<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 06:04 PM 10/23/2011,Cantor Wolberg wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">We are taught that the first
mitzvah given us comes from the command given first to Adam and Chava and
then in the next<br>
parsha, to Noach. My question is: Neither were Jewish. How then, can we
say that the first mitzvah is incumbent on us since<br>
it was not given to Avraham Avinu or anyone afterward? If you say
that the mitzvah was for all mankind, we know that it is not<br>
so, since it is not one of the sheva mitzvot b'nai Noach. So how do you
explain the mitzvah given to two non Jews?<br>
</blockquote><br>
RSRH considers P'ru Ur'vu as two of the "four sections of
man's mission" and "embody his whole free-willed moral
development." The other two are kivshuha and miloo es ha'aretz as
stated in Bereishis 1:28.<br><br>
He writes, "P'ru refers to marriage; R'vu refers to the family;
miloo refers to society; and kivshuha refers to the acquisition of
property. Thus it seems to me that RSRH believes that the Torah
obligates all of mankind to do these four things. YL</font></body>
<br>
</html>