JACOB Z. LAUTERBACH

Midrash(Genesis R. XXV1.6), was indulged in by the"generation of the flood"(dor hamabul). This objection, then, would not hold good when chemical contraceptives are used.

Again, according to Rashi,(Yevamotr 100b) the phrase meshameshot bemokh means mutarot leiten mokh be-oto makom, shelo yit-aberu, that is, that in these three conditions women are allowed to use this contraceptive. This would imply that other women who do not expose themselves or their children to danger by another pregnancy are forbidden to do so. According to R. Tam(7osafot Ketubot 39a, s.v. shalosh nashim), Asheri and R. Nissim(on Nedarim 35b) the phrase meshameshot bemokh means zerihot or as R. Nissim puts it"chayavot," that is, that these three women- because of the danger of possible harm which might result from pregnancy- are obliged to use this precaution. If we interpret the phrase in this sense, it would imply that other women- not threatened by any danger from pregnancy- are merely not obliged to use this precaution against conception, but are not forbidden to do so. It would also follow from this interpretation that if the other teachers differ from R. Meir , they differ only in so far as they do not consider it obligatory upon these three women(or, to be more correct, upon the ketana) to take this precaution; but as to permitting these three women(or any other woman) to use a contraceptive, there is no difference of opinion between R. Meir and the other teachers. R. Solomon Luria (1510-1573), in his Yam Shel Shelomo to Yevamot, ch. I, no. 8(Altona, 1739), pp. 4b.c has indeed so interpreted our baraita. He points out that from the Talmud (Nida 3a) it is evident that Rashi's interpretation of meshameshot bemokh as meaning"putting in the absorbent before cohabitation takes place," is correct. As to R. Tam's objection, Luria correctly states that such a practice is not to be compared to metil al etzim. For, after all, it is a normal manner of having sexual intercourse, and the two bodies derive pleasure from one another and experience gratification of their desire. It is, therefore, not different from any other normal sexual intercourse with a woman who is incapable of having children: ve-ein zeh kemetil al etzim, desof sof derekh tashmish bekhakh, veguf neheneh min haguf.

Luria further points out that since from Nida 3a it is also evident

179