This has to be a blessing rather than a tzivuy, a command. And Ibn Ezra explains it so:
That is, it is not a tzivui, but rather a blessing that it shall be so that you will be fruitful and multiply. And his proof is from the tail-end of Haazinu, pasuk 50:א, כב]
ויברך -
טעם פרו ורבו. תפרו ותרבו.
וכן:
ומות בהר, כי אין זה בכחו ובידו.
Obviously, it is not in Moshe's koach to die, but in Hashem's to cause him to die. Rather, despite being in the form of an imperative verb, it means that this will happen that you will do X. And having established the meaning to the form there in Haazinu, we can apply it locally to parshat Bereshit as well.
(As a side-point, while I agree with the meaning Ibn Ezra assigns it here in Bereishit, I think there may be a teshuva to his prooftext from Haazinu. After all, it starts with a command to ascend to the mountain, which appears to be a tzivuy and within Moshe's power. And Moshe knows he is going to his death, and that he will die there. And this is what Moshe does in veZot Habracha. In fact, the command is not just to die, but to die there, in the mount. He accomplishes this by going up the mountain and staying there at his date and time of expiration until he indeed expires. So one can readily say that in Haazinu it is an imperative, and one which in large measure in Moshe's power to carry out.)
The "problem" is that later in the same first perek of Bereishis we see the same precise language in a blessing to man:
| כח וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, אֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְכִבְשֻׁהָ; וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם, וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבְכָל-חַיָּה, הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל-הָאָרֶץ. | 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' |
In that instance, will we also say that it is only a blessing, and not a tzivuy? For we already established earlier on a grammatical basis that it being in the form of the imperative is not necessarily an indication that it is a command; and in the earlier parallel case is also could not really be a command to the animals!
But Sefer Hachinuch, following Chazal's lead, lists it as the first of the Mitzvos in the Torah.Even so, Ibn Ezra follows his previously established position and writes:
ומלת פריה ורביה באדם ברכה היא, כמו בבריאת המים. רק הוא מצוה, העתיקוה קדמונינו ז"ל ושמו זה הפסוק זכר לדבר.
That is, the phrase regarding Pirya veRivya is a blessing here, just as by the creation of the water. But it is a commandment which those who preceded us, za"l established, and they placed this verse as a hint to the matter.
It seems that he is saying the the mitvah is deRabbanan, or miDivrei Soferim, and that this is not a command being given here. Rather, they just used the pasuk as an asmachta!
As we might expect, Avi Ezer is upset by Ibn Ezra's suggestion. On the first Pru Urevu, where Ibn Ezra first establishes that the meaning is not a command, Avi Ezer writes: "And later on I argue on theThough Ibn Ezra would simply say that it is not one of the 613, if indeed there must be precisely 613 in the count; and he would admit that this was the established halacha, but on the basis of a mitzvah which Chazal established and merely tied in to this pasuk as a zecher ledavar. So Avi Ezer's disproof here is not very strong; and I wonder at his claim that Ibn Ezra was דחק עצמו. But he elaborates as to what he means elsewhere, as he notes.
words of the Rav who presses himself to say that Pru Urevu is not a command but a blessing. And in truth, it is one of the 613 commandments. And therefore, we say that if she remained {for a span of years} and she did give birth, it is a mitzvah to divorce her."
Avi Ezer makes a stronger argument later on. He writes:"The position of the Rav here is that this is called a verb which is neither intransitive or transitive, such as death and old age; such that the language of command is not relevant to it. And I {=Avi Ezer} say that is is literally a command, just as 'and die on the mountain' which is a command to prepare himself, as the Rav writes there. And so too here it is a command to prepare, just as the owner of the vineyard can command to water the garden. And therefore, if he stays with her for ten years, it is a command {he seems to mean Biblically} to divorce her, for he has not yet fulfilled his command until he carries out Peru Urevu. And if, then, Hashem withholds from him the fruit of the womb, he has still fulfilled the requirements of his command. It is also hinted at in this command to warn the evildoers of the generation who were in the days of Noach, who gave her {=the wife} to drink from the cup of infertility so that her beauty was not marred. And for this reason, Hakadosh Baruch Hu commanded Peru Urevu. And so too by Amalek, it is stated "do not forget," which is to put marks and signs that you should not forget. And therefore, Rashi explained well in parshat Noach that Peru Urevu is a mitzvah."
In terms of Rashi, he is referring to the second Peru URevu of Bereishit 9:
7. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth and multiply thereon." ז. וְאַתֶּם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ שִׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ וּרְבוּ בָהּ: And you, be fruitful and multiply: According to its simple meaning: the first [mention of this expression] (verse 1) was a blessing, and this [mention] is a commandment. According to its midrashic interpretation, [it is written here] to compare one who does not engage in propagation to one who sheds blood. — [from Yev. 63b] ואתם פרו ורבו: לפי פשוטו הראשונה לברכה, וכאן לצווי. ולפי מדרשו להקיש מי שאינו עוסק בפריה ורביה לשופך דמים:
Thus, Avi Ezer was making a stronger point. Ibn Ezra was not merely saying the Peru Urevu could be taken as blessing rather than instruction, with evidence of the possibility of this from uMus, but was saying that this had to be what it meant. Because dying was not in Moshe's power, and being fruitful is not in a creation's power. And so Avi Ezer shows that within the parameters of the mitzvah is preparations for the being fruitful, such as a mitzvah legarsha if infertile. And so Ibn Ezra cannot say that it is not possible for it to be a tzivuy.
I can see how one can read this in Ibn Ezra's words, though I don't see that it must be read into his words. But I would ask just how Avi Ezer regards the first Peru Urevu of each of these instances, where even Rashi and Chazal agree that it is a blessing? He would not say it is a command, for what preparation should the sea-creatures take? And would he argue with Rashi, who he approved of, to say that the first Pru Urvu in parshat Noach is also a command?
Rather, he certainly admits that sometimes, it does not need to be a command. If so, he cannot really argue with Ibn Ezra on location in the first P'ru U'rvu of B'rayshis, where he likens it to U'mus.
And once Ibn Ezra has that foothold, IMHO, he has the argument of consistency of meaning in two things which are designated as blessings. This is a good thing when trying to arrive at peshat. Thus, Ibn Ezra is certainly not forced, and Avi Ezer's argument is certainly not strong enough to disprove Ibn Ezra's assertion.
I would add one point, and differ with Ibn Ezra slightly. Divine Fiat -- "Let it be" is enough of a command. Since Hashem's blessings have power and impact on the structure of Creation, His 'blessing' is really placing positive blessed features into the fabric of Creation. So though words, vayevarech via Pru Urevu is the same as Yehi Or. And man is not obeying by his own will, but rather nature responds to Hashem's will. And so Ibn Ezra need not make this some weird grammatical form. It is indeed Tzivuy, but not in the sense of a commandment. The consistency with the earlier brachah demonstrates that.
Let us assume for a moment that Ibn Ezra is correct as a matter of peshat. What then? Well, it could be earth shattering... or not so much. Earth-shattering, because he is asserting that we are wrong about one of the 613 commandments, and that this is really a deRabbanan. And not so much?
Well, we can say as follows:
1) Even if it is entirely Rabbinic and not at all Biblical, we still follow the dinim deRabbanan. And we trust the hashkafot of Chazal such that we agree that it is a good thing to be fruitful and multiply. Indeed, the Biblical text considers being fruitful and multiplying to be a blessing, and thus a good thing.
2) Even if it is not the meaning of the text on a peshat level, who says that every Biblical commandment, every mitzvah deOraysa, needs to be evident on the peshat level? Indeed, there are 613 explicit mitzvos. But there are hundreds or thousands of others, which we typically consider deOraysa, which don't make the count by Rambam because they are not explicit in the peshat level of the text. And if we are Pharisees and believe in the force of halachic derash to bring out another true layer of meaning in the Biblical text, who cares if it is the literal meaning?
3) Depending on one's theory of the Oral Law (and there are several), Chazal might have the power to introduce a mitvah which has the status of din deOrayta via their derashot. We can agree entirely with Ibn Ezra, and yet state that this is what Chazal did, and so this is still a deorayta.
No comments:
Post a Comment