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.
Solid viewpoint, Isaac.
ReplyDeleteI would add firstly suggest to add some background on why women aren't obligated in Pru Urvu in the first place.
Secondly, maybe give examples other than this case of Patur vs. Hafkaah.
Everyone above an eligible age must fast on Yom Kippur. One who is deathly ill is Patur, while a minor is Hafkaah because the entire category of minors is exempt.
I completely agree with you Isaac. I too like the Maharshal's answer. I think that if the women want to take part in the mitzvah, then they should get a mitzvah. Not only do I believe that women should get a mitzvah, but I also think that their mitzvah should be even bigger than the man's mitzvah. The men do not really have such hard tasks to do with the children. The women actually have to take care of the child every second and is in my opinion, more responsible for the children. They also have to do the hardest part, which is having to go through childbirth.
ReplyDelete