Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

According to the understanding of many commentators "pru u'revu" (be fruitful and multiply) is a positive commandment which is not fulfilled unless a man has both a son and daughter as offspring. Based on this understanding it would seem that Yitzchak did not fulfill this commandment. Is this correct? Are there any sources that indicate that either:

  • He had a daughter
  • He was exempt from this mitzvah
share|improve this question
2  
Can't we ask the same of Avraham, Yehuda, Yosef, Moshe, and Aharon (among others that have no explicit daughters but have explicit sons in Tanach)? –  Double AA Nov 13 '12 at 16:56
    
In fact, of all of Yaakov's twelve sons I think only two are known to have had any daughters (Yocheved to Levi, and Serach to Asher) but we have multiple lists of all their sons. –  Double AA Nov 13 '12 at 17:02
1  
chazal say that avraham had a daughter. as far as the rest, you can certainly ask; I thought yitzchak was more interesting specifically because of the chazal about Avraham having a daughter (an it's topical) rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2006/11/daughter-of-abraham.html –  user1668 Nov 13 '12 at 17:10
1  
Of what import is it whether one of the Avoth fulfilled the technical requirements of a Mitzvah that is beyond his control? –  Seth J Nov 13 '12 at 18:29
1  
noachide-laws? Since when is Pru uRvu one of those? || @SethJ We don't know that it was beyond his control; perhaps he should have found a new wife. And I don't see what "technical requirements" have to do with anything. As to why we should inquire if the Avot kept mitzvot deoraita, see judaism.stackexchange.com/q/4078 and the various opinions thereof. –  Double AA Nov 13 '12 at 18:33
show 6 more comments

2 Answers 2

Gemarah (Taanis 11a) states a person cannot be intimate with his spouse during an "eis tzorah" like drought, unless he "lacks children". The Gemara learns this out from Yosef who had his kids "before" the famine (Bereishis 41:50). Rashi there explains this to mean that he fulfilled the mitzva of p'ru u'rivu. There is no indication that Yosef fathered a girl. Thus there is a precedent for a different interpretation of the obligation of p'ru u'rivu before matan torah. So we can assume this would extend to Yitzchak as well.

share|improve this answer
1  
Maybe yosef had a daughter? You don't have precedent until you establish that to be not true. –  Double AA Nov 14 '12 at 21:33
    
A reverse precedent? –  Seth J Nov 14 '12 at 21:42
1  
@DoubleAA maybe yitzchak had a daughter? The op seems to be assuming that lack of a positive mention of such is proof enough –  not-allowed to change my name Nov 15 '12 at 1:07
    
@SethJ the precedent is valid because it is before matan torah, which is the only event that may have changed the definition of pru u'revu –  not-allowed to change my name Nov 15 '12 at 1:08
    
I'm pretty sure the OP does think that the lack of a positive mention of a daughter is proof enough because he asks if anyone has any evidence of one. –  Double AA Nov 15 '12 at 1:14
show 2 more comments

Per Igros Moshe Even HoEzer2 18 the Mitzva of Peru U'revu is Tashmish - since it is not in a persons control whether a child will be born. There is a Chiyuv of Tashmish in regard to Peru U'revu so long as a person does not have a boy and a girl. Based on this Yitzchok was Mekayem the Mitzva of Peru U'Revu with Tashmish, and as to not having a girl that was beyond his control.

share|improve this answer
    
"Yitzchok was Mekayem the Mitzva of Peru U'Revu with Tashmish": source? or is this an assumption? –  msh210 Nov 13 '12 at 18:20
1  
Doesn't the question specifically ask according to the other more standard understandings? –  Double AA Nov 13 '12 at 18:21
1  
I"M is not the non-standard explanation. It is very standard. You can't have an obligation to do something that is not within your control. The mitzvah is the act that brings about the resulting peiros. That act is also the fulfillment of the mitzvah of Ona. Once one has had a boy and a girl, the obligation to do that act has been mitigated to a degree by the fact that one goal of that act has been accomplished. –  Yahu Nov 14 '12 at 6:09
3  
@Yahu Good to see you around! I'm not sure, though, why you can't have an obligation to do something that isn't within your control. We generally call such a person Oneis and exempt him from the obligation. –  Double AA Nov 14 '12 at 7:01
1  
@DoubleAA , You proved the point exactly: The Torah would not give an obligation to someone to do something not within his control to accomplish: Oneis Rachmana Patrei. Patrei=no obligation. –  Yahu Jan 22 at 5:14
show 3 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.