Maharshal view of Mitzvah of Pru Uruvu for women

I like the Maharshal’s view of women’s involvement in Pru Uruvu. The Maharshal explains a way in which women get a mitzvah in doing Pru Uruvu. This is possible, says the Maharshal, because even though the woman is not obligated in Pru Uruvu, if she still does Pru Uruvu she gets a Mitzvah. However, we asked a question on the Maharshal because his logic does not make total sense. According to what the Maharshal said, people can get a mitzvah for doing tasks they are not obligated in. For example, what would the Maharshal say about a case where a king gets a mitzvah for carrying a Torah? Would a regular person get that Mitzvah for carrying a Torah as well? So according to the Maharshal’s logic a regular person could carry the Torah and get a mitzvah even though he is not obligated to carry the Torah? In class we offered an explanation to why the Maharshal’s logic - stating that women can do Pru Uruvu and get a mitzvah even though they are not obligated - is good.

The answer we gave is that there are two cases where certain people are not obligated to do Mitzvos. There is a case where there is an obligation on everybody to do a mitzvah, but some people are exempt from that mitzvah (Patur). The other case is where the obligation to do a mitzvah is only on certain people, and other people are not even exempt, rather they are totally uninvolved in the mitzvah and have no obligation to do it at all (Hafkaah). In the case of Patur, if a person who is exempt from the mitzvah does the mitzvah anyway, the person still gets a mitzvah; however, in a case of Hafkaah, if a person who is not obligated in a mitzvah does it anyway, the person gets NO mitzvah.

This can explain why the Maharshal’s logic - that a woman can perform Pru Uruvu and get a mitzvah - is correct. Women are only Patur/exempt from the performance of Pru Uruvu so they can still get a mitzvah. It’s not that the Mitzvah is only on men and women have no obligation at all (which would be a case of Hafkaah), rather it is that the obligation of Pru Uruvu is on everyone, but women are one of the groups of people who are exempt from the Mitzvah. The case of women doing Pru Uruvu is different from my earlier example of an Average Joe carrying the Torah when the obligation is only on the king because the women are Patur but for the Average Joe it’s a case of Hafkaah.

I like the Maharshal’s view because I believe it only makes sense for women to receive a mitzvah for doing Pru Uruvu. I can understand men being obligated in Pru Uruvu and receiving a mitzvah, but if women want to take part in the mitzvah as well, and they are the ones actually carrying and giving birth to the child, then they should definitely get a mitzvah too, and the Maharshal’s view proves that.

The Mishna and My Problems With It

As we finished the introduction to Masechet Kiddushin, we started the Mishna as is procedurally done when beginning a Masechet or Perek. The Mishna we have learned spoke of six very similar Halachot with some contrasts. The first Halachah in the Mishna said that a man can marry a woman independently. Now, I have a question. Is the first Halacha not already obvious? I mean to say is that, obviously a man can marry a woman. What would be thought otherwise? We have not yet answered this question, but I am just expressing the way I feel about this Halacha. The second Halacha said a man can even marry a woman through a messenger. Hold up for a second. Is marriage a superficial thing that one can marry through messengers? This Halacha is almost like turning marriage into a business deal. So you one day decide to get married for social reasons, and you say to your assistant, “Go get me a woman to marry.” Is this what marriage is supposed to be like? I always thought that marriage must inherently have love and a commitment to be together for life.

The third Halacha this Mishnah mentions is that a woman can marry a man. I say, Kol HaKavod! Would we not already know that the woman can marry the man since the man can marry the woman!!! If the man marries the wife, what is the wife doing? I will gladly answer that question. She is marrying him! The Mishna won’t say the woman cannot marry the man and say that the man can marry the woman because it is impossible. If one marries the other, the other marries him or her. Obviously this is redundant and must be explained. Another question I have here: If the woman can marry the man, is it not obvious that the man can marry a woman? This question is for a different reason than the first. Men can do what woman can do and more. If someone like, let us say, a woman can lift 20 pounds or pass a class, then, Kal Vachomer a man can. So too, a man can obviously marry a woman if a woman can marry a man. Seemingly, the Mishna should have just started off with Halacha 3. The fourth Halacha said that a woman can marry by a messenger. This Halacha seems to tell us that Halacha 2 is obvious. So I repeat, seemingly, the Mishna should began with the third Halacha.

The fifth Halacha said that a father can marry off his adolescent daughter. This seems pretty strange. Shouldn’t the daughter make sure she loves the man the father is setting her up with and wants to spend the rest of her life with him? It seems that the father has control over her life, but isn’t it known that her father cannot control her health. For example, if the daughter wants to eat whole wheat bread, her father cannot force her to eat white bread. Therefore, the father also should not have control over his daughter's life in marriage. The six Halacha said her father can marry off her adolescent daughter by a messenger. This Halacha has all the problems I previously mentioned.

After I read the Mishna, I could not possibly imagine the amount of questions the Gemara would come up with if I, a student of the Margolin Hebrew Academy in Memphis, TN, came up with all of these questions. This anticipation kept me on the edge of my seat till I knew what will happen next.