SELECTED REFORM RESPONSA
Some rabbinic authorities of the 18th and 19th centuries- under the spell of the agadic sayings of the Talmud and more or less influenced by the mystic literature- are loath to permit birth control. But even these authorities do not altogether prohibit the practice when there is a valid reason for exercising it. The reasons given by some of them for opposing the practice are not justified in the light of the halachic statements of the Talmud which we discussed above. Their arguments are not based upon correct interpretations of the Talmudic passages bearing upon this question, and they utterly ignore or overlook the correct interpretations and the sound reasoning of R. Solomon Luria quoted above. In the following I will present the opinions of some of the authorities of the 18th and 19th centuries on this question.
R. Solomon Zalman of Posen, rabbi in Warsaw(died 1839), in his responsa Hemdat Shelomo(quoted in Pithei Teshuvah to Even Haezer XXIIL.2)- in answer to a question about a woman to whom, according to the opinion of physicians, pregnancy might be dangerous- declares that she may use a contraceptive. He permits even the putting into the vagina of an absorbent before cohabitation, declaring that since the intercourse takes place in the normal way, the discharge of the semen in such a case cannot be considered hashatat zera.
R. Joseph Modiano, a Turkish rabbi of the second half of the 18th century, in his responsa collection Rosh Mashbir, part II(Salonica , 1840). no. 49, discusses the case of a woman who, during her pregnancy, becomes extremely nervous and almost insane. He quotes the great rabbinical authority R. Michael, who declared that the woman should usc a contraceptive. R. Michael argued that since the woman is exposed to the danger by pregnancy she is in a class with the three women mentioned in the baraita of R. Bibi and should therefore, like them, use an absorbent, even putting it in before cohabitation(sheyeshamesh ba-alah bemokh kedei shelo titaber), and her husband cannot object to it. Modiano himself does not concur with the opinion of R. Michael: he argues that the use of the absorbent could only be permitted if employed after cohabitation, and the husband who may find the use of this contraceptive inconvenient or may doubt its effectiveness should therefore be permitted to marry another woman. But even Modiano would not forbid the
186