SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA

Secondly, it is absolutely wrong to consider cohabitation with one's wife under conditions which might result in procreation as an act of "Hotsa-at shichvat zera levatala," and to class it with sexual perversions such as self-abuse.

In the following, therefore, we must consider only what the halakhah teaches about the various forms of birth control and ignore what the agadah has to say in condemnation of the evil practices of self-abuse and sexual perversions.

In order to avoid confusion and for the sake of a clearer understanding and a systematic presentation of the rabbinic teachings bearing upon our subject, it is necessary to formulate the question properly. It seems to me that the correct formulation of our question is as follows: Does the Talmudic-rabbinic law permit cohabitation between husband and wife in such

a manner or under such conditions as would make conception impossible; and if so, what are the conditions under which such cohabitation is permitted?

As to the first and main part of the question, there is no doubt that it must be answered in the affirmative. To begin with, the rabbinic law not only permits but even commands the husband to fulfill his conjugal duties to his wife, even after she has experienced the change of life and has become incapable of having children.

Likewise, the husband is permitted to have sexual intercourse with his wife even if she is congenitally incapable of conception, as, for instance, when she is akara, sterile, or an ailonit, that is, a wombless woman (Tosafot and Mordecai, quoted by Isserles in Shulhan Arukh, Even Haezer XXII1.2). The later rabbinic law goes even further and permits even a man who has never had children(and thus has not fulfilled the duty of propagation of the race,"Mitzvat Periya Ureviya") to marry a woman incapable of bearing children, that is, a sterile woman(akara) or an old woman(zekena)(Isaac b. Sheshet, quoted by Isserles , op. cit., 1.3). From all this it is evident that the act

174