LEV760 From Jeremiah's message of encouragement to the exiles in Babylonia (Jeremiah 29:6), the Talmud derives the ruling that it is the duty of a father to facilitate the marriage of his daughter by providing her trousseau. This duty is considered Biblically binding (See Ketubbot 52b. See, however, Ritva, quoted in Shittah Mekubezet). An early rabbinic work, She'eltot, cites this passage as one of the proof-texts making marriage and procreation a religious obligation (Section 21; see Kiddushin 30b). Maimonides, however, in line with his view that there is no commitment of procreation for a woman, regards Jeremiah's injunction – – that the father makes provisions for his daughter to enable her to marry--not as Biblical law but as a rabbinic enactment (Ishut, XX, 1, cf. Ketubbot 68a). It is possible that Maimonides also related the injunction of Jeremiah, in addition to the above considerations, to another rule expounded in the Talmud (Yevamot 62b), which reads thus in Maimonides' paraphrase: "The Sages have instructed a person to marry off his sons and daughters as soon as they mature, for, if allowed to remain unmarried, they will fall into a life of sinfulness or preoccupation with sinful fancies." (Issurei Bi'ah, XXI, 25). The duty of the father to marry off his daughters would not necessarily, on this basis, be included in the category of the laws of procreation, but would rather be regarded as a derivative of the Biblical law: [this verse]. ... The opinion that a woman is not commanded, yet, for her, participation in the fulfillment of procreation constitutes a religious duty is expressed in the Midrash Tanhuma (Noah, 12; however, in the Buber edition (Noah, 18) it appears that this is the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka) and the medieval Lekah Tov (Gen. 9:1). In these texts it is stated that man is more obligated than woman. Possibly what is implied is that in the case of woman the fulfillment of the religious obligation is altogether voluntary and cannot be enforced by religious courts.