JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH
Vedavak- velo shelo kedarkah used in the amended saying of Rava it would appear that the term shelo kedarkah means bi-a mimakom aher. From a baraita in Yevamot 34b, we learn that during the period of lactation the husband is allowed, if not commanded, to practice coitus abruptus when having intercourse with his wife. The baraita reads as follows: Kol esrim vearba-a hodesh dash mibifnim vezoreh mibahutz, divrei rav Eliezer. Ameru lo, halalu eino ela kema-aseh er ve-onan.("During the twenty-four months in which his wife nurses, or should nurse, the child, the husband when having intercourse with her should, or may, practice coitus abruptus[to prevent her from becoming pregnant again; for in the latter eventuality she will not be able to continue nursing the child and the child might die as a result of an early weaning- Rashi, ad loc.: Kedei shelo tit-aber vetigmol et benah veyamut]. The other teachers, however, said to R. Eliezer that such intercourse would be almost like the acts of Er and Onan.") One may argue that this permission or recommendation of practicing coitus abruptus represents only the opinion of R. Eliezer, and we should decide against him, according to the principle Yahid verabim- halakhah kerabim. But such an argument does not hold good in our case. In the first place, when the individual opinion has a good reason in its support(demistaber taameih), as- according to Rashi- R. Eliezer's opinion in our case has, the decision may follow the individual against the many(see Alfasi and Asheri to B.B., chapter 1, end; and comp. Maleachi Cohn, Yad Mal-akhi, 296). Secondly, we cannot here decide against R. Eliezer, since the other teachers do not express a definite opinion contrary to his. For we notice that the other teachers do not say,"It is forbidden to do so." They do not even say that it is Onanism . They merely say:"It is almost like the conduct of Er and Onan." This certainly is not a strong and definite opposition to R. Eliezer's opinion. It seems to me that even the other teachers did not forbid the practice under the circumstances. They merely refused to recommend it as R. Eliezer did, because they hesitated to recommend a practice which is so much like the acts of Er and Onan, even under circumstances which made it imperative that conception be prevented. And we have to understand R. Eliezer's opinion as making it obligatory for the husband to perform coitus abruptus during the period of lactation.
That this interpretation of the respective positioning of R. Eliezer
177