Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Kiddushin 69:2

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

which do not illumine [other cases]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that on the contrary only these are obligatory, but not others.');"><sup>3</sup></span> - Both are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote fear and not procreation, I would argue, The Divine Law stated, [Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,] and conquer it: only a man, whose nature It is to conquer, but not a woman, as it is not her nature to conquer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as this is stated together with procreation, the same ruling governs both.');"><sup>4</sup></span>

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

R. Yohanan b. Beroka holds that women are obligated to procreate and to fear their parents—so we now have a situation of two verses that come as one, and therefore we should not have a rule that women are obligated in PNTB commandments.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

The Talmud now will explain why both verses are necessary and therefore are not really a case of “two verses that come as one.” The Torah had to explicitly obligate a woman in procreation (according to R. Yohanan b. Beroka) for otherwise I would have thought that she is exempt because the Torah instructs humankind to “conquer” and women’s nature is not to conquer (this can be certainly be disputed, but there are people who might agree that men have a greater tendency towards war).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse