This section is named מגדול עוז.

The commandment to be fruitful and multiply that we find in Genesis 9,7, is a repetition of the same commandment already recorded in פרשת בראשית in 1,28: "G–d said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, etc". We have devoted considerable space to discussing that commandment in connection with the discussion in the Talmud Yevamot that failure to comply with this commandment is very serious. This commandment is obligatory for males only. Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka notes that in both instances this commandment is introduced in the Torah as a blessing, i.e. "G–d blessed them and said to them…" From this he concludes that the commandment applies equally to both men and women. The author of the Mishnah in Yevamot 65 bases his statement that only males are obligated to procreate on the fact that only males are in the habit of "conquering," and that the Torah connects the commandment with the directive to "conquer or subdue" the earth (Genesis 1,28). At any rate, both these rabbis understand the words פרו ורבו, "be fruitful and multiply," as a command. Bar Kappara in Ketuvot 5 says that the reason a widow should be married on Thursday evening is that when cohabitation takes place this will be on Friday, the day that G–d blessed mankind with the blessing to be fruitful.

Although one could conclude that he views the verse as being only a blessing, just as in Genesis 1,22 when G–d blessed the creatures of the waters, using the same expression, it would be a grave error to accuse Bar Kappara of disagreeing with the views of the scholars in Yevamot. All the sages are agreed that, unlike the blessing for the fish, the verses in question are both a blessing and a commandment. In the case of the blessing for the fish this is not followed by another directive such as when G–d addressed man. There it says ויאמר להם…, "G–d said to them. .." The blessing aspect must be understood as being a result of fulfilling the commandment to procreate. The nature of the blessing is that procreation will be successful, i.e. man will multiply, be healthy, etc.

Our view is confirmed by the Talmud Sanhedrin 59 where the verse 9,7) ואתם פרו ורבו) is automatically accepted as a commandment which was referred to by the Torah again as a commandment for the Jewish people when G–d tells them to return "to your tents," after the revelation at Mount Sinai (Deut. 5,27).

Having demonstrated that all our sources understand the meaning of the words פרו ורבו to be a commandment, we need to explain why Rashi (9,7) says: לפי פשוטו הראשונה לברכה, וכאן לצווי, "according to the plain meaning, the first time this expression is used it is a blessing, whereas in this instance it is a commandment." Rashi adds that the homiletical meaning to be derived from the verse is that anyone who does not practise the commandment to procreate is compared to someone who sheds blood. It appears from Rashi's words that he disagrees with the teachers of the Mishnah, all of whom had understood the words פרו ורבו each time to convey a commandment. If so, Rashi would find himself contradicting the Talmud in Sanhedrin 59 which we quoted earlier.

The author quotes Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, who addresses himself to that difficulty in his commentary on Rashi and opines that both in Genesis 1,28 and 9,1 the Torah expresses a blessing which subsequently is followed by the words פרו ורבו as a commandment. The latter statement is to be understood as an elaboration of the blessing. The actual commandment however is derived only from Genesis 9,7: ואתם פרו ורבו. This sentence does not contain a blessing and is in agreement with the statement in Sanhedrin 59.

According to this, the homiletical meaning Rashi speaks about, namely the comparison of someone who fails to carry out that commandment to a murderer as stated by Rabbi Eliezer in Yevamot 63, is based on the verse immediately prior to that in which the Torah proclaims: שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." He apparently holds that only males are commanded to fulfil this commandment, and disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka. The latter holds that the line "He blessed them," applied to both man and woman. The reason that the other scholar disagrees is that he holds that just as only males are in the habit of conquering, a condition in Genesis 1,28, so only males have to fulfil the condition of being fruitful. Clearly then he must hold that the words "He said to them, etc." must be understood as a commandment. The same reasoning applies to the first time the words פרו ורבו appear in Genesis 9,1. Rabbi Yochanan would then be in disagreement with Bar Kappara and the Talmud Sanhedrin 59, who both hold that the commandment is only found in Genesis 9,7, i.e. ואתם פרו ורבו. Nonetheless he interprets these verses homiletically on the basis of Rabbi Eliezer who believes that a homiletical explanation based on matters which appear side by side in the Torah is almost a commandment in itself [words are mine. Ed.]. Rabbi Eliezer bases his approach to exegesis on Psalms 111,8: סמוכים לעד לעולם, that words next to one another always, i.e. under all conditions, have an exegetical significance. Rabbi Eliezer applies that principle even when the verses in question are not "free" for homiletics but have already been explained as necessary in a different context.

Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi also quotes Nachmanides in his comment on Rashi who claims that the homiletics Rashi mentions only tell us not to apply the principle of סמוכים, i.e. that subject matter that is mentioned side by side must have halachic consequences. He too views the first פרו ורבו in 9,1 as a blessing and derives the commandment only from this latter ואתם פרו ורבו. He sees in the additional words שרצו בארץ an exhortation to be extremely fruitful so that the earth may be populated all over. Rabbi Mizrachi does not agree with the position taken by Nachmanides, and argues that the Midrash quoted by Rashi may well be in agreement with the opinion of the Talmud as expressed in Yevamot, and that the word ורבו, even though it is introduced by the words ויברך both here and in Parshat Bereshit, are not part of the blessing but constitute a separate commandment. The latter verse (9,7) only serves to establish the comparison with the preceding verse, namely that failure to procreate is a mortal sin. The reason that this verse is necessary is that Rashi agrees with Rabbi Yehudah who does not employ סמוכים, (verses that are following one another but dealing with separate subject matters) as a basis for halachic exegesis -unless such verses cannot be explained otherwise. He also disputes that one could interpret the verse in פרשת בראשית as introducing a commandment, whereas the similar verse in 9,1 would only be a blessing.

Our author finds the reasoning of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi very forced, and he feels that all the statements of the sages in the Talmud are totally acceptable and do not contain any internal contradictions. Before elaborating further we must be clear that the verse in Genesis 1,28 represents both a blessing and a commandment. The proof is simply the insertion of the words "G–d said to them." Why would the name of G–d appear twice in the same verse otherwise? Genesis 9,1, in which the name of G–d is not mentioned twice as a subject, is however capable of being interpreted in either direction.

Rabbi Eliezer, who upholds the principle of סמוכים under all conditions, reads this verse as a blessing only, whereas he interprets verse 7 in the same chapter as both a commandment and a warning about the seriousness of failing to heed that commandment basing himself on the preceding verse. Rabbi Yehudah, however, sees a command in both 9,1 and 1,28; the fact that in one of these verses the words "G–d said to them" does not appear twice does not concern him, since the fact remains that both times the verse adds the words "He said to them." It follows that the words ואתם פרו ורבו ושרצו in 9,7 are totally superfluous and thus available for a conceptual comparison i.e. הקיש, with the preceding verse.

It is most improbable that Rabbi Yehudah would read 9,1 as a blessing only. To assume that would mean that he maintains that 9,7 is both a positive commandment and a warning of the sin (or even penalty) involved. The desire to interpret 9,1 as a blessing only stems from the fact that one does not like to have the Torah appear to merely repeat a commandment which had already been stated, in this case in 1,28. [I have abbreviated this discourse a little. Ed.].

At any rate the statement in Sanhedrin 59 that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply is stated in פרשת נח, which is not attributed to any particular scholar but seems unanimous, is fully justified. The Talmud cites 9,7 because more than any other of the verses discussing the commandment this verse lends itself to the interpretation of the nature of the punishment for its non-fulfillment. All Rashi wants to tell us is that 9,1, according to its plain meaning, can be understood as a blessing only, whereas 9,7 is clearly a command. Since Nachmanides accepts the method of exegesis of Rabbi Eliezer, there is no conflict betweeen his view and that of Rashi.