פטור נשים ממצוות פרייה ורבייה

אי

ת"ר איזוהי מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? - סוכה ולולב, שופר וציצית ותפילין; ואיזוהי מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא? - מזוזה, מעקה, אבידה ושילוח הקן.

וכללא הוא? הרי מצה שמחה הקהל דמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא ונשים חייבות!

ותו: והרי תלמוד תורה פריה ורביה ופדיון הבן דלאו מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא ונשים פטורות!

Kiddushin 34a

And the donning of phylacteries (Deuteronomy 6:8), which are not worn at night or on Shabbat and Festivals, is also a positive, time-bound mitzva. And what is a positive mitzva that is not time bound? Examples include the affixing of a mezuza (Deuteronomy 11:20), the construction of a parapet on a roof (Deuteronomy 22:8), returning a lost item (Deuteronomy 22:1–3), and the release of the mother bird from the nest, i.e., the mitzva of sending away a mother bird when one finds it sitting on chicks or eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6–7). The Gemara asks: But is this an established principle? But there are the mitzvot of eating matza on the first night of Passover (Exodus 23:15), of rejoicing on a Festival (Deuteronomy 16:9–11), and assembly on Sukkot following the Sabbatical Year (Deuteronomy 31:10–13). And each of these is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are obligated in them. And furthermore, one can raise a difficulty as follows: But there are the mitzvot of Torah study (Deuteronomy 6:7), procreation (Genesis 1:28), and redemption of the firstborn (Exodus 13:12–13), each of which is not a positive, time-bound mitzva, and yet women are exempt from them. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One does not learn practical halakhot from general statements, i.e., when a general statement appears in a mishna and uses the term: All, it is not to be understood as an all-inclusive statement without exceptions. This is the case even in a place where it says: Except, to exclude a specific matter. A proof for this is as we learned in a mishna (Eiruvin 26b): One can establish a joining of houses in courtyards [eiruv ḥatzerot] and a joining of Shabbat boundaries [eiruv teḥumin], and similarly, one can merge courtyards to permit carrying in a joint alleyway on Shabbat. This can be done with all types of food except for water and salt. This is stated as a halakha with specific exceptions, and yet one can ask: Is there nothing else that cannot be used for an eiruv? But there are truffles and mushrooms, which also cannot be used for an eiruv, because they do not offer nourishment. Rather, conclude from this that one may not learn from general statements, even in a place where it says: Except. § The Gemara turns to the sources of this principle. From where do we derive that women are exempt from positive, time-bound mitzvot? It is derived by juxtaposition from the mitzva of phylacteries: Just as women are exempt from donning phylacteries, so too, women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot. And the exemption of women from donning phylacteries is derived from their exemption from Torah study: Just as women are exempt from Torah study, as derived from Deuteronomy 11:19, so too women are exempt from donning phylacteries, as the two issues are juxtaposed in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:7–8). The Gemara asks: And let us say the opposite and juxtapose phylacteries to mezuza, which is also mentioned in that passage. Mezuza is a mitzva in which women are also obligated. Based on this comparison, women would be obligated in phylacteries as well. The Gemara answers: Phylacteries are juxtaposed to Torah study in both the first paragraph and in the second paragraph of Shema, whereas phylacteries are not juxtaposed to mezuza in the second paragraph. It is therefore preferable to compare phylacteries to Torah study. The Gemara says: But if so, let us juxtapose mezuza to Torah study and say that women are also exempt from the obligation of a mezuza. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This could not enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the mitzva of mezuza: “That your days may be multiplied” (Deuteronomy 11:21). Can it be said that men need life but women do not need life? Since the reward for the performance of the mitzva of mezuza is extended life, this mitzva applies to women as well. The Gemara further asks: But there is the mitzva of residing in a sukka, which is a positive, time-bound mitzva, as it is written: “In sukkot you shall reside seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), referring to seven specific days of the year. Nevertheless, the reason women are exempt from this mitzva is that the Merciful One writes in the continuation of the verse: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot.” The definite article “the” is an exclusion, and serves to exclude the women from the obligation to reside in a sukka. It may be derived from here that if that was not so, women would be obligated. This indicates that women do not receive a blanket exemption from every positive, time-bound mitzva. Abaye said: In the case of residing in a sukka a special verse was necessary to exempt women, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it is written: “In sukkot you shall reside,” this means that you should reside as you dwell in your permanent home: Just as a man and his wife live together in a residence, so too, a man and his wife are obligated to reside together in a sukka. And Rava said:

קידושין ל״ה א

ולרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא דאמר על שניהם הוא אומר 'ויברך אותם אלהים פרו ורבו' מאי איכא למימר? משום דהוה ת"ת ופדיון הבן שני כתובים הבאים כאחד, וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין.

ולרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא נמי ניהוו פריה ורביה ומורא שני כתובים הבאים כאחד ואין מלמדין! צריכי, דאי כתב רחמנא מורא ולא כתב פריה ורביה - הוה אמינא 'וכבשוה' אמר רחמנא, איש דדרכו לכבש - אין, אשה דאין דרכה לכבש - לא; ואי כתב פריה ורביה ולא כתב מורא - ה"א איש דסיפק בידו לעשות - אין, אשה דאין סיפק בידה לעשות - לא, וכיון דאין סיפק בידה לעשות לא תתחייב כלל - צריכא.

Kiddushin 35a

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who says that with regard to both of them, men and women, the verse states: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28), what can be said? According to his opinion, women are exempt from only one positive mitzva that is not time bound, Torah study; why not derive other mitzvot from this case? The Gemara answers: The reason this is not a difficulty is because Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son, from which women are also exempt, are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka as well, let procreation, which he maintains applies to women, and fear of one’s mother and father be considered two verses that come as one and they should not teach a precedent. The Gemara answers: Both cases are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written only that women are obligated in fear of their parents, and had not written that they are obligated in procreation, I would say that as the Merciful One states: “Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28), this leads to the conclusion that women are exempt from procreation, by the following reasoning: As it is the manner of a man to go to war and to conquer, yes, he is obligated in procreation, but as it is not the manner of a woman to conquer, she is not obligated in procreation. And if the Merciful One had written only that women are obligated in the mitzva of procreation, and had not written that they are obligated to fear their parents, I would say: With regard to a man, as it is in his power to perform this mitzva, yes, he is obligated to fear his mother and father, but with regard to a woman, as it is not in her power to perform this mitzva when she is married, since her obligations to her husband may prevent her from doing so, she is not obligated. And as it is not in her power to perform this mitzva when she is married, perhaps women should not be obligated at all and there should be no difference between a married and an unmarried woman. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to state that women are obligated in both procreation and the fear of parents, and these are not considered two verses that come as one. The Gemara notes that the earlier question remains difficult: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. But according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, what can be said? According to this opinion it can be derived that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot from matza and assembly, and that they are exempt from positive mitzvot that are not time bound, from Torah study and the redemption of the firstborn son. Rava said: The Sages of Pafunya know the reason for this matter. The Gemara comments: And who is the scholar called by the nickname: The Sages of Paphunya? It is Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, who said as follows: The verse states with regard to phylacteries: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm and for a memorial between your eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). In this manner the entire Torah is juxtaposed to phylacteries: Just as donning phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva and women are exempt from it, so too are women exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva in the Torah. And from the fact that women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva, one can learn by inference that women are obligated in every positive mitzva that is not time bound. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the mitzva of donning phylacteries is a positive, time-bound mitzva. But according to the one who says that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound, as it is applicable the entire year, day and night, what can be said? The Gemara answers: Who did you hear who said that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound? It is Rabbi Meir, and he holds that matza and assembly are verses that come as one, and he further maintains that any two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, and who also says that donning phylacteries is a positive mitzva that is not time bound, what can be said? The Gemara answers: It is not derived from here that women are obligated in positive, time-bound mitzvot because the verses that mention matza, rejoicing, and assembly are three verses that come as one, and everyone agrees three verses that come as one do not teach a precedent. § The mishna further teaches: And with regard to all prohibitions, whether or not they are time bound, both men and women are obligated to observe them. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states with regard to a guilt-offering: “When a man or woman shall commit any sin that a person commits” (Numbers 5:6). The verse equates a woman to a man with regard to all punishments in the Torah, as a woman is also required to bring an offering for atonement. The school of Rabbi Eliezer taught as follows. The verse states: “Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them” (Exodus 21:1), stating “them” in the plural. This verse equates a woman to a man with regard to all judgments in the Torah, i.e., monetary cases and damages. The school of Ḥizkiyya taught: The verse states, with regard to the ransom one pays if his animal killed a person: “And killed a man or woman” (Exodus 21:29). Here too, the verse equates a woman to a man, with regard to all deaths in the Torah, i.e., the same halakha applies to an animal that kills either a man or a woman. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state all three of these verses. As, if the Torah had taught us only this first case, with regard to a woman’s obligation to sacrifice guilt-offerings, I would say that the Merciful One has pity on her due to atonement, i.e., God gave her the possibility to atone for her sin through an offering. But with regard to monetary judgments, I would say that with regard to a man, who generally conducts business negotiations, yes, these halakhot apply to him, but in the case of a woman, who generally does not conduct business negotiations, no, the halakhot of monetary judgments do not apply to her. And similarly if the Torah had taught us only this case of monetary judgments, I would say that these judgments apply to a woman, because there are circumstances where engaging in business is her livelihood. But with regard to the ransom that is paid when one’s animal killed someone, I would say:

בראשית א׳:כ״ז-כ״ח

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃

וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃

Genesis 1:27-28

And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them and God said to them, “Be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth.”

בראשית ט׳:א׳

וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־נֹ֖חַ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֑יו וַיֹּ֧אמֶר לָהֶ֛ם פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֖וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

וּמוֹרַאֲכֶם וְחִתְּכֶם יִהְיֶה עַל כָּל־חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וְעַל כָּל־עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה וּבְכָל־דְּגֵי הַיָּם בְּיֶדְכֶם נִתָּנוּ׃

Genesis 9:1

God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fertile and increase, and fill the earth.

בראשית ל״ה:י׳-י״א

וַיֹּאמֶר־לוֹ אֱלֹהִים שִׁמְךָ יַעֲקֹב לֹא־יִקָּרֵא שִׁמְךָ עוֹד יַעֲקֹב כִּי אִם־יִשְׂרָאֵל יִהְיֶה שְׁמֶךָ וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ יא וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי אֵל שַׁדַּי פְּרֵה וּרְבֵה גּוֹי וּקְהַל גּוֹיִם יִהְיֶה מִמֶּךָּ וּמְלָכִים מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ יֵצֵאוּ׃

Genesis 35:10-11

God said to him, “You whose name is Jacob, You shall be called Jacob no more, But Israel shall be your name.” Thus He named him Israel. And God said to him, “I am El Shaddai. Be fertile and increase; A nation, yea an assembly of nations, Shall descend from you. Kings shall issue from your loins.

יבמות ס״ה ב

מתני׳ האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה אבל לא האשה רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר על שניהם הוא אומר ויברך אותם אלהים ויאמר להם [אלהים] פרו ורבו:

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 ולא קאמר פרו ורבו.

ואמר רבי אילעא משום ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון: כשם שמצוה על אדם לומר דבר הנשמע, כך מצוה על אדם שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע; רבי אבא אומר חובה, שנאמר אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך הוכח לחכם ויאהבך

וא"ר אילעא משום רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון: מותר לו לאדם לשנות בדבר השלום שנאמר אביך צוה וגו'... כה תאמרו ליוסף אנא שא נא וגו' ר' נתן אומר: מצוה, שנאמר ויאמר שמואל איך אלך ושמע שאול והרגני וגו'. דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא: גדול השלום שאף הקדוש ברוך הוא שינה בו דמעיקרא כתיב ואדוני זקן ולבסוף כתיב ואני זקנתי:

רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר: אתמר רבי יוחנן ור' יהושע בן לוי: חד אמר הלכה כרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה וחד אמר אין הלכה כרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה. תסתיים דרבי יוחנן הוא דאמר אין הלכה, דיתיב ר' אבהו וקאמר משמיה דרבי יוחנן הלכה ואהדרינהו רבי אמי ורבי אסי לאפייהו, ואיכא דאמרי רבי חייא בר אבא אמר ואהדרינהו רבי אמי ורבי אסי לאפייהו; אמר רב פפא: בשלמא למאן דאמר רבי אבהו אמרה, משום כבוד בי קיסר לא אמרו ליה ולא מידי; אלא למאן דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמרה - לימרו ליה לא אמר רבי יוחנן הכי!

מאי הוה עלה? ת"ש דאמר ר' אחא בר חנינא אמר ר' אבהו אמר ר' אסי: עובדא הוה קמיה דרבי יוחנן בכנישתא דקיסרי ואמר יוציא ויתן כתובה ואי ס"ד לא מפקדה כתובה מאי עבידתה? דלמא בבאה מחמת טענה

כי ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דר' אמי אמרה ליה הב לי כתובה אמר לה זיל לא מיפקדת אמרה ליה מסיבו דילה מאי תיהוי עלה דהך אתתא אמר כי הא ודאי כפינן

ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר לה לא מיפקדת אמרה ליה לא בעיא הך אתתא חוטרא לידה ומרה לקבורה אמר כי הא ודאי כפינן

יהודה וחזקיה תאומים היו אחד נגמרה צורתו לסוף תשעה ואחד נגמרה צורתו לתחלת שבעה יהודית דביתהו דר' חייא הוה לה צער לידה שנאי מנא ואתיא לקמיה דר' חייא ואמרה אתתא מפקדא אפריה ורביה אמר לה לא אזלא אשתיא סמא דעקרתא לסוף איגלאי מילתא אמר לה איכו ילדת לי חדא כרסא אחריתא דאמר מר יהודה וחזקיה אחי פזי וטוי אחוותא

ולא מיפקדי והאמר רב אחא בר רב קטינא א"ר יצחק מעשה באשה אחת שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין וכפו את רבה ועשאה בת חורין אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מנהג הפקר נהגו בה:

Yevamot 65b

The Gemara addresses another case in which the court forces a man to divorce his wife who has not had children after ten years. If he said: You miscarried within the ten years of our marriage, and since less than ten years have elapsed since that time he should not have to divorce her, and she said: I did not miscarry, Rabbi Ami said: Even in this case she is believed, because if it is so that she miscarried she would not establish herself as barren through denying his claim. If she miscarried, and then miscarried again, and miscarried again, she has been established to be a woman who is prone to miscarriages, and her husband must divorce her so that he can have children with another woman. If he said she miscarried twice, and she said it occurred three times, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: There was an incident of this kind that was adjudicated in the study hall and they said that she is believed, because if it is so that she had not miscarried a third time she would not establish herself as one who is prone to miscarriages. MISHNA: A man is commanded with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but not a woman. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that a woman is also commanded, as the verse states with regard to both of them: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that a woman is not obligated in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the land and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28). It is the manner of a man to conquer and it is not the manner of a woman to conquer. Consequently, it is evident that the entire command, including the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, was given only to men and not to women. The Gemara raises a difficulty. On the contrary, the plural term: “And conquer it [vekhivshuha],” indicates that the two of them are included. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is written in the Torah without the letter vav, so that it can be read: And conquer it [vekhivsha], in the singular. Rav Yosef said: The proof is from here: “And God said to him: I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply [perei urvei]” (Genesis 35:11), which is in singular, and it does not state: Be fruitful and multiply [peru urvu] in the plural. The Gemara cites other statements made by Rabbi Ile’a in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Just as it is a mitzva for a person to say that which will be heeded, so is it a mitzva for a person not to say that which will not be heeded. One should not rebuke those who will be unreceptive to his message. Rabbi Abba says: It is obligatory for him to refrain from speaking, as it is stated: “Do not reprove a scorner lest he hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8). And Rabbi Ile’a further said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: It is permitted for a person to depart from the truth in a matter that will bring peace, as it is stated: “Your father commanded before he died, saying: So you shall say to Joseph: Please pardon your brothers’ crime, etc.” (Genesis 50:16–17). Jacob never issued this command, but his sons falsely attributed this statement to him in order to preserve peace between them and Joseph. Rabbi Natan says: It is a mitzva to depart from the truth in order to preserve peace, as it is stated: “And Samuel said: How can I go, and Saul will hear and kill me” (I Samuel 16:2). God responded in the next verse that Samuel should say he went to sacrifice an offering, indicating that God commands one to lie in order to preserve peace. It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Great is peace, as even the Holy One, Blessed be He, departed from the truth for it. As, initially it is written that Sarah said of Abraham: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), and in the end it is written that God told Abraham that Sarah said: “And I am old” (Genesis 18:13). God adjusted Sarah’s words in order to spare Abraham hurt feelings that might lead Abraham and Sarah to quarrel. § It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that women are also included in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. It was stated that two amora’im, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, disagreed concerning this matter. One said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and one said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. The Gemara comments: Conclude that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as Rabbi Abbahu sat and said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who were sitting across from him, turned their faces as an indication that they disagreed with this report of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, but did not want to explicitly contradict Rabbi Abbahu’s statement out of respect for him. And some say a different version of the incident, that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said this statement, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces. Rav Pappa said: Granted, according to the one who said that Rabbi Abbahu said it, it makes sense that due to the honor of Caesar’s court, where Rabbi Abbahu maintained close ties, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not say anything to him and merely hinted at their disagreement. However, according to the one who said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said it, let them say to him explicitly: Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this. In any event, it is clear that according to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this issue? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Asi said: There was an incident that came before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the synagogue of Caesarea involving a woman who wanted a divorce from her husband after ten years of childless marriage, and he said that the husband must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract. If it enters your mind to say that she is not commanded to be fruitful and multiply, what is payment for a marriage contract doing here? Why does she have a right to demand to be divorced and to receive the payment for her marriage contract? The Gemara responds: Perhaps that was in a case when she came to demand a divorce due to another claim, i.e., she wanted children for a reason other than the fulfillment of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Since this claim has merit, her husband must divorce her and pay her marriage contract. This is like the case of a certain woman who came before Rabbi Ami and requested a divorce due to her husband’s inability to father children. She said to her husband: Give me the payment for my marriage contract. He said to her: Go away, as you are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply and have no right to demand a divorce. She said to him: In her old age, what will be with this woman, i.e., if I have no children, who will take care of me when I grow old? Rabbi Ami said: In a situation such as this, we certainly force the husband to divorce and her and pay her marriage contract. The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain woman came before Rav Naḥman and requested a divorce due to her husband’s inability to father children. He said to her: You are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply. She said to him: Does this woman not require a staff for her hand and a hoe for her burial? In other words, the woman said that she wanted children so that they could care for her in her old age and bury her when she would die. Rav Naḥman said: In a case such as this, we certainly force the husband to divorce her. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons, Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, were twins, but one of them was fully developed after nine months of pregnancy and one was fully developed at the beginning of the seventh month, and they were born two months apart. Yehudit, the wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, had acute birthing pain from these unusual deliveries. She changed her clothes to prevent Rabbi Ḥiyya from recognizing her and came before Rabbi Ḥiyya to ask him a halakhic question. She said: Is a woman commanded to be fruitful and multiply? He said to her: No. She went and drank an infertility potion. Eventually the matter was revealed, and Rabbi Ḥiyya found out about what Yehudit had done. He said to her: If only you had given birth to one more belly for me, i.e., another set of twins. As the Master said: Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya were twin brothers and became prominent Torah scholars, and Pazi and Tavi, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s daughters,

רש"י על קידושין ל״ד א:ג׳:ה׳

ופריה ורביה - אמרינן ביבמות (דף סה:) האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה אבל לא האשה ויליף לה מן וכבשוה איש דרכו לכבוש ואין דרכה של אשה לכבוש וכל דלא קרינן ביה וכבשוה לא קרינן ביה פרו ורבו:

Rashi on Kiddushin 34a:3:5

...

ברטנורא על משנה יבמות ו׳:ו׳:ה׳

האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה ולא האשה. דכתיב (בראשית א׳) פרו ורבו וגו׳ וכבשוה, וכבשה כתיב חסר וי״ו, האיש שדרכו לכבוש את האשה הוא מצווה על פריה ורביה:

Bartenura on Mishnah Yevamot 6:6:5

...

תוספות על יבמות ס״ה ב:ה׳:א׳

ולא קאמר פרו ורבו - אע"ג דלאדם הראשון קאמר פרו ורבו ההוא ברכה בעלמא ולא למצוה:

Tosafot on Yevamot 65b:5:1

...

מדרש תנחומא, נח י״ב:ג׳

‎וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי נֹחַ הַיֹּצְאִים. יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּנוּ, מִי הוּא הַמְצֻוֶּה עַל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה הָאִישׁ אוֹ הָאִשָּׁה. כָּךְ שָׁנוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ, הָאִישׁ מְצֻוֶּה וְלֹא הָאִשָּׁה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם נֶאֱמַר, וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ (בראשית א, כח). וּכְבָשָׁהּ כְּתִיב, הָאִישׁ כּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כּוֹבֶשֶׁת וְהָאִישׁ מְצֻוֶּה עַל פִּרְיָהּ וּרְבִיָּה יוֹתֵר מִן הָאִשָּׁה,

תֵּדַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּחַק אַבְרָהָם לְהַשִּׂיא אִשָּׁה לְיִצְחָק בְּנוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל עַבְדּוֹ זְקַן בֵּיתוֹ וְגוֹ' (בראשית כד, ב). וּכְתִיב: וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ בַּה' אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוֹ' (בראשית כד, ג). וּכְתִיב: כִּי אִם אֶל אַרְצִי וְגוֹ' (בראשית כד, ד). הֲרֵי אַבְרָהָם דָּחַק עַל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה. וְכֵן יִצְחָק אָמַר לְיַעֲקֹב, קוּם לֵךְ פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם וְגוֹ' (בראשית כח, ב), לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה הַהוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ. וְלֹא כְּדוֹר הַמַּבּוּל שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁטוּפִין בַּזְּנוּת וְהוֹלְכִין וְנִזְקָקִין לְשֶׁאֵינָן מִינָן. רְאֵה מַה כְּתִיב בָּהֶן, וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים וְגוֹ', וּלְכָךְ אָבְדוּ מִן הָעוֹלָם.

Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 12:3

You know this to be so from the fact that Abraham sought a wife for his son Isaac: And Abraham said unto his servant, the elder of his household, etc. (Gen. 24:2), and it is written also: I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven … that thou shalt go unto my country (ibid., vv. 3–4). Hence, it is apparent that Abraham was concerned with the observance of the law of Increase and multiply. Similarly, Isaac told Jacob: Arise! Go to Padan-aram (Gen. 28:2), to seek a wife proper for him. He did not wish him to be like the men of the generation of the flood, who wallowed in unchastity and indulged in sexual intercourse with species other than their own. Observe what is written concerning them: The sons of God saw the daughters of men … and took them wives, whomsoever they chose (Gen. 6:2). That was the reason they were obliterated from the earth.

משנה תורה, הלכות אישות ט״ו:ב׳

(ב) הָאִישׁ מְצֻוֶּה עַל פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה אֲבָל לֹא הָאִשָּׁה. וְאֵימָתַי הָאִישׁ נִתְחַיֵּב בְּמִצְוָה זוֹ מִבֶּן שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְלֹא נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר וּמְבַטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. וְאִם הָיָה עוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה וְטָרוּד בָּהּ וְהָיָה מִתְיָרֵא מִלִּשָּׂא אִשָּׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִטְרַח בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בַּעֲבוּר אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיִבָּטֵל מִן הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר לְהִתְאַחֵר. שֶׁהָעוֹסֵק בְּמִצְוָה פָּטוּר מִן הַמִּצְוָה וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה:

Mishneh Torah, Marriage 15:2

(2) Men are obligated in procreation (periyya u-reviyya), but not women. When is a man obligated in this mitzva? From the age of seventeen. Once he reaches [the age of] twenty years and has not married, he has transgressed and neglected a positive commandment. However, if he is involved in Torah and engrossed in it, and he fears that if he marries, he will have to busy himself with supporting a wife and thereby come to neglect Torah study, then it is permissible for him to delay [marriage]; for one who is involved in a mitzva is exempt from another mitzva – all the more so regarding Torah study.

משך חכמה, נח י״ט

פרו ורבו וכו' לא רחוק הוא לאמר הא שפטרה התורה נשים מפו"ר וחייבה רק אנשים כי משפטי ד' ודרכיו דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום, ולא עמסה על הישראלי מה שאין ביכולת הגוף לקבל, ומכל דבר האסור לא מנעה התורה בסוגה ההיתר כמו שאמרו פרק כל הבשר ומשום זה לא מצאנו מצוה להתענות רק יום אחד בשנה, וקודם הזהירה וחייבה לאכול, וכן לא מנעה המשגל מכל בריה לבד ממשה רבינו לפי שלא היה צריך לגודל מעלתו ולזהירות גופו, ויותר מזה במלחמה בעת הנצחון לגודל החום והרחבת הלב ידע אל דעות כי אז לא יתכן לעצור בעד הרוח בעת חשקו באשה יפ"ת והתירה התורה יפ"ת א"א וכמאמרם לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצה"ר וכבר האריך בזה מחבר אחד ומצאנו איך היה זאת לאבן פינה לאבות הקבלה שפטרו מיבום מי שמתו בניו אח"כ משום דרכיה דרכי נועם

וא"כ נשים שמסתכנות בעיבור ולידה ומשום זה אמרו מיתה שכיחא עיין תוס' כתובות פ"ג ע"ב ד"ה מיתה שכיחא לא גזרה התורה לצוות לפרות ולרבות על אשה. וכן מותרת לשתות כוס עיקרין וכעובדא דיהודית דביתהו דר"ח סוף הבא ע"י רק לקיום המין עשה בטבעה שתשוקתה להוליד עזה משל איש. ומצאנו לרחל שאמרה הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אנכי. ובזה ניחא הך דאמר רב יוסף סוף פרק הבא ע"י דאין נשים מצוות בפו"ר מהכא אני אל שדי פרה ורבה ולא קאמר פרו ורבו, היינו דבאדם וחוה שבירך אותן קודם החטא שלא היה לה צער לידה היה מצוות שניהם בפו"ר ואמר להם פרו ורבו, אבל לאחר החטא שהיה לה צער לידה והיא רוב פעמים מסתכנת מזה עד כי אמרו אשה נשבעת שלא תזדקק כו' - לכן בנח אף דכתיב ויאמר להם פרו ורבו הלא כתיב קודם ויברך את נח ואת בניו אבל נשיהם לא הזכיר שאינם בכלל מצוה דפו"ר. וביעקב קאמר פרה ורבה וזה נכון ובמהרש"א סנהדרין נ"ח הניח זה בויש ליישב וכוון לזה ודו"ק.

Meshekh Chokhmah, Noakh 19

...