this was clarified through witnesses, such that he may divorce her against her will as is written in siman 115, if she does not desire to receive a get—he shall grant her a get through another and marry a woman. And so too all those whom they compel to receive a get as is written there [it appears to me].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: It is good to make an enactment with every stringency against one who marries a wife in addition to his wife. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: Even in places where the enactment of Rabbeinu Gershom, of blessed memory, did not spread, it is good to make this enactment because it is a proper enactment. And in truth, we do not find among all the Tannaim and Amoraim and the Geonim that they had two wives. On the contrary – we find in Midrash Bereshit [parashah 17] regarding Rabbi Yose, that he had an evil wife and did not marry another until he divorced the first. And the law of one who waited ten years and she did not give birth – will be explained in siman 154. And it will also be explained there regarding one who swore not to marry another and she did not give birth for ten years, see there.