The shulchan aruch writes in even haezer 76:6 that a woman who gives permission to her husband to be mevatel the o'nah, would exempt him from this mitzvah and obligation. However, the shulchan aruch qualifies that this only applies if the mitzvah of p'ru u'rvu has already been fulfilled, but if not he is obligated to have relations with her at every o'nah until he fulfills the mitzvah.
My question is, how is the mitzvah of o'nah related to p'ru u'rvu? The mitzvah of o'nah is dependent on the assumptions at the time of the marriage, therefore he can only change his job that will effect the o'nah with permission from her. It is totally dependent on what she is willing to accept. Why should the chiyuv of p'ru u'rvu be bound to this at all, it should be an independent mitzvah with entirely its own rules? Perhaps even if the o'nah would only demand once in 6 months, the p'ru u'rvu would demand twice a week or every day. The halacha is clear that o'nah is not just a minimum, but rather once should not have relation more often than the o'nah (o.c. 240:1), but why is there no mention that if he has not yet fulfilled p'ru u'rvu he should have relations more frequently?
My question is, how is the mitzvah of o'nah related to p'ru u'rvu? The mitzvah of o'nah is dependent on the assumptions at the time of the marriage, therefore he can only change his job that will effect the o'nah with permission from her. It is totally dependent on what she is willing to accept. Why should the chiyuv of p'ru u'rvu be bound to this at all, it should be an independent mitzvah with entirely its own rules? Perhaps even if the o'nah would only demand once in 6 months, the p'ru u'rvu would demand twice a week or every day. The halacha is clear that o'nah is not just a minimum, but rather once should not have relation more often than the o'nah (o.c. 240:1), but why is there no mention that if he has not yet fulfilled p'ru u'rvu he should have relations more frequently?
5 comments:
very good point, if i can add - even if a woman can no longer give birth still there is a mitzvah of onah so once again you see they are independent.
i think the answer is that the mitzvah of pru urvu is having normal relations that can lead to kids, not necessarily having the kids.
i searched and found the following:
ומבואר ברמב"ם דכל הזמני עונה השנויים במשנתינו הם גם למי שלא קיים פו"ר, וצ"ב אמאי אין חיוב למי שאין לו בנים לקרב קיום מצות פו"ר כפי יכלתו. וראיתי בנצי"ב בהעמק שאלה ריש פ' וזאת הברכה דמבאר הרמב"ם דודאי מי שיש לו בנים בלא נישואין קיים מצות פו"ר, מ"מ מדכתיב קחו נשים והולידו בנים ובנות (ע"ש שאילתות) דצוה הנביא לישא אישה כדי להוליד בנים, הרי דעיקר מצות פו"ר הוא שיתנהג מנהג אישות בשביל זה, ממילא אינו חייב בתשמיש אלא בעונה השייך ךאישות (הרב אברהם יצחק יפה - בית מדרש גבוה, ליקווד
great find!!
the sh'iltos is in bracha 165:1 where he explains that the mitzvah of p'ru u'rvu is specifically through nissuin according to the rambam, whereas the rosh holds that even without nissuin one can fulfill the mitzvah. Therefore, the shulchan aruch which limits the frequency of tashmish for p'ru u'rvu to the time of o'nah, makes sense according to the rambam since the entire mitzvah is bound by nissuin, but according to the rosh it is difficult. The rationale for the rambam is that the navi is magdir the mitzvah of p'ru u'rvu by first getting married.
Just to clarify:
a)P"U is nikva cK'fi the pattern of Onah established from the get-go.
b)The mitzvah of P"U continues to apply kfi the pattern initially established even if the Isha is mochel until P"U has been fullfilled.
c) nonetheless, the husband HAS NOT been mevatel Onah if she is mochel, even if he is Mevatel P"U.
Agreed?
sounds right.
Which paul myers is this?
Post a Comment